Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Considering OMD 1; couple of questions  (Read 13592 times)
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1161


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #40 on: March 06, 2014, 11:43:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I had the OMD E-5 with the handgrip and was very satisfied for travel purposes using prime lenses.  I just sold the E-5 and acquired the OMD E-1.  I travel with a Tilley Vest and the Panasonic 20mm 1.7, Olympus 45mm 1.7, Olympus 12 mm F2, and the Panasonic 100-300 zoom.  The primes fit in the vest with other accessories, but I tend to hang the zoom on my belt, when I carry same.  I find this works exceptionally well and results from Prime lenses are very good indeed.  It is my subjective impression that the images from the E-5 were sharper than the E-1.  Also an unexpected problem is moire from the E-1 (anyone else encountered this???), so I have to shoot both raw and Jpeg files, as Oly processing eliminates moire in the jpeg files (or most of it).

Allan in BC

I've never used an e-5.

First I have to admit I used the em-5 a lot more than the em-1, but I'll know a lot more this week about the em-1.

I've used the em-5 for with studio flash and never seen moire which will usually show up with angled flash.

With sharpness, that's always hard to quantify.  The em-5 and 1 are not as "sharp looking" as my medium format cameras, but much sharper than my canons and nikons in overall look.

The em-5 especially looks like film with pleseant grain.  (everybody says that about noise if they like the camera) but in this case it's true.

I would ask what your processing in.  Try lightroom, but also try iridient raw developer, or even olympus supplied software.  

I read somewhere (don't know where) that the em-5 has a sony sensor, the em-1 a panasonic sensor but the em-1 (and I'm not a tech science type of person) is said to use a million of the 16million pixels for focusing so it is in a way a 15 mpx camera, though it has the same image size as any 16mpx camera.  I don't know if that's true or not, though I really wished that the em-1 looked identical to the em-5.

Once again except for something like moire, all this how a file looks is very subjective, but if the jpegs are processing it out, obviously you can correct some or all of it in a software suite with more control.

Is it color or pattern moire.   Color moire is easy, pattern moire is end of the world hard.

BTW:  What are your settings.  I may be wrong but I believe some of the raw settings are carried over to lightroom.  Have you tried zero noise reduction, cutting saturation, putting sharpness below zero?

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 12:26:34 AM by bcooter » Logged

Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #41 on: March 07, 2014, 02:47:12 AM »
ReplyReply

I had the OMD E-5 with the handgrip and was very satisfied for travel purposes using prime lenses.  I just sold the E-5 and acquired the OMD E-1.  I travel with a Tilley Vest and the Panasonic 20mm 1.7, Olympus 45mm 1.7, Olympus 12 mm F2, and the Panasonic 100-300 zoom.  The primes fit in the vest with other accessories, but I tend to hang the zoom on my belt, when I carry same.  I find this works exceptionally well and results from Prime lenses are very good indeed.  It is my subjective impression that the images from the E-5 were sharper than the E-1.  Also an unexpected problem is moire from the E-1 (anyone else encountered this???), so I have to shoot both raw and Jpeg files, as Oly processing eliminates moire in the jpeg files (or most of it).

Allan in BC
I presume you mean the EM1, not the E1!  After a few thousand photos from my EM1, I can say that I have seen glimpses of moiré but it tends to be very localised and you have to look hard for it.  No worse, in fact, than my previous Canon 60D.  I shoot exclusively in RAW and use Lightroom, so maybe there is some reduction going on behind the scenes?  Incidentally, when the E5 (not EM5) first came out, I downloaded photos from that body and saw moiré in nearly all of them!

I'm surprised your E5 images look sharper than those from your EM1.  That could be a lens/pixel density thing.  With the same lens, I can't imagine the E5 would be getting a higher level of detail.  Interesting.
Logged

Don
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1161


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #42 on: March 07, 2014, 01:12:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I would try the same focal length lens in m43 rather than 43.

Not that one is sharper than the other, but there is a lot that goes on behind the curtain of all digital cameras and I assume olympus spent more time optimizing their processing for m43 lenses, than any others.

Just a guess but worth a try.

IMO

BC
Logged

Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 868



« Reply #43 on: March 07, 2014, 02:23:31 PM »
ReplyReply

After much dithering and fussing regarding my photo kit for an upcoming trip—this is what can happen when you need to make reservations eight months ahead of time—I've finally made up my mind. I started off intending to take a Pentax 645D and three lenses, then revised this to a Sony A7r and a set of 135 format Pentax lenses. But in the end I've chosen to take what I enjoy using most. That means two m43 cameras, E-M1 & GX7; Oly 12/2; Voigtländer 17.5 & 42.5mm f/0.95s; Leica 90/2 & 180/4 R series and also a Panasonic 20/1.7 for general purpose use. The E-M1's built-in intervalometer, with time-lapse video option, turned out to be the deciding factor. I love being able to shoot a timed series of stills, RAW + JPEG, then have the camera assemble 'em into a video (10fps) on the spot while also preserving the original data for later use as individual photos and/or raw material for higher fps time-lapse sequences.

This means I have to take two satchels instead of one, but I'll cram the second into my duffel and skimp on clothes if necessary.  Wink  Me happy now.

-Dave-
Logged
viewfinder
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #44 on: March 09, 2014, 05:34:18 AM »
ReplyReply

bcooter,........

OK,...I've read all this a couple of times and you're beginning to convince me so I'm now looking at E-M1/E-M5 with interest and thinking about scraping my pennies together and how I might just get back to some nice image making without the rucksack.........

The only hitch is that for many years I was a medium format user and old habits (and preferances) die hard.

I looked at your site and assume you are the 'Russell' part ...in which case you know how to hold a camera, so, what I need to know is;...can micro 4/3 in the form of E-M1/5 actually hack it??   My referance size print is 20x16...Will I be happier with APS-C........Still life & landscapes (ex industrial/TV stills/military photog)

....You thoughts on a post-card please.......
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 05:47:50 AM by viewfinder » Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1161


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #45 on: March 09, 2014, 01:49:25 PM »
ReplyReply

bcooter,........

OK,...I've read all this a couple of times and you're beginning to convince me so I'm now looking at E-M1/E-M5 with interest and thinking about scraping my pennies together and how I might just get back to some nice image making without the rucksack.........

The only hitch is that for many years I was a medium format user and old habits (and preferances) die hard.

I looked at your site and assume you are the 'Russell' part ...in which case you know how to hold a camera, so, what I need to know is;...can micro 4/3 in the form of E-M1/5 actually hack it??   My referance size print is 20x16...Will I be happier with APS-C........Still life & landscapes (ex industrial/TV stills/military photog)

....You thoughts on a post-card please.......


Don't do this to me.   I don't mind be responsible for 6 figures of client money, but someone's personal money makes we sweat.

I don't know what you shoot, but if I was only going to be allowed one camera, I'd just buy a 5d2 (not 3) because I like the 2 better.  They're cheap, kind of clunky and big, but lenses fall out of the trees and they last forever.

If you shoot a lot of video/motion then I'd do the new panasonic gh4 (probably) but m43 isn't cheap if your completely changing systems.

Even the Sony A7 is high considering the camera and size.  I priced an A7 with a medium compliment of lenses and it hits 10 grand easily.

Don't get me wrong, for a lot of what people do like Michael, the olympus works well for him and it's a beautiful camera, but to recommend what someone does with "their" hard earned cash.

I don't want those points on my drives liscense if something goes south.

I would recommend the camera for me, but I have a lot of cameras.

IMO

BC
Logged

degrub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 275


« Reply #46 on: March 09, 2014, 07:21:38 PM »
ReplyReply

How about renting a micro 4/3 system for a week to see if it works for you ? At least one online company has a good selection of lenses and bodies.

Frank
Logged
Speedy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #47 on: March 09, 2014, 08:16:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the suggestions.  My noise reduction on the EM-1 was "auto", sharpness was '0'; so I have now reduced sharpness, contrast and saturation to -1.  Will be interesting to see if images look degraded with these changes.

Speedy in BC
Logged
Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #48 on: March 09, 2014, 11:19:47 PM »
ReplyReply

A good tip with an EM1 is to reduce the highlights on the tone curve by two clicks.  It even makes life easier if you shoot RAW and use Lightroom.  I have no idea why the standard setting throws away so much highlight information.  A bit like recent Canons I have owned!
Logged

Don
viewfinder
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #49 on: March 10, 2014, 04:27:19 AM »
ReplyReply

bcooter,....thanks for that...

I'll read that as a 'NO'.........Shame, because you got me a bit excited there for a while!

...........Normal judgement will be resumed as soon as possible and I'll forget that mu43 sh*t....
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1161


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #50 on: March 10, 2014, 05:44:50 AM »
ReplyReply

bcooter,....thanks for that...

I'll read that as a 'NO'.........Shame, because you got me a bit excited there for a while!

...........Normal judgement will be resumed as soon as possible and I'll forget that mu43 sh*t....

No, I'd have probably given you the same answer if you asked me about a 5d2.

Except the 5d2 does some things very well (stills well) , some other thing (video) ok.

5d2


But there is not a digital camera made that one do these still shots well, from $800 to $35,000.

But me (which is not others) just likes different stuff.  I love leica, my original RED1's instead of ascarlet or epic, my contax phase, other than a new phase or new hasselblad, my olympus rather than my Canon 1dx, but I'm contrarian.

Then again like I say any camera will shoot well.

Without seeing it probably the best camera for the money is the new panasonic gh4 IF YOU SHOOT video because that camera will probably shoot a very good still file, 10 bit 442 video, and I know will track autofocus.  I'll buy it, think it's kind of not pretty (I'm being polite), but it will work and probably work very well.

So I know I didn't help, but to me if money is an issue a gently used 5d2 and some canon primes would be the way to go as long as you use it until the plastic wears off and you spend your time making images not buying cameras.

IMO

BC

« Last Edit: March 10, 2014, 05:51:52 AM by bcooter » Logged

Nick Walt
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #51 on: May 05, 2014, 06:28:35 AM »
ReplyReply

As I will be travelling for the next year I am looking for a single camera solution that will give me the best possible scope and quality in the smallest package available. After reviewing advanced pocketable cameras like the Sony RX100 MkII and Fuji X20 and wanting better handling and quality I narrowed it down to either the Fuji X-T1 or Olympus E-M1.

As a comparison for size and handling I checked out the D7100 and D610. As to be expected, with the bigger glass, especially the 24-70 f2.8 Nikkor, they were just enormous.

I also looked at the Sony A7, but the lack of quality native glass and very polarised reviews and opinions made me abandon it. However, I did like the viewfinder a lot and felt it was noticeably better than both the X-T1 and E-M1.

So, here I am with decision fatigue because I'm drawn to both the X-T1 and E-M1. Both offer very different styles of handling - the X-T1 with a snappy/casual rangefinder feel and the E-M1 with a DSLR grip for a much more deliberate feel. But, at the end of the day the E-M1 is a far more rounded and polished camera. Except... shooting to SD card on both and comparing JPEG output (no NR or sharpening) I found the X-T1 to be very noticeably better than the E-M1. However, the E-M1 was running firmware version 1.0 and so I will update it and try again.

The X-T1 had beautiful JPEG quality and I was more than a tad disappointed that the E-M1 couldn't come close. Not only was the grain more noisy, but the edges had classic JPEG artefacts (both cameras set to Large Fine JPEG).

The E-M1 was using the 12-40 f2.8, and the X-T1 the 18-55 f2.8-4.

Can anyone suggest settings to get the E-M1 to shoot better JPEGs? I'll be shooting SOOC, mostly.

To be honest, I'm a bit concerned that the m43 is going to be a bit limiting in scope (mostly the lack of low light capability - I want to be capture what I want when I want while walking streets at night or inside) when considered as my only camera for the next few years. I'm also hesitant to invest too heavily in the m43 lenses for the same reason. But, I just don't know.

As bcooter said, getting something FF like the 5dmII and a bunch of second hand glass is going to deliver the best scope and bang for buck. I had considered this with the D610 but size and weight just killed that idea. That and the fact that much of the good glass is expensive and still containing more compromises than equivalent m43 and Fuji glass.

I think all I need is a little convincing that the E-M1 is going to give me 95% of what I want for the next few years. As a camera system for lots of hard work it seems perfect. More so than the X-T1. The E-M1 just feels like a workhorse whereas the X-T1 is very nice but a boutique camera no less. Is that a fair assessment?

Dayumn, if only the E-M1 had a bigger sensor the choice would be easier. Cheers.
Logged
Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #52 on: May 05, 2014, 07:17:09 AM »
ReplyReply

As I will be travelling for the next year I am looking for a single camera solution that will give me the best possible scope and quality in the smallest package available. After reviewing advanced pocketable cameras like the Sony RX100 MkII and Fuji X20 and wanting better handling and quality I narrowed it down to either the Fuji X-T1 or Olympus E-M1.

As a comparison for size and handling I checked out the D7100 and D610. As to be expected, with the bigger glass, especially the 24-70 f2.8 Nikkor, they were just enormous.

I also looked at the Sony A7, but the lack of quality native glass and very polarised reviews and opinions made me abandon it. However, I did like the viewfinder a lot and felt it was noticeably better than both the X-T1 and E-M1.

So, here I am with decision fatigue because I'm drawn to both the X-T1 and E-M1. Both offer very different styles of handling - the X-T1 with a snappy/casual rangefinder feel and the E-M1 with a DSLR grip for a much more deliberate feel. But, at the end of the day the E-M1 is a far more rounded and polished camera. Except... shooting to SD card on both and comparing JPEG output (no NR or sharpening) I found the X-T1 to be very noticeably better than the E-M1. However, the E-M1 was running firmware version 1.0 and so I will update it and try again.

The X-T1 had beautiful JPEG quality and I was more than a tad disappointed that the E-M1 couldn't come close. Not only was the grain more noisy, but the edges had classic JPEG artefacts (both cameras set to Large Fine JPEG).

The E-M1 was using the 12-40 f2.8, and the X-T1 the 18-55 f2.8-4.

Can anyone suggest settings to get the E-M1 to shoot better JPEGs? I'll be shooting SOOC, mostly.

To be honest, I'm a bit concerned that the m43 is going to be a bit limiting in scope (mostly the lack of low light capability - I want to be capture what I want when I want while walking streets at night or inside) when considered as my only camera for the next few years. I'm also hesitant to invest too heavily in the m43 lenses for the same reason. But, I just don't know.

As bcooter said, getting something FF like the 5dmII and a bunch of second hand glass is going to deliver the best scope and bang for buck. I had considered this with the D610 but size and weight just killed that idea. That and the fact that much of the good glass is expensive and still containing more compromises than equivalent m43 and Fuji glass.

I think all I need is a little convincing that the E-M1 is going to give me 95% of what I want for the next few years. As a camera system for lots of hard work it seems perfect. More so than the X-T1. The E-M1 just feels like a workhorse whereas the X-T1 is very nice but a boutique camera no less. Is that a fair assessment?

Dayumn, if only the E-M1 had a bigger sensor the choice would be easier. Cheers.

A pretty good assessment, I think.  Though the XT1 wasn't out when I bought my EM1, I still would have bought the EM1 because of the lens choice available.  I don't regret that, as it's a camera which is so capable and responsive that I never seem to miss a shot and the weight, even with the fast 12-40/2.8 or really-quite-long 75-300 is easily manageable, day in and day out.  The image quality is stellar, most of the time, yet you'd be fooling yourself to say it was perfect.  There is that very fine-grain noise if you shoot more than 100 "ISO" which often needs a little attention.  For that reason, I shoot RAW when it matters and just apply presets on import to Lightroom.  However, if you trust the jpeg engine, the results are far from bad for any non-commercial use.  What settings to use are a matter of taste.  I use standard noise reduction, plus one on sharpening (these are pictures I want to have immediate punch, not print for exhibition) and natural colour.  I also pull the highlights down two clicks on the tone curve, which helps hugely.

Having said all that, you'd be kidding yourself to say the Fuji didn't have a cleaner sensor.  Resolution is near identical, possibly minutely favouring the EM1 and it's possibly a tiny bit easier to get your colours right with the Olympus but, when the light gets bad, what I've seen of the Fuji seems clearly better.

On balance, the real decision must be more on handling/weight, lens choice (consider rain and dust proof in that mix) and cost.  The one that you feel like you want to use will be the better camera, if the lens choice works.  Surely?
Logged

Don
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1175



« Reply #53 on: May 05, 2014, 09:48:31 AM »
ReplyReply

My impressions of the X-E2 and the E-M5 are similar to what Deep described.  But once you go to print, the differences will be de minimus in the vast majority of shots.  For me it all comes down to handling and shooting flow.  I have ended up with the Fuji for these more intangible factors, others have come to the opposite conclusion.  Best thing if possible would be to try both for a while and see which you gravitate to.  You can't go wrong with either system.
Logged

Nick Walt
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #54 on: May 05, 2014, 11:06:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you, both.

High ISO capability is definitely a major consideration and perhaps might be the deal breaker on the E-M1. But, I agree that handling and controls are likely to be even more important.

As much as I really like the thoroughly worked out system on the E-M1, I do also very much like the X-T1 way of working. A more casual style with maybe slower and more contemplative manipulation of dials and knobs.

I guess, as someone posted earlier on this thread, I could shoot JPEG and RAW on the E-M1 and clean up the luminance channel a little when converting the night shots from RAW.

More playing needed in the store.

Cheers,
Nick
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #55 on: May 05, 2014, 12:00:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Dayumn, if only the E-M1 had a bigger sensor the choice would be easier. Cheers.

Fuji sensor is actually subpar vs Sony APS-C implementations by Ricoh/Pentax or Nikon... so a little bigger die does little (except ~0.5 stops in S/N above deep shadows - but that's displacement naturally) if you shoot raw.

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#OM-D%20E-M5,X-T1

that's XT-1 vs E-M5 (not E-M1 even).
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #56 on: May 05, 2014, 12:03:19 PM »
ReplyReply

However, the E-M1 was running firmware version 1.0 and so I will update it and try again.

you really need to update it to get EFCS = http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3651827
Logged
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 868



« Reply #57 on: May 05, 2014, 03:33:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Personally I don't shoot JPEGs with the intent of using them as is. They get processed even if that amounts to no more than a levels tweak. With this in mind I set sharpening, contrast & NR to the lowest values allowed. I'd much rather tweak noise myself on a pic-by-pic basis. Note that I rarely reduce luminance noise, just chroma. I like luminance texture in my photos. My favorite b&w developer was Rodinal, so there ya go.   Smiley  I also set a reverse-S tone curve to tame any remaining tendency toward hot highlights or crushed shadows. And I use a "natural" color profile, one where saturation isn't exaggerated up or down at its default value.

I've had little problem getting malleable JPEGs from my m43 cameras or Fuji X-E1. The Fuji files are a bit thicker, though. With m43 I sometimes resort to the RAW data, even for casual/online use, to get a more pleasing highlight rendering. In the end the m43s win out due to camera responsiveness and overall lens lineup.

-Dave-
Logged
Nick Walt
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #58 on: May 06, 2014, 12:08:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you, Vlad, Telecaster. Also to the OP.

Cheers
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1161


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #59 on: May 06, 2014, 05:49:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you, both.

High ISO capability is definitely a major consideration and perhaps might be the deal breaker on the E-M1. But, I agree that handling and controls are likely to be even more important.

As much as I really like the thoroughly worked out system on the E-M1, I do also very much like the X-T1 way of working. A more casual style with maybe slower and more contemplative manipulation of dials and knobs.

I guess, as someone posted earlier on this thread, I could shoot JPEG and RAW on the E-M1 and clean up the luminance channel a little when converting the night shots from RAW.

More playing needed in the store.

Cheers,
Nick


You have to realize that for any given iso, comparable to full frame to hold the same amount of focus depth your probably something like 3 1/2 stops more with full frame.

This was shot with the em1 and some hmi and windowlight for key, and I used a leica s2 and a em-1.  (the em-1 is the photo).  The S2 was at F4 point something, 360 iso and 1/60th of a second.

The em-1 was I think at iso 200,  f 2.0 1/800th, of a second.



So since the em-1 goes easily to 1000, for almost any larger format size your going to double, triple and quadruple the settings to get to the same place.

IMO

BC



Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad