E-M1 Accolades

[Godfrey]

I'm sure happy that these guys agree with me ... :angel:

LuLa - The Best New Camera of 2013

TOP - The Winner! TOP Camera of the Year 2013

Seriously, I'm happy with it. I'm glad they are too.

 

[k-hawinkler]

I'm sure happy that these guys agree with me ... :angel:

LuLa - The Best New Camera of 2013

TOP - The Winner! TOP Camera of the Year 2013

Seriously, I'm happy with it. I'm glad they are too.

Thanks.
I rank E-M1 and A7R about equal but very complementary.
Now if they could combine the best features in one camera...

 

[Jack]

It looks like a very nice cam for M4/3 users. I was cleaning out my camera cabinet last night and found an M4/3 lens I had forgotten about. Hmmmm....

 

[k-hawinkler]

Thanks Jack, indeed it is.
Which lens? Just curious,

 

[iiiNelson]

I'm sure happy that these guys agree with me ... :angel:

LuLa - The Best New Camera of 2013

TOP - The Winner! TOP Camera of the Year 2013

Seriously, I'm happy with it. I'm glad they are too.

It won Camera of the Year as well on Steve Huff's site and on Photography Week Digital Magazine on iPad.

Its a great camera for sure and both OM-D have been the first Olympus cameras that had me interested in them since the E30 and E620 cameras. I almost bought the EM1 (well 2 of them plus the new Pro Zooms) for my travel cameras but I went with the A7 and A7r instead. Just ended up being a better fit for what I needed.

 

[jonoslack]

Also you might like to read this:Mini Review on Luminous Landscape

It's also ahead on the mirrorless poll in dPreview. (34% to the combined A7/A7r at 31%)

 

[bradhusick]

I think it's the best m4/3 camera to date for sure. I still don't like the overly complex menu system.

 

[jonoslack]

I think it's the best m4/3 camera to date for sure. I still don't like the overly complex menu system.

HI Brad
I've managed to forget about it - after an hour or two setting it up, it's all on the outside of the camera now - the only thing I need the menu for is to format the card, and that's right at the top.

all the best

 

[jonoslack]

It won Camera of the Year as well on Steve Huff's site and on Photography Week Digital Magazine on iPad.

Its a great camera for sure and both OM-D have been the first Olympus cameras that had me interested in them since the E30 and E620 cameras. I almost bought the EM1 (well 2 of them plus the new Pro Zooms) for my travel cameras but I went with the A7 and A7r instead. Just ended up being a better fit for what I needed.

I already had the EM1, and I've been thinking about heading A7/A7r direction . . . but the lenses aren't there for the Sony, and the combination of the stunning IBIS and great native lenses on the Olympus seems to make more sense right now -

I did some comparisons between the A7r with the Leica R 35-70 f4 zoom and the E-M1 with the 12-40, and the E-M1 was better in almost all circumstances (except on a tripod with the 35-70 stopped down, and even then the corners were better on the E-M1)....

 

[iiiNelson]

I already had the EM1, and I've been thinking about heading A7/A7r direction . . . but the lenses aren't there for the Sony, and the combination of the stunning IBIS and great native lenses on the Olympus seems to make more sense right now -

I did some comparisons between the A7r with the Leica R 35-70 f4 zoom and the E-M1 with the 12-40, and the E-M1 was better in almost all circumstances (except on a tripod with the 35-70 stopped down, and even then the corners were better on the E-M1)....

Yeah. I don't doubt the Olympus is a great camera but I'm also not a person who gets anal about corner performance either. I rarely shoot landscapes. I mostly shoot people candidly, do street and event stuff where I can't use a flash. Plus you just can't get around the whole FF physics when you want/ need less DOF.

I have some M lenses (and a M9-P) that work well enough for what I need them to do on either the A7 and/or the A7r in actual photos while Sony is expanding the native FE line. I also have the Rokinon 14/2.8, the Sony 35, 55FE, and the A-mount 70-200/2.8 still (although I still need the LA-E4 adapter.)

All of that lead me back to the Sony's but I still have my G1 and thus I keep an eye on the M4/3 world. So back on topic of the EM1 and the well deserved accolades it's winning.

 

[jonoslack]

Yeah. I don't doubt the Olympus is a great camera but I'm also not a person who gets anal about corner performance either. I rarely shoot landscapes. I mostly shoot people candidly, do street and event stuff where I can't use a flash. Plus you just can't get around the whole FF physics when you want/ need less DOF.

Indeed - I don't for a minute imagine that we all have the same needs - I really do like corner sharpness - partly because I like landscape, but more because I commonly use both the corner and the periphery of images as a salient part of the composition. . . . . So I'm not really anal about it (I know you weren't accusing me of being anal ) - but I do realise that for lots of applications (lots of my applications too) sharp corners don't matter.

 

[ptomsu]

I already had the EM1, and I've been thinking about heading A7/A7r direction . . . but the lenses aren't there for the Sony, and the combination of the stunning IBIS and great native lenses on the Olympus seems to make more sense right now -

I did some comparisons between the A7r with the Leica R 35-70 f4 zoom and the E-M1 with the 12-40, and the E-M1 was better in almost all circumstances (except on a tripod with the 35-70 stopped down, and even then the corners were better on the E-M1)....

Same for me, while really interested in the A7/A7r the system is today far away from useable for my type of applications - wildlife, landscape etc.

I tested today the 75-300 II with several different camera settings for shutter lag, C-AF, C-AF tracking and different focus areas on the EM1 - together with different IBIS settings. I must say I was impressed by the flexibility and results - after lot of mistakes I made upfront I am now pretty happy about my results getting consistently sharp and in focus.

I think before A7/A7r can play in that game it will take another 2 years (native FE lenses). And even then the resulting lenses will be much bulkier.

So the EM1 with 12-40, 75-300II and maybe 1.8/17 will be my travel combo for the next 1 or 2 years (wildlife, landscape, etc.). And then time will tell .....

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I already had the EM1, and I've been thinking about heading A7/A7r direction . . . but the lenses aren't there for the Sony, and the combination of the stunning IBIS and great native lenses on the Olympus seems to make more sense right now -

I did some comparisons between the A7r with the Leica R 35-70 f4 zoom and the E-M1 with the 12-40, and the E-M1 was better in almost all circumstances (except on a tripod with the 35-70 stopped down, and even then the corners were better on the E-M1)....

Well said, Jono. I have stayed away from the A7/r discussion since I haven't had anything positive to add. I don't have the E-M1 yet, but even the GH3 has made my D700 obsolete for me, which goes to show that 35mm digital isn't that important to me. I'll probably sell it and replace it with the PanaLeica 42.5mm when it arrives.

With all the extremely high quality glass available for m4/3 these days, any system have a hard time competing. When some high end telephoto lenses become available, m4/3 is up there with the best (Nikon and Canon DSLRs, Fuji X and obviously Leica M) this side of MF. It will be the only camera system I need, and that certainly can't be said about the Sony mirrorless systems.

 

[jonoslack]

With all the extremely high quality glass available for m4/3 these days, any system have a hard time competing. When some high end telephoto lenses become available, m4/3 is up there with the best (Nikon and Canon DSLRs, Fuji X and obviously Leica M) this side of MF. It will be the only camera system I need, and that certainly can't be said about the Sony mirrorless systems.

Hi Jorgen
Trouble is, saying that µ43 is good enough is tantamount to saying you don't really care about quality . . . . whereas the A7r allows you to grab small without having to admit to modest ambitions.

Whereas, let's face it, its really about the image, not the pixel depth.

I really want to play in the A7 game . . just like I really wanted to play in the MF game a year or so ago, but it's hard to create an argument that it will help to make better snaps . . . . and really, honestly and truly, that's what I want to do.

 

[Godfrey]

After handling the A7/A7r, I am even happier with the E-M1. The Sonys weren't bad, they're just not as good.

For what I want to do photographically, it's the best camera out there. I am enjoying the heck out of it and finding it a real workhorse.

G

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Hi Jorgen
Trouble is, saying that µ43 is good enough is tantamount to saying you don't really care about quality . . . . whereas the A7r allows you to grab small without having to admit to modest ambitions.

Whereas, let's face it, its really about the image, not the pixel depth.

I really want to play in the A7 game . . just like I really wanted to play in the MF game a year or so ago, but it's hard to create an argument that it will help to make better snaps . . . . and really, honestly and truly, that's what I want to do.

The problem for me is, there are no lenses. With the introduction of the Alpha system, Sony were very aggressive introducing a large number of high quality lenses. With the NEX system, they were not. They have a lot to prove before the mirrorless A system can be called a system. Only hardcore enthusiasts like members of this forum use legacy glass on old cameras, and as a total solution, it's useless for most. No lenses, no quality images. And mind you: Quality legacy glass cost money too, sometimes without delivering better quality than cheaper, more recent alternatives.

I want to play the A7 game too, and maybe I will, but as for now, it's only interesting as a second system. m4/3 is now useable for all kinds of photography, sports and action included, unless very large resolution is required. But, combining m4/3 and A7 would be an extremely nice solution. That's very tempting. But first, I need an E-M1 and a few more lenses for that system.

 

[ptomsu]

m43 has become my main system since the introduction of the EM1. It simply fulfills almost all my needs.

What I am hoping for though is some more high grade telephoto zooms, as there was the 43 Zuiko 2.8/90-250, but for m43 mount directly. Give me one or two of such lenses and I even will not look again into any other system as my main system.

WRT legacy lenses - I compared some of my Leica M glass to my new m43 12-40 on the EM1 and I prefer the IQ from the Olympus lens in most cases - not to speak about the much easier handling. If more such high grade lenses are becoming available (as the 2.8/40-150 later this year) m43 becomes even better!

Having said this, there are always interesting cameras such as the Fuji XE2 with 18-55, which I prefer shooting as my walk around small P&S. And as such also sony might once play this role of me.

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

GAS never goes away

Hi Jorgen
Trouble is, saying that µ43 is good enough is tantamount to saying you don't really care about quality . . . . whereas the A7r allows you to grab small without having to admit to modest ambitions.

Whereas, let's face it, its really about the image, not the pixel depth.

I really want to play in the A7 game . . just like I really wanted to play in the MF game a year or so ago, but it's hard to create an argument that it will help to make better snaps . . . . and really, honestly and truly, that's what I want to do.

Most of us seem to want to have it both ways -- "all those pixels in the A7r's snazzy new sensor must give a magic something, but, hey, it's really just a means to better snaps, it's the photographer, not the camera..."

I've somehow worked myself up to the Tim Ashley level of "coverage." I have a 39 MPx MF back for a couple of EBay Hasselblads and some nice lenses to go with it, an M240 which finally arrived and some nice lenses to go with it, and both the E-P5/VF4 and the E-M1, with some nice lenses to go with them. (The Olys snuck up on me during the long wait for the M240, and have certainly earned their current acclaim.) I can't see why I would want the A7r, even to use with my Leica lensbag. I'm currently printing up some shots for display on the empty walls of my new office in a new building. I'm using pictures from a multiyear project done with M9 and M240, and even at my most ambitious I have to reduce the Leica images by at least 2X to reach an affordable print size. And for web display...

I was interested to see Ken Tanaka, who shoots anything he wants to shoot, including Phase One P45 and IQ2 gigapixel backs, say (on TOP) that he thought the MF equipment would soon be unnecessary.

But, you know, it's nice to use new equipment to see familiar material in new ways. The Olympus set of medium telephoto primes opened my eyes to some of the pleasures of popping away at interesting stuff in the middle distances, after shooting everything in context, filling the frame edge to edge, never using any lens longer than 50 mm.

scott