The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
OM-D E-M1 Shipment Notification
- Thread starter k-hawinkler
- Start date
Godfrey
Well-known member
Not convinced about what?
Mine is on the FedEx truck, now "out for delivery". I'm just pulling on my clothes to head off to the office, if I get the txt in the next ten minutes I'l pick it up at the FedEx hold depot around the corner on the way there. That way I can let the battery charge while I'm at work, and be ready for some night shooting with it this evening ...
G
Annna T
Active member
I find that chatter rather funny
Anyway, after getting the 25mm, I compared to the 45mm F1.8 Olympus and the chatter is here too if you put your ear very near of the camera, but it is very damped. The 25mm has a unique personality when it comes to chatting ..
Knorp
Well-known member
Hi Godfrey,
it could be a Leica thing: my 2.8/45 macro is also 'talking' to me.
It's doing this on both E-M5 and E-M1.
Kind regards.
Godfrey
Well-known member
Leica does the lens design, Panasonic does the firmware, mount design, and manufacturing on these lenses. I think Leica has another hand in at the QA level too.
I think it's more fair to say that it's a Panasonic issue ... there are some reported issues with other Panasonic mFT lenses used on Olympus bodies as well.
Anyway, likely much ado about nothing. If it annoys me too much, I'll try turning off the anti-flicker setting and see if that helps. If that doesn't do it, I'll either learn to live with it or return the lens. Not a big deal.
The truck made it to the depot and I got the delivery signal just as I left home. The battery is now on the charger. Glad I didn't bring a lens to the office, it would be a distraction and I have a lot to get done today.
G
tashley
Subscriber Member
Karl-Heinz, Godfrey,
I don't want to shoot too freely too soon but after a couple of long walks with the camera and a variety of lenses (Panny 20mm f1.7 pancake, some adapted Leica M, Panny 7-4 and 14-150 and 100-300) I am... not convinced.
The files are 'aspartame' - quite like the real thing but when you pay attention, clearly synthetic. I need to make prints really but at 50% on a 100dpi screen or even at 100% on a retina screen, it all looks digital to me. Carefully suppressed, well disguised, primped, tweaked, preened and optimised but... still looks and feels... digital. So whilst I largely buy in to the ergonomics and form factor and size and weight and am looking forward to the 12-40mm F2.8 I have to say that if I keep it, it will have to do service as my 'dog walking in the rain' camera for a while before I believe in it enough to take on a trip.
I say 'largely' about the ergonomics because again, like the files, they talk the talk but are less confident in the walk: for example, everyone is cooing about the way you can control everything quickly and easily and configurably, to me it is utterly a non-starter that you can't specify your own minimum shutter speeds for auto ISO, nor access an algorithm that does so for you in the light of focal length. That, to me, stinks of what British Northerners call 'all fur coat and no knickers' - roughly translated as it looks and sounds a lot more classy than it is.
Early days but I am not yet sure this will be a keeper...
I don't want to shoot too freely too soon but after a couple of long walks with the camera and a variety of lenses (Panny 20mm f1.7 pancake, some adapted Leica M, Panny 7-4 and 14-150 and 100-300) I am... not convinced.
The files are 'aspartame' - quite like the real thing but when you pay attention, clearly synthetic. I need to make prints really but at 50% on a 100dpi screen or even at 100% on a retina screen, it all looks digital to me. Carefully suppressed, well disguised, primped, tweaked, preened and optimised but... still looks and feels... digital. So whilst I largely buy in to the ergonomics and form factor and size and weight and am looking forward to the 12-40mm F2.8 I have to say that if I keep it, it will have to do service as my 'dog walking in the rain' camera for a while before I believe in it enough to take on a trip.
I say 'largely' about the ergonomics because again, like the files, they talk the talk but are less confident in the walk: for example, everyone is cooing about the way you can control everything quickly and easily and configurably, to me it is utterly a non-starter that you can't specify your own minimum shutter speeds for auto ISO, nor access an algorithm that does so for you in the light of focal length. That, to me, stinks of what British Northerners call 'all fur coat and no knickers' - roughly translated as it looks and sounds a lot more classy than it is.
Early days but I am not yet sure this will be a keeper...
Godfrey
Well-known member
Interesting comments.
Are you looking at in-camera JPEG images or processing raw files yourself?
G
tashley
Subscriber Member
A bit of both, though I haven't run the RAWs through anything but LR. The JPEGS are very good at first and second glance but they don't feel very natural to me when they sink in. The RAWs need very differing treatments as ISO progresses higher and I'm not sure I have gotten on top of that properly yet...
I have shot RAW only and quite a bit of RAW+peg and tried to match or improve the file from RAW over jpeg. It's quite tough!
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
Hi Tim,
Many thanks. The low ISO OOC JPGs at first glance look indeed pretty good.
Very high ISO OOC JPGs seem to have lots of visible artefacts.
I shoot raw + jpg.
Which picture settings have you been using?
I typically use natural with contrast -2, saturation 0, sharpness +2, noise filter standard, WB auto.
Olympus Viewer 3 seems to produce nice colors IMHO.
Olympus Viewer vs. Lightroom vs. Aperture: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
I have been post-processing with CS6 and Nik to try to match the noise reduction and sharpness of the OOC JPGs, especially for very high ISO.
As the E-M5 was, the E-M1 is intended as my walkaround setup with long reach.
They are complementary to my D800E, M9, NEX-5N, and NEX-7.
I am also looking forward to the FF NEXs.
Last edited:
Godfrey
Well-known member
Yet again, interesting. Thanks!
Well, I guess I'll start evaluating when I get home ... the battery is now fully charged. I have a few imaging tests in mind.
G
Brian Mosley
New member
Hi, can you give us an idea of which camera you're comparing the E-M1 with, to find it unnatural?
Do you have any example shots to show what you're seeing?
Thanks
Brian
tashley
Subscriber Member
Thanks - I only shoot RAW (I tried JPEGs on the EM-1 in order to see where 'the bar' is) and I also stick to LR and C1 only because proprietary RAW developers are a PITA IMHO. I think that for me, as with you, the Oly will be a purely walk around but when I get the grips with the RAW files I might risk it for casual travel. The GH2 was disappointing in that context so I was hoping for a bigger step change - but it is too early for me to make a real judgement, the comments I made above are just first impressions really!
tashley
Subscriber Member
Sure... my benchmarks are very varied. I shoot, among other things, an IQ180, a D800e, a 5D, an RX-1 and RX-100, Nex7, M240 and Panny GH2. I have had other MFT cameras before, too.
From all the advance reviews I was hoping for a bigger step up from the GH2. Of course the sensor size is not (with current technology) going to allow the EM-1 to fully compete with the larger sensor cameras in my bag but I was hoping that it would be closer than it at first sight seems. But to me, they don't even look like crops from the sensors of those cameras.
The files from the IQ180, D800e, RX-1 and M240 are all what I would call 'natural' looking and the NEX7 files are 'near enough' but to me the EM-1 files aren't as close to that look as I had expected from the reviews. But as I say it is early days and some further experience with exposure and processing might make enough of a difference to tip the balance!
Godfrey
Well-known member
Home now.
Battery in the camera.
Tested in pretty dim room with ZD 35/3.5 Macro. Focusing speed is better than E-1, been a while since I had the E-5 but it seems as good. A little hunting here and there. Seems typical of a macro lens on AF.
Fitted Summilux-DG 25. Focusing speed darn near instantaneous, even in this dim light. No cha-cha stuff. I'm happy.
ISO set to 6400. I'm off to the club and dinner, will make some photos and see how they work out. JPEG + raw, of course.
G
Battery in the camera.
Tested in pretty dim room with ZD 35/3.5 Macro. Focusing speed is better than E-1, been a while since I had the E-5 but it seems as good. A little hunting here and there. Seems typical of a macro lens on AF.
Fitted Summilux-DG 25. Focusing speed darn near instantaneous, even in this dim light. No cha-cha stuff. I'm happy.
ISO set to 6400. I'm off to the club and dinner, will make some photos and see how they work out. JPEG + raw, of course.
G
Brian Mosley
New member
I wonder how the E-M1 will compare with the E-P5 and E-M5 for focusing speed in low light?
I did ask a fellow Safari Group member, who shoots primarily with a couple of E-5's and SHG glass how his new E-M1 compares for low light performance.
His words "I have found that the E-M1 is superior to the E-5 when focusing in low light. Subjects which the E-5 would struggle or even fail to focus upon don’t seem to present a problem to the E-M1. I was focusing on subject with no defined edge and achieving good focus. Where the 12-60 would hunt on the E-M5 I have not found that problem with the E-M1.
I want to attach my 90-250 to give a good test. I have some rallies coming up to give it a good test on, plus I may also give a try on steam railways soon."
All very promising, specifically for E-5 shooters looking to upgrade - of course this should be taken at face value... until you see three or four other reports to back it up, and then you can think back on the accuracy of my first reports
Cheers
Brian
I did ask a fellow Safari Group member, who shoots primarily with a couple of E-5's and SHG glass how his new E-M1 compares for low light performance.
His words "I have found that the E-M1 is superior to the E-5 when focusing in low light. Subjects which the E-5 would struggle or even fail to focus upon don’t seem to present a problem to the E-M1. I was focusing on subject with no defined edge and achieving good focus. Where the 12-60 would hunt on the E-M5 I have not found that problem with the E-M1.
I want to attach my 90-250 to give a good test. I have some rallies coming up to give it a good test on, plus I may also give a try on steam railways soon."
All very promising, specifically for E-5 shooters looking to upgrade - of course this should be taken at face value... until you see three or four other reports to back it up, and then you can think back on the accuracy of my first reports
Cheers
Brian
Godfrey
Well-known member
With the mFT Summilux-DG 25 lens, focusing at the club last night was near instantaneous. Out of 200+ exposures I made, just snapping around like a tourist with an instamatic at a party, only about six were poorly focused.
I left the camera on its defaults, changing only that it would capture JPEG Ln + raw and setting the ISO to 6400 and 12800, and setting it to S-AF+mf. Here are a few JPEG+raw pairs at what I think is somewhere around EV 0-1 light in club lighting (mostly red and purple gels). (There's also a video at ISO 6400, again made using the camera defaults; the link is right near the bottom of the page below.)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25268645/oly-em1-low-light/index.html
I'm satisfied that the E-M1 has plenty of sensitivity for my needs. It's a very fast and responsive camera in use too. It's a bit small for my hands without the HLD-7 battery grip fitted, I hope that arrives soon, but the controls all work nicely. I had NO trouble focusing manually even without any focusing aids enabled, the viewfinder is terrific. I haven't had time to figure out what I want to assign to where, hardly used anything other than the SCP and the shutter release last evening, etc.
Today I'll snap about in some more normal lighting at my usual sensitivities.
G
I left the camera on its defaults, changing only that it would capture JPEG Ln + raw and setting the ISO to 6400 and 12800, and setting it to S-AF+mf. Here are a few JPEG+raw pairs at what I think is somewhere around EV 0-1 light in club lighting (mostly red and purple gels). (There's also a video at ISO 6400, again made using the camera defaults; the link is right near the bottom of the page below.)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25268645/oly-em1-low-light/index.html
I'm satisfied that the E-M1 has plenty of sensitivity for my needs. It's a very fast and responsive camera in use too. It's a bit small for my hands without the HLD-7 battery grip fitted, I hope that arrives soon, but the controls all work nicely. I had NO trouble focusing manually even without any focusing aids enabled, the viewfinder is terrific. I haven't had time to figure out what I want to assign to where, hardly used anything other than the SCP and the shutter release last evening, etc.
Today I'll snap about in some more normal lighting at my usual sensitivities.
G
Godfrey
Well-known member
Fitted with a short lens, it would fit in my waist pack without any problems. I tossed it with the Summilux 25 and lens hood (which is a little bulky)k fitted into my small Lowepro Terraclime 100 bag last night ... it takes up about a quarter to a third of the room in that bag. It's not particularly heavy.
But if you're looking for a pocketable, it's not.
G
tashley
Subscriber Member
Footnote: I just developed the same ISO 3200 .ORF file in LR and in Olympus Viewer at defaults, then exported the Viewer version as 16bit tiff and imported into LR and compared. They LR versions is infinitely, hugely better: the Viewer version is a massively over NR mess!
I am no expert in Viewer at all - do people have any suggestions as to how to get results from it that match the in-camera JPEG?
I am no expert in Viewer at all - do people have any suggestions as to how to get results from it that match the in-camera JPEG?