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!

GX7 or E-M1, suddenly, it's a dilemma

raist3d

Well-known member
Well the tight tolerances and lubrication in Leica lenses means that any water ingress will be very very small - nothing like enough to get into the camera through the lens mount.
But how exactly you know this? And Why then Leica doesn't rate the lenses as weather sealed? Something has to give.

This is spurious Ricardo
The question is - can you shoot it in the pouring rain without screwing the electronics.

. . . and if you live in the UK this is a deeply relevant point.
No, it's not spurious. There's a reason why weather resistant or sealed equipment is advertised as such, and why equipment that it's not, it's not advertised as such. Remember also factors like increased humidity, etc.

M9 - no
M(240) - yes
E-M1 - yes
GX7 - no

If you're thinking of life expectancy, then you better keep your camera at a constant temperature in a dust free environment with carefully controlled humidity - wear and tear is a different issue altogether.
No, what I am talking about is there is a distinctive category and reason why companies advertise and tell you their equipment is weather sealed. Those who are not, will be at a disadvantage, I am not talking about what you just said in the paragraph above.

That being the case, I have read no less than two reviews that mention shooting with a Fuji X100s in pouring rain and "the camera worked fine after wards." How much confidence that really inspires, to do exactly that when Fujifilm does not rate their camera accordingly?

Now if Leica tells you "hey, don't worry with the M, the lenses are designed to take it" that's another matter.

Here's another one-when I was in highschool there was an entire computer center of IBM PCJrs in a basement that goat soaked due to a major water leak in the room above. The computers were cleaned, we waited two weeks and voila. they worked! Weather resistant much?

No, not really. They started to fail (with different issues and varying degrees of frequency) within the first year after the event. Some of the components are more impervious to waters, others start getting oxidized, etc.

It's basically a dice roll, it's all I am saying.

- Ricardo
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Hi Ricardo,

that sounds a bit contrived...
How is that contrived? Shooting a wedding reception after the sun has gone down is a pretty common wedding scenario. Anyone shooting in daylight - cool, but I think it's worth mentioning for those thinking their 4/3rd lenses will work fine in any situation when they do not.

BTW, Robin Wong himself already said that 4/3rd lenses do not focus as fast on the EM1 vs the E-5 good light or not. Certainly Olympus may be able to improve it with a firmware upgrade, but I personally wouldn't make a purchasing decision based on a "could be" like that, particularly when Olympus does not have a strong history of doing major firmware upgrades, and they really never quite fixed the SHG 14-35 F2.0 AF in lower light.

for the vast majority of E-3/E-5 shooters, the E-M1 will be a significant upgrade in terms of speed, image quality and the ability to take the m4/3rds fast primes.
I did not say nor imply otherwise- sorry if that wasn't clear. I was talking specifically on CDAF/phase detection use and 4/3rds lenses. I mention right there I do not expect the scenario to be a problem if you are using m4/3rd native lenses.

If it wasn't clear, hope that clears that up.

For a wedding photographer, the prospect of using the 45mm f1.8 and 75mm f1.8 will surely be very attractive.

Cheers

Brian
Yes, I didn't say otherwise. I was referring to PDAF use for CDAF/in particular 4/3rd lenses. So yes, two accounts confirm the suspicion that as lights go down, PDAF starts to be not so hot at least for 4/3rds lenses. This mean for a wedding pro using 4/3rds, he may have to start switching to m4/3rd lenses for those scenarios.

- Ricardo
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
... BTW, Robin Wong himself already said that 4/3rd lenses do not focus as fast on the EM1 vs the E-5 good light or not. Certainly Olympus may be able to improve it with a firmware upgrade, but I personally wouldn't make a purchasing decision based on a "could be" like that, particularly when Olympus does not have a strong history of doing major firmware upgrades, and they really never quite fixed the SHG 14-35 F2.0 AF in lower light. ...
Robin has his impressions and opinion, I have mine.

I tested an E-M1 body with my FourThirds SLR lenses (11-22 and 35 Macro) in modest to low light (interior of a camera store). My impression is that they focus on average just as well if not more quickly on the E-M1 than they did on my E-5, and they certainly focus a lot more quickly than on my E-1. One of the other folks in the room had the 50-200 and 14-54 with them which I got to try for a moment. Again, my impression was that the difference in AF speed compared to the E-5 was negligible, and there was significant improvement over the E-1.

I wouldn't be shooting a wedding in much lower light than that, not without additional lighting equipment anyway. (I haven't done any weddings, but I've shot other events with the E-1 ...)

Obviously, lenses designed for Micro-FourThirds have a speed and functionality advantage. If someone doesn't expect that, they're not being sensible. But another thing to realize is that not all FourThirds SLR users owned the top of the line E-5 body. And most do not own ONLY HG and SHG lenses. Most have/had the E-xxx bodies and some the E-30, which are not as high performance as the E-5, and MOST have the SG lenses. For most of those users, the E-M1 will be a substantial improvement in focusing speed over both their DSLR body and over any other Micro-FourThirds body.

I had no problems whatever with the focusing speed of my lenses on the E-M1 body.

G
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Reality check: Who, in this day and age, would be using E3 or E5 (or 43/ m43) to shoot weddings and expect to get paid? :shocked:
I don't use an E3 or E5, but for much of my paid work, I use a D300 and a D2Xs. Compared to an E5, those cameras have worse high ISO, no IBIS and no f/2.0 zooms, but frankly, I don't see it as a problem. I even get paid sometimes ;)
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Well I put a lot of weigh to Robins statement given he is an Olympus employee an give him kudos to voice that up That said thanks for sharing your impressions.

Please keep in mind I totally expect much better with native m4/3- nothing I wrote should imply otherwise but to the contrary.

My initial curiosity in how well 4/3rds lenses hold with PDaf is that so far sensors with PDaf seem to lose the PDaf ability once light is not optimal- as what happens to the Nikon system- and because I still have my full set of 4/3 lenses Two accounts of em1 owners seem to corroborate the slower aF in lower light vs e-5. I'll be able to see for myself soon.

You may not shoot in lower available light and that's great - for your needs. As for me I wouldn't expect any problems whatsoever with a m4/3 lens. And I don't show cdaf so its all good there on that end

Thank you for sharing your impressions.

- Ricardo
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I do shoot low light, but I did that with film as well. Sometimes, I even changed from Velvia to Tri-X because of it :ROTFL:
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Now that the 43rds is no more (no new cameras) are they still using them?!
I've only spoken with one of them since the E-M1 was announced. He has an E-PL2 in addition to his four E-5s, mostly for snapshooting with family. Told me he was very excited about the E-M1, would be getting one to test soon.

As others have said, there's no reason to dump good equipment that's working fine just because something new is announced. I suspect he'll get one to test and then replace current equipment as need arises.

G
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
... Two accounts of em1 owners seem to corroborate the slower aF in lower light vs e-5. ...
Highly optimized PDAF systems like in the E-5, Nikon D4, etc, all slow down in lower light levels too. No reason to expect that the first out Olympus mFT camera with on-chip PDAF won't also show some slowing down in low light. It just makes sense that it would. The question is whether the overall performance is functional and useful. I suspect it is, even if it isn't the very fastest AF in the world.

It's better to wait until you have a chance to evaluate the performance with a camera for yourself before stating judgements. We've all read the Ming Thein and Robin Wong reports.

(I turn off AF quite often. NO AF system I've used, from Nikon to Canon to anyone else, works as well overall for serious work as focusing the camera with my own eyes.)

G
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Highly optimized PDAF systems like in the E-5, Nikon D4, etc, all slow down in lower light levels too.
Yes, and I said that too earlier. I mentioned that Nikon 1 in particular because at some point in lower light it *completely* loses PDaf and resorts to cdaf. Not sure on the Sony but I thought it had the same issue

This does not mean at all I believe the em1 will necessarily do the same but it makes it to my "todo list" to verify and pay special attention too.

The issue as mentioned by the two accounts is not just that the em1 slows down with 4/3 lenses, but that it does so more significantly saw than using an e-3/e-5.

No reason to expect that the first out Olympus mFT camera with on-chip PDAF won't also show some slowing down in low light.

As stated above, there are reasons for the possibility.

It just makes sense that it would. The question is whether the overall performance is functional and useful. I suspect it is, even if it isn't the very fastest AF in the world.
Well th question I have and my 4/3 owners have is- is it worse or better than the e-3/e-5.


It's better to wait until you have a chance to evaluate the performance with a camera for yourself before stating judgements. We've all read the Ming Thein and Robin Wong reports.
As I already stated, that's what I intend to do. However I not see much issue in mentioning the current observations. I mean. I don't see objections to people saying "it does the same or better." I think its valid to just
Keep In mind if you are upgrading and specifically verify if you plan to use 4/3 lenses.

(I turn off AF quite often. NO AF system I've used, from Nikon to Canon to anyone else, works as well overall for serious work as focusing the camera with my own eyes.)

G
I occasionally use full MF. But that's irrelevant to the point

- Ricardo
 

raist3d

Well-known member

Godfrey

Well-known member
Yes, Pris. Someone apparently with Olympus vested connections given his commentary earlier in other instances about connection to Olympus and visionaries. :)

There are some people whose comments have to be weighted appropriately.

- Ricardo
Heavens, anyone who doesn't agree with Robin Wong (who works for Olympus) or Ming Thein (a huge Olympus supporter for years) that there might be some slowing of PDAF compared to the old top of the line Olympus E-5 in very low light is simply not at all credible in your book, eh?

What a crock. You insist on being negative even when 99% of the people who have used or already have the camera seem to be quite happy with its performance.

(BTW, neither Ming nor Robin have theirs yet, from what I understand reading their blogs. Both were using early production or final prototype test cameras for the articles. There might be some minor differences there too, although I doubt it.)

Yeah, the E-M1 is just a slow pig with those old FT lenses. Why you'd be interested in one I have no idea. :-\

G
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
I don't know anything about old FT cameras or lenses.
Appropriately used I find the E-M1 to be a source of great pleasure.

Nevertheless, in fairly low light C-AF focus can oscillate a bit with an MFT lens.
Interesting to watch as an example of a damped oscillation. :D
I have not experienced a similar behavior with S-AF though. That's good! :)

I certainly wouldn't want to be without my Olympus MFT setup.
However, I am lucky enough to have other systems to choose from, e.g. M9, D800E, NEX.
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Heavens, anyone who doesn't agree with Robin Wong (who works for Olympus) or Ming Thein (a huge Olympus supporter for years) that there might be some slowing of PDAF compared to the old top of the line Olympus E-5 in very low light is simply not at all credible in your book, eh?

What a crock. You insist on being negative even when 99% of the people who have used or already have the camera seem to be quite happy with its performance.
No, it's not a crock. I insist on trying to get reliable accounts. Yes, I do put less weight to accounts of people who always have found nothing but incredibly great things to say about Olympus equipment *every single time*. Wether you want to put great weight and enthusiasm on that- it's up to you. And if you don't know Pris- just check the history at dpreview and make up your own mind- do your homework.

If you have read anything I have said in general about the EM1 you can hardly classify it as negative- I have said I believe this is the best camera Olympus has built in a long time- and I have sang praises for the E-330/420 so that can't possibly mean something negative, can it?

(BTW, neither Ming nor Robin have theirs yet, from what I understand reading their blogs. Both were using early production or final prototype test cameras for the articles. There might be some minor differences there too, although I doubt it.)
Robin *works for Olympus* now. Of course he has something good to show. In fact, the fact he has been one of the consistently enthusiastic for the brand *and now works for Olympus* makes his comment all the move valid.

Yeah, the E-M1 is just a slow pig with those old FT lenses. Why you'd be interested in one I have no idea. :-\

G
Wow, why would that be Godfrey? Maybe because as I have stated a few times I have an entire 4/3rds lens system still? Did you miss that?

Or why simply because it's as interesting to discuss as anything else *in particular* for those who are looking at this camera as their E-7?

And what does that matter, it's not like I have to justify anything. Of course, put words and intent on my mouth- I never said it was a slow pig with the lenses. I said I was interested to see what happens when it gets darker because (i) it's a common (very common) wedding working pro situation (ii) because people coming from an E-3/E-5 are going to notice that most likely (E-3/E-5 was rated to AF down to -2EV by Olympus, a stated in their very specs), (iii) because it follows from common sense that if a system as good in AF as the Nikon 1 system has this issue where it *completely ceases to use PDAF*, it's good to know whether the EM1 does that or not.

But apparently trying to find this conclusively or discussing it instead of blindly saying it's just better or as good as an E-5 seems like a big deal to you.

Tough.

- Ricardo
 
Last edited:

jonoslack

Active member
Wow, why would that be Godfrey? Maybe because as I have stated a few times I have an entire 4/3rds lens system still? Did you miss that?
Hi Ricardo
You are coming across as pretty negative . . . which is fine of course, but having the whole of the 43 lens lineup I would have thought that, in the face of positive reports by almost everyone (even if they aren't always apolcolyptically positive) would be enough for you to want to try one yourself and see what you think.

dPreview said they thought it wasn't as fast as the E5 . . . . and then when they compared it they said the E5 wasn't as fast as they remembered :chug:

You ain't going to get an E7 to go with your 90-250 . . . . but perhaps it's worth giving the E-M1 a go?

To be honest, I wouldn't give any serious credence to anyone else's opinion of a camera (for my personal use). I don't really think you would either.

Incidentally, I'd be much more interested in your opinion of the camera, than of your opinion of other people's opinion of the camera :)

All the best
 

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
I have been using a GX7 for a few days now. first impressions are:

excellent UI and grip feel; UI very customisable, except for front wheel. Very nice implementation of exp. comp.: press rear wheel, compensate. Fast and intuitive.

very nice video, and capable of long form (2.5 hours) using AVCHD. Vital for my work.

EVF good but not spectacular

MF implementation excellent; having magnified window and peaking (which window can be dragged anywhere on-screen, too)

electronic shutter, tho' limiting max. ISO to 3200, means completely silent operation; vital for my work

touch screen true boon for portrait shooting quickly (touch screen where you think eyes will be, and frame; works very quickly).

the 20/1.7 (third copy!) is still my favourite µ4/3rd's lens

menu system very deep, but I have reset it a few times to make sure I learn it, and I feel that once you set the camera up (there are nine Fn buttons, four hard and five soft, I think you won't need to menu dive very often

I like it, but will also have a look at the E-M1 when I can get hold of one
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Hi Ricardo
You are coming across as pretty negative . . . which is fine of course, but having the whole of the 43 lens lineup I would have thought that, in the face of positive reports by almost everyone (even if they aren't always apolcolyptically positive) would be enough for you to want to try one yourself and see what you think.
Jono, my experience so far is that there is a group of people to whom whatever X brand does is always good. I have found by my own experience that is not always the case. I usually come across as "very negative" exactly to that very set of people - it's not new. When I was commending the good things Is aw on the E-330/420 I never got such accusations, so it seems that unless one goes with the most positive appraisals, then it's a non issue. I don't go by that song.

I believe I have said the Em1 looks fantastic- best camera Olympus has done in a long time (and I say that because I found the EM5 nice on many levels but not its ergonomics).

Reading carefully you will note I am focusing on a very *very* specific feature and from one very specific context- the 4/3rds owner looking at the EM1 as "their E-7"- I even went as far as commenting I do not expect m4/3rd lenses to have a potential problem here.

There's nothing more to it really. The only thing on the bigger picture I see missing is pro-level weather sealed primes that are fast (say Olympus doing F1.2/F1.4's) but those will probably come over time, so I am not too concerned on that end plus at least there are some reasonably good primes in the system already.

dPreview said they thought it wasn't as fast as the E5 . . . . and then when they compared it they said the E5 wasn't as fast as they remembered :chug:

You ain't going to get an E7 to go with your 90-250 . . . . but perhaps it's worth giving the E-M1 a go?
As I have stated several times, I will check it out.

To be honest, I wouldn't give any serious credence to anyone else's opinion of a camera (for my personal use). I don't really think you would either.
In general, I don't. I am not sure what lead to that assumption about me :) However, that said, I do put some weight for example, in a review site that has specifically tested the conditions I am talking about and has a bit of a reputation doing a reasonable good job. I normally do not take those as 100% givens, but also as points of interest to investigate further (sort of like wikipedia).

Incidentally, I'd be much more interested in your opinion of the camera, than of your opinion of other people's opinion of the camera :)
But why? I am just such a negative sod! :) :)

All the best
No worries, I am not going to avoid checking the camera because of that. I am also not discarding the positive reports (but I do sure weight as I think appropriate).

I want everyone thinking "I am just being negative" to consider the context and history of the many superb claims made every single time a new model comes along. The pattern is so obvious by now that it's just worth to learn a bit from that.

- Ricardo
 
Top