Menu
What's new
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!

Is it worth €1,999?

S

saintsteve

Member
Like boxers or briefs, it depends. I paid $1750. for it when it first came out and it more than paid for itself on its first outing, the Boston Marathon.
Worth its weight in gold for me.
 
k-hawinkler

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Elderly said:
Ah Ha! Now I understand - you want MY pictures of my Mk2 :grin:


but maybe this should have gone into the 'Small Sensor Cameras' lounge as it was snapped on my 'phone :angel::ROTFL:
Click to expand...

Thanks Ian. That's a very nice setup you have.
What's the tripod and head? I don't recognize that.
 
N

neilvan

Well-known member
It was definitely worth it for me, the AF ability with the older 4/3 lenses is far, far better than the original E-M1.
 
Last edited:
Elderly

Elderly

Well-known member
Elderly said:
So many improvements over the old version with just one apparent downside (so far) -
On my Mk1, I had the single autofocus box set to the smallest size,
but on the Mk2 the default box is larger and I can't seem to make it smaller :banghead:.
Click to expand...
Hmmmmmmm No longer having the MK1, I can't directly compare, but I don't think that the smallest focus box size on the Mk2 (set at 14x magnification as K-H's kind instruction) is as small as the smallest available on the MK1.

The other thing that I don't like (I hope it will become okay with habit) is the reverse pivot point of the function lever from the MK1, and the lever's VERY strange behaviour for changing ISO and WB.

On the MK1 when the function lever was in position 2, the front dial changed the ISO and the rear dial the WB
(or vice versa if you prefer),
but on the Mk2 with the function lever in position 2, turning the front dial FIRST, changes the ISO,
but then the rear dial also changes the ISO!

You have to half press the shutter release and then turn the rear dial FIRST, to change the WB
(and then the front dial also changes the WB).


So - when you first turn the camera on, the front dial initiates the ISO change AND, the rear dial mirrors it.

OR

When you first turn the camera on, the rear dial initiates the WB change AND, the front dial mirrors it.

Or am I being stupid?:eek:
 
k-hawinkler

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Elderly said:
Hmmmmmmm No longer having the MK1, I can't directly compare, but I don't think that the smallest focus box size on the Mk2 (set at 14x magnification as K-H's kind instruction) is as small as the smallest available on the MK1.

The other thing that I don't like (I hope it will become okay with habit) is the reverse pivot point of the function lever from the MK1, and the lever's VERY strange behaviour for changing ISO and WB.

On the MK1 when the function lever was in position 2, the front dial changed the ISO and the rear dial the WB
(or vice versa if you prefer),
but on the Mk2 with the function lever in position 2, turning the front dial FIRST, changes the ISO,
but then the rear dial also changes the ISO!

You have to half press the shutter release and then turn the rear dial FIRST, to change the WB
(and then the front dial also changes the WB).


So - when you first turn the camera on, the front dial initiates the ISO change AND, the rear dial mirrors it.

OR

When you first turn the camera on, the rear dial initiates the WB change AND, the front dial mirrors it.

Or am I being stupid?:eek:
Click to expand...
To your first point Ian. I have all 4 OM-D cameras and have shot the two E-M1 Mark I and Mark II cameras side by side with smallest autofocus box. The Mark II is considerably more precise when focusing on a narrow subject with foreground and background distractions. The Mark II nailed the shot reliably every time, whereas the Mark I didn't, same situation, same 300/4 Pro lens.

I noticed the other difference as well but forgot whether I reprogrammed my brain or the camera. It has been some time since I used my Olympus gear, now that I have focused on the even more advanced Sony A9 with much faster electronic shutter speed.

The difference being rolling shutter effects when shooting Hummingbirds in Flight (HIF). With the A9 rolling shutter effects are hardly noticeable, whereas with the E-M1 Mark II they are still so prevalent that I am forced to use the mechanical shutter instead. There goes the silent shooting. :facesmack:
 
Elderly

Elderly

Well-known member
k-hawinkler said:
This is how you control the single autofocus box size.
Assign to one button magnification {toggle).
Once in magnification you can dial between 1x and 14x, or something like it.
Pick the maximum magnification.
Then toggle out of magnification altogether.
Voila, you have now a smaller autofocus box.
It retains its size even when not in magnification.
Problem solved. :grin:
Click to expand...
I've recently posted in the 'Peculiarities' thread (I couldn't find this post at the time :facesmack:), the fact that I THINK that the smaller focus box is an illusion !!!!
 
iiiNelson

iiiNelson

Well-known member
k-hawinkler said:
A new camera release must be around the corner... :LOL:
Click to expand...
I believe the intent of Olympus is to have their premium camera ready to show at Photokina 2019 I heard. Who knows if there will also be a EM5 and EM1 replacement then as well.

I do wonder if Panasonic is trying to further distance themselves from the lower end of the Micro 4/3 market. It seems like their premium cameras are their biggest hits.
 
k-hawinkler

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Knorp said:
I'd think it's because they've nothing else to offer and trying desperately to extend the life-cycle of the current line-up.
But hey - I could be wrong though ... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Well your view is consistent with the statement some time ago by some Olympus managers that they were extending the time between major camera releases and not shortening it IIRC. :banghead:

Given the current circumstances that seems to be a self-defeating strategy. :thumbdown:
 
Knorp

Knorp

Well-known member
k-hawinkler said:
Well your view is consistent with the statement some time ago by some Olympus managers that they were extending the time between major camera releases and not shortening it IIRC. :banghead:

Given the current circumstances that seems to be a self-defeating strategy. :thumbdown:
Click to expand...
Yes indeed, that's true - I do remember such a statement from a while back.
But then we should give them some credit for it, no ?
 
iiiNelson

iiiNelson

Well-known member
k-hawinkler said:
Well your view is consistent with the statement some time ago by some Olympus managers that they were extending the time between major camera releases and not shortening it IIRC. :banghead:

Given the current circumstances that seems to be a self-defeating strategy. :thumbdown:
Click to expand...
Yeah they announced a while back they were skipping Photokina 2018 altogether. I hope that’s not a sign they’re in a far worse place financially than they’re admitting. Could be the case given Panasonic is “adding” a new system that enables backwards compatibility and Olympus isn’t joining into the effort. Maybe it’s just me or the US market but I think more people think of the GH line when it comes to Micro 4/3 than the OM-D line these days. I also feel like people think of Fuji when it comes to retro looking cameras. Oh well I hope that isn’t the case that they’re in a terrible spot financially but it makes you wonder.
 
Jorgen Udvang

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
iiiNelson said:
Yeah they announced a while back they were skipping Photokina 2018 altogether. I hope that’s not a sign they’re in a far worse place financially than they’re admitting. Could be the case given Panasonic is “adding” a new system that enables backwards compatibility and Olympus isn’t joining into the effort. Maybe it’s just me or the US market but I think more people think of the GH line when it comes to Micro 4/3 than the OM-D line these days. I also feel like people think of Fuji when it comes to retro looking cameras. Oh well I hope that isn’t the case that they’re in a terrible spot financially but it makes you wonder.
Click to expand...
If E-M1 had a "standardised" DSLR user interface, I would have been an Olympus user now. Unfortunately, I think that they allienated many potential users by insisting on a retro and rather chaotic user interface. They got away with it with the E-M5, a charming camera for hobbyists, but the E-M1 is supposed to be a work tool, and for anyone coming from a traditional SLR camera other than an OM-1 or 2, it lacks the logic needed for a fluent workflow, and I say this as an OM-1 user through 30 years. Panasonic, a company with no tradition for stills cameras, made the smart decission and went for a conservative user interface. I don't think Panasonic makes many more cameras than Olympus, but they have so many legs to stand on and their models also play together with their video gear, a totally different situation.

If a new top model is to materialise from Olympus, I sincerely hope that they have fixed it. I'll be interested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top