Olympus E-M1 previews

Looks like a reat camera and I really like what Olympus and the m43 consortium are doing in regards ot lenses and sensors. I have the epm-2 and it is great to have such a tiny camera that gives better images than my D90 and any canon crop sensor etc. The QE of the new Olympus sensors is a level above eve Nikon's and Sony's designs, if the same tech was used in the D800 there would be something like an extra stop of light performance and DR, which is interesting because it is a Sony sensor.



However, I think Olympus really need to let go of the 4/3rds range and try and update all those old lenses to be M4/3 compliant. It is a bizzare mix of setups, quite confusing. I am a technohead but I get confused sometimes that there are 2 separate system with incompatible lenses both called 4/3rds that have the same image circle.

M43 has a great set of lenses, just missing some more pro lenses that are found in the old 4/3 range. The E-M1 will be a strange beast when you mix 4/3 and M4/3 lenses and get different behaviors dependent on what type of lens you use.
 
al4x said:
the more i see about this the less i want to put much into dslr as a beginner
Click to expand...

I'm not keen on the aspect ratio. Much prefer 3:2, and also would prefer if the sensor was APSC. Aside from that the Olympus system is pretty spectacular imo. Waiting for Sony using the best of Olympus tech, and putting it behind a 35mm sensor.
 
42zx said:
£1300 body only though! You can get a full frame camera for that.
Click to expand...

yeah its not for me yet, but i wont be putting any big purchases into anything for dslr,

ill get my first cam..60D, macro lens, nifty 50 and one more but thats it, i dont want to buy something mid-high end on for a year later it to be obsolete (ok not obsolete, but no longer desirable)

sony make nice ergonomic bodies, im hoping for something there
 
It's a great camera but DSLR's aren't going anywhere. They are different tools. Sensor is significantly smaller than a full frame and it's going to take years to develop a family of lenses (with multiple revisions) like Canon and Nikon have.
 
Genoma said:
It's a great camera but DSLR's aren't going anywhere. They are different tools. Sensor is significantly smaller than a full frame and it's going to take years to develop a family of lenses (with multiple revisions) like Canon and Nikon have.
Click to expand...

the annoying thing for me is that if i was getting into this one - two years from now im pretty sure i would be looking at this exclusively the way it is going
 
An Exception said:
I'm not keen on the aspect ratio. Much prefer 3:2, and also would prefer if the sensor was APSC. Aside from that the Olympus system is pretty spectacular imo. Waiting for Sony using the best of Olympus tech, and putting it behind a 35mm sensor.
Click to expand...

The 4:3 is not ideal but nothing stops you cropping that way, I do that with my m43 images. It does make composition a little awkward, it would be nice to have an option to shade out the top and bottom if the viewfinder/screen to visualize a 3:2 crop better. On the plus side it gives more cropping options in post. It is a bit like some of the 6x6" medium format square films, you do the cropping afterwards.


The sensor size is about right for me, nice small lenses, good reach but big enough to still perform well, e.g. they out perform the larger Canon crop sensors. I know you want a bigger sensor for shallow DoF but others like the smaller sensor for smaller lenses, especially when they get longer. There are plenty of fast primes for m43 so that helps DoF to some extent.

The way I see it if you want wafer thin DoF you want fats primes on a FF sensor, if you want the big sensor for other reasons (resolution, low light) then you should also get the FF camera. Mirror-less really shines when things are really small and you want to go light. As I said before, my E-pm2 is my pocket point and shoot camera with APS-C DSLR image quality.

I think what you want is the Sony RX1:D
 
Genoma said:
It's a great camera but DSLR's aren't going anywhere. They are different tools. Sensor is significantly smaller than a full frame and it's going to take years to develop a family of lenses (with multiple revisions) like Canon and Nikon have.
Click to expand...

Have you looked at the m43 line up, it is very extensive now since both Olympus, Panasonic and Sigma + other 3rd party make lenses for it.

You have these m43 lenses:


Olympus M.Zuiko 12mm f/2 ED
Olympus M.Zuiko 15mm f/8
Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8
Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm f/2.8
Olympus M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 ED
Olympus M.Zuiko 60mm f/2.8 Macro
Olympus M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8
Olympus M.Zuiko 9-18mm f/4-5.6 ED
Olympus M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO
Olympus M.Zuiko 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3
Olympus M.Zuiko 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 II R
Olympus M.Zuiko 14-150mm f/4-5.6 ED
Olympus M.Zuiko 40-150mm f/4-5.6 ED R
Olympus M.Zuiko 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 ED
Olympus M.Zuiko 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 ED II

Lumix GX 12-35mm f/2.8 ASPH
Lumix G Vario 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6
Lumix G Vario 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 II
Lumix G Vario 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH PZ X
Lumix G Vario 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6
Lumix G Vario HD 14-140mm f/4-5.8 ASPH Mega OIS
Lumix G Vario 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH Power OIS
Lumix G 35-100mm f/2.8
Lumix G Vario 45-150mm f/4-5.6
Lumix G Vario PZ 45-175mm f/4-5.6 ASPH Power OIS
Lumix G Vario 45-200mm f/4-5.6 Mega OIS
Lumix G Vario 100-300mm f/4-5.6 Mega OIS
Lumix G Fisheye 8mm f/3.5
3D Lumix G 12.5mm f/12
Lumix G 14mm f/2.5
Lumix G 20mm f/1.7 ASPH
Lumix G 20mm f/1.7 ASPH II
Leica DG Summilux 25mm f/1.4 ASPH
Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 ASPH Mega OIS
Lumix G Vario 7-14mm f/4 ASPH

To come:
Leica 42.5mm f/1.2
150mm f/2.8
plus many more


and the older 4/3 lenses:
ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 7-14mm 1:4.0 Lens
ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 8mm 1:3.5 Fisheye Lens
ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 9-18mm f4-5.6 Lens
ZUIKO DIGITAL 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 Lens
ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-50mm f3.5-6.3 Lens
ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 Lens
ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 14-35mm f2.0 Lens
ED 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 Lens
ZUIKO DIGITAL 14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5 Lens
ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 18-180mm 1:3.5-6.3 Lens
ZUIKO DIGITAL 25mm f2.8 Pancake Lens
ZUIKO DIGITAL 35mm 1:3.5 Macro Lens
ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 35-100mm 1:2.0 Lens
ED 40-150mm 1:4.0-5.6 Lens
ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Lens
ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 Lens
ED 70-300mm 1:4.0-5.6 Lens £321.40
ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 90-250mm 1:2.8 Lens
ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 150mm 1:2.0 Lens
ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm 1:2.8 Lens
ZUIKO DIGITAL 14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5 II Lens
EC-14 1.4x Teleconverter
EC-20 2x Teleconverter


Plus many 3rds party, look here http://hazeghi.org/mft-lenses.html


Hardly particularly limited at the moment....
 
D.P. said:
I think what you want is the Sony RX1:D
Click to expand...

Here is my pie in the sky wish list.

- Sony RX1 body/form factor
- Built in nice big EVF or maybe external EVF
- Olympus contrast detect AF like below.
- Stabilisation like below.
- Interchangeable fast prime lenses - new mount or E mount (if it can work) or A mount.
Personally I would like to see a new mount that allows the lens to get as close to the sensor as possible to reduce lens complexity and size. But to begin with it would be nice to have a hybrid mount in order to use A mount lenses until new lenses are released.
 
My E-pm2 has the sme contrast detect AF as the OM-D. It is OK, not an issue for landscape work but the continuous AF sucks. The Nikon 1 is light years ahead in AF terms. Looks Like the E-M1 is using similar technology to the Nikon 1 with on-sensor PDAF so that might make for a meaningful progress but is yet to be seen. The Canon M has on-sensor PDAF and is very slow compared to the Nikon 1, even slower than the CDAF of thee Olympus cameras so using phase detection doesn't resolve the issue completely without appropriate engineering.

And contrast detection will never work well for AF-C because contrast based approaches don't indicate focus direction or distance information - it just constantly changes focus until the focus with the highest contrast is reached, going forwards and backwards to find which was to go. PDAF sensor detect that the focus point is say 20m away and since the lens is currently focused to 5m away the lens needs to jump 15m forwards.



For stabilization, it works well for normal length lenses but performance degrades with longer lenses. Ideally you have both.With an Olympus you can do this by buying Panasonic lenses for the tele end because panny lenses have optical stabilization, for the shorter lenses you can go with either because they are both similar. In theory the 5-axis stabilization can do more but in practice most image movement comes form the 2-axis rotation (pitch and yaw) - e.g. witha long lens you rotate the lens 2 degrees to the left and the whole image races across the sensor, but 2 degree roll rotation doesn't make such an impact.
 
Last edited:
Are you sure it has the same AF performance as the higher end Olympus's? From the below review, the E-M5 is on par with D7000 for static af. I've also heard that the Nikon 1 is very good also, but slows right down in low light yet the Olympus stays snappy.

"As far as focusing speeds are concerned, the OM-D E-M5 is at least as fast as the D7000, if not faster (note that this also depends on the lens being used)."
http://www.photographyblog.com/articles/head_to_head_review_olympus_om-d_e-m5_v_nikon_d7000/

Obviously it's a different story for continuos focus, but you can always have a hybrid af system (on sensor phase).

For long lenses you could just use standard optical stabilisation, and the camera's firmware could automatically detect and disable the 5 axis stuff when it needs to.
 
Last edited:
Pretty sure it is the exact same AF system, same sensor with the same ASIC running the same algorithms. The only internal difference is the stabilization, which is a more basic 3 or 4 axis system. The OMD really only add a way better body and viewfinder.


As I said for static scenes I find he E-pm2 perfectly find, I could tell if my D90 is faster or not, very much lenses dependent here. My Wife's D7000 is a lot faster than my D90 so I would be surprised if the OMD is faster than the D7000 for static shooting. I also find that my E-PM2 is more likely to struggle if there is fog or low contrast scenes.
I have tested the OMD against the Nikon1 and the Nikon 1 was definitely much faster and at least as fast as my D90.

With continuous AF there is just no comparison because, Nikon 1 is way faster. If the Olympus E-M1 has a continuous AF as good as the Nikon 1 then there is much less issue.



What is nice when using my E-pm2 is the touch screen allows me to quickly focus anywhere although not super precise. Also the face detection is very fast and very accurate. For people shooting I just let the camera select. This wont work if you have very thin DoF when you want the focus on the eyes but works well for me when using it as a P&S.
 
D.P. said:
Pretty sure it is the exact same AF system, same sensor with the same ASIC running the same algorithms. The only internal difference is the stabilization, which is a more basic 3 or 4 axis system. The OMD really only add a way better body and viewfinder.
Click to expand...

Well according to this guy the E-M5 had the worlds fasted AF: "E-M1 now employs both contrast detect AF that originally provided E-M5 with world’s fastest AF when used together with M.Zuiko micro Four Thirds lenses, as well as new on-chip Phase Detect AF built on the image sensor for use with Four Thirds DSLR lenses. The Phase-Detect AF will also greatly improve the Continuous AF with tracking."

http://robinwong.blogspot.co.uk/

But then again he could be wong...

Also the stabilisation seems to be improved/incredible, in fact the whole system is incredible really.

Waiting on full frame nex though, which is rumoured to be released October...
 
Prett sure he is wrong. At the most any m43 system is like focusing an entry-to mid-end DSLR in terms of speed when in single mode, in continuous there isn't even a comparison to make.

I payed around with both my ad90 and e-pm2 last night, D90 was definitely faster and the D90 is not fats at all.

Also as Thom Hogan says (probably the simgle most trustsed pro put. There for anything mirrorless and mikon related) http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/olympus-moves-upscale-and.html
in your vehicle, because you heard CLICK, CLICK, buzz, buzz, beep, CLICK. (If that was too obscure for you, the first two clicks were the Nikon DSLR shooters, the rest was the E-M5 shooter trying to get focus before his shot was made
Click to expand...
 
But that is a stupid test best the Canon ES M is THE slowest focusing camera there is!

Compare say the Nikon 1 with E-M5

http://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/a...-camera-reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-review.html
The Nikon 1 cameras will outperform the E-M5 on focus overall. True DSLRs will, to. But not many other cameras can match the E-M5's performance, not even the E-M5's not-so-great continuous autofocus (C-AF).

...
Autofocus: Olympus' claim is that the E-M5 is the fastest autofocus camera (there are specifics to their claim, such as the lens used). If your subject is static and you're in good light, they're certainly right up there with the best autofocus systems. In those conditions the system is very fast to lock on and very accurate. Even in low light (1/4 second, f/2.8, ISO 200) the system is darned fast, better than many DSLRs. I tend to not quibble on small differences, and I don't believe that any review site has managed to come up with a repeatable, reliable test that can provide numerical comparisons that are accurate. Thus, my conclusion for single servo focus in reasonable conditions is that the E-M5 is DSLR-like, and towards the top of that DSLR heap. In low light single focus on static subject tests, the E-M5 beats my D3200 pretty much every time.

Unfortunately, it all goes downhill from there. If your subject is moving, things change. If it's moving quickly towards or away from you, the E-M5 will be slower than most DSLRs, and depending upon the speed of the subject, far less precise. More often than not, while the E-M5 will temporarily focus on a moving subject, continued motion tends to confuse it and focus wanders while trying to re-find focus. That wandering doesn't help, which in turns makes it wander more. Slow moving subjects are generally okay, though the camera may hunt around a bit while trying to follow focus. Fast moving subjects generally never get to focus confirmation without you supplying some help (pre-focusing, for example).

Go one more step and try to track focus with continuous shooting and everything completely falls apart. More often than not I see back focus in numerous continuous shooting sessions, meaning that the camera is losing the subject and finding the background to lock onto. Note also that at 9 fps, focus is fixed at the point of the first frame, despite the camera pretending to try to track focus during the sequence.

All of which makes the E-M5 a great static shooter but not so great as an action shooter. Not that you can't find techniques to help you get in-focus action, but you can't trust the camera in those situations: you need to step in and help. Always.
Click to expand...


If the new E-M1 shares the Nikon1 performance with its PDAF then that will be great but it seems the m/43 lenses are not designed for phase detection and so the camera will remain a contrast based AF system for m/43 lenses in static situations. All Nikon 1 lenses use the hybrid contrast and phase detection in all modes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom