Olympus OM-D E-M5, E-M1, E-M10 - Mk1, Mk2 & Mk3 Owners Thread

Sounds about right mike ,one thing I have learnt is unless it’s a really bright day shoot in shutter priority and set the speed higher than normal for a.v mode , be carefull using auto iso in a.v mode as it normally chooses. 1/640th sec as the speed which is to low for the 100-400 . These cameras and lenses. Buck all the ideas that I learnt with a DSLR . You have to work around what there capable of ,still not sure of shutterburst rate on the Olympus 10 as with the Panasonic you get better keepers at slow burst rates
 
Rosedalelad said:
Thanks Alf - that 14-42 looks a good size but how does it perform??
Click to expand...

I've not had a 14-42 but when I was looking, it was recommended that the Panasonic 12-32 was better. I've had 2 of these and they're great, very small, light and sharp. You'll lose some range obviously..

I added a Panny 20mm f1.7 to make my travel kit
 
damianmkv said:
I've not had a 14-42 but when I was looking, it was recommended that the Panasonic 12-32 was better. I've had 2 of these and they're great, very small, light and sharp. You'll lose some range obviously..

I added a Panny 20mm f1.7 to make my travel kit
Click to expand...

Very useful to know - Thanks
 
It seems a popular combo of lenses are two f2.8 versions 12-40mm & the 40-150mm......covering a good range into the minimum for wildlife. So, how many of you also have the 300mm f4 (all designated 'Pro') or perhaps the Panasonic 100-400mm for the (much) needed extra reach???

PS still looking into the EM1 MK2 ~ have I understood it correctly that like the C1 to C3 positions on the Canon dSLR the Oly can have a specific user setup for each of those C positions e.g. for BiF (continuous AF, 1/1000 shutter speed, exposure compensation +1.5.........etc)

PPS looking a firmware V2 they have added spot AF making easier(?) to focus on wildlife in the trees/shrubbery ~ anyone found this update has "done the business" and helped as described???
 
Last edited:
Box Brownie said:
It seems a popular combo of lenses are two f2.8 versions 12-40mm & the 40-150mm......covering a good range into the minimum for wildlife. So, how many of you also have the 300mm f4 (all designated 'Pro') or perhaps the Panasonic 100-400mm for the (much) needed extra reach???

PS still looking into the EM1 MK2 ~ have I understood it correctly that like the C1 to C3 positions on the Canon dSLR the Oly can have a specific user setup for each of those C positions e.g. for BiF (continuous AF, 1/1000 shutter speed, exposure compensation +1.5.........etc)

PPS looking a firmware V2 they have added spot AF making easier(?) to focus on wildlife in the trees/shrubbery ~ anyone found this update has "done the business" and helped as described???
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have the C settings right,

This is what you get with the latest firmware, i use the smallest focus point for insects

https://www.olympus-europa.com/site/en/c/cameras_support/downloads/e_m1_mark_ii_downloads.html
 
damianmkv said:
I've not had a 14-42 but when I was looking, it was recommended that the Panasonic 12-32 was better. I've had 2 of these and they're great, very small, light and sharp. You'll lose some range obviously..

I added a Panny 20mm f1.7 to make my travel kit
Click to expand...

I have the Panasonic 12-32mm and its very good for the size and price, even better when used with a Panasonic body so it can utilise the dual is
For my travel kit I intend to use it along with recent purchases of 15mm f1.7 and 25mm f1.4, pretty much covers all I photograph
 
tijuana taxi said:
I have the Panasonic 12-32mm and its very good for the size and price, even better when used with a Panasonic body so it can utilise the dual is
For my travel kit I intend to use it along with recent purchases of 15mm f1.7 and 25mm f1.4, pretty much covers all I photograph
Click to expand...

How do you like that 15mm? I'm still pondering, was going to wait and save to get the Oly 12-40, that lens would cover 90% of my shooting needs - but the Pana-Leica has always attracted me. So neat and tidy, and apparently one of the sharpest m4/3 lenses you can get.

That and something like the Sigma 30mm 1.4 would be a great combo
 
Cagey75 said:
How do you like that 15mm? I'm still pondering, was going to wait and save to get the Oly 12-40, that lens would cover 90% of my shooting needs - but the Pana-Leica has always attracted me. So neat and tidy, and apparently one of the sharpest m4/3 lenses you can get.

That and something like the Sigma 30mm 1.4 would be a great combo
Click to expand...

Only tried it out a few times, light is so harsh during this heatwave, but first impressions are it's excellent.
One of those lenses that seems to have great colour, hard to explain, but warm is the best I can manage and very sharp too
So impressed I bought the 25mm f1.4 too and that's equally good if not a tad better.

Never used the 12-40, my daughter has one and she seems to like it, but its quite a large lens .
Primarily bought the m/43 kit as a small light travel outfit and the 12-40 might defeat that object a bit.

Think the Pana Leica 12mm might be a lens too far at over a grand new, seriously considering the Oly 45mm though. Good reviews and even if it doesn't get used much won't break the bank, still undecided.
 
Last edited:
tijuana taxi said:
Only tried it out a few times, light is so harsh during this heatwave, but first impressions are it's excellent.
One of those lenses that seems to have great colour, hard to explain, but warm is the best I can manage and very sharp too
So impressed I bought the 25mm f1.4 too and that's equally good if not a tad better.

Never used the 12-40, my daughter has one and she seems to like it, quite a large lens though.
Primarily bought the m/43 kit as a small light travel outfit and the 12-40 might defeat that object a bit.
Click to expand...

Sounds good.

I've just put up a trade request thread in classified, my 25 1.7 plus cash for a 15 1.7 - see if anyone bites. I just sold a Samyang 12mm F2 with the intent of getting the 15mm, it would basically combine that and the 25mm, a saving of room and a little weight in the bag. If I had the extra money to buy the 12-40 I probably would go for it, I know it's a bit bulky and heavy, but not much more than a handful of primes. I have the 100-300 for reach, and also a Sigma 60mm for portraits.

The Samyang is a very nice lens, and MF is no trouble for me, but I found it a tad wide, I would rarely feel the need for 12mm, I think 14 - 16 would suit me better.
 
Last edited:
I say 16 btw as I'm also looking at the Sigma 16mm 1.4, bit of a beast though in size
 
Cagey75 said:
I say 16 btw as I'm also looking at the Sigma 16mm 1.4, bit of a beast though in size
Click to expand...

Can't imagine it being better than the 15mm, maybe one of those things you buy then always wish you had got your first choice
 
tijuana taxi said:
Can't imagine it being better than the 15mm, maybe one of those things you buy then always wish you had got your first choice
Click to expand...

It's certainly not as pretty, it's a bit of an ugly beast. The extra half stop of light would be useful but it's not enough to make a whole lot of difference, the extra 1mm width would be better perhaps
 
Cagey75 said:
Sounds good.

I've just put up a trade request thread in classified, my 25 1.7 plus cash for a 15 1.7 - see if anyone bites. I just sold a Samyang 12mm F2 with the intent of getting the 15mm, it would basically combine that and the 25mm, a saving of room and a little weight in the bag. If I had the extra money to buy the 12-40 I probably would go for it, I know it's a bit bulky and heavy, but not much more than a handful of primes. I have the 100-300 for reach, and also a Sigma 60mm for portraits.

The Samyang is a very nice lens, and MF is no trouble for me, but I found it a tad wide, I would rarely feel the need for 12mm, I think 14 - 16 would suit me better.
Click to expand...
12-40's a cracking lens. I've never considered it big or heavy, but then I shoot FF too ;)
 
GreenNinja67 said:
Just got out of the studio having had a go with my mate’s D850. I’ll post some comparisons later. The em5 mk2 with 12-40 pro and even the 40-150 cheap lens appears to have held its own

Just goes to show what I always say. It’s the lighting.
Click to expand...
I’ve always said this, the Olympus system does hold up well. I’ve not actually compared mine with my D850 but did compare it with the D750 before I swapped. I was most impressed with the EM5-II and 45mm (shooting stopped down) and there wasn’t a huge difference in quality and detail compared to the D750 and 70-200mm f2.8. Sure the difference was there if you looked for it, but certainly nowhere near the difference in price or difference in sensor size would have you think. To have to look for it in itself tells you everything. I’d like to try the D850 in a studio though, I bet the detail is crazy (assuming you have a lens capable of resolving the detail of course ;))
 
Bold statement: A lot of people who shoot full frame really do not need to be. I didn't, I shot with a D800E for almost 6yrs but found myself cropping a lot, just because I could - I also wasn't doing any pro work apart from the odd wedding or family gathering, nothing that a decent APSC or M43 camera couldn't manage [in fact, I shot 4 weddings using Nikon APSC before I went FF, and not a bother, even the old D200]

There's people ranting about tiny sensors on here [other threads, bot actually here - here] and it's laughable. You can tell it's people who've never even used an M43 camera, but their snobishness won't allow them to even see these cameras as being competitive. Camera snobbery, something I thought had died out years ago
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Bold statement: A lot of people who shoot full frame really do not need to be. I didn't, I shot with a D800E for almost 6yrs but found myself cropping a lot, just because I could - I also wasn't doing any pro work apart from the odd wedding or family gathering, nothing that a decent APSC or M43 camera couldn't manage [in fact, I shot 4 weddings using Nikon APSC before I went FF, and not a bother, even the old D200]

There's people ranting about tiny sensors on here [other threads, bot actually here - here] and it's laughable. You can tell it's people who've never even used an M43 camera, but their snobishness won't allow them to even see these cameras as being competitive. Camera snobbery, something I thought had died out years ago
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on what you’re shooting tbh. There’s no doubt that the cropability, malleability in PP due to increased DR, better noise handling and shallow depth of field make make FF worth having for me, but many folk certainly underestimate m4/3.
 
Cagey75 said:
Bold statement: A lot of people who shoot full frame really do not need to be. I didn't, I shot with a D800E for almost 6yrs but found myself cropping a lot, just because I could - I also wasn't doing any pro work apart from the odd wedding or family gathering, nothing that a decent APSC or M43 camera couldn't manage [in fact, I shot 4 weddings using Nikon APSC before I went FF, and not a bother, even the old D200]

There's people ranting about tiny sensors on here [other threads, bot actually here - here] and it's laughable. You can tell it's people who've never even used an M43 camera, but their snobishness won't allow them to even see these cameras as being competitive. Camera snobbery, something I thought had died out years ago
Click to expand...

Seeing the reviews and actual files I think the sensor developments have been immensely impressive.................as for the EM1 Mk2 which I have been reading up on I found some example raw files to just check my LR 6.12 would 'read' them and the ISO 1000 the noise at 100% viewing reminds me of the very fine grain on some of the colour film back in the day. NB I have yet to run some LR PP on it to see how well it 'develops'.

So snobbery I hope not but IMO all down to the camera in hand for the job that is why I am rethinking what I need and/or will keep in my kit???
 
Rise above the snobbery, I was Nikon through and through for years. Spent an absolute fortune on lens from Macro to 600 f4 and 500 f4...F5 (Remember those old film things we used to use), I have just sold my D3X kit with a host of lenses to MPB about 2 months ago...I have bought an Olympus EM1, 12-40 Pro, a 40-150Pro, 17mm 1.8 and a Samyang 7.5mm I could not be happier with the quality, ease of use, the weight difference is just silly.....I now laugh at all those SLR owners...unless your a Pro who wants to blow the pics to the size of a house, I really can't see why you would ever want to go down that SLR route anymore. Im really thinking that WE should be the snobs...I can carry my kit around all day, Im quieter, I can remotely fire off my shutter from my phone...Can you??? one happy snapper!!!
 
It will always depend on what you shoot and the compromises you're prepared to make. I shot Nikon for a few years ...too heavy..I went m43 ( e-m10 -> e-m1 ) and loved it with many lenses, such as samyang FE, 12-40 f2.8, 40-150 pro + TC, sigma 30 f1.4, and many many others over the years.

Last year I jumped shipped back to Nikon. My e-m1.1 wasn't cutting the mustard and the cost to jump to the 1.2 was more than changing systems..

So...is Nikon the be all and end all ? No. I have a d500 and I must be crap but I don't see it being as amazing as they'd have you believe. Yes, I miss the lightweight set up ( I have a e-m10 mk2 for travel ) and I wish the firmware Olympus has released was there from the start and perhaps I'd be there full time

Oh, and I agree about the tech. Nikon should hurl rocks at their tech department if they think Snapbridge is acceptable. It's plop. Olympus works, off the bat.
 
There will always be snobbery, there always has been on forums like this. Seen so much of it over the years. Now it's sensor size snobbery, before it was non 'pro' WR body snobbery, or make snobbery - the whole borefest Nikon V Canon era - before M43 got picked on FF users would sneer at APSC - all the while in denial that they too are using crop sensors according to MF shooters

I've used FF, APSC and M43 - I can judge a hell of a lot better than those wannabe elitists that have only ever used FF. Let them carry the bulk, let them miss out on glorious modern EVFs, let them make everyone jump when the clatter of their stupidly loud shutter bangs, let them stand out like sore thumbs when using cameras bigger than their heads when out 'casually' shooting in the park :LOL:
 
I've found the 14-42 to be a good lens for my needs, small compact and it works. It takes some nice images.
Do I want to zoom into pixel size in post? No not really. It's a lens that is always on my camera, the camera that I can fit in my pocket of my leather jacket (Not in this weather tho).
It's good in low light, you gain f stops from 5 axis image stab. It's just great as far as I'm concerned.
No qualms about recommending it.
A good size 35mm equiv 28-84 fov, so wide angle to portrait.
 
Last edited:
Pete B said:
I've found the 14-42 to be a good lens for my needs, small compact and it works. It takes some nice images.
Do I want to zoom into pixel size in post? No not really. It's a lens that is always on my camera, the camera that I can fit in my pocket of my leather jacket (Not in this weather tho).
It's good in low light, you gain f stops from 5 axis image stab. It's just great as far as I'm concerned.
No qualms about recommending it.
A good size 35mm equiv 28-84 fov, so wide angle to portrait.
Click to expand...


Absolutely nothing wrong with kit lenses. The reason we upgrade from them is more to do with low light performance , weather sealing and build quality. Not so much sharpness, though that generally comes as a given with the better glass.
 
Super mike I might look at one of those lenses next year ,currently thinking about a 100-300 for the em 10 ii for the wife she loves the system . No Keith not got the funds available yet LOL
 
As expected the 850 is more detailed and with more natural skin tones and whiter whites ( maybe that's pp ? ) IMO but there's not a massive difference
 
Yes probably difference in PP. The 85mm needed micro focus adjusting to so we use it in MF. Not something you have to put up with in M43.

Even happier now with the Olympus.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
So, comparisons.
Edited the Olympus file in LR but the D850 file was edited in Adobe RAW converter and then saved as TIFF and a little bit more in LR as y LR cannot read the D850's NEF files.


D850

Danny Nikon D850 by Terence Rees, on Flickr



EM5MK2

Danny - Olympus EM5MK2 by Terence Rees, on Flickr


An excellent day's shooting with a good mate who's soon to be off to Australia for a year.
Click to expand...

Makes a valid point that with good cameracraft a worthy image results...........though plus that the PP is what can and does yield the final result. IMO either of the above would be seen by the subject/recipient as a good portrait.
 
mikew said:
Stuck in the garden untill 10-30 as they have the road closed for a charity run so a couple more

P7220146 by electric.mike, on Flickr

P7220149 by electric.mike, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Nice macro work :)

I note you mentioned using flash.......have you taken any insects in flight not using flash? If so how did the AF perform and as such was it C-AF or S-AF ???
 
Box Brownie said:
Nice macro work :)

I note you mentioned using flash.......have you taken any insects in flight not using flash? If so how did the AF perform and as such was it C-AF or S-AF ???
Click to expand...

Thanks, if ime not using flash i would be using the 40-150 f2.8 and TC, up to now i have found the best way is to find something on the same focus plane rather than try to focus on the subjet, i would be using the EM1MK11 so its often C-AF, the example below was done like that.

P6270007 by electric.mike, on Flickr
 
New to this thread, almost too much information to read!

My main camera is a Nikon D800 which I'm very happy with. I own 7 f-mount lenses so am not looking to convert to M43 or Olympus for the majority of the shooting. However, I am very tempted to have a little walk about camera for when I am out and about. Okay, I could use my D800 and 24-70 f/2.8 but it's a little over the top to take when I just go out in London to see friends etc. I really like the look of the OM-D E-M10, from a physical stand point. I reminds me a lot of my Mother's old OM-1 from the 60's which although I now own, I have never used. I like that classic silver body with the pentaprism area which doesn't feature so much with other brands.

My question is, given a typical walk around every day camera, is the mk3 worth it over the mk2 and the mk1? I can pick up a used mk1 for dirt cheap, put a little f/1.8 prime on it and have the perfect camera. Does the mk2 improve on this significantly? I'm fairly sure the mk3 isn't for me as the raised price isn't worth it for what I wish to use it for.

Any recommendations greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Eyon said:
New to this thread, almost too much information to read!

My main camera is a Nikon D800 which I'm very happy with. I own 7 f-mount lenses so am not looking to convert to M43 or Olympus for the majority of the shooting. However, I am very tempted to have a little walk about camera for when I am out and about. Okay, I could use my D800 and 24-70 f/2.8 but it's a little over the top to take when I just go out in London to see friends etc. I really like the look of the OM-D E-M10, from a physical stand point. I reminds me a lot of my Mother's old OM-1 which although I own, I have never used. I like that classic silver body with the pentaprism area which doesn't feature so much with other brands.

My question is, given a typical walk around every day camera, is the mk3 worth it over the mk2 and the mk1? I can pick up a used mk1 for dirt cheap, put a little f/1.8 prime on it and have the perfect camera. Does the mk2 improve on this significantly? I'm fairly sure the mk3 isn't for me as the raised price isn't worth it for what I wish to use it for.

Any recommendations greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

My thoughts too - I'm all ears :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top