Olympus OM-D E-M5, E-M1, E-M10 & Mark 2 Owners Thread

Messages
13,473
Edit My Images
No
I haven’t but I have had my hands on a prototype when I joined Olympus for a photo walk. I was handed one that a journalist would have used and could have spent the whole photowalk setting it up.

I preferred the button position for back button focusing. Less of a reach for me. Thought the inbuilt ND filters were fun. I didn’t get chance to try it out for action, which is where it would excel.

I can’t see me getting one but I did register for further info and haven’t heard from them yet.
I was interested in the ND filters but after reading about it it’s just software that blends several shots to give the impression of a slow shutter. I’m not sure how that’ll work in the real world?
 
Messages
1,298
Edit My Images
Yes
I was interested in the ND filters but after reading about it it’s just software that blends several shots to give the impression of a slow shutter. I’m not sure how that’ll work in the real world?
Oh that’s interesting. I did try it out (shared previously in this thread) and couldn’t tell the difference, but perhaps you would with some shots.

I was thinking they might be useful if for example you were in bright light and trying to pan, but maybe they wouldn’t work in this scenario then?
 
Messages
13,473
Edit My Images
No
Oh that’s interesting. I did try it out (shared previously in this thread) and couldn’t tell the difference, but perhaps you would with some shots.

I was thinking they might be useful if for example you were in bright light and trying to pan, but maybe they wouldn’t work in this scenario then?
Apparently it's a variation on their live composite. We'll have to wait for some real world reviews but my guess is that it will only be suitable for when the camera is static. Would be great if it worked just like having filters though, I often need ND filters for slow shutter panning.
 
Messages
10,699
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Gordon Laing has put up his as-per-usual extensively in-depth review of the X


Unlike other reviewers he's not so obsessed with sensor size and is generally very impressed with the camera. He shows off an 8 second hand held no leaning against anything image - pin sharp. He also gives it a right good weather sealed test without any issues. Later in the video he pits it against an A9 to show ISO performance, and it's actually impressive in that up to 6400, though the Sony is clearly better - it's not as wide a gap as some might imagine.
 
Messages
13,473
Edit My Images
No
Been doing some more reading up on the EM1-II and it seems like some find the shutter button too sensitive and fire off more shots than intended, has anyone on here found this compared to other Olympus bodies?
 
Messages
928
Name
Huw
Edit My Images
No
Been doing some more reading up on the EM1-II and it seems like some find the shutter button too sensitive and fire off more shots than intended, has anyone on here found this compared to other Olympus bodies?
Nah it's fine, certainly not anywhere near the hair trigger that the G9 has (and I've got used to that too).
 
Messages
760
Name
Maarten
Edit My Images
Yes
Been doing some more reading up on the EM1-II and it seems like some find the shutter button too sensitive and fire off more shots than intended, has anyone on here found this compared to other Olympus bodies?
You mean when using Single drive or Sequential Low / Sequential High? When in Sequential Low I usually trigger at least 2 frames; it's difficult to only trigger a single frame but it doesn't bother me. Single drive only triggers a single frame.
 
Messages
13,473
Edit My Images
No
Anyone own or used the Panasonic Leica 100-400mm, if so what's the image quality like compared to other lenses that you've used?
 
Messages
1,165
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
I find the OMD MK II shutter the worst I have ever come across with very little feel and it's very easy to take a shot when I did not want to and of cause it worse with gloves on .
I hope the EMX 1 is better but doubt it that said it would not stop me getting one .
Rob.
 
Messages
261
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
@snerkler

re: EM1.2 shutter, I find it no more or less sensitive than my former Nikon D3300, very easy to rest your finger on the button to focus etc. and not take an accidental shot. In continuous mode it's not so easy to take just one picture, but then my Nikon shot at 5fps and I shoot the EM1.2 at 10fps.

re: Panasonic 100-400mm, I bought one recently and at the moment I'm hugely underwhelmed by the image quality, I find stopping it down an absolute must, but then it's been very dull and grey lately and the opportunity to use it in bright sunlight hasn't presented itself. The first race of the season for me is Sunday week, 17th Feb, I intend to take the 100-400 and see what it can do and hope there's some sunshine around that day.
 
Messages
8,338
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyone own or used the Panasonic Leica 100-400mm, if so what's the image quality like compared to other lenses that you've used?
I use the 100-400.
Have previously used sigma 150-600c and lumix 100-300.
I think the 100-400 Is a great lens.
I've never felt it wasn't as good as any of the others I've had, I think it's definitely better.
 
Messages
13,473
Edit My Images
No
@snerkler

re: EM1.2 shutter, I find it no more or less sensitive than my former Nikon D3300, very easy to rest your finger on the button to focus etc. and not take an accidental shot. In continuous mode it's not so easy to take just one picture, but then my Nikon shot at 5fps and I shoot the EM1.2 at 10fps.

re: Panasonic 100-400mm, I bought one recently and at the moment I'm hugely underwhelmed by the image quality, I find stopping it down an absolute must, but then it's been very dull and grey lately and the opportunity to use it in bright sunlight hasn't presented itself. The first race of the season for me is Sunday week, 17th Feb, I intend to take the 100-400 and see what it can do and hope there's some sunshine around that day.
Thanks for the info. That's not great to hear about the 100-400mm, I've just gone and ordered one :facepalm: Reviews all seem to be pretty positive. That being said, the only tele I've had that I've been happy to shoot wide open is the 70-200mm f2.8. The Tamron 150-600mm (which I'm hoping to replace with the Panny 100-400mm) isn't great wide open, and/or past 550mm, but as long as I've kept it at or below 550m and f8 I've been very happy with the results. Would you say the Panny 100-400mm is better or worse than the Panny 100-300mm or Olly 75-300mm if you've used one of those?


Edit :
I use the 100-400.
Have previously used sigma 150-600c and lumix 100-300.
I think the 100-400 Is a great lens.
I've never felt it wasn't as good as any of the others I've had, I think it's definitely better.
Ahh, that's made me feel better thanks ;)
 
Last edited:
Messages
760
Name
Maarten
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyone own or used the Panasonic Leica 100-400mm, if so what's the image quality like compared to other lenses that you've used?
I find the 100-400 very good but definitely a step down from the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 IQ wise (which is my highest rated zoom lens). Shooting at 400mm handheld I've had good and not-so-good results; you definitely need better technique than the 40-150 f/2.8 to get the best results out of this lens.
 
Messages
261
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I bought mine because it was on a 20% off deal at Wex, figured too good to pass up, and I reiterate that I haven't given it a good go yet, but taking some initial shots locally I found 400mm f/6.3 a little soft, stop it down to f/8 it gets better, but at this time of year f/8 means up'ing the ISO a bit too much.

The other lenses I have are the 12-40mm f/2.8 and 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO lenses (and a Panasonic 25mm f/1.7), and nothing comes close to the 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO.
 
Messages
13,473
Edit My Images
No
I find the 100-400 very good but definitely a step down from the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 IQ wise (which is my highest rated zoom lens). Shooting at 400mm handheld I've had good and not-so-good results; you definitely need better technique than the 40-150 f/2.8 to get the best results out of this lens.
I bought mine because it was on a 20% off deal at Wex, figured too good to pass up, and I reiterate that I haven't given it a good go yet, but taking some initial shots locally I found 400mm f/6.3 a little soft, stop it down to f/8 it gets better, but at this time of year f/8 means up'ing the ISO a bit too much.

The other lenses I have are the 12-40mm f/2.8 and 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO lenses (and a Panasonic 25mm f/1.7), and nothing comes close to the 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO.
Thanks for the replies. I wouldn't expect it to be as good as the 40-150mm f2.8 tbh, despite the price. However, if it's at least as good as the Tamron150-600mm and better than the 100-300mm I'll be happy (y) I just find the Tamron too heavy these days and sets my fibromyalgia off, so a 1.5kg saving (body and lens) will be welcomed :)
 
Messages
6,503
Name
Ned
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyone own or used the Panasonic Leica 100-400mm, if so what's the image quality like compared to other lenses that you've used?
I took mine to Alaska and it was fantastic, I was able to get shots that others, even with backpack size lenses, couldn't get due to mobility. Shooting handheld is a total doddle.

The IQ is fantastic. It doesn't resolve micro-contrast on surfances as well as the Oly pro lenses or FF but what I like about it is that edges look like edges (unlike a lot of not so good telephoto lenses where the edges are somewhat diffuse). Colours and bokeh are very nice and, I think, justify the Leica name.

This is a very heavy crop (from memory, processed a while ago):
Eagle
by Ned Awty, on Flickr

Sat on the other side of a river
Alaska-6164874
by Ned Awty, on Flickr

Full stretch
Bear 151 evening sun
by Ned Awty, on Flickr

And a bit sharper mid-zoom:
Posing by the falls
by Ned Awty, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Messages
9,884
Name
Alf
Edit My Images
Yes
I am trying to decide between changing from my E-M1 which is not getting used much for an E-M1II. I use my E-M5II more that the E-M1 I have been considering waiting for the E-5-III coming along.
I use the E-M1 for macro mostly though a gripped E-M5 would be fine.

So do I stick with the E-M1 and get a 40-150 mm f2.8 and 1.4X extender.

Which should I go for?
 
Messages
13,473
Edit My Images
No
I took mine to Alaska and it was fantastic, I was able to get shots that others, even with backpack size lenses, couldn't get due to mobility. Shooting handheld is a total doddle.

The IQ is fantastic. It doesn't resolve micro-contrast on surfances as well as the Oly pro lenses or FF but what I like about it is that edges look like edges (unlike a lot of not so good telephoto lenses where the edges are somewhat diffuse). Colours and bokeh are very nice and, I think, justify the Leica name.

This is a very heavy crop (from memory, processed a while ago):
Eagle
by Ned Awty, on Flickr

Sat on the other side of a river
Alaska-6164874
by Ned Awty, on Flickr

Full stretch
Bear 151 evening sun
by Ned Awty, on Flickr

And a bit sharper mid-zoom:
Posing by the falls
by Ned Awty, on Flickr
Thanks, just been having a nosey on your Flickr, some really nice shots. I'm actually surprised by the 14-150mm, I didn't expect that to be up to much cop tbh but it actually looks very good. I'm EXTREMELY jealous of your African penguin 'encounter' :eek:

Talking of the Leica name, I'd love the Panny Leica 42.5mm f1.2 but it's a bit on the pricey side :(
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,503
Name
Ned
Edit My Images
Yes
Thanks, just been having a nosey on your Flickr, some really nice shots. I'm actually surprised by the 14-150mm, I didn't expect that to be up to much cop tbh but it actually looks very good. I'm EXTREMELY jealous of your African penguin 'encounter' :eek:
Thanks :)

The 14-150 is a fantastic little lens, people get very sniffy about them but I am a great advocate of superzooms as a travel option, in fact I will probably buy the rumoured 12-200 as an even more versatile travel lens (assuming the quality is up to scratch)

The penguins were part of a 'work' trip :D
 
Messages
6,503
Name
Ned
Edit My Images
Yes
I am trying to decide between changing from my E-M1 which is not getting used much for an E-M1II. I use my E-M5II more that the E-M1 I have been considering waiting for the E-5-III coming along.
I use the E-M1 for macro mostly though a gripped E-M5 would be fine.

So do I stick with the E-M1 and get a 40-150 mm f2.8 and 1.4X extender.

Which should I go for?

Depends, I would have absolutely LOVED an EM1ii on my Alaska trip as I missed loads of shots with the AF playing silly buggers, at least I had an EM1 with me as the EM5ii was just woeful at anything moving.

On the other hand, the 40-150 pro is a stellar lens (here's one form when I got the AF to work - phew!):
Bald Eagle, Glacier Bay
by Ned Awty, on Flickr

Depends on your priorities...
 
Messages
9,884
Name
Alf
Edit My Images
Yes
Depends, I would have absolutely LOVED an EM1ii on my Alaska trip as I missed loads of shots with the AF playing silly buggers, at least I had an EM1 with me as the EM5ii was just woeful at anything moving.

On the other hand, the 40-150 pro is a stellar lens (here's one form when I got the AF to work - phew!):
Bald Eagle, Glacier Bay
by Ned Awty, on Flickr

Depends on your priorities...
Thanks Ned
I am fancying the 40-150 for butterflies and dragonflies
Would the E-M1II and the 75-300 work?

I am also wondering about how the E-M1II would improve my landscapes.

Alf
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,503
Name
Ned
Edit My Images
Yes
Messages
13,473
Edit My Images
No
I am also wondering about how the E-M1II would improve my landscapes.

Alf
I don't think it will tbh, I don't think the extra 4mp or the 0.4ev improvement in DR will make any difference tbh. Both have hi res mode, although the EM1-II's hi res is 50mp vs 40mp of the EM5-II. I think the EM1-II is for those that want better AF rather than better IQ.
 
Messages
6,503
Name
Ned
Edit My Images
Yes
I am also wondering about how the E-M1II would improve my landscapes.

Alf
I don't think it will tbh, I don't think the extra 4mp or the 0.4ev improvement in DR will make any difference tbh. Both have hi res mode, although the EM1-II's hi res is 50mp vs 40mp of the EM5-II. I think the EM1-II is for those that want better AF rather than better IQ.
The only real advantage is that the EM1ii will shoot at ISO64, which although being a non-native ISO does give much cleaner files where you have (for example) less noise in the sky, which pixel peepers often complain about in m43 (doesn't really bother me though). You have to expose for the highlights as DR headroom is reduced.
 
Messages
760
Name
Maarten
Edit My Images
Yes
I am trying to decide between changing from my E-M1 which is not getting used much for an E-M1II. I use my E-M5II more that the E-M1 I have been considering waiting for the E-5-III coming along.
I use the E-M1 for macro mostly though a gripped E-M5 would be fine.

So do I stick with the E-M1 and get a 40-150 mm f2.8 and 1.4X extender.

Which should I go for?
If you're not using the E-M1 I much then I'm confused why you would want to upgrade to the E-M1II? The E-M1II is very similar in form factor to the E-M1 I; the main reason you would want either of them over the E-M5II is for shooting action and the fact that they balance better with most PRO zooms (but you could alleviate that with adding a grip to the E-M5II). I do think the DR on the E-M1II is better than on the E-M1 I but it's not an enormous improvement.

I have the E-M10II, E-M5II and the E-M1II and try to use the E-M1II as much as possible, except when I'm trying to travel as light as possible. I did upgrade from the E-M1 I and am very happy that I did but the main reason for the upgrade was the better CAF capability on the E-M1II.

If you use telephoto a lot, the 40-150 mm f/2.8 is an absolutely superb lens, so if I was in your shoes and I had to choose between body and lens I would probably go for the lens.
 
Messages
10,704
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
I considered the E-M1 ii, but I reckon the Panasonic G9 is better value for money.
Went to a trade show recently, with cashback and the show special price it came in at under 900 quid.
Played with one for about twenty minutes and it was excellent, af was lightning fast
Think a similar price at the Photography Show next month will have me reaching for my CC
 
Messages
13,473
Edit My Images
No
The only real advantage is that the EM1ii will shoot at ISO64, which although being a non-native ISO does give much cleaner files where you have (for example) less noise in the sky, which pixel peepers often complain about in m43 (doesn't really bother me though). You have to expose for the highlights as DR headroom is reduced.
I’ve seen this a few times about ISO 64 being cleaner but I am somewhat perplexed by this. Granted I don’t understand it fully, but the native ISO is 200 and as far as I understand 64 is artificial, ie it’s using software rather than the actual exposure to reach 64? If ISO 64 isn’t actually achieved via the exposure but is actually ISO 200 which is then processed to give the ‘appearance’ of ISO 64 how does it then achieve less noise than bass ISO?
 
Messages
13,473
Edit My Images
No
Ok so it’s come up a few times in the last couple of days how good the 40-150mm f2.8 so for those who have it how does it compare to a 70-200mm f2.8 on DSLR? Obviously DOF will be greater, but does it have a similar pop and 3D look?
 
Messages
13,473
Edit My Images
No
Has anyone owned both the Panny 42.5mm F1.7 and Olympus 45mm F1.8 and can share their view of which renders the better of the two, there’s a lot of conflicting info online. I’ve owned the 45mm F1.8 and was reasonably happy with it, but wondered if the Panny was better? I’d love the Panny Leica 42.5mm F1.2 but can’t afford or justify that one ;)
 
Messages
6,503
Name
Ned
Edit My Images
Yes
I’ve seen this a few times about ISO 64 being cleaner but I am somewhat perplexed by this. Granted I don’t understand it fully, but the native ISO is 200 and as far as I understand 64 is artificial, ie it’s using software rather than the actual exposure to reach 64? If ISO 64 isn’t actually achieved via the exposure but is actually ISO 200 which is then processed to give the ‘appearance’ of ISO 64 how does it then achieve less noise than bass ISO?
Basically all it’s doing is lowering the headroom and shifting the exposure up so you end up capturing more photos per shot so SNR is better. Not sure why this doesn’t work on other cameras, might have something to do with amp noise?

Ok so it’s come up a few times in the last couple of days how good the 40-150mm f2.8 so for those who have it how does it compare to a 70-200mm f2.8 on DSLR? Obviously DOF will be greater, but does it have a similar pop and 3D look?
It’s a stellar lens but a) can’t do as shallow dof as in FF (but it still can be way too thin at times, and b) it can suffer from nervous bokeh, which can completely ruin some shots IMO.
Has anyone owned both the Panny 42.5mm F1.7 and Olympus 45mm F1.8 and can share their view of which renders the better of the two, there’s a lot of conflicting info online. I’ve owned the 45mm F1.8 and was reasonably happy with it, but wondered if the Panny was better? I’d love the Panny Leica 42.5mm F1.2 but can’t afford or justify that one ;)
Dunno, you got me on this one, not tried the Panny...
 
Messages
6,503
Name
Ned
Edit My Images
Yes
I considered the E-M1 ii, but I reckon the Panasonic G9 is better value for money.
Went to a trade show recently, with cashback and the show special price it came in at under 900 quid.
Played with one for about twenty minutes and it was excellent, af was lightning fast
Think a similar price at the Photography Show next month will have me reaching for my CC
The problem with the Panny bodies is that they do AF through DfD, rather than phase detect, which means good AF only happens with Panny lenses...

Not so much an issue nowadays as there are some very attractive 'pro' lenses, but most of us seem to be invested in Oly lenses and the cost to change (should one want to) would be huge. And besides, why buy something that massively constricts your options for lenses (says the man stuck in the Apple ecosystem...)?
 
Messages
10,704
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Good point about the different AF method, hadn't considered that
I use a mix and match of both systems, my subjects are still or relatively slow moving so haven't had any problems

Has anyone owned both the Panny 42.5mm F1.7 and Olympus 45mm F1.8 and can share their view of which renders the better of the two, there’s a lot of conflicting info online. I’ve owned the 45mm F1.8 and was reasonably happy with it, but wondered if the Panny was better? I’d love the Panny Leica 42.5mm F1.2 but can’t afford or justify that one ;)
One other point to consider on some Panasonic bodies the 42.5mm will benefit from dual ois.
Could help to get a better end result, it would for this shaky old git
 
Messages
13,473
Edit My Images
No
Good point about the different AF method, hadn't considered that
I use a mix and match of both systems, my subjects are still or relatively slow moving so haven't had any problems


One other point to consider on some Panasonic bodies the 42.5mm will benefit from dual ois.
Could help to get a better end result, it would for this shaky old git
I use Olympus bodies so have IBIS that gives me more than enough stops stabilisation tbh. I've just ordered the EM1-II so I'll get another 1.5stops stabilisation too (y)
 
Messages
8,381
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I considered the E-M1 ii, but I reckon the Panasonic G9 is better value for money.
Went to a trade show recently, with cashback and the show special price it came in at under 900 quid.
Played with one for about twenty minutes and it was excellent, af was lightning fast
Think a similar price at the Photography Show next month will have me reaching for my CC
In your not against going grey an EM1 MKII can be had for less than £900
 
Last edited:
Messages
13,473
Edit My Images
No
Messages
6,369
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
Ok so it’s come up a few times in the last couple of days how good the 40-150mm f2.8 so for those who have it how does it compare to a 70-200mm f2.8 on DSLR? Obviously DOF will be greater, but does it have a similar pop and 3D look?
I think a lot of that 70-200 2.8 'pop' does emanate from the really shallow depth of field that can be achieved, particularly full body portraits etc. Micro contrast must play a part too but I think it's hard going to deliver exactly the same sort of look with the 40-150 but you can always be more selective about your backgrounds or get in a bit closer to create that sort of look. It really is super lens though. So well put together and full of nice little touches. And I think the IQ is actually pretty exceptional regardless of any equivalence. I actually really like the bokeh too for most things though branches can look a bit 'busy' but I'd say the same about a few 70-200's as well.

Worth mentioning that in my experience, this is the only lens I've ever been happy with the results using a teleconverter too. Every other lens combo has disappointed me but the Olympus 1.4x just seems so seamless on this and it's so tiny that you barely notice it's there. Makes for a very useful lens.

Oh and sorry, one more thing. If you're really after the full frame look, you should really have a look at the 75mm 1.8. It is an absolutely gorgeous lens and definitely can deliver the 'pop'. I haven't used any of the 1.2 primes so maybe they also deliver in this regard but I sorely miss the 75mm I must admit.
 
Last edited:
Messages
13,473
Edit My Images
No
I think a lot of that 70-200 2.8 'pop' does emanate from the really shallow depth of field that can be achieved, particularly full body portraits etc. Micro contrast must play a part too but I think it's hard going to deliver exactly the same sort of look with the 40-150 but you can always be more selective about your backgrounds or get in a bit closer to create that sort of look. It really is super lens though. So well put together and full of nice little touches. And I think the IQ is actually pretty exceptional regardless of any equivalence. I actually really like the bokeh too for most things though branches can look a bit 'busy' but I'd say the same about a few 70-200's as well.

Worth mentioning that in my experience, this is the only lens I've ever been happy with the results using a teleconverter too. Every other lens combo has disappointed me but the Olympus 1.4x just seems so seamless on this and it's so tiny that you barely notice it's there. Makes for a very useful lens.

Oh and sorry, one more thing. If you're really after the full frame look, you should really have a look at the 75mm 1.8. It is an absolutely gorgeous lens and definitely can deliver the 'pop'. I haven't used any of the 1.2 primes so maybe they also deliver in this regard but I sorely miss the 75mm I must admit.
I’ve thought about the 75mm but it’s not a focal length I’d use as a prime. I’ve always been a bit on the fence with the 75mm in terms of IQ and rendering.

Without question, if I had the money and/or took a lot of portraits I’d look no further than the Panny Leica 42.5mm F1.2 for m4/3. I think if I ever ditched FF fully I’d treat myself to one ;)
 
Top