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

You gave that away! If I was clever I should have sold mine for £100 more locally and bought yours :D
You can pick them up for £389 new grey so it sounds about right to me (y)
Lovely, and goes to show there is more processing latitude than people would give m43 credit for :)

.
Thanks, tbh I was surprised by how much I could bring the sky back, it looked completely blown out (I forgot to take filters with me :facepalm:)
 
You can pick them up for £389 new grey so it sounds about right to me (y)

Thanks, tbh I was surprised by how much I could bring the sky back, it looked completely blown out (I forgot to take filters with me :facepalm:)

Yeah but they don't know this on local sites over here, where they see the lens still go for €1000 new. I'm seeing a couple up for sale for 500 - 550€ atm

£429 is the cheapest I see it, I don't count prices from Asia - it's one reason many from over here don't either, as we tend to get hit by customs more often
 
Last edited:
Yeah but they don't know this on local sites over here, where they see the lens still go for €1000 new. I'm seeing a couple up for sale for 500 - 550€ atm

£429 is the cheapest I see it, I don't count prices from Asia - it's one reason many from over here don't either, as we tend to get hit by customs more often
Ahh, where's "over hear"?
 
I never knew either, whereabouts? Im Donegal born & bred but been working over here (Bedfordshire) since '89

I'm a bit further down south in Meath atm, but originally from even further down, Carlow born & bred. Donegal is a beautiful place, we were up there for a week back in 2012, mostly around Bundoran but we did a nice little rip around the County - WOuld love to return to get some better shots of the mountains

Benbulben as seen from Bundoran Co. Donegal by K G, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Wow that's expensive, that works out about £965 and it can be had for £759 UK.

That shop is notoriously expensive. I have only ever bought there when there was a hot deal on, got a few €100 off the G80 when I bought it, but half of that was from Panasonic. It's one of few decent B&M stores I can go to check out gear in person though
 
( anyone else reading these posts in an Irish accent ? )
 
Can't say as it would tempt me at all, superzoom extending like a trombone and 6.3 at the long end.
I agree, I’m not sure that I’d put up with the extra size and weight over the 14-150mm tbh if I was in the market for an ‘all-in-one’.
 
The 12-100 looks a lot better, though not the same kind of reach. Honestly you're better off with a decent mid range zoom and something like the Oly 75-300 for the times you want the extra reach. I've never owned a 'super zoom' because from what I've seen, read, heard - there's almost always compromise.
 
So I've been out today with the Olly test and wow equipment I'd reserved (EM1-II, 300mm f4, 40-150mm f2.8 + 1.4 TC) and I have to say I'm impressed, more so than I thought. With both lenses AF-C was noticeably better than my D850 and Tamron 150-600mm, and so is IQ. Now I know we're not comparing apples with apples here and I've been using two pro lenses today vs my 'budget' super tele zoom lens, but I was skeptical that the Olympus would even be as good on either account. I've got to say that 300mm f4 is one hell of a lens, I wish I could afford one. The 40-150mm f2.8 almost felt cheap in comparison (it doesn't feel cheap at all obviously as it's a cracking lens, but the 300mm is THAT good imo).

The only two annoying things with the EM1-II is that you can't review images until the buffer has cleared (which takes a long time) and I found this very annoying, and also that it doesn't appear to be able to store AF point by orientation. This is a feature I find extremely useful as I chop and change between portrait and landscape orientation and would like the AF point to 'save' in each orientation.

I'll got loads of photos to sift through (got a bit carried away trying out the 10fps and seeing if I could fill the buffer ;)) but will hopefully post some images in the next couple of days.
 
The 12-100 looks a lot better, though not the same kind of reach. Honestly you're better off with a decent mid range zoom and something like the Oly 75-300 for the times you want the extra reach. I've never owned a 'super zoom' because from what I've seen, read, heard - there's almost always compromise.

I read and heard lots about the compromises and eventually figured I’d try for myself, and have never been disappointed by the results and often the convenience and reduced size far outweigh the (much smaller than some think) compromises.

Fact is, there’s compromise with every lens, even the pro ones, and each situation demands a different set of compromises.
 
I read and heard lots about the compromises and eventually figured I’d try for myself, and have never been disappointed by the results and often the convenience and reduced size far outweigh the (much smaller than some think) compromises.

Fact is, there’s compromise with every lens, even the pro ones, and each situation demands a different set of compromises.

Which lenses? I'm talking these variable aperture superzooms, a 24-400 equiv is going to have compromise by design, whether it's very soft at the long end, or severe distortion at the wider or something in between. This one is also not a cheap option by any means at €899 [acc to rumour sites] For that money you can buy the 12-100, which I would put money on being better in every way.
 
With both lenses AF-C was noticeably better than my D850 and Tamron 150-600mm, and so is IQ. Now I know we're not comparing apples with apples here and I've been using two pro lenses today vs my 'budget' super tele zoom lens, but I was skeptical that the Olympus would even be as good on either account.

Really? I'm surprised you think the Olympus AF-C outperforms the D850. Would that still be the case if you used Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8 on the D850 you reckon?

Re: lens performance I'm less surprised; coming from Canon I've been consistently and pleasantly surprised by the IQ I get from nearly all of my Olympus lenses and especially the PRO lenses.
 
Which lenses? I'm talking these variable aperture superzooms, a 24-400 equiv is going to have compromise by design, whether it's very soft at the long end, or severe distortion at the wider or something in between. This one is also not a cheap option by any means at €899 [acc to rumour sites] For that money you can buy the 12-100, which I would put money on being better in every way.

I’ve had the Nikon 28-300 on my D610 and the 14-150 on my Oly, granted they’re not the cheap end of superzooms but that’s rather my point. Both have their quirks (focus breathing on the 28-300 is excessive) but both are sharp enough at 100%, even at full zoom, both have easily corrected distortion (obviously the Oly gets corrected automatically) and vignetting isn’t too bad (and auto corrected on the Oly). Effective VR / IBIS also means that the slower apertures aren’t always a problem.

So all in all, I’m rather a fan.

The 12-100 might be better optically but I bet it isn’t as good at 200mm ;) I assume (but haven’t checked) that it is also bigger and heavier and wouldn’t at all balance well on an EM5ii.
 
I assume (but haven’t checked) that it is also bigger and heavier and wouldn’t at all balance well on an EM5ii.

I bought my 12-100 f/4.0 together with an E-M5II body and it doesn't balance well IMO. Apart from the 12-40 f/2.8 I think all the other PRO zooms are much better suited to mounting on an E-M1I or II body.
 
I’ve had the Nikon 28-300 on my D610 and the 14-150 on my Oly, granted they’re not the cheap end of superzooms but that’s rather my point. Both have their quirks (focus breathing on the 28-300 is excessive) but both are sharp enough at 100%, even at full zoom, both have easily corrected distortion (obviously the Oly gets corrected automatically) and vignetting isn’t too bad (and auto corrected on the Oly). Effective VR / IBIS also means that the slower apertures aren’t always a problem.

So all in all, I’m rather a fan.

The 12-100 might be better optically but I bet it isn’t as good at 200mm ;) I assume (but haven’t checked) that it is also bigger and heavier and wouldn’t at all balance well on an EM5ii.

You may well be right, but I still don't like the pricing. You can get such nice glass for that money. This looks to be an extension of the 12-50, and not everyone loved that lens
 
I think I mentioned before that I'm a really big fan of my 14-150 ii. I bought it purely because I wanted a weather sealed lens with a bit of range for walking in the mountains. In fact, I bought an E-M5ii purely for this purpose to go with it too. I looked at loads of different options but nothing else ticked as many boxes. It means I can carry the camera outside my bag more or less whatever the weather and have a range suitable to capture whatever takes my fancy. The result is that I take photos when I simply wouldn't bother in the past or can capture photos that I might have missed before faffing about changing lenses. I'm under no illusions about slightly compromised IQ vs the 2.8 Pro lenses but honestly, it's pretty good! I'm definitely not a super zoom type most of the time but it just makes so much sense for this purpose. Not sure I need a 12-200 in all honesty but I'll see what it's like when it's reviewed.
 
So I've been out today with the Olly test and wow equipment I'd reserved (EM1-II, 300mm f4, 40-150mm f2.8 + 1.4 TC) and I have to say I'm impressed, more so than I thought. With both lenses AF-C was noticeably better than my D850 and Tamron 150-600mm, and so is IQ. Now I know we're not comparing apples with apples here and I've been using two pro lenses today vs my 'budget' super tele zoom lens, but I was skeptical that the Olympus would even be as good on either account. I've got to say that 300mm f4 is one hell of a lens, I wish I could afford one. The 40-150mm f2.8 almost felt cheap in comparison (it doesn't feel cheap at all obviously as it's a cracking lens, but the 300mm is THAT good imo).

The only two annoying things with the EM1-II is that you can't review images until the buffer has cleared (which takes a long time) and I found this very annoying, and also that it doesn't appear to be able to store AF point by orientation. This is a feature I find extremely useful as I chop and change between portrait and landscape orientation and would like the AF point to 'save' in each orientation.

I'll got loads of photos to sift through (got a bit carried away trying out the 10fps and seeing if I could fill the buffer ;)) but will hopefully post some images in the next couple of days.

Looking forward to the photos. I primarily like wildlife and have seen to many great images from 300mm f4 - it's out of my price range so I'd prefer you came back and said it was awful!

Had the day off work today, went to try and find some Kingfishers but could not get anything decent. Best I got was a Robin - am really looking forward to some better light in spring \ summer.

OI000734 by alligator1975, on Flickr

OI000735 by alligator1975, on Flickr
 
Really? I'm surprised you think the Olympus AF-C outperforms the D850. Would that still be the case if you used Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8 on the D850 you reckon?

Re: lens performance I'm less surprised; coming from Canon I've been consistently and pleasantly surprised by the IQ I get from nearly all of my Olympus lenses and especially the PRO lenses.
No, that’s why I specified using it with the 150-600mm, the D850 with 70-200mm f2.8 is a pretty special combo. I’m sure it would be with a 600mm F4 too but not that I could ever afford that one, or would want to carry it around ;)
Looking forward to the photos. I primarily like wildlife and have seen to many great images from 300mm f4 - it's out of my price range so I'd prefer you came back and said it was awful!

Had the day off work today, went to try and find some Kingfishers but could not get anything decent. Best I got was a Robin - am really looking forward to some better light in spring \ summer.

OI000734 by alligator1975, on Flickr

OI000735 by alligator1975, on Flickr
I’ll get some pics up soon. I’ve never seen a kingfisher :(
 
Out of interest does anyone have any thoughts why the Olly 300mm f4 is so heavy? What I’m referring to is that the Nikon 300mm f4 is much lighter at 755g vs 1270g for the Olly. Now I know one gives you 600mm reach but that’s only due to the sensor size, stick the Nikon 300mm on the Olympus and you’ve got 600mm reach.

Now that’s got me thinking, can you get Nikon to Olly adapters and is AF any good?
 
Out of interest does anyone have any thoughts why the Olly 300mm f4 is so heavy? What I’m referring to is that the Nikon 300mm f4 is much lighter at 755g vs 1270g for the Olly. Now I know one gives you 600mm reach but that’s only due to the sensor size, stick the Nikon 300mm on the Olympus and you’ve got 600mm reach.

Now that’s got me thinking, can you get Nikon to Olly adapters and is AF any good?

Ha - I was just about to ask the same question, but for Canon. I've got myself a 1D mk3 as my em5II is not up to birds in flight (well with me at the wheel anyway). I think I'm going to get 400mm f5.6 (though I think this is more similar in weight) or 300mm f4, and a 1.4 converter - which together will likely be 1/2 price of the 300mm. I would need an adapter (Metabones seem expensive but there are cheaper alternatives) - but would then work on both my cameras.
 
Ha - I was just about to ask the same question, but for Canon. I've got myself a 1D mk3 as my em5II is not up to birds in flight (well with me at the wheel anyway). I think I'm going to get 400mm f5.6 (though I think this is more similar in weight) or 300mm f4, and a 1.4 converter - which together will likely be 1/2 price of the 300mm. I would need an adapter (Metabones seem expensive but there are cheaper alternatives) - but would then work on both my cameras.

Remember that 400mm is not stabilised, need good light and technique to get decent bif photos.
Had one myself on a 7D and struggled to get anything worthwhile, admittedly the camera was hard going anyway
 
  • Like
Reactions: akr
You can get metabones adapters for Canon EF to m4/3:

https://www.metabones.com/products/details/mb_spnfg-bmpcc-bm1

However, whenever I read a review it always appears that performance is not that great and people that try these types of adapters always seem to move on to the native mount - this is what people in the Sony A7/A9 thread seem to have been doing. Also it appears to have a glass element so it will degrade image quality.

Here's a review: https://www.rangefinderonline.com/g...-review-of-the-metabones-speed-booster-ultra/
 
Out of interest does anyone have any thoughts why the Olly 300mm f4 is so heavy? What I’m referring to is that the Nikon 300mm f4 is much lighter at 755g vs 1270g for the Olly.

I think it's the optical elements used and this is more of an exception than a rule. For example the Nikon 300mm f4 D AF-S IF ED weighs in at 1440g.
 
A flash question.

I've switched about half my work from D750 to OMD 1-II, and I miss my SB910 flashgun. I know I could use it in Manual, but the gun is huge on the OMD, and Manual isn't what I want to do. What I like about it is the power, battery life, and the two hard plastic gels that come with it (one for tungsten and one for fluorescent, they clip on the flashead).

I've not been able to find anything similar that would be suitable for Oly - any suggestions?
 
You can get metabones adapters for Canon EF to m4/3:

https://www.metabones.com/products/details/mb_spnfg-bmpcc-bm1

However, whenever I read a review it always appears that performance is not that great and people that try these types of adapters always seem to move on to the native mount - this is what people in the Sony A7/A9 thread seem to have been doing. Also it appears to have a glass element so it will degrade image quality.

Here's a review: https://www.rangefinderonline.com/g...-review-of-the-metabones-speed-booster-ultra/

The first link is for Nikon to BMCC cameras, rather than EF to M43 speedboosters, this compatibility chart shows what fits what for EF lenses to M43:

https://www.metabones.com/products/?c=micro-43-system-2

The 0.64X and 0.71X versions are for video and stills/video respectively, the 0.64X will vignette if used for stills. There has been several generations of Speedbooster produced to date, the first versions will not fit OMD cameras because the overhanging OMD 'prism' would foul the Speedbooster. I own (purchased second hand) the version reviewed in the second link, the Ultra 0.71X. I find there is no worsening of image quality at all, lens IS works perfectly on my GH3, these items really are magic in every respect except for the price and varying autofocus capability from lens to lens. Some of my lens are just fine in good light, my macro lens will not autofocus at all with the Speedbooster. My Tamron 24-70 F2.8 lens is transformed into an equivalent 34-100mm F2 lens and my Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 is transformed into an equivalent 100-284mm F2 lens, which have no direct M43 F2 equivalents. I know these lenses are heavy and will not focus as quickly as native glass, nor are they carry about travel options, but I tend to mostly shoot slow moving and predictable subjects such as trains or people and therefore don't need to add the new and rather expensive Olympus 12-100mm or 12-200mm lenses to my shopping list at a combined £1700.

So far all my testing of the Speedbooster has been on my GH3, I haven't yet had time to see how the autofocus capabilities differ using my EM1 Mk1 which might or might not use it's phase detect to assist.
 
Last edited:
Very nice
 
You know, I've always been a big fan of Micro four thirds, but even more so after last night. We have two dogs, one of them being our now 5 month old Cocker Spaniel pup - Daisy. Last night I dusted off my Fuji X-H1 with two of Fuji's best lenses - the 16-55 F2.8 and the 50-140 F2.8. I was actually very disappointed. I wasn't using flash (deliberately) and so it was via LED kitchen lights (so at night, still pretty dim). The dogs were on their bed so not really moving round much, but both are black (Daisy has white markings on her nose and throat, but Charlie is pure black).

With both lenses, the Fuji hunted back and forth, when it did achieve focus, despite saying it was in focus, a few times on image review a number of the images were clearly out of focus. Also I was shooting at ISO6400 with shutter speeds as low at 1/20 -1/80 sec, and the noise on the image didn't look very nice at all.

I then went upstairs and got my EM1.2 and the 40-150 F2.8 and low and behold, under the same lighting, the Olympus just snapped into focus each time (and it was clear on image review they were actually in focus). Also, despite shooting under the same conditions (ISO5000-6400) the images actually looked better on the back of the LCD, which was confirmed when I got them into Photoshop. Whilst certainly no where near full frame clean, a bit of PP and they cleaned up quite nicely. Don't get me wrong the Fuji system has other strengths, but with the X-H1 in particular, low light focusing isn't one of them. God only knows how good the new EM1X must be under the same conditions ?

Just a snap really but you get the idea.


Olympus OMD-EM1 MK 2, M.Zuiko 40-150 F2.8 Pro @ 79mm (158mm effective) , 1/25 sec, F2.8 ISO 5000
 
Last edited:
I say this a lot - the noise or grain produced by M43 sensors is more appealing and easier to clean up than that produced by some larger sensors. One of the things I really disliked about Fuji was just that, when there is noise, it's far from pleasant or what they refer to as 'film-like' - it's obnoxiously digital at times and not fun to iron out. I still love the Fuji gear, but between that and the X-trans files not playing nicely with LR, the only software I enjoy using, it can be a frustrating experience post processing the files.

M43 gets p***ed on all the time on these gear forums, but when you look at it, this is mostly done by either snobbish pros or extreme pixel peepers. The only thing I dislike about my G80 is that it gets noisey too early, as in at the lower end of ISO - when I need to pump it a bit it bothers me much less because I expect it. I just want cleaner files at the lower end and I'm good - shallower DOF is not something I would moan about, because it's very possible to achieve while keeping more in focus at wider apertures than larger sensors when desired. There really is nothing else for them to berate the system for, even DR - it's plenty good enough for my needs at least
 
Last edited:
What with the new 12-200mm zoom............I personally am hoping for the release of the MC 20 converter.

The X1.4 on my 40-150 f2.8 is great with no obvious impact on optical quality. If the x2.0 is of the same standard that will be a winner as a FoV equivalent of 80-600mm f5.6 provided of course that the AF - C can keep up :)

They say Summer 2019........but the sooner the better as far as I am concerned :)
 
... I personally am hoping for the release of the MC 20 converter.

The X1.4 on my 40-150 f2.8 is great with no obvious impact on optical quality. If the x2.0 is of the same standard that will be a winner as a FoV equivalent of 80-600mm f5.6 provided of course that the AF - C can keep up :)

They say Summer 2019........but the sooner the better as far as I am concerned :)

Ditto, the 1.4x TC is superb on the 40-150mm f/2.8, don't notice any drop in image quality, if the 2.0x TC is as good I might be dispensing with the PL 100-400mm I just bought!

Imagine having FF equivalent 80mm @ f/2.8 to 600mm @ f/5.6 with a single lens and 2 tiny gadgets which all together will probably weigh less than 1kg.
 
Couple of test shots of our old girl using my newly acquired Panny 100-400mm. Seems sharp enough to me (again better on Flickr). No 300mm f4, but I'd say on par with the Tamron 150-600mm that it's replaced.


P2140132 by TDG-77, on Flickr

P2140140 by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Back
Top