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

Messages
14,040
Edit My Images
No
Messages
14,040
Edit My Images
No
HDEW have the 40-150mm f2.8 on sale and I couldn't help myself so I've bought one ;) I was toying with the idea of getting the 1.4x TC with it but then I decided against it as I have the 100-400mm for extra reach (y)
 
Messages
11,651
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
HDEW have the 40-150mm f2.8 on sale and I couldn't help myself so I've bought one ;) I was toying with the idea of getting the 1.4x TC with it but then I decided against it as I have the 100-400mm for extra reach (y)
Nice. Often fancied that lens, would I use it much though? it's a little short for the birds and probably too long for most other things I'd shoot, but I'd still love to have one :D
 
Messages
14,040
Edit My Images
No
Nice. Often fancied that lens, would I use it much though? it's a little short for the birds and probably too long for most other things I'd shoot, but I'd still love to have one :D
Ordered it for Motorsport and also will take it to the London Marathon to see how the combo fares against the D850 70-200mm f2.8 VRII combo (y)
 
Messages
273
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
HDEW have the 40-150mm f2.8 on sale and I couldn't help myself so I've bought one ;) I was toying with the idea of getting the 1.4x TC with it but then I decided against it as I have the 100-400mm for extra reach (y)
You won't regret it!

FWIW pretty sure I'm going to sell my PL 100-400mm, just not using it, the 40-150mm + TC1.4 is enough for my use and the IQ is so good I'd rather crop than get closer with the PL 100-400mm on those (for me rare) occasions when 210mm isn't really close enough.
 
Messages
14,040
Edit My Images
No
You won't regret it!

FWIW pretty sure I'm going to sell my PL 100-400mm, just not using it, the 40-150mm + TC1.4 is enough for my use and the IQ is so good I'd rather crop than get closer with the PL 100-400mm on those (for me rare) occasions when 210mm isn't really close enough.
I’m the opposite, could probably live without the 40-150mm (even with TC) but not without the 100-400mm. Even with the 100-400mm I still sometimes wish I had more reach ;)
 
Messages
10,112
Name
Alf
Edit My Images
Yes
HDEW have the 40-150mm f2.8 on sale and I couldn't help myself so I've bought one ;) I was toying with the idea of getting the 1.4x TC with it but then I decided against it as I have the 100-400mm for extra reach (y)
I got it with the TC I want it for dragonflies and butterflies
 
Messages
14,040
Edit My Images
No
I got it with the TC I want it for dragonflies and butterflies
Interesting. I can always pick one up at a later date (I did check how much I could get one for before deciding on the purchase in case the bundle was a big saving, which it isn’t) but I thought I should be OK without and then use the 100-400mm if I want more reach. E-infinity have the TC for around £150 if I change my mind (y)
 
Messages
11,651
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
What does the TC get you? About 210 F4? Would that be any better than the 100-400 at the same FL? The Pany has slightly better magnification, not sure if a TC improves this on the 150?
 
Messages
6,441
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
What does the TC get you? About 210 F4? Would that be any better than the 100-400 at the same FL? The Pany has slightly better magnification, not sure if a TC improves this on the 150?
I think it’s more a question of whether a 40-150+TC is enough for most people on its owns rather than whether it would offer anything alongside a 100-400. Doubt I’d bother with the TC either if I already had a 100-400 but it is worth me mentioning that I’ve never known a lens +Tc combo work as well as the 40-150 and 1.4x do. It’s amazingly seamless with no apparent loss of IQ and f/4 is still pretty fast for that length. Every other Tc combo I’ve tried has disappointed me.
 
Messages
11,651
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Oh I get that it's a very nice combination, if I owned the 40-150 I would want the TC for sure. But I was posing the question to someone who already owns the 100-400, at 200mm that's going to be about f4.5 or?
 
Messages
14,040
Edit My Images
No
For my use (motorsports) absolutely no question about it, I take a lot of pictures at 210mm / f4 and they're as sharp as I could ever want, it really is like having a 210mm f4 prime rather than a zoom with a TC.
TBH I've been really impressed with the sharpness from the 100-400mm, it's only a gnats off the 300mm f4 from my experience.
 
Messages
14,040
Edit My Images
No
Messages
14,040
Edit My Images
No
I can see it being what I'd really like if the auto focus is as fast as people are saying
How quickly do these things depreciate?
The EM1-II was £1850 at launch in December 2016 IIRC and is now £1400 new, and just under a grand used/grey. I would expect the EM1-X to follow a similar trend, although can’t say for sure as it’s likely to sell in far less numbers.
 
Messages
376
Name
Damion
Edit My Images
Yes
I'd buy one at 1500-1800 they it's just out of my reach at its currant price I'm afraid
Interest free credit is tempting though
Might try to rent one first
 
Messages
273
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Well I had a bit of an unusual experience last night, went to an Oval Race meet (nothing inspiring, Rookie Rods, but my step-son and his cousin compete so had to go along), and came home with 1,800 photos (par for the course, doing lots of burst mode shooting), and usually I'd expect to throw loads away as out of focus or too blurry, especially the slow shutter speed shots I (try to) take.

However, just loading them into Lightroom now and I've got way more keepers than I expected.

Difference is this was an evening meet, only the first race was before sunset (and only by 10 minutes or so), so everything shot with the 40-150mm f/2.8, mostly at f/2.8 and ISO creeping up from 800+ onwards. Most races are during the day, and in bright sunshine apertures can creep up to f/16+ (I do have some ND filters but rarely use them).

Either I drank some magic skills potion last night or the CA-F performance of the EM1.2 + 40-150mm f/2.8 is much, much better at the wide end. Really should start using those ND filters I suppose!
 
Messages
11,651
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I have rarely ever used an ND filter, but I see why video shooters love them. Was shooting some random video yesterday with the 12-40 and even stopped down to F11 it was far too bright [the sun paid us a surprise visit and was actually like a summer's day] without having to up the shutter speed a lot. Not ideal as you want the ss for video to be only double the frame rate or thereabouts [24fps/ss: either 1/50 or 1/60] - or you get some weird choppy effects going on wherever there's movement
 
Messages
85
Name
Ham
Edit My Images
Yes
I've got a little used 4/3->m4/3 adapter I picked up a while back, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Given that I have been a little disappointed with the long end of the 12-40, I thought I'd try my old trusty 12-60/2.8, which I reckon has to be one of the best walkabout lenses of all time.

My first reactions:
- blimey that autofocus was slow back then
- it's too big for the body (M10/M5 - might sit happily on the M1)
- but it is more comfortable in the hand (by holding the lens) than the 12-40 - I have large hands, ok
- autofocus seems to hunt a bit too much to be useable, maybe good light will help

Will have to try it in anger soon, just for the hell of it. Anyone else using 4/3 lenses?

(note to self: really must dig out the OM->4/3+4/3->m4/3 adapter and try the OM 600 lens that's sitting unloved in the back of the cupboard)
 
Messages
11,651
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I've got a little used 4/3->m4/3 adapter I picked up a while back, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Given that I have been a little disappointed with the long end of the 12-40, I thought I'd try my old trusty 12-60/2.8, which I reckon has to be one of the best walkabout lenses of all time.

My first reactions:
- blimey that autofocus was slow back then
- it's too big for the body (M10/M5 - might sit happily on the M1)
- but it is more comfortable in the hand (by holding the lens) than the 12-40 - I have large hands, ok
- autofocus seems to hunt a bit too much to be useable, maybe good light will help

Will have to try it in anger soon, just for the hell of it. Anyone else using 4/3 lenses?

(note to self: really must dig out the OM->4/3+4/3->m4/3 adapter and try the OM 600 lens that's sitting unloved in the back of the cupboard)

4/3 lenses for the most part really only work well on the Em1 models, as they have PDAF and are better suited to these older lenses. I was tempted by the 50-200 2.8-3.5 which is apparently an excellent tele lens with IQ to match of of the modern offerings, but then got told it would suck baws on a G80 so left it.
 
Messages
795
Name
Maarten
Edit My Images
Yes
- autofocus seems to hunt a bit too much to be useable, maybe good light will help
Will have to try it in anger soon, just for the hell of it. Anyone else using 4/3 lenses?
I have been tempted to try some of the highly rated 4/3 lenses, but have been put off by reports of slow/erratic AF performance. Apparently for reasonable AF you need to use the E-M1 MkI or MkII (or E-M1X). The other reason I haven't had a go is that the 12-40 f/2.8 and the 40-150 f/2.8 are a superb combo so I would probably be doubling up. So on balance, I thought it would be best to invest only in m4/3 - things might be different if I had an Olympus 4/3 mount DSLR lying around...
 
Messages
85
Name
Ham
Edit My Images
Yes
I went from OM to 4/3, to m4/3 so I have a load of old stuff lying around, I find the 12-40 just that bit too short at the long end to do proper duty as a walkabout. And yes, AF is the issue. The thing I want to test out is how it works as manual focus, given that 30 degrees of rotation takes the physical focus ring from 1m to infinity. Combine the MF with edge detect focus indicator and it might just work. The adapter (a panny version) has a stop down button, too.

The other 4/3 lens which takes some beating is the 50mm f2, I've got the m4/3 45mm/1.8, but I don't think it is quite up to the same IQ
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,040
Edit My Images
No
Oh, I wish! I have held one, and played with it. It fitted in my hand and felt just right. Very impressive. I'm seriously considering a 'Test and Wow' session, over a weekend.
Oops, sorry I got confused ;)
Well I had a bit of an unusual experience last night, went to an Oval Race meet (nothing inspiring, Rookie Rods, but my step-son and his cousin compete so had to go along), and came home with 1,800 photos (par for the course, doing lots of burst mode shooting), and usually I'd expect to throw loads away as out of focus or too blurry, especially the slow shutter speed shots I (try to) take.

However, just loading them into Lightroom now and I've got way more keepers than I expected.

Either I drank some magic skills potion last night or the CA-F performance of the EM1.2 + 40-150mm f/2.8 is much, much better at the wide end. Really should start using those ND filters I suppose!
My first thought would be that panning is easier the shorter the focal length (less camera shake), so if you used the wide end rather than long end this would explain the higher keeper rate. However, do you mean that it's better shooting wide open than stopped down rather than shooting at the "wide end"? Diffraction starts creeping in around f8 on m4/3 which may explain why shots at f2.8 are sharper. Also, it might be that the lighting created better contrast for the AF to pick up on.
 
Messages
273
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
My first thought would be that panning is easier the shorter the focal length (less camera shake), so if you used the wide end rather than long end this would explain the higher keeper rate. However, do you mean that it's better shooting wide open than stopped down rather than shooting at the "wide end"? Diffraction starts creeping in around f8 on m4/3 which may explain why shots at f2.8 are sharper. Also, it might be that the lighting created better contrast for the AF to pick up on.
I was still shooting at the longer focal length, 150mm (in fact at this stadium I'd ordinarily use the 1.4x TC as well, but I couldn't afford to lose a stop of light). And although I appreciate diffraction plays a part this was a case of simply more keepers, as opposed to the quality of the images.

It could be however that the lighting (flood lights / shiny cars) did indeed create better contrast allowing the AF system to lock on more reliably. Hadn't thought of that, just knew I hadn't suddenly developed new skills!
 
Messages
14,040
Edit My Images
No
I was still shooting at the longer focal length, 150mm (in fact at this stadium I'd ordinarily use the 1.4x TC as well, but I couldn't afford to lose a stop of light). And although I appreciate diffraction plays a part this was a case of simply more keepers, as opposed to the quality of the images.

It could be however that the lighting (flood lights / shiny cars) did indeed create better contrast allowing the AF system to lock on more reliably. Hadn't thought of that, just knew I hadn't suddenly developed new skills!
TBH you do have good days and bad days, plus sometimes it just clicks so it could be that you're the new panning master ;)
 
Top