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

Messages
875
Name
terry
Edit My Images
Yes
Last edited:
Messages
6,825
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Looks like the first field based photo has been leaked of the 150 400 like the blue ring better than the famous red ring

https://photorumors.com/wp-content/...tal-ED-150-400mm-f4.5-TC1.25x-IS-PRO-lens.jpg
.... Hmm, I like the look of that - Not too large and a bit like a smaller Canon EF 500mm F/4L II just as the E-M1X is like a smaller Canon 1DX. Nice touch that the lensfoot has an Arca-Swiss profile making a plate unnecessary, same as the Olympus 300mm Pro. Programmable buttons, great zoom grip and I've already seen close-ups of the built-in x1.25 switch which looks easy to quickly use.

Any lens this size is going to be better balanced on a M1X than M1 when handheld. On a tripod or monopod it won't matter.

We just need to know the price.
 
Last edited:
Messages
641
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
It will always be the 'tools in the arsenal' situation.

When I switched to Olympus from Canon in 2018 one thing I factored in was, what will have to change in my PP workflow.....................primarily related to noise!

Based on downloading higher ISO RAW examples before I bought my E-M1 mk2 I trialed DxO PhotoLab2 and to see the way (on default settings) its Prime noise control tamed the noise in the higher ISO .ORF files......................sold me on both the camera and the DxO PL software.

Of course everyone's mileage may vary but that was my experience and decision process :)
DXO and Affinity Photo are my go to software, no rental fees either :cool:
 
Messages
2,066
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Well, it's arrived - as usual very quick delivery from Panamoz.

Just got to get it all set up again with a set of hybrid settings from the older EM1 MK II and my EM1X

First one on here ? ;);)

 
Last edited:
Messages
1,996
Name
chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Well, it's arrived - as usual very quick delivery from Panamoz.

Just got to get it all set up again with a set of hybrid settings from the older EM1 MK II and my EM1X

First one on here ? ;);)

Well done! I’ll be interested to hear your thoughts on it when you’ve had a chance to test it.
 
Messages
2,066
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Will do.
 
Messages
16,745
Edit My Images
No
Well, it's arrived - as usual very quick delivery from Panamoz.

Just got to get it all set up again with a set of hybrid settings from the older EM1 MK II and my EM1X

First one on here ? ;);)

Nice, will be interested to hear what you think over the Mark II. Was there anything in particularly that made you want to upgrade?
 
Messages
9,230
Edit My Images
No
Messages
2,066
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Last edited:
Messages
2,066
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Nice, will be interested to hear what you think over the Mark II. Was there anything in particularly that made you want to upgrade?
Because it was newer :D:D

But seriously after having the EM1X for the best part of a year, I really like the HHHR and Live ND functions, and the additional video capability including FHD 120 FPS which the mark III got. Also, the MK II was my travel camera for the last 4 years, so I saw the MK3 as giving me a near identical replacement with it's great formfactor but with the additional features mentioned to give me further opportunities when travelling. Sure there's more i wanted (4k 60, better EVF and screen) but you can only get what's on sale.

For me, it wasn't worth £1600 to get those features, but as I had a stack of paypal credit (that I'd forgotten about) and sold my EM1 MK II for a decent price, the "upgrade" price for therefore justifiable for me (if anything is ever truly justifiable in Photography !)
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,066
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Well done! I’ll be interested to hear your thoughts on it when you’ve had a chance to test it.
Took it out at lunchtime and here are my very initial comparisons to the MK II.
  • They say the grip was redesigned and slightly bigger (which it may be - i've not measured them), but holding it just feels Identical to the MK II (which is no bad thing)
  • Everything does feel just a bit nipper and quicker than the MK II (not that it's any slouch by any means).
  • Love the new info screen on the back (looks like a DSLR screen) and one quick tap of the OK button takes you immediately to the super control panel.
  • Absolutely loving the joystick. great to be able to move the points around really quickly (like the 1X) and a quick press of the button whilst in shooting mode takes you to the AF array settings (so single point, multi etc) which you select with a quick twist of the command dial. Much quicker. Also when in image review mode, a quick tap on the AF joystick takes you to the 100% zoomed in view and enables you to scroll around the image. It can also be used to navigate through the menus.
  • AF seems a little snappier (but that might just be a placebo effect), but one thing that it most definitely improved massively is face and eye detect. This just locks onto a face or eye like Sticky McSticky from Stickyville, and is actually much better than my Z6 and Z7 with the new firmwares (and they have improved massively).
  • HHHR and Live ND work exactly the same as on my EM1X, however, despite what people may say to the contrary, it seems to me that the twin Truepic VIII processors of the EM1X still have more HP than the single Truepic IX processor in the MK3 as "developing time" for a HHHR shot is most definitely slightly longer (at least a few seconds more) than on the EM1X. Maybe the Truepic IX is being maxed out and that's why they didn't give it the AI tracking functions (for what use they are anyway) of the 1X ?
  • There;'s now a new option in the Video menu for Audio quality with the standard 48k/16 bit (as per the MK II) and a new 96khz/24 bit option, which in my initial testing does sound quite a bit better.
  • Repositioned menu button will take a little bit of getting used to. Also, can't remember if you could do this on the MK II, but as I've set exposure compensation to my preferred back dial, the actual EV button near the shutter served no real purpose, so I've re-programmed this for white balance, giving me direct access to WB and ISO (rear button) like I have on the 1X.
Other than that, everything at the moment seems very familiar and those coming from a MKII will feel right at home. It's like a MK II turned up maybe 25%
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,825
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
You'll be needing more SD's now, won't you ;)

Amazon have the 64GB UHS-I SD cards at £13.99, this is £3 less than I last paid at end of January 2020
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07H9J1YXN/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
.... Surely you should be using UHS-II cards, not UHS-I, on the Olympus E-M1 series. Otherwise you are not fully exploiting the camera body you have paid for, especially if you shoot RAW or video. Also, those cards on Amazon have a relatively slow Write speed rating at only 90MB/s.
 
Messages
9,230
Edit My Images
No
.... Surely you should be using UHS-II cards, not UHS-I, on the Olympus E-M1 series. Otherwise you are not fully exploiting the camera body you have paid for, especially if you shoot RAW or video. Also, those cards on Amazon have a relatively slow Write speed rating at only 90MB/s.
Robin
I agree UHS-II would be ideal.......I really would welcome seeing them become more budget worthy :(
 
Messages
16,745
Edit My Images
No
.... Surely you should be using UHS-II cards, not UHS-I, on the Olympus E-M1 series. Otherwise you are not fully exploiting the camera body you have paid for, especially if you shoot RAW or video. Also, those cards on Amazon have a relatively slow Write speed rating at only 90MB/s.
Tbh I only used UHS-I (95mb/s read 90mb/s write) and I never managed to hit the buffer limit or experience any limitations, and I shot raw with raw backup to the second card. Maybe if you want to shoot at 60fps for some reason UHS-II might be better, and/or if you’re a serious videographer as you mentioned, but for ‘normal’ shooting the EM1-II is fine with UHS-I imo (y)
 
Messages
2,066
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
.... Surely you should be using UHS-II cards, not UHS-I, on the Olympus E-M1 series. Otherwise you are not fully exploiting the camera body you have paid for, especially if you shoot RAW or video. Also, those cards on Amazon have a relatively slow Write speed rating at only 90MB/s.
Robin, apart from 2 Sandisk 128gb 95mb/sec UHS-I cards, all the others are UHS-II. Most are Sony M (R:260MB/s, W:100MB/s), but I've got 4 Lexar (R:300 MB/s, W:260MB/s).

I'd love to replace a few of the older cards with the newer Sony G units but they are still hideously expensive.
 
Messages
16,745
Edit My Images
No
At last - something to write home about: View attachment 270882

Firecrest. A big crop but it's a tiny bird...... I'm very happy with the quality

Edit: EM1 Mk 2 / Panasonic 100-400 - ISO1250, 1/1250 @f8
Nice, I've never seen one of those before (y)
 
Messages
465
Edit My Images
No
FWIW - I upgraded an SD card last year. I discovered that the E-M10ii is UHS-II compatible.
I have no need for massive cards and I worry about having all my eggs in one basket so 32GB is fine.
I discussed it over at AVForums (hope the link is OK - don't want to break any rules).
https://www.avforums.com/threads/best-sd-card-and-checking-sd-card-write-speeds.2212496/

My anecdotal experience is that the camera clears the buffer much faster and that among other things means it shuts down faster after taking a shot.
With the motorised zoom EZ pancake lens that's handy as the camera won't retract it until it's finished saving to the SD card.
I'm only comparing to some fairly ancient cards mind.

Given how cheap UHS-II cards are now I can't imagine buying a UHS-I again but I wouldn't run out and replace ones that are doing the job for you now.
The card I bought last year for £25 is now £10.40 ;o
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00OD70UHO/ref=twister_B07P3CN65X?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1
I appreciate the really fast UHS-II cards are still silly money and esp, if you want the Tough versions.

If you want to get seriously geeky about SD card speeds I'd have a look here.
Best cards for the E-M1ii (Edit looks like that article might be a bit elderly...2017!)
https://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/olympus-e-m1-ii/sd-card-speed-comparison-test/
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,825
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
At last - something to write home about: View attachment 270882

Firecrest. A big crop but it's a tiny bird...... I'm very happy with the quality

Edit: EM1 Mk 2 / Panasonic 100-400 - ISO1250, 1/1250 @f8
.... That's a great portrait in every way! Both Firecrests and Goldcrests let you approach very close usually but they never stay still !! Firecrests are less common than Goldcrests (subject to location).
 
Messages
6,825
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Tbh I only used UHS-I (95mb/s read 90mb/s write) and I never managed to hit the buffer limit or experience any limitations, and I shot raw with raw backup to the second card. Maybe if you want to shoot at 60fps for some reason UHS-II might be better, and/or if you’re a serious videographer as you mentioned, but for ‘normal’ shooting the EM1-II is fine with UHS-I imo (y)
.... That's rather like saying that my high performance car will run fine on standard Shell petrol and it's true that it will. But it runs so much better on Shell V-Power because the engine is tuned to do so, very much in the same way that cards are designed to maximise the performance of cameras. Canon strongly and actively recommend UHS-II for their mirrorless EOS-R.

If buying some new cards, as I was for my E-M1X, why not buy the best you can afford - Afterall, think how much your camera costs.

My anecdotal experience is that the camera clears the buffer much faster and that among other things means it shuts down faster after taking a shot.
With the motorised zoom EZ pancake lens that's handy as the camera won't retract it until it's finished saving to the SD card.

Given how cheap UHS-II cards are now I can't imagine buying a UHS-I again but I wouldn't run out and replace ones that are doing the job for you now.

I appreciate the really fast UHS-II cards are still silly money and esp, if you want the Tough versions.
.... I use Sony G UHS-II TOUGH and M UHS-II cards, all 64GB and all fast. Expensive yes, but a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
 
Messages
16,745
Edit My Images
No
.... That's rather like saying that my high performance car will run fine on standard Shell petrol and it's true that it will. But it runs so much better on Shell V-Power because the engine is tuned to do so, very much in the same way that cards are designed to maximise the performance of cameras. Canon strongly and actively recommend UHS-II for their mirrorless EOS-R.

If buying some new cards, as I was for my E-M1X, why not buy the best you can afford - Afterall, think how much your camera costs.



.
TBH that's not a great comparison as the car will perform differently, whereas for my use (and for many people's use) having the faster card won't make one jot of difference. I don't mind spending money, but I also don't believe in buying things I don't need. The only area where a faster card would have helped me would have been file transfer to my computer.

Now I'm not trying to sway you or others away from UHS-II, of course they're better and if you want to shoot 4k video and/or shoot at 60fps, or want to shoot over 100 frames in one go etc then they are absolutely the best option (y)

I've just actually bought 4 x Lexar 1667 128GB UHS-II cards which were £30 each, so £120 in total. Now they 'only' have read/write speeds of 250/120mb/s which is fine for my use, and as yet I haven't even reached the buffer limit on the A7RIV shooting uncompressed raw (120mb/image). Now if I'd bought 300mb/s Sandisk cards that would have cost me just under £800, that's £680 for no gain.
 
Last edited:
Messages
9,661
Name
Jeremy Moore
Edit My Images
No
.... That's a great portrait in every way! Both Firecrests and Goldcrests let you approach very close usually but they never stay still !! Firecrests are less common than Goldcrests (subject to location).
Thanks. I value your praise given the quality of your own work.

I've never had much joy with goldcrests, even, but this was a very reliable and predictable firecrest near Carew in Pemrokeshire. There are two or three there at the moment and they've been there for at least two months.
 
Messages
465
Edit My Images
No
TBH that's not a great comparison as the car will perform differently, whereas for my use (and for many people's use) having the faster card won't make one jot of difference. I don't mind spending money, but I also don't believe in buying things I don't need. The only area where a faster card would have helped me would have been file transfer to my computer.
-snip-
I've just actually bought 4 x Lexar 1667 128GB UHS-II cards which were £30 each, so £120 in total. Now they 'only' have read/write speeds of 250/120mb/s which is fine for my use, and as yet I haven't even reached the buffer limit on the A7RIV shooting uncompressed raw (120mb/image). Now if I'd bought 300mb/s Sandisk cards that would have cost me just under £800, that's £680 for no gain.
LOL It's not that bad a comparison really - I put regular unleaded in my GTi. I watched a 5th Gear report where they put my exact car on a few different types of fuel and measured them on a rolling road. The difference was about 5bhp at the wheels - on my 200bhp car I decided that wasn't worth the extra cost. It was also telling that the more expensive fuels weren't necessarily the better performers ;)
In day to day use - why worry - if I was doing a track day may be I'd put the extra 10p a litre in the tank ;)

I'm curious what you're shooting these days that needs 512GB of storage available at any one time - that's a lot of pictures!
I completely agree with your maths on the cards though :)
 
Messages
16,745
Edit My Images
No
LOL It's not that bad a comparison really - I put regular unleaded in my GTi. I watched a 5th Gear report where they put my exact car on a few different types of fuel and measured them on a rolling road. The difference was about 5bhp at the wheels - on my 200bhp car I decided that wasn't worth the extra cost. It was also telling that the more expensive fuels weren't necessarily the better performers ;)
In day to day use - why worry - if I was doing a track day may be I'd put the extra 10p a litre in the tank ;)

I'm curious what you're shooting these days that needs 512GB of storage available at any one time - that's a lot of pictures!
I completely agree with your maths on the cards though :)
Again, it depends on what you're comparing and your needs ;) My M3's and Scoobies all ran significantly better on super unleaded (particularly Shell V Power) than regular fuel. They pulled stronger, ran freer and actually got more MPG and as I result it was worth spending the extra. Tried super unleaded in my wife's Mini Cooper and it made no difference, so you need to decide whether the 'better product' is going to give you any gains, which was the point I was making (y)

I wasn't saying Robin was wrong in any way shape or form, just that not everyone needs the same or needs to buy the best every time (y).

Dunno where you get 512GB from, 2x 128GB is 256gb. I have 4 cards as I run backups (y) But at the London marathon I've shot over 3k shots before, and likewise over a motorsport weekend. At 120mb/file a 128GB card only gets you circa 1000 shots :eek:
 
Last edited:
Messages
16,745
Edit My Images
No
Were agreeing about the fuel I think? ;)

4 x 128 = 512 that's it. At 120MB each I can see you be eating through the memory!
I pity you the file storage - I'm already juggling disk drives with my JPG+ORF :D
I've found that converting to lossless DNG decreases the 120mb files to around 60mb files, I can cope with that ;)
 
Messages
6,825
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
LOL It's not that bad a comparison really - I put regular unleaded in my GTi. I watched a 5th Gear report where they put my exact car on a few different types of fuel and measured them on a rolling road. The difference was about 5bhp at the wheels - on my 200bhp car I decided that wasn't worth the extra cost. It was also telling that the more expensive fuels weren't necessarily the better performers ;)
In day to day use - why worry - if I was doing a track day may be I'd put the extra 10p a litre in the tank ;)
.... This is somewhat off topic for a moment but like you I also run a GTI which was 200bhp K03 ex-factory but is Revo Stage 2 software plotting 270bhp consistently for years on the same rolling road. She has been modified (brakes, suspension, braces, carbonfibre body parts etc) and maintained by Volkswagen Racing for 'fast road use' and occasional trackdays. She is tuned for V-Power octane which is additionally a maintenance aid and I take the advice of professionals Volkswagen Racing and Revo (and JKM Performance, Milltek and others) when told to run her on V-Power for both reliability and longevity. An aftermarket APR high pressure fuel pump is also fitted. Such actions such as fuelling are all controlled by the ECU software and a modern digital camera has a direct equivalent.

Your car's engine doesn't differentiate between day-to-day use and trackdays regarding fuel - It does what you ask it to regardless of where it is being driven. Consistent fuel octane, not chopping and changing to and fro, is better for it in the longer term.

But to get back on topic, personally I strongly believe that it's always better to use and buy the best you can and that applies to cards, batteries, and anything else including lenses, filters, tripods etc etc etc. But, each to their own and we all have different attitudes.
 
Messages
2,066
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
You haven’t still got that red MK5 have you Robin ?
 

damianmkv

Uh oh, a fruit basket!
Messages
6,147
Edit My Images
Yes
.... This is somewhat off topic for a moment but like you I also run a GTI which was 200bhp K03 ex-factory but is Revo Stage 2 software plotting 270bhp consistently for years on the same rolling road. She has been modified (brakes, suspension, braces, carbonfibre body parts etc) and maintained by Volkswagen Racing for 'fast road use' and occasional trackdays. She is tuned for V-Power octane which is additionally a maintenance aid and I take the advice of professionals Volkswagen Racing and Revo (and JKM Performance, Milltek and others) when told to run her on V-Power for both reliability and longevity. An aftermarket APR high pressure fuel pump is also fitted. Such actions such as fuelling are all controlled by the ECU software and a modern digital camera has a direct equivalent.

Your car's engine doesn't differentiate between day-to-day use and trackdays regarding fuel - It does what you ask it to regardless of where it is being driven. Consistent fuel octane, not chopping and changing to and fro, is better for it in the longer term.

But to get back on topic, personally I strongly believe that it's always better to use and buy the best you can and that applies to cards, batteries, and anything else including lenses, filters, tripods etc etc etc. But, each to their own and we all have different attitudes.
UK-mkiv person ?
 
Messages
2,066
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Again, very off topic, but I progressed from VW diesels (where my user name originated from), to this to haul about my camera gear: :D:D

 
Last edited:
Messages
6,825
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
I like my memory cards to run like my car too and am more than happy with UHS-1 cards. Mind you, I do run a bog standard Skoda diesel so my speed expectations are not high :LOL:
.... I love the buzz of speed! :D

You haven’t still got that red MK5 have you Robin ?
.... Indeed I have - The Throbbin' Red Chariot, 135k miles and I still love every mile. I still get offers from enthusiasts to buy her and even had one today.

Your Steel Grey GTI looks very nice indeed and got to be better than a GTD soot chucker! The Golf GTI is a very practical allrounder - Mine's a 4-door (called a 5-door) too.

.... Occasionally but was extremely active on 'mk5golfgti' - Over 16,000 posts! :LOL:. You too methinks with a name like 'damianmkv' (which rings a bell).

RED_6195.jpg
 
Top