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

Malfis said:
Oops!
So I went out this morning with my EM1 iii and new 100-400mm.
Shot 120 images of a Kingfisher - static on a perch and hovering. Problem - not one in focus, irrespective of shutter speed and focus setting, with and without converter. Have binned the lot.
Very confused and very unhappy. Even I can't get everything that wrong.
Will go out again tomorrow with the 300mm Pro as well, to see if that's any different.
The only setting I could see that might have been problematic was the C-AF release priority was set to 'on', allowing shutter release even if focus has not been achieved.
Click to expand...

Just a thought - Have you put a filter on the lens ?
 
Malfis said:
Oops!
So I went out this morning with my EM1 iii and new 100-400mm.
Shot 120 images of a Kingfisher - static on a perch and hovering. Problem - not one in focus, irrespective of shutter speed and focus setting, with and without converter. Have binned the lot.
Very confused and very unhappy. Even I can't get everything that wrong.
Will go out again tomorrow with the 300mm Pro as well, to see if that's any different.
The only setting I could see that might have been problematic was the C-AF release priority was set to 'on', allowing shutter release even if focus has not been achieved.
Click to expand...
Is this the first time you've used this lens? I would run some general test shots to try and eliminate the problem. Is it the Olympus 100-400mm, if so have you got the focus limiter set to 1.3-6m so it won't focus past 6m? Also, Olympus have updated it so that you can bypass that limiter and set it in camera so make sure you haven't done that either. Or maybe you had focus lock on? failing that it could be a dodgy lens.
 
Last edited:
Bloody weather was hoping to pop down to frampton marsh today , woke up and it’s raining and dull ,try again tomoz grrrrrr
 
the black fox said:
Bloody weather was hoping to pop down to frampton marsh today , woke up and it’s raining and dull ,try again tomoz grrrrrr
Click to expand...
Take a trip to the Peak District instead, lovely and sunny here at the mo (y)
 
Christoph said:
I wondered about the size of the MX, not sure I need the extra battery (y)
Click to expand...

.... Yes the M1X is bigger but, depending on what lenses you tend to shoot with and what genre of photography you do, this can be a very real advantage. What suits one photographer doesn't necessarily suit another, but both are totally valid.

I shoot with the M1X (in fact I go out with two, each with a different lens already mounted) and I shoot mostly (90%) on telephoto lenses and often with a teleconverter, all Olympus. Such a combo is both better balanced physically and easier to handle and carry in one hand because the M1X has the extra L-grip. The grip also makes shooting in portrait orientation very easy.

Battery consumption is better than it was on my mirrorless Canon EOS-R but if you shoot Continuous AF, Tracking etc and have other options enabled especially LV screen open it is of course going to drink more battery juice. In my case as I shoot in marine and wildlife environments and in all weathers sometimes from dawn til dusk, I don't want to open up my camera for any reason including battery changes. I always carry two spare batteries. I only shoot RAW images.

So only you can decide what you think is best for your type of photography.
 
snerkler said:
Take a trip to the Peak District instead, lovely and sunny here at the mo (y)
Click to expand...
on the Lincolnshire coast at the moment on a family break ,before the next lockdown happens
 
WRT batteries, I have a USB battery charger for my EM-1 and one for my Pen F batteries. I carry a USB battery on long trips and so can recharge spent batteries as I go.
 
Malfis said:
Just out today - I found this to be an objective review of the Oly 100-400mm by Tim Boyer.
It emphasises there are pros and cons about this lens.

View: https://youtu.be/iyGc6XyTObs
Click to expand...

.... Thanks Malcolm, an excellent and very objective review and very informative comparison with the ED 300mm F/4 Pro which I still have but was until now thinking of selling.

The ED 100-400mm is definitely inferior to the 300mm in very low light but having zoom is very valuable. I am reluctant to push the ISO beyond ISO 1000 and I find that Topaz DeNoise AI is not reliably consistent and I have to revert to Imageonic. I know that Jeff gets superb results with Topaz DeNoise but when I shoot surfers it's usually in atmospheric conditions which can appear very noisy - It's Cornwall not California.

I haven't tried the MC-20 2x on the 100-400mm yet but mostly have the MC-14 1,4x mounted on the zoom. I mostly shoot from tripod on the beach/cliffs and do so just so I don't have to use my arms the whole time to maintain a position - Also I can keep the horizon truly horizontal. Because I shoot surfers from my tripod I can rely on trying out my 2x on the 300mm on my second body at the ready.

So that will be max reaches (equivalents) to compare, all on tripod, as follows :

(A) - 1.4x on 100-400mm = F/9 @1120mm max zoom.

(B) - 2x on 300mm = F/8 @1200mm fixed prime.

So, I am not expecting the F/9 vs F/8 results to be critical and the max reaches are close enough being only 80mm difference. But is the 300mm Pro prime sharper to the naked eye?

(C) - 2x on 100-400mm = F/13 @1600mm max zoom < Now that will be interesting! I wonder what the F/value will be @1200mm on the zoom.
 

.... Yes the M1X is bigger but, depending on what lenses you tend to shoot with and what genre of photography you do, this can be a very real advantage. What suits one photographer doesn't necessarily suit another, but both are totally valid.

I shoot with the M1X (in fact I go out with two, each with a different lens already mounted) and I shoot mostly (90%) on telephoto lenses and often with a teleconverter, all Olympus. Such a combo is both better balanced physically and easier to handle and carry in one hand because the M1X has the extra L-grip. The grip also makes shooting in portrait orientation very easy.

Battery consumption is better than it was on my mirrorless Canon EOS-R but if you shoot Continuous AF, Tracking etc and have other options enabled especially LV screen open it is of course going to drink more battery juice. In my case as I shoot in marine and wildlife environments and in all weathers sometimes from dawn til dusk, I don't want to open up my camera for any reason including battery changes. I always carry two spare batteries. I only shoot RAW images.

So only you can decide what you think is best for your type of photography

Thanks for the reply Robin, I mainly shoot wildlife so can see the benefits of the 300 F4. I have reserved at Wex the new Olympus 100-400 and the OMD mark III, they have the M1X in stock so will try them both. The Tim Boyer video was very objective and makes me wonder about the 100-400 in low light having struggled along with the nikon 200-500 for sometime. Having said that there are some excellent wildlife photos on here taken with the 100-400 more often than not shot in poor light with us living in Britain.
 
Having used both the PL and the zuiko lenses I find the zuiko even with the t.c fitted gives far better results , whether the internal lens configurations are different or the light gathering capabilities I don’t know but there is definetly something different about it
 
Christoph said:
The Tim Boyer video was very objective and makes me wonder about the 100-400 in low light having struggled along with the nikon 200-500 for sometime. Having said that there are some excellent wildlife photos on here taken with the 100-400 more often than not shot in poor light with us living in Britain.
Click to expand...

.... It's very swings-vs-roundabouts in that each of the Olympus 100-400mm and 300mm Pro have their advantages and disadvantages over the other. It all goes to prove that there is no such thing as a perfect lens (nor a perfect camera!).

Deciding which of the two lenses to use is a bit like looking outside at the weather before deciding which coat to wear. Then additionally deciding what your target species/subject is that day. The zoom lens has more reach and more flexibility including for close-ups, but.

Something which I find invaluable about a long telephoto zoom is that you can overcome the frustration of not finding your target in the viewfinder by zooming out and then in closer when you have found and locked onto target.
 
snerkler said:
Is this the first time you've used this lens? I would run some general test shots to try and eliminate the problem. Is it the Olympus 100-400mm, if so have you got the focus limiter set to 1.3-6m so it won't focus past 6m? Also, Olympus have updated it so that you can bypass that limiter and set it in camera so make sure you haven't done that either. Or maybe you had focus lock on? failing that it could be a dodgy lens.
Click to expand...

The focus limiter was in the correct position, and the EM1 iii firmware updated.
The lens was tack sharp when not rushing the shot, but as soon as it was in C-AF it really struggled - my 300 prime was fine.
So, its not the camera, I don't think it's me, but I believe it's an autofocus problem with this particular lens.
Whatever the problem, I'm not happy with the lens so I've sent it back.
 
RedRobin said:
.... Thanks Malcolm, an excellent and very objective review and very informative comparison with the ED 300mm F/4 Pro which I still have but was until now thinking of selling.

The ED 100-400mm is definitely inferior to the 300mm in very low light but having zoom is very valuable. I am reluctant to push the ISO beyond ISO 1000 and I find that Topaz DeNoise AI is not reliably consistent and I have to revert to Imageonic. I know that Jeff gets superb results with Topaz DeNoise but when I shoot surfers it's usually in atmospheric conditions which can appear very noisy - It's Cornwall not California.

I haven't tried the MC-20 2x on the 100-400mm yet but mostly have the MC-14 1,4x mounted on the zoom. I mostly shoot from tripod on the beach/cliffs and do so just so I don't have to use my arms the whole time to maintain a position - Also I can keep the horizon truly horizontal. Because I shoot surfers from my tripod I can rely on trying out my 2x on the 300mm on my second body at the ready.

So that will be max reaches (equivalents) to compare, all on tripod, as follows :

(A) - 1.4x on 100-400mm = F/9 @1120mm max zoom.

(B) - 2x on 300mm = F/8 @1200mm fixed prime.

So, I am not expecting the F/9 vs F/8 results to be critical and the max reaches are close enough being only 80mm difference. But is the 300mm Pro prime sharper to the naked eye?

(C) - 2x on 100-400mm = F/13 @1600mm max zoom < Now that will be interesting! I wonder what the F/value will be @1200mm on the zoom.
Click to expand...

I've sent back the 100-400 because I wasn't happy with it - I think an autofocus problem with that particular lens.
For the moment I've decide to shoot primes only on M43 as I have the Leica 200mm f2.8 (and 1.4 t/c) and 300mm f4 (+1.4 & 2 t/C's). (Both lenses a tad sharper than the zoom).
I must admit I'm a little apprehensive now about the 100-400 in some of the light conditions we will face during the winter. Jeff has posted some lovely images recently, but generally they've been in the good light we've had in the last month. His BIF shots are great.
I'll bide my time and look at some more of the results posted at higher ISO's before I decide whether to reorder the 100-400mm.
 
Malfis said:
I've sent back the 100-400 because I wasn't happy with it - I think an autofocus problem with that particular lens.
For the moment I've decide to shoot primes only on M43 as I have the Leica 200mm f2.8 (and 1.4 t/c) and 300mm f4 (+1.4 & 2 t/C's). (Both lenses a tad sharper than the zoom).
I must admit I'm a little apprehensive now about the 100-400 in some of the light conditions we will face during the winter. Jeff has posted some lovely images recently, but generally they've been in the good light we've had in the last month. His BIF shots are great.
I'll bide my time and look at some more of the results posted at higher ISO's before I decide whether to reorder the 100-400mm.
Click to expand...
To be fair mal I took onboard that comment last week and purposely went out on a few poor weather days to try it out , virtually no difference once the WB was adjusted for the conditions , I have the gut feeling not just from my findings but other users world wide that unfortunately you had a bad copy , I would give it another chance when you get back . Your a experienced user so I can’t honestly see it being user error .
Today’s shots very few . Have included gulls in flight , in dull conditions ,a hang glider ,and a couple of high jet fighters all seem ? To be in focus on camera anyway .. unfortunately we have no idea how these lenses are handled on the way to us ?
 
Deciding which of the two lenses to use is a bit like looking outside at the weather before deciding which coat to wear. Then additionally deciding what your target species/subject is that day. The zoom lens has more reach and more flexibility including for close-ups, but.

Something which I find invaluable about a long telephoto zoom is that you can overcome the frustration of not finding your target in the viewfinder by zooming out and then in closer when you have found and locked onto target.

Thanks Robin, if I go for the change to olympus I think the versatility of the 100-400 decides the lens choice.
 
Gutted just seen the news . We are on local lockdown from thurs and unlike England we are not allowed under threat of a fine to leave our home /area counties .. going to be a bleak winter ahead
 
Last edited:
Malfis said:
I've sent back the 100-400 because I wasn't happy with it - I think an autofocus problem with that particular lens.
For the moment I've decide to shoot primes only on M43 as I have the Leica 200mm f2.8 (and 1.4 t/c) and 300mm f4 (+1.4 & 2 t/C's). (Both lenses a tad sharper than the zoom).

I must admit I'm a little apprehensive now about the 100-400 in some of the light conditions we will face during the winter. Jeff has posted some lovely images recently, but generally they've been in the good light we've had in the last month. His BIF shots are great.

I'll bide my time and look at some more of the results posted at higher ISO's before I decide whether to reorder the 100-400mm.
Click to expand...

.... On the two points you make which I have highlit in bold :

How have you come to the conclusion that the ED 300mm Pro is sharper than the ED 100-400mm? Do you mean specifically when the 1.4x or 2x is mounted? Or in comparison with the native ED 100-400mm? I am not saying you are mistaken but am curious what causes you to say that.

I have been testing my ED 100-400mm with the 2x (MC-20) mounted on my garden's wildlife in the last few days and these RAW images do look slightly softer viewed in camera but they may be sharper when downloaded and processed - I don't know yet. I have shot over 1,000 images (surfers) with the 1.4x mounted on the zoom lens and see nothing with the naked eye to conclude that my ED 300mm Pro is sharper. The same applies to my many thousands of shots on the zoom ED 40-150mm Pro + 2x combo. However, I do not pixel peep, I simply judge each image during and after post-processing.

I may be ignorant regarding the ISO aspect but I don't understand, until someone explains, why one lens will offer better high ISO performance than another. I do understand that the camera settings and individual image's histogram will influence ISO, as well as the camera body sensor of course. I only shoot with the E-M1X body.

This Greenfinch isn't my finest bird photo but I think it does show that the ED 100-400mm + 1.4x can deliver acceptable images in low light :

GREENFINCH by Robin Procter, on Flickr

Underlying all of this, m4/3 sensors are currently no match for Full-Frame regarding ISO performance and it is pointless to make such comparisons and complain when someone only shoots m4/3.
 
Last edited:
People have been asking or wondering how the Olympus ED 100-400mm performs when the 2x (MC-20) is mounted.

Tomorrow (Thursday) I have been given the shout that probably Surf's Up at one of my local spots and the light is forecast to be much better than today which is a strong onshore wind with lashings of horizontal rain and grey skies! < The worst surf shooting conditions possible except that an offshore wind would make all the difference.

So, for what it's worth I'll be reporting in due course together with some 2x combo garden bird shots.
 
RedRobin said:
.... On the two points you make which I have highlit in bold :

How have you come to the conclusion that the ED 300mm Pro is sharper than the ED 100-400mm? Do you mean specifically when the 1.4x or 2x is mounted? Or in comparison with the native ED 100-400mm? I am not saying you are mistaken but am curious what causes you to say that.

I have been testing my ED 100-400mm with the 2x (MC-20) mounted on my garden's wildlife in the last few days and these RAW images do look slightly softer viewed in camera but they may be sharper when downloaded and processed - I don't know yet. I have shot over 1,000 images (surfers) with the 1.4x mounted on the zoom lens and see nothing with the naked eye to conclude that my ED 300mm Pro is sharper. The same applies to my many thousands of shots on the zoom ED 40-150mm Pro + 2x combo. However, I do not pixel peep, I simply judge each image during and after post-processing.

I may be ignorant regarding the ISO aspect but I don't understand, until someone explains, why one lens will offer better high ISO performance than another. I do understand that the camera settings and individual image's histogram will influence ISO, as well as the camera body sensor of course. I only shoot with the E-M1X body.

This Greenfinch isn't my finest bird photo but I think it does show that the ED 100-400mm + 1.4x can deliver acceptable images in low light :

GREENFINCH by Robin Procter, on Flickr

Underlying all of this, m4/3 sensors are currently no match for Full-Frame regarding ISO performance and it is pointless to make such comparisons and complain when someone only shoots m4/3.
Click to expand...

I was not saying with the Teleconverter.
My simple sharpness test is blow up images side by side so that they are the same size, then simply look at the result. In effect, they will be at the same focal length. The 100-400mm I had was definitely not as sharp as my 200mm or 300mm primes. Incidentally in my opinion the Leica 200mm f2. 8 is the better lens of the two.
I suppose the ISO conundrum is down to the way you shoot. I shoot manual shutter and aperture (mainly) and let the ISO float - so with a 'slower' lens I will obviously be using higher ISO values with the resulting loss in definition.
Incidentally it's your and Jeff's fault I bought the 100-400mm in the first place, because the images you've posted have been so excellent!
 
RedRobin said:
.... On the two points you make which I have highlit in bold :

How have you come to the conclusion that the ED 300mm Pro is sharper than the ED 100-400mm? Do you mean specifically when the 1.4x or 2x is mounted? Or in comparison with the native ED 100-400mm? I am not saying you are mistaken but am curious what causes you to say that.

I have been testing my ED 100-400mm with the 2x (MC-20) mounted on my garden's wildlife in the last few days and these RAW images do look slightly softer viewed in camera but they may be sharper when downloaded and processed - I don't know yet. I have shot over 1,000 images (surfers) with the 1.4x mounted on the zoom lens and see nothing with the naked eye to conclude that my ED 300mm Pro is sharper. The same applies to my many thousands of shots on the zoom ED 40-150mm Pro + 2x combo. However, I do not pixel peep, I simply judge each image during and after post-processing.

I may be ignorant regarding the ISO aspect but I don't understand, until someone explains, why one lens will offer better high ISO performance than another. I do understand that the camera settings and individual image's histogram will influence ISO, as well as the camera body sensor of course. I only shoot with the E-M1X body.

This Greenfinch isn't my finest bird photo but I think it does show that the ED 100-400mm + 1.4x can deliver acceptable images in low light :

GREENFINCH by Robin Procter, on Flickr

Underlying all of this, m4/3 sensors are currently no match for Full-Frame regarding ISO performance and it is pointless to make such comparisons and complain when someone only shoots m4/3.
Click to expand...
Did you use a tripod?
 
One thing I noticed while out briefly today ( various reasons) was that the bare lens was for the lack of better words quite dark when viewed through the EVF .but when I fitted the 1.4 tc the EVF image was considerably brighter . ... this was in very dull overcast conditions and I will have to wait till I get home at the weekend to check the actual results ,but quiet interesting and something I haven’t noticed before
 
the black fox said:
One thing I noticed while out briefly today ( various reasons) was that the bare lens was for the lack of better words quite dark when viewed through the EVF .but when I fitted the 1.4 tc the EVF image was considerably brighter . ... this was in very dull overcast conditions and I will have to wait till I get home at the weekend to check the actual results ,but quiet interesting and something I haven’t noticed before
Click to expand...

.... Built-in compensation in the EVF? I seem to recall reading something along those lines but a long time ago and I don't remember the detail and so I could be totally wrong. It might even be a user setting in the Menu.
 
dcash29 said:
Did you use a tripod?
Click to expand...

.... Yes.

For my 'Kitchen-Window-Hide' wildlife garden shots a Platypod + Jobu Jnr-3 DeLuxe gimbal head for convenience on the high window sill.

For beach location shots of surfers etc I invariably use a Gitzo Traveller with FlexLine head to maintain position comfortably and to keep the horizon level.

Although my rig can be shot handheld, the use of 'pods makes light of being in one position for hours at a time.

I don't use a tripod when I'm out in the field hunting wildlife. But occasionally I will carry a Gitzo monopod just in case.

Why do you ask please?
 
Malfis said:
I suppose the ISO conundrum is down to the way you shoot. I shoot manual shutter and aperture (mainly) and let the ISO float - so with a 'slower' lens I will obviously be using higher ISO values with the resulting loss in definition.

Incidentally it's your and Jeff's fault I bought the 100-400mm in the first place, because the images you've posted have been so excellent!
Click to expand...

.... I shoot Manual-mode too but I no longer use Auto ISO with floating values and will change the ISO manually on the fly as needed. Once I have decided I can get away with a set ISO value I don't change it until the EVF histogram suggests it should change < That can be either to a higher or to a lower ISO.

I actually don't bother to shoot an image if a higher than ISO 1250 is needed. For me, higher ISO values are too much of a compromise even with Topaz DeNoise AI which is not always reliable.

I blame Jeff @the black fox - For everything! :D He taught me my post-processing workflow originally.
 
Last edited:
Bit frustrated at the moment as there is far less around here ( that’s accessible ) than at home ... plenty of raptors around but the roads are so narrow that you can’t pull over to get them
 
RedRobin said:
.... Yes.

For my 'Kitchen-Window-Hide' wildlife garden shots a Platypod + Jobu Jnr-3 DeLuxe gimbal head for convenience on the high window sill.

For beach location shots of surfers etc I invariably use a Gitzo Traveller with FlexLine head to maintain position comfortably and to keep the horizon level.

Although my rig can be shot handheld, the use of 'pods makes light of being in one position for hours at a time.

I don't use a tripod when I'm out in the field hunting wildlife. But occasionally I will carry a Gitzo monopod just in case.

Why do you ask please?
Click to expand...
Because of the shutter speed
 
dcash29 said:
Because of the shutter speed
Click to expand...

.... In my case, whether I am shooting on a tripod or handheld it makes no difference to my choice of shutter speed. I shoot Manual-mode and that includes changing the ISO manually on the fly if required.

I find the image stabilisation on the Olympus M1X and lenses to be exceptional and hence allowing slower shutter speeds if wanted. My selection of shutter speed primarily depends on the target, nothing else.
 
Last edited:
RedRobin said:
.... In my case, whether I am shooting on a tripod or handheld it makes no difference to my choice of shutter speed. I shoot Manual-mode and that includes changing the ISO manually on the fly if required.

I find the image stabilisation on the Olympus M1X and lenses to be exceptional and hence allowing slower shutter speeds if wanted. My selection of shutter speed depends on the target, nothing else.
Click to expand...
Fair enough (y)
 
Just managed to review some shots from this week on my I.pad. Might have a few decent ones once processed properly , nothing spectacular though ..going to try our luck at Donna nook later in the hope there are some early seals about .
Then back home to local lockdown in the morning .
 
This is what m4/3 / Olympus excels at; a couple of days ago I went to Devils Bridge (10 miles from me) and down the very steep and narrow (almost vertical!) steps down to the river at the bottom, then back up the other side. It's virtually impossible to take a tripod down due to lack of space there so i was relying on Olympus IS and the excellent good depth of field of small sensors. The results are great! Just about everything pin-sharp, even at shutter speeds down to 1/3 second and focal lengths of 100 mm. Oh, and I cycled there so a tripod was doubly
impractical.

_9290185.jpg_9290192.jpg_9290202.jpg_9290225.jpg

The second one down is at 100mm and 1/3 second!
 
Well that was a waste of time .nothing in sight at all . Got a few shots from the week but nothing as expected
 
the black fox said:
Well that was a waste of time .nothing in sight at all . Got a few shots from the week but nothing as expected
Click to expand...

At least you weren't disappointed then, better than expecting something and getting nothing..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top