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

snerkler said:
TBH I find it bizarre that a photography site doesn't make sure images are displayed as optimally as possible. I've been complaining for some time now that my photos posted on here are no where near as sharp/good quality as Flickr, which in turn isn't quite as good as how the originals look on my computer. I tend to post a smaller size on here to what you do to try and make the best of a bad situation ;)
Click to expand...

.... After finishing my image, usually a TIFF at that stage, I resize it (as cropped) to 2048px along its longest side and export a JPEG. Regardless of where it is going, the image remains at 300dpi. The JPEG is posted to Flickr and or my Facebook/Instagram pages. I don't want to create and keep different size copies of the same image. Images posted from the TP Gallery would have to be downsized :confused:.

I wonder what monitors some people are viewing on because I see no loss of image quality here. I'm using a professional Eizo calibrated 27inch monitor.
 
Using a calibrated monitor won't matter a fig regarding sharpness of image.

I'm using an Eizo 24" screen at work and the image on this site looks abysmal.

Not checked Flickr as our IE11 here is s***.
 
jono2002 said:
Unfortunately the forum and flikr both don't display pictures as they should. The reality is that storage, bandwidth and supporting different clients cause a reduction in quality. Why I lean in Dropbox (and others) for sharing files sometimes as the original file will remain intact.
Click to expand...
At least Flickr is much better than here (y)
 
RedRobin said:
.... After finishing my image, usually a TIFF at that stage, I resize it (as cropped) to 2048px along its longest side and export a JPEG. Regardless of where it is going, the image remains at 300dpi. The JPEG is posted to Flickr and or my Facebook/Instagram pages. I don't want to create and keep different size copies of the same image. Images posted from the TP Gallery would have to be downsized :confused:.

I wonder what monitors some people are viewing on because I see no loss of image quality here. I'm using a professional Eizo calibrated 27inch monitor.
Click to expand...
Whilst you might export it with those dimensions you can select different size bbcodes when sharing from Flickr, and of the large bbcodes are too big from my experience. I choose the largest of the mediums. I'm using a calibrated MacBook Pro screen, but it still looks bad on the iPhone.
GreenNinja67 said:
Checked on Flickr using Chrome and still looks oversharpened and noisy but it was shot at ISO 1000 and is after all M43.
Click to expand...
TBH shots from the EM1-II at 1000 are fine, I don't know what's up with the rendering of that shot on here. Looks like an iphone photo that's then been cropped heavily, like 1:1.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
I'm using an Eizo 24" screen at work and the image on this site looks abysmal.
Click to expand...

.... Well, thanks for the constructive comments Terry. You do know what "abysmal" means do you? - Extremely bad, appalling.

So I thought to myself, okay Robin, this isn't one of my best ever shots but what standard of photography is Terry basing his criticisms on, I'll check out his Flickr page. Hmm, no comment from me other than that I'm not very impressed. I wish I could say otherwise but there are only one or two images I think are really good and you haven't bothered to straighten the horizon on one of them.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Whilst you might export it with those dimensions you can select different size bbcodes when sharing from Flickr, and of the large bbcodes are too big from my experience. I choose the largest of the mediums. I'm using a calibrated MacBook Pro screen, but it still looks bad on the iPhone.
Click to expand...

.... Am going to completely re process the image and post it here again and follow your tip about BBcode sizes when sharing from Flickr - Thanks.

But if I disappear it's because I have just today been invited up to someone's house up in the Cairngorms of Scotland - I'm south coast of Dorset so it's a long drive if I go. Wildlife photography will be done there!! I'll be gone for at least a week.
 
RedRobin said:
My first processed image shot on my new Olympus E-M1X + ED 40-150mm PRO + MC-14. A quick snap taken in poor light and greatly enlarged - I did not know the owner.

RAW ORF file loaded and converted in Capture One 12.

I always shoot RAW and am happy with the result and so I have decided I am keeping the camera.

He is a crossbreed Husky-Labrador and his name is 'Tyson' but I think he should be named 'Bowie'.

CROSSBREED HUSKY-LABRADOR 'TYSON' by Robin Procter, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Yes I can see the effect of it being high ISO & cropped. On my 27" 4K screen zoomed in it's not so nice. However portrait filling my screen top to bottom (screen in landscape) looks great! Little noise doesn't mean it's bad, I think this is a situation where it would look best in print.

I know the eye colours would be lost, but worth converting to monochrome, add some grain & contrast to help make those eyes & fur stand out?
 
snerkler said:
At least Flickr is much better than here (y)
Click to expand...
True, I am certainly not going to complain about image quality on the forum as storage & bandwidth would clearly mount up quickly in to big bills which would result in no TP forum or having to pay a chunk to use it.
 
There's been examples on here many a time showing M43 sensors are very capable at ISO 1000 and well above. Partly because when there is noise it tends to be a very fine grain that's very easily cleaned up.
 
RedRobin said:
.... Well, thanks for the constructive comments Terry. You do know what "abysmal" means do you? - Extremely bad, appalling.

So I thought to myself, okay Robin, this isn't one of my best ever shots but what standard of photography is Terry basing his criticisms on, I'll check out his Flickr page. Hmm, no comment from me other than that I'm not very impressed. I wish I could say otherwise but there only one or two images think are really good and you haven't bothered to straighten the horizon on one of them.
Click to expand...
Ouch!
 
RedRobin said:
.... Am going to completely re process the image and post it here again and follow your tip about BBcode sizes when sharing from Flickr - Thanks.

But if I disappear it's because I have just today been invited up to someone's house up in the Cairngorms of Scotland - I'm south coast of Dorset so it's a long drive if I go. Wildlife photography will be done there!! I'll be gone for at least a week.
Click to expand...
Ooh argh it’s gonna be quite on here for a week then LOL
 
jono2002 said:
Yes I can see the effect of it being high ISO & cropped. On my 27" 4K screen zoomed in it's not so nice. However portrait filling my screen top to bottom (screen in landscape) looks great! Little noise doesn't mean it's bad, I think this is a situation where it would look best in print.

I know the eye colours would be lost, but worth converting to monochrome, add some grain & contrast to help make those eyes & fur stand out?
Click to expand...

.... Interesting and a different but positive suggestion.

So I have had another go at post-processing the dog pic. I think it is an improvement but some of you may not agree :D. To help it I am posting it at a smaller BBcode size from Flickr than previously as suggested.

CROSSBREED HUSKY-LABRADOR 'TYSON' aka 'DAVID BOWIE'! by Robin Procter, on Flickr
 
RedRobin said:
.... Am going to completely re process the image and post it here again and follow your tip about BBcode sizes when sharing from Flickr - Thanks.

But if I disappear it's because I have just today been invited up to someone's house up in the Cairngorms of Scotland - I'm south coast of Dorset so it's a long drive if I go. Wildlife photography will be done there!! I'll be gone for at least a week.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go to the trouble of reprocessing, it's only on here that it looks 'odd' (y)

Edit: bit late, you've already done it ;)
 
Last edited:
RedRobin said:
.... Well, thanks for the constructive comments Terry. You do know what "abysmal" means do you? - Extremely bad, appalling.

So I thought to myself, okay Robin, this isn't one of my best ever shots but what standard of photography is Terry basing his criticisms on, I'll check out his Flickr page. Hmm, no comment from me other than that I'm not very impressed. I wish I could say otherwise but there are only one or two images I think are really good and you haven't bothered to straighten the horizon on one of them.
Click to expand...


That wasn't a criticism you know.

Maybe I could have worded it better.

If I gave offence I apologise, it wasn't meant I assure you.

I hate noise / grain call it what you will and have difficulty removing it at high ISOs, I try to be below 400 ISO for this reason with M43. I've seen others with high ISO images with considerably less grain and I always wonder how they do it.

I'm sorry you don't like my Flickr stream, but I'll try and live with it, hard as it will be. :whistle:
 
Cagey75 said:
There's been examples on here many a time showing M43 sensors are very capable at ISO 1000 and well above. Partly because when there is noise it tends to be a very fine grain that's very easily cleaned up.
Click to expand...

.... That's good to know. I did notice that the noise appears to be relatively fine grain but it's very early days in my progress with this camera. The point is that it's not so bad to make me send the Olympus back which I can still do because I have it on trial. There is too much which I like about though and I think it's up to me to milk what I can out of it. I'm keeping my EOS-R for now but selling my 1DX-2 + 500mm.

At the moment the light is mostly poor and my first efforts with this new-to-me camera are bound to have higher ISO - Currently I am working on Auto ISO with a limit of ISO 2000 (Manual-mode).
 
Last edited:
GreenNinja67 said:
That wasn't a criticism you know.

Maybe I could have worded it better.

If I gave offence I apologise, it wasn't meant I assure you.

I hate noise / grain call it what you will and have difficulty removing it at high ISOs, I try to be below 400 ISO for this reason with M43. I've seen others with high ISO images with considerably less grain and I always wonder how they do it.

I'm sorry you don't like my Flickr stream, but I'll try and live with it, hard as it will be. :whistle:
Click to expand...

.... Good Morning, Terry. I totally accept your apology and I appreciate you posting it. It is I think exactly as you have said in that it was your wording and tone across several posts which put my back up. I don't mind criticism when it is constructive and tactfully written.

For my part, I was a bit harsh in my opinion about your Flickr stream generally and actually there are some images I do like quite a lot - Especially 'Through The Gap'. So I apologise for that.

Unfortunately with wildlife fast shutter speeds and lighting conditions can often result in higher ISO. I too have seen links posted in this thread which show photographer's work on m4/3 with excellent noise handling - Selective noise reduction filters can help in post-processing.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
That wasn't a criticism you know.

Maybe I could have worded it better.

If I gave offence I apologise, it wasn't meant I assure you.

I hate noise / grain call it what you will and have difficulty removing it at high ISOs, I try to be below 400 ISO for this reason with M43. I've seen others with high ISO images with considerably less grain and I always wonder how they do it.

I'm sorry you don't like my Flickr stream, but I'll try and live with it, hard as it will be. :whistle:
Click to expand...

I know it sounds obvious but exposing correctly, as near to bang on as you can when shooting helps a lot when it comes to noise handling. If you find you are pushing exposures up in particular in post, this is causing more uneccesary noise. A little noise in an image is no big deal, for me it really only matters for finer detail images where you want as clean and uninterrupted sharpness as possible. Macro for example, but even on the best iso handling sensors available for this purpose you're keeping the ISO to a min and using flash mostly. Wildlife I guess would be the other where you require very fast SS to freeze action, and this tends to push the ISO levels higher than normal shooting. But we've seen on here time and again, the likes of the black fox, wildlife images at ISO 3200 and above and looking very good. Look up some noise reduction tutorials on YouTube maybe? Every little helps.
 
FWIW

When I was looking to downsize I looked at example raw files from the E-M1MK2 and considered the noise as reminiscent of film grain.,......and 'saw' it as more acceptable than the noise I saw in my old canon 7D which by that point I had not used for ages as had my 5D3.

Once I got it and I noticed that where the noise needed more pp on some files than others LR would not cope that well! Someone pointed me to DxO Photolab and it's Prime noise reduction was a revelation......in the way it reduced noise but left subject details untouched that then sharpened nicely.

PS I remember when some grain in an image was considered important.......though it's presence on the Konica 3200 ASA was s bit meh! But then as the highest ASA colour print film available it was the only choice ;)
 
Last edited:
M43 iso performance in general is as good if not better than Canon apsc, Dr is better too. At least up until the new breed, I hear the 90D is pretty good but not seen any real evidence

I only ever use lightroom and never really had issues handling high iso noise on the m43 system, and I've only used the older 16mp sensor on the em5 original and the Panasonic g80. The later sensor models should be better again.
 
Cagey75 said:
I know it sounds obvious but exposing correctly, as near to bang on as you can when shooting helps a lot when it comes to noise handling. If you find you are pushing exposures up in particular in post, this is causing more uneccesary noise. A little noise in an image is no big deal, for me it really only matters for finer detail images where you want as clean and uninterrupted sharpness as possible. Macro for example, but even on the best iso handling sensors available for this purpose you're keeping the ISO to a min and using flash mostly. Wildlife I guess would be the other where you require very fast SS to freeze action, and this tends to push the ISO levels higher than normal shooting. But we've seen on here time and again, the likes of the black fox, wildlife images at ISO 3200 and above and looking very good. Look up some noise reduction tutorials on YouTube maybe? Every little helps.
Click to expand...

.... I agree completely - The only difference with me is that I don't use flash even for macro but I do know that it can help substantially.

As you say, the key is to always strive to get it right in camera and minimise the post-processing except perhaps to enhance through effects.

Wildlife is considered as one of most challenging activities in photography - The subjects are hyper alert and trying to avoid you and they are often more active in tricky light conditions plus they usually don't stand still and pose for you! Some do of course. You might then say that a full-frame system is the best tool for the job but you need supertelephoto lenses in your arsenal which results in weight and can hamper mobility - No problem whatsoever in a hide. This is why I am putting one foot firmly planted in the Olympus camp and think that for my particular purposes the M1X is the best tool for the job.

I had a phone chat with Olympus earlier this week and when I told them that I thought that the M1X was as if Canon had designed a m4/3 body because of its similarity to their 1DX-2, they told me that they had closely consulted a number of professional photographers and asked them to be very specific about all the features they wanted. Thank goodness at least one of them asked for the fully articulated rear screen and maximum weatherproofing!

Unfortunately my Cairngorms trip has been postponed but I'm going to be out getting to know my M1X better at every opportunity I get! Bear with me please guys - I'm a newbie to m4/3.
 
first processed shot from this mornings session . well pleased with the performance, all the last few weeks fine tuning of camera and lens has finally fallen into place ... here's the first one omd1-mkii + four thirds 50-200SWD+E.C14.t.c giving a focal length of 283mm
halloween treat by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr
 
the black fox said:
first processed shot from this mornings session . well pleased with the performance, all the last few weeks fine tuning of camera and lens has finally fallen into place ... here's the first one omd1-mkii + four thirds 50-200SWD+E.C14.t.c giving a focal length of 283mm
halloween treat by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr
Click to expand...

.... Superb! Great proof of what can be achieved with m4/3.
 
I have yet to delete a photo due to noise with this camera ,and that’s right up to iso 6400 .. it’s there don’t get me wrong but using the right processing methods it’s easily put to bed .. the files in fact remind me of the ones from the canon 1D3
 
My Panny 100-400 arrived today, thought I’d take advantage of the £200 cashback offer. Can’t wait to get out with it, I was going to wait until next year when I plan to upgrade all my gear but the opportunity was too good to miss out on. Not sure how good it will be on my EM10 mkiii but it’ll give me a chance to get used to it.
 
nice mike . at our ages just be happy we can still take them
 
the black fox said:
nice mike . at our ages just be happy we can still take them
Click to expand...

Thanks jeff, the thing is i am getting out less and less now, i have the EMIMK11 and the Panasonic G80 while the Olympus is the better camera ime thinking of letting it go, just having the G80 and 100-400 for the odd times i can get out.
I have ordered the Nikon Z50 twin lens kit for none birding shots so the Olympus would go a long way towards paying for it.

Not a bad size looks like it will be slightly smaller and lighter than the Olympus and with out a birding lens on it should stay that way

Capturemmmm.JPG
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
What made you go for the Z50?
Click to expand...

Possibly stupidity ;)

I dont like not having a Nikon after 40 years of using them, it looks like we will never see a new 1 series so this may be the closest we get, ime not normally an early adopter for obvious reasons, so i thought what the hell.
 
Just hope your making the right choice mike ,personally I would have got rid of the g80 ..
 
the black fox said:
Just hope you're making the right choice mike, personally I would have got rid of the g80 ..
Click to expand...

From a bird photography point you are right, from it sitting in a bag most of the time unused point not so sure.
 
Quick question guys, if I may.

Background first: The 14-42EZ lens on my wife's E-M10MkI failed recently, with the message "Please check the status of a lens" appearing, however the camera still works fine with the 40-140 zoom. I have since had 2 used replacement lenses from MPB, both failed to work with intermittent failure in the case of the first and a refusal to focus properly in the case of the second (which was also in rather poor condition). I have cleaned to camera contacts (did that when the first lens failed).

Are these lenses failure-prone, or is there any other reason why one type of lens might repeatedly appear faulty? We want a decent replacement because this keeps the camera small enough that she's happy to use it - anything bigger and she'll go back to a compact.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Quick question guys, if I may.

Background first: The 14-42EZ lens on my wife's E-M10MkI failed recently, with the message "Please check the status of a lens" appearing, however the camera still works fine with the 40-140 zoom. I have since had 2 used replacement lenses from MPB, both failed to work with intermittent failure in the case of the first and a refusal to focus properly in the case of the second (which was also in rather poor condition). I have cleaned to camera contacts (did that when the first lens failed).

Are these lenses failure-prone, or is there any other reason why one type of lens might repeatedly appear faulty? We want a decent replacement because this keeps the camera small enough that she's happy to use it - anything bigger and she'll go back to a compact.
Click to expand...
My wife uses a Panasonic 12-32 on her em10ii and it's very compact. Great wee lens.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
Quick question guys, if I may.

Background first: The 14-42EZ lens on my wife's E-M10MkI failed recently, with the message "Please check the status of a lens" appearing, however the camera still works fine with the 40-140 zoom. I have since had 2 used replacement lenses from MPB, both failed to work with intermittent failure in the case of the first and a refusal to focus properly in the case of the second (which was also in rather poor condition). I have cleaned to camera contacts (did that when the first lens failed).

Are these lenses failure-prone, or is there any other reason why one type of lens might repeatedly appear faulty? We want a decent replacement because this keeps the camera small enough that she's happy to use it - anything bigger and she'll go back to a compact.
Click to expand...


Odd one, usually the first thing I'd suggest is to clean he contacts on both the mount and the lens but you've done this and tried more than one copy of the lens. Could it be that coincidental that all copies of the lens you tested had contact issues? Is it just one of those lenses that once it goes iffy there's no mend? I would look at the Pany 12-32 as Bob suggests, it's apparently a sharper lens anyway.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Quick question guys, if I may.

Background first: The 14-42EZ lens on my wife's E-M10MkI failed recently, with the message "Please check the status of a lens" appearing, however the camera still works fine with the 40-140 zoom. I have since had 2 used replacement lenses from MPB, both failed to work with intermittent failure in the case of the first and a refusal to focus properly in the case of the second (which was also in rather poor condition). I have cleaned to camera contacts (did that when the first lens failed).

Are these lenses failure-prone, or is there any other reason why one type of lens might repeatedly appear faulty? We want a decent replacement because this keeps the camera small enough that she's happy to use it - anything bigger and she'll go back to a compact.
Click to expand...

Yes they are failure prone. Get the Panasonic 12-32 instead (very small) or the Panasonic 14-45 (slightly bigger but superb IQ). Personally I don't like the power zoom on the 14-42 EZ and IQ isn't that great compared to the other 2 Panasonic options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top