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

the black fox said:
You can alter the OVF settings to keep the EVF live at all times . The one thing that bothered me when I first changed to Olympus was the screen blacking out for a split second and losing track of the bird . It doesnt now , this works on the 1-mk2 and mk3
Click to expand...
Cool, I was trying to find this out last night but everything I read said it couldn’t be done in real time as you need a stacked sensor for this. I wonder how Olly have worked around this.
 
the black fox said:
The i.q is better , I owned the pana for 2 years and it did me proud , but having seen initial reports about the oly I was more than inquisitive about it ,when a order cancellation came up I went for it .. I had the lens bolted on the camera and tried out within ten minutes of purchase . The first b.I.f appeared a few minutes later and I instantly knew it was special ,focus speed ,lock on ability, general feel everything fell into place ..
I can’t comment on why others cannot get on with it and really can’t see any problems .. all I can think is you do need to be on top of your menu settings and know how to handle long lenses .. plus I realised that a lot of users are basing there camera birding set ups on American users recommendations which at best are confusing and at worst are totally wrong .. you only need two conflicting errors in set up to throw it all out of synch .
Myself and I know Andy rouse does the same do not use BBF it’s not needed and I think the cause of a lot of problems I.e your focussing with a 800+ mm lens if you use a t.c .. usually handheld . . And then depressing the shutter button this causes a slight deflection at the camera end but a major one at lens end .. whereas if you focus with the shutter button and gently apply pressure when target clicks in it’s bang on .I also try to employ just single point focus or if a clear sky cluster focus it’s the only ones needed
Click to expand...
Schoolboy error on my part how do disable bbf and reset to shutter button I am out at the moment and thought I would change settings but have forgotten correct method of just resetting from bbf to shutter button
 
mazdaman said:
Schoolboy error on my part how do disable bbf and reset to shutter button I am out at the moment and thought I would change settings but have forgotten correct method of just resetting from bbf to shutter button
Click to expand...
You need to change the action of the AEL/AFL button to something other than AF.
 
snerkler said:
You need to change the action of the AEL/AFL button to something other than AF.
Click to expand...
A quick look on you tube Gavin Hoey came good going try Jeff's recommendation for the rest of the day
 
yet another of thurs squacco heron . went back for it today but to many idiots spooked it before I got there ,then were seen chasing round fields and ditches grrrrrr
walking the walk by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr
 
Anyone on here moved to M43 recently ?

Would I be mad to consider buying into the system now ? I’m currently using a FF camera which has just got to heavy.

Most of my photography is taken in good light on holiday and trips away - I’m not a get up at dawn type person…

I shoot mainly landscape and Cities - thanks
 
justa1972 said:
Anyone on here moved to M43 recently ?

Would I be mad to consider buying into the system now ? I’m currently using a FF camera which has just got to heavy.

Most of my photography is taken in good light on holiday and trips away - I’m not a get up at dawn type person…

I shoot mainly landscape and Cities - thanks
Click to expand...
I’ve just done exactly the same for the same reasons. I had the advantage of foresight, having initially been in at the dawn of m4/3. I reprocessed some of those early shots in modern software and was impressed. I rarely print very large, and of course if you’re viewing on a screen it matters even less.
 
justa1972 said:
Anyone on here moved to M43 recently ?

Would I be mad to consider buying into the system now ? I’m currently using a FF camera which has just got to heavy.

Most of my photography is taken in good light on holiday and trips away - I’m not a get up at dawn type person…

I shoot mainly landscape and Cities - thanks
Click to expand...
I’ve twice ran the m4/3 system alongside a FF system and the m4/3 stands up very well IMO. The only thing you miss is the shallow DOF.
 
Up to date MFT cameras , plus up to date p.p methods of which there are plenty combine to give good shots , my photos of the squaco heron were all taken in low light ,high iso situations , if decent light prevails I challenge anyone to guess what camera a photo is from ,
 
justa1972 said:
Anyone on here moved to M43 recently ?

Would I be mad to consider buying into the system now ? I’m currently using a FF camera which has just got to heavy.

Most of my photography is taken in good light on holiday and trips away - I’m not a get up at dawn type person…

I shoot mainly landscape and Cities - thanks
Click to expand...

I‘m shortly selling my A9ii, FE200/600 and other full frame lenses because I find my M43 setup more than enough for my needs. I just find that whenever I travel, due to size and weight issues, it’s the M43 gear I take with me.
 
I run FF alongside M43. FF is too heavy, but gives me more assurance. Also low light:

- with M43 I have to be right every time
- with FF I can be sloppy.

M43 beats anything I had before FF into a cocked hat.
The trouble is, that I have FF :D
 
Pound Coin said:
I run FF alongside M43. FF is too heavy, but gives me more assurance. Also low light:

- with M43 I have to be right every time
- with FF I can be sloppy.

M43 beats anything I had before FF into a cocked hat.
The trouble is, that I have FF :D
Click to expand...
TBH I still feel I have some leeway with m4/3. Not as much as FF obviously but I wouldn't say I need to get it bang on. I do try of course, whatever the format.
 
Not sure what I did with my FF gear that I don't with the m4/3 stuff.
Only print up to A3 and once a bit of processing with LR and DeepPrime has happened all looks decent enough.
So much more manageable and some of the lenses are as good as I have ever owned.
For example the 12-100, must be the best of its kind for any format, no interest in changing back at all.
 
tijuana taxi said:
Not sure what I did with my FF gear that I don't with the m4/3 stuff.
Only print up to A3 and once a bit of processing with LR and DeepPrime has happened all looks decent enough.
So much more manageable and some of the lenses are as good as I have ever owned.
For example the 12-100, must be the best of its kind for any format, no interest in changing back at all.
Click to expand...
Got backache? :)
 
tijuana taxi said:
Not sure what I did with my FF gear that I don't with the m4/3 stuff.
Only print up to A3 and once a bit of processing with LR and DeepPrime has happened all looks decent enough.
So much more manageable and some of the lenses are as good as I have ever owned.
For example the 12-100, must be the best of its kind for any format, no interest in changing back at all.
Click to expand...
Whenever I read comments like this I do wonder why my experiences are so different.

I've been with MFT since the GF1 and now have Panasonic GX80 and GX9, the former uses a Panasonic 16mp chip and the latter the 20mp Sony one. These cameras especially the Sony sensor equipped GX9 should be towards the top end for MFT cameras yet they clearly, demonstrably and consistently lag behind my aging Sony A7 in two areas, dynamic range and noise. The biggest issue for me is the lack of DR which is often very obvious to me and results in blown skies or poorer than I'd like subjects if I try to prevent the highlight blowing, pull them back and have to raise other areas post capture. One solution is to turn around and shoot in the opposite direction where less DR may be required but that's not always possible if the picture you want to take is in front of you. Part of the issue could I suppose be that the further north you go the lower in the sky the sun gets and the light can get harsh and challenging but I can't be the only one seeing a real and significant difference between MFT and FF dynamic range which matters in real world picture taking.

Looking at the review site the numbers may not be that far apart but in the real world numbers on review site often mean little. Point a MFT and a FF camera at a squirrel in a tree and you may get similar results. Point the cameras at someone in front of background and sky you want to keep in challenging lighing and the results may vary, significantly.

I'd agree that print size isn't an issue with MFT. I think I have an A3 or two from my old Canon 300D which was 6.3mp.
 
woof woof said:
Whenever I read comments like this I do wonder why my experiences are so different.

I've been with MFT since the GF1 and now have Panasonic GX80 and GX9, the former uses a Panasonic 16mp chip and the latter the 20mp Sony one. These cameras especially the Sony sensor equipped GX9 should be towards the top end for MFT cameras yet they clearly, demonstrably and consistently lag behind my aging Sony A7 in two areas, dynamic range and noise. The biggest issue for me is the lack of DR which is often very obvious to me and results in blown skies or poorer than I'd like subjects if I try to prevent the highlight blowing, pull them back and have to raise other areas post capture. One solution is to turn around and shoot in the opposite direction where less DR may be required but that's not always possible if the picture you want to take is in front of you. Part of the issue could I suppose be that the further north you go the lower in the sky the sun gets and the light can get harsh and challenging but I can't be the only one seeing a real and significant difference between MFT and FF dynamic range which matters in real world picture taking.

Looking at the review site the numbers may not be that far apart but in the real world numbers on review site often mean little. Point a MFT and a FF camera at a squirrel in a tree and you may get similar results. Point the cameras at someone in front of background and sky you want to keep in challenging lighing and the results may vary, significantly.

I'd agree that print size isn't an issue with MFT. I think I have an A3 or two from my old Canon 300D which was 6.3mp.
Click to expand...

I suppose it also depends on subject matter, can't remember the last time I took a photo of someone.
Most of my photography is travel based so portability is a big issue.
Also helps that m4/3 has quite probably the best in camera stabilisation of any system.
Noise is rapidly becoming much less of a problem with the latest software, not that I thought it was that bad to start with.
Be interesting to compare a camera like the G9 against your Sony
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Whenever I read comments like this I do wonder why my experiences are so different.

I've been with MFT since the GF1 and now have Panasonic GX80 and GX9, the former uses a Panasonic 16mp chip and the latter the 20mp Sony one. These cameras especially the Sony sensor equipped GX9 should be towards the top end for MFT cameras yet they clearly, demonstrably and consistently lag behind my aging Sony A7 in two areas, dynamic range and noise. The biggest issue for me is the lack of DR which is often very obvious to me and results in blown skies or poorer than I'd like subjects if I try to prevent the highlight blowing, pull them back and have to raise other areas post capture. One solution is to turn around and shoot in the opposite direction where less DR may be required but that's not always possible if the picture you want to take is in front of you. Part of the issue could I suppose be that the further north you go the lower in the sky the sun gets and the light can get harsh and challenging but I can't be the only one seeing a real and significant difference between MFT and FF dynamic range which matters in real world picture taking.

Looking at the review site the numbers may not be that far apart but in the real world numbers on review site often mean little. Point a MFT and a FF camera at a squirrel in a tree and you may get similar results. Point the cameras at someone in front of background and sky you want to keep in challenging lighing and the results may vary, significantly.

I'd agree that print size isn't an issue with MFT. I think I have an A3 or two from my old Canon 300D which was 6.3mp.
Click to expand...
There's a clear difference in noise and DR still imo too, however with some of the newer M4/3 cameras the DR is over 13ev which is actually better than some FF. I've been spoilt with DR using Nikon and Sony and so do notice it more than if I'd come from Canon for example (barring the odd one). This and depth of field are the reasons that I can't drop FF, but the gap is ever narrowing (y)

Screenshot 2021-09-20 at 11.28.07.png
 
Last edited:
I'm sure that the graphs don't lie (do they?) but I never pay any attention to them. All I can say is that the photos I take with my newly-acquired GX9 have enough DR and lack of noise to satisfy me. That's comparing them by eye in normal viewing situations on screen and print with both my Sony A7C and my Nikon Z6.
 
Stephen L said:
I'm sure that the graphs don't lie (do they?) but I never pay any attention to them. All I can say is that the photos I take with my newly-acquired GX9 have enough DR and lack of noise to satisfy me. That's comparing them by eye in normal viewing situations on screen and print with both my Sony A7C and my Nikon Z6.
Click to expand...
That's all that matters imo. I use charts for reference and comparisons for specific reasons but I certainly wouldn't let it dictate my choices, plus stats aren't everything. I've gone from a 61mp camera with 14.8ev DR to a 24mp camera with 14ev DR and I'm happier with the latter. I've not had a situation yet where I've felt I've missed the DR from the old camera.
 
I often find that those criticise various formats and are forever changing take some awful photos.
Noise or DR are the least of their problems, how about get the camera level or sort out the shakes.
 
tijuana taxi said:
II suppose it also depends on subject matter, can't remember the last time I took a photo of someone.
Most of my photography is travel based so portability is a big issue.
Also helps that m4/3 has quite probably the best in camera stabilisation of any system.
Noise is rapidly becoming much less of a problem with the latest software, not that I thought it was that bad to start with.
Be interesting to compare a camera like the G9 against your Sony
Click to expand...

Maybe I wasn't being clear. It's not just an issue when taking pictures of "someone." It's an issue with high dynamic range compositions where the gear hasn't got enough DR to capture the whole scene. Sometimes highlights can be left to blow or maybe sometimes blown highlights may be what you want as you may think they enhance the picture but sometimes you want to retain highlights and for example not end up with a sky that is completely or in part blow. If things are going to be blown the exposure can be adjusted to protect them but this can mean that the less well lit areas may need to be lifted significantly and this can lead to the lack of DR causing other issues affecting the parts of the picture you're attempting to lift.

With MFT there's much more chance of running into this scenario than with my relatively ancient Sony A7 but as a I mentioned this may be in part made worse by living in the NE of England where the sun can be relatively low in the sky.
 
woof woof said:
Maybe I wasn't being clear. It's not just an issue when taking pictures of "someone." It's an issue with high dynamic range compositions where the gear hasn't got enough DR to capture the whole scene. Sometimes highlights can be left to blow or maybe sometimes blown highlights may be what you want as you may think they enhance the picture but sometimes you want to retain highlights and for example not end up with a sky that is completely or in part blow. If things are going to be blown the exposure can be adjusted to protect them but this can mean that the less well lit areas may need to be lifted significantly and this can lead to the lack of DR causing other issues affecting the parts of the picture you're attempting to lift.

With MFT there's much more chance of running into this scenario than with my relatively ancient Sony A7 but as a I mentioned this may be in part made worse by living in the NE of England where the sun can be relatively low in the sky.
Click to expand...

You were clear and I understood what you meant, maybe I didn't explain properly.
With subjects like architecture and transport I find the DR more than adequate to avoid blowing out highlights.
Seen a lot of people try to find detail for instance in bright sparkling water that just isn't there.
Suppose it depends just how much leeway you desire, but again use what you feel satisfies your needs, I do
 
snerkler said:
There's a clear difference in noise and DR still imo too, however with some of the newer M4/3 cameras the DR is over 13ev which is actually better than some FF. I've been spoilt with DR using Nikon and Sony and so do notice it more than if I'd come from Canon for example (barring the odd one). This and depth of field are the reasons that I can't drop FF, but the gap is ever narrowing (y)
Click to expand...

I haven't had a Canon for years, my last was the 5D and MFT are almost certainly better than that camera and miles ahead of the Canon 300D, 10D and 20D I had.

Stephen L said:
I'm sure that the graphs don't lie (do they?) but I never pay any attention to them. All I can say is that the photos I take with my newly-acquired GX9 have enough DR and lack of noise to satisfy me. That's comparing them by eye in normal viewing situations on screen and print with both my Sony A7C and my Nikon Z6.
Click to expand...

Graphs can indeed be misleading as they're produced by people with a testing mythology other people may disagree with, see the recent discussions in the Sony thread.

Two places where I take a lot of pictures are the coast and the scenic walk to the shops where I live and I've posted about a million pictures of both so you might have seen some in the various threads. I find that MFT struggles in both these locations, at the coast as there can be harsh light and metering systems can easily be challenged and on the scenic walk to the shops as the path is flanked by trees and bushes and often there's harsh light from a low in the sky sun.
 
tijuana taxi said:
You were clear and I understood what you meant, maybe I didn't explain properly.
With subjects like architecture and transport I find the DR more than adequate to avoid blowing out highlights.
Seen a lot of people try to find detail for instance in bright sparkling water that just isn't there.
Suppose it depends just how much leeway you desire, but again use what you feel satisfies your needs, I do
Click to expand...

Framing is important in this and if you're taking a picture of a building or a bus or a train for example you can possibly exclude areas which will challenge the kits DR and it may not matter if you exclude a lot as the building, bus or train is the main subject, in fact it'll probably be an advantage to exclude a lot. However if I want a picture of something which limits my compositional and positional choices my framing options may be limited and the DR challenges more apparent.

It's not a question of how much leeway is desired, it's a question of what the DR requirements are of the composition you want to capture. In some situations blown highlight wont matter or may in fact be desirable, sometimes large difference in DR in a scene may be overcome with flash, in some situations you can try and ensure that brighter areas are excluded from the composition and in some instances you can shoot for the highlights and raise the shadows but some compositions and some DR requirements do push the kit beyond its limits and those limits IMO are hit sooner with my MFT cameras than with my A7.

I read a blog from a well know guy sometime ago and he was talking about blown skies and he says he's judged on his pictures so if the sky is going to blow he turns round and shoots in the other direction. That's another fix but what he gets is a completely different picture.

I don't want to knock MFT too much and I'm still a user and in fact I've just bought another MFT camera and two more lenses but I do accept that no matter what lines on graphs may say for me in some locations I regularly take pictures my creaking old A7 has a clear edge because it has more DR.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the replies folks - very useful.

Tempted by the OMD EM5 my iii which is at a great price with the 14-150 ii at HDEW - it’s either one of those of a Fuji X camera..
 
justa1972 said:
Thanks for the replies folks - very useful.

Tempted by the OMD EM5 my iii which is at a great price with the 14-150 ii at HDEW - it’s either one of those of a Fuji X camera..
Click to expand...
Fuji are great cameras (as are most makes) but beware of getting into the heavy lens spiral. And the raw files (X-Trans) need processing differently as they can pose certain "difficulties". ;)
 
justa1972 said:
Thanks for the replies folks - very useful.

Tempted by the OMD EM5 my iii which is at a great price with the 14-150 ii at HDEW - it’s either one of those of a Fuji X camera..
Click to expand...
Have you tried the Mark III, the body is now plastic which some people don't like. I've not tried one yet to see if it's a 'real' issue or not.

I have a love/hate relationship with Fuji. I love the bodies, love the colours but still have an issue with rendering. No matter what software I've tried (pretty much all) and settings used (including not using sharpening) foliage can look "mushy", and certain things can look a bit plasticky. I often get flamed for these comments as a lot of people don't see it, or say I'm processing wrong but I've tried every suggestion they've come up with. Also, in their examples of how their pictures don't show it I can still see it ;)

I gave Fuji another go only a couple of weeks ago but still had the same issue so bought the EM10-II instead as my extra lightweight camera.
 
Last edited:
Just trying to work out finances - is the 12-45 a good general walkabout lens ? And what about a wide angle ? The 8-25 looks nice but pricey !
 
justa1972 said:
Just trying to work out finances - is the 12-45 a good general walkabout lens ? And what about a wide angle ? The 8-25 looks nice but pricey !
Click to expand...
I hope so! I am waiting one from MPB, having done extensive evaluation. It seems to beat the otherwise attractive PanaLeica 12-60. As regards wide-angle, I am considering going with the 10mm Laowa manual lens.
 
justa1972 said:
Just trying to work out finances - is the 12-45 a good general walkabout lens ? And what about a wide angle ? The 8-25 looks nice but pricey !
Click to expand...

Yes the 12-45 is an excellent light and small lens, use it all the time on my GX9
Not tried the 8-25, but more than happy with my 8-18 so not one I would be interested in.

There is also the Panasonic 12-60 which many people like, two versions, not tried either
Also the 14-140 ii that most rate above the Olympus 14-150 ii, personally don't find 14mm wide enough
 
Last edited:
justa1972 said:
Just trying to work out finances - is the 12-45 a good general walkabout lens ? And what about a wide angle ? The 8-25 looks nice but pricey !
Click to expand...
12-45mm is a very good lens. I have the Panny pancake 12-32mm and it's surprisingly sharp. As for wide angle, the Laowa range look good if you're OK with manual focus, but I was always happy with the 9-18mm. Not the best in terms of build quality but I was happy with it optically as long as you don't spend too much time assessing the corners at 1:1 (which I don't).
 
all this talk of DR etc is going way above my head . I live on a northern coast and most of my shooting is done there .I cant fault my rig gives good consistent results thats all that counts another quite rare bird today a curlew sandpiper
the shy one by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr[

the guardians by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Stephen L said:
Optically it's certainly a sharp enough lens, although I had one in my former days and just couldn't gel with it. Whether it was the slow aperture, the locking and unlocking, or the general feel of cheapness, I don't know. Still considering it though.
Click to expand...

I had one, took it away on a short break and sold it on returning.
Didn't like anything about it, really not keen on the winding out type lenses which I believe the 8-25 is.
Bought a Panasonic 8-18 and never looked back, admittedly more expensive, but chalk and cheese from the 9-18
 
tijuana taxi said:
I had one, took it away on a short break and sold it on returning.
Didn't like anything about it, really not keen on the winding out type lenses which I believe the 8-25 is.
Bought a Panasonic 8-18 and never looked back, admittedly more expensive, but chalk and cheese from the 9-18
Click to expand...
Like most things you get what you pay for (y) I had the 9-18mm as a 'chuck in the bag' lens that weighed nothing but was there if I needed something extra wide, but if I was a dedicated landscaper or something then I'd be looking at the 8-18mm or 7-14mm.

TBH, for a travel set up nowadays I'd have the 12-45mm or 12-40mm and then the Loawa 7.5mm as my 'chuck in the bag' lens.
 
snerkler said:
Like most things you get what you pay for (y) I had the 9-18mm as a 'chuck in the bag' lens that weighed nothing but was there if I needed something extra wide, but if I was a dedicated landscaper or something then I'd be looking at the 8-18mm or 7-14mm.

TBH, for a travel set up nowadays I'd have the 12-45mm or 12-40mm and then the Loawa 7.5mm as my 'chuck in the bag' lens.
Click to expand...

I use the 12-45 and GX9 for my travel photography in cities and towns.
For most other stuff its the G9 and 12-100 when portability isn't such an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top