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

A baseplate/L-plate for the OM1 is under development by the American company Really Right Stuff @ $75 /$165. Pricey, but should be good.

There would probably be VAT and import duty on top of the $75, and with the £/$ where it is now the base plate would probably end up being about £100.

And then when you read the small print RRS don't supply to the UK unless the order is at least $400!

Maybe one of the importers will bring it in for us.

https://www.reallyrightstuff.com/BOM1
 
Last edited:
Second ones best Steve .. actually got out for a few hours today and got some decent shots , had to stay by the car as can’t walk or stand for to long yet but it was good to be out again ,pics later
 
Malfis said:
I quite like Mike Lane - straightforward reviews, tells it as he sees it.

View: https://youtu.be/u5vBetSaECE
Click to expand...
.... I like Mike Lane's videos too but he has not mentioned some of the fundamentally important benefits of the 150-400mm TC PRO over the 100-400mm and I absolutely don't agree with his statement about the MC-20 combo and have shot many images on the 150-400mm PRO with MC-20 mounted and the 1.25x TC engaged to prove it.

Good as the 100-400mm lens is, the big white lens is far more enabling and especially in lower light conditions. But also at maximum distances the lens copes far better with the inevitable atmospheric manifestations as indeed you would expect its superior optical and coating specifications to do.

I respect that he tells it as he sees it but on this subject I have formed different conclusions as a result of over a year of use and many many thousands of pictures with first the M1X and now the OM-1 and with the MC-14 and MC-20 throughout.
 
Last edited:
RedRobin said:
.... I like Mike Lane's videos too but he has not mentioned some of the fundamentally important benefits of the 150-400mm TC PRO over the 100-400mm and I absolutely don't agree with his statement about the MC-20 combo and have shot many images on the 150-400mm PRO with MC-20 mounted and the 1.25x TC engaged to prove it.

Good as the 100-400mm lens is, the big white lens is far more enabling and especially in lower light conditions. But also at maximum distances the lens copes far better with the inevitable atmospheric manifestations as indeed you would expect its superior optical and coating specifications to do.

I respect that he tells it as he sees it but on this subject I have formed different conclusions as a result of over a year of use and many many thousands of pictures with first the M1X and now the OM-1 and with the MC-14 and MC-20 throughout.
Click to expand...
l'm of the thinking the glass is great but the sensor the image is bounced onto is the limiting factor here and the finished, edited, printed or viewed on a monitor image is very close and in some cases indistinguishable from either lens, where the 5x more expensive lens scores no doubt is in the ability to get the shot in more difficult situations, the added extras, build quality and the handling.
I would buy the 150-400 if l could afford it for sure the same as l would buy a Porshe rather then my Kia, they both do basically the same job but the Porshe may well do it better but on a dirt track the gap narrows. then there is the fact one might feel and look better in a Porshe.:ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
ajophotog said:
Which is the better? Just testing a lens in my garden. :)

Best Settings-2 by Ajophotog, on Flickr

Best Settings by Ajophotog, on Flickr
Click to expand...

.... Personally I prefer the image titled 'Best Settings-2'. The thing which strikes me most is the difference in colour - Almost as if it was shot on 2 different camera bodies, or at least with differing onboard colour setting options such as Vibrant vs Natural.

As a picture I also prefer 'Best Settings-2' and it's partly due to the wider angle view.

Now tell me that one was shot on the 100-150mm TC PRO and the other on the 100-400mm :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: I'm just joking of course (with reference to an earlier discussion).
 
ajophotog said:
Which is the better? Just testing a lens in my garden. :)

Best Settings-2 by Ajophotog, on Flickr

Best Settings by Ajophotog, on Flickr
Click to expand...
It’s interesting. My preference is the second image as I find the first a little too saturated and less sharp. The second seems more natural…. Differing from @RedRobin. It’s always subjective, but I wonder whether viewing it on an iPad ( as I am) may also make a difference?
 
ajophotog said:
l'm of the thinking the glass is great but the sensor the image is bounced onto is the limiting factor here and the finished, edited, printed or viewed on a monitor image is very close and in some cases indistinguishable from either lens, where the 5x more expensive lens scores no doubt is in the ability to get the shot in more difficult situations, the added extras, build quality and the handling.
I would buy the 150-400 if l could afford it for sure the same as l would buy a Porshe rather then my Kia, they both do basically the same job but the Porshe may well do it better but on a dirt track the gap narrows. then there is the fact one might feel and look better in a Porshe.:ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
:agree: very much about your words I have highlit in bold. Handling is very important in my opinion. The manual focus ring's position and feel allowing an easy one-finger override to AF plus the same smooth ease with the internal zoom make the lens a joy when shooting. It definitely benefits from the physical balance of a gripped camera body though.

It's a matter of how good we can capture the initial image before we then adjust and post-process the result. Without necessarily realising it until told we can each introduce our own individual style to our pictures - I have been told more than once that I do so. Jeff @the black fox has his own style too, for example, and others here particularly landscape shooters.

Having driven a few different Porsches I know which I prefer to drive! And that is in spite of being a bit cramped in some of them. It's Horses-for-Courses and my car with only 90mm road clearance has some very definite limitations! Another motorist in an ordinary family saloon might arrive at a destination a hundred miles away barely 5 minutes after my arrival but guess who has had more fun and enjoyed the drive.
 
Bebop said:
It’s interesting. My preference is the second image as I find the first a little too saturated and less sharp. The second seems more natural…. Differing from @RedRobin. It’s always subjective, but I wonder whether viewing it on an iPad ( as I am) may also make a difference?
Click to expand...
.... I hadn't pixel peeped for sharpness but I think you may be right. Personally I prefer a bit of 'saturation' or rather impact or bite and find the second photo in comparison very dull in both appearance and appeal. I do realise it's just a test and not going for the cover of 'Country Life' magazine.

The device a photo is viewed on is always going to make a difference. Apple devices with their Retina screens are consciously designed to give an image some impact which can be enjoyed by more people rather than just photographers. I am viewing on a EIZO professional colour 27-inch screen and the same images when added to my MacBook Pro, iPad and iPhone will look slightly more vibrant.

And then there are the added factors of what TP, Flickr, Facebook etc might do to present our images.

I think it best to simply respond to an overall first impression - Something which many, but not all, photographers don't seem capable of doing! Which image makes you look twice.
 
No2 for me Alby, I find the sky in 1 a little unnatural.
 
Right.... The first was shot on my phone camera, the Xiaomi Mi 10T Pro and the second on the Om system om-1 with the 12-100 f4 pro. I think under certain situations photo quality is becoming ever narrower between equipment. These were both straight out of the cameras and converted to jpg. Looking at them big there is quite a difference but showing at this size or even slightly larger both are acceptable.
A few years ago I don't think a phone could even get close to a proper camera shot, how times change. :D
It was just a quick snap in the garden to see reactions, i have other photos in better light that seem even closer.
 
Last edited:
ajophotog said:
Right.... The first was shot on my phone camera, the Xiaomi Mi 10T Pro and the second on the Om system om-1 with the 12-100 f4 pro. I think under certain situations photo quality is becoming ever narrower between equipment. These were both straight out of the cameras and converted to jpg. Looking at them big there is quite a difference but showing at this size or even slightly larger both are acceptable.
A few years ago I don't think a phone could even get close to a proper camera shot, how times change. :D
It was just a quick snap in the garden to see reactions, i have other photos in better light that seem even closer.
Click to expand...
.... I wasn't expecting it but I'm not surprised to hear that the photo I personally prefer was shot on a modern phone camera. Phone cameras are consciously designed to deliver photos which have mass consumer appeal. If the 'duller' photo of the two was shot on another brand of phone camera, which mobile phone would you buy? < Obviously the phone which makes photos look richer and with happy blue skies etc. It's what consumers want. It's even what I would want from my phone camera!

The mobile phone market is led by the perceived quality of the photos a phone camera can take and represents very large sums of money and profits for the device manufacturers considered by the populus to offer the best and this is regardless of judgements by either professional or amateur photographers using 'conventional' cameras. Using mobile phones for messaging and internet browsing etc is perhaps secondary. I only use my iPhone for messages and my iPad for looking at photos, mostly on Instagram and not even on Facebook.

How many images captured on a mobile phone make it as far as an A4 size print? Small looks better because it's tighter. The JPEG on your camera's D-SLR/Mirrorless camera looks better before you view it back home on a big screen < We all know that disappointment.

AI (Artificial Intelligence) is fast developing and that can expand the capabilities of both 'conventional' cameras and phone cameras.

But phone cameras have their limitations and they are just another type of camera in a world where there is no such thing as the one perfect camera. Horses-for-Courses yet again.
 
Last edited:
I’m thinking of upgrading my phone purely for the camera now - the opposite of my usual practice. The beauty is, you do always have them with you.

This afternoon I had a walk without my camera which I almost never do, but it was a rehab walk after being on crutches. I ended up putting my phone to my binoculars to get a shot :ROFLMAO: I’d include it here if I could downsize it on my iPad.
 
Bebop said:
I’m thinking of upgrading my phone purely for the camera now - the opposite of my usual practice. The beauty is, you do always have them with you.

This afternoon I had a walk without my camera which I almost never do, but it was a rehab walk after being on crutches. I ended up putting my phone to my binoculars to get a shot :ROFLMAO: I’d include it here if I could downsize it on my iPad.
Click to expand...
haha l do that all the time and l use my spotting scope too.
 
Bebop said:
I’m thinking of upgrading my phone purely for the camera now - the opposite of my usual practice. The beauty is, you do always have them with you.

This afternoon I had a walk without my camera which I almost never do, but it was a rehab walk after being on crutches. I ended up putting my phone to my binoculars to get a shot :ROFLMAO: I’d include it here if I could downsize it on my iPad.
Click to expand...
.... I don't get on at all with using my iPhone as a camera - It's a physical thing. My solution is to sometimes have an Olympus TG-6 Tough in my pocket - It shoots RAW but I prefer cameras which have viewfinders. It's so limited what I can use a phone camera for anyway - Too limited for railways, too limited for surfers, too limited for wildlife. Only good for a quick snap to record a subject such as a QR code or a parked vehicle of interest, for example.

Because I focus very specifically on only three subjects to photograph it is extremely rare that I want to take a photo but don't have my OM-1 at hand. Also, because I shoot so much with it, usually over 1,000 per week minimum, it's a welcome change not to have any camera with me sometimes. I have a constant backlog of images which I have culled and are waiting to be post-processed.
 
I’ve just had a go at downsizing with Affinity on iPad…
sprayplane.jpg

it is a plane I have seen many times before. They practice spraying for oil spills, but this is the first time I’ve seen it discharging anything. It is sometimes accompanied by other craft.

it’s very rare for me not to have my camera either @RedRobin. It was a medicinal walk :)

edit: my daughter came out in terrible rashes twice after swimming locally in the last few months. We dosed her up with antihistamine. Seeing this made me wonder….
 
Last edited:
Bebop said:
I’ve just had a go at downsizing with Affinity on iPad…
View attachment 368419

it is a plane I have seen many times before. They practice spraying for oil spills, but this is the first time I’ve seen it discharging anything. It is sometimes accompanied by other craft.

it’s very rare for me not to have my camera either @RedRobin. It was a medicinal walk :)

edit: my daughter came out in terrible rashes twice after swimming locally in the last few months. We dosed her up with antihistamine. Seeing this made me wonder….
Click to expand...
.... Very good news that you are now fast recovering!

I love the juxtaposition of plane and ship. A Royal Navy buddy of mine would be able to ID the type of ship but to me it looks like either one of the coastguard or THV vessels in attendance. The plane looks like it's in UK Coastguard livery.

PASSING SHIPS AT PORTLAND by Robin Procter, on Flickr

THV 'GALATEA' by Robin Procter, on Flickr

A portrait orientation cropping out the black 'keyhole' could result in a nice picture. But if not shot RAW on a 'proper' camera you would be struggling.

That's the thing about phone cameras > They are great for snapping a record of something or someone (Selfies!!!) but not much else.

Most people are unfortunately only interested in the subject of a photo rather than how good it is photographically. They only judge a photo on the subject's Wow! Factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top