Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Olympus E-M5 Mark II - love and hate at first sight

Recommended Posts

Camcorders do have great stabilisation and can be a great choice for many people, but many choose a larger sensor ILC so they have changeable lenses and DOF control because as you know, this helps create a more 'cinematic' image.  So if you don't want shallow depth of field then yes, I'd recommend a camcorder but many people usually want the option of having this, so a camcorder is off the table.  

I have both panasonic and olympus camera's and I'm sorry to say that IBIS is far far superior to panasonic lens stabilisation, but if you're happy with OIS and it suits your needs then thats great.  For me, I usually find myself grabbing my E-M1 despite the limitations as I find the IBIS to be worth it.  

Anyway everyone can make their own decision as to whats most important to them, and for many a GH4/NX1 might be a better choice  All I'm saying is that having good stabilisation in body on all my lenses (including my contax zeiss lenses)  without extra rigging/equipment has value to me and I imagine to others as well, and although I don't know for sure how many this is, I suspect its not only a small percentage.  And while, I'd prefer not to have to compromise on resolution, thats the world where in at the moment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

As far as stabilisation goes there's no doubt the only reason to buy the damn thing is the stabilisation.

The X-T1 beats it for stills and the GH4 thrashes it for video quality.

That's a real shame because in many respects the E-M5 II is an inch from greatness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​How is it good enough for people that make money off of it?

Well, I make a living doing video production.  I'm not the most accomplished, but I get by.

You're verbose about your opinion, but I can't quite comprehend the level of angst you have about a camera you never plan to purchase. The perceived threat that a particular stabization feature will interfere with sensor development?  Well, okay, I do hear you saying that...but I don't quite get it.  Feel free to rant though if it helps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as stabilisation goes there's no doubt the only reason to buy the damn thing is the stabilisation.

The X-T1 beats it for stills and the GH4 thrashes it for video quality.

That's a real shame because in many respects the E-M5 II is an inch from greatness.

True dat. So close...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So close yet so far away.

Micro Four Thirds needs to go high end if it is to remain a serious prospect for stills.

I know people who wonder why ANYONE would shoot stills on anything other than full frame.

Well you have lenses to compensate for that, on APS-C - the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 is one. The Fuji 56mm F1.2 and 35mm F1.4 too.

On Micro Four Thirds you have noise problems above 3200 and difficulties getting closer to the full frame look.

This was fine when the prices were low (GH2), or video spectacular (GH4) but when Olympus is serving up 2011 vintage E-M5 image quality in 2015 you do start to wonder whether it is all worth the effort any more.

It's not like we have a lack of alternatives!!

What I think will happen is that the high end mirrorless market will go to the A7, the X-T1, etc.

I am sure the lower end consumer stills market will still love the E-M5 II but Micro Four Thirds need to also compete in that high end mirrorless market as well and it is losing the battle there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think for stills the benefit of m4/3 are really lens quality/size/weight coupled with good enough image quality.  I can see why many want full frame, and it may well end up that m4/3 becomes irrelevant but I like that I can carry my E-M1, 12-40, 40-150 and teleconverter in a small shoulder bag all day without any issues.  This might not be important for some, and if you are after the best possible image quality or the full frame aesthetic you might look elsewhere, but it works for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes size is a clear benefit but the X-T1 with 35mm F1.4 is barely any bigger than the E-M5 Mark II with Panasonic 25mm F1.4.

Sony have done a pretty good miniaturisation of their FE lenses too. The A7S with 50mm F1.8 is pretty tiny. The zooms may be slow but they still give you a shallower depth of field and better low light performance on the A7S than a faster F2.8 zoom on the Olympus.

I am big Micro Four Thirds fan but starting to doubt it vs the competition a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So close yet so far away.

Micro Four Thirds needs to go high end if it is to remain a serious prospect for stills.

I know people who wonder why ANYONE would shoot stills on anything other than full frame.

Well you have lenses to compensate for that, on APS-C - the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 is one. The Fuji 56mm F1.2 and 35mm F1.4 too.

On Micro Four Thirds you have noise problems above 3200 and difficulties getting closer to the full frame look.

This was fine when the prices were low (GH2), or video spectacular (GH4) but when Olympus is serving up 2011 vintage E-M5 image quality in 2015 you do start to wonder whether it is all worth the effort any more.

It's not like we have a lack of alternatives!!

What I think will happen is that the high end mirrorless market will go to the A7, the X-T1, etc.

I am sure the lower end consumer stills market will still love the E-M5 II but Micro Four Thirds need to also compete in that high end mirrorless market as well and it is losing the battle there.

​I shoot stills, and m4/3 is fine if you don't take it beyond its performance envelope, which is actually fairly large. I think being a snob on FF for stills is no different being a snob on LF back in the days when Oskar Barnack came up with the Leica I in the 1920s. I remember reading about how people would disparage Barnack's idea in similar terms people harp on companies not using "full-frame" sensors in all their cameras because they "too small" for serious work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see my dilemma...

x-t1-vs-e-m5-2.thumb.jpg.a2c7b94a9eee9d9

​Presumably this is a stills setup, as Fuji is pretty much bottom of the barrel (and then some) for video.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii/5

I'm sure they're good for stills, but they'll probably never be competitive for video.

And, in your comparison you're not taking the totality of the lenses and their sizes into consideration. For instance, what else compares size-wise to the GM5 + 20mm f/1.7? And what other system has the same collection of lenses as MFT?

 

1.thumb.JPG.01f0ae30bee888263cc819e35312

What other system has a manufacturer delivering the kind of video quality Panasonic is routinely? For that matter, if IBIS is your thing, what other system is doing it anywhere near Olympus?
 

I simply don't see any other choice for myself. Samsung just isn't anywhere near as well developed as MFT for video, with only a couple cameras now and a pretty limited lens choice that I don't believe is as good as optically as MFT. Sony is in the same boat with a single very expensive 4K cam (that doesn't record internally) and a much more limited lens selection. Fuji isn't even on my radar, and I doubt they ever will be.

And finally, we haven't yet seen the end game wrt to sensor development. If MFT were to get a sensor like that on the RX100 III, scaled up to MFT size (i.e. double the size), you're going to see massively improved performance from the system. We have yet to get that type of quality sensor or, for that matter, BSI. At that point you'll be seeing stills performance that's pretty much good enough for any purpose.

FWIW, I'd like to see Olympus combine their IBIS with Panasonic video quality. But I'm not convinced it's possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you don't want that Alexa then leeys. Bit snobby is it?

​No more than I wanted a 8x10 for landscape work! Which is, awesome to have, but not likely to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to put some perspective on the "Micro 43 is no good for stills" - Jérôme Sessini of Magnum just won the World Press with one and his colleagues Moises Saman, Alex Majoli and Peter Van Agtmael all use the format. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see my dilemma...

x-t1-vs-e-m5-2.thumb.jpg.a2c7b94a9eee9d9

"I am big Micro Four Thirds fan but starting to doubt it vs the competition a bit."

 

Andrew, I really believe that with sensor advances in the future, the mft size will be more than sufficent for stills and video high quality, plus the very obvious benefits of size.  It's just a matter of being patient, the gap in quality between aps-c, FF and mft will drive development of better mft sized sensors, maybe the GX8 will bring something new, sensor wise to the table.  If this happens in the near future, older sensors like Em5m2's will look dated before their time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a quick test I did indoors today hopefully out doors tomorrow.  Will give some insight to quality and focus performance will get outside to do more tomorrow.  The Panasonic GH2 is hacked with the Sanity settings and the camera is set to Smooth contrast -2, saturation -2, sharpness -2, noise reduction -2.  The settings for the Olympus were contrast -2, sharpness +1, saturation -2 noise reduction off.  They need to let you turn them down more.  The ISO was 800 on both cameras and exposure was set identically.  For my hand held test I used the Panasonic 14-140 set to 40 on the panasonic for image stabilization.  The olympus had the olympus 12-40 set to 40.  Once I put it on the slider I used the Olympus 12-40 on both.  If you like the slider check it out at salamanderslider.com !

My take aways so far

I sucked at hand holding :)
The focus tracking issue was a unhappy surprise
moire shows up more than I like to cope with
Olympus settings are so saturated they need more than -2 reduction

I also discovered that you can use the front dial to adjust fstop after you pop out the touchscreen menu.  That being said if you try to switch to viewfinder it turns off so it can do it but it is incredibly stupid.

I thought Andrew was a bit harsh but maybe like me he had really high hopes and what they have presented is a huge disappointment so much so you want to go slap the guys at Olympus.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comparison. 

Other than the failure to track, aliasing and the increased crop why do you think the E-M5ii is a huge disappointment? The image quality looks comparable to me at least with this test.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew, I really believe that with sensor advances in the future, the mft size will be more than sufficent for stills and video high quality, plus the very obvious benefits of size.  It's just a matter of being patient, the gap in quality between aps-c, FF and mft will drive development of better mft sized sensors, maybe the GX8 will bring something new, sensor wise to the table.  If this happens in the near future, older sensors like Em5m2's will look dated before their time.

I agree completely. One of MFT's advantages is that it lives, by necessity, on the bleeding edge. They don't use 3-5 year old sensors because they can't afford to. As it is, Panasonic and Olympus' image quality is within a stone's throw of APS-C, but offers a better selection of lenses--almost all of which are excellent by f/2.8, and many of which are excellent by f/2.


http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GX7-review-Closing-the-gap-between-APS-C-mirrorless-rivals/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GX7-Versus-Olympus-PEN-E-P5-Versus-Sony-NEX-6-Results-are-close

Andrew, you say MFT has a hard time achieving "the full frame look." What if I don't want the full frame look? There's nothing inherent to photographic 35mm/VistaVision that makes it the best sensor size for video. My style focuses heavily on subjects' relationship to their background and composing with more than one plane of depth. Unless I'm going for something intimate or a detail shot, I like to stick with f2.8 (if not f/4) on MFT. This provides just enough separation to focus the eye without flattening my carefully scouted locations and (hopefully) interesting set dressing into blurry, 2-dimensional mush. I also like to light my interiors and shape the light in my exteriors, which makes low light much less of a priority. Plus, I hate bad focus pulling in movies. It screams "amateurish" as much as micro jitters. At f/2.8-f/4 on MFT, me or my focus puller (if I have one) have a much better chance to nail it.

With that in mind, full frame holds no advantage for me. If I'm shooting my GX7 at ISO 800 and f/4, I'd have to shoot an A7S or whatever at ISO 3200, rendering DR and noise virtually identical, but with the added advantage of Panasonic's color science (which is really good once you learn your way around it) and great tonality. Add to that the small, wonderful Olympus primes and the cinematic as hell Voigtlanders, and you have a recipe for great imagery.

If you enjoy the look, that's awesome! I look forward to seeing your work with it. :) But I get perturbed sometimes when full framers dismiss other aesthetics as somehow inferior to their chosen sensor size.

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wasn't expecting the focus tracking that I found.  The list of the things I'm forgiving for this camera to get the stabilization is getting a little to long.  

I don't like the extra crop I do aircraft and boat interiors sometimes and I can't afford to give up my field of view.  
Not being able to change fstop with the dials falls into the just plain stupid and hopefully they can and will fix.
Moire is showing up more than I expected.
I need to spend another $129 to get Headphone connection $279 to get Headphone and battery life that gets it close to GH4 money.
If the video continuous focus is that bad compared to GH2 what am I missing in a GH4.
The xtras that I already passed up by not going with GH4 4K, slow motion.
I should add that IBIS may not be as good as I want it to be when it's good it's real good but when it burps it ruins what your doing.  I speculate it maybe why John Brawley used an additional gimbal making curiosity?

Now that being said my EM5 mkii and 12-40 put me back $1700 got a good deal.  A GH4 with 12-35 would cost about $600 more!  I love the 12-40 it's a better lens but without any stabilization hard to justify if I go Panasonic.  Which in the end makes me just a little mad Olympus did not do better.  I think video is a huge part of what's good about M4/3 cameras and Olympus is dropping the ball ignoring it.  I'm not giving up yet got a couple more weeks to make up my mind and really hope Olympus does something amazing to make what they can better.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olympus's c-AF has never been great in video, so I wouldn't be too disappointed about that.  However their implementation of s-AF + MF is very good IMO.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I speculate it maybe why John Brawley used an additional gimbal making curiosity?
 

​I used a gimbal because IBIS doesn't replace a gimbal (or dolly or steadicam) for doing long continuous tracking shots. Nothing will.  And I had longer tracking shots I wanted to do in difficult terrain...over water etc, where you can't really lay tracks (and I dind't have a grip).

IBIS on the E-M5MKII is very very good and absolutely trumps optical based stabilising systems. But on those very wide and longer shots where I was making really big moves, it would help a lot but it doesn't replace using the right tool for the job.

IBIS is very very good for hand held.  It's so good that sometimes you can get away with using it for tracking shots that might have the feel and look of a dolly or steadicam.

Interestingly, I found that the IBIS helped the gimbal shots because it took out some of the coarser up and down movements that Gimbals can't smooth out.

JB

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...