Olympus OM-D E-M1

ziggy53

http://www.getolympus.com/e-m1.html

"Olympus introduces the OM-D E-M1®, its new premium flagship camera and worthy Micro Four Thirds successor to the Olympus E-5 DSLR."

ziggy53

• DUAL FAST AF system that combines both Contrast AF and On-Chip Phase Detection AF.
• Electronic viewfinder (EVF) that is as large as a full-frame DSLR viewfinder and has added creative control. (Display time lag of 0.029 seconds.)
• New 16.3 megapixel Live MOS sensor, a new TruePic VII image processor.
• The TruePic VII engine supports 10 frames-per-second shooting with a 41-picture RAW buffer in single autofocus (S-AF) mode and 6.5 frames-per-second shooting with a 50-picture RAW buffer in continuous autofocus (C-AF) mode.
• Built-in 5-Axis Image Stabilization with Multi-Motion IS mechanism reduces the effects of camera motion and image blur from five directions.
• Guaranteed operation down to 14 ºF.
• Built-In Wi-Fi.
• Two variations of HDR Shooting – HDR1 and HDR2.
• M.ZUIKO Digital ED 12-40mm f2.8 PRO lens (24–80mm, 35mm equivalent) is the first model in the new M.ZUIKO PRO category and is scheduled for release at the same time as the Olympus OM-D E-M1.
• The M.ZUIKO Digital ED 40-150mm F2.8 PRO (80–300mm, 35mm equivalent) also joins the new M.ZUIKO PRO lens category. This lens is currently under development, with a planned release in the latter half of 2014.
• 81-area multiple AF (Contrast detection AF), 37-area multiple AF (Phase-difference detection AF).
  Shutter speed1/8000 - 60 sec. (1/3, 1/2, or 1EV steps selectable)Bulb/Time: default setting 8min. (1/2/4/8/15/20/25/30 min. selectable)
• Flash Synchronization speed - 1/250th (most flashes)(FL-LM1/2: 1/320 sec.)
• Slow sync. on both 1st curtain and 2nd curtain.
• Built-in Wireless flash controller. (4 channels, 3-4 groups depending on flashes used.)
• AUTO ISO L - 1600 (Default), upper limit customize available 200 - 25600, Manual ISO L - 200 - 25600, 1/3 or 1 EV steps selectable.
• Exposure compensation±5 EV in 1/3, 1/2, 1 EV steps selectable, Metering standard value adjustment1/6 EV step, +/- 1EV range.
• Video up to Full HD: 1920(H)x1080(V), 　30ｐ(29.97 Recording 24Mbps)

jmphotocraft

If I were to go mirrorless, I'd much prefer a Fuji X-Pro1 with its larger sensor and OVF.

Don Kondra

The Fuji X-Pro1 actually has a dual-magnification hybrid optical / electronic viewfinder and shutter speed is limited to 1/4000.

Cheers, Don

Wiren

Count me in....
I have been waiting for an upgrade to my Oly E-3 for quite some time. Can't wait to shoot with this!

On my shopping list....

E-M1
Grip
6 batteries
9-18/4-5.6
12-40/2.8
40-150/2.8 (when it comes out)
4/3 adapter

My 4/3 12-60 lens hood is busted off, my 50-200 has been repaired once and feels like it may be starting to have issues again.... My E-3 is very used and while I clean the sensor this week, I will be wishing I already had the E-M1 in my hands......

I will have to see what my Sigma 400/5.6 will do on this new model, now that I have the better ISO's, I can get the speed up to make that lens really sing for me!

Thank you Olympus!!!!

I may add the 60/2.8 macro and the 75/1.8 just for the fun of it.

JC

jmphotocraft wrote: »

If I were to go mirrorless, I'd much prefer a Fuji X-Pro1 with its larger sensor and OVF.

They aren't really equivalent tools, other than both losing the mirrorbox. they fill different needs.

For one thing, the size saving advantage of m4/3 isn't so much the micro part that allows a smaller camera, but the 4/3 part.
With a pancake lens they maybe roughly equivalent sizes, but as you go to longer focal lengths, the size saving from the mirror box are dwarfed by the lens size savings.

from dpnow.com/310b.html


And correct me if i'm wrong, but the X-Pro1 has no intervalometer or electronic remote release option, or at least it didn't when I looked. Even if I wasn't looking for the size and weight savings of m4./3 when I bought my OM-D E-m5, the lack of the electronic remote release immediately took the X-pro1 out of the running for me.

studio1972

kolibri wrote: »

They aren't really equivalent tools, other than both losing the mirrorbox. they fill different needs.

For one thing, the size saving advantage of m4/3 isn't so much the micro part that allows a smaller camera, but the 4/3 part.
With a pancake lens they maybe roughly equivalent sizes, but as you go to longer focal lengths, the size saving from the mirror box are dwarfed by the lens size savings.

from dpnow.com/310b.html


And correct me if i'm wrong, but the X-Pro1 has no intervalometer or electronic remote release option, or at least it didn't when I looked. Even if I wasn't looking for the size and weight savings of m4./3 when I bought my OM-D E-m5, the lack of the electronic remote release immediately took the X-pro1 out of the running for me.

The points you make seem to be from the point of view of somebody shooting wildlife etc. No doubt the loss of the mirror box is not a big issue if you're attaching a 600mm lens, but for more popular focal lengths (lets say 200mm and below) it is increasingly important.

Added to that, the lenses on the fuji system are actually very compact. Check out the 35mm 1.4 for example.

Same with the remote release (although I think you can get them for the fuji), it's probably only an issue for a small niche. In many other roles, the X-Pro/X-E1 are direct competitors with this new E-M1.

JC

studio1972 wrote: »

Added to that, the lenses on the fuji system are actually very compact. Check out the 35mm 1.4 for example.

Same with the remote release (although I think you can get them for the fuji), it's probably only an issue for a small niche. In many other roles, the X-Pro/X-E1 are direct competitors with this new E-M1.

You are making the same point about the lenses that I made, at short focal distances/pancake lenses the difference isn't great, but as you go longer the size distances drastically diverge. My m4/3 75mm lens is a fraction of the size of my full frame 100mm, and the flange distance has very little to do with it.

I'd again argue that the E-M1 is only in direct competition with a larger sensor mirrorless cameras for people who don't focus on, or 'get' the tradoff advantages of the smaller sensor. In my experience, the X-Pro and similar are in direct competition with DX and APS-C DSLRS,. With Canon, I don't really notice the EF-s lenses being that much smaller than the EF lenses.

The comment about the remote trigger wasn't to point it out as singular selling point (and I don't think you can get one for the X-pro 1 yet), but to show how fully featured and thought out the OMD line is.

jmphotocraft

Sure I can see how if you want to save weight on long lenses while maximizing pixels on target, the Oly is a good choice. For everything else I will take a bigger sensor every time. But not only that, the proper aperture ring, shutter speed dial, and OVF on the Fuji are a joy to use.

NaturePics

kolibri wrote: »

For one thing, the size saving advantage of m4/3 isn't so much the micro part that allows a smaller camera, but the 4/3 part.
With a pancake lens they maybe roughly equivalent sizes, but as you go to longer focal lengths, the size saving from the mirror box are dwarfed by the lens size savings.

from dpnow.com/310b.html

Endless talk about the size and weight savings of m4/3 for longer focal lengths but where are those lenses? Long primes seem completely missing in action. A few not so fast zooms.

Maybe a ?-300mm zoom is good enough to replace a 300mm or 400mm lens but that remains to be demonstrated.

ziggy53

NaturePics wrote: »

Endless talk about the size and weight savings of m4/3 for longer focal lengths but where are those lenses? Long primes seem completely missing in action. A few not so fast zooms.

Maybe a ?-300mm zoom is good enough to replace a 300mm or 400mm lens but that remains to be demonstrated.

Now that Olympus has a "flagship" m-4/3 body, it will probably make some sense to develop high-end optics for that format.

For now, the Zuiko ED 300mm f2.8 plus MMF-2 (Four Thirds to Micro Four Thirds lens adapter) is about as good as it gets (if you want a high level of lens automation).

JC

NaturePics wrote: »

Endless talk about the size and weight savings of m4/3 for longer focal lengths but where are those lenses? Long primes seem completely missing in action. A few not so fast zooms.

Maybe a ?-300mm zoom is good enough to replace a 300mm or 400mm lens but that remains to be demonstrated.

Well, for one, there's the 300mm 2.8 in the picture above. And the size/weight savings starts coming in a lot shorter than that.

The point (well, one of the points) of the E-m1 is that it now has the necessary on-sensor focus capability (PDAF) to fully utilize the 4/3 lenses, so all the 4/3 primes and zooms are now fully capable on the m4/3 camera, with an adapter.

Olympus knows how to make great prime lenses, they seem to be concentrating on tzooms for telephoto coverage right now, but I'd expect to see more telephoto primes at some point. The 75mm prime is good.

And if you don't need auto focus, you've got all the zuiko prime telephotos with a converter. I've been looking for them in the used market, but they aren't that available. IBIS makes handholding the longer manual focus primes not so bad.

I just picked up a thoriated manual focus zuiko lens, and a 100mm 2.8 zuiko lens, I want to test them out this weekend, the 100mm should give me the angle of view of my Canon 70-200mm f/4 at 200mm, so it'd be interesting to compare them. The thoriated lens is pretty yellow, and fairly 'hot'.

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Sure I can see how if you want to save weight on long lenses while maximizing pixels on target, the Oly is a good choice. For everything else I will take a bigger sensor every time. But not only that, the proper aperture ring, shutter speed dial, and OVF on the Fuji are a joy to use.

I'd say the weight/size savings starts at about 50mm. The m4/3 75mm lens is pretty awesome for it's size.

I'm not trying to to argue that one is a better system than the other, because I think they fill very different niches. I'm waiting to see how full frame mirrorless develops. None of the other mirrorless cameras can replace my Canon 5D, yet. They either don't have accessory cord connections for remote release (Fuji) or can't turn off noise reduction (Leica), etc, etc, etc. I do really want to try out the cameras without the anti-aliasing filter. But, I don't see that the selling points of full frame mirrorless is going to be that they are smaller systems across the board. The e-m5 gives me portability in exchange for large print sizes, shallow depth of field isn't really a priority for me. Twice while working I've ended up in the middle of a herd or family group of big-horns, with only my point and shoot and missed out on some awesome shots. I cannot carry a full frame 200mm lens with my field gear. The e-M5 with a 200m zoom I can. I'm hoping to run into the bighorn again, carrying my E-m5.

Matthew Saville

To me, this is the ultimate adventure camera. If you're worrying about sensor size and things like optical viewfinders or autofocus technology, you're missing the point IMO. What the Oly flagship system has always been, to me, is about shooting with a highly portable system in extremely challenging conditions.

I plan to test this particular setup as soon as it ships, (almost) in time for fall colors in the Eastern Sierras. I will have 1.5x and FX crop sensors in tow for comparison, of course.

=Matt=

NaturePics

ziggy53 wrote: »

Now that Olympus has a "flagship" m-4/3 body, it will probably make some sense to develop high-end optics for that format.

For now, the Zuiko ED 300mm f2.8 plus MMF-2 (Four Thirds to Micro Four Thirds lens adapter) is about as good as it gets (if you want a high level of lens automation).

Thanks to you and kolibri for pointing that lens out.

A comparison:

The Olympus 300mm 2.8 lens may be great for IQ and a 600mm FF equivalent length is long enough but the price ($ 7000), the weight (7.24 lb.) and the length (11.2 inches) are all too much for me.

A 300mm F4 Nikon lens (450mm eq. on my DX body) has excellent IQ at a cost of $ 1400 new, 3.17 lb. and 8.8 inches long. I use it with a 1.4x extender to get more reach for limited cost and extra weight.

I looked at the Olympus telephoto and zoom offerings at B&H. Pretty limited compared to Nikon's offerings. (7 primes with more than 300mm eq. length on a DX body and several zooms.) I need to be able to pick lenses that fit my needs and my budget.


I hope the selection of m4/3 lenses gets wider and the prices come down.

jmphotocraft

No I get the point, Matt, but at this time I just don't need or want what that system is offering. And I can't stand EVFs.