Bushwalk Australia

Posted: **Sun 01 Jun, 2014 4:54 pm**

who has an Olympus camera?
what is your model and what comments do you have to say about it? pro's cons and any comparisons you have to other brands you've used please...?

Posted: **Sun 01 Jun, 2014 6:07 pm**

My last Olympus camera was an OM2. It was excellent, and I still have it along with a useful collection of OM lenses which I have adapted to subsequent cameras.

Hope that helps

Posted: **Sun 01 Jun, 2014 6:10 pm**

EM1 looks nice,, when my canon G1 X dies, an olympus will be on my wish list...

http://www.dpreview.com/products/olympu ... ple-photos

Posted: **Sun 01 Jun, 2014 6:20 pm**

one review claims the EM1 image quality is no better than the M5, M5 kit is way cheaper...

http://cameralabs.com/reviews/Olympus_O ... dict.shtml

Posted: **Sun 01 Jun, 2014 8:49 pm**

I've got an EM5 and have been using it for about a year now, and generally speaking it's great: compact, excellent image quality, very customisable, very fast.

Check out my flickr album here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nicktheta ... 820152046/

Between the EM5, EM1 and EM10 I don't think you will be able to see any difference in image quality. The Sony 16mp sensor is very good but its essentially the same between the three.

Between the EM1 and EM5, the EM1 has a bigger/better EVF, a much better physical user interface and ergonomics, and has a few performance improvements that you may or may not notice (like 1/8000 max shutter). On the other hand the EM5 is more compact, lighter and cheaper.

If you don't need weather sealing (and remember you need a sealed lens to make it work), the EM10 has basically all of the functionality of the EM5, but in a smaller and cheaper package.

Another thing to consider is the Micro Four Thirds system as a whole. I've be shooting with MFT for about three years and own (or have owned) most of the quality lenses, and they are very, very good.

Honestly, I think sensor technology has reached a point now where the gains between Micro Four Thirds and APS are almost imperceptible - the way you personally edit your RAW files is going to have more effect than the files themselves. If you're shooting jpeg then you won't see a quality difference at all, although all manufacturers have a fairly distinct jpeg rendering...

Let me know if you have any specific questions!

Posted: **Mon 02 Jun, 2014 5:16 am**

thanks very much for that Nick.. canon arent getting it together in the smaller format cameras. olympus looks like a great option in the future....

Posted: **Mon 02 Jun, 2014 6:40 am**

nick, are you shooting in RAW or jpeg? if RAW, how much post processing are you doing and what software are you using please?

Posted: **Mon 02 Jun, 2014 8:45 am**

wayno wrote:canon arent getting it together in the smaller format cameras. olympus looks like a great option in the future...

I recently sold my 40D and bought an E-M1 for pretty much that same reason. I was after something smaller but I also didn't want to sacrifice IQ and the Oly seems to be a winner so far.

I've only had it about a week and taken a handful of photos but it's been a revelation as far as IQ, build quality and size/weight go. I got the 12-40 PRO lens and the 60mm macro to go with it and all up with battery and memory card the whole kit comes in at just over 1kg. I've been blown away by how sharp the 12-40 lens is, it's head and shoulders above any lens I've owned before. I've only taken a few shots around the garden with the macro but it seems razor sharp too - and absolutely tiny, so small it's almost a joke.

It's fast. powering up, autofocusing, shot to shot times etc are more than sufficient, quick enough that it's not noticeable to me anyway. I'm not a sport or hardcore wildlife photographer so I don't know how the focus tracking would compare nor the high frame rate shooting. I haven't tried either and probably won't

As far as noise goes I can't really see any up to and including ISO 1600 which is amazing compared to the 40D which would start getting ugly at 800 and often unusable at 1600. I wouldn't be surprised after some more time with the camera to find that 3200 or higher would still be okay.

The user interface seemed a bit confusing at first but I quickly started getting used to it and now I'm loving how everything is easy access with just one or two button presses, and seeing the menus either on the back lcd or directly in the viewfinder without moving the camera from my eye. It's so easy to go from the hand held settings to those for on the tripod and ready to shoot, this is another area that I find superior to the clunky old canon menus.

The only cons so far even though it's less of a con than just getting used to it is the electronic viewfinder. It's a bit odd looking at a little TV screen instead of through the lens. It's nice to have all the information overlays inside the viewfinder though and all fully customisable.

The other con is the harsh and gaudy neck strap that came with the camera, it's rubbish. What were they thinking :lol:

A more comfortable and more subtle strap is on the way

It had it's first trip, a quick overnighter down the coast on the weekend & here's a couple of my first photos with it.

: Red-rocks.jpg (259.4 KiB) Viewed 39218 times

and out of curiosity after taking this next shot I left the camera in the same spot and bumped up the ISO from 200 to 1600 to compare the noise difference on my pc later on. There is a little bit of noise in the high iso shot but it comes out as an inoffensive grain, there is no blotchy colour noise or noticeable smearing.

These have been haavily reduced for web but if you're after some high res or raw copies I can email some to you, I think they're around the 15mb mark in size

: iso 200; Brooms Head iso 200 (web).jpg (177.39 KiB) Viewed 39218 times

: iso 1600; Brooms Head iso 1600 (web).jpg (196.33 KiB) Viewed 39218 times

Posted: **Mon 02 Jun, 2014 10:42 am**

nickthetasmaniac wrote:Check out my flickr album here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nicktheta ... 820152046/

Great photos Nick. I was seriously considering the EM5 after seeing so many good photos taken with it and reading all the reviews from happy owners.

You say that you've used a lot of the quality lenses, what are your most used or favourite so far? The images taken with the 75/1.8 have a lovely look/feel about them, I'm trying to resist but seeing your and other peoples photos doesn't help with my addiction! Adding more lenses kinda beats the purpose of trying to go lighter

One thing I'm loving with the EM1 is the colours, I can't describe it exactly but they are handled beautifully. The other digital cameras I've owned did pretty well except when it came to reds & the two canons I owned had a hate/hate relationship with reds...

nickthetasmaniac wrote:Honestly, I think sensor technology has reached a point now where the gains between Micro Four Thirds and APS are almost imperceptible

I'd even go as far as saying that the same applies to full frame sensors in a practical sense. Yes, full frame has a shallower depth of field but with some of the fast MFT lenses this is pretty negligible, how shallow do you need to go. As far as light gathering and noise is concerned it's the same story. If I can get clean images at iso 1600, it's probably only going to be an issue for specialist photography like astrophotography or other low light long exposure stuff.

Posted: **Mon 02 Jun, 2014 11:12 am**

wayno wrote:nick, are you shooting in RAW or jpeg? if RAW, how much post processing are you doing and what software are you using please?

I shoot RAW and process with Apple Aperture 3. When I import files Aperture applies it's own processing defaults, which generally come out the same as the in-camera jpeg. So as long as you've got sufficient storage you don't lose anything by shooting RAW. Sometimes this output will suit me fine, sometimes I do some editing of my own (levels, black point, white balance etc...).

If I've been shooting panoramas I use Photoshop, but otherwise I avoid it for the horrid program it is

phan_TOM wrote:The only cons so far even though it's less of a con than just getting used to it is the electronic viewfinder. It's a bit odd looking at a little TV screen instead of through the lens.

As someone who went from dSLR with optical finders (K20D/K7/E3) to mirror less with electronic finders (GH2/EM5), trust me - you won't even notice after a fortnight :wink:

(unless you're coming from a full-frame optical finder, then you'll notice...)

You say that you've used a lot of the quality lenses, what are your most used or favourite so far?

Voigtlander Nokton 25/f0.95 is my most used and favourite, although I think most people would consider it a very niche lens.
The m.ZD 75/f1.8 is excellent and has beautiful rendering but it's a peculiar focal length so only really comes out on special occasions.
The Lumix 7-14/f4 is exceptional, especially when you consider it's size compared to full-frame/APS ultra-wides (fiddly to use with filters though, but most UWA's are). There's an f2.8 Zuiko ultra-wide zoom coming out shortly which should be incredible, but is rumoured to be around $1700...
The m.ZD 12mm, 17mm and 45mm are all great but for me they're just workhorses.

nickthetasmaniac wrote:Honestly, I think sensor technology has reached a point now where the gains between Micro Four Thirds and APS are almost imperceptible

I'd even go as far as saying that the same applies to full frame sensors in a practical sense. Yes, full frame has a shallower depth of field but with some of the fast MFT lenses this is pretty negligible, how shallow do you need to go. As far as light gathering and noise is concerned it's the same story. If I can get clean images at iso 1600, it's probably only going to be an issue for specialist photography like astrophotography or other low light long exposure stuff.

In a practical sense yes, especially at 800px on the web. Like you say, there's definitely specialist applications where it matters (astrophotography or big prints, read about Ming Thein's 'ultra-print' project for an example) but by and large, most people won't notice and most photographers don't have the ability to take advantage of the difference anyway.

The only exception I'd say is wide angle depth-of-field. For instance, the subject separation you can get with a 35/f1.4 or 24/f1.4 on full-frame is simply impossible on Micro Four Thirds.

Posted: **Mon 02 Jun, 2014 12:30 pm**

nickthetasmaniac wrote:The only exception I'd say is wide angle depth-of-field. For instance, the subject separation you can get with a 35/f1.4 or 24/f1.4 on full-frame is simply impossible on Micro Four Thirds.

but I was talking about usage in a practical sense

Wow, that's some nice glass you have, I'm green with envy. I saw the news about Olympus bringing out a competitor for the pana 7-14, if the IQ is anything like the 12-40 it will be a winner. I don't think I will lust after that one though, my brain doesn't seem to work with anything wider than about 24mm. I tried the canon 10-22 but it was too wide for me, I think ~24-100 is the range I agree with most.

In a practical sense yes, especially at 800px on the web. Like you say, there's definitely specialist applications where it matters (astrophotography or big prints, read about Ming Thein's 'ultra-print' project for an example) but by and large, most people won't notice and most photographers don't have the ability to take advantage of the difference anyway.

That guy knows how to push the limits (and he takes some great photos as well) but I would say the difference becomes noticeable at much greater sizes than 800px web viewing. A clean 16mp shot from a smaller sensor will easily print at 16x24' and be indistinguishable from a similar shot taken by a full frame camera at normal viewing distances. I found this article by Ming which says it more accurately than I could.

I keep coming back to the point of sufficiency because it’s one of the most misunderstood concepts by consumers, photographers and camera companies alike. Here’s what sufficiency means, in real terms. The megapixel number assumes you a) are sharp at the actual-pixels level, i.e. have good technique; and b) are using a Bayer sensor; c) noise is a non-issue or barely noticeable up to 1600 or average night conditions. Here’s what you need:

Hipstagram – 0.3MP, quality doesn’t really matter anyway
Social media/ facebook/ twitter/ etc – 800x800px: 0.64MP
Dedicated photo sites/ flickr etc – 2000x1500px: 3MP
6×4″ minilab print, 144dpi – 864x576px: 0.5MP
Single page newsprint ~20×15″, 72dpi – 1440x1080px: 1.5MP
HDTV playback – 1920x1080px: 2.1MP
18×12″ print, 240dpi (upper limit for most hobbyists and a lot of pros) – 4320x2880px: 12.4MP
Double page A4 magazine spread 16.5×11.7″, 240dpi – 3960x2808px: 11.1MP
8×12″ Ultraprint, minimum 500dpi, ideal 720dpi – 4000x6000px to 5760x8640px: 24-50MP
Very big billboard 40x20m, 5dpi – 7874x3937px: 31MP
Large fine art print, 36×24″, 240dpi – 8640x5760px: 50MP
10×15″ Ultraprint, 500-720dpi – 5000x7500px to 7200x10800px: 38-78MP
16×20″ Ultraprint, 500-720dpi – 8000x10000px to 11520x14400px: 80-166MP (!)

I’m willing to bet that most people don’t know 12MP or less is more than enough for just about every conceivable use

(Ming Thein)

and in reference to his Ultra prints I'm going to start slapping anyone I see in a gallery looking at artworks with a magnifying glass, that'd be taking pixel peeping to a whole new level of stupidity :wink:

The Ultraprint resolves at the equivalent level of 720 PPI; that’s beyond the naked human eye’s ability to distinguish. What this means is that we can look at the prints as near as our eyes will focus, and there will still be the impression of more detail – you really need a 3-5x magnifying loupe to fully appreciate how much detail is in one of these prints.

(Ming Thein)

Posted: **Mon 02 Jun, 2014 2:25 pm**

phan_TOM wrote:...and in reference to his Ultra prints I'm going to start slapping anyone I see in a gallery looking at artworks with a magnifying glass, that'd be taking pixel peeping to a whole new level of stupidity

The Ultraprint resolves at the equivalent level of 720 PPI; that’s beyond the naked human eye’s ability to distinguish. What this means is that we can look at the prints as near as our eyes will focus, and there will still be the impression of more detail – you really need a 3-5x magnifying loupe to fully appreciate how much detail is in one of these prints.
(Ming Thein)

True, but I still want to buy one

Bringing this all back to Wayno's OP, I think the point is that it really doesn't matter too much. For basically all practical applications, the current crop of large sensor cameras (Micro Four Thirds and above) are really, really good...

My generic advice for someone in the market:
- Figure out how serious you are. There's some very good fixed lens, large sensor cameras out there now, and not everyone needs interchangeable lenses. Likewise, basically all dSLR's are massively over-featured.
- Figure out if you have any specialist needs (macro, astrophotography, architecture, weather sealing, high-speed sports etc...). And I mean real needs - a passing interest in photographing small things doesn't mean you need a 1:1 macro, likewise an interest in architecture doesn't mean you need a tilt-shift lens... If you do, some systems may suit more than others.
- Figure out a budget.
- Go to a camera store and play with everything that fits with the above three criteria; buy the one that you like.

Posted: **Mon 02 Jun, 2014 2:52 pm**

nickthetasmaniac wrote:True, but I still want to buy one

Me too, I think one would look amazing above my desk

& good advice about buying a camera, it really is hard to go wrong these days. It's probable that 99% of cameras with decent sized sensors would be sufficient for 99% of consumers. Something that's often overlooked is that “The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it!” - Ansel Adams

Posted: **Tue 03 Jun, 2014 9:47 am**

nickthetasmaniac wrote:
phan_TOM wrote:...and in reference to his Ultra prints I'm going to start slapping anyone I see in a gallery looking at artworks with a magnifying glass, that'd be taking pixel peeping to a whole new level of stupidity

The Ultraprint resolves at the equivalent level of 720 PPI; that’s beyond the naked human eye’s ability to distinguish. What this means is that we can look at the prints as near as our eyes will focus, and there will still be the impression of more detail – you really need a 3-5x magnifying loupe to fully appreciate how much detail is in one of these prints.
(Ming Thein)

True, but I still want to buy one

Bringing this all back to Wayno's OP, I think the point is that it really doesn't matter too much. For basically all practical applications, the current crop of large sensor cameras (Micro Four Thirds and above) are really, really good...

My generic advice for someone in the market:
- Figure out how serious you are. There's some very good fixed lens, large sensor cameras out there now, and not everyone needs interchangeable lenses. Likewise, basically all dSLR's are massively over-featured.
- Figure out if you have any specialist needs (macro, astrophotography, architecture, weather sealing, high-speed sports etc...). And I mean real needs - a passing interest in photographing small things doesn't mean you need a 1:1 macro, likewise an interest in architecture doesn't mean you need a tilt-shift lens... If you do, some systems may suit more than others.
- Figure out a budget.
- Go to a camera store and play with everything that fits with the above three criteria; buy the one that you like.

This is a great summary of the way in which to approach buying a camera these days.

Posted: **Mon 07 Jul, 2014 11:38 am**

got my hands on the latest OM with the 2.8 14-40 zoom to try in a showroom.... i shouldnt have, i'm in love... what a fantastic camera... lightening fast zoom. fantastic macro. nice light compact body.... the 2.8 lens is a lot bigger than the default lens though.
i wont have much use for it till at least spring, so no excuse to buy one now... and i'm likely to be out of work soon..

Posted: **Tue 15 Jul, 2014 2:48 pm**

wayno wrote:got my hands on the latest OM with the 2.8 14-40 zoom to try in a showroom.... i shouldnt have, i'm in love... what a fantastic camera... lightening fast zoom. fantastic macro. nice light compact body....

You broke the fundamental rule there wayno. Never, never, never touch. Not only is it contagious but there is no known cure. I thought you would have been around the traps long enough to know that by now :wink:

Posted: **Tue 15 Jul, 2014 2:56 pm**

phan_TOM wrote:
wayno wrote:got my hands on the latest OM with the 2.8 14-40 zoom to try in a showroom.... i shouldnt have, i'm in love... what a fantastic camera... lightening fast zoom. fantastic macro. nice light compact body....

You broke the fundamental rule there wayno. Never, never, never touch. Not only is it contagious but there is no known cure. I thought you would have been around the traps long enough to know that by now

Posted: **Tue 15 Jul, 2014 3:13 pm**

I have been loving mine by the way. It's small, it's sexy, it takes *&%$#! hot photos, did I mention that it's sexy? sorry I shouldn't tease

I've been playing around with the 60mm macro lately and never having owned a true 1:1 macro before I can't believe how close up it goes. There is a learning curve though, with a miniscule depth of field and every breeze is now my enemy...

: Calliandra flower; calliandra.jpg (123.44 KiB) Viewed 38899 times

: red cap; fungi.jpg (138.92 KiB) Viewed 38899 times

The cap of the mushroom was smaller than my little fingernail

Posted: **Tue 15 Jul, 2014 3:15 pm**

well i'll have a redundancy cheque burning a hole through my pocket at the end of the week, and i'll just have to buy something to pick me up....

Posted: **Tue 15 Jul, 2014 4:05 pm**

No doubt my partner could find some flaw to your logic but sounds sensible to me

Posted: **Fri 17 Oct, 2014 11:36 am**

A quick update for you wayno, unless you have already bought one and found out for yourself

There's numerous reports on camera review sites and blogs etc about how good the image stabilisation system in Olympus cameras is and, well, it's all true, it's brilliant.

After a couple of days in the rainforest, in low light where a tripod is usually mandatory, I found myself taking a few shots without bothering to get my tripod out and almost all came out sharp. The most extreme example is this one. Handheld, f8, iso200, 1 sec & sharp as you'd like. I took a number of shots with shutter speeds as low as 1/2 sec and was surprised to find out they all came out so sharp.

: waterfall.jpg (194.51 KiB) Viewed 38470 times

and a crop of the highlighted area (yes, the file size is heavily reduced for web but you get the idea)

Posted: **Fri 17 Oct, 2014 2:46 pm**

I like it! havent got one yet.. had no job for a couple of months, and paying the bills!

Posted: **Fri 12 Dec, 2014 3:51 am**

the rumour mill says theres a replacement coming for the E M5 in february.
the M5 has been discontinued. i'm waiting to see what they come out with and i'll make a decision as to whether i'll buy it or see what affect it has on the price of other models and see if theres a deal to be had.

Posted: **Fri 26 Dec, 2014 4:16 pm**

thanks for your comments I got an OM5 on clearance with a 12-50mm pro lens...

Posted: **Sat 27 Dec, 2014 6:11 pm**

awesome camera wayno. Do you mean the 12-50 or the 12-40 PRO?

oh yeah, pics or it didn't happen :wink:

Posted: **Sat 27 Dec, 2014 6:14 pm**

sorry, 40

Posted: **Sat 27 Dec, 2014 6:24 pm**

flower time

Posted: **Sun 28 Dec, 2014 4:09 am**

what settings do you use? the olympus auto setting is over the top with colour saturation for a start. my first couple of days with the camera so i used it in dummy mode just to get a lot of shots in quickly...

Posted: **Sun 28 Dec, 2014 7:14 am**

I fumbled around for ages trying to work out what I thought were the best settings and then I found this online guide which is really handy, it describes every setting & option in order which is a godsend because the menus are endless... http://www.biofos.com/mft/omd_em1_settings.html. It's for the em1 but hopefully the menus / settings aren't too different from the em5.

I also only shoot raw so I don't think any of those image settings affect my images? Like the settings for saturation, sharpness etc are mainly for shooting jpegs as far as I know.

I'm really digging the em1 it's a kickass little camera and you'll love that 12-40 lens it's superb.

I managed to wake from my Christmas lunch coma to get up and take some early photos on boxing day. it was looking dull and overcast but it turned out to be a good morning for it

: 1.jpg (99.72 KiB) Viewed 38013 times

: 3.jpg (91.45 KiB) Viewed 38013 times

: 4.jpg (123.92 KiB) Viewed 38013 times

I have to add this one as I think it's a cool shot

: 7.jpg (77.44 KiB) Viewed 38013 times

and one of the first shots with my new 10 stop ND filter. They're pretty gimmicky but it's fun to get 1 to 2 second long exposures on a sunny day at the beach!

Posted: **Sun 28 Dec, 2014 9:32 am**

thanks very much for that, for now i've switched out of auto mode and changed the colour from vivid to normal for now and will sift through the rest of the settings. the lens is just so razor sharp with the images, , macro is a dream. last time i had kit this good my kit weighed nearly twice as much...

Bushwalk Australia

comments on Olympus cameras please.

comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.

Re: comments on Olympus cameras please.