Iqoption linux download
I just use ACR; the workflow for the Oly plugin is messy. Ah yes of course, I understand messy. That said, to be fair in your comparisons, you might consider going the messy route so that you achieve the best possible result. The difference, when viewed at 100 in PS is really quite pronounced. Looking forward to part II.
The difference is that the plugin removes overlapping pixels but ACR does not. The first 4 shots are captured at 1px increments, but the following 4 are shot at 0. 5px increments. Because of this, there is some overlap in the captured data, which is the reason that the 64 megapixel RAW does not look sharp. Both the plugin and camera processor compensate for the overlap, and this is why the resulting JPEG is 40 megapixels instead of 64 megapixels. I haven t tried it myself, so I don t know how the plugin works in practice.
I sent you a comparison. Wouldn t that mean the plugin is then up sampling instead. According to an Oly rep at B H there won t be an E-M1 update for at least a year while Panny is already using the latest 20MP sensor. Not all of the data is overlapping. I m not sure I see why we would need eight images if the overlaps are discarded anyway. Here s how DPReview explains the process.
They also have a neat animation showing how it works, and at it leads me to think that each 0. Downsampling to 40Mpx may or may not yield similar results, I m not exactly sure. quote Unlike the Hasselblad system, which uses four or six shots, the Olympus method uses eight. 5px shift overlaps with about 1 2 of each pixel that was captured by the 1px shifts. This is because it s essentially doing two things the first four movements shift the sensor in whole-pixel jumps in a square pattern.
This is designed to overcome the limitations of the Bayer color filter pattern moving each red and blue pixel into all the gaps that would normally exist between them and their nearest same-color neighbor, meaning you sample every color at every pixel. The sensor then moves up and left by 1 2 a pixel s width and repeats its square pattern theoretically doubling the vertical and horizontal resolution.
However, because there s some overlap between the original set of four pixels and the set of offset pixels, the system doesn t quite yield four times the original resolution 64MP. Instead, the camera compensates for this overlap and outputs a 40MP file. These files are captured both as 40MP JPEGs and as vast, 100MB Raw files. So it seems like the full overlap is for color information, which presumably is useful. That s what it looks like, yes. Judging by the DPReview image comparison with the D810, it seems to produce much better color because no interpolation is needed.
The comparison is under the same link I posted above. If Oly can make this work at reasonable speed, say 1 40sec, they might have something here. Until then it is of limited use, mostly studio still life. Maybe it could work for watches as the larger DoF reduces the need for focus stacking. The 60mm macro should easily have the resolving power.
It doesn t make sense for studio work because the net resolution is about the same except now we have even more pixels to retouchand I can t honestly say I ve had any issues with the D800E s color under controlled light. Ditto DOF you can always use the PCE macro. Well there is still an advantage to be had no moire. So it depends on your subject for sure. Also I agree with the notion that if you are satisfied with whatever you have at hand there is obviously no need for anything better.
My own thoughts on this are that EM1. 2 with a good lens produces single shot files that are mostly hampered by my own shortcomings bad composition mostly, sometimes setting a too slow minimum shutterspeed in fast sports. For landscapes the Em1. 2 Hires mode is very usefull though. I shot Noctilucent Clouds and here the difference between the Hires file and the Single Shot file is so big we are talking about and excellent pic with superb colours and a very clean yet detailed shot and a mediocre one.
But that is when we pushing a m43 sensor to its limits. 2 as opposed to Em5. 2 is much better at dealing with movement. It is not perfect for sue, but a lot better. The default resolution in Olympus cameras is 350dpi and I believe a very good print is at 300dpi isn t it. Photoshop even ofer to open RAWs at 240dpi only.
So what does that involve that Olympus as 350dpi on the 4000 something pixels wide image. That you can actually make bigger prints at 300dpi. Surprisingly, this means that practically and in low light, it s probably a tie, and in good light, stick to the big guns the high resolution mode is more of an emergency thing rather than something to rely on. 4000px wide at 400PPI will be 10 it s nothing more complicated than that. The DPI count is arbitrary and only changes output dimension. Whether your output medium can actually resolve 400PPI is another matter entirely.
If the EM5 2 has anti-shock in continuous shooting modes, why can t this solution be immediately implemented via a firmware update on the EM1. Ask Olympus your guess is as good as mine. I ve asked and they said they ll get back to me. I won t hold my breath. Have you considered the Sony A6000 as fulfilling the family video stills brief. Better image quality than m43rds, best AF in mirrorless world, better video than EM5 2. Hello Ming, which cable do you use, to connect the zoom with the camera.
Thanks, Regards, Stefan. A regular short 3. 5mm interconnect I found on eBay. Interested to see the results of your Sugru use. Would using it as a permanent logo masking blackout be something you d consider, or not a consideration as you re likley to dash the body once it s outlived it usefulness. I don t mind adding grip enhancements though since it s unlikely anybody can argue with those. I must say, your review is rich with negativity. So much so, I am not sure that you should have reviewed the E-M5II.
Something else comes to mind, perhaps you should stick to taking pictures. No IBIS but no problem if use stabilised lenses. No mic input or headphone out a problem. Objectivity isn t the same as negativity, and there were enough things I about it that worked that I bought one. If you were expecting perfect glowing praise, there is both no such thing as a perfect product, and there are plenty of other sites who are paid to say nothing but praise.
Besides, if you think it s the perfect camera for you, there s no need to read what I think for affirmation. Just go make pictures and be happy. Sorry, my eyes say differently. Well, one thing comes to my mind you missed the point completely. There definitely IS a difference between 12 and 14 bit, compressed and uncompressed, and it becomes especially obvious once you start doing any sort of tonal manipulation in low contrast transition zones extreme highlights and shadows. Both color and smoothness are affected.
Like I said, I have no first hand experience with it, but to me it looks like the pure RAW data contains information that needs to be omitted for best sharpness. Always a headache when it comes to post-processing the m43 RAW files. Tonal manipulation in low contrast areas i. I am working on fixing the hard sharp uncomfortable edges of the battery grip with a silicone putty compound called Sugru, and will post the results in a future post. 4 35 Distagon rin an adaptor, and a Zoom H5 audio recorder.
the blue sky should be very careful or it would easily cause pic banding posterization. BTW, there seemed to be no official explanation from m43 alliance why there are no 14-bit raw to date, even the newly released EM1 Mark2 or GH5 are said to be stick to 12bit. If the claim is true that the new 20. 4Mpix sensor has 1 more stop DR than its predecessor, 13 EV of latitude quantized to 12bit RAW could possibly make things even worse, right.
Maybe Sony is to blame as the sensor supplier. I think it s likely to be a sensor limitation the EM1. 2 definitely appears to have more than enough processing bandwidth for 14bit. From what I understand the noise floor in u43 means that 14-bit output would deliver no improvement at all the extra it would be lost in the noise.
I m not sure about this. Some calculations based on the claims of improved noise on the E-M1ii seem to show that this is still the case, although it s getting close to the margin now. The A7RII showed a significant improvement between 12 and 14 bit, and the 16 bit MF cameras show even more dynamic and tonal range still, plus lower noise. M4 3 pixels are roughly 4u in pitch; this is similar to the pixels in the Sony A7RII, and the 100MP MF cameras.
Nothing to really contribute to this discussion as I ve never really shot much with m4 3, but would be interested to see how your video work progresses not sure how you get samples on the net with copyright issues etc. And well written review as always it s been a while actually since you ve done one a good thing. Thanks Junaid. Video some of it is up, some of it is with clients, some of it is embargoed, some of it is for their internal use, and some of it is my own family stuff which I wish to remain private.
A lot of the pickups and b-roll in the workshop videos especially HTS is also shot by me. The other challenge is it s never 100 your production unlike stills, which means it s difficult to be fully happy with it so I never show it. Hehe yes I can see how you can never be totally satisfied. So much possible tweaking. I guess it ll happen one day. I ll have to convince you of a private showing whenever we next meet. Seeya in Chicago. Very honest review and analysis. Very rare these days. Rare because it doesn t sell cameras, bring you advertising or referral dollars or endear you to manufacturers one of those cycles.
Ming touches on an extremely important metric, one that just about every other internet reviewer ignores price performance. This is a key design and engineering ratio, and is very high in the minds of consumers. Reviewers who are somehow comped by camera companies, or perhaps just want more click-throughs ignore it, other than say token throwaways when discussing something like a Leica.
Ming deserves praise for going places few dare to, and calling out the manufacturers where they need calling out on price. Looking at that video rig at the top of this article, I cannot help but think that this little guy is being asked to play in the BIGS. I think the reason I m so impressed with the Mark II is that my expectations were in check when I opened the box. Cute little palm size digicam looks like a vintage recreation with pana20. I consider it nothing more than a disposable consumer imaging device, not at all in the same league with the known heavy hitters.
It s handsome to look at, it performs well beyond my expectations and it has a very nice compliment of lenses both native and 3rd party. All in all, an excellent value for what you get. I keep my cameras for 24 months before upgrading and I m pretty certain I ll recover half the cost at sale so it costs me a little over 20 bucks a month to own it. Add back in the fun and enjoyment dollar factor and the damn thing s near free.
Well done Olympus. As a oldish cinematographer did a lot of work with the Sony Digibeta and still holding on to a NikonF2 film body with a crop of AiS lenses incl the 50mm 1. 2, 105 micro etcits time for me to do the digitalvideo cum still combo. I have been seriously looking at the Nikon D750 with the 24-120 kit to do both documentaries and stills.
This way, I could pack my bag with the F2 body loaded with B W film and the new dSLR. My travels are to remote locations and I do want to cover both still and video. Does Nikon D750 today represent the best dual option. These project are self funded and later offered in the market for sale. Depends if you have an external recorder for sound and video and proper stabilization. I am looking at Tascam D70 and Zoom H6 for audio for my pro audio mics from Sennehiser.
No plan to get a Atmos external recorder. I now use light tripods as the wrist grip of dSLRs is not to my liking. Would stabilization be a crucial factor. Why not shoot with and without a tripod and see for yourself. I live in a place where we cannot go out and check gear. The primary reason for posting on your site was the quality and content of what you like to share. Now that you have both the Nikon D750 and The Olympus e-m5-iifor sheer image quality in both still and video, what are the considerations that you tick for using one over the other.
Your comments will help as this decision on the camera will be with me for the next 5yrs. We can t easily do it here, either unless you are on the approved media list or chummy with the brand principals, the only time you get to try stuff is when you pull out your wallet. Those folks in the US have it better than they know. I see what you mean about the product reviews getting far more comments than your much more interesting other posts.
Perhaps it s because it iqoption linux download a lot easier to write off-the-cuff responses to a review. Internet readers are lazy too Personally I ve looked a few times at getting a used E-M5 v 1, it seems like for someone with small hands who takes only still photos with native MFT lenses, there s no compelling reason to look at either the v2 or the E-M1. The high resolution mode is to me a cool feature Iqoption linux download might use once a month, if I m lucky Why didn t you look at Panasonic for video.
Or other reasons too. You re right the E-M5 v1 is much more compelling value than either of these options. Panasonic yes, lack of in-body stabilisation. Lack of in-body stabilization only. If I m going to use a gimbal rig or steadicam then I might as well use the D810 a gimbal is cheaper than a new system. As for product reviews and comments well, I m starting to suspect it s because you actually have to make photos to have an opinion on some of these posts.
Haven t read all the comments here so I don t know whether it s mentioned but is the reasonably implemented image share feature another reason to look at this series of cameras,if you are into street photography. This article is really worth a read but there are potential ethical questions with its use.
As ever, a thought provoking review. Leaving aside the nonsense of dealing with a Manufacturer, I m impressed with Ming s ability to re-examine a previous position as near objectively as anyone could be expected to do. I am a recent convert to mFT and in particular to Olympus having had the recommendation to consider it from a highly respected source. He suggested that the combined benefits of size, non-intrusiveness, speed of use, ability to react quickly to rapidly changing situations, relatively high image quality and a wide range of good to excellent lenses fitted my needs better than the kit I was trying to use at the time.
He was spot-on. I invested in the system and in a single day achieved a step change in my imagery. Simply put, the E-M5ii freed me from kit constraints to such an extent that I could just concentrate on the images and the story. I kid you not. Now, I own most of the best photographic equipment money can buy and even so, I m firmly of the view that you can use anything to make a good picture. So, what s important is that you use what best supports your objectives for that particular situation.
In the Olympus E-M5ii, together with some excellent glass, I have found just that. It isn t perfect by any means, as Ming says, but, as he also says, there s no better alternative for what it does. You just have to be sure that what it does best is what you need from it. Thanks for chipping in, Michael. Also glad to hear it s still working out for you. As someone who has had the OMD EM5 MKii for a couple of months, it s refreshing to see someone call it like it is.
On paper it s my camera. This camera is a camera I really wanted to like. The reality of it is that it is a superb camera that can cover a wide range of situations speaking for myselfbut there s still a couple of things missing I value, so I decided it s time to part with it. Ming, also I note your comment It is unclear why Olympus still remains at 12 bit for raw files since the data pipe appears to be more than large enough.
I wanted to comment on this- you can t just add a 14bit RAW and automatically have an image quality gain. The Sensor DAC needs to be capable of extracting real data to work with- otherwise all you re doing is wasting more bits, more power, reduce battery life, creating more heat, and need a faster processor. Even when the first APS-C s FF came out from Nikon Canon capable of 14-bit RAW, a lot of them weren t really using it. 12-14 bit raw, you re right, the implication is that the processing should follow all the way through.
I m just looking at the amount of data flowing out of the sensor in 11fps and the 1080p60 modes and wondering why they couldn t allow a lower frame rate with 14bit and proper processing this suggests to me there s a hardware limitation somewhere between sensor and ADC which is a holdover from the first generation E-M5. I picked up an em5 here in Japan for around 400 US last year and really love it.
In fact recently you can pick up a used em5 300 and the grip 150 for less than half the price of the mk2. If money is tight, I think this is a great option. I ll stick with my em5 until we see an updated sensor. We were able to find used E-M1s a month after release at about 75 of the lowest new cost anywhere else. Where do you find second hand gear though. I did not see any at the big shops i. Yodobashi, BIC Camera the last time I was there. There are tons of options.
In Shinjuku, Map is the main place to go. There are quite a number in Ginza Lemon, Sukiya, Katsumido etc. and a few more out at Nakano Broadway. I found your review a breath of fresh air. It was a honest appraisal and imho thought provoking something which seems to be a rare occurrence nowadays. I think that people forget that this equipment costs money and for many of us, it s a significant investment and that s why I feel that your voice is important in the sea of this is the best thing since sliced bread extremely happy that I m finally able to read a warts and all review.
Thanks Darren. In this case, being honest about equipment costs me money too since I have to procure my own review samples. I would have preferred a full-colour-sampling mode ie, four captures shifted by one pixel width to the high-res mode. Not that it couldn t be implemented with a firmware update. I haven t seen a good description of what the 64 MP raw file actually contains, three colour values for each half quarter-pixel.
If yes, a raw converter should be able to extract a full-colour-sampling 16 MP raw by simply ignoring every second virtual pixel. That would be similar to the Pentax model for the K3II. I would agree it s a firmware update away tell the sensor to take three shifted captures, each moved by one pixel, and then read write RGB values separately.
It should be faster, too since there s quite a bit less data to process. The review of the EM5II on DPReview and elsewhere indicates that the EM5II is doing a series of full pixel shifts in a circuit of 4 shots followed by a diagonal half pixel shift and another circuit of 4 full pixel shifts. For some as yet unclear reason, Oly chose not to offer an option for outputting one or both of the 4-frame full-pixel shift sets as a full color file ala the Hassy Pentax approach.
It s also unfortunate that Oly chose not to offer an option of outputting the 8 frames separately they just give you the one ORI frame. With PhotoAcute-type functionality added to Oly s raw processing software that would allow for handheld HiRes with subject movement. I m hoping that Oly expands the HiRes options in the EM1 successor because there s a lot of possibilities with super-resolution when done right. Theoretically, there should be a way to extract both circuits from the raw file since all of the information is captured maybe we don t even need a camera firmware update for this.
I ve always wondered about the visible noise at base ISO with the original E-M5. com articles 8189925268 what-s-that-noise-shedding-some-light-on-the-sources-of-noise. I suppose a small sensor is that much more susceptible, especially with base ISO of 200. ETTR helps, but the relatively low dynamic range limits its use. Funny, but you may be right about the OM-D s being best at low-light photography as long as you don t have to stop motion.
Things could be improved noticeably with a ISO 100 base value, and read noise has also been lowered noticeably with the latest Sony sensors at least in Nikon cameras, eg, the D810. So, I think meaningful progress is still possible with today s technology. There is an ISO 100 setting, but it s a pull setting which means some inevitable dynamic range compromises.
However, for the target audience intended use of this camera, I think a stop more sensitivity makes sense you re unlikely to use this thing on a tripod anyway; there are cheaper and better options for ultimate image quality any of the entry level 24MP APS-C DSLRs, for a start. Bear in mind that all of the current Olympus cameras are still pretty much on the same sensor generation as the original E-M5, from 2012; it s also why we haven t seen 14-bit color or any meaningful improvement in image quality, either.
ETTR helps but as you say, there isn t that much DR to work with to begin with. At least the noise isn t unpleasant or distracting though. I ve used both E-M1 and E-M10 extensively, and I must say that ETTR is of limited use since these cameras tend to clip highlights easier than shadows. If you take a shot at ISO200 that is way underexposed, and push it in post by 3EV, the noise is almost exactly the same as if you would ve selected ISO1600 in camera. It is so close I can t usually tell the difference.
I agree and Japan is a buyer s paradise for second hand gear I wouldn t be surprised if you could get a used E-M5II for not that much more. Your comparison point for the A7S is once again out of focus and of course going to show less resolved detail. If you are going to conduct comparisons and then insist your conclusions are right, at least do so in a meaningful and scientific manner. Mine IS NOT a resolution and sharpness race.
those are casual difficult light comparison and put side by side a sony a7s monster low light VS a tiny sensor like OMD show that you can see a tiny difference only watching at 100 magnification or printing an 1 meter print ,and the difference is not far from 5-10so WHY DON T YOU DO THAT. take a super performance camera with low pixel count like the A7s in normale iso range -1600 3200 and compare with an OMD with those settings ONLY for the omd. with a perfect focus plane and let discuss the result.
Sharpness 20 Radius 0. Noise reduction 10-12 detail 70. Add Grain 10-20-50. Then what are you comparing. A casual test is meaningless because the results are not comparable. There is no way of knowing if the image appears to have less resolution detail because of your lack of care with focus, camera shake, or for all I know, you underexposed one and pushed it by two stops in post. No test or experiment of any kind has any value if none of the variables are controlled.
Lightroom and Acr have no idea in How a Canon raw is made,a Nikon Raw is made,a Oly raw is made. so the generic standard profile for raw conversion is not adeguate because it s a generic starting point. Try open an omd raw with those settings,artifacts you see even at low iso will disappears and detail will rest totally intact,improving the usability of the file even pushing shadow a lot.
,the noise you see it s a mix of noise and sharpness artifacts, Detail 15 Radius 0. Noise reduction 8 detail 65. chrominance 15-20 as you prefere Effects panel Add grain 1225 ,50. Hi own a OM-D E-M5 Mark II since almost three months having purchased the camera in the first days of may. It is my first Olympus camera, dealing with the menu has been very hard in the beginning. I got cramps in my hands when holding the camera more than a few minutesin my opinion the camera is too uncomfortable to hold without grip.
I use mostly to shoot architecture or landscape in hi-res mode and find it very useful and effective, minor quirks aside. I ve got the two pro zooms and find image quality very, very good, when not phenomenal. After almost three months of use, yesterday, suddenly the camera started to refuse to shut down when switched off, the only way to shut down is to remove the battery and when the battery is inserted the camera will turn on again, regardless of the switch position.
So the camera is now on his way to Olympus CH for repair. I am very disappointed, such a poor QC for such an expensive small tool. Will keep you posted. We had that problem intermittently with the E-M1s and E-M5, too. Lack of wide shift lenses makes it very difficult to use for architectural work. I m tempted by the Mark II that or one of the Merrills, probably the DP2 3. But for what reason, and for how often. Before I found Ming s blog, I supposed I intuitively knew about shooting envelopes without having consciously codified it.
But when I sit down and attempt to justify a Mark II I can t. I can t make that leap. The truth is it only expands the envelope for a very few things. And if those things aren t what you do, move on. Or take some medication for the GAS. I disagree totally about Nikon FF gives 3 stop better Raw you have to be careful derawing any omd raw because it need the right conversion,it s nonsense open every raw files from any camera with the same settings in camera raw ,are sensor all the same.
resolution is the same. I can show you with those settings converting a omd raw improve minimum 2,5 better clean file with tons of detail. Sharpness 15 radius 0. noise reduction luminance 10-20 from 1000 to 6400 iso detail 70-75. noise reduction color 20. Effect panel Add grain 10 50 20. Here you can see my test and download the files. I do not open every raw file with the same settings, and I spend a lot of time finding the right profile for all parameters for each camera.
Why would I spend so much effort chasing ultimate image quality and then compromising it. I think you ll find that DXO also agrees the D750 has a two stop noise advantage, to say nothing of dynamic range and bit depth. However, your test is false because your Nikon files are clearly out of focus and thus not comparable. On top of that, you are using comparisons of 3D subjects which require sufficient depth of field to cover and fully resolve, yet you use the same aperture with both Nikon and Olympus this gives the Olympus a 2-stop DOF advantage, which will of course make it look sharper.
Increasing noise reduction which will remove detail and then adding back grain which is not real information is giving you the illusion of more information with no real signal. If you try doing that on a very high frequency subject, it s clear the FF cameras have a significant advantage still. Finally, you re missing the point entirely I also pointed out despite all of these limitations, the M4 3 camera still comes pretty close in practical deployment because of DOF, stabilisers, lenses etc.
More dof mean more area in focus not more sharpness. In my exaple there are a lot of 3d object for be sure there are some parts of the pics perfectly in focus raw are different eatch other you know and you know that it need to be built with the right conversion if you comprare a d750 with a sharp lens even stopped to f4 VS a m4 3 omd camera with ANY lens you will find more apparent sharpness in omd files.
Because the raw need an other approach. try yourself please. A nikon d750 a nikkor 24 70 f4 and the same composition with an OMD with equivalent 12 40. at moderate iso like 2000-3200 shoot a typical potrait open orf file with my suggest settings and share the result. you can put my name on the post you can find less than 10 in detail noise compromize,not 1 stop,not 2 stop,and figure 3 stop. I hope you will try even to put contrast to -100 and look the shadows. Best regard.
Of course the noise difference is much less when you compare at the same DoF and same shutter speed, because that will force the D750 up 2 stops in ISO. The stabilizer levels the playing field even further when there are no moving subjects. So in practical use, the difference is not 3EV, and that s exactly what Ming said. However, that doesn t remove the fact that the D750 is more flexible with DoF control and can exploit that 3EV in certain situations.
In addition, it has the advantage of 14 bit RAW against 12 bit. That s 4 times more information, and it really shows when you start pushing shadows and pulling highlights. With the OM-D, there is not much headroom in the highlights, it requires much more care with exposure. If it s not in focus, how can you judge resolving power or sharpness. I ve tried your suggestion several times and all it creates is noise over an underlying smear. And you can always do the same thing with the D750 file and we re back to square one, except now both are smeared.
ORI files are readable by Bridge ACR Photoshop. All you need to do is change the extension. ORF change xxxx. ORI to, say, xxxORI. Also, the reason why the 64MP high res files are not really 64MP is that the image pixels obtained from the half-photosite shift are not independent of the unshifted pixels. The pixels effectively overlap. Seems rather misleading to output and claim 64MP though. Its a 64MP raw because its raw.
The jpegs are 40MP for a reason. While, as both an E-M5 and E-M5II user, I don t agree with all that you say, it s still a great and refreshing review. I m using the High Res mode with some nice results with only a light but high quality travel tripod. You mention the the ORI Files are useless rename them to ORF and they turn into regular 16MP RAW files it s the first of the 8 frames in the High Res photo. Well, I come from the perspective of somebody who was heavily invested and a big M4 3 fan until things started going sloppy, both technically with the E-P5 and E-M1 shutters, and support-wise from the principals.
It makes no sense to compromise if you don t have to but here, we have a solution that is compromised but no other alternative. So there is no other conclusion than it is still the best tool for the job and that is always what I am looking for. ORI files aha. No program could read preview them before that.
About the black startups I ve had them very badly right after getting the camera in fact could not make it work in the first hours with the camera and thought about returning it. Suddenly it started to work, and now I ve had not got them in a long time. But when these black startups were occurring, I could track it down to one cause something in the camera mount.
Removing the lens and mounting it again applying a little bit of force when turning the lens into place made the camera turn on ok not FORCING the lens really only putting it in locked position firmly, turning the lens until you sense that it is really in the position, not just mounting it fastly. But now even this was not necessary, no more black starts I think that something might conforms in the mount s connectors. That was the same conclusion I came to, because I have not seen it with adapted i.
completely non-electronic lenses or non-collapsing ones. I suspect it may even be the contacts inside the collapsing lens barrel not fully engaging or returning an erroneous signal. The OM-D menu system is a huge mess and responsible for many of the usability quirks. Optimally, they should just re-build it from the ground for E-M1 mk II. The SCP should be totally customizable.
Additionally, there should be a custom menu that you can call up from an Fn button. Possibility to quickly set live view boost on off, I hate it when I have to dive into the menus when using flash. Possibility to completely turn off the LCD, now it is always back-lit even when nothing is displayed. Possibility to do something useful with the trashcan button in shooting mode, now it only works in playback. Possibility to manage files in camera, like creating folders and moving files between them.
Some settings have default values that make no sense shutter lag, EVF refresh rate, JPEG quality etcthese should be set for best possible performance as default. Oddly, no camera manufacturer I can think of is innocent of setting meaningless defaults none of the cameras give optimal quality out of camera. JPEG basic, super saturated consumer auto and crazy ISO limits.
But yes, the menu was okay with the very first generation because there weren t that many options; it s now gotten so unwieldy that it takes a long time to find what you need. And some important options are just not available AF-ON, for instance. I don t understand, do you just mean that there isn t a dedicated button marked AF-ON. Even on my little E-M10, I am able to use the Fn1 button for back-button focus, are you not able to set focus-acquire to anything other than the shutter button on the E-M5 MkII.
No, I m smart enough to use a programmable function button. The problem is none of the possible combinations give you AF-ON on one button, AE-AF-L on another, and shutter only for shutter. And on top of that, there are two places to set your buttons one in the custom button menu to assign AE-AF-L, then another to set shutter behaviour which affects AE-AF-L. And to top it off, this behaviour isn t consistent between still and movie modes and there s no way to make it so.
Ah, got it, thanks. You never know with new cameras, sometimes they take things away that you had even with older versions. Yeah but sometimes they never get it right, either even though it s only one little line of code in a firmware update away. It may not be so easy. As a software guy in recoveryI ve worked with chip designers, and they just don t think like you and I. And from iqoption linux download at the manual, I can sorta figure out what they re doing, and it isn t going to be a one-liner.
It certainly looks like it can be done, at least to me, but I wouldn t guarantee it without seeing the source code. The problem is that the abstraction of the button is tied to the AF mode, so that the function of the button is dependent upon the behavior of the shutter release. To me, as a software guy, this is nuts, but as I said, chip designers are a different breed, and it probably makes sense to them. However, with the ISO200 shot you have a little more dynamic range to work with, so it s actually going to be better especially for situations where you need some latitude with the highlights.
Or maybe its one of those we ve always done it that way things left over from 15 years ago. I take back what I said then but given that it s so easy for them to reassign buttons in other modes, it makes no sense. That said, consistency between shooting modes can t be that much to ask for, surely. All of the Olympus cameras I ve owned and used have behaved this way even the E-1. As a long-time AF-ON BBF user on Nikons and Canons and a recent m43 convert with the Iqoption linux download ii, I m confused about your concern.
I assigned AEL AFL to Fn1 and am quite happy with the results so far using S-AF, but not having experimented with C-AF and not missing it so far. Even ergonomically, Fn1 is pretty easy to find due to the location behind the obviously tactile lever. I do appreciate separating AEL from AFL on the Nikon bodies even on models without a dedicated AF-ON button, most recently relying on shutter half-press for AEL on my D600 with AFL for BBF using AF-C on the AEL buttonbut having a live histogram and EVF makes up for that as I can easily use EC if the exposure is non-optimal.
Also, regarding black screen startups, that seems to have disappeared with FW version 1. 2; sorry can t remember. Did you take the update. I m on latest firmware, and it still blacks out occasionally. There are situations in which you d want to decouple AE and AFL off centre subjects, tricky light. I find this need quite common for video work, though I agree with flashing highlights it s less of an issue with stills.
It s just much faster to move the camera til the histogram looks right, hit the AEL button to lock exposure since it s a toggle, and then set initial focus precisely with AF-ON. There s just no way to do this. On top of that, even if you set AF-ON to fn1 with the S3 C3 M3 modes, when you switch to video, your AF-On moves to the DOF preview button and fn1 defaults back to AE-L.
This continual change more than anything is extremely confusing and completely unnecessary. Thanks for another great review and some more stunning images. I ve been looking at this and others you mention. I d grab a Ricoh GR but have a hard time without the VF never get the framing and can t see much at all in bright light. Too bad Schneider never delivered their promised 14 2 for M4 3 I suppose there s the Panaleica 15 1.
I hate to be baited by gear but since you mentioned it. 4 35 Distagon clearly must be able to justify itself. Did you ever think you d own another M-mount. If you balance speed size build performance it actually looks like remarkably good value. Hard to say, actually. I think it depends on whether a the price is right and b it delivers sufficiency or beyond which I suppose goes back to the whole relative value question.
But that ZM 1. 4 35 is really something it s remarkable that it does well on M4 3 despite the super-thick sensor filter packs; I ve not seen this from any other M-mount wides. I see why Lloyd Chambers gushes about it now. Lloyd certainly makes it sound like good value fair price. when placed in the same tier as Leica and perhaps even Otus lenses. With its contrast and pleasing bokeh, I imagine it aught to justify itself by occupying a unique cinematic portion of the shooting envelope and no doubt others.
I suppose with M4 3rds only the central portion of the lens, where the rays are relatively parallel or perhaps more accurately, not obliqueis being used. This might make the thicker filter pack more of a non-issue than on larger non-native mounts where the ray angle in the corners may cause trouble. Zeiss certainly appear to be motivated in pushing the limits. It is interesting observing the engineering from the sidelines. What an age to live in. I wish you well with it.
I have no doubt you will put it to good use. Also, your images make me realise I take ceilings for granted I should look up more often. I m not sure it s quite up to Otus level, but definitely better than the Leica options which are all overpriced but it is of similar price quality ratio as their own 2 135 APO. Even though M4 3 only uses the central portion of the lens, there are still serious issues with a lot of lenses because they are not even telecentric enough there there s a reason all of the M cameras have to have offset microlenses to compensate for this.
Though, I admire Leica, it has been a long time since their value proposition made any sense. For half the price of a Summilux, with equal or better optical performance, the ZM is a no-brainer on the M-mount. I am not sure how well ZM comparisons translate to other mounts. Since I mentioned Otus lenses about half the cost, about half the weight and maybe 90-95 the build and performance.
The quality price ratio must be decent. Meaningfully more so than other cheaper lenses. We re well beyond sufficiency and into diminishing returns in this league at any rate. 8 Otus would interest me. I d certainly like to see how much smaller and cheaper a no-compromise day-time lens could be made. Sounds about right the challenge with SLR lenses is the long flange distances mean a lot more optical gymnastics has to go into ensuring telecentricity and acceptable corners.
I ve mentioned slower but no less perfect lenses to Zeiss before, but was told they didn t think the market was sufficient. I wonder if that is an education problem. Perhaps to joe consumer, prime lenses fast, therefore I wont buy a prime lens if it is not fast. I suspect many photographers are guilty of that way of thinking as well. Aside from composition choices subject isolationsurely as noise performance continues to improve, the requirement to use fast lenses aught to decrease Oh well.
Wouldn t it be nice if Voigtlander could find a profitable niche rebooting its APO-Lanthar series. Could well be especially if the lens is expensive. Like it or not, consumers still make up the bulk of sales, not pros. I suspect the problem with the APO-Lanthars wasn t the price or profitability, it was that they were too close to the ZFs.
I do enjoy your reviews; no one can eviscerate a piece of imaging equipment better than you Ming I do think Olympus has given the industry a nice nudge forward with respect to this sensor shift technology. If one doesn t try to implement it beyond its current capabilities, it can be quite useful and even enjoyable to use. I have been able to coax some fairly decent, if not excellent hi-res macro shots with the Oly 60mm and the aggressive sharpening you mention.
We will hopefully see this technology improve when Sony and others join the fray Diglloyd is gushing over the future potential of sensor shift. Well, at least you know it s honest because I bought it. Yes, I do believe your feelings toward Olympus and this product are very honest. Let me clarify the local principals, not HQ. And despite that I still bought it. I guess I am precisely the kind of idiot they want after all. Thanks for the honest and thorough review Ming.
Question; did you like within it s obvious limitations the performance of the Panasonic 35-100mm f4-5. 6 in the 75-100mm range. It s a surprisingly handy lens, given its size and price. Only good at two apertures though 5. 6-8 at that range, limited by diffraction and the lens design. Make sure you have enough light. Thanks Ming, I plan to use it in good light fast primes in low light so no problem there. While back in Boston a few weeks ago for a conference at MIT, I shot a night Red Sox games with this Pana 35-100 4 lens and an E-P5 at ISO 400.
It did rather well, although the corners do lag a bit. Burst mode action shots of the plate and first base action from well up in the stands were surprisingly sharp crisp. I was quite surprised and pleased, given the low cost and its minimal size and weight. It s actually not that difficult to design a moderate speed lens which doesn t have to covers a large area; fast perfect large format that s where things become challenging. Any idea what the maximum recording time is. AFAIK, all cameras coming to the EU have a maximum of Ming Thein says.
Mine appears to be limited only by card size I don t see a countdown anywhere. That said, I have not ever run a camera 30min for a single take. Battery life is actually less of an issue than you might think. I have shot a 8h operation with about 5h of actual video time on a single battery, with a bit of charge remaining at the end. These are surprisingly power-efficient cameras, especially compared to the Nikons 1-1. 5h of video and a larger battery is toast.
Aah, a very special and select selection to illustrate. Dali can go hide himself. And thanks for the revealing review. Still hoping for an affordable higher resolution OM-D-quality-IBIS camera. My _temporary_ solution for a longer reach is the now cheap EOS-M MagicLantern for focus peaking and zebra clipping warning with an EF-S 55-250 IS STM, rather usable with a screen loupe, but quick only in auto modes only one dial.
The shutter is fairly quiet. Well, if only Sony would stop compressing their raw files. And make a better IBIS referring to your review above. And combine it with the more affordable APS-C sensor. Or Olympus adopting the possible future Fuji-Panasonic new technology higher res. High resolution for moderate digital zoom between fewer primes and for large prints. I think more likely is the 20MP M4 3 sensor that sony just announced it is doubtful this is going to improve on dynamic range at all.
Or show much of a meaningful increase in resolution iqoption linux download 16MP, for that matter. And I love the way your watch photography has improved. Dali can really go hide himself. Seems to be harder for them than for me to quit smoking. But at least you want to, right. That s got to count for something. Then smoke the Ming. or perhaps my way, a cigar or pipe after a good dinner, or occasionally, without inhaling.
Shouldn t influence health too much. and it helps keeping your fingers from your camera when possible shots come to your mind and they stop doing if it s a good smoke. I literally don t move my cigar away while shooting. Love the dodge and burn natural. I hope you have a weather. smoke-sealed camera. I can imagine smoking influencing shooting positively, but I can t really imagine shooting making the smoking more enjoyable.
Well, it doesn t make it worse. And if you re doing very long exposure astrophotography. it doesn t make it the smoking. That s really multitasking. But you will have to avoid distorting the milky way. Perhaps with a superlong tele wide open for lack of dof. Or by choosing a night with a light breeze very light to enjoy the look of the smoke. Saves us renting a smoke machine for the cinematic shots. Perhaps they will consider doing so about the same time they start planning a serious sert of e-mount lenses.
sert setSorry. We ll see Kristian. There s a few signs in the horizon if the Zeiss Batis series are indicating a new aera with a serious RAW output from the E-mount cams. It s not so that Sony did not hear the message. I think they did. Thanks for your interesting articles. You ditched the 1st OMD for some time and had been using DSLR and medium format cameras since then most of the time for many months for more superior image resolutions to meet your requirements, probably you had used to carrying them around wherever go go not to miss any shot and for maintaining consistency in your image quality.
If that s the case what s the point to have the OMD back, if it can t meet the Ultraprint requirements. If you are going to use it for casual shooting and teaching, is there other better choice of cameras you mentioned few in your last paragraph or just merely out of curiosity and G. you had the OMD back. I thought I mentioned several times in the review it s for video work. I ve been wanting to get into MFT for a while because of size and lens choicesbut I m unsure of whether or not I should get the E-M5 MKII, the E-M10 or just pick up a used EM-5.
The E-M10 is half the price of the MKII right now and I get 100 cashback as well with a kit lens, but then again, I want the high end features because of GAS. I d skip the E-M10 because the IBIS system is cut down and not as effective. It s either a used E-M5 if you re shooting stills only, which has no issues and pretty much identical quality to the rest, or a new E-M5II if you re doing video.
The only time I d pick the E-M1 is if you need PDAF on legacy 4 3 lenses. A friend of mine has the E-M5. Maybe I ll borrow hers to try ut out before I make a decision. The EM5 original version also suffers from shutter shock. Not sure, Ming, where you got the impression that it wasn t subject to the problem. From extensive use of two bodies, testing three additional others, and 50,000 frames and never seeing it.