Iqoption download windows
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 iqoption download windows 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 looking 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 E-M5 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 iqoption download windows 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 iqoption download windows 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. Iqoption download windows 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 over 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.
Speaking of testing bodies, Ming, did you ever test another E-M1 to see if shutter shock was impacting all of this model, or just a portion of those produced. I know they introduced the firmware updates, but it is my understanding that this does not fully eliminate the issue. Between my partner and I, we owned four bodies. I spent a day testing an additional 89 bodies at Olympus HQ, which is basically everything they had in stock at the time. They were from four different batches, and two of those bodies were purchased outside the country.
All of them exhibited the problem. Frankly, this is something that should be done by the QC department at the factory, not an end purchaser. That is a lot of bodies to test. Thank you for the detailed reply. I have had an E-M1 for some time and while I love the ergonomics, I have found what I believe to be a higher than normal for me number of shots that do not seem as crisp as one would expect they should be. Now, I know that user error and lenses are also possible culprits, primarily the former, but I just cannot seem to put my finger on it.
I am not ready to completely put the issues on the doorstep of shutter shock, but at least I know it is not an unreasonable culprit. You re telling me. We thought it was a one-off issue at first because the initial preproduction review unit didn t show the problem, but turns out to be most certainly systemic. Given that I had one of the highest technical hit rates ever i. perfect focus no camera shake with the E-M5, the soft blurriness or double imaging seen on the E-M1 was perplexing.
It s gone on the E-M5II. Given your very careful approach and attention to detail, I m surprised that you didn t see any shutter shock with your EM5. I certainly have with mine, and many others have as well. Here s a particularly insightful and carefully done analysis of shutter shock on the EM1 and EM5 for your edification. I would certainly have mentioned it if I saw it, but generally if you don t see it in several units chances are it isn t an issue.
Though there s no way to be sure unless you test every camera, which is of course impractical. It was very obvious and consistent with every single E-M1, though. All 80 cameras I shot in one way or another. Do you remember, when shooting on the original E-M5, whether or not you kept the image stabilization always on, even when shutter speeds would not have warranted its use. And did you use the anti-shock feature, which also creates at minimum a 1 8 second shutter lag although this option might have come in a firmware update after your time with the camera.
I am definitely struggling with shutter shock on my E-M5, which I ve had since its release. I am doing my own testing now on how much impact IS on off and anti-shock on off is having. And I ve come to be wary of using any shutter speeds between 1 80 and 1 250 In any case, you seem to have shot a lot more with the E-M5 in your short period than I in all 3 years, so I would very much appreciate your answer to the questions above. IS was always on, and I never used anti-shock because of the lag introduced.
I always ran the latest firmware. It seems I might have gotten lucky with my two cameras, and unlucky with all 80 E-M1s. This review is definitely very interesting to me, not because I shoot Olympus or plan to, but simply because I had the privilege of watching you shoot with it for the first time and all the frustrating bits and pieces that followed. But I highly doubt there is anybody else who has shot this camera with a stopped down Nikon PC-E I still recall your Eureka moment or under as many different conditions as you did for this review.
Well, it was a bit of a faff to get it to stop down mount on Nikon body, select aperture, press stop down button, unmount without turning camera off so magnetic diaphragm stayed engaged let s just say it probably wasn t necessary other than for curiosity. I m not really sure why Olympus didn t consult photographers or filmmakers enough before releasing this camera.
Well I guess the photography bit is ok, but if I was just thinking of a camera for stills I d stay with the E-M1 or E-M10. For video this was what everyone was hoping for, a much better codec combined with the fantastic IBIS. Unfortunately they should have released it with a 1080p image at least equivalent to the current Panasonic picture and have considered the functionality and firmware a bit more.
This camera could have been a runaway success similar to the original E-M5. I think I ll wait to see if they improve things in the next iteration. Until then I will stay with my unstabilised Panasonic cameras which seem to be better hybrid devices. They might have done, but it looks like only some of my feedback from the first generation let alone the E-M1 made it back. No idea if it was filtered locally or at HQ level. I still think this is a better stills camera than the E-M1 though we do not have any issues with shutter shock and continuous shooting, and IBIS is further improved still.
I think there may still be hope for the video output if we use an external recorder via HDMI out this option might bear further investigation, but really increases the size of the whole thing. I was wondering how well this camera would pair with the upcoming Blackmagic Design video assist. Seems like a relative bargain at only 495 and also fairly compact. Might be worth considering. Guess we won t know til there s actually a product to try.
The Atomos Ninja Star could be a great pairing too. But I have not found a single footage with the pair and only a single mantion about someone which tried and said that saw no gains without footage. Could be true looks like the problem is in the sampling method, not with the codec. I was looking at that too, but the recording frame rate appears to be limited to 30p.
There was one mention of clean 4 2 0 HDMI out on another site, but I haven t seen anything else. Could possibly be that nobody has tried it because if you re going to rig one of these things, chances are you don t mind the size and just went for something with better native video quality on a gimbal. The Blackmagic Video assist offers 10 bit 4. 2 ProResHQ recording in 1080p 24 25 30 60 and the E-M5 Mk II outputs YCbCr 4 2 2 via HDMI so it seems like it could be a good match.
Regarding the size thing I was figuring that it could be cool to have a long HDMI cable, stick the recorder in a coat pocket and still have a relatively compact shooting experience, with the significant benefit of the wonderful 5 axis IBIS. For the extra few hundred bucks I wonder whether you d see a significant improvement in video quality. It has to be worth trying. That does look interesting. I m in love with the images Ming.
And on top of that they sell cameras. I am on standby until I see a vast improvement of the sensor performance. Until then I m good with the EM-1. Thanks Gerner. It seems that is not what the principals believe though they think fanboys and blind optimism and higher spec sheets sell cameras. I would say let them believe what they want. the camera isn t going to get you one mm of compositional value. so they d be better off nursing the good photographers out there and colaborate. Then they would perhaps contribute to a better bottom line for big Oly.
I don t think they see it that way. At these days, every camera and lens manufacturer needs some support. I d better go buy a spare then. Ah, the Voice of Independence. Thanks for this review Ming. Very honest and enlightening. Can t help but feel that some issues can be rectified by FW upgrade. Olympus built a good rep with the E-M1 FW upgrades, so there s hope for the future.
One question on recommendations a second body next to an E-M1 with FW 3. Another such E-M1 or this E-M5 Mk II. Thanks Peter. That s the good and bad news bad because they shouldn t have been issues in the first place, good because they re very easily solvable. And then we go from a 80 camera to a 95 one. That last question is tough the E-M1 still has no way to have continuous shooting and shutter-shock free images; the E-M5II lacks PDAF for legacy lenses but has much better video.
On the balance of things, I d be inclined to say E-M5II actually. I agree on equipment issues. They shouldn t be there in the first place. As discussed before, the manufacturers should stop using its base of followers as beta testers guinea pigs for their rushed-to-market equipment. Apparently show schedules, press releases and beating the competition are more important factors than being a reliable brand for their customer base. On the second cam question I suspected the E-M5 MkII would have you preference.
Currently has mine too. And although I m not the one to procrastinate, I may wait this time to see what the E-M1 MkII will give us. Well, the customers will only play the fool once. After that, we vote with our wallets. All that s left is the shallow hope that there are enough people who have no iqoption download windows but to buy iqoption download windows product, and frankly, that s a really naive way to run a business. But hey, what do I know I m just a photographer. The E-M1 II will certainly be expensive.
It s already not far off a D750 and I know which I d rather have at that price point. There is no comparison on image quality stills or video. Thanks for transcending your difficulties with Olympus and providing a review. I thought when the multi-shot high res feature was given a lot of attention at the time the camera was released that it was a neat trick but only a trick, not offering a lot of real world value. Even with the shortcomings you ve disclosed, the E-M5 II looks like a good fit for me.
Now to find a way to afford one. Oh, and despite the built-in glitches and the incredible level of irritation provided by the manufacturer, every time you pick up an Olympus camera it starts spewing forth the most gorgeous images. There seems to be some form of synergy there. I m sure the added Ming factor is the dominant contributor, but the result is always impressive.
Even your earlier Olympus lens reviews show it. Do you see yourself keeping the E-M5 MK II for the foreseeable future. Yes, because it does what I expected it to no more, though. Also, it s rather expensive to buy just for a review, no. But didn t you do that with the Fuji XT-1. I jest, I am aware that the handling especially the direction the lenses turn did not agree with you. No, I never reviewed it.
And yes, I lost quite a bit on that one, too. It wasn t the lens direction, but the shutter speed and ISO dials which you cannot change, because they re engraved. But it found a good home with us. My loss is your gain. Glad it went to a good friend. Wow, so you feel out of love with the X-T1. Couldn t get used to the dials spinning the wrong way and no way to reverse that.
15 years of muscle memory has them going the other way. I was missing shots and it was driving me mad. Yes, and using the other system regularly, and having them work opposite ways was a pain, I am sure. I have tried the Fuji bodies, and even though some people feel they touch their soul or something, I just found them massively painful and fiddly, as someone who shoots all manual. I don t want the camera to get in my way of doing what I want.
Well, ergonomically they feel great. But hard-coded dials are a blessing and a curse, depending on which way your fingers think is positive. Mine were the opposite direction and they definitely got in the way. Since it was easier to change the camera than my fingers, that s what I did. 20MP sensor with 121 PDAF points, up to 4K 24P video at 237Mbps data rate 10x the E-M1, 5x the E-M5.
2and speed, speed, speed 18fps RAW, 60fps full resolution JPEG, electronic front curtain and full. shot mostly with a Olympus E-M5 II, Zeiss Otus 1. 4 85, Zeiss ZM 1. 4 35, and Canon 5DSR, post processed with the Cinematic workflow. additional DOF, end image quality isn t that much better than say M4 3. I actually found the E-M5II to be a fairly good camera for this purpose. The GR was also handy because it s always ready. of a niche by Olympus of its EVF cameras we have the photo-centric E-M1, the video-centric E-M5II, the budget-centric E-M10II, and now the PEN F.
One thing that struck me throughout the test period. 4 35, and Canon. series was shot with a Canon 5DSR and Zeiss 1. 4 85 Otus or an Olympus E-M5 II and Zeiss 1.
Coments:24.04.2020 : 22:29 Zulukazahn:
Entrez à Sciences Po. Parcoursup - Réussir son projet de formation motivé Guide iqoption download windows rédaction.