Is The Olympus OM-D E-M5 a Game Changer? - Page 2

phrenic · #11 June 22nd, 2012, 03:11 PM

I have to say that it seems odd to see it as a game-changer. Some neat new features like the IBIS and weather sealing..built-in EVF (like we've seen in panasonic bodies) but still with a hump.

IQ seems leading, but not by that much compared to the GH2 and G3/GX1.

Is it the styling and retro appeal? I much prefer the look of the E-P1 for classical looks.

I suppose as a sum of the parts it crosses the threshold of enough things together for lots of people to grab one/lust over.

dcisive · #12 June 22nd, 2012, 03:27 PM

I've been a paid professional wedding and portrait photographer before and while I've been away from that end of it for some time now, I've also had plenty of pro DSLR bodies and fine pro lenses to go with all that. After 2 shoulder reconstructions and a bad back I'm mellowing a bit. Recently only AFTER I had a chance to work with a OMD in person for several hours putting it through it's paces, I decided to off a completel Nikon system as well as a NEX-5N system to get a OMD. It not only frees one from the "bonds of bulk" but offers a plethora or customization to fit one's particular requirements. I'm not saying for the high end professional that requires the Nth degree of performance the DSLR's still have to speak for themselves, but for those of us who can live without that Nth degree and are more than tired of the heft to carry and the burden of real estate a body and lenses can demand, the OMD makes perfect sense. I am not finding any glaring weaknesses for my typical shooting and will grow this system over time. I DO believe the OMD has become a game changer in the photographic world.

JJJPhoto · #13 June 22nd, 2012, 04:02 PM

I believe the OM-D E-M5 is a GREAT camera ... but I'm not sure if it's a "Game Changer" across the broad range of photographers.

I was at a media event last night where both Olympus and Nikon had booths setup with cameras and lenses to show the press and let journalists (and the many photographers there) mess with them. I spent more time at the Olympus booth but I'd have to say the Nikon booth had WAY MORE people visiting than the Olympus booth.

I'd also say that, while I'm glad the E-M5 is here, I won't be buying one. The E-M5 is too much like a small DSLR for my taste. I want a "pro Pen" series camera looks and feels more like the E-P1/E-P2/E-P3 but has a built-in EVF in the top left corner like the Sony NEX-7 or the Fujifilm X100 and X-Pro1.

I also want Olympus to make more accessory grips for the E-P3 (hopefully Oly can use the same grips on the next high-end Pen).

Anyway, the E-M5 is a great camera but I don't think it's going to make dramatic changes to the camera industry or change the way "most" photographers think of compact system cameras.

dhazeghi · #14 June 22nd, 2012, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillip Swanson

I can honestly say there is little reason for professional photographers, especially newcomers, to invest in the APS-C and cropped sensor DSLR over high-end m43 systems.

Three words: fast zoom lenses. The vast majority of pros I've met use f/2.8 zooms.

Sure, they're coming to m4/3 (in theory - with Panasonic one never knows for sure) but until they actually reach the market, zoom-shooting pros are SOL.

DH

Beady · #15 June 22nd, 2012, 05:57 PM

I am with the author. I just sold all my Nikon gear and have gone micro 4/3 after buying a olympus and kit lens as a trial. I really like having the smaller gear and granted I am not shooting sports. I really believe that this is the wave of the future and I like the fact that there is a standard as opposed to a Cannon a Nikon a Pentax version. What I would really like to see happen is two or three "systems" micro 4/3 system, full frame system etc. I think this would really make sense for photographers and would allow you to mix and match on your needs verses which manufacturer you picked.

kevinparis · #16 June 22nd, 2012, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhazeghi

Three words: fast zoom lenses. The vast majority of pros I've met use f/2.8 zooms.

Sure, they're coming to m4/3 (in theory - with Panasonic one never knows for sure) but until they actually reach the market, zoom-shooting pros are SOL.

DH

there is the argument that the need for 2.8 zooms was for primarily getting an acceptable shutter speed at ISO 400... the upper end of the acceptable film world... the shallow DOF was a a by product that became a visual fad

things have moved on and we shoot happily at 1600 ISO and acceptably at 6400 ISO.....plus we have effective image stabilisation......unless you really need that extreme DOF ( lack of) then the need for 2.8 zooms for regular day to day photography is somewhat diminished.

in my head photography is about capturing the good light.... if its a black cat in coal cellar on a dull day.... I doubt that even a f 0.5 lens at 512,000 would guarantee a good photo... though i reckon a good photographer could get away with a lot lot less

K

Amin Sabet · #17 June 22nd, 2012, 09:23 PM

One can easily make the argument that the OM-D E-M5 is nothing special compared to pre-existing Micro 4/3 cameras, but in many places I see people getting rid of various other cameras because they are happy with the OM-D. I haven't seen this happen to the same extent with any other MFT camera.

rparmar · #18 June 22nd, 2012, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevinparis

there is the argument that the need for 2.8 zooms was for primarily getting an acceptable shutter speed at ISO 400... the upper end of the acceptable film world... the shallow DOF was a a by product that became a visual fad

Extremely shallow DOF may be a fad, but when you are relatively close to your subject, like for a casual portrait, f/2.8 is already at the limit of getting good separation of subject and background, even on larger sensors. Press photographers the world over know this, and they are not after trendy effects... they just want to make their subjects look good. One way to do this is to fade out distracting backgrounds... though not going to the extreme of rendering them invisible, as that kills context.

I jell with f/2.4 on APS-C and rather prefer f/2 on MFT (depending on the focal length of course). And this is not for any crazy effects... for that I have f/1.2 which I rarely use. I can't imagine being limited to f/2.8 on MFT and as a result never use zooms.

But then again I'm not "professional". I shoot because I care about images. (And yes, this also means I need lots of DOF sometimes.)

rparmar · #19 June 22nd, 2012, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amin Sabet

One can easily make the argument that the OM-D E-M5 is nothing special compared to pre-existing Micro 4/3 cameras, but in many places I see people getting rid of various other cameras because they are happy with the OM-D. I haven't seen this happen to the same extent with any other MFT camera.

I think it's the fact that, while each incremental improvement may not be earth-shattering, the sum of all these amounts to something really a significant.

That said, this is the first MFT camera to have two critical features in one package. A built-in viewfinder is necessary for the camera to be taken seriously by many photographers. And the IBIS makes possible some incredible shots in just those impromptu situations where a compact camera would be used in the first place.

Synergy.

rparmar · #20 June 22nd, 2012, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phrenic

I suppose as a sum of the parts it crosses the threshold of enough things together for lots of people to grab one/lust over.

Just noticed that Trevor said much the same thing a day earlier.