http://petapixel.com/2015/09/07/review-the-olympus-om-d-e-m10-ii-is-solid-but-has-a-lackluster-evf/ They really don't like it. Any current owners care to comment?
Dpreview says otherwise, "One of the nicest improvements compared to the original E-M10 is a larger, higher resolution OLED electronic viewfinder. Its resolution of 2.36 million dots and vivid colors make the EVF a pleasure to shoot with.".
The author says in the comments section that Olympus is sending him a second camera to make sure there wasn't a problem with the EVF of his evaluation sample.
I could be misunderstanding the point, not being familiar with that site, but this quote raises serious concerns about the review's reliability. "I was excited when the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II arrived, as I’ve worked with Micro Four Thirds cameras at trade shows. However, I have never had the chance to try one out for a few days myself. I will admit to being a bit concerned about the bokeh and noise performance on such a small sensor, but I held no prejudgements." Maybe I'm over-reacting to a short moment in the review, but the "bokeh" remark and apparent lack of familiarity with the system itself implies the reviewer might have justified a guarded reading of the text and doubts on its conclusions. Robert
Bokeh and noise performance are generally considered to be compromises on a smaller sensor. I think the way the author phrased it is reasonable. Especially after saying he was excited to try out the camera.
I understand your response and realize the complaint is commonplace, but, having nine micro four-thirds bodies, I know as others here do as well that the sensor with the right lenses combined with solid shooting strategies can achieve very satisfying bokeh. I think he's stressing an old argument and fails to demonstrate it effectively, which, coupled with his other comment about being inexperienced with the system except in compromised circumstances raises questions about objectivity, which any reader can choose to dismiss or to keep it in mind as I have.
Nobody said you can't get great bokeh photos with M43. However, that is one of the compromises as you go to a smaller sensor. It is just a matter of degree. M43 is great but there are trade-offs just like anything else. You can go both ways. I can criticize a DSLR system for being bulkier than a M43 system. You could carry a bunch of M43 primes in a nice compact bag and have trouble doing the same with DSLR. Some DSLR user might say, "just get a bigger bag" and work around the limitation. I just think it is important to be honest about the trade offs.
I agree, this expression is quite unbelievable to me. It seems like he's talking about a smartphone. gr6825 if the comparison is with a FF I could agree with the bokeh and noise considerations, if we are talking about APS-C...IMO it's just nonsense. Take this article, just the first I found, to see what I mean: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/02/23/mirrorless-battle-micro-43-vs-aps-c-vs-full-frame/ About the EVF. If I were going to write a public review the first thing I'd do would be to double check (with Oly and others reviews) things that seem too strange to be real.
What's odd is that he seems to like the camera but was really bothered by the EVF. I did wonder if he got a bad sample.
The comments following the review in question suggested the reviewer might have had a bad copy of the camera and he indicated he is supposed to be getting a substitute, assuring readers that he would update the review with corrected results if those warrant it. To clarify my points above in light of some responses, my primary point is that he admits relative inexperience with the system and clearly knows some of the negative rap the system has received, it's possible that he might be more sensitive to those issues in his response and conclusions. Considering the positive assessments of the viewfinder elsewhere, we might hesitate to rely on his view, particularly if that means skipping other favorable ones. His Sony comments are similarly "interesting" in that he neglects to mention the original entry level price of the camera and doesn't consider the expense, financially, of course, and in terms of size and weight, when better lenses in the Sony line are considered and probably necessary to get the best results from an admittedly capable sensor. Re-reading my comments in the previous paragraph, I worried that some readers might think by "better lenses in the Sony line" I meant "better than," perhaps implying a negative comparison to Oly and Pany glass. To be clear, that was not my point, which was to indicate that the sensor might depend on more expensive and larger lenses from Sony to produce the desired results. I am sure we could all could cite several m4/3 lenses that produce superb results at lower costs without the size and weight penalty associated with some other systems. (added at 3:12 EDT, 9/14/15.) Maybe I've become too much m4/3 fanboy... Robert
Just about everything written before the "But I held no prejudgements" is a prejudgement, and probably the worst kind - hearsay and not from experience. Not a reviewer that I would give a lot of credibility or a second read.
I agree. And the reviewer seemed happy with the image quality, but so disappointed by the EVF that he couldn't recommend the camera and was distracted in the review (was so upset about the EVF that he didn't go into detail about the other qualities of the camera). While I wouldn't call it a great review, due to a lack of detail, that doesn't mean that I feel he was biased.
Yeah, I agree. He mentions the EVF is like one from the early days of EVFs. Well, his preconceived ideas about m4/3s are equally ancient, so I guess the EVF should be perfect for him. What's next, he'll tell us that the Oly 17/1.8 is not terribly sharp?
I think he's totally fair to admit his prejudgements, just as someone coming from Medium Format to FF might be concerned about the bokeh and resolution of "such a small sensor." At least he's aware of his preconceived notions and is offering them as a disclaimer. That said, the use of the term "such a small sensor" instead of simply "a smaller sensor" obviously will rub some people the wrong way, and probably rightfully so. Unless of course he's careful to refer to APS-C in the same way, given the modest size difference between the two...
