1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

New E-M5 Owner....couple of questions??

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by btango05, Aug 8, 2012.

  1. btango05

    btango05 Mu-43 Regular

    54
    Aug 8, 2012
    Lathrop CA
    Hi...as the title says I am a new E-M5 owner (Black with the 14-42 kit lens). So far I am pretty satisfied. I was a little overwhelmed with the UI at first but I'm pretty tech savy and can get accustomed to new UI's fairly fast. I owe this due to my smart phone habit.

    But anyways I'm just a hobbyist, got some kids and I like taking there pictures. I've owned Canon DSLR's in the past...I had to sell my cameras last year to get through some tough times but things are getting better and I decided to get a 4/3 camera. I chose the OM-D.

    So at first I was not to enthused at my results(considering my hard earned cash spent)...thought about returning it. But then I remembered I wasn't getting good results with my DSLR's with the kit lens. I'm a big Bokeh fan! I like getting my children faces focused and have them pop out at you.

    So after some debate and a lot of butt kissing to my wife I convinced her in letting me buy the Panny 20mm 1.7f

    Hoping this lens gives me what a 30mm 1.4 gave me on my 50/60d. From the looks of other members posts I think I made the right choice for my needs. I was gonna get the 25mm but it ran out of stock at b&h. I also was considering the Olympus 45 but not a fan of the silver finish...as I have the black OM-D...

    I was wondering about the Sigma's...any feed back on those? For around $200 I can get a 19mm 2.8f. But is 2.8f the same as it is on a DSLR?

    Sorry...long winded intro
     
  2. heedpantsnow

    heedpantsnow Mu-43 Veteran

    332
    Jul 24, 2011
    Welcome! I too came to m4/3 from Canon dSLR's (10D in my case). I also was very overwhelmed with Oly's customizability. Now, I feel like my camera and I really "click" (Ha!).

    The Sigma 19mm 2.8 will "feel" like a 38mm lens on 35mm frame but the DOF will "feel" like a 19mm 2.8 on 35mm frame. Metering would be the same as 35mm frame. In other words, it will be deeper than what you are used to. Does that make sense?

    You can make yourself crazy trying to reconcile all the equivalents in focal length, FOV, DOF, etc. but in the end it's a different size sensor and it's best to not try to think of it in 35mm frame equivalents.
     
  3. btango05

    btango05 Mu-43 Regular

    54
    Aug 8, 2012
    Lathrop CA
    Not sure that I do...my only basis for this question is I was comparing the two pan 20 1.7 and the 25 1.4 and the reviewer was saying that although the difference in aperture was small he had a harder time getting bokeh with the 20.

    20mm 1.7 vs. 25mm 1.4 on Olympus OM-D EM-5 (Silver): Size, AF speed, Image Quality, Price, etc - YouTube

    I know with my canons I could get plenty of bokeh with a 2.8 aperture so I was wondering if the m4/3 cameras handled the DOF differently.

    I get the focal length algorithm, just wondering about DOF and aperture.

    Thanks for your input!
     
  4. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    Google 'depth of field calculator' and play with the variables - that should give you the answer. Short version is that for the same focal length (actual focal length) and subject distance, depth of field is the same. How the out of focus area renders/looks (Bokeh) is a lens characteristic.

    The net effect is that you would need a lens that's 2-3 stops faster for an MFT camera to get the same angle of view and same (lack of) depth of field for any given subject distance. I find the 20/1.7 is OK for people shots with blurry backgrounds, but it acts a lot like an F4-5.6 lens on my 5DII (so F2.8-4 on a crop factor DSLR like the 10D). The Oly 45/1.8 wide open is a much better option for headshot only portraits.

    As an example, here's a slightly missed focus portrait of me, taken with the E-M5 and the Oly, which I attribute to user error/me not setting the camera up right for the person taking the picture (focus point was set more or less where my ear is. Which is in focus). However, it illustrates the very narrow depth of field that's certainly achievable with a MFT camera:
    7744974418_444f201864_c.
    P7212243_DxO by mattia_v, on Flickr

    For comparison's sake, one taken with the 20/1.7 at F2.2. Eyes are perfectly in the focus plane, neck, ears, etc are already out of it, but it's not super bokehlicious in terms of background. If I want that, I grab the full frame and a long lens (135/2), or I'd consider the 75/1.8 Oly:
    7744975010_3542046f40_c.
    P7202085_DxO by mattia_v, on Flickr

    (need to sit down and color correct a little more, bit too reddish. Although I suspect that's mostly the slight sunburn I had going on...)
     
  5. cputeq

    cputeq Mu-43 Regular

    140
    Jul 27, 2012
    Albuquerque, NM
    Jeremy
    Hi, and I'm a big bokeh fan too ;) That being said, one can get pretty decent shallow DOF with m43, but you have to stick with the fast lenses, at least f2.8 The good thing is, pretty much all m43 primes (especially) are bang-on sharp from the get go, so no real need to stop down unless you need extreme corner sharpness or more DOF.

    This lens will give you a bit wider view than the 60D + 30mm, and it will act sorta like shooting the 60D at f/2.4 or so.

    Both great lenses and both the first ones I picked up. I bought both used, so you might check around if you really want them, though you might just be very happy with the 20mm.

    I've heard of complaints that the Sigmas make the cameras start up "slower", though I've never used them so I don't know what that means. They seem to review well when it comes to resolution.

    f2.8 on m43 is going to be like shooting 4 on an APS-C sensor (Canon 60d, Nikon d7000, etc) or like shooting f/5.6 on a full frame sensor when it comes to depth of field.

    While this sounds "horrible", it's really not that bad at all. Just look through lots of posts here at the Lens Image Sample Archive forum and you'll see lots of great examples of great bokeh.


    So while yes, my Canon 5D2 and its 100mm f/2 is "creamier" than my OM-D and 45 1.8, it's not a gigantic difference, and I have to deal with the fact the 100/2 wide open is softer than my 45 1.8 wide open (and usually the ultra-thin DOF is a drawback! I stop down somewhat just to get two eyes in focus).

    When it comes to size, bulk and weight, there's no comparison - the OMD and 45 1.8 are tiny compared to the 5D2 and 100/2 (which is a small lens by FF standards).
     
  6. Iconindustries

    Iconindustries Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I'm a guy who has both the 20mm and oly 45.

    The 20mm I would say isn't as suited for portraits as the 45. The reason I say this is because of the compression the 20mm gives which isn't as flattering as the 45.

    For comparison this is a picture using the 20mm

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/50527022@N02/7745361028/" title="*Annika by iconindustries, on Flickr">"800" height="641" alt="*Annika"></a>

    oly 45mm

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/50527022@N02/7485626436/" title="P7300206-4 by iconindustries, on Flickr"> 7485626436_af62a7ba87_c. "600" height="800" alt="P7300206-4"></a>


    To me the 45 rendering feels a little more natural. I'm not knocking the 20 as it's a great lens but if you really wanted a good priced lens more suited for portraits I'd go for the 45. On the 45, the bokeh or out of focus area is more pronounced because of the focal length.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  7. metalbernd

    metalbernd Mu-43 Regular

    45
    Aug 1, 2012
    Holland
    My experience is that for a natural portrait you must use 50mm or more(25mmx2).
    Because with 30 or 40mm you get some distortion. And with a longer lens you can seperate the model from the backcround.
     
  8. btango05

    btango05 Mu-43 Regular

    54
    Aug 8, 2012
    Lathrop CA
    Thanks for the comparison!

    I like this shot! Perfect example of how I prefer my shots of my kids...now you've confirmed my 20mm purchase!...Don't get me wrong...the 45 will be apart of my collection at some point but for starters I'm glad I went with the 20mm!
     
  9. Drdave944

    Drdave944 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    698
    Feb 2, 2012
    I am transitioning from large frame . The first thing you notice is that you can get really fast,but small lenses. This has several implications. You can hand hold pictures at slower speeds,without image stabilization. You don't need as much ISO in dark scenes. You get greater depth of field at the same f stop.

    So if you a big fan of bokeh ,you have a harder time of it. I don't really care about it. I like the other stuff but if you get a real fast lens you get bokeh and all the other stuff too. For example I have a Panasonic 20mm f1.7 and was out taking pictures at nightfall that look like I took them in the daytime using my new Em-5 that just arrived.( see below)
     
  10. Drdave944

    Drdave944 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    698
    Feb 2, 2012
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Iconindustries

    Iconindustries Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    That's good to hear mate. If you've never used primes before you'll be pleasantly surprised.
     
  12. Trail Boss

    Trail Boss Mu-43 Rookie

    14
    May 29, 2012
    The crop factor of M4/3 is 2 so multiply by 2 to get the equivalent angle of view and DOF.

    A 19mm lens on M4/3 will give you same angle of view as a 38mm on a full frame dslr (19mm x 2 = 38).

    An aperture of 2.8 on M4/3 will give you the same DOF as an aperture of 5.6 on a full frame dslr (f2.8 x 2 = 5.6).
     
  13. abl33

    abl33 Mu-43 Regular

    39
    Sep 2, 2010
    Another question from a new owner - sorry, I tried to find it by search but couldn't:
    Have any of you used any of the after-market batteries and if so, which?
    Thanks!
     
  14. abl33

    abl33 Mu-43 Regular

    39
    Sep 2, 2010
    thank you! I knew I had seen one but couldn't find it again...