I am not sure the objective of the EM10.4 is to get the smartphone users at all.I think of the EM10 line as the entry level camera to Olympus m4/3, much like the lower half of the Nikon APS-C line, the D3xxx and D5xxx cameras.
The dumbed down Nikon D3xxx and D5xxx are what SELLS to the people who coming from a cell phone camera, want a "real" camera. And that is what SELLS at Costco, not the high dollar FF stuff.
I have trouble teaching the high school kids to use the rather simple D5600 (and Canon T7i). They are used to point and click with their phones. Some are able to get it, some have trouble.
I had one student shoot an entire game "out of focus." On investigating, I found the focus point moved all the way to the left. So she was aiming the camera in one direction (like her cell phone), while the camera was focusing in another. So now, one of my basic lessons that I spend time on is, how to use the auto focus; be aware of where the focus point is (did it get moved to the side and how to move it back to the center), and to put the AF point ON the subject.
Some people don't "get it," that "the AF point has to be ON the subject, for the subject to be in focus." So the mfg has to dumb down the AF, so the camera will choose what to focus on, just like on a cell phone camera, because the photographer can't.
I remember talking to a parent who was carrying a set of pro level Canon gear, and he had his camera in "Auto" mode, cuz he did not know how to set and use it in any other mode.
So much as I hate the dumbing down of the EM10 line, I see the logic, to get the cell phone users.
But, I do wish there was an optional firmware for those of us that don't want a dumbed down EM10, to get us back to the mk2 level of control, rather than be pushed up to the EM5. I got my EM10-mk2 as a small/light option to my EM1.
I would suggest the lack of differentiation resulting from the convergence to single sensor, single processing engine lineups is primarily caused by a collective failure of ILC manufacturers to anticipate the intersection of chip manufacture economics and declining unit volumes well enough to get ahead of it. Parochial corporate cultures make innovation, risk taking, and adaptation harder but reorienting a hardware engineering workforce to software differentiation on a declining budget would likely be a challenging transition for any business.All dedicated camera makers do exactly the same. It has to do with the parochial, institutional culture of the Japanese dedicated camera industry. They have nothing else in the toolkit to differentiate price tiers.
I suspect maintaining 2 AF systems is costlier than converging on PDAF. But to do so would converge more than the sensor and complicate price tiers and purchainsc decisions.I would suggest the lack of differentiation resulting from the convergence to single sensor, single processing engine lineups is primarily caused by a collective failure of ILC manufacturers to anticipate the intersection of chip manufacture economics and declining unit volumes well enough to get ahead of it. Parochial corporate cultures make innovation, risk taking, and adaptation harder but reorienting a hardware engineering workforce to software differentiation on a declining budget would likely be a challenging transition for any business.
Whilst resorting to crippling is an acknowledgement opportunities for differentiation increasingly lie in software it seems to me describing crippling as the only available tool ignores ongoing delivery of autofocus increments in firmware as well as hardware-based differentiations such as throwing processing power into the E-M1X for autofocus and throwing ADCs into the A9 for a faster electronic curtain speed. I'd also be cautious of ignoring processing engine unlocks from moving from manufacturer proprietary ASICs to phone processors. Yuongno, Alice, Zeiss, and previously Samsung may not have the greatest execution on that idea but phone capabilities suggest that's more likely an indication of the cost of creating software than a hardware limitation.
It does appear likely the product line JIP acquired from Olympus is most suited to software differentiation by crippling. But that it doesn't preclude processing power repositioning for differentiation of, say, an E-M1 V and E-M5 IV. So it's probably more realistic to say the toolkit exists and the question is how effectively OM-D makes use of it. We'll have to wait to find out the answer.
I think it’s simpler than that. Smartphones destroyed the P&S market once the picture quality reached “good enough,” bringing about the mere convenience of having a decent, easy to use camera on a device you already carry around. Many people don’t want to learn the intricacies of photography, but they want to take and share pictures. A smartphone is the superior tool for that group. I can share a photo or video I just took on a smartphone within seconds. No P&S can rival that.Software enhancements is exactly how simple cameras on smartphones eviscerated the P&S market and took the entire dedicated camera market to mid-80s sales levels.
I think it’s simpler than that. Smartphones destroyed the P&S market once the picture quality reached “good enough,” bringing about the mere convenience of having a decent, easy to use camera on a device you already carry around. Many people don’t want to learn the intricacies of photography, but they want to take and share pictures. A smartphone is the superior tool for that group. I can share a photo or video I just took on a smartphone within seconds. No P&S can rival that.
I am not sure the objective of the EM10.4 is to get the smartphone users at all.
You don't dumb down the software side if smartphone users are your target audience. Software enhancements is exactly how simple cameras on smartphones eviscerated the P&S market and took the entire dedicated camera market to mid-80s sales levels.
Crippling the EM10s and even the EM5s is the only tool available for price differentiation and is done by established business tradition and 1980s thinking rather than testing the market. It's an example of market decline, not new market appeal.
Don't engage. He is just going to repeat the same argument with different words over and over again.Well maybe dumb down is not quite accurate.
Most people here complaining about the E-M10.4 are those who already use more advanced models and were looking for something small or cheaper but still expected all the same bells and whistles in the menu system as they have on their E-M5 or E-M1 model.
I'm not doing macro inside in a controlled environment - I'm shooting in the wild. That means I will stick my camera in the bushes etc to shoot the subjects in their natural habitat. It's hard enough with a camera + flash + diffuser as it is but try imagine doubling the camera's width and trying NOT TO hit any branches/leaves etc so that the subject won't fly away scared. Also, the bigger the gear used, the more intimidating it will look in the eyes of my subjects.However, I’ve eventually reconciled myself to the swivel and although I still have an EM10.2, if I had to replace it, losing the tilt only shouldn’t be a deal breaker. @pake - why do you say macro demands a tilt-only screen?
Heck no! I'm not going reset the settings! Tons of settings I'd have to change again - and for nothing. I have restored MySet2 (my default settings) which didn't help and it's the furthest I'm willing to go regarding resetting things.I am going to ask the obvious as to the microphone issue, but I am assuming that you tried a full reset of the body to clear out any settings (accidental or otherwise) that could have caused this issue? And regarding an external microphone, there are many that are quite compact and can live in your hot shoe. The sound quality that you would get should be worlds better than what the internal mic captures, so it is not as if you are not gaining something for having to use an external mic. In either event, I hope you can get things worked out. And, last thought, have you considered a used E-M1 Mk I? Dirt cheap these days and still an excellent camera. Might be a good backup until you get things resolved.
Good luck,
--Ken
I hope you find some resolution that works for you.Heck no! I'm not going reset the settings! Tons of settings I'd have to change again - and for nothing. I have restored MySet2 (my default settings) which didn't help and it's the furthest I'm willing to go regarding resetting things.
Like said - I'm 100% sure the mic is broken. I know these things. The audio level indicators are dead while recording. The audio track is intact in the files. I haven't changed my settings. Audio settings are as they should be in the camera. The camera won't make a sound when playing the files, and the same applies to 2 different computers and 2 different video players.
I had previously considered E-M1 but I want the camera to be lighter, not heavier. And I in fact had my dad's E-M1 a couple of weeks during the summer as my E-M10II visited Portugal for shutter exchange. The AF was quicker and some usability things were better but the IQ was pretty much the same (ie. no upgrade) and it felt heavier/more unbalanced to hold so I'd rather keep my E-M10II than get an E-M1.
If both the E-M5.3 and the E-M10.4 "hunt and hunt" with the 60mm macro lens, I think maybe you shouldn't be blaming the cameras. I mean, they have different sensors, different AF specs, etc. Although it sounds like you have a lot of experience with macro AF, I do think you should try to narrow the culprit down better. It could very well be that ALL m43 cameras are not good at what you are trying to do. It certainly sounds that way if both those cameras misbehave the same way, IMHO.I'm pretty sure my old mk2 would have managed to focus on it as it had done it thousands of times before. One reason why I haven't done macro work with my E-M5III is that the AF hunts and hunts. And I see the E-M10IV with its new CPU (and sensor) even the AF has taken a step backwards. I'm starting to fear this E-M10IV isn't the right camera for me after all. Although it did a great job on Sunday at the event I was photographing. But the main purpose of this camera is shooting macro so...
Probably focusing at only a few centimeters away? What was your DoF? Down to less than a millimeter? I would image under those conditions you would kind of have to use manual focus and mostly just rock back and forth to get the focus in the right spot.with the O60mm and two Raynoxes
If the subject is within the focus throw of the coupled lens (DCR-150+250+Oly 60 in this case) autofocus should pick it up without too much fuss. I routinely do similar things the 45-175 or 45-200 II as the rear of a coupled lens on my G7 with similar front focal lengths (stacking the DCR-150+250 gives 78 mm).I would image under those conditions you would kind of have to use manual focus and mostly just rock back and forth to get the focus in the right spot.
I find it hard to tell to what extent ILC manufacturers knowingly underinvest in macro autofocus versus subscribe to the mindset macro autofocus has to be slow and inaccurate but, whilst neither the Panasonic-Leica 45 and the G7 are known for their autofocus abilities, based on five years of experience with that combination I'd be pretty surprised if it couldn't eventually manage to autofocus in a case like this. I don't have a suspected flea available to replicate @pake's test conditions but usually what happens is the autofocus algorithm just racks back and forth across the target without ever seeing it to be in focus even though the lens is getting pulled through the correct focus distance. So, at least in the Panasonic version of this, there is some problem with focus confirmation. The update frequency in the autofocus control loop appears to be a contributing factor since overruns are less of an issue with 240 fps 45-200 II and 100-300 II as rear lenses in a photomacrographic coupled lens, more of an issue with the 45-175, and most common with the 45 macro on its own. (A testable prediction from this would be the 480 fps L mount lenses would overrun less than the 240 fps lenses but, being neither rich or much of a bodybuilder, it's quite unlikely I'll ever have the hardware to test with.)It could very well be that ALL m43 cameras are not good at what you are trying to do.
Which will work if you have a stationary subject and tripod (or other non-handheld) operation of camera. But under these conditions the DoF is going to be sub-mm so if you try and hand hold the shot or your subject is moving then even if AF nails the focus, but the time you fully press the shutter you have likely moved the camera ever so slightly and even if you only move is a mm your focus is now off the target point. With a flea this probably means off (before or after) the subject distance. So I don't think this particular setup (assuming hand held shooting as I think was implied) is a fair assessment of the AF of the E-M10.4 since there is no way to assure after AF that the distance doesn't change more than a half-mm with breathing, heartbeat, and the natural sway of our bodies to balance.If the subject is within the focus throw of the coupled lens (DCR-150+250+Oly 60 in this case) autofocus should pick it up without too much fuss. I routinely do similar things the 45-175 or 45-200 II as the rear of a coupled lens on my G7 with similar front focal lengths (stacking the DCR-150+250 gives 78 mm).
Given @pake's overall experience and better experiences with other bodies I made less conservative assumptions about the use case. I'm sure he can clarify.I don't own the Raynox add on lenses and do not do a lot of macro work so I am assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the use of the Raynox kind of implies one is working outside of the handheld abilities of even the most steady people.
Looks good to me and some random online Raynox calculator I found shows that the 60mm macro lens with both Raynox 150 & 250 at a minim focus distance of about 8cm gives you about a 2.5x macro which is close to what you just demonstrated. So handheld very possible at these numbers. Unless of course the flea is alive, then all bets are off.Typing the above made me curious, so here is a pencil with 0.5 mm lead (IIRC) handheld at 2.75x. No flash, no moving in and out to find focus (I wobble several hundred microns along the optical axis easy, so it's press the shutter button and let the autofocus do its thing before I move too far), no tripod or other mechanical stability assist.
Not to get too far off topic, but if you used Johan Ingles-le Nobel's Raynox calculator it should be legit. The minimum focus distance of the Olympus 60 is 19 cm, though, which gives 2.54x and just under an 8 cm working distance estimate from Johan's calculator.some random online Raynox calculator I found
Yep that is the one I used. I accidentally used the closest working distance in the calculator rather than closest focusing distance. Duh! That's what happens when you are trying to look up a spec quickly and don't pay attention to the wording before or after the number being presented.Not to get too far off topic, but if you used Johan Ingles-le Nobel's Raynox calculator it should be legit. The minimum focus distance of the Olympus 60 is 19 cm, though, which gives 2.54x and just under an 8 cm working distance estimate from Johan's calculator.