Thinking of getting rid of my EM1's... Thoughts?

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by gryphon1911, Feb 11, 2017.

  1. saladin

    saladin Mu-43 Top Veteran

    831
    May 29, 2015
    jason

    Well my motorcycles, cameras and (hopefully soon to be) Supermodels are always female. But everyones proclivities are acceptable.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Koru

    Koru Mu-43 Regular

    78
    Nov 23, 2014
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Good advice! Well, here in NZ Olympus are not promoted well, so my E-M1 is not worth a lot. And for similar reasons the lenses are a loss maker as well.
    Don
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Replytoken

    Replytoken Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 7, 2012
    Puget Sound
    Ken
    Thanks for the reply. I cannot say that it has been easy for me either, but I find that the either I trained myself on the Nikon and am having a hard time re-training myself on the E-M1, or that the NIkon is just better suited to my shooting style for BIF. And, I do have to say that my success rate on a tripod is not that much better that handheld, but I was shorted a lot of time with the tripod (and gimble arm) due to health issues a few years ago. In our area, I tend to like to photograph geese, swans, eagles (and other raptors) and herons. With geese and swans, I usually like to track them from a distance and then fire a small burst when they are in the frame as desired. This was reasonably easy with the D300, but I will give the E-M1 a try again if I can get out this winter or early spring. With the exception of the speed of the birds, I do not believe this type of shooting situation that difficult for C-AF.

    Thanks,

    --Ken
     
  4. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    I went through this when the E-M1 mkI first came out, I was going to switch completely. I sold a couple of my Nikon lenses and bought the E-M1, Oly 75 f/1.8, and Pan 35-100 f/2.8. The camera and lenses were great for rehearsals, ceremonies, etc. But when the lights went down at the reception with 80-90% of the available light from strobes, spots, black lights, etc I was just missing too often. And honestly the flash system just wasn't there either when comparing it to what Nikon has to offer.

    If this was just a hobby I probably wouldn't have all my Nikon gear anymore. But it's not, so I use the right tool for the job "for me". @Andrew@Andrew I see no reason to be at odds about it. I use my Nikon gear for events and m4/3 for pretty much everything else. I also just added a Fuji X70, still debating about it. I've done hockey once, much harder than any baseball, night football, basketball, or volleyball I've done before.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Drdave944

    Drdave944 Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Feb 2, 2012
    So the reports are that Nikon Is the best candidate , this is what is found in many hands
     
  6. Lcrunyon

    Lcrunyon Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jun 4, 2014
    Maryland
    Loren
    I'm not sure that's a fair way to measure the differences. Too many variables. There is no way to say whether if he had happened to shoot any of those particular moments with the the E-M1 Mk II that they would not have been keepers themselves.

    That isn't to say the D500 might not be better for his needs, but I doubt even the OP would suggest it is 4x better, even for that single application. I asked Andrew in the hockey thread how he would grade the two performances, and his response was A+ versus A-. That's how close it was.

    I could easily see that gap closing even further with firmware updates, which I am sure Olympus will be working on (and Nikon won't). Low light performance probably can't be taken any further, but the occasional mis-tracking likely can be improved. There are also several advantages that the E-M1 has over the Nikon that could even be applied to sports shooting, though as already been discussed, they might not be advantages that everyone cares about equally.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. rob-e

    rob-e Mu-43 Rookie

    18
    Jan 1, 2017
    UK
    Well said...If you are a pro perhaps you really cant wait around wondering if that shot in the viewfinder was tack sharp...horses for courses when it comes to AF. You probably already know what you need. Keeping the pen f , great choice for your own work...small and compact but great results.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. AlanU

    AlanU Mu-43 Veteran

    489
    May 2, 2012
    In any type of action photography it's a matter of timing and methodical "spray" with rapid fire fps. Autofocus is so critical to get those money shots.

    Pro application with a proven body is a tool of choice. D500 is an AF beast with incredible high iso performance needed to keep up the shutter speed to stop action. Since all long telephoto primes/zooms have image stabilization this helps part of the equation but fast shutter speeds and clean images at high iso is the main features needed.

    For $2000 USD.....it's a bargain!!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Plumballs

    Plumballs Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    342
    Jul 11, 2014
    Whitchurch, Hampshire
    Phil
    I think i am possibly in the same league? I am in Basingstoke CC currently 6th in division 1, what club are you in?

    Phil
     
  10. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    I shot 2 full hockey games. I shot full periods with each camera. The EM1.2 did 2 periods of the first, D500 1 period. Then I started out the 2nd (NHL) with the EM1.2 as it had showed some promise from the first game(amateur). Even during warm ups of the first game, I was getting frustrated with the EM1.2 and its AF. Then during the first period, the frustration was just too much, so I dropped the EM1.2 back into the bag and then just started shooting Nikon from there on.

    I was checking images between periods, confirming what I was seeing during shooting. If anything, the EM1.2 had more of an opportunity than the D500.

    I just know going into soccer, american football and baseball seasons that I need the top performer.

    This is my thing and I've had this firm belief for years now. It started with this whole "kaizen" concept that Fuji put out. This is my subjective belief - so if you don't feel the same way, that is fine, I'm not trying to start an argument, but I do want to express my feelings on it.

    I do not for the life of me understand why we as consumers should be expected to have a half-baked, "you'll get better performance" after you buy the product. Fuji started doing it and got a lot of people behind the mantra, now it seems all the mirrorless companies are following. Olympus promised us upon release that the EM1.2 would have auto focus that rivaled the best DLSRs out right now. OK, gauntlet thrown down. I, for one, really wanted this to be true. I think Olympus makes a great product line. However, upon further investigation, I find the AF lacking in the critical aspects that I need it.

    Furthermore, they have us believing that the AF will get better when they release firmware updates. No....give me the best that you've got FROM LAUNCH. I'm fine if you need to fix a bug, tweak a setting...but it seems like since the beginning or mirrorless that the camera makers are pushing out product before it is ready to go and then tweaking it after the fact to get it to perform better.

    I've never had that with my Nikon kits. I've used my Nikon D300 from the day it was released and the AF has been fantastic. It still outperforms anything mirrorless that I've had the opportunity to test. The D300 was released in 2007.
    Give me something that performs optimally from the get go with the hardware you put into the camera. It says something to me that I can use a tool for professional use for almost 10 years and without a new AF overhaul can still hold its own.

    I know a lot of the firmware craze is marketing, part of it is getting a product to market faster. I'm old school and I want my tools to be solid from the get go and not have to have "hope" or "faith" that after I outlay $2000 that some day in the future I "might" get the performance I was promised at time of purchase.

    Also, please know, that I will again re-iterate that I do love the Olympus brand. I think they make a fine product. If I did not shoot professionally, I very well might be in a reversed situation, trying to justify keeping the Nikon kit.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Lcrunyon

    Lcrunyon Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jun 4, 2014
    Maryland
    Loren
    Again, even by your description, there are too many variables -- to many differences between an amateur and a professional game -- to really scientifically judge. I'm not trying to contest your conclusions, just the idea that one was four times better than the other... That story I would not buy.

    As for firmware updates, I've heard that argument a lot (it's a common complaint in video games and really any software manufacture). While it is possible that a company had the ability to perfect a product but chose to release it first and then finish it afterward, claiming that this is generally the case and that it is a form of cheat is to make a number of negative assumptions that we don't really know the truth to.

    I don't choose to look at it that way. If you seek perfection, you may never release a product. There can always be little tweaks, design changes, or new breakthroughs that open up new possibilities that weren't there before. To say that another company doesn't do firmware upgrades because they get it right the first time is a biased perspective. There are plenty of software improvements Nikon (any company) could make if they wanted to - if they had any interest in continuing to develop a product after they have already made their money off of it. Instead, many companies (someone will have to enlighten me as to whether Nikon is one such) forego such upgrades in order to push the consumer to buy the next model. I applaud companies like Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus for instead striving to improve products they've already sold. It increases the longevity of the product and shows they care about their customers. I don't think cheating is a part of their thinking.

    As for the idea that the E-M1 release was somehow less than it should be, I don't agree with this either. All judgments on it have been based on its performance at release, and it has fared very well in those judgements. Whether or not it is truly better than the D500 (and as a whole package, I would still take the E-M1 Mk II) is not really relevant to whether the E-M1 was released after completion. Obviously, Olympus would have liked it to be even better, but that doesn't mean they didn't accomplish what they could at the time.

    To my knowledge, Olympus marketing has not tried to use firmware upgrades as a future promise to justify the E-M1's current price. Yes, when asked they have confirmed that firmware updates are coming (which is hardly a surprise, since this is part of their business model), but it is consumers like me, who have been using their products for years and know what to expect, who are suggesting that Olympus is likely still looking to provide upgrades to C-AF tracking and close the gap. Whether Olympus can succeed remains to be seen, but they haven't claimed it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    I work in the IT industry, have so for the last 20 years. I've seen the trend. It has gone from releasing stable products and platforms to being first to market with whatever, then adding on later. It is a trend that I have been fighting since they have started it and I will until I retire. I wish I were making baseless assumptions, but I am neck deep in the IT industry, a subsection of which is encapsulated in technological gadgets such as cameras. I've seen what this kind of release model does to the reputation of the product. It burns bright and fast and crashes just as hard eventually.

    Again, I'm OK with making improvements - the base of my point being that if I release a firmware 3-6 months after a camera is released and "miraculously" have a whole new AF system that is leaps and bounds better....I call something fishy on that. Again, Olympus has stated in a few different press releases and marketing literature that the AF was just as good as pro level DSLRs. I'm saying that I do not agree with that, and unless you are 100% sure of that claim, it should not be made. The issue is really 2 fold. Did they promise what they promised and did they put out the product at its best. What I'm saying is that based on my 20+ years of experience in the same kind of industry - my analysis of the situation is no on both counts. They rushed a product to market because there was most likely pressure to come up with something to remain relevant. The reasons on why it was rushed is speculation on my part, I will concede to that.

    I agree with you though on the points, like Fuji does with adding Acros film simulations or changing interface points like giving a better menu interface or something to older cameras. That stuff is great and I too applaud them for keeping the older products as relevant for the long haul.

    I started out with Olympus with the EM-5, many upgrades, will continue to use their products, just at this time - not for my professional use.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Wisertime

    Wisertime Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2013
    Philly
    Steve
    I mean this in the best way possible. You should contact Olympus directly with your findings and call them out on it. Give them an opportunity to improve, explain or whatever they can do. If nothing else, for future development. Not that they don't probably know what they should be aiming for, but giving the length of the thread, it would be good to hear their findings/explanation and share with the community. Just a though. Maybe there's tips they can suggest?
     
  14. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    It's funny you should bring this up. I have done that very thing. I get nowhere. I have a direct number to Olympus America's marketing department, their direct emails because of some dealings with them in the past(good dealings). I never get any responses when bringing up these issues, or "we'll pass that along". When contacting corporate directly, I generally get the run around. Customer support comes back with "I don't know" or "that's proprietary information and we can't share that".

    Basically, I feel like they are paying me lip service and just wanting me to go away and shut up. I'd hope that is not true, but I can't help to feel that way. Honestly, it would take a miracle of some major magnitude for me to jump back into a full pro Olympus kit again. As a fun, bop around every day carry kit....sure thing. But as we all know, that is not where they make the bulk of their money.

    Regardless....I feel like I'm getting way to negative on the Olympus brand right now. I really don't mean to...and when I traded a bunch of the lenses in at the camera store yesterday, you'd have thought it was a funeral. I was sad, the guys I deal with at the store were very surprised.

    So, to push this back up into a positive - I still love what Olympus is doing and I hope one day they make me regret selling all the PRO lenses and the EM1.2....so much so that I have to go into debt and re-buy everything! :D
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
  15. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    @Andrew@Andrew I'll give you another really GREAT positive on staying Nikon for work and "something" else for everything else. IT'S CHEAPER.:2thumbs:

    Since I tried to go m4/3 for events and then didn't I've maintained a pretty stable pro kit (since about 11/2014). Now all my G.A.S. is mostly contained in m4/3 gear. I think I've gone thru 7 different cameras and over a dozen lenses (though some more than once). The most expensive one has been the second hand Panasonic 7-14mm. Compare that with the Nikon 70-200 VR II I had.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Replytoken

    Replytoken Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 7, 2012
    Puget Sound
    Ken
    It is not just Olympus. Nikon has done it of late, and so have many other hardware and software companies. It is a trend, and a bad one at that. To be fair, the D500 had its share of issues on release, but most have been corrected. Some companies at least correct their products with updates. Others just look to the next release and leave their customers to deal with the problems with whatever they purchased. Very frustrating.

    --Ken
     
  17. Lcrunyon

    Lcrunyon Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jun 4, 2014
    Maryland
    Loren
    My understanding is that Nikon's Snapbridge (wasn't that introduced with the D500?) is still a horribly unreliable application (has rock-bottom reviews on Amazon), and that Nikon hasn't fixed it. But they should.

    Camera companies aren't necessarily great software companies. I'll pick on Olympus... For those who hate Olympus menus, they tried to make it better on the E-M1 Mk II, but I (who am used to it and don't have any problems) am hard-pressed to say if the new iteration is all that different or really any better. They probably missed their mark there. As another Oly example, I tried Olympus Viewer 3 to process E-M1 Mk II RAWs, and gave up in disgust.

    But I don't think it is fair to automatically assume the same happened with the C-AF. There is clearly a learning curve with that technology and Olympus was at the beginning of that curve. What they accomplished was beyond what I thought could be reasonably expected, but it still isn't perfect. By what basis should we have assumed they could go from the E-M1 to AF perfection? Why shouldn't we be hoping for them to continue to try to refine it?

    People can complain about marketing, but that's a different argument, and hyperbole in marketing is ubiquitous. I don't remember exactly all that Oly said about the C-AF in particular. I do remember that they claimed (I'm probably paraphrasing) the E-M1 would be a better value proposition than any APSC camera. While it is debatable, I think a case can be made that overall they have produced a camera that does have a huge advantage set over APSC DSLRs. But to think that it would be the better option for everyone in every application? Who'd believe that?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. I think this is a good conversation, and I don't think you are being too negative at all. These are YOUR findings. Plus if you think about it, looking at their promo videos, (initial ones) all were about shooting birds in direct sunlight. No sport shooting what so ever.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    I should have known not too put too much stock in their C-AF claims when 100% of their initial reviewers went on landscape shooting trips. Oddly, the biggest thing they touted, the improved DSLR rivaling C-AF was never tested until after release.

    That's all on me, though as I am usually a cynic and should know better....however, how are we to know until we actually use it? To the EM1.2 defense, though I will state that initial C-AF acquisition lock is much better than on the EM1.1. To that point they have greatly improved. How much better the C-AF is over the EM1.1 is debatable.

    Luckily for me, the EM1.2 is in fairly high demand and resale does not really lose me a whole lot.
     
  20. SojiOkita

    SojiOkita Mu-43 Top Veteran

    914
    Feb 23, 2014
    France
    Only you can judge what gear better suits your needs.
    What counts is not the "objective" quality of each product, but what YOU are managing to achieve in your specific conditions.
    You tried both and you clearly prefer the results of one of the two... so the decision seems pretty simple.
     
    • Like Like x 1