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

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

  1. DWS

    DWS Mu-43 Regular

    90
    Jun 6, 2014
    I don't see your view as negative, but as objective to your needs. If I were still shooting for $$, I would still have my Nikon gear. Now, I enjoy not lugging gear in duplicate.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Lcrunyon

    Lcrunyon Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    837
    Jun 4, 2014
    Maryland
    Loren
    I have said before, and I still feel, that some of the emphasis on the E-M1 Mk II as a sports and wildlife specialist was our own, and that while Olympus certainly talked about how much they had improved in that regard, they never intended to make it all about that. If anyone in Olympus was pushing solely that one agenda, it was a mistake to do so, because the camera is so much more. The context everyone should be taking is that Olympus improved upon all aspects (even the areas where the E-M1 was already good), and the one they improved the most was because it was the area its predecessor was by far weakest at (sports and wildlife). Add all that up, it makes for a camera with no weaknesses, one can that can do sports and wildlife as competently as any other genre.

    The initial shoot you referenced is a perfect example of this. Look at what they actually did, and not what everyone thought they were hearing. Olympus took a lot of unfair heat for that Iceland shoot. The reality was that they wanted to showcase many aspects of the camera (including its action performance, but that unluckily fell through due to bad weather). I can say this because it's exactly what they did. Because everyone had it in their head that this was only a sports and wildlife camera, however, people accused Olympus of deception. I think it is more accurate to say that we deceived ourselves.
     
  3. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    I agree that I screwed myself in some aspects, however, it is misleading on Olympus' part given the official press releases and documentation provided stating their claims of how well the C-AF was, being able to compete with top level DSLRs. I don't buy a "weather" incident(not from you - I know that is what Olympus stated) being the reason that there were no sports shooting samples....Olympus has the ability to get those kinds of things done. My take is that the claims went out, and someone who knows better pulled back and said, "hey guys, this is not going to turn out like you think it will". Again, speculation on my part.
     
  4. AlanU

    AlanU Mu-43 Veteran

    489
    May 2, 2012
    Gryphon,

    There really isn't any arguments that the Nikon D5 is a beast and it's sibling D500 crop sensor body follows the same performance traits. For low light fast action there is no substitution for a DSLR at this moment in time.

    I'm a canon shooter and there is a huge void in high performance crop sensors in the Canon world. The 7dmk2 is simply still lacking a bit and aging. Your D500 is such a strong performer. The beauty is that AF-C locks on and you have a lot of dynamic range to push/pull in RAW. Also the high iso performance is critical in shooting sports in challenging light.

    Your keeping your Pen F? Secondary mirrorless is such a wonderful secondary system.
     
  5. SojiOkita

    SojiOkita Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    662
    Feb 23, 2014
    France
    All manufacturers tend to exagerate the qualities of their products. This is called advertising ;)
    Reviews (for example from serious websites) are a better source of knowledge (and I think most of them were telling this was a top class C-AF for a mirrorless body but not as good as a top class DSLR).
    But once again, reviews are only making some tests in some specific conditions that can be different from the conditions you encounter.
     
  6. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    Absolutely keeping the PEN-F. Love that camera.
     
  7. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    You have a huge void? :rofl:

    Remember, until the D500 we made due with the D300 and D300s from '07 & '09 respectively, the same year the first 7D mkI was released. The Nikon D7200 wasn't bad, but that just released in '15 and fps/buffer were still below the D300s.
     
  8. datagov

    datagov Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 2, 2012
    New York
    A different camera will not make you a better photographer.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    When i needed higher ISO and the D300 was no longer cutting it, i added in a D700. not as much reach, but for the indoor sports I was shooting, the 70-200/2.8 was enough. For a while I supplemented the outdoor stuff with an older Nikon 300/4D. Now, the D500 ISO performance is better than the D700. It is so good in fact that I almost want to sell the D700 and my 24-70, get a second D500 and perhaps a Nikon 17-55/2.8 and go all APS-C. But that is just crazy talk!! :D
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Wow Wow x 1
  10. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    Not crazy at all, but I'd get the 16-80 f/2.8-4.0 for the reach over the 17-55 f/2.8.

    I did think about the D500. But I have 24-200 f/2.8 & f/4 + the 16-35 f/4. I like the f/4 DOF on FX for my event work, so the f/2.8 stuff is backup or when I need more light. If I were to get a D500 I'd have to use my heavier f/2.8 glass more and 6-10 events would feel even longer.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    Rob
    I think Olympus is directly responsible for our expectations. We don't need 60fps of a flower, or 18fps, or 15fps etc... all the emphasis on speed and buffer is for capturing action. And we certainly don't need them for action out of focus.

    I haven't put my mk2 to test yet, but I will be disappointed if it's only marginally better at c-af and c-af tr than mk1.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    I think I might have stated this earlier, but not sure....one thing that frustrated me about the EM1.1 was the initial C-AF acquisition. That was much improved and I noticed it right off the bat with the EM1.2. That is a great thing. I found C-AF+Tr was marginally better and had habit of locking initially onto the right subject, but then would lose lock and re-acquire on the wrong subject.

    I stopped using 3x3 mode and group mode because of how it functioned. There are similar modes on my Nikons as far a how the focus box was laid out. With Nikon, you pick the point and it uses the AF points around what you've selected to maintain that focus. On the EM1.2, you don't get to pick the AF point it uses for initial lock. The camera decides which point out of the group it will use. A majority of the time, it would pick something weird like the stick, a skate or in a group of players, the wrong player. It just got so frustrating that I went back to single point C-AF. That was better, but still not performing to the standard I needed. Is it better than the EM1.1? Yes, but by how much....my unscientific analysis is to say marginally, but still a move in the right direction.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Having just tried the E-M1 Mk2, it really does feel like C-AF is much better (including for video), but C-AF/TR is another matter... the C-AF part of focusing on what's under the target box is naturally better thanks to the base improvements but the tracking algorithm still gets confused quite often and wanders off the subject.

    I'd also agree on the larger target areas for busy scenes - they are great when there's plenty of subject separation (with a largely plain background) but when there's other stuff going on (e.g. subject moving amongst trees) single point is still required to pick initial focus. That unfortunately makes keeping the subject on that single focus box pretty hard while tracking...

    The ability to manually track has improved immensely though - there's very little blackout (even with mechanical shutter) and no noticeable lag during sequential shooting. The shutter is also very nicely damped, which is I'm guessing why there's no need to compromise between sequential shooting and anti-shock mode any more.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    Rob
    I do ok with mk1. Even with ballet in marginal light. I expect I'll do better with mk2.

    For me the issue was where to best spend $4500 - the price of mk2 and the 300,4. I could stay or convert. I stayed for now but am not buying any new lenses until I'm sure.

    There's s lot of latitude in subjects. Hockey moves a lot faster than soccer. Chickadees flitting through the woods are very different from ospreys vidible for a thousand yards as they approach steadily.

    Hopefully mk2 will work for me and I'll be satisfied.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. AlanU

    AlanU Mu-43 Veteran

    489
    May 2, 2012
    The difficulty of panning with C-AF is that if the subject is going towards you...... that challenge just gets even more challenging for many mirrorless. Side to side panning is more forgiving but still not that easy with obstacles.

    I've been reading up a little on my friend's D500 compared to my fuji.



    The dlsr still has the edge on AF-C. I guess in your case you have two different worlds as you shoot with the potent Nikon and enjoyable Pen F.

    I cannot imagine letting my Canon pro gear for events work but I'm also enjoying my other gear.

    The more and more I've been analyzing the GH5 it's been ridiculously impressive (online examples). I want to compare those files with my XT2 4k.

    Everyone has particular requirements :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Ross

    Ross Mu-43 Regular

    72
    Sep 14, 2015
    Paul Ross
    You don't use a hammer on screws and a screwdriver for nails. You pick the tool that works best for the task your doing. I love the m43 system for wildlife while hiking and bike riding along trails and along the shore (GX8 and Panasonic 100-400mm lens) and I love the Nikon D810 and WA lenses for landscapes. In the old days of film, I would not use a Minox for landscape or a Hassleblad as a pocket camera. Cameras are just tools used to create images and different images require different tools.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Geekapoo

    Geekapoo Mu-43 Rookie

    10
    Feb 17, 2017
    Boston
    Richard
    I started off with m43 and "graduated" to a D750. Now, I could not see myself just owning a m43 camera..the high ISO, great DR and most important, vastly superior AF of the D750 has me spoiled. I use my m43 when I shoot under less challenging conditions, just want to enjoy the cam (currently have an EM5 and EM1) or want the portability of the relatively small 40-150 f2.8.

    With my primes, the D750 is a wonderfully sized camera. The D750 or a D500 vs. A m43..no comparison if low light or action shots is your goal. Really a no-Brainer IMHO.

    Richard
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. TonyG

    TonyG Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    626
    Oct 15, 2012
    Ontario Canada
    I think if you aren't satisfied with the results your getting then by all means go to the Nikon. There are going to be firmware updates to the Olympus but it can only do so much.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. TonyG

    TonyG Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    626
    Oct 15, 2012
    Ontario Canada
    As a enthusiast I have to disagree. I don't shoot photos every day but if I devote a day to action photography I don't want to come back with a camera full of out of focus photos. It takes the fun out of photography. I was going to purchase the new EM1-mk2 but the price is a non starter.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Steven Norquist

    Steven Norquist Mu-43 Regular

    57
    Jan 24, 2016
    Steven Norquist
    You must get the camera (the tool) that lets you do your work.
    If you shoot sports, then you need a huge camera (Nikon D800 with 300-500mm zoom or 500mm prime) like all these pros use who earn a living doing sports photography.
    Choose the tool for the job. Its that simple.
    But as I said before, the IQ of the OMD II in your samples was much nicer than the Nikon. But that may be because you shot both cameras in jpeg mode.
    If you shot in jpeg, then the Oly will win every time since Nikon historically has crap jpegs.
    If you are sure you are using the OMD II correctly for high speed photography (Electronic shutter only, Pro capture mode, M.Zuiko ED 300mm f4.0 IS PRO lens) and you are still getting poor results, then you have proven the OMD II camera is not the right tool for you.