Micro 4/3 Ming Thein's review of Olympus OM-D E-M1

Armanius

Bring Jack back!
Jan 11, 2011
Houston, Texas
Jack
Awesome chart!! In fairness to the 4/3 lenses, the 14-35 and 35-100 are f2, as opposed to f2.8 in the m4/3 counterparts. And the 14-35 and 35-100 are ridiculously awesome lenses (other than looking ridiculously large when mounted on a EM5). Likewise the PL25/1.4 in 4/3 is optically a better lens than its m4/3 counterpart.

That all being said, I like the smaller combos better! I'd have preferred a m4/3 version of the 12-60/2.8-4 instead of 12-40/2.8.
 

Andrewteee

All-Pro
Jul 8, 2010
Awesome chart!! In fairness to the 4/3 lenses, the 14-35 and 35-100 are f2, as opposed to f2.8 in the m4/3 counterparts. And the 14-35 and 35-100 are ridiculously awesome lenses (other than looking ridiculously large when mounted on a EM5). Likewise the PL25/1.4 in 4/3 is optically a better lens than its m4/3 counterpart.

That all being said, I like the smaller combos better! I'd have preferred a m4/3 version of the 12-60/2.8-4 instead of 12-40/2.8.
Well said. In my view, the 14-35/2 is a good reason to buy the E-M1. Arguable the best lens I've ever used and the one that captured my local woods as I saw it with my eyes.
 

serhan

All-Pro
May 7, 2011
NYC
43 lenses are more optically corrected lenses compared to m43. We'll see how the Oly 12-40mm will be.

MT updated his full review:

Updated 18 September: Now that ACR 8.2 has support for the E-M1′s raw files, I’ve gone back through the archive, reprocessed a few and had another look at the overall file quality. Fundamentally, the good news is that none of the observations really change: underlying sensor quality remains excellent, and a small but distinct step up on the E-M5′s sensor. There is a definite gain in edge acuity and ability to resolve fine detail; the high ISO noise improvement is not as pronounced as with the JPEGs, but the red channel especially shows clear signs of improvement in luminance noise, color accuracy and tonal separation. I would estimate the advantage of the newer sensor to be about half a stop up to ISO 1600, and XX beyond that. At lower ISOs, the reality is that the photographer’s exposure accuracy and shot discipline will make more of a tangible difference in image quality for most users. At higher ISOs, the E-M1 shows noticeable reduction in blue channel noise over the older sensor, though I think the overall difference still remains about half a stop; perhaps a little more if you also take into consideration the file’s increased ability to handle noise reduction and still deliver the same output acuity due to the lack of an AA filter.

I also looked hard for evidence of missing pixel interpolation (due to loss of some image-making photosites to the PDAF array) but wasn’t able to see it; perhaps it might be more visible with certain high-frequency repeating patterns, but unfortunately the camera has now gone back to Olympus, so further testing will have to wait until my own cameras arrive. However, we can safely conclude with a few observations: firstly, the new sensor is an improvement. Secondly, there’s a lot more latitude to work with in than with the JPEGs (as good as they are) at the extreme ends of the tonal range; the additional acuity from the removal of the AA filter is noticeable, and finally, the Olympus RAW files are an excellent starting point for B&W conversions – as was the case with the E-M5.
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
Agreed. Also, lenses are still way smaller than FF.

I went to an event yesterday and was able to try out the E-M1, I also handled the GX7 on another store afterwards. It was a nice day haha...

Look at the size of the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens that is to be released in 2014 relative to the skeleton of the E-M1. You make one of those for FF and it's gonna be pretty huge
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Kind of interesting comparing this coming lens with the existing low end 40-150, which is tiny by comparison. Making it a constant f2.8 and making the glass a whole lot better obviously has its costs...

-Ray
 

jnewell

Regular
Jun 25, 2011
43 lenses are more optically corrected lenses compared to m43. We'll see how the Oly 12-40mm will be.

MT updated his full review:
Good points from MT. The reality is that most of us don't nail exposures exactly enough - can't, under the circumstances most of us are shooting under - to have half a stop or even a full stop be meaningful on any consistent basis. I really think we are at the point where sensor changes are the least compelling part of any upgrade decision.
 

stratokaster

Top Veteran
Dec 27, 2010
Kiev, Ukraine
Pavel
And the 14-35 and 35-100 are ridiculously awesome lenses (other than looking ridiculously large when mounted on a EM5).
They are also ridiculously heavy, even compared to FF professional f/2.8 zooms. For example, 35-100 weighs 1.65 kg and Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II weighs 1.49 kg. No wonder 4/3 never really took off :p
 

macalterego

New Member
Oct 17, 2012
This is such an awesome picture. I don't think that I've tried to get my E-M5 quite THIS wet!
I have shot with the E-M5 with 12-50 extensively in torrential downpours with no ill effects, other than dealing with having to wipe the filter and try and shoot quickly before it gets covered with water drops. I routinely shoot water/waves splashing on it (again, wiping filter between shots). I'm going to probably replace both e-M5s with e-m1's if hands-on reviews continue to trend the way they are, as my kind of shooting in extreme environments would appreciate any further improvements in weather sealing as well as functions.

Wanting to see how the eye cup works. I've had to 'seal' the eyecups as they were always falling off. Not a big issue, just bothersome.
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom