 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 11
Are you sure you are looking at the MkII ?Originally Posted by swifty
The MkI DR is lower in extended low at Bill's site, but the PDR for the MkII remains much the same. This appears to have changed since I last looked at it about 12 months ago. Or I am going dippier than I thought I was? Always a strong possibility!
http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1%20Mark%20II
Got to post this. My tablet had to be rebooted because it spat the dummy!
Last edited by John King; 19-07-2018 at 3:13pm.
What lenses/accessories do you have, want, and need on holidays?
If you currently have Dx only lenses, then a D610(or equivalent won't help you).
But a D610 type camera is akin to a D7200 type camera(uses the same basic body).
But to get the best from the D6xx, you then need larger Fx lenses .. so you're back to the same dilemma as before.
Last edited by arthurking83; 19-07-2018 at 4:42pm.
Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
{Nikon}; -> 50/1.2 : 500/8 : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8 ais : 105mm f/1.8 ais : 24mm/2 ais
{Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
{Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC
{Yongnuo}; -> YN35/2N : YN50/1.8N
This is a very complex question. I have shot film since about 1955, when I was about 8 y.o.
When I first looked seriously at dSLRs around 2003, I had a Nikon Coolpix E5000. Nice full metal jacket P&S with an effective FL lens of 28-84mm. 5 MPx. Fully articulated screen. Shot RAW and TIFF. Very, very slow by today's standards, but it worked. One day, I just didn't have the reach to photograph a swan, and realised that I really had to look for a dSLR that suited my needs. Looked at the D200 for about 18 months, and the Sigma SD10 (?) after that for another 6.
Then Olympus released the E-510. IBIS, the only dust reduction system that worked (I didn't realise at the time how important this would be!!) and I could adapt my existing film lenses to it. Read up everything I could about it, then plonked down about $1,800 for the full kit with two kit lenses and spare battery, filters, bag, etc. Some of the best photos I have ever taken were taken with this outfit, in spite of the fact that ISO 100 is actually ISO 125 (approx.), so the camera has a tendency to blow highlights like an old Holden blows smoke at ISO 100 ... It's fine at ISO 200 ...
My E-30 plus 14-54 MkII lens was my main system for about 8 years.
Strangely enough, the E-510 and the D700 have one thing in common - lousy DR in the OoC JPEGs! D700 is about 7.8 stops and the E-510 is about 7.4. Both pull ahead by over 3 stops in RAW, with the D700 leaping about 1.7 stops ahead of the FTs sensor in the E-510. Interestingly, the E-M1 MkI has larger DR than the (legendary) D700 (same sensor as the D3), and the MkII betters this by about another 0.75-1.0 stops. HOWEVER, and it's a big however, one simply cannot play fast and loose with high ISO the way one can with most 135 format sensors, even the ones that the E-M1 MkII beats for base ISO DR. One has to get as much light on the sensor as possible, in all circumstances. Above ISO 6400, shooting RAW becomes all but mandatory, although the Sony sensor in the MkII is better by at least a stop than the Panasonic sensor in the MkI.
Pictures speak louder than words, so ...
Rosa at ISO 6400, in poor light, with my E-M1 MkI and 12-50 macro kit lens - EXIF in image. This is a lens that is (unjustly) criticised by most reviewers, except Imaging Resource. It was the original kit lens with my MkI. It is weather/dust sealed, and has a special macro mode that will not focus to infinity, and sets the FL to 43mm.
This is an OoC JPEG, run through an automated PS action that resizes, does a simple USM to make up for in-camera sharpening being turned off, frames and copyrights it, then saves it for upload in a special folder with a filename suffix.
No. I have printed up to A2 size on my Epson R3880 from images taken with my ancient 2003 5 MPx E-1. They look fine, even when examined with a 4x magnifying glass. I don't print larger than this, and I almost never crop images. Good composition dictates that one should always at least try to get everything right in the camera. Micro FTs (mFTs) can be unforgiving of sloppy practices ..., or does your Olympus back up a full frame?
That's simply rubbish. A good photographer (e.g. my wife ... ) can take excellently composed photos with a phone (I can't). I have edited quite a few APS, APS-C and 135 format images in my time. I see nothing that makes me doubt my choice. As for technical IQ, once you get to mFTs, the sensor is big enough, if the lenses are up to snuff, and they generally are. In order to have the same IQ at the same enlargement, a mFTs camera/lens has to resolve about double the line pairs per mm as a 135 format camera. They usually do, and often exceed this resolution.I am always reading that full frame is the only way to really get good photos
A big plus for many of us. My E-M1 MkII and 12-100 weighs about the same as my old E-30 plus 14-54 MkII. Difference is that the E-M1 is considerably smaller/lighter than the E-30, and the 12-100 is a little heavier and larger than the 14-54 MkII. The OMD just shoots the E-30 to shreds for DR, resolution, IBIS, etc and the 12-100 is about the only almost perfect super zoom ever made by anyone. sync-IS in the lens/body makes it all but magical; uncanny in the extreme. It is almost the only lens one would ever need. Focus transitions are exquisite, and it's sharp at all FLs and apertures down to f/11 - acceptable at f/16 and f/22.but I am really drawn to the lightness and smaller size of the whole 4/3 system
E-M1 MkII plus 12-100, EXIF in image. f/8 at 100mm:
While this is true, legacy 4/3rds lenses will work best. My images here were all taken with my E-M1 MkI plus 14-54 MkII (FTs lens, with adapter):
https://canopuscomputing.com.au/zen2...ralianCarShow/
Native mFTs lenses can be tiny, as they are all software corrected as well as the optical design. If you stick with the f/1.8 level primes and the standard zooms, these are all very small and light. They also tend to be relatively inexpensive for their IQ. Always keep in mind that mFTs lenses are designed to be sharp wide open, but will usually perform better 1/2 to 1 stop smaller. Imaging Resource is your friend ...I like to take my camera and as many of the accessories with me on vacation and presently half of my Nikon gear stays home.
My "small" kit is my E-M1 MkI plus either 14-42 EZ pancake zoom or 12-50 macro, plus my 40-150R plastic fantastic. This gives 28-300mm effective FL (or 24-300, it's actually angle of view, the FL doesn't miraculously change ... ) that weighs a little over a kilo, and will fit in a Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 10 bag that's about 200x150x125mm!
With my E-M1 MkII, JPEG images at ISO 25,600 are usable, but not "high art" ... I've yet to see the camera that will give decent DR or images straight out of camera at these sorts of ISOs. Maybe maximum of A4 size, if you aren't being very fussy.
The photo of the Eureka Tower was taken with my E-M1 MkI and 14-42 EZ pancake at ISO 12,800 from the footbridge over the Yarra. It had about 100+ people on it at the time. The OoC JPEG was pretty useless, but the RAW scrubbed up quite well, all things considered. I could print this at A3 size, and maybe A2 with minimal PP.
Hope this drivel helps somewhat.
Hi John, yes. Looking at the same chart from Bill's site.
And as would be expected, the extended low range is more or less exactly the same as the base iso which for the EM1.2 would be ISO 200. It basically flatlines below ISO 200.
Meaning, there would be no gains from using the low setting compared to ISO 200, but only to produce an image that has a lower brightness than an ISO 200 shot, if the same exposure was used.
There would be no loss either, they are the same except for how the camera subsequently treats the data to produce the final image brightness. The way the EM1.2 does it, I'm not sure if it is purely digital scaling or otherwise but I think that's what you were referring to when you say that EM1.2 shifts the tone curve for the jpeg with a slightly different shape?
By no gains, I mean that the sensor is not able to accept a higher exposure before saturation at the extended lower ISO setting so there would be no gains in DR compared to a 'true' lower setting eg. ISO 64 on D810 and D850 where you'd expect DR gains at the lower 'true' ISO settings.
I know I said no highlight headroom before, but I actually meant no increase in DR but I wrote highlight headroom because I was referring to a situation where I ran out of shutter speed if I wanted to use f1.4 in bright conditions.
I know what you're saying in terms of digital gain on the old 4/3 cameras however digital scaling doesn't have as much penalties as it once did due to the very low read noise in today's sensors. We're starting to approach ISO-less or ISO-invariant sensors where there would be no difference and possibly even improvements by leaving ISO at base all the time and completely scale digitally.
Nikon FX + m43
davophoto.wordpress.com
Threadstarter
[QUOTE=John King;Hope this drivel helps somewhat.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for your time and effort,this post has helped a lot, and your information has been invaluable
Peter
Nikon D3100, D72000, nikkor 18-300mm, nikkor 50mm, sigma 10-20mm, sigma 150-500mm, tamron 18-270mm, Olympus OMD EM10 MIII, zuiko 14-150mm, Olympus TG4
Swifty, this is also an interesting historical comparison:
http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PD...M1%20Mark%20II
Agree about the changes in architecture. These days, the ADC is usually a part of the sensor chip itself.
However, taking an image at 12,800 and delicate PP will get one a lot further than exposing at 200 and trying to lift it 6 stops in post. I've done this experiment a few times. In the first case, one gets an image, in the second, one gets horrible rubbish.
Neither film nor digital likes severe underexposure ...
- - - Updated - - -
Glad it was of some benefit, Peter.
I see that you already have some mFTs gear. I don't think the 12-100 would balance very well on the E-M10 MkIII, but I could be wrong. Danny at DPR uses an E-M10 behind Canon 400 to 800 mm MF lenses
. He takes gorgeous BiF photos ...
Hi John, no disagreement from me there. I was just talking about the low extended range characteristics previously.
As for pushing in post, we’re not at an ISO invariant sensor yet. Just approaching it.
If we did have truly zero read noise, the only noise we’d see in an image is shot noise which is inheritantly there and part of the nature of light. So digital scaling would truly be the best solution because you would scale to the correct brightness using a curve and be able to preserve every bit of highlight captured at the base ISO rather than clip a stop of highlight every full iso stop you go up.
Actually even today with some of the best sensors, provided you don’t push too crazily, if you have a high DR scene pushing in post may get you a higher DR final output albeit a bit noisier too.
- - - Updated - - -
Hi Poider, sorry for going a bit off course.
As for m43, I did a review of the original EM-5, published here on Ausphotography. Have a search for it if you’re interested. It was a long time ago but it was still largely a great experience for me. I keep a constant lookout for if there is a good op to rejoin m43.
I still think the 75/1.8 is one of the best lenses I’ve used in any format.
And I think the dual IS on the newest models are largely unmatched in other formats too.
With the right lenses, I’m confident m43 should comfortably meet your bar of quality acceptance.
Dave, checked out your E-M5 user report. Well done, well balanced.
There's enough info available (on the net) to contradict this comment.....
However, taking an image at 12,800 and delicate PP will get one a lot further than exposing at 200 and trying to lift it 6 stops in post. I've done this experiment a few times. In the first case, one gets an image, in the second, one gets horrible rubbish.
Neither film nor digital likes severe underexposure ...
....
Have played with it myself(downloaded the sample files off DPR). Loaded into Nikon's software (and then later, DxO's Photolab software) and it pretty much confirms DPRs findings.
Maybe you should have stuck with Nikon and gone with a D750.
6Ev shadow recovery is easy with minimal PP work to correct the magenta colour cast. 5Ev recovery with none required at all.
That Sony 24Mp sensor is pretty much about the best sensor yet made for any camera.
Another reason I made my comment to Peter re the D610 as an option for a cheap lightweight fullframe sensor.
Full frame smaller camera would be the Sony A7(which also uses that same 24Mp sensor, but stupidly Sony limited it to 11bit RAW capture(Nikons can do 14bit/12bit) so it's recovery/dynamic range wasn't quite as good in Photolab(for me).
Could be Adobe's software does it differently tho(that's what DPR use).
point to note too tho!! The 6Ev recovery referred too above is not a trait of a FF sensor! That is, not all FF sensors can do that, but they do recover a lot more/better/cleaner than smaller sensors for the same tech period.
D800 can't recover 5 Ev(let alone 6Ev!!), but 2-3Ev isn't hard to do.
This is all raw capture tho.
(in camera jpg is a dirty word, and I still strongly urge folks to dismiss it as a settings option!)
Arthur, I'm old and buggered. I have more health problems than I care to comment on, but spinal osteoarthritis and serious heart problems for starters should give you something to work on ... A camera that I cannot carry all day is completely useless to me! Getting old ain't for sissies, and not much fun. Recently spent 6 days in Epworth Hospital wrt my heart. They still don't know what's causing the current problems. Fortunately, I haven't got endocarditis, my lungs still work and my artificial mitral valve is still firmly in the right place.
A friend has a D3x and 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8 twins. I can barely lift the camera with the 70-200 mounted (four years ago ... ). It is a beautiful camera, and beautiful lens. They take beautiful photos, for which he has won international awards. Far too big and heavy for me ...
Olympus have managed to develop in-camera JPEG processing that works pretty well. 2.7:1 compression vs. 4:1 compression from everyone else probably helps, as (possibly) does using different compression algorithms.
I am also impressed with the Olympus CFA. This gives me true to life colours that I often note are missing with other brands. Some people couldn't give a rat's bum about colour accuracy, but I do ... I take lots of photos where I want as close to perfect colour correctness as I can get. I don't want Kodachrome or Fujichrome colours, I want accurate colours.
135 format cameras might be getting smaller in some cases, but the lenses are big, and heavy, and very, very expensive if you want the very good ones.
We are all different, so it's great to have many different choices.
And, just BTW, there's enough info available on the Internet to contradict any comment ...
I totally get where you're coming from John, but for me not from old age(although I'm not too far off that problem) .. but for me it's more to do with physical issues due to the many accidental encounters over the years.
Wrists knees, ankles .. well apart from one or two bones, I can't remember any that haven't been broken.
But the D750 is 200 grams heavier than an EM1-II ... so the D750 wouldn't be considered a 'camera you couldn't carry all day' in any real sense of the term.
That you choose not to carry one all day, is a totally different mind set, and I think a lot of hyperbole is allowed to propagate on the net with respect to the difference in weight between some gear!
eg. D750 with a typical consumer zoom lens isn't a lot more weight than most similarly designed mirrorless camera with a similar consumer zoom lens.
Where I concern about my long term future is that I can't hold a small bodied camera 'all day' .. and I mean camera in hand all day .. not camera around the neck or over the shoulder all day as most folks tend to do.
I can't do that kind of photography(metaphorically speaking). none of my camera have straps, I don't like them, primarily for the danger they can impose, but more importantly (psychologically for me) is that I prefer the camera to hand at all times.
smaller cameras can't apply tho. D70s was always too small, D300 was OK .. D800 nigh on perfect. I can hold the 1kg all day, that is other than a few mins at a toilet break, camera in hand for about 12+ hours.
No way I could do the same with the D5500 I recently got my daughter to play with. Camera body too small, no GRIP to speak of, and the fact that it's 100g less in weight than an OMD-EM1-II(at 400 gr or so) .. makes no difference to me. I simply can't hold it.
I don't have huge hands. Just my preference.
Funny side story: many moons ago I had the opportunity to shoot a nail into my finger, so I obliged without thinking about it. It's one of my auto modes .. if there's a way to inflict harm to self, I've probably done it!
So anyhow, large 4" nail in right index finger(I'm right handed). Hospital thought it best to place my entire left arm in a plaster cast! (for a finger!!).
Cast made camera holding a right PITH(pain in the hand .. literally) not cause of the finger, but of the plaster cast. Couldn't bend my right arm properly to hold camera.
Result was that I cut the cast, and made myself a finger splint out of it's remains. strapped it to finger when not required(ie. showering, dishes and photographizing).
moral: sometimes to achieve our desired outcomes, one simply has to push their own self imposed envelopes just that little bit further.
Last edited by arthurking83; 20-07-2018 at 12:10am.
Thanks John. You would’ve seen my two boys. One guy’s diabetic and just about used up his nine lives but not bad for a couple of shelter cats from Newtown.
Yes. Showed them to Heather. Our two are litter mates and 18.5 years old now. Doing well apart from the usual kidney problems that afflicts most old cats.
Ouch ...
200 grams extra, plus the fact that there is simply no lens of the range and quality of the 12-100 made by any other maker, either mFTs or any other. I believe that Olympus classified it as a "statement product" to show that they could do what others had struggled with for years. Even a non-comparable lens (24-105, 24-120) weighs more than this lens (+100 gms). So that's 300 grams extra, just for that one body/lens. If I am really wanting to travel lighter, I can use my E-M1 MkI kit of body plus 14-42 EZ pancake, 40-150R plus two extra batteries, plus flash at a total of 1240 grams including the Thinktank Mirrorless Mover 10 bag. The 24-70 Nikkor weighs nearly double what my 12-100 weighs ... I am at the point where every gram matters, let alone an extra kilogram. The bare E-M1 MkI plus 14-42 EZ pancake weighs about 500 grams. That is, smaller than most modern fixed lens cameras. The E-M1 MkII is not the heaviest mFTs body, nor the largest (Panasonic G9, GH5, GH5s are all considerably larger and heavier), but there are also smaller options available as well - down to a couple of hundred gramsBut the D750 is 200 grams heavier than an EM1-II ... so the D750 wouldn't be considered a 'camera you couldn't carry all day' in any real sense of the term.
That's simply not the case, Arthur. And the D750 is only better if one shoots at less than ISO 200 all the time. Due to lack of really effective IS (VR), and a need for higher shutter speeds in many cases, this advantage tends to vanish in many (most?) circumstances. See the curves here at Bill Claff's site.That you choose not to carry one all day, is a totally different mind set, and I think a lot of hyperbole is allowed to propagate on the net with respect to the difference in weight between some gear!
eg. D750 with a typical consumer zoom lens isn't a lot more weight than most similarly designed mirrorless camera with a similar consumer zoom lens.
Now that I can agree with completely. It has to do with your shooting technique and how a camera suits you, and it.Where I concern about my long term future is that I can't hold a small bodied camera 'all day' .. and I mean camera in hand all day .. not camera around the neck or over the shoulder all day as most folks tend to do.
I can't do that kind of photography(metaphorically speaking). none of my camera have straps, I don't like them, primarily for the danger they can impose, but more importantly (psychologically for me) is that I prefer the camera to hand at all times.
Unfortunately, I have reached a point where the limitations are forced on me. "pushing them" just lands me in hospital. As you appear to have done, I did a lot of work that was too heavy in my youth. There are good reasons why concrete/cement comes in 40 to the tonne nowadays, rather than the 20 to the tonne sacks I carted around all too frequently in my youth. Same goes for 180 lb. wheat sacks, and many other things.smaller cameras can't apply tho. D70s was always too small, D300 was OK .. D800 nigh on perfect. I can hold the 1kg all day, that is other than a few mins at a toilet break, camera in hand for about 12+ hours.
No way I could do the same with the D5500 I recently got my daughter to play with. Camera body too small, no GRIP to speak of, and the fact that it's 100g less in weight than an OMD-EM1-II(at 400 gr or so) .. makes no difference to me. I simply can't hold it.
I don't have huge hands. Just my preference.
Funny side story: many moons ago I had the opportunity to shoot a nail into my finger, so I obliged without thinking about it. It's one of my auto modes .. if there's a way to inflict harm to self, I've probably done it!
So anyhow, large 4" nail in right index finger(I'm right handed). Hospital thought it best to place my entire left arm in a plaster cast! (for a finger!!).
Cast made camera holding a right PITH(pain in the hand .. literally) not cause of the finger, but of the plaster cast. Couldn't bend my right arm properly to hold camera.
Result was that I cut the cast, and made myself a finger splint out of it's remains. strapped it to finger when not required(ie. showering, dishes and photographizing).
moral: sometimes to achieve our desired outcomes, one simply has to push their own self imposed envelopes just that little bit further.
Funny thing is that we can afford for me to buy a top of the range Hassy, let alone any other camera with a smaller format. Other than in a studio, I see no advantage to using 135 format cameras, and lots of disadvantages (for me). Even in the studio, I can use the high resolution mode of the E-M1 MkII that gives me resolution and noise levels that beat the very best 135 format cameras to a pulp. Look at the comparisons of this mode on DPR - even beats the MF for resolution and noise, with fewer artifacts.
I have chosen the system I chose because it suits me, and what I choose to shoot, very well. I am glad that there are many other cameras and formats out there so that we can all find something that suits each of us.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
