Dpreview really presents nice camera reviews, don't they? I get the impression they really try to give it to you straight; they tell it like it is. But they are not bird photographers.
Close call, but 7d II gets better in value for money.
What is strange is that the old EM1 I gets better points in image quality than the EM1 II. And the EM1 II only is 1% better in total.
My conclusion is that the EM1 II is overpriced.
I think the scores on dpreview must be partly considered as a score relative to other cameras available the particular time of the review. Even though the 2016 raw/jpeg image quality scores for the E-M1-II fall short of the 2013 image quality scores for the original E-M1, we must remember 3 years have passed. I still think the E-M1 II will capture a tiny bit more detail due to the extra megapixels, and a slight improvement in noise/overall image quality should be easier to see once you downsize the E-M1 II image to the same size as the E-M1 (I think the dpreview comparison tool supports this when you compare side by side in "comp" or "print" mode). So I interpret the roughly 'equal' overall scores of the old and new E-M1 models after 3 years passing this way: Olympus is continuing to compete well today against other current models, even relative to APS-C cameras in the same class.
I completely agree that the E-M1 II is certainly not the best
value, but as I said earlier in this thread,
Thom Hogan explained some of the reasons why that is what we can expect right now for all "flagship" class cameras. The Nikon D500 was $2K when it was released earlier this year, and the upcoming Panasonic GH5 is expected to also be $2K at release. As Thom said, that is the new "price of enthusiasm," and it is high!
Sounds like "yes, the C-AF is better than with any previous M4/3 camera, but still not really at the level of a top DSLR, like the Canon 7DII or the Nikon D500". That's a far cry from why Olympus claimed in their advertising before the camera was released which made it sound like the Olympus is running circles around any and every DSLR.
But at least C-AF, it seems, is usable for "fast moving objects" (like birds), so they seem to be getting there, albeit slowly. What remains to be seen though is what experienced bird photographers make of the Olympus in the field, especially people who know the top DSLRs well.
Interesting times, because even though cameras with larger sensors have some clear advantages when it comes to IQ, there's no doubt in my mind that for birdwatchers smaller sensors with their crop factor is an interesting proposition. I for one wouldn't like to carry a 4/500mm all day - in addition to my binoculars, scope and tripod.
Hermann
I'm with Jim: Sure, Olympus hyped the features at the launch, but I don't think they ever tried to say specifically that their
C-AF tracking would "run circles around" the best DSLR's. I think they emphasized that the FPS speed was better than competing DSLR's and they claimed that the C-AF is significantly improved and should allow successful tracking. I also agree with Jim that the whole C-AF tracking/BIF thing gets blown out of proportion to how important it really is. Yes, it matters, certainly. For me personally I would even say at this juncture it is
very important to me, but at the same time, the vast majority of my bird photos are and will remain birds that are sitting still at the moment of capture.
As a complete system for bird photography, even right now with my original E-M1, I am liking my Olympus system more and more compared to my Nikon system. I cannot say for sure yet, but with all the improvements on the new E-M1 II, it would not surprise me if by the end of next year I decide I am ready to give up the Nikon system and use Olympus exclusively
for bird photography. We shall see... Interesting times indeed.
Dave