• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Olympus E-M1 MarkII: OH MY! (1 Viewer)

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II added to studio comparison scene at Dpreview.com (RAW-files comparison):

https://www.dpreview.com/news/4984644252/olympus-om-d-e-m1-mark-ii-added-to-studio-comparison-scene

After looking at the comparison (D500 included), I wonder if not the Fujifilm X-T2 is the high-ISO winner. Very good details and sharpness even at ISO 12800, both in JPG and RAW. Very low color-noise in the highlights also. A bit baked RAW-files probably but the result is very good. The 24MP helps I guess.
 
Last edited:
After looking at the comparison (D500 included), I wonder if not the Fujifilm X-T2 is the high-ISO winner. Very good details and sharpness even at ISO 12800, both in JPG and RAW. Very low color-noise in the highlights also. A bit baked RAW-files probably but the result is very good. The 24MP helps I guess.

Some cautions about using DPReview shots to make fine distinctions are described here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58671918
 
Last edited:
The rumor site led me to the full review at DPReview: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m1-mark-ii
On the last page, try to add say Canon's 7Dii to the comparison tool!

Niels

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.
 
Here are some comments from the review.

"The E-M1 II's autofocus system sets a new benchmark for mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras, but isn't without its flaws. Continuous autofocus at 18 fps using a single point or group of points results in a very good hit rate, though continuous autofocus tracking during those bursts is somewhat less reliable. You will sometimes have a nearly 100% hit rate, but sometimes the system will get distracted and shoot off to the background halfway through the burst (this happened regardless of what our 'C-AF Lock' setting was, but be sure to experiment with it depending on your shooting situation). Importantly, auto focus acquisition for tracking is very, very fast, so if the camera does lose focus during a burst, you can quickly release the shutter and half-press again to re-initiate focus on your intended subject."
 
Here are some comments from the review.

"The E-M1 II's autofocus system sets a new benchmark for mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras, but isn't without its flaws. Continuous autofocus at 18 fps using a single point or group of points results in a very good hit rate, though continuous autofocus tracking during those bursts is somewhat less reliable. You will sometimes have a nearly 100% hit rate, but sometimes the system will get distracted and shoot off to the background halfway through the burst (this happened regardless of what our 'C-AF Lock' setting was, but be sure to experiment with it depending on your shooting situation). Importantly, auto focus acquisition for tracking is very, very fast, so if the camera does lose focus during a burst, you can quickly release the shutter and half-press again to re-initiate focus on your intended subject."

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
 
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.

AFAIK, Olympus delivered on all their claims if you read them closely. The review indicates the camera does exceed DSLRs in a number of categories, e.g.:

"All of that happens at a maximum rate of 18 frames per second when you use the electronic shutter. That's seriously fast, even when compared to flagship Canon and Nikon DSLRs, which top out at 14 and 12 fps respectively with continuous autofocus - but they both have flipping mirrors blocking the AF system, while the E-M1 II can use an electronic shutter to reduce blackout."

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m1-mark-ii/9

The review also states "The E-M1 II's autofocus system sets a new benchmark for mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras." So not just the best of m4/3, but of all mirrorless ILC, which includes Fuji, Sony, etc.
 
Last edited:
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 wouldn't even consider the 7D II to be a competitor of m4/3. If you don't mind the weight of a Canon setup, then go for it.

As for image quality, Olympus never claimed this would be an image quality upgrade--they were just adding mp and maintaing roughly the same image quality, which is nothing to sneeze at.
 
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
 
It can't only be me, that thinks that af tracking abilities of a camera demands great knowledge and time to aquire it - of the photog.

Most, if not all, reviewers may be very good knowing how to get the best of a Canikon af tracking system. But that knowledge does not extend that easy over to another format/camera system - and even so considering that many non-oly shooters complain about their "complicated" menu system...

When known Oly-shooters get their hands on a E-M1 mk2, and test it out (after awhile of familiarization) we'll know if it does what it claims, af tracking wise
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top