EM1 ii users?

[Randy Stout]

I know this is "NikonGear", but it seems like a pretty catholic group as far as using a variety of gear.  I rented one over the holiday to try out, with the intention of using it mainly for video for shooting from my boat, where the fantastic IBIS can really help smooth out the wave motion.

Anyway, I of course had to try it out on some local birds, and was very disappointed  at the noise performance.  I have shot both an EM5 and GH4, so thought I had very realistic expectations of noise from the smaller sensor, but the luminance noise even at ISO 800 was unacceptable.  This was true even in images exposed as far to the right as possible.  Since so much of a good bird photo has to do with the feather detail, I won't be able to do any serious work on birds with it.

I had shot church shots on with it back to back with the D500 on Christmas eve, and would judge the D500 to be about 2 stops better under identical lighting conditions.

All shots in raw. 

It is interesting, that the m4/3 crew makes such a bit deal about the great IBIS, and it is fantastic for stationary subjects, but most of what I shoot is moving one way or the other, so the theoretical ability to shoot at lower shutter speeds and thus lower the ISO, doesn't work for me in practice

Appreciate any thoughts or observations.  Perhaps the software will improve.  I was processing both cameras in LR CC.

Cheers

Randy

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Perhaps you could provide a few RAW files (Dropbox?) so others could play with them?

The RAW conversion software really plays a crucial role for assessment of digital image quality.

[Randy Stout]

Thanks Bjorn:

I haven't used DropBox before, but just downloaded it.  Here is the link to a file of a Canada goose.  Noise in the darks, esp. the head, is very poor when processed in LR CC.  If anyone cares to tinker with it, would be appreciated.

The link seems active, but it states the ORF files can't be previewed.

Cheers

Randy

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2889rmowstacdw6/20161226_MI_Auguasta_EM1%20ii%20trialPC260509.ORF?dl=0

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The link and download work just fine.

I was all amazement over the rather poor ORF quality, though. The dynamic range seems to be severely limited and noise floor pretty evident at ISO 800. (built-in profile for this camera in Photo ninja 1.34b). Even my little AW1 does far better than this.

I'm not familiar with Olympus optics, so maybe the lens used ( 40-150/4-5.6 ) is to blame for the low contrast and lack of sharpness? However, the camera must take responsibility for the restricted dynamic range.

[Randy Stout]

I decided to try the Olympus Viewer 3 software to do a conversion of the raw files.  Gave a nicer result with the conversion than LR, but there is clearly a lot of noise reduction going on in the background .  Haven't figured out how to turn that off yet, so I can really be comparing apples to apples.  Will keep tinkering.  The Olympus noise reduction isn't too heavy handed, but I need to figure out how to control it better.

Cheers

Randy

[Randy Stout]

Bjorn:

You were posting while I was typing.

The lens I used is pretty mediocre, and I was mainly trying it to see how the framing would work.  I have the 12-40 f/2.8 pro zoom, and a couple of short primes, which I will try out, much better quality.  Just wanted the reach to try.

I posted an image shot at  iso 200, with the 12-40 lens earlier in Nature.  It was converted via LR.  Noise wasn't as objectionable, and the sharpness better because of the better glass.

I wonder how long it will be before Adobe gets a better handle on the software for this camera.

Cheers

Randy

[Randy Stout]

Here is a jpg of the goose image converted from RAW by the Olympus Viewer software.  Still soft because of the lens used, but noise is much better controlled. However, this is influenced by the obvious noise reduction the software does to the raw when it is converted.  More studying needed to see how much image quality is being robbed by this forced noise reduction.

[Frank Fremerey]

I just give Olympus one last chance. I bought the 1.8/75 Zuiko and will test it with several bodies. I have the EM5 here. My friend neighbour has the EM1 and some Pens. As far as I understand they are all good weather cameras and the 75 is the best lens in the system, although the 4/300 pro is said to be quite good too.

So you need to use a flash in church. I did my church photos this year with a D600 plus 1.4/105 and I could well use another one or two stops sensitivity...

[BEZ]

I persevered with m43 for a couple of years (numerous cameras) because it suited my needs as a small second system. It was total frustration for me trying to get acceptable images. The best decision I made was to abandon the experiment and return to APS-C for my compact system needs.

I do miss the tiny lenses though!

Cheers

[Randy Stout]

Olympus does make some very good glass, no doubt.  The 75 that Frank mentioned is stellar, but a bit of an odd focal length for some.
I really liked the EM5, and it actually seemed to have sig. better noise control than the EM1 ii I am using.  More megapixels aren't always better!

It is so tempting, looking for a lighter kit to carry, esp. since the glass is so good, but, ultimately it depends on the output for my uses. For casual use, no problem, and for some serious stuff, just fine, but I am shooting with poor light, fast moving objects, etc., so probably not there yet tech. wise.

Appreciate everyones input!

[Alaun]

Evening shot into the blinding sky at ISO 200 with the 12-40/2.8:

First OOC and second tweaked beyond what you normally would do with ACR:

[Bjørn Rørslett]

There is a "price" to be paid evidently when lifting shadows in this manner.

[Akira]

I've used several different m4/3 cameras over the years, namely Panasonic G1, GH2, GF5 GX8 and Olympus E-M5 MkII.

The IBIS of E-M5 MkII was the game changer, and it excelled that of GX8 that came out later and enabled me to stay in lower ISO.  However, as you mentioned and people already know, the the image stabilization of any kind is only effective for the static subjects.  If you need higher ISO, you still need to rely on the better high ISO performance of larger sensors.

According to my experience, Panasonic can keep the chrominance noise extremely well at bay.  The luminance noise is higher than that of larger sensors, as expected, but far less distracting than the chrominance noise.  Olympus has more chrominance noise, and its noise reduction sacrifices the details too much.  Also, I find the colors of Olympus files are not as rich as those of others.

The RAW file of Nikon (NEF) is way more flexible for the processing than any of those of m4/3 cameras.

[Randy Stout]

I continue to be surprised how much difference there is between different shots from the same camera re: apparent noise.  Just took this one of my pup,  ISO 400,  f/2.2  1/40s .  Converted in LR CC.  No noise reduction, minimal sharpening. Not quite enough DOF for nose.

Randy

[Frank Fremerey]

The poodle shot is stellar and with 400 ISO you stay well within the limits

Every system has limits. Some in frame rate. Some in DR. Some in spatial resolution. Some in tonality. Some in White Balance or Shutter lag.