Item added to your selection
The Olympus OM series enters the digital age
Wednesday, February 08, 2012 Preview
Today Olympus is reviving its legendary range of OM SLRs with the launch of the Olympus OM-D E-M5, a vintage-design micro 4/3.
Even if the design of the OM-D is definitely inspired by the 40 years old OM series, the technology build inside is certainly from the 21st century.
With a 16-megapixel Live MOS micro 4/3 sensor, a 3" OLED tilting touch-screen and a 1.44 MPix electronic viewfinder, the E-M5 is aiming at enthusiast photographers like its predecessors. In term of performance, the FAST AF is announced as the fastest in a interchangeable lens camera. The OM-D can shoot 9.2fps in its burst mode and offers full-HD videos recording in 1080p. Also in line with its advanced positioning, it can shoot in RAW for optimal image quality.
In term of lenses, the OM-D is compatible with all the micro 4/3 lenses, offering a wide range of possibility at launch.
The OM-D E-M5 will be available in April for about $1000.
Comments
|
Added by TeacherGuy |
April 07
MAJOR PROBLEMS with OM-D-E-M5!!
<div id="linkdxomark">This a comment for <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Olympus/OM-D-E-M5">this page on the website</a></div>I experienced several major problems with my new OM-D-E-M5 yesterday, and I need some explanation and help.
#1 Issue--horrible chromatic aberration/fringing--green, blue, and purple fringing along the edge of some mountain peaks at Pinnacles National Monument. Used the Lumix 20mm/1.7 aspherical lens. Unacceptable fringing -- I could never submit my shots to a contest, sell them to a client, or even blow them up to hang in my living room! #2 Issue--strange black images! On the first shot of the day, the image turned out completely black (looked blue in the LCD). The second image was 90% black, but you could see the subject in the top-left of the image. The third image was fine. The exposure setting was exactly the same for all three shots (ISO 200, 1/4000 sec., f 4.0). This black image, then OK image pattern repeated itself 2-3 more times during the day. Oh, yeah. The lens used was the Zuiko 12mm/f2.0. #3 Issue--exposure mistakes? I took at shot of the mountains just after the sun set. There was no exposure compensation and the resulting histogram was dead center. However, the image looked very light on my computer. I also took several other shots with positive and negative exposure compensation, and I found that the shot that looked best, most like how it really appeared to my eyes at the time I took the shot, was 1/3-2/3 stop underexposed. So, does the camera have an exposure problem? Does anyone have an explanation for the above? If Olympus can't or won't fix the fringing, I'll have to return all the gear I bought and look for a new system. Aaargh!! Thanks to anyone who replies--I will appreciate it very much. TeacherGuy Reply |
|
|
Added by steshaster |
October 11, 2012
Why iso isn't iso
And maybe this tells you something about olympus omd iso settings decisions:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/09/why-iso-isnt-iso.html Reply |
|
|
Added by steshaster |
October 11, 2012
Raw is not Raw
Maybe this sheds some light on image quality of omd
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/10/raw-is-not-raw.html Reply |
|
|
Added by Tord |
October 06, 2012
A nice camera
My wife has a nice little OM-D, while I myself just got myself a Nikon D600. Both blissfully sharp, under the right circumstances!
Reply | Read all replies for this comment |
First replies for this comment
|
|
Added by Hakeem |
October 09, 2012
Re: A nice camera
Must be a very lovely/happy couple :)
Bless you! Reply |
|
|
Added by Tegularius |
September 25, 2012
Well, well, well...
DXO has procrastinated for so long, that I wrote them off and decided to buy my own OM-D without waiting for their analysis.
I'm glad I did, because I find it an extraordinary camera. The usability and the image quality is extraordinary. I am not surprised to learn it is the best m43 around. It has an extraordinary dynamic range, almost no-existent noise at ISOs lower than 3200 and a magnificent range of colors (I shoot exclusively in RAW mode). So I am somewhat dissapointed at the overall results shown by DXO. So much so in fact, that I'm begining to doubt about the credibility of DXO testing. Specially after seeing the results of other tests done -with DXO software- with results completely different to those published here. It sounds all so darn fishy... they wait and wait and wait, and finally, out of the blue, and when the OM-D no longer has any mediatic impact, they decide to release the results of their testing. By now it is irrelevant, save for historical reasons. It is of no real use to their readers. The worst part is that these results lack credibility. My own experienced is very different. I own a Sony A77 as well as the OM-D and I have done my own informal testing and comparison with both. The OM-D is far superior -image quality wise- to the Sony in just aboout every aspect. It is hard for me to believe the A77 can be so far ahead in the ranking of DXO. Not believable, guys. Reply | Read all replies for this comment |
First replies for this comment
|
|
Added by Hakeem |
September 27, 2012
Re: Well, well, well...
Well reading your experiences and what other sites posted, I strongly beleive DXOMark ows us some explanation on these delays and some details on their testing process! definately
Reply |
|
|
Added by Tomeryaffe |
September 27, 2012
Re: Well, well, well...
Read the post by seta666, and you will get the answer to your question.
The reason that the picture quality look so good to you at ISO-3200, is because its actually ISO-1489! While on the A77 its ISO-2612 Reply |
|
|
Added by Hakeem |
September 28, 2012
Re: Well, well, well...
Well I suggest reading R Butlers article on ISO / ISO Cheating or if it should be consider cheating or is an interesting technological advancement here:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4241806072/sense-and-sensitivity its much easier to underestand, less confusing, well guided and straight forward IMO. it exaplins the two most common definition of ISOs very well and different camera manufacturer's take on these and personally I am very satisfied with the conclusion that says "all that matters is the final image quality and usability"! So if you keep calling Oly tht its underexposing at equivalent ISO's, you simply are not getting the point! Reply |
|
|
Added by Tomeryaffe |
September 25, 2012
Question for Axel
Hello Axel, thank you for testing this camera.
Can you please answer the comments about the true ISO values of this camera? My question is general - does the scores in DXO are based on the real ISO sensitivity, or the manufacture stated values? Reply | Read all replies for this comment |
First replies for this comment
|
|
Added by AaronMC |
September 26, 2012
Re: Question for Axel
It is the measured ISO, not the manufacturer's ISO. If you look at the charts, all of them have "measured ISO" as one of the variables, not simply "ISO."
Reply |
|
|
Added by Spkeasy |
September 24, 2012
Compare DxO and DPReview PICTURE results
Has anyone compared the pictures on dpreview.com under "16. Noise & Noise Reduction" for the OM-D EM-5?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/16 Compare the OM-D with a Panasonic DMC-G3, Sony NEX-7 and a Samsung NX200. Look at the tests for both JPEG and RAW. This is a little hard to do since NEX-7 only has noise reduction "High Low or Normal" and no apparent OFF. With NR "off" the Samsung is the cleanest up thru 6400, but the image produced by the Samsung is almost invisible at this stage. I guess great ISO is possible but if the picture is hard to see, why bother? Of the 4, the OM-D and NEX-7 are very close at NR=Low setting. In the ACR Raw noise test (lets face it, RAW is where you see what the sensor can really do, internal processing can only degrade the image SOMEWHERE) the OM-D is far better up to 3200 with ACR NR off, not only are the test swatches smoother, the image is clearer. Again, the Samsung has better swatch but the image is too washed out to be useful. I think DxO does a real service with their test results and they are useful for comparison before a purchase but primarily, I need to consider the results of the picture as I see it as the final factor. I bought an OM-D in July and the results have been everything I hoped for. Great shots at incredibly slow speeds (11x14 is beautiful with 1/15 sec hand-held shots of a stream). Very clean shots up to 1600 (what ISO is that really? who knows but in evening light and with no flash I get great shots, that's what counts). Kind of reminds me of when I ditched my Brownie and bought my first Nikon. Reply | Read all replies for this comment |
First replies for this comment
|
|
Added by Hakeem |
September 27, 2012
Re: Compare DxO and DPReview PICTURE results
@Spkeasy Yes I noticed all you said, already. In simple words IMO OMD has better overall results at any ISO from any camera produced APSC or 4/3. That is why I was hoping a good result from DXOMark as they only measure sensor characterstics; and no other factor at all. As DXOMark was always giving pathetic results to Olympus cameras, however their results are ridicolously low. Good that you bought it yourself without waiting for DxoMark. After GH3 tests, maybe I will do the same.
Thanks for sharing your experience! Reply |
|
|
Added by seta666 |
September 24, 2012
ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off
<div id="linkdxomark">This a comment for <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Olympus/OM-D-E-M5">this page on the website</a></div>
For me is incredible the way ISO is off in the E-M5, almost 1EV off Manufacturer ISO: 200 Measured iso: 107 Manufacturer ISO: 400 Measured iso: 214 Manufacturer ISO: 800 Measured iso: 394 Manufacturer ISO:1600 Measured iso: 782 In isos over 400 it is over 1EV off, worst I have ever seen. That is why iso 1600 looks clean, because it is not even iso 800 Anyway, seems a good 4/3 sensor but I find this iso thing very anoying If you compare this to the GF3 or GF5 which are very well calibrated it would show very easy [url=http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/816%7C0/(brand)/Panasonic/(appareil2)/793%7C0/(brand2)/Olympus/(appareil3)/763%7C0/(brand3)/Panasonic]http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/816%7C0/(brand)/Panasonic/(appareil2)/793%7C0/(brand2)/Olympus/(appareil3)/763%7C0/(brand3)/Panasonic[/url] Same shot in same lighting conditions with same exposure time, same aperture and same iso the E-M5 will always be 1EV underexpossed For me this lying to the customers; I guess is better to say you have an amaizing iso 1600 than to tell the truth and say it is just iso 800 Reply | Read all replies for this comment |
First replies for this comment
|
|
Added by AaronMC |
September 24, 2012
Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off
I agree. This is lying.
It seems like Olympus would have done this to game tests, but one has to assume that they couldn't be that stupid. Dozens of publications do ISO tests to find out how accurate the measurements actually are, so the deception would have been immediately apparent to anyone who cared to look. Unfortunately, the alternative is equally bad: Olympus is incompetent. In this hypothesis, Olympus simply has no idea how to design a camera correctly. This seems equally unlikely, since it's obvious that Olympus can, in fact, design cameras. I guess, regardless of the explanation, this is very bad. But at least even with the numbers corrected, the E-M5 comes out looking good. Reply |
|
|
Added by seta666 |
September 24, 2012
Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way offQuote: Dozens of publications do ISO tests to find out how accurate the measurements actually are, so the deception would have been immediately apparent to anyone who cared to look. I only know of DXOMark testing real ISOS Fixing this is as simple as changing the menu isos to the real ones via firmware, something they will not do for sure. This practice is good to fool people that follow reviews like those of Dpreview, were no one care about the conditions of the shot. But in real world people will have to use ISO 3200 in conditions where they would normally would use ISO 1600; maybe they do not complain because ISO 3200 on the E-M5 is as good as iso 1600 in other cameras. It is ISO 1600 indeed!! To be fair most companies (canon, nikon included) lie about real iso but to the date worst example was Fuji X100; the E-M5 has made a new benchmark about what lying is. This practices are unfair for companies like Leica or Panasonic which have very well calibrated sensors Javier Reply |
|
|
Added by hoodlum |
September 24, 2012
Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off
As mentioned in another thread DPReview only tests exposure variance with JPEG while DXO tests the exposure variance with RAW. That is the difference you are seeing here.
Some E-M5 users have already reported that RAW is underexposed by 1EV vs JPEG when shooting RAW+JPEG. Oly likely does this to help preserve the highlights. So they likely push the underexposed RAW output of shadows and mid-tones by 1EV, leaving highlights underexposed therefore preserving them in JPEG. You noticed from Dpreview the E-M5 had very high JPEG DR. Fuji does something similar with the X series above ISO1000. Reply |
|
|
Added by AaronMC |
September 24, 2012
And Now We Know
I'm glad to finally have these results. I hope that you guys don't get swamped with work again and are able to test the GH3 very soon, because I find it to be the more exciting m4/3 camera.
I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed with the color depth and DR numbers. Obviously, I would have never expected ISO numbers to match the APS-C models, but I was hoping for closer readings on the other two variables. Still, for me, this signifies more than anything else that Olympus has STOPPED MESSING AROUND. They spent three years producing shit, and they have finally given us the m4/3 camera they should have made when they originally produced the E-P1. I am very, very happy for that. Reply | Read all replies for this comment |
First replies for this comment
|
|
Added by Hakeem |
September 24, 2012
Re: And Now We Know
Yes Aaron, agreeable, I think after seeing D600 results, I believe DXOMark team can produce results on GH3 quick.
Reply |
|
|
Added by jyhfeei |
September 25, 2012
Re: And Now We KnowQuote: <div id="linkdxomark">This a comment for <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Olympus/OM-D-E-M5">this page on the website</a></div> I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed with the color depth and DR numbers. Obviously, I would have never expected ISO numbers to match the APS-C models, but I was hoping for closer readings on the other two variables. If the ISO speed for the OMD is off by a stop, I think the noise rating from DXO makes sense (relative to other site data). However, the color depth and DR still seem too low. Even with the stop difference in ISO, other sites have the OMD sensor neck and neck with the NEX cameras and completely dominating the RX100 sensor. Yet DXO has the OMD neck and neck with the 1", RX100 sensor. I don't know if I buy it. One thing that is not explained in the review are the reasons for the months delay in results. Previously, there were "anomalies" with the data. What is special about these results? The ISO issue should not trip up DXO by their testing methods. Nothing explained, as usual. Reply |
|
|
Added by DXOMARK |
September 25, 2012
Re: And Now We Know
Yeah ... I agree.
I smell something fishy. Hope DXOMArk can explain WHY they drag and delay the test result of OMD EM5 and yet able to produce the test result for Nikon D600 within days of her launch ? ! Most likely they will remain silent as their reason will be something not honorable nor of integrity. ??? :-\ :-[ Reply |
|
|
Added by Hakeem |
September 24, 2012
finally here .. but the result data conflicts
I don't understand why there is such a difference of the results i am reading here and I can see on DPReview high ISO and dynamic range results.
Over there, it is always seen better than any APSC you select on comparison tool. Strange! Reply | Read all replies for this comment |
First replies for this comment
|
|
Added by Emacs23 |
September 24, 2012
Re: finally here .. but the result data conflicts
Because DPR "testing" procedures are crap
Reply |
|
|
Added by AaronMC |
September 24, 2012
Re: finally here .. but the result data conflicts
I think that is because DxOMark's testing is more rigorous, or perhaps different is a better term. They determine their ISO score based on the point that detail, dynamic range, and color depth all stay above a certain value.
So for example, a camera may do very well as regards detail retention, but the camera will still get a score of 600 from DxO if the color depth or DR drop too low. Reply |
|
|
Added by DXOMARK |
September 24, 2012
Re: finally here .. but the result data conflicts
No.
I think DXOMark's testing is crap, falsified and bribed ! ! ! I rather trust DEPREVIEW than DXOMARK ! ! ! :o >:( Reply |
Further readings for the The Olympus OM series enters the digital age
To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.