marcr1230
Well-known
Ok - I pulled the trigger
first I was charmed by the postings
Then posted a few thoughts and questions:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138126
Then I started reading
Then I was infatuated - read every review and posting I could find.
Then I rationalized.
I know of course that it's not a perfect camera, and I concede that it won't improve my mediocre photographic vision - I'll be happy if it's a great street, home and travel camera, I'll be ecstatic if I get some good outdoor sports shots, I'll be in heaven if I get usable indoor sports shots.
Then saw it was out of stock at every place I looked - Amazon, B&H, Adorama, Olympus Store etc...
Then tonight, I noticed that it is in stock at Amazon! I'm a perfect consumer, I went from not needing anything, to "please take all my money , I must have it"
Well - my birthday month is approaching, and this is going to be the gift.
I even got approval from the spouse - although she only suspects the magnitude of my megalomania. To be fair though, I am going to be selling off some valuable but underused equipment that should cover the cost. There's also a rebate of $200 for the 12-40 lens and a full rebate for the FL-300R flash - the flash I might try to sell off - so , you see, it's almost free
So I ordered the body and 12-40 lens (lens is still back ordered)
also got the 75 1.8 (I love the portraits I've seen with it )
I hope I've come full cycle, my all time favorite camera , the one I am most happy with the results, has been the OM-4T.
At some point I will total up the $$$ spent on gear since I fell into RFF's clutches - it will not be pretty
Thanks for all you help and reinforcement
first I was charmed by the postings
Then posted a few thoughts and questions:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138126
Then I started reading
Then I was infatuated - read every review and posting I could find.
Then I rationalized.
I know of course that it's not a perfect camera, and I concede that it won't improve my mediocre photographic vision - I'll be happy if it's a great street, home and travel camera, I'll be ecstatic if I get some good outdoor sports shots, I'll be in heaven if I get usable indoor sports shots.
Then saw it was out of stock at every place I looked - Amazon, B&H, Adorama, Olympus Store etc...
Then tonight, I noticed that it is in stock at Amazon! I'm a perfect consumer, I went from not needing anything, to "please take all my money , I must have it"
Well - my birthday month is approaching, and this is going to be the gift.
I even got approval from the spouse - although she only suspects the magnitude of my megalomania. To be fair though, I am going to be selling off some valuable but underused equipment that should cover the cost. There's also a rebate of $200 for the 12-40 lens and a full rebate for the FL-300R flash - the flash I might try to sell off - so , you see, it's almost free
So I ordered the body and 12-40 lens (lens is still back ordered)
also got the 75 1.8 (I love the portraits I've seen with it )
I hope I've come full cycle, my all time favorite camera , the one I am most happy with the results, has been the OM-4T.
At some point I will total up the $$$ spent on gear since I fell into RFF's clutches - it will not be pretty
Thanks for all you help and reinforcement
Last edited:
danielsterno
making soup from mud
much enjoyment to you- good decision!. I rented the EM- 5 for a week, shots were really nice/lens were great and really liked it and the only major gripe I had were corrected- major for me was the size/dials were tweaked enough to make it a nice size….I am waiting for a X-Pro II announcement and if it doesn't come soon the EM-1 would do the trick! my only digi is x100 which works for me...
Archiver
Veteran
I have the EM-5 and the 75/1.8, and that lens is an absolute dream. I just shot some track sports this weekend, and the results were surprisingly good. It's the sharpest lens I've ever used. The EM-1 will be even better. Congrats on your EM-1; that 12-40 lens looks like a dream, too.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
That sent a shiver down a few spines I'm sure!
traveler_101
American abroad
Superb description. Yep, and we've all been through this process--maybe not quite as well reflected on as you have done.
I will say that a good argument for buying the camera is simply that if you really like the camera you will use it more, which will probably improve your photography.
That combo will set you back a piece. When the bills come you might well feel hung over. What camera did you replace?
marcr1230
Well-known
Currently I have a D800 and 3 not so cheap lenses, one of the lenses I'm definitely getting rid of, the other 2 and the body I am going to wait a month or so - see how the E-M1 works for me . I've used the D800 for sports and night sky (once or twice) - If the E-M1 works for my sports needs - out goes all the Nikon stuff.
on the film side - I need to trim a little , good equipment but underused - I've got some definites and a couple maybes - I'm fast to purchase but slow to sell - what can I say...
on the film side - I need to trim a little , good equipment but underused - I've got some definites and a couple maybes - I'm fast to purchase but slow to sell - what can I say...
stompyq
Well-known
That should be the mantra of most people here at RFF. Congrats on the camera. I'am not a fan of the m43 format but the EM-1 just felt right when I handled it. Olympus have done a great job with the design
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
If I get a dime every time I read about Olympus design, I'd make a healthy profit.
It's their stubbornness with not-producing full-frame cameras that irritate the heck out of me.
marcr1230
Well-known
Olympus can't compete with nikon/canon in FF pro market
What's astounding to me is that just like the original OM series
They've created a full system in a smaller package
It might be a foregone conclusion that they can't break into the
Top 2, but it's admirable that they try and continue to produce
Such compact and high quality equipment
What's astounding to me is that just like the original OM series
They've created a full system in a smaller package
It might be a foregone conclusion that they can't break into the
Top 2, but it's admirable that they try and continue to produce
Such compact and high quality equipment
defconfunk
n00b
I really don't get you on this. FF is an arbitary size. There is nothing magic about it. Olympus chose a smaller sensor, knowing it would have a less capable sensor, but the benefit of a lighter over-all system (which, going back to the PEN in the 60s and OM in the 70s has been Olympus' calling card). It's proven to have some other advantages (lighter sensors makes IBIS easier, and the current 5-axis really does a good job, helping take back some of the low light capability that the smaller sensor gives up).
Olympus's lenses simply don't cast light on a big enough area to make use of a FF sensor. So going FF would mean whole new lens line. They did that once (with the introduction of 4/3), and are slowly doing it agian with the PRO m4/3 line. Except in every case, the old lenses could be adapted to the new sensors, and this would not be the case.
Why should they build up yet another product line for a bigger sensor only to be competing toe-to-toe with the two 800 pound gorillas and Sony (now their partner)?
If Olympus was to go bigger, I'd love to see something like the Leica S, a digital medium format, designed from the ground up around digital sensors. Unfortunately, I can't say I really see that happening.
Marcr1230, Glad you're enjoying the new camera.
defconfunk
n00b
That sent a shiver down a few spines I'm sure!
Hmm.. I am tempted to add it up... but yea... I know the number will be well over what I am comfortable seeing... Heck, limiting myself to either just film or just digital, would produce a number I'm not comfortable with.
Curse you all and your influencing ways (not that I'd give up my OM slrs, bronica etr, EM-1, or any of the photographics toys I have accumulated since finding RFF).
It's not arbitrary...it's based on 80+ years of 35mm film use in still cameras. Many believe it to be the best combination of depth of field vs. out of focus options.
Now the A7 by Sony has shown that the sensor doesn't have to be small to make a small digital camera.
Sam N
Well-known
Those decades of 35mm film use become much less relevant when you consider how much digital has changed everything. Today we can shoot at ISO3200 with excellent results. Today we're not stuck with adapting movie film to still needs. Today we can do all sorts of optical tricks in the cameras (fixing distortion allowing tiny lenses, etc.). Lenses are generally faster and sharper than 80 years ago. Even the ways photographs are shared and printed have fundamentally changed.
Since Olympus didn't have a film system at the time, they were free to create a system that was specifically built for digital. This freed them from all of the legacy problems that other makers are still dealing with. Old lenses with coatings not suitable for digital (flare, etc.). Old lenses with screw-driven AF. Old lenses with incident light angles that cause corner issues on even the latest sensors (recent a7/a7r threads). Crop vs. "full frame" isn't even a thing in the m43 world.
As for the A7/A7r, yes they're tiny but the lenses can only get so small without sacrificing a lot of image quality. Try a 28mm "pancake" RF lens on the A7r. It won't be pretty.
DNG
Film Friendly
agreed... BUT... That still leaves the lenses out of proportion with the body balance.... although... the A7 maybe a good compromise in size, knowing the lenses are still not any smaller...
Olympus has always looked at both issues... when developing a System camera... the OM's, because it was a MF SLR, could have smaller FF lenses to fit the smaller FF body. They tried an AF model with the AF in(under) the lenses with the OM88.. but, dropped it, AF tech was still bulky.
Sony, doesn't consider lens size to body size balance.... so, you have a very small NEX with large native lenses (in comparison to the body).
Back to OP Topic
I am sure you enjoy the E-M1...
It is more capable then most APS-C cameras in: DR, AF speed, and Sensor Resolution, (Lens dependant).
And, most people will not be able to tell the difference in IQ from a side by side comparison....Since the E-M1 can OUT DO the IQ with many popular APS-C cameras in the real world.
Right, I agree. But fuillframe is not arbitrary, that is all I was saying. It may be less relavent these days, but there was a reason for using a 24x36mm sensor.
So are you saying that Olympus disregarding its past was a good thing? Sure, legacy lenses are hit and miss, but at least they are an option.
Not with native lenses... same for any other sensor size.
I'll wait for the 28mm native lens... I bet that will work well. Put that 28mm on m4/3 and you get a 56mm.
defconfunk
n00b
I definitely agree that the A7 proves you can have a small FF camera. But I don't think it gives you a small FF system. The lenses are still big (they have to throw light over an area four times larger than m4/3 - so either they are bigger lenses, or they collect less overall light and or you lose two stops of aperture). The launch NEX FF lenses are a great example of this – in order to be both small and sharp, they are all f2.8, negating any Dof benefit over a m4/3 f1.4 lens.
I'm not knocking the A7, I think it is great. I actually think it is exactly why Olympus shouldn't make an FF camera. Other than ergonomics, the Sony is pretty much exactly what the Olympus FF would be - so why produce a whole new line just fight their partner? Let Sony fight Canon and Nikon in the FF arena, and let Olympus focus their efforts on m4/3.
To clarify my comments about 36mmx24mm being an arbitrary size. It was chosen by Leica because they wanted a camera smaller than what could be done with 120, but using an existing film stock - so 35mm cinema film was chosen. I've read the original 3:2 aspect ratio was chosen simply because that was what the engineer thought looked best. Turns out he was pretty on the ball.
There is no math that I am aware of, that makes a 36x24 sensor special. It lets you use existing lens designs in the manner they were designed (not an issue if you also redesign the lenses at the same time), but it exists on a spectrum of trade offs. If film photography had used film stock that was 30x20 or 39x26, photography as we know it wouldn’t be that different. And we would be calling that the ‘preferred size’.
I don’t think DoF is really that big of a deal to 35mm’s success. If I want an equivalent DoF on a smaller sensor, I just need to pass more light through the lens. This can be done with a bigger lens (Panasonic’s upcoming 42.5 F1.2) or a speedbooster (which knocks 1 stop off any lens). Alternatively, it can be done by careful positioning and use of a longer focal length (which on a m4/3 isn’t necessarily a big lens). Yes, it isn’t the exact same image as you’d get on 35mm, but I haven’t run into trouble with subject/background separation yet. And certainly there are plenty of people sufficiently happy with their APS-C sensors (which lack one stop of DoF vs the FF).
I think the longevity of 35mm is more related to the IQ improvements over smaller formats like 110 and the improved convenience over larger formats like 120 (plenty of consumer 120 folders were made in the 50s, but 35mm proved so much better for joe average that 120 was dead as a consumer film by the 80s).
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Olympus' past through the 1950s and 1960s was excellent half-frame 35mm cameras. They went to 35mm when it was deemed feasible for them to do so in the early 1970s as prior to that they were primarily an optical company with a bent towards scientific instruments.
35mm film format, so-called "full frame", was an accident. Oskar Barnack's original idea was a camera to expose test strips for cine work, which is why he chose to use 35mm cine film, and his original format was 18x24mm, same as the standard cine format of the time. Once he saw how well it worked as a still camera, he realized he could use the same film and double the area by going to 36mm on the long edge (inventing the modern 35mm 2:3 format in the process) with only minimal changes to his shutter and film transport mechanism. It gave a much needed increase in image quality obtainable from such a small camera at the turn of the 20th century. It became a standard through aggressive marketing and from all the other camera makers reproducing basically similar designs because it was cheap to do so. Outliers included Robot (1934 to 1970s were all 23x23mm on the same film stock), Nikon (first two-three models of their RF cameras were 24x32, the 3:4 format), and a few others. Nikon bowed to market pressure and changed their format to 2:3 proportion 24x36, the "Leica Standard" by 1951.
Olympus' decision to go with FourThirds format was the result of extensive research and collaboration with Kodak, with their hundred year history of photography, looking for a sensor size, lens mount size, etc, that returned the best results considering development from scratch of an entire camera system. ALL the other manufacturers opted for sensor sizing and formats that suited the conventions of their existing 35mm offerings (and I'm not saying this was not a practical decision); Sony basically bought the Minolta (and Konica) history.
So ... the creation of FF had little to do with research and some supposed "best compromise" and more to do with everyone copying a successful and well-known camera design (Leica) and riding the coattails of Leica through the "Hey, we're just like them, the market leader, only less expensive!"
FourThirds and its Micro-FourThirds sibling/derivative, on the other hand, was the*resulting development of a large amount of expertise in optics, sensor development and manufacture, camera design, real-life user needs, and photographic insight. That's where real innovation in digital cameras has showed up first ... first self-cleaning sensor system, first all-electronic body and lens control integration, first "intelligent lenses" with smart firmware on the lenses instructing the in-body image processing. All of this was in Olympus first interchangeable lens DSLR in 2003 ... what's amazing now is that it took a decade for the other manufacturers to almost catch up. ;-)
That first Olympus FourThirds DSLR, the E-1, *still* produces amazing quality photographs despite it being only 5Mpixels, slower than watching paint dry to write files, and ten years old.
G
Right, but it did become a standard and that is why it is desired in digital cameras today. That is all I am saying. The usage of FF in digital cameras is not arbitrary, it is based on years of it being a standard.
Sam N
Well-known
It's absolutely a good thing. I've got some great OM glass, but I use it almost exclusively on my OM camera. It works decently on my 5D, but why use it over native AF lenses with digital-friendly coatings? Why deal with clunky stop-down metering? Why fumble with live-view or alternate focusing screens to be able to focus accurately?
Maybe for any sensor size, but not for any camera system. Most other systems have 2 (or even 3) sensor sizes available, which causes confusion for beginners and keeps most users in a "crop ghetto". If I want a smaller / lighter backup camera to my 5D, I'm basically stuck with a Rebel, which will change the angle of view of all of my lenses. If I go with all APS-C, I don't get proper access to the best cameras or lenses (Canon refuses to make EF-S "L" lenses, for example so you're left dealing with the crop factors). Even Sony's E-mount has now been infected with the crop factor problem. They already had very few native lenses, and now they're starting from scratch again.
In a system with just one sensor size, you can use a lens as it was intended on a pro camera or a tiny carry-around.
For the reasons above, I wouldn't put a 28mm pancake RF lens on a m43. There is a proper 28mm equivalent field of view lens already available (14mm f2.5) and it's fantastic.