EM5-OMD for professional work

[twopointeight]

Yes, it all depends on the type of work being done. Products and other traditional studio work need to be described in detail. Same for other types of location work that depends on that level of description. But, like it was pointed out in a post above, journalistic work can have much broader approaches. (reresentation vs. interpretation). A few years ago, I asked a travel magazine editor, a client for over 20 years, what he thought of doing an entire feature in square format? He told me he didn't care if was square or even round, as long as it worked. I'm sure he would totally approve of cell phone images, or Diana, or the smallest sensor pocket camera, as long as the images told the story in some creative way. That's editorial, many flavors and approaches. Images that are slightly distressed have always drawn me in. But again, in the the studio with whatever, I'm all strobes and full frame. One story from the 80's. Elliot Erwitt came to Tokyo to shoot ads for Japan Airlines. They were paying him $15,000 a day. Much to the chagrin of some of the executives on the set, he shot it all with an Olympus XA. And being professional, he did carry a back-up camera, another XA. The ads came out well. Large posters of Kimono-clad beauties in traditional settings. I was there.

 

[David_Manning]

Wow, for a camera- and photography-centric place like Japan, those executives must have been sweating bullets... I can see someone repeating, "He's Elliott Erwitt, he's Elliott Erwitt..."

 

[mh2000]

My 12MP E-P1 can make stunning 12x16 gallery photo prints. Print media is typically of lessor quality so the OM-D should certainly be up to a two page layout. Can't think of a reason it shouldn't be up to the task you outline, but as someone starting out, having the perception of "pro" can be inhanced by using gear that is perceived as "proffesional." You are not Elliot Erwitt. Once you make a name for yourself, you can use whatever gear you want, but until then, think of it as choosing the right clothes for an event.

I guess it really comes down to how serious you are about persuing taking your photography carreer and how far you want to take it.

Personally, I am artist and have no asperations for being a commercial photographer, but even still, I question whether I should be shooting m43 or whether I should be shooting a topend FF camera. I ended up with a m43 system on a complete whim... when the E-P1 dropped to $300 I bought it for a cute retro P&S, but ended up loving it so much that I sold off my whole Canon system (still miss the TS-E 45 & 90... two fo the best lenses I've ever shot!).

There will always be something better, but you have to question whether what you are using is really "good enough," or whether being tied to gear that you like, you are making compromises in final quality that you will regret later.

In film days, I shot mostly 35mm, so in a general sense, m43 is a step up, but really, looking back, I think that was kind of too big a compromise and wish that I would have done more of my best b&w film work using MF and LF cameras.

 

[kbg32]

My only problem would be I don't think the camera is all that robust. The image quality is up there and the things focus like lightning but they feel fragile to me.

Far from fragile. A Leica CL is fragile. It can dent just by looking at it. The OMD is much more robust.

I think under the right situations, proper exposure, etc., and if one striped away all the metadata, most people would be hard pressed to tell if the image was from a 4/3 camera.

 

[Peter Klein]

Most of the arguments against micro 4/3 are the same arguments that were used against 35mm cameras in the 1940s and 1950s. Back then it was the "unprofessional" Leica vs. the "professional" Speed Graphics and Rolleis.

I know an old pro photographer who just had major shoulder surgery--the result of carrying around heavy camera bags all his life. It is not "lazy" to want to avoid this.

The better APS-C cameras and the OM-D have reached a level of sufficiency for most work. If the smaller cameras can do the job, and they can withstand your working conditions, then why not use them?

Sports photographers will choose fast, reliable tracking autofocus and high ISO over megapixels. Landscape photographers who print big need more pixels, and they may prefer the richer tonality of medium format. But everything in life is a trade off. The smaller cameras get taken more places and don't leave you sore and tired after a day of shooting, so you get shots you'd miss otherwise. And frankly, I like the image quality I get from my micro 4/3 primes more than the equivalent Brand C and N.

I'm not sure that FF or medium format shooters are automatically more "serious." It may just be an artificial barrier to reduce the number of applicants. An Art Director might think that the person with the big cameras is more serious, but he may just have more money than brains, or he may have succumbed to the same groupthink as the A.D.

 

[David_Manning]

Peter,

All valid points.

The OM-D sounds like it has the technical chops, as the OP was suggesting. I think it's reliable enough for stock photography or a personal project, wherein if everything goes wrong, you still had a nice vacation. You come home, sell a keeper or two.

I still wouldn't leave on a "photo assignment" type trip with only a m4/3 camera...or even two. It may be my own insecurities about getting the job done, but I'm still reaching for pro-grade cameras (see my first post above) when the paycheck is on the line. I think the smaller sensor realm is the "personal project" photography.

M4/3, 1", mirror-less APS-C...none of it gives me the comfort level of the big Canikons. I personally wouldn't leave on an assignment with an M9 (without another FF Canikon system in tow).

There are many famous art/commercial photographers who use or have used "other" systems, but in most cases, art photographers can come back another day...and the big-name commercial shooters were hired for their "look." And let's be honest...anyone who can frame a lens and snap can sell clothing with the snapshot aesthetic if the model is top-level and the styling is A-team (I'm looking at Terry Richardson and Jeurgen Teller to name a couple).

I think, at the end of the day (in my own decision tree), if it can't be re-shot, or has a deadline, the Canikons go. Anything else can be covered with numerous high-quality consumer cameras.

 

[twopointeight]

Appreciate the thoughtful and varied responses. Although I'm trying to find good applications for M4/3 in my work, I noticed a few times already that I wished I shot the same thing with a full frame sensor camera, even though the editor and anyone viewing 13X19 prints of same seemed quite pleased. What's missing in the M4/3 photos for me, is the feel of the surface of things, mostly clothing and building materials. M4/3 needs some perfect light to reveal surfaces well. I'm settling on carrying both to see if it works or makes me crazy. The OMD with 3 lens, and the 5DMK2 with the pancake 40mm.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Still speaking honestly here: yes, i have a prejudice. Against small format digital. And, more importantly, against photographers who are now choosing gear based on size/weight. I don't feel it's a significant burden to carry/use, at minimum, an APS-C sensored camera system. And, since size/weight seems to be the only advantage of an EM5-OMD over something I consider 'more serious,' I really feel photographers are getting lazy and taking too much for granted.

I am not now a professional photographer. My post was basically to state that there are sealed M43 bodies and lenses. When I used to photograph professionally I used medium format cameras (Mamiya C330 and RB67) for weddings and studio work. On occasion a 4 x 5 was called into play. A few times I needed to use 35mm gear for special jobs. If I were doing professional work today it would no doubt be FF gear. My arthritis is starting to get worse and I don't miss lugging around the heavy gear that I used to. You use the tools the job demands. Apparently the OP has successfully used an OMD in his work without editorial complaints. Would Art Wolfe use anything other than Canon FF gear? I doubt it. My M43 cameras fit my current needs. And, more importantly I am not prejudiced against any photographer who uses FF DSLRs, I have many friends who use them. Yes, I'm an old (fuddy-duddy)school dude of 66 years of age, but I am not lazy nor do I take too much for granted.

Biomed —
I don't think anything i've written was directed at you or referenced anything you wrote.

 

[Tejasican]

Nothing like going on the internet and asking for an ADA lawsuit...

 

[Lss]

M4/3, 1", mirror-less APS-C...none of it gives me the comfort level of the big Canikons. I personally wouldn't leave on an assignment with an M9 (without another FF Canikon system in tow).

The only cameras that have failed me at critical times are Canon DSLRs, although some of those were APS-C bodies. The most reliable interchangeable lens digital bodies in my use have been the Leica M8 and the Olympus OM-D. My use of the Olympus has been so limited in comparison to other cameras that any failure would be really bad luck, though.

My take on this is that all cameras, like any equipment, can and will fail.

 

[zwarte_kat]

The only cameras that have failed me at critical times are Canon DSLRs, although some of those were APS-C bodies. The most reliable interchangeable lens digital bodies in my use have been the Leica M8 and the Olympus OM-D. My use of the Olympus has been so limited in comparison to other cameras that any failure would be really bad luck, though.

My take on this is that all cameras, like any equipment, can and will fail.

That's why you carry two.

Still I think it's a stretch to call M8 and MFT more reliable than Canons. (I am not saying you said that). Your one experience is not proof.

Compactness and weight are factors that I consider when choosing gear.
I just got the 6D, very compact for a full frame DLSR. I use a 550D as a second body, or or one of my company's 7Ds. They are not that big. If you cannot carry them, I think you have more serious problems than choice of camera to consider...

I can image switching one cam for one with an articulating screen though, I often hold the cam above my head to take wide total shots at events. Those functions are more important to me than a few hundred less grams.

 

[amalric]

I saw just the other day some fantastic street pictures in NY by a Brazilian Fashion Photographer. Then there is Tyson Robichaud, Fashion again, Giulio Sciorio, and many others, growing by the day.

So evaluating one commitment by the weight one is able to carry seems to me a case of senile madness. What matters with the E-M5 is the amazing flexibility. If you have a grouchy client, add the grip or hide the camera... and uprez freely.

You won't get less resolution than a Canon 5 Mk2 or even a Leica, with the proper lenses - See S. Huff strange comparisons. And that's all that matters. Really, weight = commitment? 🙂

 

[Dave Jenkins]

Most of the arguments against micro 4/3 are the same arguments that were used against 35mm cameras in the 1940s and 1950s. Back then it was the "unprofessional" Leica vs. the "professional" Speed Graphics and Rolleis.

So True!🙄 I remember a long discussion on photo.net around 1999 in which a medium format diehard informed me that format was more important than content!

I just returned from a week's assignment in El Salvador, where I photographed the work of a medical mission team with two OM-Ds in a hot, humid environment. I took nothing but the OM-Ds and three lenses. Good pix and no problems. Easy to carry around, too.😀

 

[Mystyler]

I find it strange that you can be judged by the equipment you use and not just by the output of that equipment - there are way too many egos in photography. There is no one "professional format", especially seeing that today smart phone exposures are "acceptable" for journalistic work...!

 

[Lss]

Still I think it's a stretch to call M8 and MFT more reliable than Canons. (I am not saying you said that).

Indeed, I am not saying anything other than that all equipment can fail.

 

[thegman]

I'm not a pro, so feel free to disregard everything I say.

Is there is a camera out there that has not been used at some point for pro work? I think everything from 35mm compacts, Lomo, iPhones, have been used for pro work. Right now, I own 4 cameras, A Rolleiflex GX 2.8, Rollei 35 Classic, Horseman Convertible, and an Olympus OM2n. All the those cameras these days would be considered 'hobbyist' cameras, but I'll bet at one point, every one has been the tool of a professional.

I've used 'hobbyist' computers and 'professional' computers, they all work fine, and they all fail too. Use what you want, but take a backup too. Statistics don't mean much on the day if something breaks. I would not rely on anything to work 100% of the time, and I wouldn't put any more faith in 'pro' gear than 'hobbyist'. It's all the same when it's dropped off a balcony.

 

[Texsport]

My daughter-in-law has used my OM-D images on a resort website which she does marketing for.

Images used were dimly lit interiors and bright architectural shots from a Voigtlander 17.5/0.95 , flowers and foliage thru a Vivitar Series 1 90-180/4.5 Flat Field macro, and wildlife thru an Olympus OM 350/2.8 lens.

The camera works magically with these lenses, but was particularly adept with adjustment capabilities in dim lit interiors pierced by bright exterior light. I was impressed with the camera, as these images were during my first road trip with it last year.

 

[pieter]

I would think it's quite hard to come across as a professional photographer these days. I see people having name cards they give out, wear tshirts with their name on it, acting extra professional with their camera. And Im guessing this is because it's all too easy for people to assume somebody is just an hobbyist or amateur.
It is actually exactly because it's so hard to distinguish between pro and amateur photographers that it becomes extra important that you use all the tricks in the book to make people think you're a pro. Even pro's nowadays get assumed to be amateurs and people expect them to work for free.

The gear is an important aspect of coming across as pro. Most people think they have plenty of friends that could take "good enough" photos, but that these friends just lack the proper gear...
If the guy I pay to shoot my wedding shows up with a omd, I would assume didnt want to invest properly in his gear and that wouldn't motivate me to invest much money in him. Also what I pay the guy for is to carry his gear and not complain that its too heavy...

Of course you could get lucky by finding clients that just want to pay, but I would think most clients and subjects need some convincing bedore they treat you as a pro, and give you a salary that goes with that status.

 

[Stephen G]

Ming Thein, a working pro uses the OM-D extensively.
He is an excellent writer on photography in general, more than just another gearhead reviewer.
He recently wrote on the subject:
http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/08/24/the-demise-of-the-dslr/

 

[willie_901]

Many people enjoy the m4/3 system. I personally do not. But they do have advantages.

Most pros are never without a back up body and lens when they work. One advantage of the OM-D is: it is easy to carry back ups.