EM5-OMD for professional work

[twopointeight]

I'm starting to use this camera for professional work, mostly editorial and non-profit organizations who use the work online. Contemplating a M4/3 system for editorial travel assignments in the fall (in-flight magazine). So far I've had no disappointments from art directors or designers. Have you? What are the limitations of this system for pro work in your experience? Can it go all the way to architecture, large groups, weddings, anything else that may be double pages or large prints?

 

[David_Manning]

If there are enough pixels, and the light is good enough to prevent unwanted noise, I'd say the only limitation (technically) is the larger depth of field overall for people pictures. I'm not in the m43 game, but I think there's a pricey fast portrait lens for that. As far as architecture, I'd think an adapter for T/S lenses would fit the bill.

A few reasons working pros reach for well-known pro bodies:

--Solid, knock-resistant (travel)
--ability to be operated in high or low temperatures and humidity levels
--ability to be operated while wearing gloves
--ability to see the VF while wearing glasses, goggles, etc. in full sun and/or while in the snow
--huge variety of lenses for most applications
--ability to use and command multiple strobes/speedlights
--availability of specialty equipment (underwater housings, etc)

As far as IQ, I am sure the m4/3 systems are fine. But these things above keep me from using any of the fancy "consumer electronics"-type systems in the field on an assignment. Here in Texas today, it's intermittently rainy, windy, moist, splashy. While I'd be willing to try my X-Pro 1 outside (not in the driving rain, of course), if someone was counting on me to bring back the goods, I'd reach for the FF Canon.

I'm glad to hear that ADs are coming around to these new systems. In the past, there was bias towards shooters who use large, complicated, expensive gear. I think it used to probably impress clients and also allay the fears of these editors who equated large, expensive, complicated with the good quality the was going to come back from the field/studio.

Keep us updated on your experiences!

 

[ktran]

The OMD is leaps and bounds ahead of the stuff used for two-page spreads and etc. from just a few years ago, and it's the most weather-sealed and rugged body of theirs this side of the E-5.

The only real limitation I see is continuous tracking AF, which, for your purposes is moot.

Happy shooting!

 

[David_Manning]

I don't own an OMD, so I don't doubt that at all...looks like a great camera. I was under the impression that only the kit zoom makes it weathersealed. Using lens adapters/3rd party lenses might make a difference.

However, the OP did say travel editorial, not PJ. I'm sure it'll be a great system.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

It may help if I pass on the definition of a "professional" camera that was given to me by my boss, when I was an assistant in a London studio, during the 'sixties.

"This," he told me, holding up a Zeiss Nettar, which was old even then, "Is a professional camera". I must have looked somewhat disbelieving because he barked at me, "What do I pay you a week?"

I told him, though he knew that I knew that he knew down to the last farthing.

"Well, this camera earned your year's wages with ten rolls of film. Got it now?"

I got it and I've never forgotten.

 

[goamules]

Why not try the OM-D? It's not like they are trouble prone, and you're not going to be scuba diving or hiking through jungles with it. If you need "camera bling" when you meet the clients, just tell them you shoot a variety of cameras. They shouldn't care what tool you use.

 

[David_Manning]

^^^^^
So true to both the previous responses.

I guess I'm thinking of a professional camera in a manner of "jack-of-all-trades"...shoot a portrait today, a wedding tomorrow, Antarctica Thursday, combat zone next Saturday. This is obviously NOT accurate.

I'm not arguing definitions...actually, I don't mean to argue at all. Just pointing out some of the reasons WHY people use the Canikons.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

I don't own the system but I come from the 4/3 plain and simple and even tough I no longer use it other than for my own fun I know a couple of people who still use it professionally. Yep, I don't see why not, if there is some limitation you will find out but as long as you can produce the images you planned I don't see any reason to change.

As for the superfast lenses other mention I think they were thinking to the Voigtlander f0.95, not worth the money in my opinion but apparently very good. It is worth remembering that dof is also a function of distance, if you manage to put yourself closer to the subject assuming you can control the increased distortion you should still obtain a nice bokeh and separation between the subject and the background, I have seen many nice portraits taken with the 50mm f2:0 lens this way.

In my own experience the only real limitation are...clients who might take you less seriously than if you get there with a D4 and a bunch of monoblock but this happens even if you just drop the monoblocks for small units and bring a D4, if you don't believe me read the article about David Tejada in The Strobist.

GLF

 

[twopointeight]

I'm not giving up my Canon system quite yet, but paring it down. I'll still shoot architecture, (group portraits destined for large prints), and some product work, because I already own the Canon 100mm IS macro lens. If I can throw it in my car I'll take the Canon. If I'm flying somewhere and will be marching around some foreign city with gear, it'll be M4/3.

 

[Keith]

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.

 

[ktran]

I don't own an OMD, so I don't doubt that at all...looks like a great camera. I was under the impression that only the kit zoom makes it weathersealed. Using lens adapters/3rd party lenses might make a difference.

However, the OP did say travel editorial, not PJ. I'm sure it'll be a great system.

The two Panasonic constant f/2.8 zooms are also weather-sealed.

 

[twopointeight]

Petty robust , I think? Three years ago I took a GF1 to Vietnam and shot a lot of personal work with it. A few downpours and lots of humidity, no problems. I think the EM5-OMD is much better than that and ready for prime time? I just wish Panny or Oly would make some weather sealed primes.

 

[biomed]

Both the DMC-GH3 and EM-5 bodies are sealed. Panasonic makes two sealed lenses and Olympus one. The FF DSLR camera is better IQ wise, but there is a compromise in greater weight and bulk. The EM-5 offers reasonable IQ and much less weight and bulk. This is what attracted me to the M43 system.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I'll be honest — if I knew a photographer were going to shoot my project on an m4/3 camera, I wouldn't hire him. If i found out afterward, I wouldn't re-hire him.

Obviously, matters are different for the 'journalism' field, if you're shooting for web, or still shooting for newsprint. But, as an AD, i'd really look elsewhere, toward a photographer who seemed to demonstrate more commitment to the craft. 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.

Don't forget that a lot of ADs and editors are also photographers. Your gear ought to be better than his. Or, different for a demonstrable reason. ADs and Editors also consume visuals. They are connected to a good number of photographers. They have other options.

Yes, I'm an old (fuddy-duddy)school dude of 45 years of age.

Besides that, using the small sensor cameras too often results in pictures that look like they came out of camera phones. All DOF. Not an aesthetic i'm particularly fond of, but more than that, there's the suggestion that i'm not going to get any variety in that respect. And, ADs/Editors tend to like choice.

Personally, i think you can 'get away with it' if you're not working alongside an editor/AD, and you really blow him away with the images. But, if you're not a spectacular photographer, you're giving away the sense of professionalism and potential. As has so often been said in advertising, you don't sell the steak, you sell the sizzle. And, an OMD has ZERO sizzle. I'm not sure why photographers don't have the sense that they are always marketing themselves.

It's rare that a guy like Terry Richardson comes along — someone who does professional, high-end, high-budget shoots with a $300 point and shoot film camera. That was akin to gimmickry. A magic trick or a hoax, depending on your perspective. But, Terry Richardson was already a 'name,' and his gear contributed to an aesthetic. That's not common. Lightning in a bottle. If you're trying to shoot editorial travel, you're going up against Canon 5DMkII and IIIs and Mamiya 7s.

 

[David_Manning]

It's true...one could bring "commitment to the craft" into the argument.

Before a lot of these lightweight smaller-sensor cameras, I traveled, personally and professionally, with a D2X and two zooms (12-24 and 80-200) plus an SB800 speed light. It all fit into a shoulder bag or a backpack. Really, it was the price you paid for publishable-quality "stock" travel photography. I shot an entire travel-themed cookbook with that, and a few primes. I don't think I'd have been taken as seriously with anything less...either by the writer, client, or publisher.

It's one thing to walk around, shooting pictures all day. I guess it's another to go with the targeted purpose of returning with publishable images of a certain professional "look" (however subjective it would be defined).

10fps, 16MP, and good zooms are great on paper...but I haven't seen a NatGeo video yet where someone went on assignment with a NEX-whatever or m4/3 rig as their sole gear. When David Alan Harvey was in Rio shooting for his self-assigned "book," he could have used any camera...it was his own assignment...but he shot both Leica M9 AND Nikon dSLR, plus lots of lenses, strobes, and a big day-wear backpack. I guess he wanted to be prepared for anything. It's a good attitude to have as a professional.

So yes...an OM-D would spec out perfectly fine, and images would be large enough...but there is a reason the pros are still reaching for the moneymakers (Canon, Nikon, FF). Sounds like the OP still has some Canon gear to use, too.

 

[David_Manning]

I don't mean to sound preachy. I'm purely speaking from a practical standpoint. I love exploring places with an X-Pro 1 and some glass...but if I knew I HAD to get the images...once again, the EOS rears it's ugly head...

 

[twopointeight]

What if the choice to go small was with Nex7 and the best lenses available for that? Quality should be significantly better all around. Is there just the perception problem then with clients? My clients are rarely with me when shooting, so not an issue for me personally. Again, not selling off the Canon gear, just need a small travel system. And, to be honest, as much as I like the OMD, there is a lack of punch in the file quality, but still very usable IF the content is all there.

 

[gavinlg]

I'll be honest — if I knew a photographer were going to shoot my project on an m4/3 camera, I wouldn't hire him. If i found out afterward, I wouldn't re-hire him. .

Yeah. If I were an editor, or if i were hiring a photographer to shoot my wedding, I wouldn't hire someone that used m4/3. And I used m4/3 and even 4/3 pro cameras for a decent while. The smaller sensor doesn't have the same presence as larger sensor/format cameras.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

'Commitment,' or the perception thereof, really is important.

I just finished designing a housewares catalog for the second time for one particular client. For the last issue, the photographer shot with a Nikon D700. Perfectly fine for the purpose - product photos on white seamless, with the background masked and blown out. On the more recent issue, though, i immediately noticed she had shot with a Phase back.

She didn't have to do that. The client is clueless in this respect, and the previous results were more than adequate. There couldn't have been any negative feedback from the previous images. But, this photographer stepped up. Noticed, appreciated, and respected.

It was only a few years ago that photographers schlepped Mamiya RZs and Pentax 67s all over the world to shoot magazine pages. Now, everyone seems to think they're entitled to do the same work with a system that fits in a lunch sack. While there's no shortage of bloggers who may be 'professional photographers' on some level, better photographers aren't taking these shortcuts. Not just yet.

Someone above asked if a NEX system would be any better-received. I don't think so. Impressions are still important to people who are writing the checks. Both gear, and manner of working are important. If you trust bloggers, the Sony RX1 delivers better results than a Leica M240 or whatever they're now called. But, in any 'important' market, with any important AD/editor, showing up with an RX1 for a job is not going to win respect.

I remember reading about photographers who added those accordion-style light shades (like the ones you expect to see on motion picture cameras) to their lenses, just to give the impression of 'seriousness.' Even though they had no actual benefit. 'Pro' cameras were black, not chrome.... Pros shot Nikons and Canons, not Pentax or Olympus.... Hasselblad, Mamiya, Pentax 67, not Bronica.... On and on. None of these things were matters of quality in the print. They were matters of Confidence. As a professional, you have to give the Money as many reasons as possible to believe in you and your work.

 

[biomed]

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.