dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
Last night I shot Doug's Fish Fry in Skaneateles with the OM-D and three prime lenses: 14/2.5, 20/1.7 and 45/1.8.
I was a bit worried that I only had one battery and no back up digital, so I brought my M3 along with some 400 speed film. I did shoot the film (2 rolls) but shot about 400 images with the OM-D and the battery never died. I was pleased!
Autofocus worked very well. There were a few shots I missed because it was a bit slower than the action, I noticed this more with the 20 than the other two lenses. Most every camera I have tried in similar situations will also miss a shot, even the D700 which was the best of the bunch AF wise. So the OM-D's AF, in a somewhat dimly-lit restaurant, was very, very good. I never used MF.
The OM-D got out of my way. The only things I changed was the ISO value (assigned to the video button) when I wanted to make sure it stayed low for longer exposures (to blur the action) or when I needed to keep it high for whatever reason, other than that I left it on auto up to 3200 and my sense was that it rarely used 3200. Looking over the images, the WB performance was good. It got fooled in some of the mixed lighting in the prep area, which really any camera would with a mix of incandescent and two different temps of flourescents. Otherwise it did very well. I shot on aperture priority as usual and the front dial worked very well...I don't think I ever touched the rear dial, set to EV comp.
I have only briefly reviewed the images but I am very pleased. You can get bokehlicious photos with the 45, and with the 14 if you really foreground your main subject. I shot Natural JPEG and as I expected from my long experience with Olympus, exposure, WB and color are very good...I won't have a ton of work to do in post.
I am pleased. I'll post a few photos when I figure out how to do that from my ipad.
I was a bit worried that I only had one battery and no back up digital, so I brought my M3 along with some 400 speed film. I did shoot the film (2 rolls) but shot about 400 images with the OM-D and the battery never died. I was pleased!
Autofocus worked very well. There were a few shots I missed because it was a bit slower than the action, I noticed this more with the 20 than the other two lenses. Most every camera I have tried in similar situations will also miss a shot, even the D700 which was the best of the bunch AF wise. So the OM-D's AF, in a somewhat dimly-lit restaurant, was very, very good. I never used MF.
The OM-D got out of my way. The only things I changed was the ISO value (assigned to the video button) when I wanted to make sure it stayed low for longer exposures (to blur the action) or when I needed to keep it high for whatever reason, other than that I left it on auto up to 3200 and my sense was that it rarely used 3200. Looking over the images, the WB performance was good. It got fooled in some of the mixed lighting in the prep area, which really any camera would with a mix of incandescent and two different temps of flourescents. Otherwise it did very well. I shot on aperture priority as usual and the front dial worked very well...I don't think I ever touched the rear dial, set to EV comp.
I have only briefly reviewed the images but I am very pleased. You can get bokehlicious photos with the 45, and with the 14 if you really foreground your main subject. I shot Natural JPEG and as I expected from my long experience with Olympus, exposure, WB and color are very good...I won't have a ton of work to do in post.
I am pleased. I'll post a few photos when I figure out how to do that from my ipad.
PaulW128
Well-known
Hi Dreilly;
I've been reading yours and others' threads regarding the OMD. I finally got to play with one today, my local camera store called to tell me they had one for me to check out. Wow, very impressive, and very small. Had a nice feel in spite of its size, not toy-like at all.
I think my D7000 and four lenses will soon be a thing of the past!!! I've read great things about the 20 1.7 and 45 1.8.....Thanks for posting!!
Best
Paul
I've been reading yours and others' threads regarding the OMD. I finally got to play with one today, my local camera store called to tell me they had one for me to check out. Wow, very impressive, and very small. Had a nice feel in spite of its size, not toy-like at all.
I think my D7000 and four lenses will soon be a thing of the past!!! I've read great things about the 20 1.7 and 45 1.8.....Thanks for posting!!
Best
Paul
rbelyell
Well-known
hi doug
cant wait to see your photos from this shoot! i am still getting used to this camera; very different feel from the ep2. its a much better camera all around, but i do miss the 'feel' of the ep2.
i see youre up skaneateles way--ive been up that way a few times to go to the world famous krebs restaraunt. nice town.
tony
cant wait to see your photos from this shoot! i am still getting used to this camera; very different feel from the ep2. its a much better camera all around, but i do miss the 'feel' of the ep2.
i see youre up skaneateles way--ive been up that way a few times to go to the world famous krebs restaraunt. nice town.
tony
dovi
Well-known
Cool!
Cool!
Hearing nothing but good news about the camera. I am holding out because I have a set of 4/3 lenses and I hear that the focusing with the adapter is slow. I hate to have to buy a new set of lenses and I have enough toys already. I also wonder how easy it its to zone focus. I am curious to see your results.
Cool!
Hearing nothing but good news about the camera. I am holding out because I have a set of 4/3 lenses and I hear that the focusing with the adapter is slow. I hate to have to buy a new set of lenses and I have enough toys already. I also wonder how easy it its to zone focus. I am curious to see your results.
kuzano
Veteran
Thanks for the report on the shoot.
Thanks for the report on the shoot.
I appreciate your comments, as there is an OM-D in my future. Regarding the size, it's somewhat near the top of my list that the OM-D (EM5), with the battery grip, is only slightly smaller than my OM film cameras. (about 1 CM widthwise and comparable height and depth.) So having used OM's for many years, the transition to the EM5 will be welcome to me.
I think it's interesting that there seems to be an evolution in hand size for those who have been shooting FF and top line DSLR's. Big Hands....
Those going to the new Olympus may find it interesting to start shooting a camera the size in vogue in the 70's, 80's and 90's, and certainly about the same size as most Leica's through the years.
So it surprises me when I see comments about how small it is. It's the same size as most 35mm camera's I have been shooting for 30 plus years. In fact, it is this UP size from the other PENs, as one of my preferences. Of course it doesn't hurt that it may also be kicking ass, in many ways, from many of those "big" cameras out there, from "we know who".
Thanks for the report on the shoot.
I appreciate your comments, as there is an OM-D in my future. Regarding the size, it's somewhat near the top of my list that the OM-D (EM5), with the battery grip, is only slightly smaller than my OM film cameras. (about 1 CM widthwise and comparable height and depth.) So having used OM's for many years, the transition to the EM5 will be welcome to me.
I think it's interesting that there seems to be an evolution in hand size for those who have been shooting FF and top line DSLR's. Big Hands....
Those going to the new Olympus may find it interesting to start shooting a camera the size in vogue in the 70's, 80's and 90's, and certainly about the same size as most Leica's through the years.
So it surprises me when I see comments about how small it is. It's the same size as most 35mm camera's I have been shooting for 30 plus years. In fact, it is this UP size from the other PENs, as one of my preferences. Of course it doesn't hurt that it may also be kicking ass, in many ways, from many of those "big" cameras out there, from "we know who".
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Dave,
I'd like to hear your impressions about using the EVF. I had the Fuji X100 for about a year and I always opted for the optical VF.
Cheers,
Jamie
I'd like to hear your impressions about using the EVF. I had the Fuji X100 for about a year and I always opted for the optical VF.
Cheers,
Jamie
jarski
Veteran
thx for sharing the impressions. OM-D is among the few am considering for my next camera for travel.
Range-rover
Veteran
I saw that camera online and it looks like they went back to their OM series
routes which I think is great, they make great lenses so it should be good.
range
routes which I think is great, they make great lenses so it should be good.
range
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
D is for Doug....I added that to my Sig. Who's this Dave guy? 
I can actually compare the OM-D and the X100 as I've shot both for similar assignments. I like the IQ of the X100, though I don't see the OM-D as really much worse. Not a scientific comparison but I don't look at the Oly images and wish I had the X100 in any way. And the Oly JPEG engine is still better than Fuji's--and I'm not locking into RAW shooting and doing more post.
The EVF is really nice. At work I have the Sony A57 and the OM-D's is much nicer. The A57 has a modified EVF from the first series of SLT cameras but with better optics, so it's actually somewhat the same generation. The Sony might have more pixels (I'm not sure) but the OM-D's evf doesn't do the wierd color thing when you move your eye around.
I thought I would miss the OVF of the X100 but honestly...I don't. The EVF is very pleasant to look through and very useful. And I have the M3 when I want the analog direct-view experience. Now that's a rangefinder!
The AF on the OM-D is much, much faster than even the Super X100 (with the latest firmware). There is no comparison. The X100 was frustrating to use in a restaurant situation though there were individual shots that came out very pleasing. The OM-D is just more capable in the areas where it counts...for this kind of work. I don't really miss the X100.
I've shot with OMs and Ms and other "small" cameras and the OM-D does feel a bit smaller in my opinion. It's probably because it's got a lot more controls than any of the small film cameras, the real estate feels a bit more "thickly settled" as the signs say in Massachusetts. So that might increase the perception of smallness. I haven't used the grip and can see how it might make it a bit easier to grip. I didn't end last night's shoot with any wierd hand, forearm or shoulder pains, so the ergonomics seem to work for me. I don't tend to push a lot of buttons when I shoot...I try to keep it as simple as possible. Aperture, ISO, occasionally EV comp, and honestly I change the drive setting more than any of those except aperture. The high speed sequence is great though touchy, when I don't want it I like to put it back on single shot or I'll end up with barely different dupes during selection that makes it take longer.
I can actually compare the OM-D and the X100 as I've shot both for similar assignments. I like the IQ of the X100, though I don't see the OM-D as really much worse. Not a scientific comparison but I don't look at the Oly images and wish I had the X100 in any way. And the Oly JPEG engine is still better than Fuji's--and I'm not locking into RAW shooting and doing more post.
The EVF is really nice. At work I have the Sony A57 and the OM-D's is much nicer. The A57 has a modified EVF from the first series of SLT cameras but with better optics, so it's actually somewhat the same generation. The Sony might have more pixels (I'm not sure) but the OM-D's evf doesn't do the wierd color thing when you move your eye around.
I thought I would miss the OVF of the X100 but honestly...I don't. The EVF is very pleasant to look through and very useful. And I have the M3 when I want the analog direct-view experience. Now that's a rangefinder!
The AF on the OM-D is much, much faster than even the Super X100 (with the latest firmware). There is no comparison. The X100 was frustrating to use in a restaurant situation though there were individual shots that came out very pleasing. The OM-D is just more capable in the areas where it counts...for this kind of work. I don't really miss the X100.
I've shot with OMs and Ms and other "small" cameras and the OM-D does feel a bit smaller in my opinion. It's probably because it's got a lot more controls than any of the small film cameras, the real estate feels a bit more "thickly settled" as the signs say in Massachusetts. So that might increase the perception of smallness. I haven't used the grip and can see how it might make it a bit easier to grip. I didn't end last night's shoot with any wierd hand, forearm or shoulder pains, so the ergonomics seem to work for me. I don't tend to push a lot of buttons when I shoot...I try to keep it as simple as possible. Aperture, ISO, occasionally EV comp, and honestly I change the drive setting more than any of those except aperture. The high speed sequence is great though touchy, when I don't want it I like to put it back on single shot or I'll end up with barely different dupes during selection that makes it take longer.
sdotkling
Sent through the ether
Glad you liked the camera, but I am so disturbed that you shot 472 photos during a single evening. Isn't that the problem with digital in a nutshell? Where is judgement and careful consideration of subject and composition when you can spray the room indiscriminately? It's like fishing with a mile-long trawl as opposed to skillfully wielding a finely balanced fishing rod. Gives me the willies.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
No, it's just a tired film-vs-digital argument. Did you ever ask yourself why pretty much every film camera system included a 250-exposure bulk film back for 30' rolls? The only difference is that now all cameras have one built in.
It seems to me that it's the photographer who decides how he gets the job done. If it helps him to have the option of choosing the five best shots out of 400, then so be it. It's no less skillful for that.
There's also the third option of skillfully wielding a trawl, moreover one that doesn't take fish away from anyone else. If it gives you the willies how other people shoot, I'd say by all means choose a different style for yourself, but it's not the problem of the tool. More limited tools do not translate to more skillful operation just like that.
sdotkling
Sent through the ether
A commercial shoot is one thing, but 472 shots for fun is just sad. Yes, I'll cover the waterfront if the job requires, but that's insurance, not art.
andersju
Well-known
Consider for a moment the possibility that not everyone might share your views on how to take pictures or what art is and that you don't know whether dreilly "sprayed the room indiscriminately" -- which is totally besides the point in this thread anyway. Sounds like you just used the opportunity to post some off-topic remarks.
wallace
Well-known
But it's true.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Except it's not. Here's a guy who went to shoot for fun and post that he likes his new camera, and you guys are telling him how you disapprove of his way of having fun. That's what's sad.
If you belong to the "less pictures equals better pictures" school and want to be zealous about it, http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/ might be a better hangout, with none of this willy-nilly about 36 frames per roll. It also gives extra credibility for those film-vs-digital discussions.
jarski
Veteran
igi
Well-known
Does it have to be art all the time???
Do we have to do things the hard way all the time???
He was in a restaurant for crying out loud! No need to stress yourself there.
gilpen123
Gil
Some guys are just jealous.......
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I don't recall Doug saying he was shooting "for fun"; for all we know this was an assignment.
Judgmental comments really aren't good for one's health.
Judgmental comments really aren't good for one's health.
petronius
Veteran
I don´t understand why shooting dozens of rolls a day by Garry Winogrand is OK and 400+ shots with a digital camera is sad/not art?
dreilly only reported the fun he had using the OM-D, he didn´t even compare it to the M3.
Let´s wait for the photos, ok!
dreilly only reported the fun he had using the OM-D, he didn´t even compare it to the M3.
Let´s wait for the photos, ok!