The Olympus OM-D EM-5 seems to be a hit similar to it's legendary OM series long ago.
Since I have such a vast collection of good OM lenses, I am eager to know how well these lenses
work on the OM-D. What adapters are best to use ?
As the OM/m43 adapters are very thick, they are quite easy to manufacture and almost any no-name adapter on ebay is good enough. Adapter issues really become a problem with ultra thin adapters like Contax/EOS or Rollei/EOS adapters for example and thats where you want to spend the big money for high quality adapters like cameraquest/Kindai, etc.
OM lenses are fun to use and I've used a slew of them on my m43 camera before eventually moving to AF Panasonic & Olympus lenses, although I still use the OM 100mm f2.8 MC.
Brilliantly informative thread. Thanks to all contributors.
I've been vacillating over what to buy as an alternative to humping a D700 kit when hiking and for general "always with me" use. Ie; Nikon V1, Fuji X-Pro 1, Nex 7, Olympus OM-D - with the same considerations as most people. Right now the outlay is painful...
I have a lot of Nikon lenses of all vintages - AI onward. It would be good to use one or two of them as part of a travel kit, along with the inevitable slow kit-zoom (12-50?) I'm wondering what the practicalities of using them on this camera amount to. Anyone care to comment?
Roy
Ok, I finally got a chance to test the E-M5 against my GH2 in dynamic range. I chose a high DR area, and then decided to see how they did when overexposed 3 stops and pulled back, and underexposed 3 stops and pushed back.
I metered until the clouds just barely started to clip in JPEG preview (the shots were all RAW). The clouds were slightly different between the two cameras which led to the same shutter speeds working despite the 1/3 stop difference in ISO, but final images were right on in exposure (identical mid tone values for the 0EV EC shot). I then increased exposure 3 stops and then decreased exposure three stops. Did the same for each camera. In Lightroom 4.1 RC2, I then pulled back the highlights until no more detail could be recovered, and with Shadows, I increased black point until it didn't clip and used +100 on the shadows slider for each file.
And here's what the E-M5 could recover in the highlights. The clouds are still too far gone to recover, but they were well over 2.5 stops blown, so it's not surprising...but the E-M5 kept all the detail in the buildings as well as the water, while the GH2 lost all of that. http://www.jordansteele.com/2012/em5_pulled.jpg
Looking at 100% crops of the building area, you can see that not only did the GH2 ultimately lose the detail, but that it also lost all color data for some of the detail it could recover. The E-M5, on the otherhand, perfectly recovered everything but the clouds.
Next, I took a look at the shadows. There wasn't a lot of extreme shadowing in the frame, but the bridge above, of course was the place to look. This much shadow recovery is equivalent to a 3 stop push. There is a lot of noise for both cameras in the pushed shadows, that's for sure, but the E-M5 again retains more detail, has better noise control, and retains the rust color of the bridge steel. The GH2 loses the color information and a lot of the darkest detail.
So, this definitely confirms what I've been seeing while I shoot regularly...the E-M5 has significantly better dynamic range than the GH2 (or any other m4/3 cam I've ever used) in both the shadows and the highlights (though the difference in everyday use is bigger in the highlights). In my experience with the E-M5 so far, it's been very difficult to clip highlights at all...you really have to almost try to do it.
Jordan, first, thanks for all that effort and sharing the details here. Have you had any experience with the G3 to be able to compare the DR between it and the OM-D? I have a G3, and what you've been discovering and reporting has me thinking...
I have a GX1, which has the same sensor as the G3. I've found the GX1 to be slightly better than the GH2 at high ISO (but not as good as the E-M5), but the dynamic range is functionally the same as the GH2. DxO says it's actually a little worse than the GH2, but I haven't seen much of a difference. The difference in real world shots on the E-M5, though is immediately obvious.
Ernie, my G3 is much, much better than my GF-1, and I HAD been thinking it was pretty darn good, BUT... What Jordon is showing us is clearly another step up. In fact I would hazard to say that the EM-5 appears to be a landmark camera that will cause many heads to turn and many engineers to work overtime. And not just in the m43 or mirrorless formats. I'm not jumping on it yet, though - the G3 meets my current needs and has to pay for itself...
Great work Jordan. Thanks for sharing. I've had this as a "to do" test but as I am presently on the other side of the planet from my cameras I haven't been able to do so. Your results look really promising and are matching some coarse measurements that I did with early RAW files on the web a few months ago. It looked like from those early samples that the E-M5 might have one stop more DR at base ISO than the GH2 but I had trouble believing that. Your test seems to show my early estimates weren't too crazy!
I enjoyed shooting the E-PL1 so much I decided to get an OM-D. Amazing little camera! Got the last one my local dealer had in stock.
Was walking through the park when I captured this little one with the Canon FD 135mm 2.8 and the OM-D. Such a compact little lens. It's a perfect hiking in nature companion.
Got my E-M5 a couple weeks ago and have been having a blast with it. I think this is the most "fun" I've had with a camera since my D700. Last year I was looking for more compact systems to take on family outings and vacations, etc. without having to lug my big DSLR gear around. I initially invested in the E-P3 and tested some others but stuck with the E-P3 because I really liked the lens lineup available for m43. When the E-M5 was rumored I was curious, when it was first announced with official specs I put my order in right away, now that I've been shooting with it for a couple weeks I have to admit that it is truly a remarkable camera.
If I ever have time I'd like to write a more thorough review of the system, but for now let me tell you that the IQ from that 16MP sensor is truly remarkable from 4/3 even at higher ISO. This was not so with my E-P3. That coupled with the 5-axis IBIS which has equally impressed me, I think we have a true winner, and those of us who've been holding off on anything smaller have a viable option in the E-M5 and the fantastic lens lineup.
Here are a few quick pics just to show you all some of the capabilities (keep in mind I had my jpeg settings accidentally set to medium so these were not full resolution images)
Here is a somewhat macro shot taken with the Olympus 12-50mm kit lens, even though this is a "slow" lens and I've love to see a 12-60mm f/2.8 - 3.5 in the m43 mount this is quite impressive for $300 http://www.williamjmeyer.com/images/public/P4301872.jpg
These two are interesting, I was testing the 5-axis IBIS vs. Panasonic's Mego OIS on the 100-300 and to my surprise the 5-axis system actually did better, this is fantastic news for owners of lenses without built in IS! The top image is with 5-axis turned on and Mega OIS turned off, the second image is with 5-axis turned off and Mega OIS turned on. Both were shot at 1/320 - http://www.williamjmeyer.com/images/public/P4301875.jpg http://www.williamjmeyer.com/images/public/P4301876.jpg
wjmeyer wrote:
(...)(keep in mind I had my RAW settings accidentally set to medium so these were not full resolution images)
I seldom like dog and cat images but your one is to my taste. A happy puppy?
Then I have this question... not about food now... how can raw be set to medium?
