I have to toss in a "me too" here - I am starting to sell off my Canon gear, and am actually thinking about a second E-M5 for backup.

I recently shot a paid shoot entirely with just an OM-D and the Panasonic 14-45mm. It wasn't a critical shoot but I like how it performed.

The files, if exposed properly are indistinguishable from big FF cameras.

I, for the longest time, shot film and FF digital- so for me, there is no way to get quite the same look out of my OM-D as I did shooting available light and fast lenses on bigger sensors... but I'm willing to accept that.

The OM-D is such a comfortable camera to carry and use, and produces such great files, I love it.
I'm pondering selling my 12-50 and 14/2.5 to fund a 25/1.4, even if only partially.

I am doing exactly that ... but I am waiting for the next iteration of the camera. There has been some rumor that Olympus is brining out a "high-end" OM-Dx later this year. If it doesn't happen this year I may try to get a used body by December.

CalW wrote:
I have to toss in a "me too" here - I am starting to sell off my Canon gear, and am actually thinking about a second E-M5 for backup.

I am about to put my OMD and GX1 combo to its first real test, a military retirement (unpaid). I figure the 25 and 45 combo will suffice.

I also got in the 600r25 flash last night. Small flash and a good semiserious fit to the OMD, though not perfect.

bobbytan wrote:
I am not familiar with the T2i but I think the OM-D is good enough to replace my 5D II, and I have some serious glass like the 24L II, 85L II and 70-200L II. The 12-50 kit lens will not cut it. If you want really good IQ you need really good glass like the 7-14, 12/2, 25/1.4, 45/2.8 macro, 45/1.8, 75/1.8 ... and maybe the 12-35 and 35-100 when that lens becomes available.

For walkabouts, inclement-weather shooting and other non-serious shoots, the 12-50 will do just fine, but if you want the IQ to match or even be better than your T2i you need to invest in good glass.

"I am not familiar with the T2i but I think the OM-D is good enough to replace my 5D II"

Wow. As a fan of what Oly is doing that's interesting, but I still think that's a bold statement. Care to elaborate?

PS - the OMD or Nex is much higher on my list than anything Canon makes..

Thanks for everybody's input, ordered OMD this morning with 12-50.

sebboh wrote:
because of size or ergonomics?

Well, isn't that the same thing? I've never had any problems with gripping small cameras, and as long as buttons and stuff is in the right place, anything works. But the weight and bulk of the D700 is just not fun. I like to walk with the camera hanging around my neck for hours and hours, just to have it ready when I see something. Weight isn't a problem when it's on my back, but then I don't take any pictures.

I still have the D700 (bought a second one after a year without it) and I plan to keep it along with a Zeiss 35/1.4 and perhaps some other MF primes. But I will definitely use the OM-D much more and only bring the D700 when I feel the urge for some 3D or shallow DOF.

mstout wrote:
Thanks for everybody's input, ordered OMD this morning with 12-50.


Congrats! Get use to it, learn it. Post back what you think.

jamesf99 wrote:
bobbytan wrote:
I am not familiar with the T2i but I think the OM-D is good enough to replace my 5D II, and I have some serious glass like the 24L II, 85L II and 70-200L II. The 12-50 kit lens will not cut it. If you want really good IQ you need really good glass like the 7-14, 12/2, 25/1.4, 45/2.8 macro, 45/1.8, 75/1.8 ... and maybe the 12-35 and 35-100 when that lens becomes available.

For walkabouts, inclement-weather shooting and other non-serious shoots, the 12-50 will do just fine, but if you want the IQ to match or even be better than your T2i you need to invest in good glass.

"I am not familiar with the T2i but I think the OM-D is good enough to replace my 5D II"

Wow. As a fan of what Oly is doing that's interesting, but I still think that's a bold statement. Care to elaborate?

PS - the OMD or Nex is much higher on my list than anything Canon makes..


It's really quite simple. The IQ from the OM-D with a good prime lens or zoom lens like the 7-14 or 12-35 is extremely high ... maybe not as high as FF but it is as good as the Canon 7D ... and that is good enough for me. I need to strike a good balance between IQ and bulk/weight and the OM-D fits the bill perfectly. It is a full systems camera (and what an elegant looking camera too!) with a superb line of lenses that is expanding very rapidly.

The only downside to the OM-D is the poor continuous AF (no good if you shoot fast-action sports and birds-in-flight) and a lack of very good long lenses, but I believe Olympus is working on a fix, and it's just a matter of time before we see some terrific long primes and zooms.

I agree with Bobby. The major limits on the OM-D's capabilities lie in a really marginal AF system and the lack of a decent long lens. In terms of the AF, it is not just the continuous AF that is marginal, it is the size of the focus boxes. If you are used to working with pro cameras this causes a lot of frustration and limits the Oly's ability to function effectively in many arenas where speed and focus accuracy at wide apertures are paramount.

This was particular a problem today when testing a Panny 100-300. I wanted to focus on butterflies and the camera wanted to focus on the flowers behind them because they dominated the chosen focus box on a regular basis. Yes, I could have zoomed in but the butterflies would be long gone by the time I got done futzing about. I doubt that smaller focus points can be a firmware upgrade but boy would it be nice if they could.

On the long lens side, I was very surprised by the Panny 100-300. It is very good at all focal lengths when the subject is within 50 feet. After that it goes downhill quickly and by 200 feet it is just rubbish. 300mm at 200 feet has smeared detail that looks like an impressionist painting. Will test again tomorrow and it may just be this lens but qualitywise, this is P&S territory as far as I am concerned.

The above negativity should not be taken to be as being more than a comparison between the OM-D and a decent DSLR. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

Hrow wrote:

On the long lens side, I was very surprised by the Panny 100-300. It is very good at all focal lengths when the subject is within 50 feet. After that it goes downhill quickly and by 200 feet it is just rubbish. 300mm at 200 feet has smeared detail that looks like an impressionist painting. Will test again tomorrow and it may just be this lens but qualitywise, this is P&S territory as far as I am concerned.

The above negativity should not be taken to be as being more than a comparison between the OM-D and a decent DSLR. Both have advantages and disadvantages.



I concur with Henry on the 100-300 lens. At near distances, the lens is quite extraordinary, as these pictures show - all shots hand-held. I have not shot any distant objects/subjects so I can't really say how good or bad the lens is ... but from recent indoor testing I have found that it's a little soft at the longer end i.e. between 250-300mm.

mstout wrote:
Thanks for everybody's input, ordered OMD this morning with 12-50.

Congrats! I'm sure you will love it!

Here are a few shots from today with the 12-50 on the E-PL1. The lens is not the very sharpest, and lacks in contrast and color, but these latter are relatively easy to adjust in PP.

First is a five-shot pano, PP in PSE10 and LR4.

bobbytan wrote:
It's really quite simple. The IQ from the OM-D with a good prime lens or zoom lens like the 7-14 or 12-35 is extremely high ... maybe not as high as FF but it is as good as the Canon 7D ... and that is good enough for me. I need to strike a good balance between IQ and bulk/weight and the OM-D fits the bill perfectly. It is a full systems camera (and what an elegant looking camera too!) with a superb line of lenses that is expanding very rapidly.

The only downside to the OM-D is the poor continuous AF (no good if you shoot fast-action sports and birds-in-flight) and a lack of very good long lenses, but I believe Olympus is working on a fix, and it's just a matter of time before we see some terrific long primes and zooms.

Agree on all points. Even having only used it for one full day, the photos I got from the OM-D were really good. Like easily able to go up against a full frame DSLR like the 5d2 or 5d3 in terms of technical quality (DR, detail/resolution, etc.)

Personally I don't like the interface, the menus are only 'okay', not exemplary. Oly has a ways to go before they are even with a DSLR like a modern Canon or Nikon. Fortunately I don't need the continuous auto-focus that much.

Access wrote:
bobbytan wrote:
It's really quite simple. The IQ from the OM-D with a good prime lens or zoom lens like the 7-14 or 12-35 is extremely high ... maybe not as high as FF but it is as good as the Canon 7D ... and that is good enough for me. I need to strike a good balance between IQ and bulk/weight and the OM-D fits the bill perfectly. It is a full systems camera (and what an elegant looking camera too!) with a superb line of lenses that is expanding very rapidly.

The only downside to the OM-D is the poor continuous AF (no good if you shoot fast-action sports and birds-in-flight) and a lack of very good long lenses, but I believe Olympus is working on a fix, and it's just a matter of time before we see some terrific long primes and zooms.

Agree on all points. Even having only used it for one full day, the photos I got from the OM-D were really good. Like easily able to go up against a full frame DSLR like the 5d2 or 5d3 in terms of technical quality (DR, detail/resolution, etc.)

Personally I don't like the interface, the menus are only 'okay', not exemplary. Oly has a ways to go before they are even with a DSLR like a modern Canon or Nikon. Fortunately I don't need the continuous auto-focus that much.

Ha Ha Ha ... nobody likes the OM-D interface and ergonomics i.e. poor placement of the super-tiny buttons - and the menu and manual sucks. But for such a small sensor the files are incredibly good. Kudos to both Olympus and Sony for that. Can't wait to see how much better the OM-Dx will be.

I guess I don't understand the complaints about ergonomics. With the flexability to assign so many buttons, my E-M5 is the easiest-to-use of any camera I have owned in the last 25 or so years (some of the ones before that had just a shutter button!) I had the pleasure of two weeks of recovery from eye surgery during which I couldn't do much of anything but hang about the house and rest. As my E-M5 had just arrived, I had lots of time to find available resources on the web, read the manual several times, and experiment with various combinations of button assignments. I have 95% of what I need literally at my fingertips, and am loving it. The only thing I think Olympus could have made more accessible is bracketing, but I seldom use that - and perhaps I just haven't found some shortcut yet that isn't obvious

That's the problem ... it's not very intuitive like, say a Canon DSLR. It's difficult to navigate the menus and customize the buttons and settings on the camera. You have to download the PDF (as the printed manual is next to useless) and even so, you cannot get all the information and instruction that you need from the full manual. You have to do a further search on FM, DPR, etc. to find the answers to a lot of questions that you will have about the operation of the camera. Very time consuming. It's great when you have finally figured it out but it's a steep learning curve.

CalW wrote:

I had lots of time to find available resources on the web, read the manual several times, and experiment with various combinations of button assignments. I have 95% of what I need literally at my fingertips, and am loving it. The only thing I think Olympus could have made more accessible is bracketing, but I seldom use that - and perhaps I just haven't found some shortcut yet that isn't obvious

bobbytan wrote:
That's the problem ... it's not very intuitive like, say a Canon DSLR. It's difficult to navigate the menus and customize the buttons and settings on the camera. You have to download the PDF (as the printed manual is next to useless) and even so, you cannot get all the information and instruction that you need from the full manual. You have to do a further search on FM, DPR, etc. to find the answers to a lot of questions that you will have about the operation of the camera. Very time consuming. It's great when you have finally figured it out but it's a steep learning curve.


i think it's more a matter of what your used to than being intuitive or not. olympus has some stupid menu choices, but i find their cameras much easier to figure out how to use than either canon or nikon dslrs. i'm sure if i'd spent years using canon dslrs i'd feel the opposite though. on the other hand i did use nikon for years and still think olympus is more intuitive so maybe not...

Their menus aren't configurable (ie. Canon's "My Menu" where you can choose about 8 functions you commonly use). Once you do this, you rarely have to navigate the menu system at all.

Also the way of choosing saved custom configs is rather unwieldy. Should be able to set a single button to cycle through all of them or something like that.

Limited use of the touch screen as far as I know. I can use it to set focus point, but can I use it to set picture params and things like that?

Does anyone else think that a "The OM-D E-M5 Configuration Thread" would be a good idea, to share ideas and ways we have set up the camera, tips we have learned etc.? This thread has veared a long way from the OP's intent...