The olympus manual isn't that bad. I didn't like being locked to a computer screen to use the PDF version, so I paid ten bucks to purchase a hard copy on the Olympus support site. Well worth it, for me.

Re: "Intuitive:" If anyone thinks that using the Canon 1D systems controls is "intuitive" then their brain works much differently than mine

CalW wrote:
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...

Yes! I am really struggling to get the camera set up ... I continue to go through these threads to look for hints or help

Hey Marsha ... it's been a long time! You are not alone in your struggle ... and I rest my case!

poodlelvr wrote:
CalW wrote:
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...

Yes! I am really struggling to get the camera set up ... I continue to go through these threads to look for hints or help

CalW wrote:
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...
Yes, OP got what he needed so...

Cal, I think it is a great idea.

I'm interested as well, I have the sharp and dependable 17-55 f/2.8, 30 f/1.4, and 8mm f/3.5. The switch to OMD is very tempting but I can maybe sell all my equipment for $1900, the OMD is going for $899 cheapest body only in Canada. I guess the only choice is a 12-35 2.8 to obtain a similar kind of IQ? but with that and a 45/75 1.8 it's over budget already, not counting the Oly grip ...

I would get a set of 3 primes and then maybe later a zoom. Or vice versa, you don't have to buy it all at once.

I'm in a similar boat, owning a 40D, 17-55 and 70-200. I've been using a Nikon J1 on the side and have been sold on mirrorless. I now considering moving to MFT as my main setup, since the size reduction appeals a lot to me, and I'm attracted to the idea of using a bunch of fast primes. The 14, 25 and 45 are an attractive trio to get.

Why not the XE-1 and the new Fujinon 18-55 f/2.8-4 OIS? The X trans sensor is just plain sweet, my NEX 5N's IQ looks like joke afterwards

Not a perfect camera but still very much enjoyable. I do like what Fuji is doing, and hope that they'll release the perfect mirrorless in a year or two..

Hrow wrote:
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.




I could have written the above myself almost word for word. For context I also have a D700 and a fair set of lenses to compare the OMD with. I was out today doing a bit of casual birdwatching on a hike carrying the OMD with the Panny 100-300 on board (nb; the Capture Clip is the best hiking accessory I have ever encountered). Most bird shots are, of necessity, at maximum fl and usually quite distant. I have seldom had great results under these conditions and used to put it down to a combination of factors including the IBIS not really being up to the job at an equivalent 600mm. However shots at closer range are vastly better.

The af box is indeed horribly oversized and a software blunder means that when you switch from the ridiculous default box to the smallest size the histogram vanishes. I've got used to setting the exposure and then stabbing a Fn button to get the reduced size focus box, but ideal it ain't. The af is pretty patchy too, even in good light. You quite often have to resort to focusing off-target first, sometimes even when there seems to be an adequately contrasty target in the foreground. This is definitely worse with Panasonic lenses as far as I've experienced.

The matrix metering on my OMD is odd too, almost always requiring substantial +ve compensation, frequently >1 stop, but somewhat unpredictably. I'm so used to this that it scarcely bothers me. And you can happily pull the RAW files an astonishing amount.

My D700 doesn't get as much use these days. Whenever I pick it up I can't believe that I've carried it as far as I often have.

Roy

Jman13 wrote:

Jman13 wrote:


The full shot (this is the 1DsII/17-40 version, which is the better shot due to the time of year and amount of water flow):

frezeiss wrote:NEX 5N's IQ looks like joke afterwards
You are comparing your nex with the very best OOC JPG engine. The camera itself is a cheat though: actual ISO is about 2 times lower than nominal, lower resolution at base ISO than 5N:

These are D800E downsampled to 16Mp, Sony NEX-5n, Pentax K-01, Fuji XPro-1. First three are taken via RAW files, the fuji's one is OOC JPEG (best what we can get). As you can see, fuji is the worst. This behaviour is expected, because the resolution is function of all three channels, but we have worse red and blue channels (because we have less samplings of these colors with X-Trans) with about the same precision of green channel (due to inneficient green filters placement of XTrans).
The rumors about "excellent" fuji XTrans colors are urban legends: the colors basically depends on color profiles, not sensor in modern cameras.
So, you have to add: if you want to shoot exclusively in jpeg, it's good to consider fuji xe-1…
Unless you will have better results with e.g. 5N and DXO filmpack (VSCO film, etc) somewhere in post processing queue at least at base ISO of 5N.

pointbob wrote:
but why is the canon shot with the water so much blue-y and pleasing compared to m43?

Time of year and water flow. The flow when I did the m4/3 shot was very, very minimal, and as such, the water barely made any change whatsoever to the underlying rock color. On the other shot, the water was flowing rapidly, and the reflections from the bluer sky that morning were reflected in the water. Like I said, the colors (in reality) were much better on the day I took the 1Ds II shot.

You think the 1st image from the 1Ds II is more pleasing? I think it's very flat and too blue. I personally prefer the OM-D image, as the color rendering looks right and it has more depth.

pointbob wrote:

but why is the canon shot with the water so much blue-y and pleasing compared to m43?