Bobg657 wrote:
I spent an hour today with the camera and came away very impressed overall. Its extremely quick, focusing with both the 300f4 and 50-200 with EC14 was much quicker and more secure than with my EM1 Mark 1. Bursts with the 50-200 were much faster than with my Mark 1.
I went outside and couldn't find any fast moving subjects, but the limited test I did appeared quite good with CAF, although I didn't try CAF + TR. Per the Oly rep they've fixed the evf burn issue and the lugs coming loose. He confirmed December deliveries as well.
In Swedish so those of you who don't speak it are out of luck but...
in short, one of the biggest camera stores i Sweden did a very quick test.
No samples shown though but he was very impressed by the C-AF. In the end he C-AFD with the 300mm PRO from far to close on a truck coming towards him and says pretty much that it's damn good, the camera actually tracks and keeps up, still to be seen of course but sounds some what promising.
I was one of those hoping the EMII could replace my Canon setup for BIF. I'm currently at the dam shooting eagles and use my EMI and the 300mm for static stuff to compare purely output and my main worry is that even if the II will be much better at tracking, it still won't produce great results if the light gets a bit iffy because of the lacking high ISO quality.
That said, being able to carry a top-notch 600mm equivalent lens anywhere was amazing this summer in Europe. Can't do that with my Canon gear. So, I'll be keeping my 300/4 even if the camera's CAF isn't there yet.
And the Fuji X-T2 at $1600 is not that much cheaper, considering it has nowhere near the features of the Oly.
And then there are always those that are already happy with the IQ from existing Oly bodies and could not care less if the IQ does not blow away APC sized sensors.
The best camera for an individual is not always the one with the best sensor.
Wilbus wrote:
Don't think it has been posted Imagemaster but I watched it a while back actually, feels very much like marketing hype sad to say
On the other hand, he could be stating the truth. One way or the other, we can only make assumptions until we see comments from actual owners doing their own extensive testing.
Imagemaster wrote:
And the Fuji X-T2 at $1600 is not that much cheaper, considering it has nowhere near the features of the Oly.
And then there are always those that are already happy with the IQ from existing Oly bodies and could not care less if the IQ does not blow away APC sized sensors.
The best camera for an individual is not always the one with the best sensor.
I'm pretty happy with the IQ of the m1, so any improvement is just icing on the cake. Improved AF over the M1, even if it is "only" at the level of an 80D level camera is still good news to me.
Iwas joeking wrote:
I'm pretty happy with the IQ of the m1, so any improvement is just icing on the cake. Improved AF over the M1, even if it is "only" at the level of an 80D level camera is still good news to me.
Exactly. Feature for feature, the E-M1 Mark II is pretty packed. I didn't utilize their Live Composite much when I had the E-M1 but look forward to using it now.
I was ok with IQ up until ISO4000 or so, if I can get up to 6400 then I'll be happy. I rarely shoot above that.
The difference in IQ between the Fuji X-T2 and E-M1 II is not that great but compared to the 42MP FF Sony A7R2 the difference is quite significant. Then again, I think the E-M1 II trumps the A7R2 for bird and wildlife photography. So ideally I would want the A7R2 for landscape work and the E-M1 II for wildlife ... but I don't know if I can really afford to keep 2 different systems ... and besides it's a real PITA to travel with 2 different systems.
Imagemaster wrote:
And the Fuji X-T2 at $1600 is not that much cheaper, considering it has nowhere near the features of the Oly.
And then there are always those that are already happy with the IQ from existing Oly bodies and could not care less if the IQ does not blow away APC sized sensors.
The best camera for an individual is not always the one with the best sensor.
I could give a squat what the IQ of the A7R2 is. The whole point of the 4/3 system is portability, and if it has decent IQ, that is good enough for most. If the best IQ was my only concern, I would go MF that would give me better IQ than the A7R2.
bobbytan wrote:
The difference in IQ between the Fuji X-T2 and E-M1 II is not that great but compared to the 42MP FF Sony A7R2 the difference is quite significant. Then again, I think the E-M1 II trumps the A7R2 for bird and wildlife photography. So ideally I would want the A7R2 for landscape work and the E-M1 II for wildlife ... but I don't know if I can really afford to keep 2 different systems ... and besides it's a real PITA to travel with 2 different systems.
I had an a7r2 and a few lenses until recently. People seem to forget that the lenses are the same size as any other FF equivalent. Add on to that the extra cost of getting a lens that can do that sensor justice, and it doesn't look so great pretty quickly. With the exception of their new premium lens line up, most of their lenses, at least in the ranges I wanted, leave a lot to be desired. For a lot less money and size you can get a great Olympus system with stellar lenses. Toss in sensor shift and Olympus looks pretty good.
Now sonys new A99II might turn out to be the best thing out there, with speed and resolution, who knows?
Iwas joeking wrote:
I had an a7r2 and a few lenses until recently. People seem to forget that the lenses are the same size as any other FF equivalent. Add on to that the extra cost of getting a lens that can do that sensor justice, and it doesn't look so great pretty quickly. With the exception of their new premium lens line up, most of their lenses, at least in the ranges I wanted, leave a lot to be desired. For a lot less money and size you can get a great Olympus system with stellar lenses. Toss in sensor shift and Olympus looks pretty good.
Now sonys new A99II might turn out to be the best thing out there, with speed and resolution, who knows? ...Show more →
That sums up the situation rather accurately. MFT offers the best IQ-per-weight ratio when both the body and lens are included in the calculation. It's the sweet spot of sensor size and lens size.
