After going through the review of EM1MKII on dpreview, I feel the camera has infrastructure (hardware part) ready for the possibility of AF-C tracking on par with DSLRs like D500. Olympus has to seriously work on software part and develop algorithms to improve the performance with future firmwares, which is quite possible.
skamaraju wrote:
After going through the review of EM1MKII on dpreview, I feel the camera has infrastructure (hardware part) ready for the possibility of AF-C tracking on par with DSLRs like D500. Olympus has to seriously work on software part and develop algorithms to improve the performance with future firmwares, which is quite possible.
I still have this slight feeling that with a few more months of testing/improvements it could be ready to challenge. I'd be worried about getting a beta product but Olympus and Fuji have both shown that as release their products might have some rough edges but through firmware updates they polish it up. Other camera companies would simply release a new product in order for you to get a more complete product.
The E-M1 II at release will certainly not be the same as one in a year, maybe not even 6 'months.
I agree, look at the difference in the EM-1 at launch and now since the release of firmware v4.1
However, I was one of the first to get the EM-1 in my area and despite all the "problems" I have had more enjoyment using the camera throughout that period than I have with any of my previous cameras (Canon + Nikon + Panasonic)
I anticipate more of the same with the mk2 (I shall be keeping the EM-1)
bobbytan wrote:
Firstly, this is an awesome shot! And you made a 13" feet wide print from your 20mp m43 sensor? That is freaking amazing. How did you do that? Did you uprez the file through a proprietary software? How big is your final file size?
Thx - this is a composite stitch from 9 vertical shots. The file is pretty big.
Imagemaster wrote:
No. If you don't like the reviews of new gear, don't read them. If most photographers thought IQ was the most important thing, they would all be shooting with MF & LF. Why do you think many photographers prefer croppers to FF?
Why do you think the micro 4/3 system was developed in the first place and many still embrace the concept? Not because of IQ.
Like I said - just feeling grumpy about the never ending, over-hyped, positive "reviews" (not just m43 gear). You're totally correct, of course - I should just not read them. Why didn't I think of that earlier?!
I am actually a huge m43 fan and have been for many years now. I've owned m43 gear more than any other format and still see its obvious benefits over other formats. The thing is, there's also obvious faults compared to other formats and two of the largest are high ISO and AF. That's been true since the inception of the format and I don't think it's going to change any time soon.
I don't need AF for my type of photography, but high ISO is handy once in a while. I struggle with balancing the incredible advantages of the m43 format (size, weight, low ISO IQ) with the disadvantages.
skamaraju wrote:
After going through the review of EM1MKII on dpreview, I feel the camera has infrastructure (hardware part) ready for the possibility of AF-C tracking on par with DSLRs like D500. Olympus has to seriously work on software part and develop algorithms to improve the performance with future firmwares, which is quite possible.
On par with the D500? That's a tall tall order. I don't have hopes that high with the M1ii. Mine is destined to replace my Lumix GX8 as daily carry. I've BIF'd with it and I know the M1 fist gen bested it so the mk II will be fine.
I understand what you're saying about the hardware being there but Mat at MirrorLessons.com has already shown the M1ii very capable-he says it will become even more so as he gets more time in the saddle.
Bottom line for me is no worries about the new Oly flagship.
Brian Wadie wrote:
if you look at the DPR comparison chart for the EM-1 mk2, then add the canon 1DX mk2, have a look at the performance comparison -you may be surprised
Are you talking about the studio test scene comparisons?
no the summary bar charts at the end of the review where you can compare the EM-1 mk2 against a range of other cameras (its set for the Fuji, Nikon comparisons but you can add more to the list)
its right a the end of the review, just above the Pros & Cons table
(looking again, build quality, features, metering & focus accuracy are also somewhat surprising)
I also checked it against the 7Dmk2 (which was my second system) and it confirmed how little difference there was between the image quality ratings, which confirmed my observations
Brian Wadie wrote:
no the summary bar charts at the end of the review where you can compare the EM-1 mk2 against a range of other cameras (its set for the Fuji, Nikon comparisons but you can add more to the list)
its right a the end of the review, just above the Pros & Cons table
(looking again, build quality, features, metering & focus accuracy are also somewhat surprising)
I also checked it against the 7Dmk2 (which was my second system) and it confirmed how little difference there was between the image quality ratings, which confirmed my observations
Anyway to post a direct link to the chart? No not lazy but on the road as a passenger on a very long drive.
I have 1DXii and am curious since you compared them. Me, I'd never compare FF anything to an MFT....not slamming MFT in anyway or I wouldn't have pre-ordered the M1ii plus I carry a GX8 daily.
Now for feature set few cameras can compare to the M1ii, that I agree with strongly.
can't copy the chart over or link to anything other than the full article (incompetence on my part no doubt ) but here are the close matches in rating:
- build quality
- features
- metering and focus accuracy
- performance (that really surprised me)
the biggest gaps, not surprisingly were in IQ and low light / high ISO noise
Considering the price difference in systems I was surprised how close the ratings were
Thank you for the summation...I can read that while the Mrs. drives. Well no doubt this new Olympic is top notch but one thing I don't agree in the comparison right off the bat is IQ. I believe if you can get close enough to wildlife and negate the need for cropping (a challenge for sure) in good light mFT can equal the FF competitors. And we as MFT owners know the deal with higher ISOs. Wasn't that long ago that even 1600 stressed FF cameras ....but I remember pushing TriX to 1600 and thinking that wonderful--all relative eh! Now its looking like 1600 or 3200 for the M1ii=understood and accepted
I suspect that the IQ thing has a heavy bias to noise as I agree with you.
Certainly with images printed 20"x16" or digitally projected to 6ft wide I would challenge most people to see the difference (based on my sales and competition experiences )
I'm very happy with what we already have coming and look forward to the firmware improvements
Vern Dewit wrote:
Just to prove that I do print m43 - the following shot was printed 13 feet wide and was taken with the Pen-F. (But I can't help but wonder how the ff equivalent would have printed.)
I'm going to help you spend more of your hard earned money with one minor change to your statement
(But I can't help but wonder how the medium format equivalent would have printed.)
I believe you will see a difference in any largish print from a 16mp m43 sensor vs a 36-50mp FF sensor, and the difference is mostly in the details.
Brian Wadie wrote:
I suspect that the IQ thing has a heavy bias to noise as I agree with you.
Certainly with images printed 20"x16" or digitally projected to 6ft wide I would challenge most people to see the difference (based on my sales and competition experiences )
I'm very happy with what we already have coming and look forward to the firmware improvements
I'm sure that if I went over the images and closely inspected them from around 6" this would probably be so
On the other hand, if I were to compare a 50mpix image from the EM-5 mk2 / EM-1 mk2 with said 36-50mpix FF the challenge would be a lot harder
Its always a compromise, what satisfies the need of the photographer, client and judges vs what is the highest potential output at a price the photographer and client are willing to pay
Brian Wadie wrote:
Its always a compromise, what satisfies the need of the photographer, client and judges vs what is the highest potential output at a price the photographer and client are willing to pay
More important is the compromise Olympus has made in its R&D, and its failure to challenge Sony in any meaningful way. Rather than adding new/interesting features to their cameras, they have to devote a team of engineers to simulate the high resolution chips of FF, just so they can appear they are in the game. A multishot mess no landscape aficionado would touch.
Such engineering efforts are so blatantly useless, it boggles the mind.
taran wrote:
More important is the compromise Olympus has made in its R&D, and its failure to challenge Sony in any meaningful way. Rather than adding new/interesting features to their cameras, they have to devote a team of engineers to simulate the high resolution chips of FF, just so they can appear they are in the game. A multishot mess no landscape aficionado would touch.
Such engineering efforts are so blatantly useless, it boggles the mind.
Which must be why hasselblad implemented a similar useless feature...
"More important is the compromise Olympus has made in its R&D, and its failure to challenge Sony in any meaningful way. Rather than adding new/interesting features to their cameras, they have to devote a team of engineers to simulate the high resolution chips of FF, just so they can appear they are in the game. A multishot mess no landscape aficionado would touch."
Such engineering efforts are so blatantly useless, it boggles the mind.
(I shall be keeping the EM-1) 
(But I can't help but wonder how the ff equivalent would have printed.)