Bobg657 wrote:
The sequence was posted on DPReview M4/3 forum, my thread was called EM1 Mark 2 CAF test. Jpegs were posted with no noise reduction from LR. Unfortunately I can't post files here for some reason. Fwiw, I wrote they were at 3200 but each image shows the actual is higher.
Has anyone who preordered from B&H had their ordered status changed to "In stock, order sent to warehouse" yet? B&H updated the status and charged my card for the grip and battery I bought but nothing on the camera. I was assuming I would get in on the first shipment since I put my preorder in a few minutes after it was announced but now I'm wondering if I should cancel my order and go through one of the smaller shops that has some stock.
EDIT: Talked to B&H and it seems they haven't actually received anything yet although they expect the order to come in today and to be shipped out tomorrow.
whumber wrote:
Has anyone who preordered from B&H had their ordered status changed to "In stock, order sent to warehouse" yet? B&H updated the status and charged my card for the grip and battery I bought but nothing on the camera. I was assuming I would get in on the first shipment since I put my preorder in a few minutes after it was announced but now I'm wondering if I should cancel my order and go through one of the smaller shops that has some stock.
EDIT: Talked to B&H and it seems they haven't actually received anything yet although they expect the order to come in today and to be shipped out tomorrow....Show more →
I've heard that as well, that they're expecting their delivery to come in today and hopefully they'll be able to turn it around quickly. Sounds like we'll be able to get something this week if we're in the first wave.
Ordered the last in stock 25 1.2 on Amazon sold by Berger Bros. Still deciding to last minute about the 12-40/40-150 combo or the 12-100. Heavily leaning towards the 12-40/40-150 for the speed/reach, etc. I never found the 12-40 too limiting especially since I've traditionally used a 24-70 in FF world and the 12-40 actually gives me out to 80. I fear that the 12-100 would be slightly too large for a daily walk around, would disappoint me being a f/4 (I like to shoot my 2.8's at 2.8-3.2), and I can choose to go small with just the 12-40 or bring out the 40-150. I know that the 40-150 won't be a daily carry lens and will be a rather specialized lens but worth it.
But bad news, I'm off of work tomorrow and having it sent to my job, lol. Taking the kids into the city to go to Macy's Herald Square. Would've been nice to take the new camera in for it.
But my 25 1.2 also shipped as well, so at least on Wednesday I should have my Mark II and my 25 1.2 in hand. And if the lenses are still on sale tomorrow I might pickup the 12-40/40-150 set tomorrow. I'm already shuddering at the thought of looking at my credit card statement next month.
I have the following lenses: PL 42.5/1.2, 60/2.8 macro, 75/1.8, 7-14/2.8 PRO, 12-40/2.8 PRO, 40-150/2.8 PRO, 300/4 PRO and MC-14 TC. I also have an old OM Zuiko 55/1.2 lens but I have not used it even once. My 2 favorite lenses would be the Nocticron and the 300/4 PRO. I would love to own the 25/1.2 as well ... but I have been thinking about getting the A7R II for landscape work ... so we'll see.
TMaG82 wrote:
Ordered the last in stock 25 1.2 on Amazon sold by Berger Bros. Still deciding to last minute about the 12-40/40-150 combo or the 12-100. Heavily leaning towards the 12-40/40-150 for the speed/reach, etc. I never found the 12-40 too limiting especially since I've traditionally used a 24-70 in FF world and the 12-40 actually gives me out to 80. I fear that the 12-100 would be slightly too large for a daily walk around, would disappoint me being a f/4 (I like to shoot my 2.8's at 2.8-3.2), and I can choose to go small with just the 12-40 or bring out the 40-150. I know that the 40-150 won't be a daily carry lens and will be a rather specialized lens but worth it.
k-h.a.w wrote:
Thanks, I agree. I am curious whether ISO 3200 or 6400 becomes useable now?
Of course, I could fall back on using my A7r2.
However, the Olympus 300/4 Pro lens doesn't seem to have an equal in FE format.
One would have to adapt a much larger and heavier FF lens, negating the benefits of m43.
K-H.
I did a quick look at noise differences between the mark i and ii, and don't find a full stop difference. I shot a Kodak test target (the one with babies and yellow alarm clock) over the full range of ISO ratings. Attached is a comparison of the mark ii at 6400 and the mark i at 3200. The latter is cleaner SOOC with no ACR adjustments.
There are two differences in performance: first, the resolution increase is really noticeable, and welcome. Secondly, although the perceived noise difference is small, the ii files retain color far better at higher ISOs. The baby's blue eyes are completely lost with the mark i at 25,600, and can't be recovered. It isn't just a difference in saturation settings, although the ii files seem both more contrasty and more saturated, particularly in the reds and blues--less so in the greens.
With some work in ACR you can get ISO 6400 results from each camera to look very similar.
The noise difference between cameras is real (maybe half a stop), but not as great as I had hoped. Now if the autofocus isn't markedly better, I'll console myself that at least I have a m43 backup.
Resolution and contrast looks good at ISO 6400 in spite of the noise, which I understand is easily removed. AF should be really good albeit a little too fast - camera has a hard time locking focus on the correct target - so using the slower sequential mode (so allowing the camera a little more time to achieve accurate focus) may yield a higher keeper rate. There will definitely be learning curve to using the C-AF.
Bob Kane wrote:
I did a quick look at noise differences between the mark i and ii, and don't find a full stop difference. I shot a Kodak test target (the one with babies and yellow alarm clock) over the full range of ISO ratings. Attached is a comparison of the mark ii at 6400 and the mark i at 3200. The latter is cleaner SOOC with no ACR adjustments.
There are two differences in performance: first, the resolution increase is really noticeable, and welcome. Secondly, although the perceived noise difference is small, the ii files retain color far better at higher ISOs. The baby's blue eyes are completely lost with the mark i at 25,600, and can't be recovered. It isn't just a difference in saturation settings, although the ii files seem both more contrasty and more saturated, particularly in the reds and blues--less so in the greens.
With some work in ACR you can get ISO 6400 results from each camera to look very similar.
The noise difference between cameras is real (maybe half a stop), but not as great as I had hoped. Now if the autofocus isn't markedly better, I'll console myself that at least I have a m43 backup.
bobbytan wrote:
Resolution and contrast looks good at ISO 6400 in spite of the noise, which I understand is easily removed. AF should be really good albeit a little too fast - camera has a hard time locking focus on the correct target - so using the slower sequential mode (so allowing the camera a little more time to achieve accurate focus) may yield a higher keeper rate. There will definitely be learning curve to using the C-AF.
Thanks, I agree. For my purposes I think the E-M1.2 should be useable generally up to ISO 6400.
Initially there will be a bit of a learning curve to be addressed with camera and manual in hand, going through the menus and taking lots of pictures. I am looking forward to that exercise, still owning all 3 previous OM-D cameras for comparisons and continued use.
Samy's is shipping as well. But Olympus says they have the grip yet. Still, time to plan a quick trip to Conowingo and see what this camera can or cannot do.
