Shot the Mark 2 and the 40-150 at a game tonight. Wanted to see if It can keep up with a d4s. Used C-af and tried both group and single point. Need to use more to see if I can use it for the reach. Most of these are across the court. thoughts? These are SOOC
jerrykur wrote:
I am curious to here about higher ISO performance. Noise is an issue for my em1 my mk1.
See my post earlier in this thread. IMO, one shouldn't upgrade to the Mark II for better noise performance at high ISO. It's better, but won't knock your socks off. At 6400 and below you can get just about equivalent results with both the Mark I and II. There are lots of reasons to upgrade, but noise isn't a major one.
But it depends upon what you do with the files. You could be very happy with a small improvement at 12,800, and a larger one at 25,600. But for me, going from a crappy file to a slightly less crappy file at these extreme speeds doesn't help.
Bob Kane wrote:
See my post earlier in this thread. IMO, one shouldn't upgrade to the Mark II for better noise performance at high ISO. It's better, but won't knock your socks off. At 6400 and below you can get just about equivalent results with both the Mark I and II. There are lots of reasons to upgrade, but noise isn't a major one.
But it depends upon what you do with the files. You could be very happy with a small improvement at 12,800, and a larger one at 25,600. But for me, going from a crappy file to a slightly less crappy file at these extreme speeds doesn't help. ...Show more →
Well said. I think it is a too much to ask for to expect an m43 sensor to go head to head with a larger sensor and be equivalent. Having said that, it is important to remember that the mark 2 is built for speed and I'm sure it leads to compromises. It would be interesting if Olympus came out with a slower camera optimized for IQ and pixel shift. If they did, it would make a great combo, one built for speed and the other everything else(a bit Sony-ish with their low light , and high res A7 lineup).
Might just be me, but I'm not that impressed with those images at 4000iso. It probably is asking a bit much of an m43 sensor to cope with it. At low iso's the m43 is great, but as soon as you get to low light it is going to struggle compared to a larger sensor
I've just copied the first one and with minimal post processing (and no further noise reduction) they look pretty good to me (I can only compare with my 7Dmk2 and 5Dmk2 files as I never owned a Nikon Wonder-Beast )
So, out of interest, what is it specifically that you are not very impressed by with these ISO4000 SOOC shots?
pr4photos wrote:
Might just be me, but I'm not that impressed with those images at 4000iso. It probably is asking a bit much of an m43 sensor to cope with it. At low iso's the m43 is great, but as soon as you get to low light it is going to struggle compared to a larger sensor
Is there a link to these images full resolution? It's pointless to critique web sizes.
amlsml wrote:
Shot the Mark 2 and the 40-150 at a game tonight. Wanted to see if It can keep up with a d4s. Used C-af and tried both group and single point. Need to use more to see if I can use it for the reach. Most of these are across the court. thoughts? These are SOOC
Things look good with the exception of WB which seems way off
I don't think that's practical. A small m43 sensor will never be able to compete with a FF sensor in terms of IQ, period. As anyone who has adopted/invested in m43 system would agree, you don't get into m43 for IQ reasons alone. IQ is a less important part of the equation. The more important reason is compactness and the FUN factor. I travel a lot. Schlepping around a DSLR or even a FF mirrorless is just not fun.
If IQ is all that one cares about then one should stick with FF. For this reason, I have been thinking of getting a FF Sony again (for the 3rd time) for my landscape work. For wildlife/bird photography it would be hard for any system to beat the E-M1 Mk II right now ... especially when you consider the cost and portability factor of a FF 600mm or 800mm lens.
Iwas joeking wrote:
Well said. I think it is a too much to ask for to expect an m43 sensor to go head to head with a larger sensor and be equivalent. Having said that, it is important to remember that the mark 2 is built for speed and I'm sure it leads to compromises. It would be interesting if Olympus came out with a slower camera optimized for IQ and pixel shift. If they did, it would make a great combo, one built for speed and the other everything else(a bit Sony-ish with their low light , and high res A7 lineup). ...Show more →
bobbytan wrote:
I don't think that's practical. A small m43 sensor will never be able to compete with a FF sensor in terms of IQ, period. As anyone who has adopted/invested in m43 system would agree, you don't get into m43 for IQ reasons alone. IQ is a less important part of the equation. The more important reason is compactness and the FUN factor. I travel a lot. Schlepping around a DSLR or even a FF mirrorless is just not fun.
If IQ is all that one cares about then one should stick with FF. For this reason, I have been thinking of getting a FF Sony again (for the 3rd time) for my landscape work. For wildlife/bird photography it would be hard for any system to beat the E-M1 Mk II right now ... especially when you consider the cost and portability factor of a FF 800mm lens.
I realize it can't compete with full frame in purely IQ terms, but I'm wondering about how much of an IQ boost would we get if the sensor wasn't optimized for speed? Maybe not worth the effort, I don't know. Comparing the new Sony A99 with the AR7II shows minor differences despite the same resolution sensor, so maybe it just wouldn't matter if it was slower.
I have always found the AWB of Olympus OM-D cameras to be very good ... significantly better than Sony. So I hope you are wrong about the WB on the Mk II.
String wrote:
Things look good with the exception of WB which seems way off
The difference is actually quite significant - especially with large prints. FF files have greater resolution and they are much cleaner. I do quite a bit of cropping too - and that really hurts IQ - as you can't print very big. A 42MB FF sensor is amazing in that respect.
Iwas joeking wrote:
I realize it can't compete with full frame in purely IQ terms, but I'm wondering about how much of an IQ boost would we get if the sensor wasn't optimized for speed? Maybe not worth the effort, I don't know. Comparing the new Sony A99 with the AR7II shows minor differences despite the same resolution sensor, so maybe it just wouldn't matter if it was slower.
In his review of the Mk II and even though he's not a sports/wildlife or action shooter, Robin Wong offers some useful information and tips about Pro Capture:
Received my E-M1 II and my 25mm 1.2 today. Haven't shot yet, but it fits in my hand even better than the E-M1. The better grip, the added support for the thumb, the added height. No longer feel a need to add a bottom plate to give it height. My entire hand wraps around.
So much so that I'm going to be ordering the 12-40 again tonight. Still on sale at $699.99 and getting 5% reward on top of that. I could buy used or grey for a little less, but the savings isn't that drastic. If it was still regular price at $999.99 I'd buy used or grey.
Haven't received my E-M1ii yet but I got the grip and extra battery today. I'm more than a bit disappointed to discover that for $250 we get a plastic battery grip rather than a magnesium grip. Maybe I'm just spoiled by my old 5D3 grip but the grip feels really cheaply made for the price, =(. Also, knew this when ordering it but Olympus made a mistake not duplicating the two front buttons on the grip so we have the same controls in landscape and portrait orientations like on the 1DX/1DX2.
The E-M1 II just landed and only had a few minutes to play with it before dad duty called. Grip is very substantial, allows my whole hand to wrap around it, pinky and all. In fact it's a little too deep, my fingers don't naturally reach the front function buttons.
Shutter sounds absolutely amazing, much better than the Mark I. Up there with the X-Pro 2 in terms of sexiness but it's very, very quiet. Very dampened. S-AF is lightning quick. Haven't touched video or C-AF yet.
They must've done something internal, as I recall with IBIS there was a noticeable humming with the E-P5, less with the E-M1, I can't even hear it with the Mark II.
Another nice touch is you can select which slot is displayed by default. So if you do raw to slot 1 and JPEG to slot 2, you can show the JPEG when you hit the review button. With the Fuji it would always default to slot 1, so you had to press the lever in and switch to slot 2. Still need to erase separately if you split the files.
Joining this thread out of interest; I had the E-M5 Mk II and the original M1; both felt a little 'half-baked', if I can put it this way (and the Mk II's video did not impress me, though many were impressed, especially by the stabilisation which worked for video as well as stills). This model feels like the ideas have come to full fruition, so keeping my eye on this one. Already have all the primes (we use these on three Panny G6 bodies for video).
bobbytan wrote:
I don't think that's practical. A small m43 sensor will never be able to compete with a FF sensor in terms of IQ, period. As anyone who has adopted/invested in m43 system would agree, you don't get into m43 for IQ reasons alone. IQ is a less important part of the equation. The more important reason is compactness and the FUN factor. I travel a lot. Schlepping around a DSLR or even a FF mirrorless is just not fun.
If IQ is all that one cares about then one should stick with FF. For this reason, I have been thinking of getting a FF Sony again (for the 3rd time) for my landscape work. For wildlife/bird photography it would be hard for any system to beat the E-M1 Mk II right now ... especially when you consider the cost and portability factor of a FF 600mm or 800mm lens.
I say it can compete (mFT sensor) in certain circumstances with APS-C or FF. One example is where the mFT photographer can get close enough to target to need no cropping but FF'er has to crop to ridiculously small file size. A rare event? Disagree?
) 
