E-M5 - what 43rds was inteded to be?

[Mar]

Bit of a long post so be warned

Eagerly awaiting my E-M5 delivery on Tuesday and I just sold 14-35mm today.
Figured I was really not using it enough to justify having it around and besides I really don't want to carry my DSLR around for casual photography.

14-35 felt underused next to 7-14 and 35-100mm for weddings and besides this will give me a nice opportunity to check how m43 performs for that task.

I have high hopes for it because my experience so far has been very positive. I really like faster and more accurate autofocus compared to 43rds, especially face detection and exposure based by metering off face on m43.

Also, ability to use tiltable LCD with live view which is as fast as it gets is infinitely more usable than DSLR style live view.

Anyway back to the topic title:
I can't get away from the impression that m43 is actually what 43rds was supposed to be - small, compact and high performing system.
This idea got lost along the way with regular 43rds and after using last generation Pen and E-M5 the cameras simply seem like natural step in camera evolution.

43rds was always fighting an uphill battle as it's size was never that much smaller than cameras with larger sensors and it always had inferior autofocus and low light performance.
Now, (m)43 sensors are pretty much "good enough" and micro is significantly more portable and compact compared to alternatives.

While 43rds DSLRs were never great at AF, Olympus m43 offerings simply put them to shame especially in less than ideal light to the point where you're feeling your DSLR gear is overpriced for the performance offered.

Of course, some say that lenses can't be much smaller, but I think they actually can as 43rds teles while great are over engineered.
This is quite noticeable with lenses such as 300mm f2.8 being the biggest and heaviest lens of such focal length/aperture specs on the market.

I hope we'll see 300mm f4 lenses for m43 soon, those would be nice and small, probably under 1kg.

The only thing m43 is lacking at the moment is fast(er) zooms, but I have no doubt those are coming.
I'd love to see 12-50(60)mm f2.8-3.5(4).

m43 doesn't need f2.8 or faster zooms since prime lens offering is great and it would just add too much size and bulk to the concept.


As for 43rds - sure, we're preobably going to see new 43rds body, possibly even this year (Photokina), but I'm pretty sure no new lenses or updates to current lenses as Olympus seems pretty focused only on m43 since it's bringing them a lot of cash.

Sure, everyone would love to see 35-100mm SWD, 300mm SWD and more affordable long teles, but unless something extraordinary happens, we're not getting it.

Of course, 43rds lenses are legendary and the best lenses I've ever used, especially among zooms, but m43 ones are catching up very fast while costing less and being only a fraction of the size.

I was very impressed with Samyang/Rokinon 7.5mm fisheye and I think it's optically better than ZD 8mm, Panasonic Leica 25mm 1.4 DG is also awesome and tiny 20mm 1.7 is very good lens too, easily on par with 14-54 or 12-60mm. Also, 45mm 1.8 is wonderful with creamy bokeh and excellent sharpness.
75-300mm surprised me as well, being very compact for such large focal length and it's better than old ZD 70-300mm both at autofocus and optically.

So, at the end - it is the future (at least for now )

[Johannes]

Electric cars are getting more and more popular, however, in some area and it cannot replace a vehicle equipped with a traditional internal combustion engine.

[Mar]

Electric cars are getting more and more popular, however, in some area and it cannot replace a vehicle equipped with a traditional internal combustion engine.

I agree, but electric cars have several major drawbacks - poor autonomy, long charge times and lack of "gas" stations.

[KHatfull]

I agree, but electric cars have several major drawbacks - poor autonomy, long charge times and lack of "gas" stations.

Not to mention all the environmental issues brought about by large scale production of the batteries...mining, heavy metals, recycling, etc.

Then you still have to generate electricity for them!

Sure, they produce fewer emissions but emissions are only a component of the total environmental impact.

[Stewart G]

Heh, nice segue over to electric propulsion! On that note, think of the energy stored in a gallon of gasoline, and only weighing six pounds! (I think...) Alternative propulsion has to beat that to rise above niche status.
Oh, you may be right about the true destiny of the 17mm x 13mm sensor. Frankly, I can't imagine enjoying a camera smaller than the 620, but I'd love to be convinced otherwise.

[orthogent]

"While 43rds DSLRs were never great at AF,....."

I can't agree with that assertion, Marin. Not in my experience, though fast is a quantity that must be defined better, as in micro seconds....and for what kind of shooting I guess...
Now, I do like my GH2 for its size and weight, but it does not -except for video-outperform my E-3 to these eyeballs.
In short I see these two systems as (still) complimentary.
I expect that I will do more shooting with my micro camera because of its size, true. Until micro 4/3 really matures, it is still an infant as these things go, and gets the full system treatment, until then, it does not usurp the 4/3 lens quality at the least for fast zooms. As to bodies,well, there is something to grumble about. I expect to trade up to an E-5 one of these days. Sounds like a fine solid product. No OMD wagon train hop aboard for me, not yet anyway. My personal view. You may miss that lens one day that you offloaded:_)

[Busiboy]

If only Olympus had started with M4/3

I agree, this is what it was designed for, I also agree that if the rumoured Panny 14-35 and 35-100 zooms come about in a reasonably fast aperture (f4 or less) I'd probably flog my 4/3 gear altogether.

Having said that it isn't worth much these days.

[Rick_D]

Cruel fact is when four-thirds was conceived the imager technology precluded the very possibility of µ4/3; hence, the rigid telecentric spec and the resulting "oversized" lenses that could meet the spec and deliver superior optical performance.

Some of us remember the infamous Leica white paper on why there could never be a digital M. Four-thirds was spawned in roughly the same era.

µ4/3 is a happy outcome of the inevitable march of technology. I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that in another five years we'll see similar paradigm shifts in the digital realm. This is why I caution folks to not consider their digital camera gear to be anything other than rapidly depreciating assets. I confess I feel more than a little Schadenfreude over the complaints of M8 buyers who feel duped. Such are consumer electronics.

Cheers,

Rick

[Lowa2]

Marin,

Nobody else makes a 300-2.8 that can focus as close as the zuiko and offer the same FOV (600mm) for 'cheap'. Canikon has all the huge 600's, 800's and 500's, but they weigh more, are larger and focus a LOT farther than the zuiko. Not to mention they are twice the price!

Luckily for me, wildlife photography has somewhat taken a back seat to other types of photography, do I don't need these lenses now.

I do miss the big tuna though. Man, what a great piece!

[TrapperJohn]

I think this was more a matter of technology finally catching up to the original 4/3 vision of designed for digital, and the optimal sensor size to balance IQ with the cost of precision glass.

Have had two weeks with the EM5 now, what a little powerhouse it is. Gives up nothing in terms of practical, useable body and sensor performance to the larger systems. The 45 1.8 I got with it is every bit as sharp as the ZD 50M - Olympus is starting to make M43 masterpieces, finally. EVF is sharp, enough to judge manual focus without magnified view. And if you can live with the slow(er) AF, the current EM5 sensor really shows what your HG and SHG glass can do. Side benefit: unlike the Pens, HG and SHG glass handle well on a gripped EM5, it's about E620 size.

In the early days, there was a gap between what a 4/3 sensor could do, and what a larger sensor could do. That gap still exists, but it has become largely academic - the improvements are in the very seldom used category, such as ultra high ISO, or bags of MP's.

So the vision finally became reality, courtesy of improved sensor technology, and more processing power. Olympus was right, they were just 10 years early.

[olympusman]

And if you can live with the slow(er) AF, the current EM5 sensor really shows what your HG and SHG glass can do.

Trapperjohn,

What is "slower" ?
What did you experience ?
Was it with Mk.I or Mk.II lenses (for the 14-54 or 50-200 if you have them ?)

Tks !

[TrapperJohn]

First off, the EM5 with grip is about E620 size, maybe a bit taller. HG ZD handles very good on it, unlike HG ZD on a Pen body that was just plain difficult to use. Without the grip, the EM5 is about Pen size, and you're back to the old problem of not enough body to grip - zoom with the left hand, and the body wants to pivot out of your right hand. HG ZD on a gripped EM5 is like... a real camera. Handles very well.

What I have are older non SWD lenses: 14-54 and 50-200, 50M, 7-14, and PL25. Here's what I saw, these are just rough estimates on time

14-54 AF'd in roughly 1.5 seconds.
50-200 was typically around 2 seconds.
50M was... it's usual grumpy self. Enough said.
PL25 was slightly under 1 second.
7-14 was in the 1.5 second range.

What's important is - unlike ZD AF on the earlier Pens, which was just about hopeless, on the EM5 the lenses tend to stay within those times, very consistent. Lock rate is greatly improved, it almost always gets lock. In a few cases, the 50-200 either locked on to the wrong thing or misjudged, but any misses were visible in the VF. Olympus has clearly been working on ZD AF on the EM5. The 7-14 locked reliably, when it got lock maybe half the time on my EP1.

So, not good enough for action shots unless you zone focus, but plenty good for relatively static subjects. Quick enough to be faster than MF, and quick enough that you're not irritated using it, like you were on a Pen body because AF times were so unpredicatable.

In practice, the AF sequence on the EM5 is different than my EP1. Trigger AF, and it does a quick zip-zip across a wide focus range. Then, it performs a slow grind, zzzzzz, until it gets lock. It's that slow grind that takes up most of the time. I did find by trial and error that if you trigger ZD AF while you're following a moving subject, the slow grind will lock correctly if the subject isn't moving too much.

I have heard, but have not experienced myself, that the SWD lenses can bang their focus mechanism around when on an EM5, enough so that some owners were concerned about the focus gears. I don't know if this is a genuine concern or just internet exaggeration. With the older non SWD lenses, I didn't hear anything that gave me even the slightest concern about lens life.

Then again, I didn't think the IS 'hiss' was anything to notice, either, yet some people portray that sound as approxamating an AC-DC concert in volume. Your Exaggeration May Vary, I guess...

Let's put it this way - I tried my better ZD's out on the EP1 once, never tried again, just hopeless. I'm using the 50-200 a lot on the EM5 regularly, because it handles well, I can live with the AF time (which isn't that bad), and the 50-200 turns in it's typically sharp and beautiful results on the EM5. Also using the PL25 a lot because it's the PL25 and a bit sharper than the M43 PL25, and the 7-14 because, well, it's the ZD 7-14, with those lovely sharp corners. Haven't used the 14-54 a lot because the 12-50 isnt' bad at the lower focal lengths (14-54 whips it on sharpness at 50mm).

[Johannes]

Whenever something new out from Olympus, it always strikes a chord.

If it is a µ4/3 product, users will ask for something similar for 4/3, or vice versa.

Of course we want the 4/3 lenses quality at µ/43 and also like the compactness of µ/43 at 4/3, I do not think it is impossible but it will take some time.

We are consumers and of course we would like Olympus listening to us, even so, there are a lot of things behind, such as marketing strategy...

Lets wait and see, and at the moment, enjoy the gears you own, happy shooting.

[Johannes]

people portray that sound as approxamating an AC-DC concert in volume

[olympusman]

14-54 AF'd in roughly 1.5 seconds
50-200 was typically around 2 seconds.

In sunny conditions... ?

[TrapperJohn]

No, I was using the 50-200 in a shaded hardwood forest in the evening, and also in a room illuminated with lamps. I should have mentioned - except for speed, the EM5 with HG ZD smokes my E3 for low light AF. Definitely better at getting lock, though the AF assist light helps.

In general the EM5's AF is very impressive, and it is extremely impressive in lower light. With the 45 1.8, it's... zzt, and it's done. Ultra quick.

So this isn't quite the 'one beautiful system', but get that ZD AF speed down, and it is. The frustrating part is - when it first does the quick double focus with HG ZD, it actually gets very close to correct focus. It's the slow grind that takes all the time. Get rid of that, and you'd have sub 1 second AF times.

I keep thinking, that as the EM5 is getting more attention than any Olympus release, and as quite a few big system owners are buying it as a 'small solution' to add to their bag, those are just the people who'd love to have HG ZD, once they start using the EM5. Even given the size, the 12-60+50-200 combo is remarkably compact, compared to the three or four fast zooms that a C/N setup needs to cover that range at that sharpness.

Could be a new market, and could be motivation for Oly to get that AF issue resolved. There's nothing like increased sales to motivate a company.

[thx1138]

Some more info on that low-light AF.

Remember the Sigma 30mm ? It had trouble to get AF in normal light, in low-light it was often useless with AF. So much for that f/1.4 in low-light conditions, doing MF was hard even more so on the smaller 4/3rds VF's.

Enter the E-M5. On that the Sigma is fine with AF in low light. Like the other ZD non-CDAF lenses it takes a while (around the 1-1.2 second mark), but at least it works. Mostly due to the red AF-assist I guess. The 30mm performs better on my E-30 in low-light too when I attach the FL-36R which also has a red AF-assist. This lens on the E-M5 brings the combo back in the area of usefullness, which wasn't the case on the E-30 without an FL-36/50. It's by no means perfect or rocket-science, but useable.

There's just one problem. The 45mm blows the Sigma 30mm out of the water. So apart from the wider FL, I suspect I will grab the 45mm all the time. It's so much smaller and sharper. Not much point in carrying the 30mm if you have the 45mm, unless you really need that wider FL. To get it sharper you need to close down the Sigma to f/1.8-2.0 anyway.
Hope Oly brings out a 20/24mm mFT with similar design like the 12 and 45mm.

Example of Sigma 30mm below. Not to proof the E-M5 produces such nice results but more to show in what conditions the 30mm AF's without problems.

On the E-M5, handheld, 1/15th sec, f/1.8, ISO 1250. Shot RAW, default processing in LR 4.1 RC2, Noise reduction set to 20, resized in CS5, Unsharp mask 35% on screen resolution.




It was a lot darker then in the shot though. The E-M5 A-mode exposed it brighter. The shot below was closer to the actual lighting in the room, about 4/3-stop darker.

[olympusman]

Trapperjohn,

1.5 & 2.0 sec in shaded hardwood for both Mk.I lenses is more than acceptable !

If you can make a trial in sunny conditions, just curious if there is a (huge ) difference... ?

Already thanks !

Thinking of buying an EM-5 iso the E-5 finally ?
But not before the Photokina announcements, should something coming up... ?

[Velocity of Sound]

14-54 AF'd in roughly 1.5 seconds.
50-200 was typically around 2 seconds.
50M was... it's usual grumpy self. Enough said.
PL25 was slightly under 1 second.
7-14 was in the 1.5 second range.

The 25mm f/1.4 is CD-AF capable as of firmware version 1.4, I believe (current firmare is 2.1, last I checked). In my experience, the lens focused faster on my E-P1 than it did on my E-520!

Sigma lenses are hit-or-miss with µ4/3 cameras. I recently discovered that my 150mm f/2.8 won't autofocus nicely. Slow speed aside, it seems like 3/4 of the time my E-P1 would get near focus, and then adjust it the wrong way so that everything was out of focus, and then just sit there. I don't know if other µ4/3 cameras would suffer the same issue. (It doesn't matter in this case, but the 150mm works fine on my 4/3 bodies, including my E-3.)

There's a more worrying thing about the Sigmas, though. Ordinarily the camera knows when you're adjusting the focus ring, and it opens up the aperture and initiates the auto-magnify (if you have it enabled). With my 150mm f/2.8 and 50-500mm, at least, the camera doesn't know when you're turning the focus ring. This makes accurate manual focus nearly impossible. It means that I might be focusing my 150mm f/2.8 with an aperture of f/5.6 (or larger, or smaller - µ4/3 cameras auto-adjust the aperture when composing depending on the light), but then the shot might be taken at f/2.8. Because the camera doesn't detect that I'm turning the focus ring, it doesn't open the aperture. If you want to do accurate focus, you're forced to assign a function key to act as a "depth of field preview" button. Hold it down, do your focusing, and then take the shot.

I've contacted Sigma about the problem, but haven't received a response. Even if they do reply, I don't anticipate that we'll see firmware updates or anything of that sort.

[TrapperJohn]

Bright sunlight didn't seem to make much difference with ZD AF. (is that different from cdaf and pdaf?)

I need to check my PL25's firmware level. It's a bit quicker on the EM5 than it was on the Pen, but only a bit, and to tell the truth, the 4/3 PL25 was my favorite lens on the EP1. Ultra discreet and ultra sharp.

Here's a couple I shot with the EM5+50-200 this afternoon, just horsing around. jpeg fine, a touch of auto levels, and that's about it. I am getting ready to dive into RAW again, these EM5 files seem to have bags of headroom compared to older Oly files, but first I have to replace my ancient copy of PS7 with something more up to date. What's the difference between the latest PS and Lightroom? Or do I need both?




The EM5 and 50-200 nailed focus on this one. It's not always this spot on... heavy crop on this one, by the way, so maybe 16mp isn't overkill after all.

[Velocity of Sound]

Those are some nice shots - you can see a lot of detail, similar to the E-5. Olympus is doing good things with its sensors now!

Bright sunlight didn't seem to make much difference with ZD AF. (is that different from cdaf and pdaf?)

CD-AF (contrast-detect autofocus) was first introduced in its present form with the E-420 and E-520 in Live View mode as "imager autofocus." It was only compatible with a few lenses (the 70-300mm, 14-42mm, 40-150mm, 14-54mm mk II, and many of the Panasonic 4/3 lenses); for other lenses, the camera would revert to PDAF (phase detect autofocus), which is the standard used in all DSLRs. µ4/3 cameras are full-time CD-AF and currently have no PD-AF capabilities. There's some debate about whether CD-AF is simply a matter of firmware or if it requires something with the lens design or autofocus motor, but suffice it to say that for the PDAF-only lenses, µ4/3 cameras use a jerry-rigged approach that causes the autofocus process to be a bit on the slow side.

[olympusman]

In the US, when you buy the EM-5 kit, you get the MMF-3 for free !

In Europe not unfortunately... a bit less than 200€ extra to spend ! ! !

for us EM-5 + MMF-3 = E-5 body

[TrapperJohn]

What I've heard about HG ZD and CDAF:

Apparently, someone in Olympus engineering refused to make any changes to lens firmware, insisted that ZD AF must be accomodated by the body with no changes to the lens.

Oly was able to get the 14-54 to CDAF decently with the last version. They don't appear to have made major changes to the lens design. So I don't believe the issue is related to lens design or element size. It's more the communications: PDAF says - focus to this point. CDAF says - focus in this direction until I tell you to stop.

And my 4/3 PL25 CDAF's very nicely.

Based on what I've seen recently, my HG ZD's handle decently on a gripped EM5, and blow the M43 zooms away just like they did the SG ZD's and most any kit grade dslr zoom. Personally, I'd gladly take a HG ZD lens firmware flash that sped up CDAF, even at the expense of PDAF entirely, if that would bring AF speed down to enthusiast levels. I'm ready to move completely to M43, if I can bring my beloved HG ZD's with me. Well, actually I already sort of have made the move, but I want my faithful ZD's - they never let me down.

Heresy, but... this EM5 is killing my interest in an E7, because it couldn't use the wicked sharp MZD primes Oly is turning out.

[cosmonaut]

There are times when I want a small camera. When I am doing street work or a daily carry around, but with that I hope things don't get to small. That actually could take me out of the game. The NEX 7 is about as small as I can manage with my big old hands.

[jap]

I would really love to see Olympus release a pro µ43 body with multi-spot metering and pre flash spot metering. What's interesting is that the current 43 HG/SHG lenses can be made even more compactly for the µ43 format.


--
John A. Prosper
___________________________
Email: japrosper2000@gmail.com
Mobile: (404) 680-5887