Autofocus and viewfinder are neither fish nor fowl

Now, after about a year Terms and thousands of pictures I want to share my experience with the (former) Olympus flagship, although many Olympus users, these findings may taste less. It is simply not gold that the marketing department is trying to let shine for us.

Positive I want to highlight the sensor. The noise performance is very good for that size. To my EOS 50D I (felt) gained an ISO level, not to mention the very dynamics. Even compared with a number of other, even more recent, APS-C cameras, the image quality is at least on par, if not superior.

Also like the volume: in my ready case was previously said EOS 50D and an objective space. Now I get the OM-D, min. 2 lenses included. GeLi and the small flash unit in the same bag inside.

The operation stands compared neither positive nor negative out to my Canon. Both have their merits.

Why 3 stars?

The acclaimed autofocus and the electronic viewfinder can not convince me.

In daylight, the combination may still be good. The shutter lag is very small and light the viewfinder image adequately.

In poor lighting conditions and in particular at diffuserem light the thing already looks different:
Many will argue here that the buyer must be aware that the OM-D has a contrast autofocus and technical reasons this has a few limitations. To this end, the following example: In an Igloo overnight stay at the Zugspitze, I tried a snow figure with the Sigma f / 2.8 30mm scan. The automatic focusing fell to puzzle and the focus began to pump and took his goal simply not. Other visitors to the house have said Snow pressed with compact cameras (of the lower price levels) on the trigger and get her picture. This is in my view a bitter pill, my 50s would only tired smile (if they could). The AF illuminator did not help, still pumps. Well I thought I focus precisely manually. That was nothing again. The electronic viewfinder showed me just a noisy image.

From this example, I have unfortunately more to offer, some even in daylight.

For viewfinder image should also be mentioned that this regularly proves to be too dark, so that the composition regularly after taking the picture, so when the image control takes place.

Another weak point is the continuous autofocus operation. This is hard to use. The smallest movements bring the autofocus from the concept and leave everything, just not focused the actual object.

Way from the autofocus and viewfinder should still "peculiarity" of the larger depth of field are mentioned. The increased depth of the relatively small sensor allows less potential for highlighting the object. Compared to my EOS 6D reminds me of this on a regular basis (like portraits me something better) on. But this was only mentioned as an indication of buyers.

In addition, I do not like two other properties:
1. telecommunications and travel zoom: Unfortunately, until now all MFT lenses Reisezoom- any inconsistencies. I bought the OM-D with 12-50mm. Topp is here macro mode on the lens, poor contrast, the aperture of 6.3 at the long end. The 14-4Xmm zooms are what is the image quality concerns only standard goods, which will remain, until the appearance of the Olympus 12-40mm f / 2.8, only the Panasonic 12-35mm: The price is here but salted and unjustified performance for this price ,

A similar picture emerges at the telephoto zoom. Olympus should make improvements here.

2. remote-control: Although the OM-D offers a swiveling (good!) Screen and a remote control is acquirable at photo dealer, but a proper software to remotely control the camera via PC is not available from Olympus. Canon offers here a lot more and I know that former Olympus FT cameras had commanded such software. Why is this not been adjusted for the OM-D ?! Too bad in this respect, the OM-D could not score. So macros I'm still with my 50s or now with my 6.

In sum, remains for me that the OM-D may be exactly what the nice marketing photos of Olympus point: a camera for landscapes, portrait, architecture and if I want to carry around little weight. For everything else, like taking pictures of animals, sports, low light, macro or movements in the image, in general, the OM-D is only second choice in my opinion.