Well done Olympus!

After I was able to test the E-M1 with the 12-40 / 2.8 kit lens at windy-changeable fall weather in detail yesterday, I would like to briefly report here. But first I would like to state that I also have the E-M5, which has greatly simplified the incorporation in the operation, as the operating concept of both cameras is nearly identical. So if you looking for tips and tricks, can look around even when such for the E-M5, as the E-M1 is not so widespread and therefore tips are correspondingly poor available.

1. The Camera

What has improved compared to the E-M5? Is it worth the switch? My answer: yes and no. The E-M1 now dominates the Fokuspeaking (the Olympus possibly via firmware in the E-M5 could have replacement delivery). The electronic viewfinder, which was already very good at the E-M5 has been further improved; The viewfinder of the E-M1 is really excellent - there's nothing to complain about. Even without Fokuspeaking is very possible here a manual focusing. The advantage of an electronic viewfinder compared with an optical viewfinder is the lightening in low light conditions and the possibility of display important information. Thus can be used for example as a focusing aid of the viewfinder magnifier, the histogram and underexposed or overexposed areas of the image can be viewed etc. The feel and ease of use are a little better at the E-M1 than with the E-M5. The E-M1 has (slightly) more controls, all of which are easily accessible. The location of the on / off switch has been bemägelt by some users. It's incomprehensible to me. Personally, I find the location of this switch very good. Somewhat annoying was the E-M5, that they think of me really well made only with the optional handle, which unfortunately hampered the rapid replacement of the battery. The E-M1 has a very ergonomic handle. Complaints about this Handle I can not understand. For me, the right little finger is below the bottom of the camera and thus supports the camera becomes more stable and thus verwacklungssicherer is nocht once in the hand. Speaking of battery: The battery life could be a little longer, but not cost battery replicas for the camera and the world.

The E-M1 has an HDR mode (actually even two), but so far has not really convinced me. So I will continue where necessary and possible to carry out, HDR photography via software. To Erläluterung for laymen: HDR stands for "High Dynamic Range". HDR can be useful if you have large differences in brightness in the motives -. For example, a great, but bright sky with interesting clouds and images before a dark foreground. In this photographic mode you take on multiple images with different exposures and then combines these images into one image in which brightened the dark areas and bright area are darkened. The E-M1 does this automatically in the camera when it is adjusted accordingly. But you can also do this via external software, which I would prefer here. So worth the switch? For me, I would say yes, but if finances are a bit tight, you should think about the good. The image quality of both cameras is comparable and the E-M5 is also a very good camera. However, the switch may worth for owners of Four Thirds lenses with which the autofocus has now become significantly faster. I have tested this with the 14-54II. In longer focal length range, the autofocus is still not as fast as with the Kitlinse (see below), but still useful. For me, this lens also focuses absolutely correct and delivers tack-sharp images to the brim even at maximum aperture.

Who is good with this camera? The camera should only be considered by more ambitious photographers into consideration that can not be put off by the wide range of functions and who are willing to at least deal with the camera intense few hours. In fact, the camera photographed also very good in automatic mode, but you missed this many ways creative art work and deteriorated possibly through but sometimes incorrectly set by the camera settings, a potentially good photograph. For example, the live bulb mode allows painting with light, if you set the camera accordingly. The very ambitious photographer will perhaps elsewhere, such. As for full-format cameras with a significantly larger sensor look around. These cameras can be recommended for photographers who need a lot of potential exemption (so like to have a blurred background, so that details in the object emphasizes more). Nevertheless, there are for Micro Four Thirds cameras (hereinafter called MFT cameras) now some very bright and excellent lenses that a good exemption permit (highly recommended for. B. the cost Olympus 45mm or the much more expensive, but excellent 75mm). Even the included kit lens 12-40 / 2.8 allows a good exemption - depending on the subject. Very good are full-frame sensors in low light conditions where high photosensitivity determining ISO values ​​are required, even once can cause noise in MFT and especially for compact cameras. Advantage of Om D-series is the 5-axis image stabilization, the exposures from the hand of loose half a second allowed. As you can often save higher ISO values ​​and large aperture. However, one can not photograph moving objects under Sochen conditions generally. For sports photography, so might be worth a camera with full-frame sensor. But you should also see the advantage of lower potential exemption: Especially in low light conditions (as for example in the cities of Photography at dusk or at night) has at open aperture with aperture lenses a greater depth of field. This can be an advantage in certain circumstances the MFT sensors to full-frame sensors where Sochen under conditions a greater depth of field can be achieved only connected by a dimming of the lens with a higher ISO setting.

In summary, the question 'MFT or full frame camera' So answer as follows: For the highest demands there should perhaps be more of a full-frame camera. However, one must then take a much higher "fighting weight" in purchasing. This is not at all times necessarily just for the camera, but especially for the lenses. At my age, I like me just do not tow so, and the best camera and / or equipment is useless if it remains at home because it is too heavy. So in my opinion, MFT is an excellent compromise. I can say anything here, because I have not tried it on the video mode of the E-M1. If you put on a really excellent video mode value should a Panasonic MFT camera (GH3 or GX7 z. B.) into consideration. Video is not the strong side of the Olympus MFT cameras. Personally, however, that does not matter.

The lens

The 12-40 / 2.8 kit lens of the E-M1 can inspire me. It feels very valuable, the zoom and the focus ring is smooth, the focus is lightning fast. The focus ring can be moved, so that when the appropriate setting a distance scale is visible and only manual focus is possible back and forth - regardless of the camera's settings. In fact, I was the almost caused to return the camera the same because the autofocus simply did not want to work ;-) Some Helpful Forum members DSLR Forum have then put me on the right path. What should be noted in this context: I have spontaneously sent an email to Olympus because of this problem, and an employee of the company called me two days later. This suggests a good service. But back to the lens: It is - unlike available separately Olympus Lenses - supplied with lens hood, which also has a locking mechanism. The image quality is very good - even to the edge and at full aperture (similar to the above-mentioned 14-54). Very nice also the minimum focusing distance, although no macro photography allowed, but nice detail photograph from up close. The lens does not have a function button that can be programmed in the camera. If I had to complain about anything at all to the objective, this would be the vulnerability to flares (flares) in direct backlight. So you have something to watch and should, if z. B. wants to use a UV filter, opt for a very good filter. However, the flares are also visible without filter. For Panasonic MFT camera owners naturally comes as a shortcoming of the lack of image stabilization to (unless you have a GX7, which has a built-in stabilizer). Overall, my conclusion: The kit lens is - especially for the kit again reduced price - worth the money. It is a very good lens that lets little to be desired. I get soon as a complement nor the Panasonic 35-100 / 2.8 lens and hope that this combination gives a good all-round team.

Summary: Anyone looking for a still good portable system camera which varied according to your requirements (Yes, there are also self-configurable, storable settings combinations) is configurable, good image quality (with the right lens), an excellent viewfinder and an excellent image stabilizer owns and also with some lenses together is still highly portable, is very well served with this camera and this kit. Of course, this comes at a price, however, the camera is well worth this price. However, one should not pay astronomical prices for it, but rather pre-order at the normal price. The 5 star I forgive very much here.

Addendum of 11/11/2013: In the meantime I have the Panasonic can undergo 35-100mm 2.8 a first (very preliminary) test, and it's ideal at the E-M1, even if it comes along not quite as tactile as the wertig 12-40 /2.8 from Olympus. A little tip on the edge: It looks to me at the moment as if was at least at the telephoto zoom (which I include the 35-100mm) of the Image Stabilizer Power OIS on the lens a bit better than the stabilizer in the camera (but please when you turn off the OIS of Panasonic lenses the stabilizer in the camera!).