Subsequent results of a small test series with the FT-520 E with 10 MP (setting: Program Auto, ISO 100, Large Normal, Vivid) with Zuiko 2.8 / 25 mm Pancake and the MFT O-M5 with 7.7 MP (setting: Program Auto, ISO 200, medium fine, Vivid) with Sigma 2.8 / 19 mm. It must be said that the 25mm Zuiko lens is the better. It is also interesting that both cameras in the compilation have approximately the same weight. The photos were taken in the nature on the banks of a See`s with reeds, trees, partly ice and snow with slightly cloudy weather with some sunshine. Since strong contrasts with the E-520, the highlights can erode (dynamic range 8.5), I have adjusted -0.3 EV. The image results (unprocessed JEPEGs from the camera) were strikingly similar, often totally identical, with no visible differences. If differences were apparent, then almost only to slight advantage for the E-M5. In particular, some images appeared slightly sharper, because the E-M5 and the Sigma obviously raises the contrast stronger. So I had already tuned the focus of the cameras a little differently. For very high contrast and the dynamic range shown in E-M5 was slightly larger. The exposure of the images was at the E-M5 a little more precise and uniform. For the level of detail in the E-520 was a bit better, the focus is more evenly distributed (located on better Objetiv) and the images a bit plastic. Overall, however, a very balanced result for both cameras out. The images were compared by me on a full HD screen with 32 inches (no cut-outs or enlargements), so under normal practice-usual conditions. These results therefore I have only written to show that there is no need for very good JEPEGs Olympus camera a lot. With easier image editing these slight advantages of the E-M5 can even be completely eliminated. There is hardly output media that can ever represent the enormous possibilities of the E-M5. For screens and printed photo books the benefits go almost completely lost. Only for very large photo prints may be differences visible. Until the A4 format does not in any case. It makes sense to the high resolution of the E-M5 at 16 MP likely if you are only traveling with sharp fixed focal lengths and will then make any enlargements. Sorry if these explanations for some readers seem somewhat sobering. But give it a try, you'll be amazed. Pixelpeeper are of course much more find differences. Are these but even practical? The Oly-FT photographer should scrap my opinion their cameras and certainly not their lenses unconditionally.
Update E-M5: from 06 Feb. 2014 are available for the E-M5 one update for 2 functions of O-M1: ISO low (equivalent to ISO 100) and reduced AF points (interesting for macro and portrait photography).
For me the focus peaking would still have been interesting, but it goes also with the automatic viewfinder at MF (manual focus) sufficiently well.
Supplement a small test series with the FT E-30 12 MP (setting: Program A, ISO 100/200, Large Normal, Vivid) and the überragendem FT Zuiko Pro 2.8-4.0 / 12-60mm SWD against the MFT E-M5 16 MP (setting: Program A, ISO low / 200, Large Normal, Vivid) and the MFT 3.5-5.6 / 14-42 mm II R. One would think it was not fair, since in theory the E-30 with better lens and works against the E-M5 is the better camera. Theoretically, the E-M5 has a higher by almost 3 f-stops dynamic range compared to the E-thirtieth I have taken back to Lake said, this time in blazing sunshine, with no traces of snow, but included the playground with. The photos were jedweils with aperture 5.6; 8 and maximum aperture and focal lengths as I used 18 mm, 25 mm, 35 mm. Extreme tasks for the cameras capture the strong contrasts of sunlight and shadows, and dark water surface with very bright reeds. The result surprised me a little. The images from both cameras were absolutely balanced and equal, with a slight advantage for the E-thirtieth The E-M5 has the high dynamic ranges no better mastered than the E-30 (at ISO 200). On the contrary, the reed and leaf structures were more clearly and to look with better plastic effect and uniform sharpness of the E-30. Similarly, the white house fronts on the opposite shore. The structures of the play area, the ropes and timbers were also more visible. The only advantages of the E-M5: the structures in the shadows were a bit easier to see and the images were exposed a small tick harmonious. The conclusion: the small standard lens 14-42mm holds very well with (especially in Weitwinkelbreich) but can against the FT 12-60mm not keep up in full (especially at full aperture, shutter 8 and from the middle focal lengths after above). However, the results also show that the E-M5 is tuned more aggressively (esp. In the Konrasten). With the E-M1 and M10-E Olympus is fortunately again have made a U-turn back to the old virtues. So, overall more restrained and clean tailored more towards the E-30, E-PL1 and E-5, with more latitude for post processing.
Why I often use the color setting Vivid in Olympus cameras? The colors are refreshed and slightly enhanced viewing in the transitional seasons and in the winter, or in summer on a cloudy day, the images simply beautiful and crisp from. One should know that in setting the Vivid Oly cameras have internally set the contrast to +1 (though is in the menu 0). Hence the excessive demand of E-M5 to the above test series the dynamic range. The MFT lenses are a little more tuned to higher Konraste to subjectively create a greater sharpness. So super result for the E-30 with 12-60mm SWD, but with double the weight and size. With a 3-day city tour in ROM at about 40 ° C I have the weight cursed before. Nevertheless, I will not give up in any case, these fantastic tuned combination. The E-M5 should make the sun and the Vivid min. Setting on the Konrast -1 and sharpness to 0 (or -1). In addition, you should really change the tone curve in such a strong Konrasten and darken the highlights manually. Unfortunately I had not already noticed while shooting, only on the big screen. Incidentally, the test results were considered again at a 32 "Samsung flat screen without magnification. On a calibrated graphic screen the results saw probably something different. Also, above ISO 400 in low light, the results would be different. In good lighting conditions but is also ISO 400 800 in order to achieve shorter exposure times (eg telephone or action shots) no problem at all with the older Oly cameras. When photos of imaging on a rule of the few noise is nothing left but only disturbs the screen.
Subsequent to a small set of tests compared with the E-PL1. This time I want to make it a little shorter. The E-PL1 is truly no performance and Austatttungs Miracle (small display, with the current update is still somewhat slower AF, 1/2000 max. Belichtunszeit, but true ISO 100) but what regards the image quality at ISO 100-200, shows you all the other cameras I can as the best JEPEGs look. Just great, about 75% of the test pictures at ISO 100 are a visible touch better than the E-M5. Simply more detailed, coherent, sharper, almost perfect. Why this great 12 MP sensor has not evolved ??? In the E-5, the vote should be just a tad bit better. Too bad for the E-M5. It's not as easy for any weather the correct settings to finder. At least you have to change more than on my other cameras that I once matched and can rely on it always. Sure you can shoot in RAW and certainly you can also edit everything. But for this I have no time and no desire at about 15,000 photos a year. In any case, should be allowed in the E-M5 in conjunction with MFT lenses sharpness and contrast best suited to 0. In -1 in contrast the images in the absence of sun look just lousy. When +1 it may already be too much. Somehow, I am now a bit depressed and my euphoria is gone. Anyway, I'm still the setting: test "Gradation Auto", so far I always used "normal gradation" Noise reduction "less". In my other Olys I have always "normal gradation" with, noise reduction "from" and noise reduction (Dark Frame) "a" photographed. There will probably be a bit more difficult than in my other Oly cameras to achieve constant excellent JEPEGs. What a pity. Or I sell them again. No, I keep them in any case. In the sum of its properties, the E-M5 is unrivaled for me.
As a final consideration: the constant pursuit of the highest resolution and extreme low noise is in my opinion totally overrated and in the wenigtsen cases required by a shutterbug. Many users are impressed by the "laboratory" -Testberichten too. These test results in the high level flow, the resolution of the cameras included in the evaluation. Here this is not crucial for a good camera and good photos. More than 6-7 MP does not need an amateur photographer at the existing output media. Producers operate as an arms race, because even most consumers are swayed them. There are, I believe, to be able to photograph only the techies and the Pixelpeeper rejoice with almost no light and with extreme resolution. Even the professionals run a huge effort to illuminate their motives reasonable or "beblitzen" to. With less light stands are used, even in high-ISO full-DSLR`s. I wonder why ??? Because the photos with light, tripod or simply look better. Much more important are the clean vote of cameras, good optics and the right for the personal ambitions of the art functionality. My tip: serve up some art and to try. Even with 7-12 MP and at reasonable ISO 100-1000 I get very sharp and very good photos out. In addition, there are good stands and it's still the photographer the image.
After several attempts I found my personal favorite settings for good daylight and general motives and nature Macros (particularly in conjunction with my FT Pro lenses 2.8-4.0 / 12-60mm SWD and 2.0 / 50 mm Macro): resolution MN (about 7.7 MP, medium compression), color: Vivid, Contrast: 0 or -1, Sharpness: 0 or -1 or -2 (depending on the subject), Gradation: normal, noise reduction: from Curves : Highlights -3, ISO low - 400 (mostly ISO 200), aperture: 2.0 or from 2.8 to 8.0 (depending on the subject and exemption), Exposure Compensation: -0.3 EV frequently. These settings are geared to no longer have to edit my Jepeg's. Smaller necessary subsequent adjustments are done quickly. The pictures are sharp and rich in contrast and thus finally equivalent to the pictures of my E-30 and E-PL1 (although these still deliver finer details). When taking pictures with / without flash I adjust, for example, color: Portrait or course, or contrast: -1, Sharpness: -1. Many Rotbestandteilen in motive, extremely bright sun or flash photography I set up in the paint: Of course. Nevertheless minor adjustments you may have to repeatedly perform, but the default settings fit. The settings are set for the use of the MFT lenses somewhat different. The focus should be on -1 to - be turned down 2, or the contrast with "Vivid" can be set to -1 times. The MFT lenses, especially the sigmoid colon are more tuned for high Konraste to optically generate a higher sharpness image (to the detriment of the dynamic range, Ca`s and bleed). The photos can otherwise act quickly sharpens and the highlights can erupt.
Finally, I'm almost right happy with my E-M5, although it makes sense really only with the MFT lenses. Probably I should have rather skip and to save the E-M1 in the hope that it is a little cheaper in 1-2 years. On my FT lenses I could not live without simply because they are easy to compensate by not even the best camera. Basically, they work very well also at the E-M5, but the AF takes time and the battery is therefore already for 200-300 photos all.
Supplement on "Shutter Schok": There is in my opinion not really a "Shutter shock" problem, but only a wrong operation. If cameras and lenses are getting lighter, can affect some emerging closure vibrations negatively to halt. The moment of inertia of the hardware is simply too low at certain frequencies. It may lead to vibration superposition (image stabilization and closure), or amplification. This is possible (self-oscillation in response to the closure or wind effects, depending on the length and weight of the stand) and in the use of tripods. Only with an electronic lock or with the anti-Shok setting (such as mirror lock) can "normal" circumstances to reduce such. In my e-M5, E-PL1 and E-PL3 and already not at my older Olys I so felt somewhat disadvantageous. I have mostly sharp images. It is advantageous to support the longer lenses as far as possible forward the trigger to entgegegen overturning moment to act and to have a stable state. Basically, I think as the Luftgwehrschießen the air to the fire. Should it become a little bit out of focus, then the exposure time was with me most at about 1/8 s (too low ISO), I have too much panned (eg too long focal length or in motion) or I have the AF set incorrectly. Who, of course, enables all AF points, need not be surprised that the AF seeks a stronger contrast edge and then focuses. That's when Konrast-AF a small disadvantage compared to the AF phase, because you have to manually intervene times also. But even in my E-30 (11 point twin cross AF sensors) I do not leave it to the AF, which image area I want to have sharp. Single-point AF (or dynamic groups-AF) has analog SLR still the best and safest focus method. Only the automatic face detection works reliably and I do not want to miss.
Last weekend (28.04.) With 3 days in Warnemünde I retold me some frustration experiences. Due to the strong sunshine I have with the E-30 and the E-M5 in the coloring "natural" resolution on MN, sharpness and contrast at 0, photographed at ISO 100 / low and alternately with two cameras, my 2.8 -4.0 / 12-60mm SWD or 2.0 / 50mm Macro had it. The pictures (of course photographed directly in Jepeg) my E-30 have improved a visible tick by the Bank. The colors are more natural and the images some contrast-u. much more detailed. Frustration experience ever because I have noticed it only at home on the screen. The basic tuning "of course" the E-M5 is really quite a bit different from the e-30th Actually, no problem, you can even set everything beforehand and also edit the images. The images of E-30 are nearly perfect Jepegs I can really be so. For some possibly correct framing and horizons. The images of E-M5 I had to rework almost all (with few exceptions) in terms of color saturation and contrast a bit, so I like them as well. So tweaking is again fashionable to get even with color combination "of course" to very good results. I am convinced it works even sometime, possibly with a polarizing filter, or manually changing the WB (A and G values). With this information, I just want to express once again how well actually the older 12 MP Oly-FT / MFT cameras (E-30, E-620, E-5, E-PL1 to E-P3, etc.) were matched and provide good lighting conditions really excellent photos directly from the camera. Even my E-PL3 makes to ISO 400 no worse photos than the E-M5. Maybe someone get so fancy and gets even cheaper a hand. Would certainly be my recommendation. In good to very good daylight at ISO 100-200 (even ISO 400 still very good), the Jepeg photos directly from the camera in my E-30 in conjunction with the Zuiko 2.8-4.0 / 12-60 mm SWD Zuiko 2.0 / 50 mm Macro and Zuiko 2.8 / 25 mm pancake is still the measure of things with me. The E-PL1 takes the photos still a tad better, but at significantly negative effect on handling (handling, grip conditions, operation, etc.). Only in low light where ISO 400-1000 needed the photos of my E-M5 are better. Although all test and laboratory reports say otherwise, the visible image results speak for themselves. As already mentioned at the beginning only of interest for Jepeg photographers. Despite all the restrictions, I would like to conclude emphasize that the E-M5 is the perfect travel, holiday and-shoot camera is for me. For my more challenging photos I fortunately still my E-30 and E-PL1. My wishes of Olympus: a FT camera in the size and design of the E-520 or E-620 (similar to the Panasonic G6, only better processed) with a further developed 12 MP sensor the E-PL1 and E-5th Just to the cameras can be used with the excellent and better coordinated FT lenses again. The E-M1 is certainly well thought and designed, but it is very expensive and not even better than the E-5 (except on the functionality and video quality). It must also not be extremely sealed camera because wants a non-professional and I have to take any pictures in the sand storm or thunderstorm. An E-M5 reaches a weatherproof camera for normal weather conditions from perfect. Very few amateur photographers need an extremely expensive high-tech camera like the E-M1. The PEN's other hand (except the e-P5, which is but too expensive) are all Fummel crates and restricted FT suitable. The decisive advantages of the E-M1 I look at the better grip conditions, the unrestricted FT lens use and advantageous "ColorComposer" to improve Jepeg colors.
Addendum 01.06.2014: as the FT lenses not run optimally on MFT, I have now but the sealed MFT Zuiko 3,5-6,3 / 12-50 mm fetched and am pleasantly surprised. It has very good imaging properties (except the intensity and in the telephoto range), is very well finished and furnished (See my Rezi to). It is better than its reputation and no worse than the new Panasonic Lumix 3.5-5.6 / 14-42mm II (wonderfully processed very small and portable, very balanced BQ), I have also tested two weeks. I would Lumix at the PEN Zuiko MFT 3.5-5.6 / 14-42mm IIR (fummeliger's pop) prefer, though this Zuiko not beat the wide angle end of the Lumix and the Zuiko 12-50.
My decision for the Zuiko 12-50 mm was made for the following reasons: good to excellent image results (up to telephoto close to the FT 14-54 mm, but corrected total of slightly worse and fainter), sealed, excellent power zoom (for videos) , extremely fast and safe AF, very good workmanship, great, lightweight standard zoom travel with practical focal range. Practical Macro function is quite nice, but not a serious alternative to the excellent Zuiko`s FT 2.8-4.0 / 12-60 SWD, 2.0 / 50mm Macro or 3.5 / 35 mm Macro. The aperture is fixed at 12-50 in the Macro function to 6.0 at 43 mm and there are ever produced violent Ca`s depending on lighting conditions. So you have extra editing, which is not my thing, and yes I really do not have to do with my FT lenses.
Addendum 27.06.2014: Battery handle H-LD6. Great part, processed very valuable and provides super grip conditions with practical battery extension. Actually, the first step would be good enough, unfortunately there are not buying individual me. Ich finde es ein Jammer, dass man so ein Ding kaufen muss, damit man die Kamera überhaupt vernünftig halten kann. Die Griffwulst hätte wie bei der E-M1 schon dran sein müssen, bzw. die erste Griffstufe kostenlos (meinentwegen auch für einen kleinen Aufpreis) dabei sein müssen (bei dem saftigen Preis der E-M5 !!!).
Schade ist:
1.) dass man mit der ersten Anbaustufe nicht den Akku wechseln kann, ohne den Griff ab zu schrauben. Bisher habe ich als Handgriff ein Billigteil aus China (10,- ) verwendet, bei dem ein Loch am Akkufach gelassen wurde. Ist echt praktisch, da ja der Akku nicht so lange hält und man praktisch den Griff nie wieder abschrauben muss (Metall-Stativgewinde ist integriert).
2.) dass die Kamera mit Objektiv (12-50 mm) und der 2 Griffstufe nicht stehen bleibt auf der Tischplatte (kippt nach vorn). Meiner Meinung ist das eine Fehlkonstruktion. Mit dem kleinen 14-42 mm Zuiko oder 19 mm Sigma bleibt das Set stehen. Das Funktionsrad am Hochkantauslöser lässt sich auch nicht so easy bedienen wie im Normalform. Aber besser als nichts.
Da ich nur die erste Stufe wirklich gebrauchen könnte und diese auch wirklich sehr gelungen ist, ist mir der Preis dafür trotzdem einfach zu hoch. Also geht das Teil zurück und ich benutze weiterhin meine 10,- Griffhilfe. Sorry Olympus und Amazon.
Nachtrag 10/2014: die Kamera mit dem abgedichtetem Zuiko MFT 12-50mm hat jetzt die erste große Bewährungsprobe ohne nur den geringsten Mangel überstanden. 3 Wochen im Allwetter Einsatz im tropischen Thailand. Ob 35 ° C im Schatten, extreme Luftfeuchtigkeit im Dschungel, stürmische Monsunregenfälle oder Strandeinsätze mit Salzwasserkontakt und Feinsand. Absolut zuverlässig und ohne zu zucken. Ich habe sie offen getragen, auch bei Regen, ohne Tasche.
Eine Reisekamera, die diese Bezeichnung wirklich verdient. Leider konnten die Ergebnisse des Objektives (12-50mm) nicht immer überzeugen, da bei greller Sonne, Offenblende und insbesondere im Makromodus etliche CA`s und auch kräftige Randunschärfen produziert wurden, die mir so vorher noch nicht aufgefallen waren. Also sollte ich über die Anschaffung des 2,8/12-40 mm ernsthaft nachdenken. AZ