2021-02-10 - SEND FEEDBACK
Related:
John M, noise, Olympus, Olympus M4/3, Olympus mirrorless, Olympus OM-D E-M1, Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II, Panasonic, reader comment, Tigger the Feral Feline Friend, wildlifeAt just $899 ($800 off) back in December, I couldn’t pass on the Olympus E-M1 Mark II.
Oldie but a goodie—I always enjoyed the quick-shooting easy of the E-M1 II, but I never bought one until about a month ago. It make a terrific camera for wildlife shooting handheld (eg Bighorn Sheep Rams).
Below, I used the Olympus M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 ED with Eye AF. I’d love to own the Panasonic Leica DG Elmarit 200mm f/2.8 Power OIS for more reach into my backyard, but it’s darned expensive.
At ISO 1000 or 2000 (!) you might think that quality would suffer on a Micro Four Thirds camera. And it does, a little... there is a fine grained low-level noise which is even lower if sharpening is reduced a little. And some chroma noise. But overall I’m quite impressed with what a 4-year-old camera design can do, and it’s a lot easier to shoot at dusk at f/4 than f/8 (on full frame) for the depth of field seen here.
You can of course buy a full-frame camera like the Sony A7 II (24 megapixels, it was $898 for a while), but you then are into much larger and heavier lenses. I already had some lenses, and I wanted to use my Panasonic 8mm f/3.5 fisheye again, so that made my decision easier. And you’re just not going to beat the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 ED for compactness and reach.
Olympus E-M1 Mark II and fantastic lenses for it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like other brands, the Olympus E-M1 Mark II seems incapable of really focusing on the iris of the eye, which is really frustrating because Tigger won’t stay still for more than half a second.On the plus side, ISO 2000 has a little noise, but still looks way better than iPhone DNG files (garbage-grade in light like this).
Below, the Olympus Zuiko SHG 35-100mm f/2 ED works great on the E-M1 Mark II.
Reader Comments
My purchase of the Olympus E-M1 Mark II was predicated on having multiple lenses already, but spending $3K on a 200/2.8 or 300/4 gives me pause—highly unlikely.
However, I own the Olympus Zuiko SHG 7-14mm f/4 ED, Olympus Zuiko SHG 14-35mm f/2 ED, Olympus Zuiko SHG 35-100mm f/2 ED, all three of which are among the finest zoom lenses ever produced. They are Four Thirds and require a lens adapter for Micro Four Thirds, but they work pretty well even for AF on the E-M1 Mark II. The Olympus Zuiko SHG 90-250mm f/2.8 ED would have been nice to have but I never bought it. All are now out of production but can be found used.
Jay S writes:
Maybe I'm misreading between the lines as you seem to be moving away from Nikon, and I know their DX Z lineup is 'sparse', but I would think the Z50 kit at $1200 USD w/ the 50-250mm might make a mighty nice wildlife enthusiast starter kit. Still... those Olympus Tigger shots look *GREAT*! Thanks for your awesome coverage!
DIGLLOYD: I am not moving away from Nikon, Nikon is moving away from me by not aggressively updating its camera and lens line, by falling behind Sony and Fujifilm—multi-year wait for a Nikon Z7 II which does zero for me as a landscape photographer vs a Nikon Z7—no pixel shift, not multi-shot high-res mode, no frame averaging... no thanks—if Nikon can’t at least get the software angle nailed down in some superior way, I’m not going to take on a laggard platform.
As for APS-C, a Nikon Z50 could be a fine choice, but I’d rather buy a full-frame camera and just crop to APS-C as needed (and APS-C lenses can still be used in crop mode). And I’m skeptical that the Nikon NIKKOR Z DX 50-250mm f/4-6.3 delivers the quality I’d want (field curvature being a big concern), and it’s awfully slow. Still, I have to acknowledge that combo as a contender and it should be capable of first rate images... but how the fit and balance is in the hand, dunno. Then again, that Olympus 75/1.8 is razor sharp. very compact and with a flat field, and I value that a lot. The Micro Four Thirds lenses are super expensive (for the best ones) and the choice has to be thought through very carefully versus intended usage before building out a system.
James M, a wildlife photographer since 1949, writes:
The main reason for a wildlife photographer to use the Olympus E-M1 Mark II is the Oly 300mm f/4 S PRO lens. Combining the lens stabilization with the internal stabilization in the body, you can get the equivalent of 600mm f/4 handheld—sharp as a tack. You can respond instantly to a wildlife opportunity while your companions are still setting up their tripods.
I have used the 300mm f/4 for several years and it has never let me down. The upcoming Olympus 150-400mm f/4.5 IS lens may be an additional reason, but I have yet to see a critical review. For less than 300mm there are many good lens options. I often use the Panasonic Lumix 42.5mm f1.2 ASPH.
DIGLLOYD: I agree that the Olympus M.Zuiko 300mm f/4 IS PRO is a fantastic lens, and I also agree on the handheld/tripod thing too. My guess is that the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-400mm f/4.5 TC1.25X IS PRO is superb, but I have not tested it. With its built-in 1.25X teleconverter delivering 188-500mm zoom range (or 375-1000mm equivalent), it sounds like an ideal solution for wildlife—except that at 4 pounds / 1875g it is getting into uncomfortably large/heavy range for handheld shooting. But if you need that range—wow!
The Panasonic Leica DG Elmarit 200mm f/2.8 Power OIS is razor sharp with a flat-field wide open and it’s very comfortable for continual handheld shooting, whereas the Olympus 300mm f/4 passes the “easy and enjoyable” threshold for me—it’s not bad, but it doesn’t feel as fun as the 200/2.8. And I’d prefer the 200/2.8 over the Olympus 300/4 just because it is a better all-arounder vs the 300mm. Of course, it all depends on what you’re shooting. I’d want the both 200mm and 300mm and I’d want a body on each of them.
Below, a 300mm would have gotten me closer, but would have been too close for some of the other shots. That argues for the 150-400mm zoom.
Andrew W writes:
Saw your post about the E-M1 MkII- I owned one of those a few years ago, and was thoroughly delighted by the build quality and ergonomics. It just felt so good in hand, and I loved the little 1/2 button mapping switch. I agree that it's a great camera, and I still have a soft spot for the MFT format, even though they've been stuck on that same 20MP sensor for years.
I know your whole workflow is build around Adobe Camera Raw, but you might consider playing around with the new DxO PhotoLab for use with the Olympus, just because their noise reduction technology is soooo good.
My favorite MFT lens? Either the Voigtlander 42.5mm f/0.95 (beautiful rendering and awesome build quality) or the Laowa 17mm f/1.8 (incredibly cheap, small, and light... and the image quality is excellent too).
DIGLLOYD: build quality and haptics are great, but the Klingon-designed menu system is the world’s worst until you deprogram and reprogram the buttons and custom menu options.
I would make exceptions for workflow for one-off situation, but not for general workflow, and I rarely use noise reduction for presenting camera/lens evaluations, so that’s not an incentive.
The Voigtlander 42.5mm f/0.95 is a a nice lens for sure, but my favorite is the razor sharp (wide open) Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 ASPH but I think for this focal length, autofocus is really important for portraits, etc. I haven’t tried the Laowa 17mm f/1.8.
John M writes:
Thanks for your post on the Olympus EM1 Mark II and various lenses. I bought one of these last fall and have been very pleased with the IBIS and image quality. I have been using the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 lens which seems exceptional, have you any thoughts on it?
I also own the 75mm you discuss, I haven't used it much recently but it looks like it's well worth another try. I find the Olympus build quality to be excellent (better than Nikon) and the camera a pleasure to use once the irritating menus are dealt with.
Regarding the Nikon Z50, I find its small size to my liking and it works well with the Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S PF VR lens although I think the Olympus stabilization is noticeably better than Nikon VR (maybe that's just me).
DIGLLOYD: I have not tested the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8, but it is probably quite good. Yes, I think the Olympus image stabilization is really top notch, likely better than Nikon’s, but I’m not certain.
Jim Z writes:
I, too, have found the e-m1 ii impressive for so many applications. I mostly use it for “run & gun” with the Oly 12-100. I’ve successfully captured scenes at 3 to 5 seconds, hand held with that combination.
I, too, purchased a 75mm 1.8 (pristine - used, from Japan) and have found that to be a fun lens. The PL 100-400 is serviceable for wildlife, as well.
I like my Sony A7R IV , but one cannot toss it around as quickly when on the go. It is a great street camera, with a 1.4/24 or similar lens. The E-M II’s composite and focus stacking modes are useful as well (60mm macro is a nice lens along with the 1.8/8mm fisheye). So many tools.
DIGLLOYD: fun-shooting camera.
Lossless-compressed raw is bit-for-bit identical in data (once uncompressed) to uncompressed raw. Uncompressed raw is the stupidest most useless format around, as all it does is waste storage space and waste time writing to card, backing up, etc. And Sony’s “Compressed” raw format has image quality problems under conditions of extreme contrast.
Fujifilm gets lossless-compressed raw right, as does just about every other camera vendor.
I have hundreds of gigabytes of uncompressed Sony raw files sucking up 2X the space they need. Sure would be nice to have a tool to redo uncompressed Sony ARW raw files so as to cut the size in half (on average)
Will anything but the Sony A1 offer lossless-compressed raw file format?
Sony has promised that the Sony A1 will incorporate a lossless-compressed raw file format, something I’ve been waiting on for years with the Sony A7R/II/III/IV.
In addition to compressed and uncompressed RAW, the Alpha 1 includes efficient lossless compression with no quality degradation, Lossless Compressed RAW.
The Sony A1 is not out yet, but the Sony A7R IV sits here waiting for a firmware update to give it the lossless-compressed raw file capability.
Will Sony be delivering firmware for the Sony A7R IV to give it lossless-compressed raw file format support?
CLICK TO VIEW: Top-Flight lenses for Sony Mirrorless
Sony A1 System and Accessories
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-02-10 - SEND FEEDBACK
Related:
Alfred C, computational photography, digital sensor, Fujifilm, Fujifilm GFX100S, Fujifilm medium format, Fujifilm mirrorless, golden age of photography, medium format, MTF and Micro Contrast, Multi-Shot High Resolution Mode, Panasonic, Phase One, Phase One Capture One, pixel shift, RAW, true-color sensorI have not tested the Fujifilm GFX100 pixel shift mode because it was released in a firmware update in late 2020, long after I had finished my April/May coverage. But I will be taking a good look at it when the Fujifilm GFX100S arrives in March.
Variants of multi-shot
I distinguish pixel shift as done by Sony and Pentax and Olympus from multi-shot high-res mode as done in the Panasonic S1R by how much smarts are involved. That is, how much computational photography is done, vs “dumb” averaging.
Pixel shift (as I deem it) is a “dumb” implementation, meaning it seeks to generate true-color pixels by shifting the sensor so as to obtain a full RGB value at each pixel, e.g. the 4-shot pixel shift mode in the Sony A7R IV and Pentax K3 which yields G+G+R+B values at each photosite. It then just records those shifted frames.
A variant is 16-shot pixel shift, which adds sensor shift of fractional pixels in addition to whole pixels. The Sony A7R IV 16-shot pixel shift is an example of this, but I have found it to be less sharp than the 4-shot mode—of no value for sharpness and with the penalty of generating massive captures that discourage its use as well as being useless for field work (16 shots takes far too long).
Multi-shot high-res mode as implemented in the Panasonic S1R is another beast. It builds on full-pixel and fractional-pixel pixel shift (8 frames total) followed by ~17 seconds of intensive image processing (probably by a dedicated ASIC). It is smart enough to make it feasible to photograph moving water successfully as well as to ignore some types of movement, as I show in my review. It records a single raw file 4X larger which is the result of this sophisticated processing. IMO, the Panasonic approach obliterates all others in its utility because it can be used for outdoor photography and its file size is perfectly fine for what it delivers.
Fujifilm GFX100/GFX100S pixel shift the “dumb” kind?
Along comes Fujifilm with its 16-shot pixel shift for the GFX100 and GFX100S. Kudos to Fujifilm for making the effort and doing it in a firmware update. I give Fujifilm high marks for continual firmware improvements both on the GFX and X product line*.
Fujifilm GFX100S/100 pixel shift appears to be the “dumb” form of pixel shift, meaning massive files intolerant of subject movement and/or lighting changes that must be processed later in the computer too using specialized software from Fujifilm which then apparently requires Capture One Pro for the DNG (will Adobe Camera Raw work?).
While this may all be just fine for a studio photographer doing archival work or other documentary stuff, it sounds like it is not only a hassle, but useless for outdoors.
Maybe a reader can speak to the foregoing on 16-shot Fujifilm pixel shift? I’ll be looking at it when I get my hands on the GFX100S, and if I’m wrong about its uselessness for the outdoors, I’ll be pleased.
Alfred C writes:
Love the camera and had it since the first day it was introduced (all my Hasselblad H lenses work well on it which is a plus). However, the multi shot for anything moving the slightest is utterly, totally, completely useless. As bad as my old Hasselblad 200Ms or 400MS if not worse. That means even if highlights / reflections change during the shooting intervall, you will see artifacts. Leica SL2 much better (“only” 190 MP though). Others I have not bothered to use. Cheers from the Swiss Mountains.
Sounds like what I presumed... bummer. Why isn’t a faster and more compact 4-shot mode offered? It might be occassionally usable in the field as with Sony’s 4-shot pixel shift.
Peter F writes:
I tried the GFX100 Pixel Shift when first released. It falls into what you describe as the dumb form of Pixel Shift. Any item that moves in the scene will be blurred in the final result. I did find that stationary objects had a little more detail and resolution. Colors areas had more color. My feeling is this may be of value for certain specialized uses such as art reproduction. However, for most uses the gain is too small to be worth the extra effort to shoot 16 exposures, ensuring no movement of or near the camera setup. Then the effort in post. The 16 files must be combined in computer by Fuji’s combiner app. The resulting DNG file can be read by Adobe Camera Raw in LightRoom or Photoshop.
Blur would be OK, but usually what I've seen is a sort of out-of-register effect which looks nasty.
Nov 25 2020... Fujifilm is pleased to announce Firmware Version 3.00 for the FUJIFILM GFX100 digital camera (GFX100), which adds the Pixel Shift, Multi-Shot function to the GFX System’s flagship mirrorless camera. The firmware update allows photographers to create images with 400MP of resolution. Also available today, is the new software application, FUJIFILM Pixel Shift Combiner (Pixel Shift Combiner), which will allow the 16 RAW images created by the new Pixel Shift, Multi-Shot function to be combined into a single, 400MP image. It also facilitates tethered capture capability when used with the Pixel Shift, Multi-Shot function...
● Using state-of-the-art technology to create an image: Utilizing the GFX100’s 102MP large-format sensor, high-precision, in-body image stabilization mechanism (IBIS) and its powerful X Processor 4 image processor, the Pixel Shift, Multi-Shot function slightly moves the image sensor by 0.5 pixels to incrementally record high-resolution RGB pixel information over the course of creating 16 RAW images. Those images can then be imported into Pixel Shift Combiner, to create a single 400MP image, and outputted as a DNG RAW file for further processing in Capture One*2 or any other compatible photo editing software.
● Preserving detail, one pixel at a time: The Pixel Shift, Multi-Shot function reproduces fine detail and color accuracy by shifting the image sensor so that each pixel records image data in red, green and blue. This allows for unparalleled color reproduction, with next to no false colors occurring, even in the finest of details. This benefit makes it the perfect choice for digital archiving and preserving works of art, cultural assets, and any other applications that require immense color fidelity and the reproduction of fine details.
● A simple workflow for tethered or untethered applications: In addition to combining and outputting DNG RAW files from images created through the Pixel Shift, Multi-Shot function, Pixel Shift Combiner also provides photographers with tethered capture functionality to allow for seamless transition from making images to combining, and, subsequently editing, them in Capture One*2 or any other compatible photo editing software.
“For those working in the archival or cultural preservation fields, these new functions are especially valuable to photographers documenting historical artifacts or large works of art, because they can be preserved digitally at 400MP, with color reproduction that only Fujifilm can provide,” said Ha....
CLICK TO VIEW: Fujifilm GFX100 and Top Lenses
Most items with original box, lenses with lens caps, etc, except as noted. Clear and clean glass, known-good lens samples owned by Lloyd.
Local sale (San Francisco Bay Area) preferred so buyer can inspect lens, but can ship FedEx insured. Contact Lloyd.
Zeiss Batis and Zeiss Loxia
Leica M
View camera gear
All items with original box, lenses with lens caps, etc. Clear and clean glass, known-good lens samples owned by Lloyd
- Rodenstock 135mm f/5.6 APO-Sironar-S Copal shutter + Linhof Technikardan lens board $1250 PRISTINE
- Schneider 400mm f/5.6 APO-TELE-XENAR Copal shutter+ Linhof Technikardan lens board $1750 PRISTINE
- Schneider 150mm f/4 Tele-Xenar medium format lens (Pentacon)
- Carl Zeiss Jena 180mm f/2.8 MC Sonnar medium format lens (Pentacon?)
Canon
$950 Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo Lens
Canon EF 200mm f/1.8L USM — see this page.
