Olympus announces the M-D E-M1X, an EOS-1D X Mark II killer?

[Pape]

Hmm i watched image comparison R and olympys MX1 on dpreview.com. Looks like iso noise difference is around 1 stop with raw images. That doesnt sound much?
If would have as good lens as RF50 used on olympus ,could deliver as sharp picture without phase shift too .
oops forgot this chat was between x and x models . there canon does nearly 2 stop better . canon 100 iso picture looks better than olypus 200 iso less noisy

 

[Jack Douglas]

Some people can't get over the fact that buying X camera doesn't place them 500% better than Y camera. I speak from experience - I spent big on the 300 2.8 II and didn't find it 500% better than my little plastic EF 70-300. There is a law of diminishing returns at play and all the modern gear is pretty good. To get, say 30% more of whatever, you may be paying 200+% more. If you are willing to pay, fine, you have something superior but don't knock what is very good at the much lower price.

This is my general assessment, not specifically aimed at this particular camera. Let's say you get a 200% reduction in weight with a 20% loss of IQ. If weight is killing you and this weight reduction allows you to keep taking pics then that is a HUGE advantage to YOU and not to be ridiculed, IMHO.

Obviously, this camera has it's place but will it be financial success ... time will tell.

Jack

 

[Pape]

yep olympus seems to be very nice camera .
biggest difference to full frame is youll get pretty large view with 50mm objective.
50mm shows world like eyes sees it it . That Mft cant give without panorma stitching.
Others reason not to like olympus are pretty marginal .Iso performance isnt terrible ,colours can be changed with photoshop,difference on image quality is difficult to see.
about bokeh i got not idea.

 

[raptor3x]

Maybe you should try a modern Olympus
Bokeh I find is very good. Their lens are great and sharp

The latest f/1.2 primes are good, but the Olympus PRO zooms are infamous for terrible bokeh. Especially the 40-150 PRO which looks like a reflex lens at times.

 

[AlanF]

Some people can't get over the fact that buying X camera doesn't place them 500% better than Y camera. I speak from experience - I spent big on the 300 2.8 II and didn't find it 500% better than my little plastic EF 70-300. There is a law of diminishing returns at play and all the modern gear is pretty good. To get, say 30% more of whatever, you may be paying 200+% more. If you are willing to pay, fine, you have something superior but don't knock what is very good at the much lower price.

This is my general assessment, not specifically aimed at this particular camera. Let's say you get a 200% reduction in weight with a 20% loss of IQ. If weight is killing you and this weight reduction allows you to keep taking pics then that is a HUGE advantage to YOU and not to be ridiculed, IMHO.

Obviously, this camera has it's place but will it be financial success ... time will tell.

Jack

What does 500% better mean?

 

[Viggo]

The latest f/1.2 primes are good, but the Olympus PRO zooms are infamous for terrible bokeh. Especially the 40-150 PRO which looks like a reflex lens at times.

Holy cr@p!

 

[Aglet]

Good example. Typical of "overcorrected" designs I believe.
I'd like to like that lens but I really don't! I could used the performance of it but I cannot get past the horrendously harsh bokeh it can produce in the backgrounds. I refuse to buy it.
The 40-150mm cheapo Olympus kit lens you can get for $100 is not nearly as fast but it can provide much more pleasing backgrounds with decent sharpness but a sports-lens it is not. Performance/price tho, the little plastic kit lens is a winner!

I make a lot of use of the 12-100mm f/4 and while it doesn't provide much blur potential, that which it does create is rendered much more smoothly than the 40-150mm f/2.8.

The Oly 1.2 Pro lenses are specifically engineered to produce smoother bokeh and, from the examples I've seen, they succeed. Out of my price range tho I'm temted to get the 17mm version. I've been using the Oly f/1.8 primes which are quite good but I am moving to the Panasonic equivalents for a better balance of sharpness with more pleasing bokeh.

A Canon example I really didn't like was the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS ii... pretty darn sharp and contrasty but also could show horridly rough bokeh in transition areas under some circumstances... mostly where I needed it! Tamron equivalent performed much better for my use.

Darn compromises.. They're everywhere!

The latest f/1.2 primes are good, but the Olympus PRO zooms are infamous for terrible bokeh. Especially the 40-150 PRO which looks like a reflex lens at times.

 

[dak723]

Lipstick on a pig. This time they put sparkly lipstick.

1. Its micro 4/3, can't complete with a larger sensor.
2. the bokeh is absolutely horrible, like out of a cell phone.
3. colors are bad
4. noise performance is just horrible.

need I say more?

How about:

1. Sure it can compete with FF if you are a competent photographer.
2. Bokeh is fine if you are a competent photographer.
3. Olympus colors are excellent - I would rank them 2nd to Canon and much better than Sony.
4. Noise is better than many APS-C camera and easily controllable if you are a competent photographer.

Need I say more?

 

[Jack Douglas]

What does 500% better mean?

Alan, my comments mostly relate to people referring to items as worthless or obsolete when they might lag slightly in some spec like DR. I get annoyed at the idiotic put downs based on, "what's not the best is junk".

500% means whatever you choose to have it mean. It could mean if you pay 5X the amount you feel you should observe 5X the detail with your expensive lens. Obviously it doesn't work like that at all. Perhaps a 10X price increase gets you a 1.2X increase in performance. Now if you're in competition and you're getting a prize and you now have a 20% advantage you could say it's well worth it. Maybe it's scientific and you must have the absolute best. Or maybe it's just your pet indulgence; that's OK but costly for what you get. But mostly my point is that the item that is 20% better doesn't imply that the cheaper item should be described as poor or unacceptable, when it actually performs quite well.

Some things are very subjective while others can be measured. When I see the bokeh in the pic above I can't put a % on it but I can sure say I don't want it. Sometimes what we get is good value and we're happy in spite of not getting the absolute best performance. That's my take anyway.

Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

I think we've all seen pretty horrible bokeh from pretty much all of our lenses under certain circumstances so a single illustrative shot doesn't necessarily imply a lens is unworthy. I'd like to see the identical scene and lighting using all the various lenses and then I'd judge between them.

I love my 400 DO II but bokeh with bright rippling water in the background is not it's strength.

Jack

 

[tmroper]

as they say: "The viewfinder features a new optical design using an industry-leading magnification of 0.83x (35mm equivalent). This four-element configuration designed with aspherical and high reflective index lenses provides a clear, distortion-free display right up to the edge of the viewfinder. As found on the OM-D E-M1 Mark II, a 120 fps (progressive scan) high-speed frame rate with a 0.005 second latency are provided for stress-free moving subject photography."

It is an EVF, but I believe that it has an optical assembly in front of it so that you can do diopter adjustments.

A small OVF to see the EVF. Now that's progress!

 

[AlanF]

Lenstip have this morning https://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=554 reviewed the Zuiko Digital ED 17 mm f/1.2 PRO. Quite sensational resolution in the centre. The bokeh isn't up to much apparently, possibly because of so many aspheric elements, they say.

 

[AlanF]

A small OVF to see the EVF. Now that's progress!

You need a magnifying glass in front of any evf that's a few mm from the eye unless you are pathologically short sighted.

 

[Pape]

peaks on 2,8F like best lenses with 5dr ,i guess absolute sharpness is then about same

 

[Jack Douglas]

You need a magnifying glass in front of any evf that's a few mm from the eye unless you are pathologically short sighted.

Alan, CR for the humour!

Jack

 

[Aglet]

Lenstip have this morning https://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=554 reviewed the Zuiko Digital ED 17 mm f/1.2 PRO. Quite sensational resolution in the centre. The bokeh isn't up to much apparently, possibly because of so many aspheric elements, they say.

I was actually reading that review last night as I hadn't visited that site in a while.
Impressive sharpness across the frame and outstanding center performance but, as you said, the bokeh is still lacking.
While lower constrast OOF image elements are rendered quite nicely, highlights still have that bright rim effect which I find unpleasant and undesirable in a lens at that price.
Unfortunately the site doesn't have similarly comparable sample images for the Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2 Noctitron, nor any at all for the Olympus 45mm f/1.8
However, checking out the affordable Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7 shows a lens that is still impressively sharp, but doesn't appear to have the same bright rim outlined highlights, but a rather neutral rendering. I'd buy that.
https://www.lenstip.com/440.12-Lens...mm_f_1.7_ASPH._POWER_O.I.S._Sample_shots.html

It seems like many lens designs with aspheric elements have similar issues with grunchy bokeh, but not all.

Fuji's 50-140mm f/2.8 is a pretty complex zoom that avoids aspherics and has a pretty good overall performance and a pleasant rendering, most of the time.
However, busy, contrasty backgrounds that are not far enough OOF cans still look... textured. I generally like this using lens but it can falter too. But now we're well off-topic for this thread.

EDIT: image below is linked from LensTip site review of Fuji 50-140mm lens gallery.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Is this photo Montreal?

Jack

 

[Aglet]

Is this photo Montreal?

Jack

The photo is linked from the Lenstip review site, samples for Fuji 50-140/2.8. I think it may be somewhere in Poland.
I should have stated that in above post.. .now edited.
I haven't shot any images with that lens which show so well how a busy background can still look like a bokeh-mess even on a good lens without aspheric elements.

 

[Jack Douglas]

The photo is linked from the Lenstip review site, samples for Fuji 50-140/2.8. I think it may be somewhere in Poland.
I should have stated that in above post.. .now edited.
I haven't shot any images with that lens which show so well how a busy background can still look like a bokeh-mess even on a good lens without aspheric elements.

Oops, thought it was personal photo.

Jack

 

[Ozarker]

Maybe you should try a modern Olympus
Bokeh I find is very good. Their lens are great and sharp
Colours are very good.
Noise is fine up to about 1600 and then it can't compete with a full frame but its too be expected.

If you said they make their menu systems and touch implementation way to complicated I'd agree.
I've always thought they should have two menu systems - one for the basics and a second for the complicated stuff.
My one has a mind of its own at times.

He's never tried one at all. He's just flapping around. He's right on #1 and wrong on the rest. The main problem I have with mine is the small size of the body. He'll probably come back and say he's read this or that, from so and so. Or he watched a YouTube video.

Bokeh itself can be very subjective as to what is good and what isn't. I'm satisfied with the bokeh. The colors reproduce faithfully and are quite good. Mine is used indoors quite often and the noise is fine. The IBIS is fantastic on my short zoom lens (fantastic lens, BTW). I couldn't say for myself on longer Olympus lenses (I wish I could)... which is the real point: One shouldn't speak with authority about something one hasn't experienced.