Olympus E-M5 Mark II - love and hate at first sight

[Bob Goldberg]

I finally received my camera and the crop appears to be 80% of my GH2.  So my 12mm looks more like 15mm and it's that way ibis on or off.  I would have rather they given me all the field of view I could get ibis off but it is what it is. As far as quality I haven't had it long but it doesn't seem as bad as some have made it out to be. I'm going to run it against my hacked GH2 if it beats that I will be happy enough.  

​Well, I don't see how it could possibly beat a hacked GH2 for video quality. The GH2 will pretty much mop the floor with the E-M5 II.

But it would be great if you could post some sample footage with both of them shooting the same thing.

[Don Kotlos]

Natural with everything set to 0. What's interesting is that you are both using 24P and I'm using 25P. I wonder if that could make a difference?

​I tried zeroing everything with the default curve and I get the same quality as the graded -2,0,-1. 

I also tried with the SLRMagic 25 0.95 and the sharpness is great so it is not the lens. 

Unless there is a bad batch, I would think that most people were setting sharpness below 0 and that is what was causing the blurring. 

The more I use this camera the easier is to see that the video quality has improved dramatically over the E-M1. Resolution, dynamic range, colors, less compression artifacts. The video is finally gradable! Just make sure that sharpness setting is not below zero. 

Another thing that I noticed is that the VRB is really different between the two codecs. For fairly static subjects, all-I gives a bitrate between 25-50Mbps whereas IPB reaches the maximum 50Mbps really fast. So if there is not much movement happening (following a subject/ panning) IPB might be a tad better.  

My only complain is the articulated LCD...  

[DPC]

Natural 0 0 0, NR ON, Highlights 0 Shadows 0 seems better than trying to go flat and then grade. Maybe even setting sharpening to +1. 

It also seems important to correctly set the focal length if you are using IBIS with non-Olympus lenses. Unless I'm doing something wrong, even the focal length of my Panasonic 12-35 isn't detected automatically.

Does anyone know a decent anti-moiré plugin for FCPX?

[mat33]

If the E-M5ii has improved from the E-M1 (which it seems to me that it has apart from a few negative reports that are possibly due to settings or maybe a bad batch???) then I will be a happy camper.  Having 24/25/30/50/60p and audio meters/head phone jack is a great step up from the E-M1.  While it may not match the Gh3/Gh4 or even Gh2 resolution wise, those camera don't have IBIS which I think is worth the trade-off (obviously would be great if no trade-off needed, here's hoping to firmware updates...).  Its crazy how you can be out with just with a small shoulder bag, the 12-40 and 40-150 PRO and ND's, and be able to shoot tripod steady static shots and some shots with nice smooth camera movement all handheld with no fuss or set-up time.  Anyway still waiting for mine to arrive, hope it gets to me before a wedding job coming it as it will be great for this. 

[Jimbo]

If the E-M5ii has improved from the E-M1 (which it seems to me that it has apart from a few negative reports that are possibly due to settings or maybe a bad batch???) then I will be a happy camper.  Having 24/25/30/50/60p and audio meters/head phone jack is a great step up from the E-M1.  While it may not match the Gh3/Gh4 or even Gh2 resolution wise, those camera don't have IBIS which I think is worth the trade-off (obviously would be great if no trade-off needed, here's hoping to firmware updates...).  Its crazy how you can be out with just with a small shoulder bag, the 12-40 and 40-150 PRO and ND's, and be able to shoot tripod steady static shots and some shots with nice smooth camera movement all handheld with no fuss or set-up time.  Anyway still waiting for mine to arrive, hope it gets to me before a wedding job coming it as it will be great for this. 

​I too am very tempted to add the Mark II to my bag for wedding work. Monopods and Zacuto rigs are great for the slower parts of the day, but I can think of so many occasions over the last few years when having the EM5 at hand rig free would have allowed be to get better shots more quickly, or get some shots I couldn't before. It would be worth the hit on DR, resolution and moire. Would love to hear how you get on with it for your wedding.

[Screaming Films]

Hi,

I'd like to share this quick test video from Olympus OMD EM5 Mark II with 50mm f1.8 Nikon lens - I've done quick colour grading and please bare in mind that first 20 seconds were filmed without correct stabilisation settings. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJyxUNdk028

 

 

[Flynn]

Footage is looking decent. Not as nice as a Blackmagic Pocket but not terrible. Looks as good as good as a hacked GH2 to me.

[Screaming Films]

Footage is looking decent. Not as nice as a Blackmagic Pocket but not terrible. Looks as good as good as a hacked GH2 to me.

​There is definitely lack of the sharpness comparing to the GH2. However it's definitely not terrible. Stabilisation it's doing great job. The tracking shots while moving could be a bit tricky to get the decent steady-cam like shots but it works very well as a tripod.

[Bob Goldberg]

Footage is looking decent. Not as nice as a Blackmagic Pocket but not terrible. Looks as good as good as a hacked GH2 to me.

​I'm sorry, but maybe one of us needs glasses. It's decent for a YT video on my tiny laptop screen, but try that on a 50" screen and you'll be screaming for some detail.

Even with the camera up at point blank range to the actors' faces, I can barely see a hint of skin texture. No offense, but this is just a marked step backwards from some incredibly cheap cameras on the market today, such as the GH2, G6, GX7, etc. All of these cameras can reproduce much, much more detail than this.

[Andrew Reid]

Very nice review (forget about the video aspect of the review) over at ePhotozine, apparently if you pre-order in UK you get a 5 1/2 year warranty!

It's £1099 compared to 1099 euros. Exchange rate is 1.36 euros to the pound.

Edit - ah my mistake it's actually £899 in the UK.

[Andrew Reid]

Footage is looking decent. Not as nice as a Blackmagic Pocket but not terrible. Looks as good as good as a hacked GH2 to me.

​Those portrait shots are the best case scenario and they just about pass muster for YouTube.

You will notice a massive distance on wider shots with a focal point that isn't bang in front of the lens.

[Screaming Films]

​Those portrait shots are the best case scenario and they just about pass muster for YouTube.

You will notice a massive distance on wider shots with a focal point that isn't bang in front of the lens.

​You can check the footage under following link (grain and sharpening 20% have been added):

http://www.fileconvoy.com/dfl.php?id=gc3f0a48a3381e3049996344819de771c2a3513452

 

 

 

[fuzzynormal]

this is just a marked step backwards from some incredibly cheap cameras on the market today, such as the GH2, G6, GX7, etc. All of these cameras can reproduce much, much more detail than this.

​I'm not going to deny this assertion at all.  It's true!   But, I will counter that having aggressive sharpness isn't always desirable.  At least for me.  Then again, I'm a guy that often shoots vintage lenses to purposefully degrade the IQ of my Gx7.  Depends on what one is going for I guess.

That said, I do need to run around with my Oly 12-40 2.8, run some tests with that glass, and see what shakes out.  I think I'll try the natural setting at default.

[Bob Goldberg]

​I'm not going to deny this assertion at all.  It's true!   But, I will counter that having aggressive sharpness isn't always desirable.  At least for me.  Then again, I'm a guy that often shoots vintage lenses to purposefully degrade the IQ of my Gx7.  Depends on what one is going for I guess.

That said, I do need to run around with my Oly 12-40 2.8, run some tests with that glass, and see what shakes out.  I think I'll try the natural setting at default.

​I have a few points to make. First is that I don't believe any of the cameras I mentioned have "aggressive" sharpness. They just have a lot of fine detail (but not oversharpened), more than some might be looking for, but you can't deny the trend toward more detail in motion pictures is already well under way.

Second, you can always subtract detail (either by lens choice, settings, or in post) but you can't add back what was never there.

Third, the vast majority of people these camera are targeted at are not film makers, have not a great deal of artistic interest, and would be well served by the imaging device actually capable of gathering the most fine detail. Whether its parents recording their kids, people interested in documenting some aspect of their lives, or even news gatherers, none of these people would be better served by a soft, fuzzy image, IMO.

It's about time manufacturers got off their behinds and started focusing on video. And my problem is that all of the praise being given to this Olympus camera for video is just a signal that fine detail is not important. Well, I don't understand why that's always been the primary selling point of stills cameras but video shooters are still relegated to decades old quality. I think enough is enough of that. We should stop giving false praise to the Canons, Nikons, and Olympuses of the world for their mediocre video quality. Demand more. It's been far too long coming.

We have cell phones now than shoot WAY better video than any of these companies have produced in consumer level products. Better than either Nikon or Olympus have EVER produced period. Seriously, the Sony Xperia, Samsung Galaxy, etc. have better, sharper video than Nikon or Olympus have ever produced on a real camera. This is completely unacceptable IMO. Stop praising these companies for putting out garbage year after year.

The Sony Xperia, BTW, has excellent stabilization (all digital) in 4K mode. It does a quite decent job with the camera man walking, all while maintaining much better video quality than the E-M5 II.

If these companies don't get off their fat behinds at some point they're going to get their hats handed to them on the imaging front. That's the whole point of dedicated cameras, better IQ than phones can provide. And they're not even doing that for crying out loud. I'd rather shoot video with an Xperia than anything from Olympus.

p.s. Can you tell that I feel strongly about this?

[mat33]

There are many components to what makes a good film, and I would argue that resolution is the least important of them all.  Sure, when looking at frame grabs or if you're wanting to have print quality stills from your video then resolution is a major consideration, but for the majority of people using these cameras I think resolution makes a smaller difference to the quality of their end product, their film, than other factors.  In the end, what we are all really trying to achieve with these large sensor cameras is to make a film that has more 'cinematic' qualities than a small sensor video camera.  

What I think makes a big difference for parents filming their kids, documenting their lives etc is how stable the image is and if they can add any stable camera motion to their shot.  Furthermore, these type of users don't have time to set-up gimbals etc (my wife would, shall we say, not be impressed if I brought a gimbal to my sons birthday party) as even pro's find the hassle of using these of stabilising devices can be limiting depending on the style/nature of your work.   This is where IBIS shines, while it isn't as stable as a gimbal for walking shots, you can add very nice dolly and even small-jib like movement by carefully shifting your body position without any rigging.  I think as far as the audience goes they notice the production value of this stability and camera motion far more than resolution.

[Bob Goldberg]

There are many components to what makes a good film, and I would argue that resolution is the least important of them all.  Sure, when looking at frame grabs or if you're wanting to have print quality stills from your video then resolution is a major consideration, but for the majority of people using these cameras I think resolution makes a smaller difference to the quality of their end product, their film, than other factors.  In the end, what we are all really trying to achieve with these large sensor cameras is to make a film that has more 'cinematic' qualities than a small sensor video camera.  

What I think makes a big difference for parents filming their kids, documenting their lives etc is how stable the image is and if they can add any stable camera motion to their shot.  Furthermore, these type of users don't have time to set-up gimbals etc (my wife would, shall we say, not be impressed if I brought a gimbal to my sons birthday party) as even pro's find the hassle of using these of stabilising devices can be limiting depending on the style/nature of your work.   This is where IBIS shines, while it isn't as stable as a gimbal for walking shots, you can add very nice dolly and even small-jib like movement by carefully shifting your body position without any rigging.  I think as far as the audience goes they notice the production value of this stability and camera motion far more than resolution.

​That's bologna. It's well-written bologna, but bologna nonetheless. When the average consumer is working with a Panasonic or Sony camera for video, they're typically not working unstabilized. They have very well stabilized lenses to choose from.

Sure, it doesn't give you the ability to run or walk and maintain the steadiness like Olympus does, but how many of these people are going to be doing that anyway. The fact of the matter is, even for the most amateur of amateurs, they're going to get better results that are going to be very watchable a decade from now with Panasonic, not Olympus.

I'm an amateur and this junk Olympus is producing is not even good enough for me. How is it good enough for people that make money off of it?

If an amateur wants perfectly steady video with top notch quality, their are many camcorders with way better quality than what Olympus is doing and stabilization on par. In fact, Sony camcorders with balanced OIS are actually BETTER than Olympus 5-axis IBIS with way, way better quality. It's just ridiculous to think that you should recommend Olympus to these people when a Sony or Panasonic camcorder would give them vastly better results. I've been getting better and sharper results with these types of camcorders for a long time. And they're very stable. In fact, Panasonic's 3MOS camcorders (used) are still a better choice for a typical consumer, and they only cost a few hundred. The quality of those 5 year old camcorders simply mops the floor with Olympus.

If an amateur wants top notch quality, then a GH4 (or even any GH camera), a Sony 4K , or Samsung 4K would be their best choice and, again, not Olympus.

There's simply a very, very narrow subset of people that would be best served by Olympus' 5-axis IBIS unless they can DRASTICALLY improve their video quality. Not just a little or incremental. They need a massive leap forward in tech.

Great stabilization has been available in the consumer sphere for a very long time, and I just see this as a completely unnecessary step that only serves a very small percentage of people, namely those looking to use interchangeable lenses with great stabilization. This doesn't describe the typical consumer. It doesn't even describe the typical pro, such as news organizations.

[mat33]

Camcorders do have great stabilisation and can be a great choice for many people, but many choose a larger sensor ILC so they have changeable lenses and DOF control because as you know, this helps create a more 'cinematic' image.  So if you don't want shallow depth of field then yes, I'd recommend a camcorder but many people usually want the option of having this, so a camcorder is off the table.  

I have both panasonic and olympus camera's and I'm sorry to say that IBIS is far far superior to panasonic lens stabilisation, but if you're happy with OIS and it suits your needs then thats great.  For me, I usually find myself grabbing my E-M1 despite the limitations as I find the IBIS to be worth it.  

Anyway everyone can make their own decision as to whats most important to them, and for many a GH4/NX1 might be a better choice  All I'm saying is that having good stabilisation in body on all my lenses (including my contax zeiss lenses)  without extra rigging/equipment has value to me and I imagine to others as well, and although I don't know for sure how many this is, I suspect its not only a small percentage.  And while, I'd prefer not to have to compromise on resolution, thats the world where in at the moment. 

[Andrew Reid]

As far as stabilisation goes there's no doubt the only reason to buy the damn thing is the stabilisation.

The X-T1 beats it for stills and the GH4 thrashes it for video quality.

That's a real shame because in many respects the E-M5 II is an inch from greatness.

[fuzzynormal]

​How is it good enough for people that make money off of it?

Well, I make a living doing video production.  I'm not the most accomplished, but I get by.

You're verbose about your opinion, but I can't quite comprehend the level of angst you have about a camera you never plan to purchase. The perceived threat that a particular stabization feature will interfere with sensor development?  Well, okay, I do hear you saying that...but I don't quite get it.  Feel free to rant though if it helps. 

[fuzzynormal]

As far as stabilisation goes there's no doubt the only reason to buy the damn thing is the stabilisation.

The X-T1 beats it for stills and the GH4 thrashes it for video quality.

That's a real shame because in many respects the E-M5 II is an inch from greatness.

True dat. So close...