classiccameras wrote:I'm surprised as well, I thought Olympus had dropped Panasonic sensors across all models in favour of Sony sensors or at least that's what I have read in reviews.
The E-M1 is a great camera, I wonder if the E-M10 has the same sensor. I read the EM-5 has a Sony sensor.
Obviously these current Panny sensors must be much improved from older ones used in the early Oly DSLR's.
Greg Beetham wrote:There’s lots of potential, they just discovered a new bird flu strain; they began with H5N1 and that evolved into H7N9 and it’s continuing to evolve, there are H8, H9 and H10 versions out now and one of those could become very popular, so who knows someone will think of a way to use those too.
Greg Beetham wrote:Ps Olympus are going to kill em with that new warranty deal.
Dr. Harout wrote:Syphilis, Gonorrhoea, or Chlamydia mayhaps...
classiccameras wrote:Goodnes me, where's this going?
Greg Beetham wrote:There was a 20mm optional extra later after that shortcoming was realized, most likely due to popular demand; strangely enough was made by General Electric and true to form had a military sounding designation (M61A1).
I think you misspoke. Didn't you mean that it had a camera sounding designation?
bakubo wrote:bfitzgerald wrote:I see Oly are still faking their ISO settings (DPR again seemed to have missed that surprise!)
You have said the same thing multiple times and then disappear. I am still trying to understand what you are saying and what difference your assertion makes.
This is worth reading:
Sensitivity (ISO) in digital imaging seems to be the subject of quite a lot of confusion - it's becoming common to hear talk of manufacturers 'cheating with ISO.' So we thought it made sense look at why sensitivity appears hard to pin down, why we use the definition we do and how it's actually not as complicated as it can sometimes seem.
Awhile back I pulled out my Sony A700 and my E-M5 and shot the same subject in the same light using raw. I was curious to see what the meter would do. I set both to ISO 200 and f2.8:
I shot another subject using ISO 200 and f4:
I looked at the resulting photos and they seemed to be the same. DxO says at ISO 200 the A700 is 150 and the E-M5 is 107 and yet the meters resulted in the same exposures. From a practical standpoint it doesn't seem to make any difference what is happening inside the bowels of the camera as long as the exposures for a given light level and ISO are the same among various cameras. I am talking about from a photographer's perspective.
As long as the results look good to me and I get exposures that I expect for a given ISO then I am okay. So, you can compare photos from various cameras set to a particular ISO and know that you are seeing what they do at that ISO.
I recently tried something else. I used my E-M5 and G3 with the 20mm f1.7 to take a photo. I set both to ISO 400 and f2 and took the same photo using raw.
DxO says at ISO 400 the G3 is 372 and the E-M5 is 214 and yet the meters resulted in almost the same exposures. Both of the photos look to be exposed the same when I open them in LR.
Barry, this time rather than disappearing how about going into some detail explaining exactly what you mean and what the practical results are for photographers? If there is something then I would like to know so that I can adjust my thinking on this issue. Thank you in advance.
Yes, the E-M1 is rather expensive and I am not interested in it. The improvements compared to my E-M5 are not enough to make me care and the increase in size/weight makes it definitely less interesting. If it doesn't sell then I suspect Olympus will lower the price. If it does sell then the price is probably okay.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest