Olympus offers limited edition Titanium OM-D E-M5 II and firmware update: Digital Photography Review

Article

Olympus has announced it will produce a limited number of Titanium OM-D E-M5 II units. The company hasn't provided many other details, only that the camera will be available in June like the wide-angle Pro lenses also announced today. The limited edition E-M5 II will offer all of the same features and specs of its standard siblings, with its top and bottom plates swapped out for dark metallic versions that match those of the OM-3/Ti from 1994.

Olympus wasn't able to confirm for us how many Titanium units will be available in the US, but it looks as if 7,000 will be released worldwide. If the official product images are any indication, a fancy black camera strap and numbered card will be offered with the camera as well. The Limited Edition Titanium E-M5 II will be priced at $1199.99 in the US.

Also included in today's announcements from Olympus is an underwater housing for the OM-D E-M1 and a firmware update - version 3.1 for the E-M1 and version 1.2 for the E-M5 Mark II. The update includes an Underwater Picture Mode for both cameras, and the E-M1 gets LV Boost II, which brightens the Live View monitor rather than displaying live exposure effects. LV Boost II is already a feature of the E-M5 II. The firmware will also be available in June.

Comments

Total comments: 110

'limited' means heightened profit margin... Eco 101

0 upvotes

Holding out for the Hello Kitty edition!

0 upvotes

As the owner of an EM5 (I guess we have to retrospectively assign it a "MK1" label) this sort of nonsensical product says a great deal about Olympus, and indeed the entire camera business. If the MK2 itself is anything like the MK1 then addressing the cosmetics with a "limited edition" - for people stupid enough to care how the top plate looks - whilst failing to address the fact that the camera has only two good attributes embedded in a host of failings, is to treat the consumers as fools: probably correctly.
1) The files are excellent, other things being equal.
2) The camera is small and light.
However the general handling, firmware and ergonomics are pitifully bad.
There's also the fact that in an industry where the replacement cycle is engineered to a frequency of about 18 months, the idea of "collectability" (as in film era hardware) is just a joke.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

1 upvote

Yikes!! Thanks for the heads up. I thought the Ti top plate looked pretty cool but now I realise I was just being 'stupid'. I'm also concerned that the 'entire camera industry' is selling me jokes.

I just don't know where to turn or what to do. Surely there must be more to life than fancy top plates.

1 upvote

I am serious… and don’t call me Shirley

0 upvotes

I don't know how you reached your negative opinion on the OM-5 but a huge majority of users, including many professional reviewers, think otherwise. Instead of ranting, just sell it and get something else.

1 upvote

As 'stupid 'as you might think it is, why didn't you go for the 'Elite' E-M5 (Mk I) when it was offered? It came in black with the updated leather look instead of the pattern finish on the grip & the knobs may have been slightly different too. Thankfully, not everyone thinks like you. I think that was also the model to introduce version 2.0 firmware too that the rest of us also got.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I have an OMD M5 that I bought when they first came out. I found setup extremely difficult. I read everything I could find.

It works well for me as long as my subject doesn't move.

I kept it.

concern? in my hands, with my settings, it doesn't focus on moving subjects fast enough.

0 upvotes

Limited Editions always make me feel... limited.

0 upvotes

Yes, I know the feeling. I'm still waiting for the Unlimited Edition.

2 upvotes

For company paints its cameras' body parts with different color, looking no further than PENTAX, below just for model:

http://cubeme.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Pentax_Kx_100_Colors_100_Styles11.jpg

0 upvotes

Th official 14-150 kits are still not available in the US, although I bet it would be the mostpopular kti given how popular 18-135 etc kits are here. Olympus US is incompetent.

0 upvotes

Any chance Olympus will offer a super-limited edition made of yellow pine? I love yellow pine.

4 upvotes

beautiful machine

0 upvotes

Lovely machine Oly, but it's time to get a new sensor with 24MP and leading edge dynamic range.

Until then, you won't tempt me away from my E-M10

0 upvotes

Unfortunately new larger sensors don't come every day & you won't get 24MP (yet). The most you'll get is 20MP (4/3's) at the moment from Sony.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

That will do :)

The RX100 line is at 24MP so it doesn't seem unreasonable.

0 upvotes

I think it is the time for Oly to ask some one to make a new MFT sensor in stead of paint some of its body parts with FAKE Titanium.

If Oly like to sale a "limited edition Titanium", make some of its body parts with REAL Titanium.

5 upvotes

Sony IMX269 with 20 mpix and full-sensor readout at 22 fps (good for 16:9 crop up to 30 fps, so good for great 4k or awesome low-light 1080p) is available for sale.
And given the readout speed, OSPDAF from just a few lines would be awesome too.

1 upvote

What makes you think it isn't real titanium?

1 upvote

1) Because I read it somewhere and 2) it is too cheap.

0 upvotes

Enough of omd's ! I want to say see a PEN with smilar IBIS, an old leica like winder(extra battery+grip) and OVF!!!
don't say "yeee but they can't put a mirror... Lenses wouldn't cover... It'll get bigger..." They managed back in 60's ! Well it was a half frame camera, just like today's half crop M43 system !!!!!!!

3 upvotes

EM5 Mk2 Iron Man MK3 Edition very soon guys....

3 upvotes

And a FUSOR, err I mean arc reactor.

Stark specified gold-titanium alloy.

0 upvotes

like the camera strap.
new firmware update mostly for underwater shooting?. i did not know there was so many folks using OMDs underwater.

0 upvotes

It will be to go with the new 8mm fish eye lens. I guess they call it a "fish eye" because it sees underwater like a fish. ;) And it's obviously desirable for under water photography.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Well if Nikon can make a special D810 for the 6 people who shoot stars and planets....

0 upvotes

This special edition model is really for Olympus fan.

It would have been better if they are improving on the tracking focus of the EM5 Mk2 instead.

1 upvote

And you don't think they've been working on that?!?!

0 upvotes

They Need to, Like Fuji...to Step away from 16mp. It is time to move on. When 24mp is truly old...16 seems freaking ancient.

5 upvotes

16MP is as high as it can go on a 4/3rds sensor. Any higher and the pixel pitch would be so small, it will suffer at high ISOs.

6 upvotes

nikkornikon, I replied to this comment below snapa's post previous to yours.

0 upvotes

@ 5inchfloppy

You are right. 4/3 sensors are actually 1/4 frame. At 16Mp, it is having a smaller pixel pitch than the Canon 5DS, so if it goes any higher it will just generate more noise at higher ISO. The EM5Mk2 is already not that good at higher ISO.

One cannot go on and on to have more pixels. I would rather have Olympus (or Lumix) improve the lenses with bigger apertures and make them more affordable.

3 upvotes

Why, you print billboards of your cat?

5 upvotes

Diffraction starts to show up at f5.9 on a 16mp m43 sensor. The kit lens shown above is 14-150 f4-f5.6 and diffraction would begin to appear, assuming perfect glass, using just am 18mp sensor. It will limit all additional detail past ~40mp. And that's far from the slowest lens in the Olympus stable.

On top of that this camera features sensor shift high resolution mode already which can push even the fastest m43 glass into diffraction as it is using the 16mp sensor.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

@mosc

good point about the diffraction limit, fortunately (or unfortunately, depends on how you see it) as the sensor is small, the DOF is usually sufficient that I don't need to stop down beyond f/8

1 upvote

You're not hearing me. Diffraction shows up anytime you stop down the kit lens. At all. F5.9 is the 16mp m43 aperture where diffraction will appear. A theoretical 24mp m43 sensor that aperture would be f4.8. If Olympus made the E1mk2 with a 24mp sensor, every lens slower than f4.8 would see some diffraction effects viewed at full resolution.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

There is ALWAYS diffraction. The idea that it shows up or becomes especially noticeable at a certain aperture diameter isn't true, and in any case more pixels will provide a higher resolution / sharper image even if the individual pixels may be softer. It's the end image that counts, not the pixel peeping. ;)

Also, while adding pixels to the sensor may indeed add a little noise in low light shooting, it's the sort of noise that is very technology dependant and because of this, it's likely that advances in technology at the very least would balance out the smidgeon extra noise.

4 upvotes

@ 5inchfloppy: people have been saying that 4/3" format is at its limit since the original 5MP E-1 model! Meanwhile there are smaller 1" format sensors at 20MP in some Sony cameras and 18MP in some Nikon One models.

Diffraction is far from being a limy at 16MP for the faster MFT lenses. and why should bodies be limited to what benefits the slowest kit zooms?

2 upvotes

16mp cell phone cameras don't shoot telephoto. F2.1 16mp 1/2.33" is not diffraction limited.

1" 20mp sensors don't shoot much telephoto either. The RX100m3 stops at 75mm f2.8 and even the f4.0 at the long 400mm end of a FZ1000 is still barely into any noticeable diffraction.

There's not THAT much difference between m43 and 1". Diffraction wise it's about a stop more aperture room. 1" is mostly (nikon/samsung craziness aside) selling in fixed lens cameras where M43 is asked to cover the wider focal lengths of an ILC. Diffraction is not a limit you can get around with technology. The limit of resolution on the m43 sensor format is ultimately limited by physical aperture at a focal length (equivalent f-stop), same as any other camera.

What's the point of m43 over APS-C if you have to spend more money and get the same physically sized lens to take the same photograph? The system's purpose only makes sense when you're talking about f2.8-f6 lenses that are 50% smaller and cheap. 16mp

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

It's all relative. I'm still amazed when I look at images I shot on my old Nikon D2H (4MP) and I used to carry a Fuji F30 (6mp) all the time. Images still look as great now as they did back then.

0 upvotes

@ mosc: if as you say "F2.1 16mp 1/2.33" is not diffraction limited", then with the 4/3" format being over 3x larger, neither is f/6.3 16MP in 4/3", and so nor is f/5 24MP or f/2.8 80MP in 4/3" format -- the MP count for a similar level of diffraction effect goes up as the square of the f-stop and the square of the linear format size.

There is a bunch bunch of MFT lenses (including most MFT primes) offering f/2.8 or faster, and for them 16MP is a very long way from the point where a further increase in pixel count will stop giving further increase in detail due to diffraction effects when used wide open. And when these lenses need to be stopped down beyond f/2.8 for more DOF (the same DOF needs that require higher than f/5.6 in 35mm format), the diffraction limit for equal DOF sets the same MP limit for any format, due to the higher f-stop needed for equal DOF in a larger format.

Give as much resolution as the best lenses can handle, I say.

1 upvote

16mp f2.1 1/2.33" is a 16mp sensor in front of a f12 equivalent lens. The same diffraction limit for a 16mp m43 sensor would ALSO be at an f12 equivalent lens... which happens at f6.0 native aperture, just shy of the kit lens the EM5 comes with.

f2.1 1/2.33" and f6.0 m43 are the same physical aperture dimmension. One is a lot larger and the other is a lot brighter but they capture the same light for a given shutter speed through the exact same aperture. Diffraction is the limits of the physical aperture.

This is a little unfair to the m43 system because it has to deal with telephoto lenses where f6.0 is still respectable (say 600mm equiv f6.0 is still a 25mm aperture) where the cell phone is at say 28mm focal length with all of a 2.3mm physical aperture but in terms of diffraction, those two are the same.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

"all the resolution the best lenses can handle" means small pixel pitch and lots of noise. The compromise is what oly's trying to do with their sensor shift high res mode giving 4x the potential resolution out of their existing sensor when you want it and 16 million larger pixels for lower noise when you don't need more.

4x 16mp is 64mp which would require a perfectly sharp zero distortion f2.8 lens as it is. None of the pro f2.8 zooms can render 64mp worth of info even if they were the sharpest lenses ever produced by mankind at that focal length and aperture. That's the existing potential of the 16mp m43 sensor already.

0 upvotes

@mosc, i agree; I am not really suggesting going to 80MP for the sake of the f/2.8 lenses! I am just saying that many existing MFT lenses can give a resolution/detail advantage from sensors going significantly beyond the current 16MP. I am a fan of the idea of mid-speed f/4 or f/2.8-f/4 zoom lenses, and if the diffraction limit the useful resolution from f/4 is about 40MP (as for the equivalent f/8 in 35mm), then other factors will probably set a limit between 16MP and than 40MP. Frankly, i would use 20MP+ mainly to crop for more telephoto reach than the lenses I prefer to carry.

P. S. Pixel sizes that give too much noise at high ISO speeds do not worry me either: so long as a "high res. low ISO" sensor can give nice highly detailed images at low to moderate ISO speeds, then higher ISO speeds can be handled by trading some of that resolution for noise control by downsampling or other noise reduction strategies, or there can be different models for people with different priorities.

1 upvote

@mosc: there are constantly new advances and new knowledge that allow to create sensors that are qualitatively better. The 16MP µ4/3 sensors are actually less noisy then the 12MP were, despite smaller pixels.

2 upvotes

@mosc: 16mpix on m43 is FAR from being diffraction limited yet. First effects apperating does not mean limiting, higher sensor resolution still produces higher res.
BTW, on m43 diffraction starts to be noticeable at f/11, not f/5.9. And there are plenty f/1.8, f/1.7, even f/0.95 lenses. Hundreds of megapixels will still continue to bring improvements in final image resolution, especially in the centers of frames where the lenses are sharpest (although there are really no blurry lenses from either Olympus and Panasonic, unlike Canon and Nikon 50s for example).

1 upvote

@mosc:

From my experience, (at least with the lenses I have) diffraction starts after f/8. And this has been found to be true by Ming Thein as well.

0 upvotes

@ 5inchfloppy

From my experience with Micro 4/3, I would not use them pass f/8. Beside the signs of diffraction it is also unnecessary as the depth of field is sufficient if one is shooting landscape. From the depth of field point of view, f/8 on micro 4/3 is equivalent to f/16 when using full frame.

1 upvote

I can only say that when you get used to 36 mp you don't want to go back again. It gives me cropping opportunities and, well, just a lot of detail and as a photographer it is nice.

0 upvotes

Joohan, you wouldn't feel that way if all you had was existing m43 glass with a 36mp m43 sensor. You'd get such softness at the pixel level detail that viewing significantly cropped versions would be just as bad as cropping from 16mp and upsampling (on all but the most expensive m43 glass).

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Now, if they can only update the 3.5 year old sensor, they will really have something worthy of consideration. Changing body material, colors, firmware updates is nice, but... a new improved sensor would be even better, IMHO.

4 upvotes

The E-M1 replacement is most likely where we will see that. That's what I'm waiting for.....besides the 7-14/2.8 I just pre-ordered.

1 upvote

16mp is a lot for m43. Olympus sells a 75-300 which is all of f6.7 wide open at the long end. m43 diffraction limit for 16mp assuming PERFECT glass is around f8.8. Not that Olympus made the 75-300 a perfect piece of glass but if they did wide open it can't resolve past ~27.5 mp. Of course the actual lens needs room for digital distortion correction and other imperfections which mean there's way less than 27.5mp to work with from the glass. Even the 16mp sensor will see some color diffraction wide open on that lens ALREADY!

The pixels in the existing m43 sensor are already smaller than that on the Canon 5DS which just came out.

There is plenty of f2.8 m43 glass, it's just very expensive and large. A higher MP sensor is going to start classing out the slower m43 glass and expensive larger m43 lenses really negates a lot of the appeal of the system. I'm not sure m43 should be pushed much past 16mp

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting

1 upvote

snapa,
Are you using the wrong system your needs?
There are plenty of other systems available with different sensors , one of them must be up to your exacting standards.

Given today 's sensor tech, expect the existing 16mp sensor to be the limit for M4/3s untill tech advances in a way other than just increased pixels.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting

3 upvotes

To all, please re-read my post again, I never said anything about increasing pixel count. I think 16MP's is all m4/3 can handle with current technology. What I did say was "new improved sensor" which did not have anything to do with increasing the number of pixels. As a matter of fact, I think 20 MP's should be the most APS-C sensors should be using.

3 upvotes

APS-C I think tops out about where Samsung has it at 28mp. F8 shots are not completely soft at full res quite yet and f5.6 kit lenses wide open are still in the clear. Those statements fail around 32mp. More than that would require expensive glass. That said, I'm not sure Samsung and Fuji aren't making compelling cases with their APS-C lenses for pushing things further. APS-C F2.8 will get you up to 125mp. Not that I think their lenses have THAT much resolution to exploit but I don't think 28mp is hurting them much either.

The obvious improvement olympus should focus on is BSI CMOS. It's already in Samsung's APS-C sensor and a staple of the 1" and smaller market. That would help the high ISO noise.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

@mosc: why are you obsessed with limiting MFT resolution to what its slowest lens can handle at its slowest f-stop? And when you say "There is plenty of f2.8 m43 glass, it's just very expensive and large", you are thinking only of zoom lenses; there are plenty of MFT _prime_ lenses of f/2.8 or faster that are not particularly expensive and far from large: I love my 60/2.8 macro.

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

snapa,

Where are you getting 3.5 year old sensor?

Unlikely that the EM5II uses the EM5's sensor.

0 upvotes

@HowaboutRAW, if you have any evidence they used an updated sensor, I'd love to see it. DxO rates them within 1-2%, I'd think if it was new/improved it would do better than that, don't you? If you find any info that it's a new sensor, please let us all know, thanks ;)

0 upvotes

snapa,

Hard evidence no. But the look is different.

I skip, for good reason, sensor DXO scores.

I read somewhere it's the sensor from the EM1/LX100/GX7.

0 upvotes

"m43 diffraction limit for 16mp assuming PERFECT glass is around f8.8. "

BS.
Also, there is no point limiting sensors by the slowest lens available, if anything, they should be limited by the fastest lens available. Which is f/0.95 for m43 (or f/0.85 already?).

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

Can I take issue with mosc on the sensor shift- since the issue of diffraction is a loss of resolution and the 40MP images from the OMD M5II seem very sharp indeed, would he not agree that moving the sensor can get around the low resolution? Therefore when the sensor shift tech improves to the point where it can be used for handheld shots that would strike off the issue from m43. Also other improvements in sensor evolotion will only improve sensitivity. ALSO what about the advantages of telecentricity of m43 glass/sensor spec compared to FF glass/sensors?

1 upvote

AshMills, if moving sensor improves resolution, then more pixels will improve resolution even more. mosc simply calculated incorrectly where diffraction limit lies. We are still very far from it on m43 or even 1" sensors.

0 upvotes

Paul Verhoeven, I did not miscalculate the diffraction limit. You saying "BS" doesn't change where it is.

40mp is the JPG version, RAW is 64mp. One of the reasons they downsample it to 40mp is because they don't offer any lenses that can resolve 64mp so it's just silly to output in that resolution. Downsampling will always reduce (or even eliminate) diffraction but it obviously costs resolution. Most olympus lenses can't get near 40mp already. You can always make a bigger aperture lens for any sensor so diffraction can always be beaten with more glass, granted, but m43 is supposed to be compact.

Diffraction is a gradual thing. 16mp m43 shows no diffraction at f5.9 or larger apertures. Past that it starts, but does not dominate the resolution. The maximum resolvable resolution of f8.8 is 16mp which assumes completely perfect glass. 16mp exceeds the requirements of shooting any m43 lens at f11, for example. Downsampling it to say 12mp would have zero lost detail. Every time.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

@mosc, said something very intresting to me, "Most olympus lenses can't get near 40mp already". I have 2 questions for you:
1.) What are the highest 3-4 resolving lenses in the m4/3 line?
2.) How many MP's does each of them reslove?
If you are not sure, do you have a link to where you got that information from? Please advise, thank you.

0 upvotes

By diffraction, no lens slower than f5.6 on m43 can resolve 40mp. That eliminates the very slowest m43 lenses on the market but not many others. That said, diffraction limited resolution would require basically perfect glass which will never exist. Still, it's important to understand 40mp is not arbitrarily chosen. It's f5.6 diffraction limit which is a common aperture in the m43, or pretty much any other system.

On lens specifics, measuring their actual resolution is hard because it varies across the frame and you don't have an infinite resolution perfect sensor behind it to rule out any sensor based resolution limits. That said, DPR took a shot at this in their EM5m2 review and complained of softness even on some of the popular f1.8 primes used at 40mp. For best results they used the 42.5mm f1.2 in their tests I believe. I suspect the f0.95 lenses stopped down to ~f2.8 would not have trouble resolving 40mp but I certainly can't afford em to try.

0 upvotes

I'd also add that the multi-capture shift mode depends on micro-movements of the stabilization system which need percision in proportion with the pixel pitch. In other words a higher resolution m43 sensor would require a similarly more accurate OIS motor to maintain the multi-capture mode. Since the complaints on this mode were mostly to do with the total exposure time, it seems like this feature might die on a theoretical 24mp m43s sensor. Motors don't improve at the same rate as sensor technology.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

Thanks for the reply mosc. The reason for my question was to show people what a hoax the gimmick of getting 40MP images is.

First, there are no lenses available to resolve a 40 MP image.
Second, you need to use a tripod whenever in the 40 MP mode.
Third, anything that is moving will be way out of focus/blurry.

So, now that it is not selling very well because people have seen it is not a practical option, they try to make it in a different material. Olympus really seems to be cluching at straws to try an sell cameras, instead of improving their sensors which the desparately need to do. What a joke they are getting to be, IMO!

0 upvotes

"40mp is the JPG version, RAW is 64mp. One of the reasons they downsample it to 40mp is because "

You don't know their reasons to say "because".

"they don't offer any lenses that can resolve 64mp"

Sensor shifting is not the same as real resolution though, in all of the 8 shots pixels overlap with other pixels.
Diameter of Airy disk at f/1.8 is 2.4 µm, and not to have any improvements, you need that diameter to be equal to diagonal of 2x2 pixel block. So the size of the pixel should be less than 0.85 µm, which on 4/3 means sensor with 350+ megapixels. And even after they reach that, there is the problem with Bayer sensor where you better have even higher resolution to properly sample frequencies in color.
And then there are lenses in m43 faster than f/1.8.

0 upvotes

I'm sure this model will sell out quickly, and that's good news for all Oly users if it helps Olympus' revenue stream. Considering the extra cost of some special-edition cameras (think Hasselblad or Leica), this seems like a modest price bump.

0 upvotes

Handsome factor through the roof. Not as handsome as the Panasonic L1, but right up there in that company to be sure.

Expensive beast though.

2 upvotes

Wow that is a really sharp looking camera.

4 upvotes

"its top and bottom plates swapped out for dark metallic versions that match those of the OM-3/Ti from 1994."

Yes, the world is clamoring for replicas of 1994 cameras. :-)

2 upvotes

Camera bodies become outdated so fast these days, that using titanium in such a body is a waste in my opinion.

Much better to use this titanium in a quality lens that you would keep for a decade or more.

9 upvotes

Oh, YES!!!, bro.
You just took the words out of my mouth.
Then again, while on the subject, why do people are buried in metal caskets?

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

From the sound of it the camera won't actually contain any titanium, the term just refers to this edition's colour finish.

4 upvotes

No worries, bro.
Some people set for metalic painted caskets too.

0 upvotes

On the other hand, sensors are already at or near the limits of what is practical to use, so further improvement isn't translating into useable benefits as much. Cameras won't become obsolete as quickly. How many Canon and Nikon owners have sat out the last round of new bodies, because they weren't that much better than what they had?

I don't know that the 'obsolete in two years' rule is that relevant any more. Plenty of 5DII's still in use today.

1 upvote

Dear TrapperJohn,
Of course, I DO agree with you.
May I digress a bit, svp?
Back about 10 years ago, camera makers came with great advance techs such as, imagine Canon Powershot & Pentax Xpio; small sensor but capable of registering at 50 ISO? Not gigantic posters, but very clean, deep colors images & prints (up to 8x10) My panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50 with hot shoe and a zoom with not rotating front element. Sony Cybershot HX 9V with a so clean video. Of course, not obsolete. But it all seemed to stop there, with the Cybershot FX10; a work horse. Guys are still looking up for the Lumix LX7, uh? And I believe you, as do many others, have a list of Oldies but Goodies of your own. Nowadays we are exposed to over cooked, over spiced merchandise. YES, they become obsolete when you see them being sold three months after they were bought.

1 upvote

Add always speed 1/60 for E-M5 II HR 40mpx. :-)

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

1 upvote

The leather strap looks nice but that card is a joke.

0 upvotes

A joke, you say?
But NO!!!
It's the owner's stupid ID.

0 upvotes

Pay 150 extra and you get this card that says you are number XXXX out of 7000. Oly employee quote in the back. Card holder included.

Completely useless. :)

2 upvotes

My understanding is real titanium is quite a nasty metal in terms of environmental costs of extraction and manufacture, so I'm glad to see they're only using the word titanium to refer to a paint finish. My knowledge on this matter isn't detailed, so perhaps someone else knows more about the effects of metal and mineral extraction for manufacturing. Or maybe nobody cares, it's just a thought.

1 upvote

The amount of titanium used for these limited edition cameras would have been miniscule and trivial compared to the amount of titanium used worldwide in various industries, such as aerospace (aircrafts, etc.), medical (surgical implants, etc.), sporting goods (golf clubs, bicycles, etc.).

1 upvote

Tim...Tim...
Do not rain truth on the Emperor's parade.
People want to believe, not to know, ok?
I've never seen a great picture with the footing:
And this was accomplished because my Leica, Hasselblad, Olympus or whatnot, was gold or silver plated and with titanium shutter.

2 upvotes

Titanium is one of the most common elements on our planet's surface, it just doesn't come in convenient chunks like gold or other precious metals. Processing it out of rutile sand traditionally (Kroll method) takes lots of energy and time, as you suspected, which is what drives its price closer to rarer metals. Recent electrochemical and biochemical processes are making Titanium much easier and cheaper to purify, in ecologic terms. Titanium itself is not a nasty metal at all; quite the opposite. That said, if raw material eco-costs are worrisome to you, don't look too hard at your batteries, or the chips and wires in your electronics.

Oh, and I forgot to add, the paint probably does have titanium in it... since titanium dioxide is one of the most common "whiteners" in paint.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

4 upvotes

Wow, Stranger...Do you come here often?
Great dissertation and food for the mind.
The kid reads before he writes.
I like him.
Then again, What does Titanium, raw, cooked, anointed or diluted has to do with taking better pictures?

1 upvote

Thank you Mark Banas for the insight, very enlightening. And of course T3, I know we're basically destroying the planet every time we do ANYTHING. I do worry about my batteries, cameras, laptops, cloud storage and so on. Which is why I try to keep them all as long as I can keep them going and yet still do my job. Heck, I'm still on iPhone 4s (I know!! I'm barely beyond cave-dweller in the eyes of some!)

0 upvotes

"Or maybe nobody cares"

How did you guess?!

1 upvote

I'm psychic like that.

0 upvotes

I am little confused about the annoucement that there will be an underwater casing for the E-M 1, well, there has always been a casing available from Oly... The only E-M missing a casing is the E-M10, which would be great if they would finnaly offer a casing for that one. However, I cannot find any reference regarding a new UW-casing for any camera in the Oly website... strange...

0 upvotes

Article

Olympus offers limited edition Titanium OM-D E-M5 II and firmware update

Buying Options

Comments