Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review

Holy shamoley. Dpreview has got to be the biggest clown car of equipment nerds on the internet. Do any of you actually shoot for a living? And if you do, why post here -- ever? It's a creative drain just to read the crap you guys apparently care about.

You guys missed the sarcasm there. I don't care AT ALL about pixel pitch. I care about producing a high-caliber visual product that matters to my clients and myself. My knowledge about (and experience with) gadgetry is just an incidental stepping stone to a finished product. The fact that so many of you here care so much about this CRAP is really kind of sad, because you are robbing yourself of what the visual arts are all about. One thing it's not about is pixel pitch.

Think of it this way. Do you think there's a forum on the internet where accomplished watercolor artists bicker and rant over the latest in fine-haired brush designs? How about writers' forums that concentrate on the latest in ergonomic keyboards with all the latest options and custom buttons?

No offense, but you people nauseate me.

Have fun with your electronic toys. And your credit card statements.

Outta here.

Can't tell for the higher ISOs (no ExIF), but ISO200 is shot with a 45mm F1.8 @F5.6 and 1/80s in both cases.

I'd really love a comment by the dpr staff as it may well be a case of handling difference.
Or it may be a sensor difference.
Or just less pre-processing of the in-camera RAW file?

Terrible article and review you've linked, comparing a kit Nikon lens with an expensive 12-35 f2.8 m4/3 lens. Should have used the equivalent 24-70 f2.8 Nikon lens. Also no mention of DR or color depth or how hi res is not usable in m4/3 on people or moving objects.

Samsung NX1 also still beats D500, and it's a dead system. lol

Then you might say the D500 is not so remarkable in low light when you can shoot ANY OLY ibis body at a half second in the dark and lower the ISO way, way, below the D500, and then - especially at f/2.8 or faster, which camera works better in low light? You might beat the D500 with a PEN that costs $500. Or a used one for $250. AND with a prime lens you can carry the PEN in a jacket pocket re: the 17mm f/2.8 for $200 or around your neck with a cool looking leather jacket and go retro. In Florida last spring the German tourists thought my PL/7 was a Leica. Quite a compliment, and were they surprised! 1lb camera and lens = steady hand. D500 weighs 2X with no lens. Try a PEN and be prepared to be surprised.

Hi AleMat496, the excellent D500 is often mentioned as an alternative to the M43 flagships. It has an edge on image quality but the M43 has the size/weight advantage. I work with two E-M5II. The D500 is 2.9 times larger and 1.8 times heavier. This carries over to the lenses. The E-M1II has less of an advantage, it over-engineered for most non-pro photographers and has the penalty of its steep price. To be honest, the improvements over the E-M1 are not limited but could very well be for the kind of photography you do.

Hi soundknight21, Raw files being a little underwhelming is very vague. Do they show poor detail and/or dynamic range after you (properly) process them? So far, the sensors in the Oly and Pana cameras have not shown that much of a difference. As pdelux has written, it is your prerogative to "want" the E-M1II but that does not mean that you "must". This camera is a jewel but is over-engineered for most mortals and with the difference from $2,000 you can get some awesome lens ...

Well - More information isn't a bad thing to request. Yes, obviously this is not going to be used for making a purchase :-)

Pixel pitch is very important to many photographers.
For example, it tells us which camera will display greater detail with the same lens for distant subjects. Many here use longer focal length legacy lens for nature and wildlife. And cost and size limit the practical length - try hiking with an 800mm lens.
The Nikon 1 and Micro four thirds excel at providing the greatest detail in distant subjects.

"it tells us which camera will display greater detail with the same lens for distant subjects."

You think pixel pitch tells you that?

Oh jesus.

Pixel pitch doesn't guarantee that at all.

What model has the faster FPS?
IIRC Nikon 1 maxed to 60fps as well, with a buffer of 14 frames and no way to get manual focus with native lenses.

Isn't the Nikon 1 dead?
The other Nikon's stink at focus with the electronic shutter and video. Their longer lenses and too big for hiking too.
And all the Nikon's lack 5 axis IS, so longer exposures without a giant tripod are out of the question.

To answer your question, (nerd2) because each camera has its pros and cons. The Nikon is nice, but so is the Olympus. People will pick, depending on what their priorities are. Not your priorities.
So promoting a brand war is pointless, and far removed from intelligent "constructive criticism".

Don't think Cultured Vulture was specifically referencing the scoring system more this sort of comment in the conclusion:

"The AF system is one of the best we've seen on a mirrorless camera ....."

Why on a mirrorless camera? Just group cameras by price i.e. is the conclusion 'The AF system is one of the best we've seen on a £2,000 camera.' or 'The AF system is one of the best we have seen from Olympus but has not caught up to its peers within the price range.'

The conclusion could be read either way. A minor point, but everyone (I hope) buys within a price range and its that specific range they will be comparing to whether it is mirrorless or DSLR.

I wasn't even speaking specifically to the Oly. My objection is the way DPR qualifies their statements about cameras. Not only mirrorless but mirrored too. A camera either gets the job done as well as its peers in price or it doesn't. It either tracks AF as well as it peers or it doesn't. It produces image quality as well as it peers or it doesn't. Video, Live view AF, you name it. I see this particularly with mirrorless and mirrored but also between FF and the various crops.

Cultured Vulture the Olympus fans do not want a straight comparison with similarly priced DSLR’s. As the price difference looks even worse. How about this the D500 is cheaper, has better image quality and better AF . DPreview has stated that their reviews scores etc are compared to the same type of cameras ie crop mirrorless vs cropped mirrorless

Hi, I am an OMD user who scaled down from 4x5", 2 1/4", and 35mm film, and 27lb tripods. I am not interested in comparisons with larger sensor systems because, like many amateurs and pros, my choosing M43 gear was due to the desire to travel light. I carry a relatively small and quite comfortable sling bag which contains two E-M5II bodies with 9-18mm, 12-40mm, 35-100mm and 100-300mm lenses (double for equivalent angle of view), spare batteries and memory cards, phone, wallet and keys. Out of my E-M5II's I get enough IQ for publications and making impeccable prints up to 24x36". I can walk and shoot for a whole day concentrating on creativity because my gear is out of my way. Hence, I am truly interested in developments within the M43 system but have no more than a general curiosity about anything else which is bigger and heavier. I trust Olympus because none of its 13 cameras I have owned over the years has ever failed me.

If you are happy with your system God bless you and happy shooting. But let's be rational, there is no way for any APS-C system with equivalent equipment to compare favorably against M43 in terms of size and weight also considering that when the shoot is critical (ephemeral subjects, expensive travel, etc) you want to have with you your basic system plus redundancy (i.e.: 2 bodies). Case in point, when I want to travel very light I have available to me the E-M10II and lenses such as the Pana 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 and 35-100 f/4-5.6. I must live with lower brightness but the lenses are minuscule and the IQ is there.

I agree that built-quality is a bit pretentious, as the reviewer can only speak on how solid it feels and if it had any issues after exposing it to the elements. It will be good for all cameras, to get an updated built-quality score or a new category after 6 months in the market, alongside a list of "known issues".
To be fair, I got 2x E-M1 and didn't have any issues, expect in one of them the faux-leather unglued from the body. It was my mistake for leaving the camera on the passenger's seat for a few hours under the hot Cypriot sun (40-45c) in the summer.
Olympus (UK) collected the camera, replaced the whole texture across the grip, and sent it back to me all within four days without any charges. They even included a letter from the engineer who repaired my camera, a free microfiber cloth, and did a sensor cleaning for me.
However, I understand that service varies from region to region and apparently Olympus US isn't as good as the EU division.

OMG, I can't resist: are you sure you have human anatomy and central nervous system? (sorry gents!)

SeeRoy messed up his sensor by putting a big fingerprint on it and couldn't figure out to use the touchscreen control panel.
What's next? complaining he had to ask his grandson how to operate his new fangled cell phone that came with no push buttons?

Unenjoyable to use? What fulsome flubbery. If the EM5 was as fatally flawed as you claim, it would hardly be considered the modern classic that it is.

For me, it was the first digital camera I'd picked up that met all my usability expectations: fast in operation, the perfect number of control points, and excellent image quality.

Yeah, sure, the menu system is a bit hairy. But that's nothing.

Me too...caught out by the hype of the EM5...
Continuous autofocus and dials falling off was the final straw before a move to Fuji...

You raised a valid point and I would like to know how much they deducted from the score for the "value" weakness. Also they knocked the Oly menus which can be customized as little or as much as you wish. How much did the menus cost the E-M1 Mll in arriving at that 85% score?

People are upset about the price point simply because they want a professional level camera at an amateur level price -- since most of the complainers are not professional photographers. I think Jamie MacDonald said it best in his latest video regarding the Mk2 -- it is not just an updated Mk1, it is a whole new camera in terms of function/performance.
What drives me nuts is that even DPR views this camera in terms of IQ per dollar spent without regard to the 'System' value, including lenses. Stick a 70-200mm f/2.8 on that D750 or A7rll, and then compare size, weight, and price with the E-M1 Mk2 with the Pany 35-100mm f/2.8 (same FOV and optical speed).
There is a point, even professionally where IQ does not trump all other considerations.
I have been using E-M1's professionally for 3 years now for portraits and corporate events, and IQ is not an issue.
Anyone earning a living with their camera will not choke on $2,000 for a body that offers what the E-M1 Mk2 offers.

Nikon's ecosystem for APS-C is a joke. The D500 is an great camera but needs to have (more) APS-C pro lenses if we want to talk about a ecosystem.

For telephoto lenses, it is well proven that there are NO weight/size advantage with reducing the image circle. 70-200 2.8 for APS-C will be the same size and weight as 70-200 2.8 for FF.

The Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 seems a lot smaller to me. So if you take into account the crop it can be smaller also on aps-c. But there are no professional grade aps-c lenses from Nikon. So you are condemned to ff lenses not disigned for the sensor size. Where is your ecosystem now?

@nerd2: I agree that the system plays a role in assessing "value" and of course "value" is a quite subjective measure. But given how close the D500 and E-M1 are rated in all other categories and given that their nominal price tag is equal, the main difference would be the system.
I conclude that dpreview rates M43 vs DX (roughly) as 7 : 12.5 (out of 14, if my counting is correct) in the category "Semi-professional Interchangeable Lens Camera". right?

Hi Thorgem -

Nikon-17-55mm F2.8 G DX AF-S IF ED would seems to fit the bill perfectly for your first need - a professional constant F2.8 lens designed specifically for APS-C format Nikons. Perfect partner to a D500.

Nikon 70-200mm AF-S Nikkor f2.8G ED VR II Lens would fit your second requirement pretty closely, and would be fine on FF if you upgraded.

I'm not a Nikon user so I'm not doing a fanboy thing here, just trying to be helpful by pointing out that the D500 is at least as viable for your photographic needs as the EM-1 Mkii would be. Incidentally I think you'd find that the Panasonic lenses are not up to the standard of Zuiko or Nikkor glass, either optically or mechanically.

In actual fact I'm seriously considering getting an EM-1 Mkii as a secondary system (see my posts on Imaging Resource). My primary system is Canon 5DS, as I like to shoot at 50MP where possible (the hi-res sensor-jiggling mode of the Oympus would not work for me, as I shoot mainly moving subjects).