For those considering mirrorless...

MCAsan

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jul 9, 2012
4,525
410
Atlanta
By the end of the week Olympus should introduce the OMD E-M5 Mark II. It will evidently use the stabilization capability to micro shift the sensor, combine multiple images to create 40MB jpg files or 63MB raw files. Naturally this is shooting still objects, not sports or wildlife. Don't know of a 35mm body producing 60+MB raw images. Evidently the ISO range will be extended, the shutter speed goes up, and the high speed frame rate goes to 10fps. It should be shipping by the end of the month.

I can't wait to hear of a E-M1 Mark II. :eek:
 

Attachments


robgendreau

macrumors 68040
Jul 13, 2008
3,284
229
Interesting; that's more detail than I'd seen.

Sounds like enfuse in the camera. Are those RAWs that big because they are essentially a bunch of regular old RAWs? At least you'd think it would get maybe a DNG or something similar rather than just 60MB or JPEG.
 

MCAsan

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jul 9, 2012
4,525
410
Atlanta
If you use a 16MB sensor and move it fractionally 8 times, that would be 128MB of info. There is likely overlap that is eliminated in the processing...so the output file is only around half....60+MB. That is approximately twice the size of Nikon D800 raw file

When processing a bunch of those files, better have a good CPU, serious amounts of memory.....and software that can use the GPU for help.

Lets hope LR6 on 64 bit architecture can step up to the plate.
 
Last edited:

phrehdd

macrumors 68040
Oct 25, 2008
3,266
725
I really enjoy watching all these emerging technologies and a few odd ones that still hang on (like Sigma's unorthodox censor). I admit I tend to be in the Fuji camp but always appreciated Olympus and have a love/hate about Sony.

While I am unsure how this new camera would be of value (given limits of subject matter), it does remind me of building up large files with stitched images and to some extent, same subject files layered to create either super depth of field or HDR.
 

kenoh

macrumors demi-god
Jul 18, 2008
5,399
8,241
Glasgow, UK
Great camera, with the fatal flaw of lossy compressed RAW files.
That may be so but the quality of the output is what matters and evidence across the web is that the A7/r/s is an incredible image maker... Love mine so not biased at all... :)
 

maflynn

Moderator
Staff member
May 3, 2009
63,843
30,363
Boston
I got an email on this bad boy. It does look nice, though I'm very happy with my OMD EM5. I see no reason to upgrade when my current one is doing a fantastic job.
 

FWRLCK

macrumors member
May 2, 2011
72
45
I got an email on this bad boy. It does look nice, though I'm very happy with my OMD EM5. I see no reason to upgrade when my current one is doing a fantastic job.
Yeah, I'd rather buy glass. Or a plane ticket.
 

psou

macrumors newbie
Jan 24, 2015
20
0
Greece
Great camera, with the fatal flaw of lossy compressed RAW files.
Photoshop, lightroom etc handle this with ease. This is why no-one ever notices it! This problem has been known for years but has no physical impact on the images. Sony did this in order to keep the filesize small.

In any case, the best camera is the one that you love the most. There are famous photographers out there using point and shoot while others capture reality from self made pinhole cameras.
 

CookedPixel

macrumors newbie
Feb 1, 2015
8
0
I have an original E-M5 that I use in the rare instance that I actually photograph digitally. It's a great little camera, though try as I might, I cannot get completely accustomed to an electronic viewfinder after using optical finders for so long. The Mark II looks like a nice improvement. People can denigrate small sensors all they want, but so few people actually print photographs larger than 8x10 (or print at all for that matter) that it's probably a non-issue for 75% of casual photographers. Heck, I have a friend who uses an E-M5 for some of his professional work.
 

bgd

macrumors regular
Aug 30, 2005
237
11
SG
... People can denigrate small sensors all they want, but so few people actually print photographs larger than 8x10 (or print at all for that matter) that it's probably a non-issue for 75% of casual photographers. Heck, I have a friend who uses an E-M5 for some of his professional work.
I've printed to A2* to see where the quality limit is for 4/3. It can go bigger, no loss of quality at that size. Same quality level as a 6*4 print. I'll try an A1 next, just waiting for the right image.

So I have to agree, these small sensors are fine for most people.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size
 

MCAsan

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jul 9, 2012
4,525
410
Atlanta
These small sensors, at least in the case of E-M5II, can deliver a 40MP jpg or 64MP raw. I am not aware of any 35mm that can do either.
 

bgd

macrumors regular
Aug 30, 2005
237
11
SG
These small sensors, at least in the case of E-M5II, can deliver a 40MP jpg or 64MP raw. I am not aware of any 35mm that can do either.
That is impressive. 4/3 sits at the smaller end of the sensor scale so this technology probably helps the format and that's a good thing. I like the size factor and the quality that 4/3 provides.

My experience shows me that a 16MP sensor is fine for anything I'm likely to do. I suspect it is also fine for most people but the marketing gets in the way. People don't realise that what they already have is pretty damn good.
 

simonsi

macrumors 601
Jan 3, 2014
4,849
716
Auckland
I suspect it is also fine for most people but the marketing gets in the way. People don't realise that what they already have is pretty damn good.
Yep - there is a few billion dollars in hardware sales right there. Mostly to people for whom that resolution is pointlessly high - but those huge files need storing, processing and moving...