1/?This is the review of an OM-5 micro 4/3 camera. I am a full frame user, and I bought this camera to have a small, fun, attractive camera to take snapshits around town. I own or have owned a D850, Z5ii, Z6ii, basically every Nikon DXXX DSLR, D500, Z50, etc. This is my first M43 camera and I was not sure what to expect, so I am chronicling my impressions both for myself, and for other photographers who are looking for a small, fun camera. Ergonomics: This camera is outstanding IMO. For me the Nikon FF cameras are in this weird middle spot that is ergonomically uncomfortable for me. They are either too small or too big. The D850 and my D7500 fit my hand fantastically. I will always have a Nikon DSLR because they are so comfortable to hold and use. The OM-5 is smaller to hold than my Z5ii for example, and that gets it out of the uncomfortable middle ground. With the Z5, I’m always between holding it in front with all of my fingers, or just 3 – there isn’t really enough room for all 4, but with 3, it feels a little insecure. With the OM-5, three fingers fit perfectly. There is enough grip on the front and a great thumb rest on the back. The buttons are very well placed on the camera body for operation while shooting. Simply put, this is a very comfortable camera to hold and shoot. For reference, when I am walking around and shooting, I grip the camera the entire time in my right hand, and have a wrist lanyard for safety. This can be fatiguing with a larger DSLR (the D800 in particular had almost no thumb rest and it was agonizing to carry. The D850 is much better, but is just heavy and gets tiring on the wrist after several hours). The D7500 is extremely comfortable in this regard because of its blobmera shape and light weight. The Z series FF cameras are in the middle ground of just “ok”. The OM-5 was very good.TO BE CONTINUED
2/?Autofocus: Extremely fast and precise. Better than almost any other mirrorless cam I have used. It’s virtually instantaneous and difficult to describe in words. For this morning’s photo walk, I was using the Olympus 45mm 1.8. I understand that the Oly lenses all focus this fast because the focusing element is just one small element on rails, so it is only one very light element that needs to be moved to focus. Whatever the mechanism is, it is extremely good. Displays: EVF is fast and bright. Resolution looks good, but I obviously don’t have any objective data for this, it just looks good to me. Obviously it’s smaller than a FF cam and you don’t get the immersive feeling that a nice OVF like on the D850 gives, but it does the job. It’s also very fast and responsive; I sold my Z6ii in the past because the EVF took a long time to turn on after the camera was turned on, like several seconds. The OM was virtually immediate, though again nothing beats an OVF for this. The back screen also seems nice, though I don’t usually use the LCD to shoot so I’ve only used it to navigate menus.Customizability: Very high. I’m not going to do a full technical breakdown but the cam can be made to conform basically to any shooting style or preference. Seems about as customizable or maybe even a little more so than the new Nikon menus such as the ZF or Z5 have. Image Quality: This is the elephant in the room, the real reason that /pee will scorn any M43 camera and why I will also probably get flamed in the comments. I will attach images from a walk this morning so people can judge my comments for themselves.
3/?Simply; the IQ is very good. The lens was very sharp, and provided enough bokeh for me. I dislike shooting wide open on FF and usually stop down to 5.6 plus anyways, so I already knew that the DOF issue with M43 wasn’t going to bother me. Most of the shots that I will post were shot wide open, and as you can see, they were very sharp- I didn’t perceive a need to stop down to improve image quality. The lens is fantastic, and I understand that most of the Oly lenses are. The 1.8 aperture equates to about a 3.6 aperture on FF, which is frankly more wide open than I would usually shoot. I understand that M43 lenses typically can also focus much more closely than FF lenses, so getting good bokeh shouldn’t be a problem in most instances. Shooting a little stopped down, eg at f4 or 5.6 will give you very good DOF like most street photographers are looking for, without having to risk diffraction at f/11 or whatever on your FF lens. I am sure that there is a penalty in DR and ISO noise on the M43 sensor, I think that this is objectively true. However, I did not notice this in my shooting today, and frankly I don’t think that anyone not doing low light professional work will notice either. As you can see from the pics, it is winter time here where white people live, and the light is ass. I was between ISO 2000 and 4000 for all of my shots, which /p would have you think would lead to unusable images on M43. As you can see, after applying basic noise reduction (in Darktable, so no AI or anything very advanced), noise is invisible. I was able to pull the highlights and shadows as much as I wanted. I don’t think that hobby photographers will notice a big difference between this and FF for their snapshits, but obviously pros are gonna use FF for their specific needs and that’s fine. There was a little bit more chromatic aberration than I would probably see on a nicer FF mirrorless lens, but nothing uncontrollable.
In short, will I keep it? I bought the camera with the intention of trying it out, and sending it back if I didn’t particularly like it. I think that I probably WILL keep it. It’s very small, the lenses are significantly smaller than any equivalent in the FF universe, the IQ is pretty good if not totally incredible, it’s fun to use, unobtrusive, and simple and intuitive.
It makes taking casual photographs much more fun and accessible than a FF kit would. I was shooting with an appx 85mm equiv lens this morning, and it literally fit in my coat pocket. That’s impossible with an FF cam.
I know the SNOY pajeet will be here momentarily telling me just to shoot his sponsor’s product with a 35mm f2.8 and just to be normal, and my answer to that is no. I have some of the best FF cameras on the market already, and this does not fit the same use case.
The IQ simply is not as good as my D850. It falls short in several categories; but it simply does take quite good, very usable pictures which hold up very well unless you start intensively pixel peeping. It’s fun and small and portable. The cam was appx 600 USD and the lens was appx 200 USD. The simple fact is that an equivalent product to this does NOT exist in the FF universe, and to get close, it’s many times the price of this little cam.
These photos are really bad and are 99% just focusing on a random object to the side and blurring everything else out. There is nothing to improve. Start over. The base concept is bad. Mid 2010s wallpaper website photography. This is the photography equivalent of knowing how to strum maj7 chords on guitar and buying boutique pedals and accumulating guitars and amps regardless of skill. Man strums 3 chords, says his new $800 electric plank is comfy and brings something new to the table, imagine that. Ridiculous. Where are the living things? Where is the composition that isnt a vague blur? Where is the music? Fucking nowhere. Also, this overpriced pos is the same size as a snoy, and has worse iq than a fuji. Totally pointless camera. Might as well buy literally anything else >micro four thirds is yooneek!Really isn’t. It’s flat out inferior to aps-c and the same fucking size and price, just with more gimmicks that really don’t apply to good photography. No one pays almost a thousand dollars for "dont PIKSEL PIIP doe!". The entire point of using something other than a phone is the ability to crop, rotate, acknowledge that photos are enjoyable beyond limitations meant for an ancient windows pc on dsl internet (like 1000px limits), and that zooming in to look at stuff is actually fine. Because a phone takes a photo that looks good enough, in fact, just as good as m43, as long as it’s never edited and never bigger than the palm of your hand. So its phone photos with ILC inconvenience.
Only good gear thread
>>4486756saarGPT wrote this response. I specifically said I was a snapshitter, I don't claim to be an artist. You ignore or misrepresent everything I posted. I took a series of photos on a crummy day with bad light so I could post a review here, yes they're not incredible. Feel free to post your own.
>>4486733And yes they're shot with a wide aperture because if I didn't show that, the SNOY crowd would be chimping out that muh bokeh is impossible with M43
>>4486762>im a snapshitter but i cant even catch a living thing other than a plant in a photoK. Do better. Take a photo of a cat. >malding about indians and sony out of nowhereTraumatized. We should get a real rajesh in here to gloat over the "timmies” who do this.
>>4486763>teh SNOYS live so rent free in my head i take worse photos just to appease them>the actual sony users: hmm, yes, this photo would be best at f22A sad mistake desuImagine letting theoretical strangers on the internet affect your photos for the worse
>>4486762K so nothing to add about why your SNOY would be a better choice for my use case
>>4486771>my photosI took these pictures to post on 4chan so people who were interested in the system or were considering m43 for the same reasons I was could read my thoughts and see examples of images taken with it, and that's it.
>>4486772>randomly seething about sony againWhat does sony have to do with the lacking aesthetic of your photos? People shoot winogrand style street on iphone 5s.
>>4486776you quite literally brought up snoy in your initial response lmao
>>4486773I dont think a photo where everything is blurry except for a slice of a tree branch is that informative either. Do they not have cats where you live? People zoned out on benches? Anything with everything in focus?
>>4486780I know it's hard to imagine from calcutta, but here it's like 10 degrees F, cats and people aren't hanging out outside.
>>4486781Cats hang out when it’s -10 but apparently you think about pajeets so much you miss them
>>4486780but sure here's something with more in focus
>>4486782they absolutely don't lmao. This is my last response to you also as this has nothing to do with the content of my post.
>>4486785Yes they do i’m from ukraine. Your cats are pussies. There are even birds when its cold out. >>4486783What? Nothing is in focus. I think you fucked up. The gray car closest to the camera has the least fringing so i guess thats where the focus landed, so its technically in focus, but its on the edge so its still blurry with this crappy lens wide open at f4There’s hints of green on white edges everywhere else = out of focusMaybe micro four thirds is horribly bad, worse than an entry level nikon dslrOr maybe you lack skill
>>4486787Why did you focus on the parked cars closest to the window instead of the ones across the streetAll photos are 99% blur anyways so why not just focus on the window? It would be more interesting than a blurry martini bar in new hampshireYou could go somewhere photogenic like figaros at least ffs
>>4486789>the entire photo is green tinted bokehHoly shit man
>>4486795You got the background in focus! Unfortunately it’s titled and obscured by blurry twigs
So this is the power of micro four thirds...
Does micro four thirds just suck, like, the autofocus cant work, the levels are wrong, and the viewfinder coverage is poorer than stated, and there’s a magical creativity sapping aura? Because to own a d850, you HAVE to be better at this
>/m43/ btfo by their own photography
i like your pictures anon, if you really want a fun exercise to troll /p/ take some with the d850 and claim they're m43 and vice versa
