Olympus E-M1 Journal::Entry #2: The Little Beast Arrives!

Splendid!  The E-M1 arrived within just three days of ordering it, and I have fallen in love.  This is in spite of already being an owner of the superb E-M5.

In my first post (#1 here) about this camera I listed a dozen or so things about it that caused me to press the "order now" button.  I do think that many of the new features have a bit of hype to them; but nevertheless the improvements are so many that this E-M1 is definitely a keeper.

Though I am excited about many of the features, I do need to point out for any new Olympus users that these Olympuses are really complicated machines.  This is my fourth interchangeable lens model from Oly.  Before purchasing the E-M5 when it came out in 2012 I owned an E-620 and before that an E-520.  Even so, when I received the E-M5 nearly two years ago I remember writing on some one's blog that it took me two days to get it set up whereas the equally good image-maker, the Panasonic GH2, took two hours.

What helped this time was that I turned on both the E-M5 and E-M1 and merely duplicated by inputs from the M5 to the M1.  Of course there were a few additional menu items on the M1, but by pushing the "info" button I usually got enough information to figure out what I was doing.  Of course, there is always the manual... which I tend to avoid except as a last resort!

Eye-Candy: Using a Minolta MD mount-to-M4/3 mount adapter ring I have
attached an old Minolta 35-70 F3.5 zoom with hood

Looking at my original list of twelve items, in this post I will comment on the 10th item:  

The Size.

Though in the title of today's post I called this a "little" beast, there are many who question the word "little".  The body alone is 17.5 ounces and it is solid thanks to its magnesium alloy construction.  (By the way, that's heavier than the E-M5 but lighter than the Panasonic GH3.) Plus I have added another 3.5 ounces with the RRS (Really Right Stuff) base and L-plate.  

The RRS base and L-plate arrived the same day as the camera and the first thing I did was to screw it into the camera's off-center tripod mount.  The base plate itself also has a tripod mount, which is centered directly under the lens mount. As a result of the plate, the camera is now 10mm higher in dimension.  I like, like, like this, as it allows my pinkie finger to hold onto the grip rather than being awkwardly curled up under the camera body.  The grip is awesome already, but with the added height from the RRS base plate, I am really smiling.  The haptics and ergonomics of this camera are a step up from the E-M5.

Some would argue that a camera body this large defeats the purpose of the m43 format.  I understand that argument, but when you add in the lenses I think you get a much smaller kit than with the APS-C and FF kits.  (Time will tell about the new Sony A7 FF camera.)

Overall the camera is enough bigger than the E-M5 that it can offer bigger and more buttons, plus more real estate to the right of the LCD.  The result is that I don't feel cramped.  The below size comparison is from www.camerasize.com.  If you haven't checked out their Web site, you should.  It allows you to compare any number of camera bodies, two at a time, side by side, from different angles.

For me, the most important things that come from the larger size are: (1) bigger grip, (2) better ergonomics of the shutter button, slightly forward of the camera and angled slightly downward, (3) more accessible dual dials, (4) more real estate on the back of the camera and to the right of the LCD, and (5) bigger buttons. With regard to the buttons, the four-way controller on the E-M5 had to be pressed with my thumb tip (or fingernail) pointed into the buttons whereas now on the E-M1 I can press with the pad of my thumb... lovely. 

NEX-6 v. Olympus E-M5: which is better for legacy macro lenses?

I've recently been shooting macros with a Nikkor Ai-S 105mm micro lens, fitted with separate adapters to fit the Sony NEX-6 and Olympus E-M5. 

Bottom line: My clear preference for this legacy macro lens is the Olympus E-M5 body.  This is not because of any difference in image quality, as they both do a great job.  But the preference is because of what I believe is Olympus's better handling characteristics, at least when shooting macros.



Sony NEX 6 and Olympus OM-D E-M5 both with Nikon adapters
to attach Nikkor 105mm micro lens.





I'll start my comments with the Sony NEX-6:

The NEX-6 has only a couple of potential advantages as I see it.  First is "focus peaking" which helps the process of manually focusing a lens.  But when shooting flowers up close it works inconsistently.  I find it works well when focusing on the edges of petals.  But not so much when trying to focus on the stamens of a flower.  The petal edges usually have sharp edges against a blurry background.  Here the focus peaking works.  But mid-tone yellow stamens, for example,  against a background of mid-tone green petals makes the peaking ineffective.

Another potential advantage is the larger 16 megapixel.  The APS-C sized 16 megapixel sensor on the Sony is larger than the m43 16 megapixel sensor on the Olympus.  (It is commonly believed that both sensors are made by Sony.)

A larger sensor usually translates into better high ISO image quality. I am usually shooting macros at a shutter speed of 1/200th and at F8 or F11, and this often requires higher ISOs (such as 1600).  But to be honest, I just don't see a difference in image quality between the two cameras.  Perhaps a difference would be noticed in very large prints, perhaps over 20", but with macros I don't think I've ever printed anything bigger than 12" on the long side.



Now let me move to the Olympus:

I own the accessory battery grip for the E-M5, and this helps immensely when shooting with the 105mm lens.  That's because the lens with adapter weighs 21 ounces.  With the grip, you can hold the camera body with all four fingers (not just three fingers like on the NEX-6, or the E-M5 minus the grip). 
I also feel an extra level of camera stability with the E-M5 because the EVF is in the middle of the camera body, while it is on the left (rangefinder style) on the Sony.  I realize that the center EVF causes me to press the camera against my nose, but this makes for a more stable platform.  (Note: I have a big nose!)

And finally, with regard to stability, Olympus has an in-camera stabilization system that will work with any lens.  Though I generally shoot macros at a safe shutter speed of about 1/200th second, so far I have left image stabilization "on".  Don't forget to make the in-camera adjustment necessary to let it know the focal length of the legacy lens being used.

Shutter Priority:

When shooting at apertures and shutter speeds that will generally require higher ISOs, I prefer to use Shutter Priority on both of these cameras with this lens.  Because you are setting the F-stop with the ring on the lens barrel, setting the shutter speed in Shutter Priority essentially gives you Manual exposure control, in that neither the shutter speed nor the aperture will change unless you change them.  For me, that is often 1/200th and F8. 

Now, here is where Shutter Priority pays off.  And that's because I have a preference for Auto ISO.  I want to pick the shutter speed and aperture with this lens and then I'd like the camera to give me an accurate automatic exposure by adjusting the ISO accordingly.  When it works well, I can move around the scene at different angles and the camera will give me a nice exposure by moving the ISO up or down as the light changes.  The reason I wrote "when it works well" is because I believe both cameras have trouble with finding the correct exposure in shutter priority mode with old lenses.  But this has been more the case with the Sony, as I find I nearly always need to use EV compensation, sometimes 2 or 3 stops.


EV Compensation in Shutter Priority:

First, with both cameras, and with legacy lenses attached, the Shutter Priority forces EV compensation to effect ISO only.  It has no effect on shutter speed or aperture.

Unfortunately, adjusting EV compensation is not an easy process on the Sony.  I have to hold the camera away from my body so I can look at the buttons.  The EV button is the "down" button on the 4-way controller.  This takes you to another screen without a histogram to watch.  The new screen shows the EV choices in 1/3 stops.  You then rotate the rear dial to add or subtract exposure.  It will change the ISO, as I mentioned above, but you do not have a histogram to view while making the changes.  (This I understand is not a problem on the NEX-7.)  After inputting the EV compensation amount, you can half press the shutter button to get back to the original viewing screen.  Only then will you see the effect on the histogram. 

I much prefer adjusting EV compensation on the Olympus because you never need to take your eye away from the EVF because the adjustment dial is the front dial that surrounds the shutter  button.  As you turn the dial with your first finger, ISO is adjusted and you can watch the change right there on the histogram shown on the EVF.  (That assumes you have the histogram activated in the menu... I always have mine on.)

The Advantage of Olympus's Smaller Sensor:

For macros where you want more depth of field, the smaller Olympus sensor has an advantage. Using the same 105mm macro lens on the smaller-sensor Olympus and the larger-sensor Sony means that to similarly compose the same image,  I have to stand a bit further back with the Olympus.  This is because at the same focusing distance the Olympus sensor would only capture the center (approximately 3/4th) of any image that would be fully captured on the Sony sensor.

So how does this effect depth of field? 

We usually think of the depth of field being determined by the F-stop.  But it is also determined by the magnification.  More magnification means less depth of field, while less magnification means more depth of field.

Because I need to be further from the subject when using the 105mm on the Olympus, this actually decreases the magnification and therefore increases the depth of field.  This makes sense when you think that the smaller sensor in effect increased magnification (by cropping the outside of the image when compared with the larger sensor on the Sony) when focusing at the same distance, and the only way to make things "equal" is to compensate by decreasing magnification by moving further from the subject.

A specific example is that if I am shooting F8 on the Sony I can get the same (approx) depth of field on the Olympus using F5.6. Again, its because if I want to achieve the same composition on the Olympus viewfinder as on the Sony viewfinder, I have to be slightly further from the subject.  Because increasing the focusing distance increases depth of field, to get an image equivalent to what the Sony captures, I must compensate by decreasing the depth of filed by way of providing a one-stop larger aperture (ex. use F8 on the Sony and F5.6 on the Olympus).

What then is the advantage?

The advantage is that the Olympus is letting in twice as much light at F5.6 as it would at F8.  This then allows me to shoot at one-stop lower ISO (If the Sony needs ISO 1600 at F8, I can shoot the Olympus at ISO 800 at F11).  All things being equal, lower ISO will result in a higher quality image!

Olympus E-M5 plus old Ai-S Nikkor 105 micro: samples

Two posts ago (here) I showed a few samples of macro flower shots taken at our nearby botanic garden using the Sony NEX-6 camera body plus a very old Nikon lens, the Ai-S version of the Nikkor 105mm F2.8.  Today I am posting what I believe are equally sharp macro images using the same lens on an Olympus E-M5. 



Like all the mirrorless models, both cameras can accommodate old lenses as long as the appropriate lens adapter is attached between the camera body and lens.  There are no electronics connections, so aperture must be adjusted on the barrel of the old lens and manual focus is required.

Reviews of the performance of old lenses originally designed for film cameras show that there are great variations in image quality depending on model, brand and/or focal length.  But I have been very happy with this old Nikkor Ai-S model 105mm F2.8.  (If you are interested, I see they sell for about $350 on eBay.)

On a full frame Nikon this lens is a 1:2 macro, but on a m43 camera with its 1/2 size sensor (half the diagonal of a FF camera) you get a 1:1 macro.

I've been recently comparing the image quality of this old lens on the Sony NEX-6 and the Olympus E-M5. There are differences in how the Olympus and Sony handle the old lenses.  A primary benefit of the Sony is what is called "focus peaking".  As you bring a subject into focus, areas in focus turn yellow along lines of high contrast (you can also select red or, I think, white).  Unfortunately this works inconsistently with macro shooting. 

One advantage of the Olympus is that there exists in-body image stabilization.  This results in stabilizing even old legacy lenses like this old Nikkor.  On the other hand, when shooting flowers outdoors (perhaps my primary use for a macro lens)  I like to use a shutter speed of about 1/160 to 1/250 because even in a windless day there is air movement that can create slight amounts of subject motion.  At these speeds, using a 105mm lens (with an effective reach of 160mm on the Sony and 210mm on the Olympus) I can hand-hold the camera without noticeable camera shake, without needing image stabilization.

So, perhaps the main benefits of each system (focus peaking on the Sony, and in-body stabilization on the Olympus) aren't that significant (to me) when using this lens.

There are other differences in operation which I expect to elaborate on in a future post; but first I need to shoot with both cameras and this one lens a few more times.

As you can see below, the results from this old-technology lens on a new-technology camera are very nice.  Perhaps new lenses are sharper (though nothing is currently available for Sony E-mount and Oly/Pany m43), but I doubt I would notice the difference at a normal viewing distances.  What I can say about the pictures below is that they are sharp enough me.

These were all processed in Lightroom 4, from RAW files.

[Click on the images to see a larger image, up to 1600 x 1200 pixels depending on your monitor size and resolution.]



I focused on the yellow stamen tips. Any blur is a depth of field issue,
even though I shot at F8.  Shutter = 1/200.  ISO = 2000.

 

I think I was focusing on the center of this flower (i.e. the brown stamens). Most likely shot at F8.
Shutter speed = 1/200. ISO = 2500.

 

Focus was on the red stamen tips, and they are sharp.  But likely I was using wider aperture like F5.6 or F4  than I
was using on the prior two images.  Shutter = 1/200. ISO = 1250.

 

Sony NEX-6 plus old Ai-S Nikkor 105 micro: Samples

My best guess is that this Nikkor Ai-S lens is 20 years old.  They just don't make them like this anymore:  metal construction;  useful markings;  manual aperture ring; mechanical focus.  On the other hand, the lens plus Nikon-to-Sony adapter weighs 21 ounces.  I am likely not the only one to find this creates a balance issue when attached to the 12 ounce NEX body.

Pictured below, the old Nikkor 105mm Micro lens is attached to a new NEX-6 via a $20 adapter. One end of the adapter fits the Sony E mount.  The other end fits the Nikon mount.  There is no electronic or mechanical connection between the camera and the lens.  The adapter simply creates the necessary space between the sensor and the lens to allow correct focusing.

Due to the cropped sensor (2/3 the diagonal dimension of a sensor on a full frame camera), a 105mm lens has an effective field of view of about 160mm (105 is about 2/3 of 160).  I need to get a little closer to the subject with this combo than I do with this lens on my Olympus EM-5 because the Olympus uses a sensor that is 1/2 the diagonal of a full frame sensor, so there is more magnification. (Therefore, you don't need to be physically as close to the subject with the Olympus.)

The pictures below came out nicely.  However, in the field this lens is too big and heavy
for the diminutive NEX 6 body. Perhaps that's because the body weighs 12 ounces
and the lens weighs 21 ounces.

I spent about 30 minutes yesterday shooting with the lens indoors (hand held, natural light only) at a nearby botanic gardens.  Being November, there's not a lot going on yet.  But I did find a few blooming plants.  I have read all kinds of things about these old, non-concentric lenses not working so well on the new cameras.  That's not been my experience with this Nikon micro lens.  I think these images are definitely sharp enough.

I can't remember the f-stop I used, but it was either F8 or F11.  Unfortunately because the aperture is set manually on the lens, there is no record in the image file as to what f-stop was used.  To maintain a 1/focal length shutter speed I shot these at 1/160th. This was fast enough to eliminate camera shake and subject movement.  Had I been outdoors I would have opted for 1/250th.  Even on calm days there is likely to be air movement.

I used Shutter Priority and auto ISO.  Frequently, I did have to use the EV compensation button to get the desired exposure.  For some reason the Sony exposure meter frequently wanted to underexpose the images.  Sometimes this was as much as three stops.  EV compensation changed the ISO, which is what I wanted, because I did not want to change the aperture (F8 or F11) or shutter speed (1/160th). 

 



Olympus 45mm F1.8 versus Olympus 50mm F2 on the Panasonic G2

In an earlier post I wrote about the use of lens adapters on the Panasonic G2 that provide for the attachment of "legacy" and other non-micro four thirds lenses.  One evening I tested several "portrait" lenses:

• Olympus 50mm F2 macro (with Panasonic 43-to-m43 adapter)
• Nikon 58mm F1.4 (with Cowboy Studio's Nikon-to-m43 adapter)
• Rokinon 85mm F1.4 in 4/3 mount (with Panasonic 43-to-m43 adapter)
• Olympus 45mm F1.8 (this lens is a m43 lens and did not need an adapter)

In this post I will compare the Olympus m43 45mm F1.8 lens and the Olympus 43 50mm F2. 

CONCLUSION FIRST

I will state my conclusion first, then show some sample photos. 

I found the new m4/3 Oly 45mm to give essentially identical image quality to the older, regular-4/3 Oly 50mm macro, when images were taken at F2, F4, and F8. With the 50mm I stepped back from my subject slightly to provide a similarly framed image to what I captured with the 45mm.  The images were taken indoors under limited light, because that is how I mostly use fast prime lenses.

The Panasonic Lumix 43-to-m43 adapter

With both lenses, there was excellent sharpness in the center and excellent sharpness at the edges. Color and contrast seemed identical as well.  I did not use a tripod, as that would not be a "real world" situation for me; however, the slowest shutter speed I used was 1/320th so there should be not camera shake. I shot in RAW and processed in Lightroom 3 at default settings.

I compared both images taken at F2, then both taken at F4, then both taken at F8.  I compared by viewing at up to 300% on my monitor.  If I were forced to pick the sharper lens at F2 I would pick the 50mm, but only when viewed at 200%-300% and only in the center.  At 100% I can't see the difference.  I also printed at 8x10 and couldn't see a difference. At F4 and F8, I would have to flip a coin.  (Let me make it clear that I was only comparing F2 versus F2, F4 versus F4, and F8 versus F8.  I was not comparing F2 versus F4 versus F8.)

For all I know, if I shot additional samples, I'd get different comparative results.  But I really don't care, as both lenses are sharper than I am.  Every day I shoot with lenses less sharp than these two, and I am perfectly happy.

COMPARISON

Note that the Oly 50mm, because it was designed for regular 4/3 bodies, requires a 43-to-m43 adapter.  The adapters made by Panasonic and Olympus provide electrical connections between the lens and body.  Either will work fine.  They are expensive, so buy whichever is cheaper.  Either adapter will allow the 50mm to use many of the automatic features offered by the G2 body, such as autofocus (albeit, as slow as molasses), and automatic exposure.  The autofocus is so slow and noisy with the 50mm, that I use manual focus.

G2 with Olympus 50mm F2 macro, connected with Panasonic 43-to-m43 lens adapter

The 45mm is specifically designed for m43 and has screachingly fast and very quiet autofocus.  With a maximum aperture of F1.8, it has a half-stop advantage over the 50mm F2.  But you need to give up the macro capability of the 50mm.  It is very small in size; but I disliked using it on the G2.  Frankly, it looks ugly on the G2 (little silver lens attached to a black body).  More importantly, I don't like the ergonomics and balance of this small lens on the G2 because I can't comfortably hold the lens barrel with my left hand.  Probably with more time, I would get used to holding the camera body with two hands like a point and shoot as there is no (or limited) need to use the focus ring and there is no aperature ring. 

G2 with Olympus 45mm F1.8. Even without the blue plastic packing tape this combination is ugly and the ergonomics unenticing

I ended up returning this lens.  Its value to me would be the fast autofocus.  But because I already own the 50mm, I decided that it just wasn't worth the money for my needs.  If I ever buy a smaller m43 camera, like a silver PEN, it is possible that I will re-purchase this lens.

WHICH ONE WOULD I BUY?

If I didn't own either lens and could afford to buy only one, which would I'd buy? 

Actually, for me the answer is neither.  That's because they are expensive at $450 (50mm) and $385 (45mm).  And I suppose if I didn't already own the $100 Panasonic 43-to-m43 adapter, that would completely put the 50mm off limits.  The thing is, I am currently having fun covering the same territory with two old Nikon lens:  My nearly 50 year old 58mm F1.4 (inherited in 1975-ish from a friend of my dad's; according to the serial number it was built about 1963) gives me a portrait lens and my 55mm F3.5 micro (from eBay for $100) gives me macro capabilities.  I don't mind that everything is manual, including flash settings.  It's actually kind of fun, and I think it makes me a better photographer... or at least more focused (clichéd pun intended).

Digesting what I just wrote in the above paragraph, it seems that I ought to consider selling the 50mm.  After all, I just wrote that I wouldn't buy it if I didn't already own it.  Hmmm.

SAMPLES

Six images (two each at F2, F4, and F8) are viewable as downsized images and can also be downloaded as full size images on my Zenfolio-powered site here:
http://www.peterfraileyphoto.com/oly45mm50mm

Using "legacy" lenses on the G2

One of the really cool capabilities of the micro four thirds (m43) cameras built by Olympus and Panasonic is the ability to use old manual lenses from almost any maker via inexpensive lens adapters.  The design of the m43 cameras makes this possible by removing the traditional optical viewfinder (OVF), mirror, and mirror box found in SLRs and dSLRs.   This makes the cameras smaller.  In the case of the Panasonic G-series and GH-series the removed items have been replaced with an electronic viewfinder (EVF), representing a significant net space savings.

Another result of the m43 design is that the distance between the sensor and the lens-mount is shortened and the cameras are thinner.  By using an adapter ring to "add back" the distance required by old manual lenses, often called "legacy" lenses, we are able to get these old optics to (generally) focus correctly on the new bodies. 

For example, so I can use my old Nikkor lenses, I purchased an adapter ring sold by Cowboy Studios via Amazon for about $20.  EBay is another good source for these inexpensive adapter rings.  The length of the Nikon-to-m43 adapter ring is 25mm (about 1").  It's nothing fancy.  Just a black metal tube with a m43 lens-mount on one end, and a Nikon body-mount on the other. You can find adapter rings for nearly every brand of lens.  Each will be sized little differently.

Nikon-to-m43 adapter from Cowboy Studios

I think the results with my Nikkors are very good, but I have read many reports of soft images, especially with other brands.  It must be remembered that these old lenses were built to be used with film.  They are not optimized for digital.

Some G2 camera features are disabled with the legacy lenses.  Because the lens adapter ring provides no electrical connections between the camera body and the lens, you will need a legacy lens that has an aperture ring.  You will then switch the camera to Aperture-Priority Mode.  After you manually set the aperture using the aperture ring on the lens, the camera's metering system will then pick the speed required to get the "correct" exposure at the ISO you've selected for that image.  The G2 also seems to work well with AutoISO, which I have set to a maximum of 1600.  I notice some underexposing, sometimes 2/3 to 1-stop, in lower light situations when using smaller diameter apertures like F8, so watch the histogram and be prepared to use some EV compensation.

One disadvantage of the G2 (and all Panasonic m43 cameras) is that there is no in-body image stabilization.  Meanwhile, Olympus builds image stabilization right into the m43 body.  This means that any legacy lens you attach to an Olympus will be image stabilized.  On the other hand, Olympus has yet to make a m43 camera with a built-in EVF; though there are rumors of one being announced this year.  If they build one, I'll buy it.

In the meantime, I don't view this Panasonic disadvantage as a big deal, at least for the legacy lenses I own.  My four Nikkor lens have focal lengths of 55mm, 58mm, 85mm and 105mm.  The G2 appears to maintain a minimum speed of 1/125th before bumping up the ISO.  This works for me, as I feel I can satisfactorily hand hold the 55, 56 and 85 at 1/125th.  And since these lenses are used primarily for candids, a speed of 1/125th is about as low as I would want to go, even if I had image stabilization available. 

Panasonic G2 + Cowboy Studios' "Nikon-to-m43" adapter ring + Nikkor 58mm F1.4 circa 1963

The 105mm F2.8 is a different story, but I am still happy with the results.  It is a macro lens (Nikon calls it a "micro").  Theoretically, to get a sharp image I should shoot an unstabilized 105mm lens on a 2x crop factor camera at a shutter speed of 1/200th second.  Coincidentally this is my preferred  lens speed for this lens, and would be my preferred speed even with image stabilization.  That's because I use this primarily for flowers outdoors, and without a flash.  Because even on calm days I believe there is some subject movement, I am happy with this shutter speed even if it requires ISO1600, though admittedly I might follow up such a shot with a shutter speed of 1/125 and lower ISO (1250?), as it's always preferable to use the lowest ISO possible.

A final cool feature that will help you with your manual focusing is the magnified view offered by the EVF.  I don't use it all the time, but when you do need it, just press the thumb dial (it clicks "in" like a button) to get a magnified view of the subject inside the single-point focus box.  As a second step, your magnification can be increased further by turning the thumb dial wheel one click to the right. You can also move the focus box to any other area of the viewfinder using the four-way pad.  When using the LCD you have the added choice of using the touchscreen feature to relocate the focus box. 

For candids, I like to move the focus box so it is centered horizontally and down 1/3rd from the top, because typically the subject's face will be in the 1/3rd  position.  As far as I can tell there are no settings to make this selected position "sticky", not even within one of the Custom Settings modes.  So you will need to reset it every time your turn the camera on... so, if you are not using a tripod, perhaps its will be easier to leave the focus box in the absolute center and just focus and recompose....

In the future, I plan to compare some "old" lenses and some "new" lenses.  Generally, I think the old lenses are fun to use if you already own them.  I'm not sure, however, if it is worth buying old legacy lenses.  It seems that the price of old lenses has increased dramatically as owners of m43 bodies and now Sony NEX bodies have discovered them.