 |
| Shadow (click to enlarge) Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II, Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens @ 32mm; 1/800th sec. @ f/8; ISO 200 |
Previously, I owned and extensively used the E-M5 as well as the original E-M1 and enjoyed both tremendously. Considering the size, weight, cost and resultant image quality, both were extraordinary image making machines in my opinion. Several months ago I found that I was picking up my Fuji X-T1 almost all of the time, so I sold my E-M1 and some of my m4/3 lenses. When the Mark II was introduced I was thoroughly intrigued about what Olympus created with this new version and this camera could do with all of its new technological whiz bang features that I bought one to use. I'm not giving up my Fuji as my primary gear, but I wanted to also use and write about the new Olympus camera.
The Olympus engineering philosophy and user experience is so different from Fuji's, that before I use it for something critical, I need to thoroughly get to know this camera, its features, its menus, etc. all over again. Since most controls and menu items are very similar to the original E-M1's, most of my memories of the menus and capabilities came back quickly, but my muscle memory needs refreshed as well. My instinct when needing to quickly change settings is the Fuji system (an example would be changing the aperture by turning the aperture ring on the lens versus a dial) so I need to get used to Olympus once more so I can quickly make changes to not miss an image because I can't figure out how to change a setting or two.
To start this process, I took the Mark II out on a nice clear, blue sky, winter day to Colonial Williamsburg, just to wander, get to know the camera and lens, walk around and see what I could see and make some images. It was a nice relaxing time. I'm posting some of the images I made that day so you can see what I saw. These are nothing more than what I call "thoughtful snapshots." They are nothing special and more like record or stock images rather than art. Since the sun was bright in the afternoon sky and casting deep shadows, I especially was trying to emphasize the shadow patterns on many of the buildings.
The one thing that I noticed upon opening the images in Lightroom CC was that the blue skies were very dark and oversaturated. In almost all of the images I had to reduce saturation and lighten the blue skies in the HSL panel so they looked more realistic. I'm still not entirely satisfied with how they reproduced from this day. It may be my settings. All of the other colors are as recorded in Olympus' "Natural" image setting, but since these were RAW images, that didn't translate over to the editing software. However, the overall colors look very close to what I saw in real life as well as on my LCD.
Additionally, when editing in Lightroom CC, I normally will go to the "Color Calibration" panel so I can set my preference for color, contrast, shadow, highlight and saturation rendition. An example is Fuji's film simulations or, with other cameras, Adobe's version of their in-camera settings. That was not available for this camera. The only item that appeared was Adobe's default setting with the word "beta" after it. It appears Adobe is not yet finished reverse engineering Olympus' camera settings. That might be the explanation for the intensely blue skies at this point in time.
 |
(click to enlarge)
40mm; 1/2000th sec. @ f/5.6; ISO 200
|
 |
(click to enlarge)
22mm; 1/640th sec. @ f/8; ISO 200
|
 |
(click to enlarge)
This was the result of three images combined as the scene was in very bright sunlight and deep shadow. I wanted to see
how well a Lightroom HDR would look. Three images, 2 stops apart; 20mm; 1/3200th sec.; 1/800th sec.; 1/200th sec.@ f/8; ISO 200 |
 |
(click to enlarge)
20mm; 1/1000th sec. @ f/8; ISO 200
|
 |
| (click to enlarge) 35mm; 1/640th sec. @ f/8; ISO 200 |
 |
(click to enlarge)
20mm; 1/1000th sec. @ f/8; ISO 200
|
 |
(click to enlarge)
29mm; 1/1600th sec. @ f/5.6; ISO 200
|
 |
(click to enlarge)
22mm; 1/800th sec. @ f/5.6; ISO 200
|
 |
(click to enlarge)
25mm; 1/320th sec. @ f/8; ISO 200
|
 |
(click to enlarge)
40mm; 1/2000th sec. @ f/2.8; ISO 200
|
 |
(click to enlarge)
40mm; 1/1600th sec. @ f/5.6; ISO 200
|
 |
(click to enlarge)
27mm; 1/200th sec. @ f/5.6; ISO 200
|
 |
(click to enlarge)
14mm; 1/500th sec. @ f/9; ISO 200
|
Just a bit of information for any of you who wish to visit Colonial Williamsburg. It has been my experience over the past 40 years that the 2nd week in April is the peak week for blossoming flowers, colorful gardens and a full view of spring. Likewise, the 2nd week of November is the peak week for fall colors. These vary some years, but on average, these are the two weeks that are most photogenic.
Thanks for looking. Enjoy!
Dennis A. Mook
All content on this blog is © 2013-2017 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.
Enjoy your blog. As someone who makes images with Olympus, but have my eye on Fuji -- just wondering if you had an Olympus image, but really wanted to approximate Fuji color -- how would you process? I've considered buying an old X-E1 for $200 and grabbing the 35mm-e f2 lens, but it's a lot for a jpg engine. And I'd be further tempted by the lens catalog!
ReplyDeleteIt would take a bit of time and some work. I would go out with the Olympus and Fuji together and make several identical images using both cameras with a variety of colors, saturation levels, contrasts, detail, etc., then in Lightroom edit the Olympus to my satisfaction. I would then attempt to duplicate the hues, saturation levels, contrast levels showing highlight and shadow detail as well as micro contrast, sharpness, etc. on the Fuji files. One can use the develop module, specifically the Basic panel and the Camera Calibration panel. The Camera Calibration panel can be used to fine tune and standardize on specific hues and saturations to match the Fuji files with the Olympus files. I would then create a preset so it is applied as I import my Fuji files. I think you would have to experiment a bit on making enough of the right image files to duplicate the look, but I think you could accomplish it all in one day.
DeleteIt's all a matter of taste, of course, but on my calibrated monitor your photographs look too light. And the blue skies would definitely look better to me if they were darker and more saturated.
ReplyDeleteDave, I have my monitor calibrated at 100 cd/m2, which is a compromise between calibration for printing st 90 and general web use at 120. I do print on occasion but find keeping my monitor at 90 cd/m2 produces a less than acceptable result on the web. I agree these are a bit lighter than I usually send out. For now, I'll attribute this lightness to just getting a brand new monitor for Christmas and needing to recalibrate more often while it is still new. I'll have to run some tests to see how things look on the new monitor versus my iPad, which is usually pretty good about determining how an image will look to the general public.
DeleteOn the other hand, these shadows were very dark and I remember keeping them a bit lighter in order to retain detail in them. I may have overdone it. Thanks for the heads up.
Dennis, I will second the perception of lighter than expected images. I have Fuji gear and love it, and on occasion think about getting out the EM1 to enjoy its much more sophisticated tools and technology. I especially enjoy the time lapse directly into movies, and the ability to watch your time lapse image "develop" right before your eyes. Have you had a chance to try the high resolution mode? That seems pretty intriguing as well.
DeleteRudiger, no I haven't yet had time to take it out much. We are having some home renovations done and I've been home all week with the contractor. I suspect I won't be getting out much over the next couple of weeks as well. As spring rolls in, I plan on getting out and trying out some of the new Olympus features.
DeleteDave, I've reposted the images about 1/2 stop darker than previously. Take a look at them and see if they look closer to normal luminance on your monitor. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteBonjour,
ReplyDeleteVos photos et vos articles et réflexions sont toujours aussi bon . Continuez pour notre plus grand plaisir.
A très bientôt.
Didier ROUSSEL
Merci, mon ami.
DeleteYour photographs normally look about right to me, Dennis, but these are still too light for my taste.
Deletedid you turn the auto WB setting "keep warm colors on" setting off? it seems to be on as a default. things looked better to me when i turn it off. it's under the gear menu G.
ReplyDeleteAlways, Nicholas. But that warm winter sun is so nice as compared with that high, blue summer sun.
DeleteSo Dennis, After Using the new Olympus for a little while, do you have a preference between the Fuji and the Olympus in re-guards to image quality?
ReplyDeleteLonnie, thanks for the question. I think the image quality of the X-T2 and the E-M1 Mark II are comparable. Some may disagree. However, the Fuji still holds the edge in when using high ISOs. That is where you will see a small difference in noise. But, as you know, we can largely neutralize that now in the latest editing software. As far as other aspects of any particular image, I can match them for color, saturation, contrast, etc., but I do like the film simulation Fuji (as well as Adobe) provides. At the end of the day, I pick up the Fuji first, not because of some magical image quality or "look," but because of the camera itself, the controls, how they are laid out, the menu structure and the haptics--how the camera feels in my hand. Both are superb image making tools and we are fortunate to have them.
DeleteOne more comment. I do like the ability to pull more shadow and highlight detail out of the Olympus files and I wish Fuji would work on dynamic range instead of more pixels in the future.
I will enjoy using both of them immensely in the future!
Since Fuji has a larger sensor, should't the dynamic range be greater than the dynamic range for the Olympus? and therefore, shouldn't it be easier to get more detail from the Fuji? Maybe my understanding of dynamic range is incorrect... Looking forward to your insight.
DeleteKathleen, sorry for the delay in response. Grandkids are to blame!
DeleteTypically sensors with larger photocells gather more light and have less noise. However, the Fuji has a 24mp sensor that APS-C in size while the Olympus has a 20mp sensor that is M4/3 in size. There isn't much difference in the actual size of each individual photocell. Additionally, with the advances and sophistication of sensor manufacture, coupled with the sophisticated algorithms the manufacturers use to message the image files in-camera (even raw files), the differences have been greatly diminished from what they once were.
I see almost no difference in image quality from the M4/3 Olympus camera as compared to the APS-C Fuji camera. The differences will become more apparent when you photograph, as I say, "on the fringes." Extremely low light, extremely high ISO, etc. But for 99% of the kind of photography I do, I don't see a difference worth mentioning.