Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II: A Vintage-Style Budget Camera [Review]

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Well, I am an old user of Olympus and Panasonic cameras and I can add that I watched the resolution charts for the 16MPixels crop 4/3 sensors of this cameras in Raw mode and, almost all the sources I have consulted showed a parity with the 24 MPixels sensors you are comparing with… That’s quite elementary as the crop 4/3 sensors perhaps is smaller the a crop APS-C or DX one, but it also has less pixels. The image quality should be the same as Sony is manufacturing these sensors for a lot of companies, and the glass is superior and easier to manufacture for Olympus and Panasonic cameras. I want to say that ‘smaller’ Olympus single sensors have almost, if not the same size as the one from greater Sony APS-C cameras and just a little smaller then a 50 MPixels or so Canon 5D Mark IV DR ‘professional’ camera. And the printing problem is not as complicated as you may think… Many professional labs are printing with 4800 dpi interpolating with a great success the 300 dpi. For example, I have printed in such a lab an A0 format which is really big, around 30X40 inches, without visible quality loss a Raw image taken with an Olympus 12 MPixels E-PM1 camera, no joke… So my opinion in comparing the Olympus camera with the Sony one is that Olympus is a great winner. Not to mention that the biggest drawback comparing with the full format ‘professional’ cameras is the ‘spatiality’ sensation given by the bigger sensor. But if you want to experience a truly ‘spatiality’ sensation, with just a few more dollars (of course, if you have them…) you can upgrade to a medium format camera or, why not, to an analog big format one and achieve new points of view or expression… Thank you!!!

    • Dan says:

      Your first point is a bit of a simplistic take. You’re saying that smaller sensors have smaller pixels, therefore larger sensors with larger pixels will equal out in “quality,” which is partially true. The pixel size comment is something I’ve mentioned repeatedly in other reviews, like the E-M1 Mark II review. But image quality is not only about resolution. You don’t account for depth of field control and dynamic range, which are factors of sensor area. And noise levels, which are pixel density, size, AND sensor area, among other factors. What you’re saying is why I tend to rate Micro 4/3rds sensors so highly despite the size issue. So I don’t disagree with your statement; you just think I’m over-emphasizing the size advantage of APS-C sensors in my comparison. Which I disagree with.

      “smaller Olympus single sensors have…..Mark IV DR ‘professional’ camera.” That’s false. Micro 4/3rds sensors are NOT almost the same size as full-frame sensors. Unless nearly 4x smaller is almost the same size. I’m guessing you think the review makes a blanket comparison about Olympus sensors being smaller when I’m speaking only about Olympus 4/3rds sensors.

      Your prints “without visible loss” are a matter of your interpretation; I follow print charts that are pretty well established. The review also does not compare 4/3rds to full format cameras, except to explain the differences in size. So I really don’t agree with this comment much.

      • Mircea Blanaru says:

        Perhaps I was not clearly enough!!! But what is the gain if you have a four times bigger sensor if you have four times more captors, or pixels if you understand me… The size of the captors or pixels will be the same…and the quality of the processed signal will also be almost the same…That’s all I had to say….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *