# Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II, new Flagship with 18 fps



## Maximilian (Sep 19, 2016)

New Olympus flagship OM-D E-M1 Mark II announced:
(German page, because US page does not load)
https://www.olympus.de/site/de/c/cameras/om_d_system_cameras/om_d/e_m1_mark_ii/index.html
I will add the English link as soon as I can reach it.

_EDIT:_ 
*********************************************
US product page:
http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/e-m1-mark-ii.html
*********************************************

Main Features:

21.8 MP MFT sensor, 20.4 MP effective
EVF with 2.360 k resolution
up to 18 fps with AF, 60fps w/o
AF with 121 phase pixel (cross sensors)
ISO up to 25.600 (native 6.400)
video C4K 4.096 x 2.160 / 24p / IPB (ca. 237 Mbit/s)
video 4K 3840 x 2160 / 30p, 25p, 24p / IPB (ca. 102 Mbit/s)
Dimensions W:134.1mm H:90.9mm D:68.9mm
Weight approx. 498g (body only) / approx. 574g (with BLH-1 battery and Memory card, based on CIPA standards)

_EDIT 
quote from the product page:_ 
*********************************************
*OM-D E-M1 Mark II at a Glance* 

Introducing the OM-D E-M1 Mark II, an advanced system of innovative technology and features designed to forever change your photography. Up to 18 frames per second sequential shooting with precision C-AF Tracking. 121 Cross-Type On-Chip Phase Detection AF points. Up to 5.5 shutter speed steps of compensation with powerful in-body image stabilization. Plus a 50MP High-Res Shot Mode. It’s all enclosed in a magnesium alloy weatherproof body that weighs a mere 600 grams. Paired with the superior resolution of M.Zuiko PRO lenses, the E-M1 Mark II will deliver brilliant imagery that’s coveted by professionals everywhere.


20 Megapixel Live MOS Sensor
Advanced 5-Axis Image Stabilization
Lightweight, Weatherproof Body
15fps Seq. Shooting (Mechanical)
60fps Seq. Shooting (Electronic)
1/8000s High-Speed Mechanical Shutter
Cinema 4K Video
121-Point Dual FAST AF
Fully-Articulating 3.0” Touch Monitor
50 Megapixel High-Res Shot Mode
Focus Bracketing and Stacking
Built-In Wi-Fi


----------



## Eldar (Sep 21, 2016)

https://m.dpreview.com/news/9740173952/olympus-announces-e-m1-mark-ii-development


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 22, 2016)

not interested. sensor too small. camera too large. price too high. 

size and price of camera and lenses not directly proportional to sensor area compared to APS-C and FF (135) ... fundamental problem of mFT will never be overcome. 5 more years at max. until Oly and mFT disappear from market.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 22, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> size and price of camera and lenses not directly proportional to sensor area compared to APS-C and FF (135) ... findamental problem of mFT will never be overcome.



Nothing to do with sensor area, more that Canon has more products to share the development costs around. With the 6D being £1200 you reckon that the MFTs should be selling for £300? 

Stupid Canon for selling their cameras too cheaply!


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 22, 2016)

Looks a good camera.
I have an Olympus and it's pretty good and a nice small size.
The lens are good and you can produce a good photo in good light.
The menus are a little daft.
I too wonder if the M4/3 have an issue.
The APSC cameras can be made smaller with mirror less .
It's hard and getting harder to get a smaller sensor to be as good as a bigger one.
It will only be brand loyalty that will keep them going.
Their gear is not cheap but it is compact.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 22, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > size and price of camera and lenses not directly proportional to sensor area compared to APS-C and FF (135) ... findamental problem of mFT will never be overcome.
> ...



Yes i do! Measly mFT quarter sensor cameras can easily be made and sold with profit for USD 329,- MSRP retail ... including two kit lenses and a nice red dot on front.  8) 
-> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30881.0

Sizewise: camera body size as big as Oly OMG M1 or those Panasonic GH monsters could and should have an FF sensor inside. See Sony Alpha 7 series. Not really larger. Lenses ... yes different story, but mFT nowhere near proportionally smaller or cheaper relative to dwarf-sized image circle. 

My preferred camera size and shape is Sony RX1R II ... if only it had a lens mount! To go small, it would only take a lens lineup of four ultra-compact/pancake primes ... 24/4 for landscape, 35/2.8 for general/street use, 50/1.8 for general/street use, and a short portrait tele 85/2.4 or so. Plus larger zooms and faster primes, for situations, when size/weight is less of a concern. Instead of launching that one, Sony wastes money and resources in late 2016 on a fat, mirror-in-the-lightpath A99 II SLT with dead-in-the-water A-mount ... i expect them to sell about 100 copies of that thing. Globally. In addition to the 100 they will have to give away to bribe reviewers. Stupid Sony!


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 22, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Yes i do! Measly mFT quarter sensor cameras can easily be made and sold with profit for USD 329,- MSRP retail ... including two kit lenses and a nice red dot on front.  8)
> -> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30881.0



You clearly know damn all about something called 'manufacturing overheads'.

As for the idea of running a serious camera with only 2 buttons...if you are happy with that then by all means buy the YI M1


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 22, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Yes i do! Measly mFT quarter sensor cameras can easily be made and sold with profit for USD 329,- MSRP retail ... including two kit lenses and a nice red dot on front.  8)
> ...



Once the "record video" button is made freely user-assignable in firmware, I would be fine with it. But sensor is too small, that'S the fundamental prob with any mFT camera.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 22, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> ... 5 more years at max. until Oly and mFT disappear from market.


Honest meant question:
In your opinion, which camera manufacturer is doing its job well (well, not brilliant)?
Reason:
I've only read complains from you, whatever company was mentioned.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 22, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > ... 5 more years at max. until Oly and mFT disappear from market.
> ...



honestly: they all are rather dumb.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 22, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



honestly: you now have zero credibility.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 22, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian said:
> ...



If you [or any/all Canon fanboys around here] thinks so, it does not disturb me in the least. I am happy to know what I know and observe. Whether others share my enlightened insights or not ... their problem, not mine. 

As opposed to your personal attack on me, I do however provide reasons why I consider all camera companies to be rather dumb. 

Fuji! APS-C only retro stuff, as big, heavy and expensive as FF-gear elsewhere. No future outside a niche of maybe 2% of retro-loving hipsters. Plus launching a new (pseudo) MF system into an absolutely oversaturated and declining MF market where a number of well established other companies are slugging it out and fight for survival. Refusal to compete in a market segment that a vast majority of all potential camera buyers (compact snappers and iPhonites don't count here) are highly interested in and were currently only one lone competitor is playing. Why no kick-ass mirrorless FF system at affordable prices instead of MF? Not so smart, isn't it? 

Oly: dwarf sensors in too large and expensive camera bodies. other companies stick APS-C or even FF sensors into something the size of an OMG E-M1 II. Went to a gun fight with a - small - knife. lol. Unable and/or unwilling to make FF mirrorless system ... see Fuji above. Slightly less dumb though ... at least they have not yet launched a new "MF" system. 

Canon: letting Sony take away their longstanding dominance in sensor tech. Why could they not keep up? Mirrorslappers, mirrorslappers, mirrorslappers. 

Nikon: dito. mirrorslapper tunnel vision. less dumb, because at least they were able to get leading sensor tech from Sony rather than fabbing sub-par sensor tech themselves. Mirrorless? Even more stupid than Canon ... using micro-dwarf CX sensor. wtf? 

Ricoh/Pentax ... do I really need to spell it out? 

Sigma ... why not great lenses only, why cameras? DP this and that .. oh boy, a camera for every focal lens. wow, surprise, that does not take the market by storm! pretty dumb. 

Sony? best sensor tech, very good MILCs ... but let down by firmware/software/UI and big, fat, ultra-pricey good lenses [FE] or smaller, expensive, cr*ppy lenses [E]. Failed to create enough momentum and grab a large chunk of market share from their dumb mirrorslapper competitors. 

Panaonic? mFT dumb. Have not made a single camera that peaked my interest in the slightest. Market seems to think the same, looking at their miniscule market share. 

there you have it. In a nutshell. 

why should i praise these companies? Canon Defense League and assorted brand fanboys take care of that already, don't they.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 22, 2016)

have you considered the fact that if all companies are 'dumb', the problems lies not with them but with your expectations and your understanding of technical limitations? 
A lot of us here are not Canon fanboys but merely people who understand the limtations and compromises and think that those chosen by Canon are the best compromises out there.


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 22, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> have you considered the fact that if all companies are 'dumb', the problems lies not with them but with your expectations and your understanding of technical limitations?
> A lot of us here are not Canon fanboys but merely people who understand the limtations and compromises and think that those chosen by Canon are the best compromises out there.



A++

I am always amazed at those people out there who are so critical. Whine, whine, whine. My grandmother taught me some very sage advice when I was little: "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything." Wow, how intelligent was she. Miss her dearly. 

If one doesn't like all of the features on a new release, just mention a wish list of what you would have liked. No need to bash the new stuff. And further, if you don't like it, then don't buy it. 

I had Olympus as my first 35mm camera, probably because my dad had an OM-1 (purchased in Tokyo). My OM-PC was a great little camera with a very good metering system. Looks to me like Olympus is still making great equipment and pushing the envelope. And as far as the poster thinking it's too expensive for what you are getting, that is just patently wrong. If you compare the feature set of this new model with what other manufacturers are selling and for how much, it compares very well. As for sensor size, so much media now including photographs are all digitized and sent, copied, used, disseminated all in digital format, sensor size plays less of an issue. Especially if you have a sensor that has a good-to-great DR, in a body that meters and focuses perfectly with great glass available and one knows how to use it. 

Yes, it can't compete with FF or even perhaps some APS-C cameras, like Canon's 80D. But it will appeal to many and for many it has the right feature set. I know some, especially like myself - getting older, that are very interested in the lighter weight/smaller form-factor of M4/3's. And with the new 12-100mm f4.0 OIS lens coupled with it's in-body stabilisation, should make for a very stable hand-held video platform, in the field. Fun times we are living in. And Zuiko lenses are fabulous.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 22, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...


Great! 

With that kind of argumentation we can be sure that out hobby/job/passion will be dead within less than 10 years because all imaging companies are too dumb to survive in business and as soon as our a little bit more complex than a pinhole camera equipment breaks down we'll have no more support and will need to use smartphones because that'll be the only thing that'll survive. : : : :-X

Edit:


AvTvM said:


> ... my enlightened insights ...


Surely everything else but enlightened : : :
Pride will have a fall!


----------



## dak723 (Sep 22, 2016)

I have an Olympus E-M1 and it is a very nice camera. Due to its small size, I use it far more than my Canon 6D. The only limitation that I can see with the MFT sensor - for someone who is not printing very large - is it is inferior in low light. Anyone shooting stills in daylight will find the images to be essentially the same as with other top brand cameras.

Whether MFT will survive is unknown, of course, but it will probably have a lot to do with perception rather than reality. Forums such as this one - which make anything less than FF seem like a failure - help promote that perception. After having a crop camera for 9 years, I, too, got caught up in the "FF must be so much better" philosophy. So bought my 6D - which I am quite happy with for landscapes. Over the past 20 years, I have also done a lot of flower photography. Imagine my surprise when I could no longer get the shots I wanted with FF. I needed a crop to get the reach and the greater DOF, so ended up getting the E-M1. The 2x crop factor comes in handy for any wildlife shots with my 75-300mm lens - which is light and small in comparison to anything I could use on my FF. At one point also bought a SL1 for its small size. Again, taking shots in daylight, couldn't really tell the difference between those shots and those taken on my 6D. 8" x 12' prints are pretty indistinguishable from one another - and that is the size I normally print (and occasionally sell) at. So for me, a daylight shooter, the smaller sensors of both APS-C and MFT are more than adequate. For most folks taking daylight shots at home or on vacation, the same should be true. So, MFT and other crop formats are good enough for the vast majority of the population as long as they don't fall for the "You need FF" talk. In my opinion, of course.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 22, 2016)

just to make sure: of course everybody's mileage with specific cameras, sensor-formats and makers will vary .. depending on one's needs and desires. 

I never said, only FF-sebsored cameras are worthwhile ... although I do consider FF 36x24 the best available compromise between size/weight of gear and size of sensor and photo-technical functionality coming from it. AT least for "general use/universal photography" = overwhelming majority of all use cases we are looking at in forums like these. 

And I am not saying mFT cameras are all bad. There are some very capable cameras amongst them. However, real-life size and price advantage of [existing] mFT camera systems compared to APS-C sensored camera systems is very small to negligable. Again, OMD-EM1 body is almost exactly the size of Sony A7 (1st gen) body. And yes, there are very small mFT lenses but one needs to look at equivalence ... and a corresponding FF pancake or APS-C lens can also be very small. That's not only my opinion - anyone looking at available product ranges and prices can observe it for themselves. So why bother with a smaller sensor ... 

Me calling manufacturers "dumb", is because of (some of their) product strategies - as I have listed in my previous post. Nothing wrong with Oly offering great mFT cameras . But why not also FF sensored MILCs and lenses, when they have the know how to do so and it would open a market segment to them were only one other player has been present over the last 3 years? etc. but no need to repeat everything.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 22, 2016)

I use MFT for wide angle to moderate telephoto (in FF terms, 28-200mm) and MFT is my 'on-spec' kit where I want quality mages from a compact package and it gets plenty of use when I am walking the dogs, going into the city or travelling on business. When out shooting wildlife I will lug the 7D2/100-400 but will have the Panasonic or Oly with 2 lenses to cover wide angle and macro and that combo as a whole is still smaller than my 100mm f2.8L by itself.
MFT also has distinct advantages regards discretion when shooting street photography where people respond quite differently to a DSLR.

If I were a landscape or portrait shooter I would be happy with MFT and would probably buy one of the new telephotos for occasional wildlife, but because my main interest is wildlife the DSLRs take priority for that where I prefer the responsiveness and feel of the DSLR kit so am happy to have the two systems.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 22, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> just to make sure: of course everybody's mileage with specific cameras, sensor-formats and makers will vary .. depending on one's needs and desires.
> 
> I never said, only FF-sebsored cameras are worthwhile ... although I do consider FF 36x24 the best available compromise between size/weight of gear and size of sensor and photo-technical functionality coming from it. AT least for "general use/universal photography" = overwhelming majority of all use cases we are looking at in forums like these.
> 
> ...


Olympus made a deliberate decision to abandon the 4/3 mount and concentrate with the micro 4/3 mount because that was where the bulk of their sales were, despite a far better selection of 4/3 lenses at the time the decision was made.

They identified their target market and concentrated on it. Their sales are good, their product is great. Could they compete with Canon and Nikon on FF cameras? Probably, but they chose not to....


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 23, 2016)

oly sales revenue and profits from mft consumer imaging products are anything else but "good". i do not consider mft and oly a viable business for much longer. but time will tell, whether i am right or wrong.


----------

