[D1N0]

(FT5) Leaked: First image of the new Olympus E-M1II - 43 Rumors

I am still not very interested...

[jimr-pdx]

I could make use of my Zuiko 18-180 and 35 macro.. not quite enough reason for the $1k~ entry fee.

[Steve.Ledger]

I am still not very interested...

Me neither. I bought the OMD EM10MkII late last year, best camera I've ever owned, no need to spend more.

[mecrox]

No need to buy this new. In a couple of years it will still be an excellent camera at well below whatever the introductory price is. And my E-M1 will remain a very capable and excellent camera for another 2-3 years. This is indeed the dilemma faced by the camera-makers. They've dealt themselves out of the upgrade cycle.

[farhagh]

I am still not very interested...

Why not? If the noise is less than EM-5ii, and the DR is better than EM1, it means something in K-3 or K-5 territory which is great for a carry around. Unless you really don't want EVF no matter what.

[northcoastgreg]

If the noise is less than EM-5ii, and the DR is better than EM1, it means something in K-3 or K-5 territory which is great for a carry around.

Is the noise and DR really something in K-3 or K-5 territory? Seems very unlikely that it would be so. Sensor tech has come to a standstill pretty much across all formats.

The main reason to get this camera is if you don't already have the E-M1 but need a camera for shooting high-end 4/3rds glass or the large m43 pro glass. Otherwise, you're probably better off with one of the smaller m43 options.

[D1N0]

Why not? If the noise is less than EM-5ii, and the DR is better than EM1, it means something in K-3 or K-5 territory which is great for a carry around. Unless you really don't want EVF no matter what.

Even if that were true. I don't want a smaller sensor. I want a bigger one.

[farhagh]

Is the noise and DR really something in K-3 or K-5 territory? Seems very unlikely that it would be so. Sensor tech has come to a standstill pretty much across all formats.

I agree it's unlikely. As I said elsewhere, I wish they had a 12MP sensor in one of their OM-D's. It would be about the pixel size of D500 and that would be what I would happily jump on!

The main reason to get this camera is if you don't already have the E-M1 but need a camera for shooting high-end 4/3rds glass or the large m43 pro glass. Otherwise, you're probably better off with one of the smaller m43 options.

Oh, I was thinking about first time owning, not an upgrade from another OM-D. And why not the smaller models? Cuz the OM-D is the sexiest one! I do prefer the bigger body, with those smaller lenses.

[mecrox]

Is the noise and DR really something in K-3 or K-5 territory? Seems very unlikely that it would be so. Sensor tech has come to a standstill pretty much across all formats.

The main reason to get this camera is if you don't already have the E-M1 but need a camera for shooting high-end 4/3rds glass or the large m43 pro glass. Otherwise, you're probably better off with one of the smaller m43 options.

It sounds a fab camera but you are probably right. Regular, non-pro owners are unlikely to need the exotically high frame-rates, for example. Noise and DR don't sound much of an improvement. There is a lower base ISO and better jpeg noise filtering, but perhaps these are workarounds rather than advances. Still one heck of a camera, though.

PS: A closer look reveals that Oly are saying they have rewritten their AF software from the ground up and included twin quad-core processors in the camera. That is some serious grunt. They have also launched a Pro Service and support deal. That's pretty ballsy of them. Regular folks might not need much of this, but Oly look to be making a determined attempt to get more professionals and high rollers on board.

Redone AF software and a Pro Service ... hmm ... I wonder if Pentax could so something similar.

[Eric Auer]

Ok, I like it a lot.

But I would take the K-70 over this.

Eric

[6BQ5]

I have a feeling that the M1 Mark II could be the Olympus version of our K-3. The higher resolution sensor may produce more noisy images at higher ISO but the noise may be more manageable and more easy to clean up in-camera or when processing RAW images. Then again, who knows what kind of technology is packed into that sensor? Maybe this sensor will finally be the one that surpasses APS performance.

More important than sensor performance will be focusing performance. My M10 does decently well for a CDAF system but it still pales when compared to the PDAF based performance in our humble Pentax bodies.

[mecrox]

I have a feeling that the M1 Mark II could be the Olympus version of our K-3. The higher resolution sensor may produce more noisy images at higher ISO but the noise may be more manageable and more easy to clean up in-camera or when processing RAW images. Then again, who knows what kind of technology is packed into that sensor? Maybe this sensor will finally be the one that surpasses APS performance.

More important than sensor performance will be focusing performance. My M10 does decently well for a CDAF system but it still pales when compared to the PDAF based performance in our humble Pentax bodies.

The E-M1 Mark II has PDAF cells on the sensor as well as CDAF (as does the E-M1), and Olympus are saying that they have redesigned the AF system. The key will be continuous tracking focus. A lot of cameras, including Pentax ones, pale in comparison to the best Canon or Nikon bodies for that. I've found the AF in my EM-1 to be roughly on a par with the K3,

[northcoastgreg]

Cuz the OM-D is the sexiest one! I do prefer the bigger body, with those smaller lenses.

The E-M1 had the reputation for being the best handling mirrorless camera ever made, and it's likely the second version will continue this tradition. The major issue I see with it is that the camera itself is about the size of the first generation Sony FF cams, yet those FF cams have a sensor nearly four times larger. For those that do prefer a bigger body, wouldn't they be better off with a bigger sensor as well? Olympus's Imaging Division has not turned a quarterly profit since 2008, so it's not clear that the 4/3rds sensor in a larger body is working in terms of market profitability.

[Eric Auer]

The E-M1 had the reputation for being the best handling mirrorless camera ever made, and it's likely the second version will continue this tradition. The major issue I see with it is that the camera itself is about the size of the first generation Sony FF cams, yet those FF cams have a sensor nearly four times larger. For those that do prefer a bigger body, wouldn't they be better off with a bigger sensor as well? Olympus's Imaging Division has not turned a quarterly profit since 2008, so it's not clear that the 4/3rds sensor in a larger body is working in terms of market profitability.

I don't get this either.

But the M4/3 people seem hellbent on that sensor for some reason.

It kinda feels like that even if they could get a larger/better sensor in the same body they just wont have it. /shrug.

Eric

[RonHendriks1966]

I've found the AF in my EM-1 to be roughly on a par with the K3,

To my feeling it is even better.

Olympus's Imaging Division has not turned a quarterly profit since 2008, so it's not clear that the 4/3rds sensor in a larger body is working in terms of market profitability.

Not making a profit is a problem at some point. Sony invested 600 million dollar, but that would be gone if they don't return to profit.