Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="NVSteve" data-source="post: 469947" data-attributes="member: 13248">Okay, I realize I'm incredibly late in finding this thread, but I honestly didn't even know it existed until recently.  Rick, good stuff!  My first DSLR was the Oly E-500, followed up by the E-3 and then the E-M5.  The E-500 was good.  The E-3 was fantastic.  I bashed the hell out of that thing on rocks, trees, cobblestones, etc.  I also loved that I could walk around in the pouring rain and not give any thought to protecting the camera.  All I used was the Zuiko 12-60 and 50-200, both of which were excellent lenses.  My problem with the E-3 is that it simply couldn't handle my typical outdoor shooting conditions.  I'd either have blown out highlights or really dark shadowy areas w/out detail.  And then I tried the E-M5, having bought into all the hype surrounding the new sensor.  Focusing was pretty bad with my big Zuikos, so I sold those and got a couple of the m4/3rds lenses.  Really liked the camera, although I had to get the full grip for it because I just couldn't hold onto it otherwise.  Anyway, the reason I'm posting this in reply to your statement above, is because I found the opposite to be true with the E-M5.  If I tried to push sharpness even a little, I ended up with really weird blotchy patterns all over the place.  Extremely visible on a person's skin.  That, and I was seeing visible noise/grain in the sky at base ISO.  I really, really wanted it to work, but threw in the towel the day the D600 was announced.  From my experience editing thousands of Oly E-M5 photos, I can easily say the D600 is many magnitudes better in the PP department (I only shoot RAW).  This I know because I visit a lot of the same national parks each year, always with a camera in tow, which means many of the same shots from year to year with different equipment.After my last trip, I've started looking around for a smaller system of really good quality specifically for overseas trips.  Everything I've looked at will be a huge step down, but I keep coming back to the idea of the E-M1, or even the E-M5 II.  Either one would be used with the 12-40.  BUT, I have also downloaded a number of raw files and hundreds of full size jpgs to give me an idea on the difference, if any, between these and the E-M5 I had.  A lot of the pictures are still showing me noise/grain at base ISO, which is what I would be shooting the majority of the time.  Is it just me?  You've posted up some wonderful photos, and I've only been able to see some noise/artifacts in a couple of them.  That's the thing that keeps eating at me: I can find brilliant photos without a trace of noise or strange artifacts, but I can also find those that have them.  Since you have obviously been shooting successfully with your E-M1, I'd love to hear your thoughts.</blockquote>

Verification