Olympus E-M5 II Technical Review 

+Jimmer John You can get pretty shallow depth-of-field, you just need the right lenses. There are many fast primes for micro four thirds. Be sure to research crop factor at sdp.io/crop to know how the lenses will compare.

No kidding. My EM5II is tack sharp for portraits, almost too sharp, because I have to do some softening in photoshop.

ginobonetti Ah, you're right, my mistake. Odd that they didn't include it in the E-M5 II!

Every situation where you can use 1" shutter speed, you can use the HR mode. And there is LOTS of situations. Lots of landscape photographs are taken with long exposure and HR mode allows 8 seconds exposures for each 8 frames, and up to 30 seconds delay between frames to give flashes time to cycle power. And it is 40Mpix in JPEG, 64mpix in RAW. More than even new Canon cameras, but with benefit to avoid moiré and other artifacts as it is like Sigma Faveon sensor, capturing all R,G,B colors for each pixel. And combine couple of those with subsampling and your image will look astounding! This HR mode is what makes many Canon/Nikon/Sony user jealous as you can get higher resolution, better colors and tones and all without moiré etc. And just like with any 36Mpix camera and up, you need very sturdy tripod, but no need to add extra weight to eliminate mirror shock to get the shot.

cylurian It's available in iBooks, but we didn't format it using iBooks Author, if that's what you're asking. They don't allow us to cram in all 12 hours of video (in fact, they only allow about 2 hours of video).

Tony Northrup That is dumb!

igetsmart The lowest native ISO on the LX100 is ISO 200. This is the case on many cameras--a non-native ISO just over-exposes the lowest native ISO, reducing dynamic range with no particular benefit. I totally agree with everything else :). The Sony lens lineup is lousy.

Norman Day It still looks the same to me--RAW ISO 200 High-res E-M5 II vs RAW 200 Nikon D810, the D810 is still vastly sharper on all the portraits.

I agree from the RAW shots - but this is because there has been no software update from Olympus (or anyone else, as far as I know) for processing these high resolution images. If you look at the jpegs, then there is very little difference. I'm a little surprised that you did not notice this.Tony Northrup

I bought 3rd party batteries as well. They're half the price. The problem with them however is I only get about half the shots with them, so they're not really a bargain at all. The only advantage to the 3rd party batteries that I've found is that they can be charged with a USB charger, which means if I'm totally "off the grid" I can charge them with my solar charger.

Rod Burke The batteries I bought were a lot cheaper, like 20-25$ for two with a charger, and they have (allegedly) more capacity than original Oly one. Maybe due to the capacity they actually hold up to the original. Although, I don't actually use them that much, for my purposes and with the amount of free time I have, I usually end up using one battery anyway.

Michael Reif you're usually at the base ISO in the studio.

Tecnovlog Who knows? They cram more megapixels into my smartphone camera, so they should be able to put it into an MFT sensor.

They could do more. BUT the question is why? More megapixels means smaller photosites which means a worse snr. It would reduce the high iso capability of the sensor. 16 mpx is more than enough for large prints. And many high end dslr cameras have only 16mpx. Or even 12mpx for the acclaimed sony a7s. An extra 4 mpx isnt going to make your pictures any better. Just a little sharper with a little more crop space. Or they could focus on enhancing the dynamic range, giving us 14 bit raw images instead of 12, better high iso performance, and inovative sensor stabilization techniques.

We've reviewed the a6000 a couple of times; search our channel & you should find them.

Yeah, I know. I've already watched those videos from you guys. They were awesome, but I was talking about a technical review, just like this one. So, would you recommend me the A6000? I want a camera that is easy to use (I found the a6000 easy, with all those electronics things); great for travel and a upgrade from my D5000. So far, from what I've read and seen it, it seems to be perfect. I would like a opinion from you guys. That would seal the deal. Thanks!

2dL I don't know what Tony will say, but as for me, I think the A6000 would be a great choice. It was voted the "Best Consumer ILC of 2014" by DPReview readers (but of course, make up your own mind after trying one out at a store). For my part, last year, I bought my first Sony interchangeable-lens camera and I am in love with it. Of course, different people have different preferences, so again, try it out in real life and see if you like it.

Rationalific Well, I still have until July to think about it. But I gotta tell you, man... from what i've seen it looks to be the perfect choice for me. Before I knew it existed I was looking the D7100, but I tested and it felt bulky and heavy, which isn't a great thing since I want to take with me in trips. Thank you for the response!

2dL do you also need Tony to co-sign on your loan for the camera?

mLichy911 In a few hours, live, so stay tuned.

Personally I would go for the Olympus because the lenses are better. Also, Sony build quality is pretty trashy.

cylurian Ah, sweet!

I have the EM 10ii and it has built in flash, since the EM5 is the higher end version, i expect it to have built in flash as well..

You are right, it's not built in but is shipped with a mini flash srry.

Often the higher up models do away with built in flashes. The E-M5ii does indeed come with a detachable flash that is actually more useful as it can be tilited and rotated.

Yeah, I have the E-m10 Mark ii, and the built in flash is really useless..like any built in flash on any camera really.

Huang Richard The base ISO is 200; ISO 100 is an extended ISO that's exactly like overexposing an ISO 200 picture. It reduces the dynamic range of the image. Interesting about the D810 comparison--I'll check it out.

Yes, I noticed the image was out of focus the moment you displayed them Tony. Now that you know those images are a misrepresentation of the EM5 II image quality, will you be amending this video?

The 4/3 was a new format, instead going to 135 format (know as Small Format), Olympus designed a new true digital format as 135 format didn't provide any benefits for digital cameras and got Kodak to manufacture the 4/3 sensor. A 4/3 was the sensor and mount name for DSLR line cameras. But then Olympus designed with Panasonic the m4/3 mount, where they removed the mirror but still use same 4/3 sensor. M4/3 is the mount (bayonet) 4/3 is the sensor format and ratio (and size). What many doesn't know, is that 4/3 isn't a crop sensor. Its mount never was designed to be compatible with common 135 format lenses without adapters like OM. It was from scratch designed format based the common data photographers used with their cameras to capture photos, like most common shutter speed, depth of field and ISO. It was as well designed to ease optical designs (that is proofed) to get higher quality easily and in smaller package for field of view the most photographs were taken. It was as well taken in notice how electronically done processing is improved and how digital technology gets improved. Based all the data Olympus collected for analysis, they designed the new 4/3 format instead continuing to use 135 format as then they would needed to consider using a 135 format half-frame (crop sensor) or full frame without any benefits for most common situations. Hence, m4/3 cameras even today has a two stop better light gathering for common depth of field. That can be used to two stops faster shutter speed or two stops lower ISO (giving same print size) or even use two stops less power in flashes or use flashes from two times further with same power. Like how many has gone trough their photo library and build database what is their most common aperture? Like example, how many 135 format photographer has 20% of photos taken with aperture f/2.8? How many has over 50% taken with aperture below f/2.8? Exactly. Today if someone wants shallow depth of field for portraits, it is very easy to do with a image manipulation software. Far more easier than it was 10-15 years ago (Photoshop was then at about 7.0 version). Today digital photography is far more than film was. Many has more complex cameras than film era and possibilities to adjust them with easy smartphone applications. DSLR is dying and few really as hanging in it, just like few hangs on to Medium Format or Large Format film cameras. Some people should look around, look the ways how people take photos, from what subjects etc. That has not changed for decades. Popularity and ways to get something quickly has exploded. The 4/3 sensor is on winning side, as technology just gets better and better. And we are already pass the quality point that is required, clearly and way over. And what is only getting better with mirrorless is that we can carry smaller and lighter cameras without image quality sacrifice and with even better possibilities to get the better photograph than any DSLR allows because cameras are smaller and lighter. Same reason what made 135 format win 120 format (size, weight, wide lens choice) is the same one that is killing DSLR. Otherwise we all would be carrying a Large format cameras....

sebastiaanvanwater Lenses need to be designed to support PDAF, and MFT lenses are not designed with that support. Yes, the E-M1 technically PDAF with MFT lenses, but in practice, it's not used. Because they were designed for DSLRs, the 43 lenses work well with PDAF. But, specifically which FT DSLR lenses are you actually using? Because I've never stumbled across them on eBay or anywhere else, and I'm always looking. That's what has led me to feel like they're not practical. BTW, we now have more MFT gear than Canon, Nikon, or Sony gear. Please be more polite in the future.

Tony Northrup It is supported, fully, starting with firmware 3.0. I like you both, Tony and Chelsea, I bought two of your books, but your prejudice for DSLR, any DSLR if it is Canikon borders on fanboyism. There is so much more to taking great photos than sensor size. I use the E-M1 because it is there for me for more types of photography than any other format with a more than sufficient IQ. I'll keep visiting but I'd appreciate if you could bring more nuance to your judgments.

Jean Montambeault yes no on since 3.0. With firmware 1.x and 2.x series C-AF used always the hybrid mode where E-M1 first focused with PDAF to close by, but then it switched to CDAF to finalize the focus. It was always working with C-AF or C-AF+Trk but the hybrid made it slower than now. Since 3.0 the High Continues Shooting + C-AF gives 9-10 fps because the CDAF was disabled from combination. So now on using H + C-AF use PDAF only and it is radical difference already, while previous was not bad at all as many claims, as it Allowed to capture sports or wildlife there where Nikon D4 or Canon 70D etc. There has been lots of photographers excited about switching from DSLR to mirror less because E-M1 and GH4 C-AF speeds and overall speed being far faster than any DSLR gives, makes huge edge for fast moments. I have been photographing not just birds in flight, but horse races, dog races, rally, fighter jets, indoor basket ball, soccer etc and not problems at all with E-M1. And now with new PDAF 9-10fps mode all m4/3 lenses can be used with it and it is awesome as it helps more when subject movement speed is very radically changing like with small birds that jumps from branch, fly toward you jigging and then quickly break to land on other branch and then jumps again elsewhere etc. And C-AF is best there for small birds when needed to focus trough branches where you just barely see bird eye or head. PDAF is with DSLR totally in troubles in those situations and doesn't know where to focus at all. So if shooting birds where there is lots of obstacles between you and camera, CDAF is the way to go.