Olympus OM-D-E-M1 II vs OM-D-E-M10 II
Jul 15, 2018 17:02:58 #
rcarol wrote:
Frankly speaking, nobody asked for your opinion either but that didn't stop you from giving it.
I didn’t give an opinion, I corrected your incorrect info. One. More. Time.
Try providing correct info. How hard is that to do?
Jul 15, 2018 18:20:33 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
captainkauai wrote:
I own an Olympus OM-D M10 II and have been wondering what difference I would see in the quality of the images I take with it if instead I used an OM-D M1 II. This would assume I used the same lens for either camera, say for discussion sake the Olympus M.Zuiko 14-150. I am an average amateur photographer.
Two main differences are the sensor size in megapixels and the E-M10 mrII is not weatherproof like the E-M1 mrII or the E-M5 mrII. The E-M10 mrII is designed as an entry level cameras while the E-M1 mrII is as pro as it gets. It really comes down to what are your needs and how far you plan to go in photography. If you plan to go long in photography, I suggest starting with the E-M5 mrII if you plan for more that snapshots. Still, the E-M10 is a very capable camera. The pictures that Linda from Maine put here are from an E-M10 mrII. Any one that thinks they are unacceptable is nuts (or not much of a photographer).
The 4/3rds market has been quite well developed by both Olympus and Panasonic. None of their cameras are less than capable. In fact, they have forced the big boys, full frame, APS-C, and medium format, into the age of mirrorless market.
I personally think if you chose the E-M10 mrII or mrIII, you will find it an excellent starting camera. The E-M1 mrII is more complex but a control freak's dream. In the same basic category as the E-M1 mrII is the Panasonic GH5. It is a little more slanted to video and easier menu than the E-M1, but still more than capable as a pro still camera.
Have fun choosing. There really isn't a bad camera in the bunch.
Jul 15, 2018 18:24:44 #
tdekany wrote:
I didn’t give an opinion, I corrected your incorrect info. One. More. Time.
Try providing correct info. How hard is that to do?
Try providing correct info. How hard is that to do?
You still don't have a clue what " about" means, do you? Please break out the dictionary and read carefully.
Jul 15, 2018 18:43:36 #
tdekany wrote:
I didn’t give an opinion, I corrected your incorrect info. One. More. Time.
Try providing correct info. How hard is that to do?
Try providing correct info. How hard is that to do?
In the spirit of providing accuracy, I have to correct your numbers. For JPEGS the number is 49,939,200 pixels and for RAW files it is 80,621,568 pixels. But, heh, you were about right, or maybe I should say that you were less wrong than me.
Jul 15, 2018 18:49:21 #
rcarol wrote:
In the spirit of providing accuracy, I have to correct your numbers. For JPEGS the number is 49,939,200 pixels and for RAW files it is 80,621,568 pixels. But, heh, you were about right, or maybe I should say that you were less wrong than me.
That is all you had to do from the get go. Instead of providing incorrect info.
Jul 15, 2018 18:51:43 #
tdekany wrote:
That is all you had to do from the get go. Instead of providing incorrect info.
You need to take your own lesson.
Jul 15, 2018 18:56:02 #
rcarol wrote:
You need to take your own lesson.
Man you sound extremely narcissistic.
Jul 15, 2018 18:56:58 #
Jul 15, 2018 19:01:42 #
rcarol wrote:
In the spirit of providing accuracy, I have to correct your numbers. For JPEGS the number is 49,939,200 pixels and for RAW files it is 80,621,568 pixels. But, heh, you were about right, or maybe I should say that you were less wrong than me.
Not according to Olympus
Jul 15, 2018 19:03:10 #
rcarol wrote:
I am. Make no mistake about it.
While this isn’t my job, I’m going to tell you anyway, that you need to grow up.
Jul 15, 2018 19:04:49 #
tdekany wrote:
While this isn’t my job, I’m going to tell you anyway, that you need to grow up.
Why? I'm too old to grow up.
Jul 15, 2018 19:09:09 #
tdekany wrote:
Not according to Olympus
Go to the Olympus website and look at their specs. Multiply the numbers then you will see that your numbers are "about" right. What you quoted in your last post was the Mark II at a glance - an overview - an approximation.
Jul 15, 2018 19:20:05 #
tdekany wrote:
80MP raw file or 50MP Jpeg. It is a bit weird that you guys don’t know the specks of your cameras.
Actually, I don’t own an E-M1 MkII. My E-M10 MkII has a 16 MP sensor.
Jul 15, 2018 19:23:07 #
EdU239 wrote:
Actually, I don’t own an E-M1 MkII. My E-M10 MkII has a 16 MP sensor.
I'm in the same situation as you. I would like to own an E-M1 Mk II but I can't justify it.
Jul 15, 2018 20:17:49 #
rcarol wrote:
I'm in the same situation as you. I would like to own an E-M1 Mk II but I can't justify it.
The EM-1 is nicer than the EM-10 but I doubt that you will get better images out of it.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.