Discussing the OM-5 with E-Group member, Paul Kaye
Once OM System provided us with advanced details of the new OM-5, I got in touch with one of our forum members, Paul Kaye, who not only has a great deal of experience of previous E-M5 models, but also fits the profile of a photographer that the OM-5 would likely be aimed at.
Here is our Q&A with Paul:
E-Group: Paul, you’re very well acquainted with the OM-5’s predecessor, the E-M5 Mark III. We’ve been able to share the specifications and some insights into the new OM-5 with you, in advance of its launch, and we’re keen to get some feedback.
To set the record, you’re more of a landscape, travel, and architectural photographer. Arguably, neither the E-M5 or OM-5 target action photographers on the trail of wildlife or motorsports, etc.
You could be the kind of photographer the OM-5 is targeted at. Naturally, you’re limited by not having been able to handle or use an OM-5 yet, but let’s go on what we know, based on the detailed information provided to us by OM System.
Paul: Yes, that sums up the sort of photography I do. I don’t need fancy AF tracking or heavy action-oriented features like Pro Capture. However, I do appreciate high quality build, weather-sealing, image stabilisation, and a compact and lightweight form factor.
E-Group: Let’s just start with a reminder of what the E-M5 is all about in the OM-D/OMS line-up. It’s incredibly small, light; significantly more so than an E-M1 or an OM-1. It’s also more affordable. You bought one – what attracted you to the E-M5 and who do you think OM System are aiming the OM-5 at now?
Paul: I’ve owned all three versions of the E-M5. In general I’ve always preferred their size and handling to the larger E-M1 models. Features were generally only a little behind their bigger brothers but they shared pretty much the same high quality build and image quality. They have always been well suited to the travel and landscape photographer.
E-Group: The OM-5 body exterior is exactly the same as its predecessor, from the use of polycarbonate instead of magnesium alloy, to most of the fine exterior finish details and the positioning of the controls. The main difference is the substitution of the’Olympus’ brand to’OM System’ – what’s your feeling about this aspect of the OM-5?
Paul: I thought the E-M5 Mark II was a jewel of a camera, probably my favourite of the Olympus cameras of its time. Picking it up was always a pleasure; its metal build gave it a dense and satisfying feel that oozed quality. When I first picked up its successor, the E-M5 Mark III, I was quite disappointed because the polycarbonate build lacked that same sense of heft. So it was some time after its launch before I bought one. But after a few weeks using the Mark III, I found that the lighter weight build actually was an advantage and in fact the frame of the camera was more resilient to minor bumps and grazes than the metal of the Mark II. I’m now completely at ease with the polycarbonate build.
As to the controls, I found the Mark III to be very good, with one major exception – the Custom Modes.
E-Group: Yes, I will come to the Custom Modes issue in a minute.
There are, however, major changes under the skin. As was the case with E-M5 Mark III, the OM-5 has inherited much from the previous generation of E-M1, in the E-M5 Mark III’s case, it came with E-M1 Mark II abilities. The OM-5 follows this strategy, with one rather prominent difference – the OM-5 gets E-M1 Mark III performance and features, but of course we have the OM-1. It’s no secret that many expected the OM-5 to be a smaller, lighter, OM-1. These people will, no doubt be very disappointed. Perhaps we need to be reminded that the OM-5 is pretty much half the price of an OM-1. What are your thoughts?
Paul: Although I prefer the smaller form factor of the ‘5’ model, I have also owned all three versions of the ‘1‘ model too. The ‘1’ was always the route to the best and most advanced features – I got the E-M1 Mark III over the Mark II to get access to the HHHR and LiveND features since both are hugely beneficial for landscape photography. Getting these features now in the smaller form factor of a ‘5’ is really good news.
As to the OM-1 – I’ll be honest and say that I’m not yet convinced of its benefits over the E-M1 III for the sort of photography I do. I don’t need the AF improvements that I know are of significant benefit to the wildlife types, and despite trying hard, I can’t see any noticeable IQ improvements at base ISO over the E-M1 III either. So, for me, the OM-5 being based on the E-M1 III rather than the OM-1 is perfectly fine, especially if it makes it lower priced. I think people expecting a smaller OM-1 at half the price were not really being realistic about the market.
E-Group: OM System has fixed some issues highlighted by users of the E-M5 Mark III, you included. I think, your biggest headache with the E-M5 Mark III was implementation of Custom functions?
Paul: I think Olympus badly dropped the ball with C modes on the E-M5 Mark III. Although the firmware supports three C modes, only one is easily selectable on the mode dial and the old trick of re-assigning ART, SCN etc on the earlier E-M5 models (and the E-M10 line) had been removed. This means diving into menus to select custom settings which is a really messy operation and not at all what a dedicated photographer expects. I hope that OM have rectified this on the OM-5. It really is the only operational shortcoming of the E-M5 Mark III.
E-Group: It’s good news that the OM-5 specs indicate an additional custom mode and all four can be assigned to buttons.
But the smaller and less smart BLS-50 battery remains and according to the specifications, there is no improvement in the shooting stamina.
Paul: I understand why OM have done this, and it does help those with the older battery to keep using them. But the BLS-50 is a bit weedy, and it’s also a ‘dumb’ battery that cannot provide charge level status or cycle count to the camera. This means that indications to the camera of battery charge remaining are crude and likely to result in losing power at inopportune moments. I’d have preferred a larger and smarter battery, but it is as it is!
E-Group: OM System are keen to show what a tiny, yet powerful, kit an OM-5 can be with the new compact and light 12-45 f/4 Pro and 40-150 f/4 Pro – it almost seems like they were designed for the OM-5. Video capabilities are also more prominent in the specification than the E-M5 Mark III.
Paul: The OM-5 I’m sure will be in my bag in the near future since it’ll do almost all that my current E-M1 Mark III will do but in a smaller and lighter body. It’ll also be a nice upgrade from the E-M5 Mark III – not unlike the upgrade I did from the E-M1 Mark II to the E-M1 Mark III. With the smaller Pro lenses it will be very well matched in terms of size and weight but without any optical quality compromises – just a smaller f-stop which is not an impediment for landscape use at all. I still run the 12-40 f/2.8 and the 40-150 f/2.8 but if I were buying now, I’d probably go for the f4 versions.
E-Group: Do you have any other points to share with us?
Paul: I think the final point to make is that ANY interchangeable lens camera on the market today is capable of amazing results for landscape photographers like me in terms of image quality. I do not feel compromised at all in terms of my output compared to other brands, even if they have larger sensors. However, when you’re carrying gear up a hill or on a long walk, smaller and size and lower weight can make a huge practical difference to the photographer in terms of fatigue and pleasure. I’d take an OM-5 with a couple of the f4 Pro lenses over any other brand any day of the week.
E-Group: Thank you, Paul.