วีดีโอ

> "Well, if you're a Professional, don't buy m4/3." Hopefully that's not a message I conveyed in this video, although I know I specifically called-out non-professional use. There is so much variety in the professional scope, that it'd be naïve to try and paint it all with the same brush. Modern cameras are so much more versatile than they were ten-let a lone twenty-years ago, but you're still not likely to see a Hasselblad shooting during a competition at the Olympics. I trust that anyone who has been a professional for a few years will know what works-or doesn't-in the relevant field; and what's most cost effective (if not-that person wouldn't be able to afford to stay in business). I know of several people who have or are successfully using M4/3; and whenever there's a comment of "professionals don't use X", I'm reminded of an interview with Alex Majoli (who would later become president of Magnum Photos) about covering Iraq and the Middle East 20 years ago with a collection of Olympus C-5050 fixed-lens cameras. > But they NEVER explain why they think this is true. Can you? That said, there are a few reasons why I think M43 is at a disadvantage when looking generally at professional use. 1. Physics-light gathering principals of the sensor and more space for things phase-detect auto-focus cells. The larger sensors, and larger lenses, offered by full-frame and medium-format digital are going to provide better resolution and color depth in optimum situations. Canon, (I'd wager Nikon still,) and Sony provide better auto-focus that /could/ find and lock-on just quick enough to capture the decisive moment in chaotic or split-second competitions. 2. Support-Canon and Nikon Professional Services (CPS/NPS) are established, and I've heard nearly universal praise of them (I've used CPS to a limited extent in the past). Olympus introduced their "Pro Advantage" program in late 2017 (still offered by OM Systems), and Panasonic launched Lumix Pro in 2019. I haven't found a lot of recent comments on either-what I have found would suggest they are less mature than CPS/NPS. I own six Panasonic Lumix bodies-my own experience with Panasonic support has not been stellar, albeit I only signed-up for the free "Red" level, it did not encourage me to pay for the Platinum level. Maybe it’s gotten better. 3. Options-up until recently, Canon's EF mount and Nikon's F mount were usable up-and-down the line, and had over a century of combined lens production including 3rd party models, which meant long-focal length, fast primes, and esoteric options like tilt-shift lenses abounded. (Counter point: as I understand it, only 2013's Nikon Df can *actually* use all 54+ years worth of F-mount lenses without modification.). I've mentioned it elsewhere, but I *really* like how Canon made such excellent EF/EF-S to RF adapters which lets any of the recentish USM lenses (2+ decades) work quite well. If you’re shooting something that only has one chance: event photography, sports photography-weddings; you’re going to want to be have the most flexibility with your shooting envelope (cropability-i.e. resolution; dynamic range in *some cases*). If you’re running an agency (moderate-sized news agency that still has its own cameras?), the established support from an established program like CPS is going to be critical. If you’re just starting-you may find some great deals on old or 3rd party lenses; or maybe you’re on a special shoot and need to lease a tilt-shift lens on short notice (or borrow one from CPS).

 None of that is to say that M43 doesn’t have its own advantages. 1. Physics-the sensor is smaller, which allows for more space in the body *around* the sensor, for things like sensor-based image stabilization. The smaller sensor, and smaller resolution, also makes it easier to read the image quicker which leads to more reliable electronic shutters and improved video specs. It also produces less heat, and provides for more flexibility in ventilation and cooling. 2. Depending on what you want-M43 *may* be more portable. An OM 150-400 f4.5 is just over half the mass of the Canon EF 200-400 f/4L. The EF 600mm f/4L and EF 400mm f/2.8L are respectively twice the sizes of the M.Zuiko 300mm f/4 and Leica 20mm f/2.8 (and 3-4x the price). If you value portability and equivalent focal length-the M43 wins; however, if you need utmost potential quality and light gathering the M43 will lose-out. I question if the difference in depth-of-field is really going to matter at those focal lengths-I'd rather stop-down if it weren't for the loss of light. 3. With both Panasonic and OM Systems producing M43 cameras and lenses for 15 years, along with a few other partners and 3rd parties, there are quite a few options available-although not to the same level as Canon’s EF system. In the first decade of mainstream digital, there was certainly a feeling of needing to have a Canon or Nikon camera when you showed-up at a shoot to avoid issues with certain clients; my *impression* is that this is less of an issue now, although without first-hand experience, and for whatever reason the vast majority of professional shooters I’ve come across in the past decade are shooting Canon EOS (actually, the reason is almost always because of the 5D when I’ve asked).

@@NottaPro Impressive reply!! A few niggles: You mention Canon - the brand I have the least experience with. My understanding is that Canon _mirrorless_ lenses is the only mount who have NOT released the 'spec' of their mount to 3rd parties. So, although I might agree that the older Canon mount seemed extremely prolific; that is not true, natively, for Canon mirrorless. Then you speak of lens adapters. Doesn't that negate the promise of sharper optics for mirrorless due to negation of the mirror box allowing for less distance from lens-to-sensor? The one advantage Canon & Nikon have are tilt/shift lenses -- not something I want to play with during a Wedding! Also, you referred a few times to "light-gathering". You do realize, I trust, that f2.8 == f2.8 == f2.8? Light gathering is _*per unit area_*; decidedly NOT simply more is better. The m4/3 lenses are simply better, IMHO. Take the venerable 35mm "70-200 f 2.8 lens". In m4/3 I get a 40-150 (Equiv 80-300mm) f2.8 lens. I'm sure that extra 100mm will come in handy, but at those focal lengths it is not significant, but it's there. Panasonic has couple of Cadillac-Lenses in these ranges that take their zooms to f1.7!!!! Try that on full frame! I've got a fisheye lens @ f1.8. I've got a _stabilized_ lens going from 12-100 f4 -- that is a fabulous lens. I've little to want for in lenses for m4/3! You also mentioned that FF has "more room to put stuff on the sensor". Enter m4/3's stacked BSI sensor that does NOT have "partially-masked pixels" needed for focusing -- and ALL sensors are cross-type. OM Systems is maintaining their lead in the market for in-camera stabilization -- up to 8.5 stops with the OM-1 mk ii. I just got a Nikon D850 with no stabilization -- just to see "how the other half lives" with their much-lauded shallow DOF. When I get too many phone calls from clients complaining that "My ears are not blurry" then I'll give this more thought. Oh, I also never "shoot-to-crop", ever. Again, my hat is off to you with a GREAT reply!

That's true! In my experience (more so with older Canon DLSRs), they're significantly better than their rating (for instance, I had a 20D basically flooded during the torrential rain, and work much longer than I expected-and worked fine for over a decade later after drying out). Sand infiltration might not have worked so well…. but again, the 20D has no official ingress protection. One of the things I had wanted to get a more empirical observation on, was how well they handled the cold. I've had my R6 refuse to turn-on in a New England winter (not that we've had one lately); but I've never been in a situation where I could do a proper A/B test in the cold (that is with fully charged batteries for both cameras at the same time or equivalent enough conditions).

To finish my previous comment. The alternative would be to reach a bit for the om1 and keep the 75-300 indefinitely.

I've got a number of videos from the last 12 months I need to finalize and upload :/ I did get a chance to use both the OM-1 and OM-5 …. wow, nearly 13 months ago. I haven't bought either, but I do like the OM-1. For photography, if you either prefer or don't mind the size of the E-M1X-yes, I still think it wins on value; if you can get a used one at a good price, I'd say it's the best option. What are you looking to upgrade into from 75-300? Presumably that's the f/4.8-6.7 and you'd be looking at the 100-400 f/5-6.3? I don't think 300 is necessarily bad; lots of people love the 300 f/4, but it depends on what you're shooting. I've found lack of light can be as much an issue; the OM-1 will also help with that because of the improved sensor, to an extent. The old adage is to invest in the glass; it seems like that's almost antiquated as everyone is switching mounts and re-releasing refined designs lately (the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 comes to mind, which has had four revisions since replacing the non-IS version in 2001), but I'd say that still holds true in this case. I still use my E-M1X and 150-400, which is a great combo in my opinion. For more controlled areas (i.e. out my window) or youth soccer, I'm generally using the R6 and 100-500. I've been using the latter without the battery grip, sometimes because I'm too lazy to attach it, but originally because I could slip it into a smaller bag to bring to games along with normal parent stuff-so I understand the extra flexibility of the smaller body size; everything's relative though, as I can fit my M1X and 150-400 in an old Lowepro Microtrekker. It looks like the E-M1X is no longer available new, and OM has started issuing discounts on both models; if you don't want the dual-battery grip, the OM-1 may begin to look more appealing. The bird AF is definitely better; but in my short shooting experience with it, the improvement is mostly in initial acquisition vs. accuracy or stickiness. As you mentioned, the OM-5 doesn't have subject-based tracking, as far as I can tell for product differentiation, but it does have pro-capture which I've found a great time saver. I'm guessing you're in the US-at the moment I see the OM-5 for $900 at B&H which is much more palatable; but just a tad bit less and KEH has the E-M1X…. man, find somebody's 10%-off coupon and I'd go with KEH LN- E-M1x … unless you have a better deal. I think the E-M1X for about $500 if that's what you found would be exceptional value if you can trust the quality. Oh, and on the subject of full-spectrum/IR; that's awesome! I've owned several (a Canon 20D with an IR mod, an E-M5 with full-spectrum, and currently I'm using an IR-modified DMC-GX85 I found on KEH a couple years back). If you find one already modified, used, that seems like the more economical approach but they don't appear often. If you've never experimented with the broader spectrum, the full-spectrum mod gives you the most flexibility; but once you find the spectra to which you most relate, you may want to consider a specific IR mod to avoid needing to always attach filters (which in my experience are either pricey or cheaply made-I've had one of the latter, allowing just visible-light, disintegrate on me as I tried to take it off the lens).

@@NottaProWow, thanks for the detailed response! Yes I'm in the US. The em1x I saw locally was less than $700 with under 10k shutter actuations. I forgot about the sale pricing on the om5. They also guarantee used gear for 90 days. While I'm not crazy about the size, it's manageable for me most of the time...in theory. I am trying the 75-300 f/4.8-6.7. 300 is usually enough but a 100-400 should be better for smaller birds filling more of the frame while letting in a touch more light. I haven't dug deep into the 1-400s but am guessing they'd be a bit sharper than the smaller lens as well. I converted my M50 to full spectrum and stuck with the kit lens and mostly left a cheap 950nm filter on it. I sometimes used an old orange filter to replicate the aerochrome film look. Using a converted camera really gets the creative juices going. Thanks again for sharing your experiences👍👍

Of course, OM just announced the OM-1 MII and M.Zuiko 150-600 f/5-6.3 which looks interesting….

@@NottaPro Yup...

Thanks for watching and your feedback! I'm not sure if I'll have an M2 Pro handy in the near-term, but I'm also curious about how the recent native builds perform against the Intel builds. I've been continuing to run Darktable on an Intel-based Mac because of the eGPUs and (annoyingly) software RAID drivers I installed once upon a time.

It's been four months, sorry it took so long. I did run a comparison of darktable on an M1 Max (64GiB RAM; not an M2) both compiled for ARM and ran through Rosetta. This wasn't as thorough as the original tests; my theory was that after an initial hit to precompile/translate the X86 instructions to native code, the Rosetta performance wouldn't be that different over the long run (under the theory that Darktable and its libraries generally wouldn't be optimized for Apple Silicon). Given that hypothesis, I was a little surprised to see a 37% speed-up (specifically, running darktable 4.6.1 on MacOS 14.1 (23B74)) the Intel code ran at 137% the time of the Apple Si binary; or the latter ran at 72.87% of the time of the Intel code). I'm curious if you've seen other numbers, and if they're in-line with that, since I didn't go deeper (e.g. look at the difference in individual module performance).

Thanks for watching!

He does a good job conveying info. If you want high production values on TH-cam, go find a content provider who gets paid by a camera manufacturer...you know, that husband and wife team or that loud talking guy with big hair...

I'm sorry to hear that-I've seen some others with the issue on forums over the last half-year (I'm surprised there wasn't more earlier given that it does seem to be a non-isolated issue). It doesn't seem to be isolated to any one memory card or brand. If you haven't done so-upgrade the Q2 to the v4.0 firmware (from May of last year). This has *significantly* improved things for me-I get some of of the "black screen" issues, which is annoying but is fixed with another attempt at the shutter activation, and some occasional issues immediately at power-on, but after the first couple seconds I no longer get the dropped-picture/hard lock-up issues. If you are still on earlier firmwares-try updating and see let me know if that improves things for you as well? If not, I'd be curious which memory cards you're using-I had seen some anecdotally better and worse brands; I also found keeping the burst rate off, on slow, or medium made the lock-ups less common, it happened almost constantly on the high/very-high settings. With v4 I've used these settings without issue. There are also some improvements in the video modes with v4 (or was it v3?); if you haven't upgraded since release, there's some different behaviour which I think improves things as well-such as not accidentally switching to video as you cycle through overlay settings-but the new video settings in the recent firmwares do complicate the menu settings for video formats slightly. Good luck!

Interesting. I just finished testing a borrowed OM-1, but didn't test it with any of the nicer Panasonic lenses. Thanks for pointing that out. The short summary of my experience using it is that the tracking AF is *much* more responsive than previous generations, and in certain situations it *is* much better (specifically, fast moving birds, flying against a clean background). Obviously, there are a lot of other improvements, but that was the most obvious while using it. In the end, I think I'm still happy with the E-M1X instead; the incremental improvements haven't brought enough to drive an upgrade-but I'm still reviewing some of the photos I took.

I'm happy for it, and look forward to buying its successor. One thing I've noticed since the OM-1 was released, is that the E-M1X has actually gone *up* in effective price. It was regularly available for $1,699 US previously, and has been on sale back at $1,899 lately, which does bring-in the price premium a little bit from where it was. If you don't see value in the in-built grip of the E-M1X, $300 more for the OM-1 makes sense to get the better video and incremental sensor and AF benefits. I also think its worth the $600 premium from the E-M1 MIII ($1,599 on sale from $1,799 US) to get all that, along with matched UHS-2 SD cards and subect-aware AF modes. Despite the the 10% increase in the E-M1X street price, I still see it as the best value if you like its form factor and aren't prioritizing the video improvements. Unless you've already bought top-end lenses, I think the ~$700 difference if you were to get the vertical grip and OM-1 rather than the E-M1X would be better spent on upgraded glass.

True. Admittedly, I wasn't super fond of the EVF, other than for things like infrared photography; although I've warmed to them as they've gotten better. I also didn't give the weight difference the same level of respect when I was younger, either :/ Before MFT, Four Thirds was competing with APS-C and like you said: in part because they weren't Canikon and in part because APS-C still had the "bigger is better" metric, they didn't get a lot of respect in the Western world (Oly apparently has continued to sell well in Japan). I remember that era, being impressed with the flagships E-1/3/5, but the lens cost and size didn't seem to be delivering on the promises that a smaller sensor should deliver (because of R&D recapture and flange distance, in part, and ignoring DoF equivalence). MFT helped with the latter, while time has helped with the former. Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching, and thanks for the feedback.

Great points! I think there are some use cases where it's more straight forward than others; but for most of the OM market, it's murky. That might be why I haven't noticed the E-M1X for $1,699 US lately :/ Ignoring the cost difference; the biggest draw the OM-1 still has for me is the improved video (compared to all of the Olympus cameras). I'm not thrilled with the GH6 for stills (compared to the E-M1X), so if I wanted a Micro Four Third camera that did video "also" but made the most of my Olympus glass, the OM-1 would be that camera. For that matter, it's interesting that the OM-1 seems to be in short supply right now, but the GH6 is seeing some discounts.

Micro Four Thirds in general is definitely strongly suited for your use cases-are you planning to upgrade from an older Olympus camera, or switch to the OM-1 as your first MFT camera? I look forward to eventually making it out to Iceland as well-enjoy the trip, I've heard nothing but good things; and apropos of photography, it seems difficult to take a bad picture there. The OM-1 and E-M1X handle great, and are the cameras I'd pack on a trip where I want telephoto reach for similar reasons (I'm not as young as I used to be and the glass is lighter for the focal range and they take-up less space). I'm not anti-OM-1, and it looks like it's an upgrade in every manner (if you include the optional vertical grip); I see the E-M1X as the better value, and pretty close to what the OM-1 offers. Without the vertical grip, I think the OM-1 over the E-M1 III becomes a bit more nuanced depending on how you value various features (like dual UHS-II SD cards). I ended-up getting the GH6 since its release (and since this video), and while I had intended for it to be mostly used for video-I had hoped it would also do double service as a secondary camera to the E-M1X. I'm not thrilled with it for stills (the Panasonic/OM/Olympus lens-feature support across brands is frustrating), so I am admittedly thinking about the OM-1 principally on the improved video experience over the earlier Olympus models when I plan to bring just one camera but might want to shoot an occasional video.

@@NottaPro I’m presently a Fuji shooter, using a XH-1 with grip and 100-400, not the lightest combo. There’s a new one out at the end of the month so I might stay with Fuji yet, if I can have a longer battery I might not need a grip. Or get the OM1 as a travel camera, the highres and handheld long exposure could be excellent for travel.

I see, that 100-400 does look like a beast; although on the XH-1 it's the equivalent of 75-300mm on MFT. One thing of note, is that the zoom direction I believe is different between Olympus and Fuji (IIRC, Fuji follows Panasonic/Nikon/et al for focusing and zooming). Assuming that's not a problem, the OM-1 and 40-150 f/2.8 would be a nice pair-but not reaching the full range. I've heard good things from people trying to minimize weight about the Panasonic 100-300 F4-5.6, which is comparatively light and economical if those were the priorities. The biggest thing you'd give-up with the OM-1 and that Pani lense would be Dual IS/Sync IS which are incompatible systems from Panasonic and OM respectively (also, technically, weather sealing isn't promised when mixing brands). The Pani lens should match what you're used to with Fuji rotation, as well.

@@NottaPro Thanks for the info, once I’ve got the options narrowed down I’ll be hiring different combinations over the next few months.

I agree, all the other cameras are for fun (… or for video). I've been alternating between the Q2 and the X2 in parallel (and occasionally the X-U if the situation warrants). I'm still disappointed that Leica has discontinued the X line, but, I agree with your comment: a pocketable (for some pockets) camera like the X2/X100V/Ricoh GR lines coupled with the E-M1X are a killer combination-and the weather sealing of the X100V is notable there.

You're welcome!

Unfortunately no, that was shot with the BGH-1. My original plan had been to record the full thing on the various iPhones, but timing meant needing to return a couple of them, and more to the point-it's a bit of a pain to self-record on the iPhone given monitoring difficulties. My earliest videos were shot with a pair of iPhone X devices, sometimes it was a bit tedious, other times I didn't notice the support had slipped a little which meant I was no longer in the frame where I thought I was. There are ways around the monitoring issues, to make sure you're still in frame for instance-airplay mirroring is probably the *easiest*, with a mirror behind them being a low tech option, or a dedicated cameraman being the most expensive (how DPReview does it!).

Thanks for watching! Unfortunately I probably won't get the Shogun 7 although I've looked at it a few times-it would have solved the same needs I had for the BMD Video Assist at the time-but I just don't need another 7" monitor right now. One thing to note is that the Shoguns are simply monitors, and don't support recording themselves (so can't be used to capture proxies directly).

@@NottaPro You're thinking of the Shinobi monitors. The Shoguns all have SSD drives with ProRes. The Shogun 7 may also have a better monitor with 3000 nits a higher contrast and the ability to calibrate. That IMO is the most comparable competitor to the Blackmagic. One has Braw the other has ProResRAW and live switching.

Gah! You're most certainly right! I can't remember exactly why I went with the BMD over it either…the multiple inputs even looked enticing, and it looks a little lighter and brighter… I do think it came down to potentially having BRAW (annoyingly, Panasonic hasn't added support to any of their MFT cameras) and getting a feel for alternatives to Atomos.

@@NottaPro Well, IMO BRAW is easier to work with. ProRes and ProResRAW are massive files. Even though they play easily like BRAW files they take up so much space. I shot both formats and I prefer BRAW. I do think the Shogun may have a better display though probably better for focus pulling. It's lighter too but it's also plastic instead of aluminum.

I agree, if there's opportunity to get a lens that fills a need-that looks like the better place to spend cash if you already have a recent E-M1*. I expect the 150-400 will bring more benefit than the OM-1, especially if you're currently using anything other than the 300mm f4. It's remarkable how much reach it gives MFT in something that can be carried in many standard camera backpacks.

What about the E-M1X was a disappointment (higher ISO? Noise in lower ISO? AF? Initial price? Basically an E-M1.2 with a second computer bolted on?). Those all have valid reflections on the product, I'm curious which you found limiting.

@@NottaPro yeah disappointing for several reasons. The price to performance alone doesn't beat my Sony A9 (which I bought for $2100). I wanted a crop body with the performance of my Sony. The OM-1 beats my A9 on specs so far. Em1x body is too big for me. Af and tracking is not so great. Buffer ceiling also not so great. No stacked sensor. EVF not so great. However, right now, the EM1x in the used market is a fantastic deal. Not that I would get one now cuz OM-1 is looking really good and capable.The Olympus 150-400 pro lens will be my ultimate acquisition.

Thanks for the insights. I bought my E-M1X for about $1700, which has been its "sale" price pretty consistently for the last two years (and its current new price) which influences my opinion. It handles great with the 150-400; although that lens doesn't mind having something smaller attached on the end (I used it with an E-M5-it doesn't really make a difference-I'm sure it'll handle quite well with the OM-1, with or without a grip, as well). The area that I am *most* tempted to upgrade is actually that lens, since bumping the shutter up to about 1/3000 in the evening, in the woods, or on a cloudy day can push the ISO a little more than I love on the E-M1X, especially if you needed to pull out a little to give the subject a little more room to move. I'm still waiting for the next generation OM to upgrade for stills (or an E-M5 to inherit the improvements?? That'd be nice.)-and it'll be interesting to see how the-bulkier-than I'd prefer for stills-GH6 will handle paired with the Oly telephotos. I'm also willing to concede that, if I had an opportunity to compare the OM-1 and E-M1X together it might convince me to upgrade (although probably not to change my conclusion that the E-M1X is an exceptional value for the price and what it delivers)-I'd be looking principally at the AF behaviour and cleaner read-out to really deliver a big bump in keepers.

I agree with you. Mike Lane has a TH-cam video where he printed 10 images of bird images to A3 size (approx. 12X16 in.) - 5 taken with the Sony A1 (50MP) and 5 taken with the Olympus E-M1X. He then asked 3 people -- his wife and 2 very experienced photographers to pick which 5 prints were the sharpest, best quality. His wife pick 3 Olympus prints and 2 Sony prints; the first photographer picked 3 Sony prints and 2 Olympus prints; the last photographer picked 4 Olympus prints and 1 Sony print. I think that says quite a lot.

The main question of the video, is whether the OM-1 is worth upgrading from the E-M1 Mark III or the E-M1X-and I think that reinforces my conclusion, that the E-M1X is an exceptional value, and will get you a good deal of the photo features of the OM-1 at roughly 2/3 the price (usual sale price E-M1X vs. OM-1+grip).

@@NottaPro I love my E-M1X, but if the OM-1 actually tracks with AF the way it appears to, then it may very well be worth the upgrade for serious birders. I don't have any plans to 'upgrade' from my E-M1X, but I sure do hope OM Digital Solutions comes out with a firmware upgrade to improve tracking a bit and also add the Starry Sky AF.

Unfortunately, I'm guessing the limitations on the E-M1X are at least in part the TruePic VIII processors-so a firmware probably isn't going to improve it significantly. I agree though, the AF can be frustrating-I've heard mixed reviews of the OM-1's ability there, which is why I'm currently holding-out for its successor…. but maybe I'll give-in before the next version is available.

I don't see a lot of "new" features; I see improvement, and iteration, over the previous models. The OM-1 has improvements, but in total I only think they're evolutionary rather than seeing anything revolutionary-either for digital cameras or for Micro Four Thirds. I'm not bashing MFT here-as stated in the title, and in past videos referenced throughout this one, I think MFT (and the Olympus/OM line) make a lot of sense and offer outstanding value-but I think the greatest value likes with the E-M1X. Admittedly, for SLR and SLR-descended MILC (i.e. not rangefinders), I've always favoured a dual-battery vertical grip, and I realize that colours my opinion since I don't find the smaller form factor of the E-M1/OM-1 as a huge benefit as others do.

I'm curious to see if anyone either tests the improved IP53 rating or if there are any anecdotal stories that can demonstrate real improvement there. On paper it's better-and I don't doubt it's earned-but the OM-D E-M1X notably seemed to be *under*rated (some comments were that it was to make it an easy spec-sheet update in a future model). Yes, the video, both in its feature set and just the usability of the files (no 30 min barrier, good; not splitting the files: double plus good); *if* someone planned to make heavy use of video on the OM* camera: I agree, OM-1 hands-down. Looking at it from the photo side, I find it less compelling compared to the E-M1X. Starry sky is missing…. yeah, found that frustrating when I was deciding between the E-M1 Mark III and the E-M1X, but in the end it wasn't going to be my main usage which was telephoto action shots-and I don't think the OM-1 is significantly ahead of the E-M1X in a lot of areas. The E-M1X also has the in-built GPS module which is nice to have as a feature-despite it, the OM-1 *is* the better camera, but with grip at ~$2,550 vs $1,700 USD is it 1.5x the camera of the E-M1X? It depends on what you're going to ask of it, and I know some people will say yes. For me, the E-M1X is an outstanding value at $1,700 and I don't miss the extra features of the OM-1…yet.

It'd be nice if the camera offered the option of having that information in the raw file (similar to the M11's multi-resolution raws); but that'd complicate processing the ORF file. If it brings a 2-stop improvement …. it'll be parity with the R6, at the R6 price-and with better video, and weather rating. There are situations where I'd rather have the resolution, and use the extra data in post. I don't fully disagree with their decision-as I get to, I think I let myself build-up unreasonable expectations for the camera based on (lack of) information from OM. The DPReview follow-up, and Chris' article today(?), I think re-iterate a lot of the same feelings and impressions I've had over the past few days-and he's had it much longer to work through those feelings. Hopefully the next version of the OM flagship keeps pace (rather than re-use the same sensor from the OM-1) and fixes the ergonomic issues reviewers have been mentioning regarding gloves. If that comes-out at an inflation-adjusted price similar to the OM-1, I expect it'll convince me to buy a grip and upgrade from the E-M1X. I'm already making the decision to shoot the E-M1X instead of my R6-which would also give me that 1.5/2-stop improvement in ISO-so I don't find the noise a limiting factor (most of the time).

I put your comment in my response. Good point.

As far as I understand things, there’s actually no binning happening and no way to read the sub pixels separately. It’s a quad pixel AF sensor (more comparable to Canon’s dual pixel AF idea) and not a quad Bayer sensor. There’s only 20 million micro lenses on the OM-1 sensor while a quad bayer sensor would’ve had 80 million. But all that matters are the results and they seem excellent.

The raw files (ORF) don't expose the sub-pixels; it's been hard to read into what's actually in the camera, and what is to me what's actually exposed from the sensor. Based on the material I've seen from OM, I just see what you say regarding the quad-pixel AF; however DP Review wrote "It's an 80MP quad-pixel sensor covered by 20 million microlenses and a corresponding Bayer Filter array, giving it an effective resolution of 20MP. " which could match what's being described, and effectively would be binning the pixels, while outwardly be behaving like a 20MP sensor. Or DPReview could have wrong information…

@@NottaPro I think that DPReview are just jumping to conclusions.

That sounds like a plan-the IBIS, AF, and computational features have evolved since the E-M1.2, even though top line specs sound so similar (i.e. 20MP sensor, ISO 25600). If you're not concerned about a back-up body-I've had that come in handy, but practically speaking, it's a rarity-having one do-it-all body makes more sense where you can just add the grip when you want the second battery or vertical grip. … it also frees you up to buy the next OM camera, and keep the OM-1 as a back-up in the future without feeling as guilty …