If you got the time it would be interesting to compare a ISO 6400 from E-M1.3 with the OM-1 ISO 25600 the same way. So we can see how much is left of the claimed 2 ISO stops better noise performance.
Thanks for this review. Huge difference. I didn't expect a big improvement in IQ. I'mm happy with m1mii and miii, although sometimes i miss higher isos. You're absolutely right. Only post-production reveals how big the difference is. I've seen raw files on iso 6400 and 12800 from m1miii and om1. I don't know how this is possible, but the iso 12800 on the om1 had more details and more color.The om1 files also offered more possibilities in post-production. I use olympus for deep sky astrophotography, night landscapes and it looks like it will be much easier and faster. Honestly i can't wait for my om-1.
Thank you very much for publishing the images for download. Very helpful indeed. Better high ISO performance is something I have been waiting for and the cleaner image and better colour from the OM-1 is very clear.
iso 3200 looks a lot better, iso 6400 looks a little better, but dr is much better. iso 12800 -a huge difference between om1 and m1miii. However, the biggest difference between these cameras is the autofocus. I know this thanks to my colleague from Spain who had an om1 in his hand and convinced me to preorder. I have never ever in my live ordered a camera before testing it. 🤯
Very helpful video, Matt. It really shows that you are getting a significantly cleaner file to work with on the OM-1. I also dabble in astrophotography and would be very excited to see how well this does in the more typically used ISO 1600 to 6400 range. I had already convinced myself that I am perfectly happy with my E-M5 Mark III, but this video has me thinking about making the jump to the OM-1 again. More videos, please!
Finally, a good comparison at high ISO between the OM1 and EM1 Mark. 3. I'm looking forward to improve performance, especially when you go to process and start pulling shadows and etc.
This was a truly informative video, Matt. I normally ignore all these technical comparison type videos, because usually they are pretty lame and boring -- your video was well demonstrated and very well explained. Thanks for all the work, and clearing the air -- there is so much misinformation on line these days. The OM-1 is a big step forward for m4/3's.
C'mon, we're talking ISO 25,600 here, not ISO 200. The differences are there, but they're both on a pretty high quality level and disprove the popular Canon/Nikon/Sony fanboy theory that MFT sensors are too small, cause too much high ISO noise and are generally unprofessional to use. If I had any doubts about switching from a Nikon APS-C DSLR to an OM System MFT, they're completely gone. The OM-1 is just a perfect camera and to be honest, they offer a lot of value for what's on the price tag.
I like the scientific approach. It reveals differences, but not enough to make a casual photographer spend $2k to upgrade from the M3. Thank you for your granular examination.
Compelling! Will be interesting to find out whether and how the noise improvements are related to the 4x subpixel design of the new sensor in the OM-1.
Finally a step up in quality, it's what I wish the em1 III had relative to the II, it's nothing close to revolutionary but what I'd expect from normal a model update
It would seem that the best way to compare high ISO performance would be to set the E-M1 Mark III to 6400 ISO and the OM-1 to 25600 ISO and take the same picture with both cameras, changing the shutter speed to get proper exposure and then compare the noise levels. If they look essentially the same, I think it would be fair to say that the OM-1 does have a two stop improvement in high ISO performance. If the OM-1 image looks better, it's more than a two stop improvement and if it looks worse, than it's less than a two stop improvement. Based on what I'm seeing, there is a definite improvement, but I'm guessing that two stops might be an exaggeration.
Excellent job Matt. I've always felt each manufacturer had an advantage with their own matched software. It was nice to be reminded. I think I'll be working with the OM Workspace more in the future.
First one to comment :-) Thanks for this comparison. I think you debunked a lot of rumors spread around, that the improvements OMDS claims are fake. I see a lot of improvement here. The reduced false colors alone make high ISO much more usable. Thanks again for your work!
This was great Matt. Exactly the kind of review I was waiting for. One request, could you provide the same shots (or other studio comparison shots between the two) at ISO 1600. For many that may be a more realistic working high ISO historically with m43. Either 1600, 3200 or 6400.
Thanks for the comparison Matt. Although the difference at 25.600 is quite obvious. Is this really caused by the better noise performance or due to extended iso? The em1m3 offers iso to 6400, beyond that it's extended iso - means from my understanding it's basically an iso 6400 picture digitally brightened up, whereas the om-1 is entering extended iso only beyond 25.600? Would be curious to see the performance comparison at low light, longer shutter time in the range of iso 3200 to 12.8. This is where the marketing tells us the camera should be far better. Nevertheless - thanks for the comparison in controlled environment. 👍
Thank you for making this. I watched every min. And the difference is certainly noticeable. That being said I’m ..so damn happy I don’t peep at pixels and stuff like that lol. Takes away all the fun.
This is a nice overall way to get a good first impression of differences in the subtle quality of the image quality in a brand new sensor. Like you point out, it's difficult to see the whole picture in a studio test under fixed conditions, very close to a subject and few real world challenges like we face in the field. I'm looking forward to your impressions in the field as you compare the full range of what a sensor is designed to do: record enough light to accurately present the details looking as real and natural as possible. I think it seemed to me that while the overt noise may not at first glance appear drastically dissimilar between the two cameras, it sure seemed to me that the OM-1 was doing a more accurate job at the pixel level getting the gradations, the color transitions, and the edge details in feathers, for example. It looks more like what we'd see in the OM-D E-M1 Mark III raw files at iso 6400. You mentioned how fine and grainy the noise looked on the OM-1. This is what I see at 6400 typically with the OM-D E-M1 Mark II and later. If I expose properly and don't have to raise shadows too much and control the highlights, then the images hold up rather well and sometimes the newer noise reduction software can be useful. I don't like to use noise reduction software much with wildlife because the fine details are so delicate and easily damaged when and if the noise is really not a serious problem for the print and mostly an irritation to our eyes looking at 100% on huge backlit monitors. Also since you like astro, you know that noise reduction can really damage the fine details that are the dust lanes in nebulas and we really try to get more signal through stacking or various methods. So again, having better dynamic range in those shadows at higher ISO is of tremendous benefit to the night sky photographer in a different way but no less important than it is for wildlife photographers. I think it is possible that the OM-1 will now produce cleaner details at 6400 we used to see at ISo1600 and below. And we can sometimes get away with letting the ISO go up a stop or two beyond assuming our exposure is correct for the subject and we aren't having to push shadows much at those high ISOs. Thanks for showing the effect of OM Workspace. I never used it much except in special situations where I shot a sports event in terrible conditions so used ISO5000 to 12,600 pretty routinely, shooting 1/1000 and f/2.8 to f/4. In those cases, it was very nice and that was before the new and improved version. I look forward to trying it for those special cases when I have to shoot events at very high ISOs. Although based on what I'm seeing, 25,600 is the new 6400, so maybe I don't really need noise reduction software that much.
Thank you for the comparison. I would like to see some iso 3200 & 6400 as I feel today with Topaz and other denoise programs I just wonder if it is really that greater improvement in the OM 1 to justify getting rid of my omd em1 mk III.
That looks pretty impressive to me, not that I would ever push the ISO that high. I shoot live music in small venues with terrible LED lighting, and lots of red, green and blue (lazy operators), which is real test for any sensor. I only recently switched (back) to Olympus from Canon full-frame (6D) and I can’t see a huge amounts of difference using an EM-1ii. At 3200 the Olympus is a little noisier at a pixel-peeping level, so I’ll be intrigued to see how the OM-1 performs under those conditions. I’m sure it will be a lot cleaner than my original OM-1 shooting B&W film at 1600.
Thank you for making the video. It would be interesting to see if there is a real world difference after running the 2 files through DXO or Topaz noise reduction software.
Thanks for this. It is very useful information for someone who is considering buying into the om system. I have been waiting for the new sensor and autofocus...a test on this would be interesting. Thanks again.
Great to be of help Alec and glad you enjoyed the video. AF will be something I talk about in upcoming videos, but be sure to check out the review video I did and check out the AF response on tracking a dog in it at around the 11:00 mark: th-cam.com/video/-WTE6mabO4w/w-d-xo.html
Fantastic review Matt. Considering ISO 25,600, I like what I see with OM-1. Hope DxO supports OM-1 RAWs soon and I cannot wait to get my hands on OM-1 soon. I also do have EM1.3 and will do real world comparison soon. Cheers
That's looking really good (the O-M1 files). I'll be on the lookout for some raw file samples of landscape photos from the O-M1 I can edit in Lightroom when it's updated so I can see how much better the dynamic range is on the O-M1. As it is, I'm happy with what I see for the high ISO shots. I was pretty happy already with the high ISO on the E-M 1 Mark III though. Still...I like improvements :) I honestly don't shoot much high ISO and I mostly try to keep the ISO low to get more dynamic range. I'm not worried about the noise in late model m4/3 cameras...it's the DR I care more about.
If you are really concerned with maximizing DR, don't use LR. Capture One Pro and DxO Photolab can bring out way more shadow & highlight detail than Lightroom can...
What is the comparison at ISO 25000 for? Never took a picture at ISO 25000 but not even at ISO 6000. Let's get serious and see quality at ISO 100! 90% of the photographs are taken at low iso.
You may not shoot above ISO 100, but many do, and even if the two camera's images are "identical" at ISO 100, there will be an ever increasing gap between them as ISO increases to get to the very significant differences show here. My bet is that at ISO 6400 - which I shoot at times - there will still be a noticeable difference. I find this video very informative.
Most of my pictures are in the several thousand ISO area. How this camera performs around 6400 is very important to me - and this is the best indication offered so far.
I'd like to see whether or not the OM-1 has a full stop of dynamic range over the Em-1 III and what that looks like at ISO 100. I agree that ISO 25,000 is a waste of time.
Excellent video and thank you for doing this. It looks like OM system took everything from the Em1 III (incredible camera) and made it even better in all aspects. Wow! I'm very impressed with the OM-1
Thanks for the review. I am ticked because I bought the M1 III because it was a slight improvement over the mark II and there was not another body announced. Before the III came out, I was hoping for the improvements that are now in the OM-1. I kind of wasted an entire body generation with the III. I want OMS to program their firmware for both the M1 III and the OM-1 to a much better job with tracking. My M1 III has terrible (non-existent) tracking.
Hardly noticeable differences when zoomed out, and regardless nobody shoots for clients or print at ISOs this high. I run my micro4/3 raws through DxO DeepPRIME noise reduction, and it produces full frame results. Much better than Lr or Ps.
Of course hardly noticeable zoomed out - can say that about any image... For me, I have had work delivered for clients as well as prints up to 6400 ISO - we all have different needs 🍻. I can now see up to 25,600 as fair game now. DxO does fabulous on Olympus files - can't wait till it is compatible with the OM-1.
I love DxO Photolab with DeepPRIME. It is fascinating how good it is at cleaning up lens distortion, sharpness, and noise. I even went through my really old files from my Nikon D70 and the new software makes it like a new camera. I don't even use LR or Photoshop for images anymore. The only thing I don't like about DxO Photolab is that it does not show a full image preview of PRIME or DeepPrime, I really hope that the next version will be able to do this. Also, it does not show the actual sharpness of the image until you are zoomed into 80 percent or more, I hate that too. They need to fix those two things, and it is very close to perfect.
At 6:50, you can cleatrly see that you have Film Grain enabled in Capture One (which is by no means default). Are you aware of this and did you correct it before exporting as tiff?
@@MattSuessPhoto Hi Matt, I agree that this doesn't change your review in any way just wanted to make you aware of it. (And no, by all means, this is NOT default - default is value 0 not 20 - I am using C1 for many years...) But anyway, no harm done, absolutely fantastic review, enjoyed it a lot!
@@thomaslilly5834 as you must be aware then in C1, double clicking on a slider resets it to it's default. If I move that slider to 0 and double click on it, it goes back to 20, meaning that is the default. Glad you enjoyed the review!
@@MattSuessPhoto Hi, thanks for your quick answer, this is interesting indeed: When I do this, it resets to 0. It is possible though to change the default setting in capture one, depending on camera model. So maybe one of our defaults was changed that way... Or it is a new default for the OM-1. Interesting.
@@thomaslilly5834 ok so what's happening is C1 is auto applying that film grain only once the file is above a certain ISO threshold. I see Olympus (and not necessarily OM-1 files) up to at least 2500 and that slider is at zero. At 6400 it is at 10, and at 25,600 like we have been discussing it is at 20. Adding film grain is an old trick to hiding noise patterns. But even at 20, it is hardly noticeable.
I think there is an error in your methodology with regards to OM workspace. Unless you check "Noise Filter" and set it to "OFF" it will default to the noise settings your camera had when you shot the image. So it's trying to mimic the jpeg engine in your comparison. Overall though, THANK YOU for this in depth comparison so helpful.
Excellent video, Matt. Very noticeable how much better the Om-1 is as soon as you try to lift the levels. Are you seeing better colour depth / clarity /IQ at base ISO ? Some reports feel like the images are a bit sharper and detailed even though they're the same megapixel rating.
I wonder if then OM1 has dual native iso common in the panasonic equivalent? While I shoot 90% with my Z6 I can't bear to sell off my Em1 Mark ii thus signifying my end with OM( ex olympus)
Question - I've never used Olympus Workspace. Can you go back and forth between it and Photoshop like you can in Lightroom Classic? How would you handle processing in it, cataloging in Lightroom, editing in PS?
Thanks for the review good info presented I got the OM1 and did test myself and found similarly in the shadow areas and pushing your files is where you'll see the most advantage. But I would not say it's a true 2 stop difference. Sure, you can do processing and noise reduction and make the both files that are two stops apart. Look pretty similar but the same can be said between one camera and another camera. That's two stops better. To me, I'm feeling like the difference between the two is not really that much of a wow factor. I shot some at my church for worship where we usually need high ISO and I shot with my Olympus, M1X and OM1. Both at the same ISO same settings and then I process both and the OM1 had a slight advantage but if you look at them both just on your computer monitor not zooming in. You have a hard time seeing a difference. The autofocus was another kind of a peculiar thing cuz and I haven't done enough shooting but it did seem like it was a little clunkier not less performance but just seem like using it was harder than my M1X. I don't know there was just something a little different and just didn't seem as responsive but I still have to do more shooting with it. A face attacked and tracking is better that I did notice. Have to say I really like the way my M1X feels and just a handling of it. I did the same experiment between the XT2 and EM1 Mark 3 and M1X. And yes, the original RAW files on XT2 were better but after doing my photo lab DXO processing on both to like the same desire result, there was no difference. So end of the day you really want to look at the difference between two files after you done your normal workflow and see does it really look better to you and your environment? And in my case I'm not convinced that it does but I still have some more testing to do. I just got the camera so I'll do more and see if I'm going to keep it but I'm thinking I may return it. I can get lenses and maybe get more bang out of those.
Thanks for watching Steve and for reporting your results so far! If you haven't seen it yet, I just published another test you might be interested in: th-cam.com/video/X6KUnoXxSfs/w-d-xo.html
why don't we see the much acclaimed af system at work more? can hardly find videos testing the om1 af system (in video, not in photos). is there an embargo? or just diappointing and not worth showing, cuz i dont get it?
interesting video as always, thank you Matt. perhaps would you want trying any one of your raw files once more in OM Workspace, "Alt B", enable side by side "before / after" view, after having checked Noise Reduction box and changed "amount" from "standard" to "off", be it in AI tab or in "star icon" one - each method overriding the other. not only is my copy revealing very different noise aspects and amounts, especially in the darkest areas, but to my eyes, there also might be a heavy loss of sharpness in the "untouched" raw - watched on a calibrated 4K 32" BenQ as well as a slight loss in saturation, perhaps
@@mikey7326 Nope, the way I see it is that OM W is applying NR behind the curtain, letting us think that it is not, until we take care and check NR OFF.
Just give it a try. check NR box, change from standard to Off, go to compare view and OM W will evidence it was applying standard noise reduction - perhaps an unintended bug ?
25600 ISO is extreme, yes I see your point , but the trade off usually for very good low light performance is CLIPPING highlights easily, yes you will be happy at night but in the daylight that wonderful low ISO sensor can bite the ass with highlights , I hope you make a video comparing that point between the two legends. thanks for the great video, was very informative.
After having handled the new OM-1 can you say that the control dials (front and rear) are as well made as those of the EM1X? If you have used or own one you know exactly what I mean. The detents are dampened and truly feel like a flagship camera should. Or are they the same as the EM1 MK III? I ask because if OM systems is now claiming the OM-1 is their flagship then build quality should reflect that.
Nothing will compare to the EM1X unless a v2 comes out. But the OM-1 does get recessed control dials like on the X. But they are hard plastic and not rubberized like on the X. There is a tighter snap to them on the OM-1, but maybe my X is a touch more broken in 😉
Look if you can afford it get the OM1 but it's unlikely you'll use all it's amazing features so the Mark iiii is a good option for most of you if you can live without the new sensor and evf
I don’t think the differences are big in real world tests, especially if you keep the ISO 200-6400. And noise reduction programs are so good nowadays, so they eliminate the difference even more.
I find this a bad test because the noise at 25600 iso is too high and you can see difference but if you make a difference between 6400 isoO Om1 and 6400 Em1 , the Om1 files will be very similar to Em1 files
I acknowledge your opinion, but I disagree. This test is exceptional, and exceptionally thorough. If you are not the intended target audience of this test, that's fine. (I am, BTW.) But... "bad test"?... Absolutely not! On the other hand, if you did run (and publish) a test at ISO 6400, that's great! May I have the link, please?
The point of this test is to see the improvement in the OM-1 very high ISO improvements. In the first case, the OM-1 needs to be enough better then the E-M1 Mk III to justify current Olympus uses making the upgrade, but even more importantly, the OM-1 (and the Lumix GH9) need to close the high ISO gap with full frame cameras to bring in new customs from other systems. I think this test certainly demonstrates that the OM-1 high ISO performance lives up to the claims.
Thanks Matt, pretty much confirms my idea to move back to M4/3. I had EM5v Mk 2, then EM1 Mk3, then EM1X. I sorely miss the Procapture, ND filter & stabilisation. No to go do battle with Her Indoors!
ISO-Noise is only one side of the coin. The huge advantage of the OM1 is the AF-performance for BIF, Sport-action, the perfect view-finder, fast and furious high res shot, pre-capture capabilities, excellent optics, etcetera. And this are the things who matters. A little better ISO performance is also welcome but not the main reason for buying the OM1. For me as an E-M1X-user the new camera is interesting but im not going straight forward to buy one. The E-M1X is a fantastic camera in terms of haptic for lager hands and for my purposes more than enough. 🙂
High iso is certainly just one item worth mentioning in regards to improvements. For what I shoot it is more important than AF improvements, but I understand the AF would be more important for others. Lots to test, taking it one feature at a time 😉
What a great review!!! This is exactly what we need as users, and thanks for highlighting the usefulness of using om/olympus proprietary software when doing the basic file preparation/editing (would dxo software get better results for raw file editing?) you highlight a very important part of digital photography: using the best pre-editing software to edit your raw files makes a BIG diference... I also wonder how much banding do we get with electronic vs mechanic shutter and how do these cameras compare at higher iso... Is a 12000s iso usable with the om1? What really draws me towards the om1, and as you say, are improvements on its real life usabiliy. I'll give it some time tough and get it when the price drops... Meawhile I'll keep using my main and very much beloved camera: the olympus mkii...
I wish we had a megapixel bump, the GH6 apparently does, and it's going to affect the perceptions of the potential new users. I'm still on the fence on the new camera. The new 40-150 though sounds awesome though.
You are quite brave doing this Matt! There will be many who are more scientists than photographers, and will disect much deeper. It looks to me that there are real and practical improvements, some due to hardware and some due to software... either way the result is all that should matter. OM Workspace seems designed for the OM-1, but Adobe has a monopoly, so mostly LR is where the war needs to be waged to convince the masses. Until we have the likes of Adobe, and for me, DXO Photolab Elite, updated, comparisons are a bit of a guess. For now, I think you should shoot some astro and show the best your previous workflow can do with the EM1.3, then get the OM-1 and Workspace result to compare... I would presume for now the DXO will be as good or better than Workspace. Also do a typical high DR daylight landscape at 200 ISO and let's see the shadows and highlights worked on. Then, most importanly for me, as a BIF shooter mostly struggling to get feather detail in daylight/ overcast at 1/ 2500 at f4.0-5.6 and ISO 400-3200, what is the bottom line with the OM-1? Thanks for your video!
I'm not sure how proving that the last flagship camera from a manufacturer is crap can help the brand Matt. The Mark 3 sensor is a couple of years old. Maybe the OM1 after a couple of years of use will produce crap to. I never feel good about being a photographer after watching one of these. I do question .....why would I continue to have a commitment to OM? Good luck.
Wow such a weird thing to say. It is quite common and expected for one to test something new vs what it replaces. You may look at it as saying how bad the old is - others will look at it as saying how improved the new is thus giving them reason to buy the new. And once something new comes along in the future, I'll be sure to do a review on it to see how much that camera improves upon what is/was out there before. Cheers!
It seems worthwhile to me because people can use the information to decide whether or not it is worth upgrading. I have kept my full frame system for when I need to photograph football under floodlights. After watching this, I feel I could maybe make the switch completely to m4/3s
I just posted a Round 2 test, comparing the OM-1 at 6400 ISO to the E-M1 MKIII at 1600 ISO: th-cam.com/video/X6KUnoXxSfs/w-d-xo.html
hows the low light with 4k video?
@@AlrosAvellana not sure - I don't shoot low light video so haven't tested.
I’d be most interested to see the difference at ISOs 800-3200. I’ve never needed anything above that.
If you got the time it would be interesting to compare a ISO 6400 from E-M1.3 with the OM-1 ISO 25600 the same way. So we can see how much is left of the claimed 2 ISO stops better noise performance.
OMDS did a great job on Olympus Workspace which I have been using ever since Adobe went Subscription mode.
Thanks for this review. Huge difference. I didn't expect a big improvement in IQ. I'mm happy with m1mii and miii, although sometimes i miss higher isos. You're absolutely right. Only post-production reveals how big the difference is. I've seen raw files on iso 6400 and 12800 from m1miii and om1. I don't know how this is possible, but the iso 12800 on the om1 had more details and more color.The om1 files also offered more possibilities in post-production. I use olympus for deep sky astrophotography, night landscapes and it looks like it will be much easier and faster. Honestly i can't wait for my om-1.
I think you are going to enjoy the new camera 😉
Thank you very much for taking the time to make that video - best comparison I've seen so far 👍
Can't wait to see your impressions once you get out in the field! Can't wait to get out in the field myself!
Thank you for this much anticipated noise test! You're first I think. Look forward to your real world comparisons!
Thanks! Hopefully once this snowstorm passes the skies will clear!
Thank you very much for publishing the images for download. Very helpful indeed. Better high ISO performance is something I have been waiting for and the cleaner image and better colour from the OM-1 is very clear.
Terrific comparison, Matt. Thanks for sharing it. Really marked differences visible even over TH-cam.
How about other isos, 3200 and 6400, did you feel some improvement
There is improvement all throughout the range, but for this video I focused on 25,600 because some were questioning my results at that ISO.
iso 3200 looks a lot better, iso 6400 looks a little better, but dr is much better. iso 12800 -a huge difference between om1 and m1miii. However, the biggest difference between these cameras is the autofocus. I know this thanks to my colleague from Spain who had an om1 in his hand and convinced me to preorder. I have never ever in my live ordered a camera before testing it. 🤯
Very helpful video, Matt. It really shows that you are getting a significantly cleaner file to work with on the OM-1. I also dabble in astrophotography and would be very excited to see how well this does in the more typically used ISO 1600 to 6400 range. I had already convinced myself that I am perfectly happy with my E-M5 Mark III, but this video has me thinking about making the jump to the OM-1 again. More videos, please!
Thanks for watching, and I am looking for clear skies to test this in real world situations :)
Finally, a good comparison at high ISO between the OM1 and EM1 Mark. 3. I'm looking forward to improve performance, especially when you go to process and start pulling shadows and etc.
This was a truly informative video, Matt. I normally ignore all these technical comparison type videos, because usually they are pretty lame and boring -- your video was well demonstrated and very well explained. Thanks for all the work, and clearing the air -- there is so much misinformation on line these days. The OM-1 is a big step forward for m4/3's.
I truly appreciate your comments Greg M 🍻
C'mon, we're talking ISO 25,600 here, not ISO 200. The differences are there, but they're both on a pretty high quality level and disprove the popular Canon/Nikon/Sony fanboy theory that MFT sensors are too small, cause too much high ISO noise and are generally unprofessional to use. If I had any doubts about switching from a Nikon APS-C DSLR to an OM System MFT, they're completely gone. The OM-1 is just a perfect camera and to be honest, they offer a lot of value for what's on the price tag.
I like the scientific approach. It reveals differences, but not enough to make a casual photographer spend $2k to upgrade from the M3. Thank you for your granular examination.
Thanks for making this video man
Hey you are welcome 🍻
Compelling! Will be interesting to find out whether and how the noise improvements are related to the 4x subpixel design of the new sensor in the OM-1.
Hi Matt, did you notice any image quality difference between them in raw files, at base iso (200) ?
the best vid about the new om1 vs em1iii iso test so far
Thanks for that 😃
Finally a step up in quality, it's what I wish the em1 III had relative to the II, it's nothing close to revolutionary but what I'd expect from normal a model update
Thank you for the work. I hope you add another ISO to your next work
Like 1600 or 3200
The improvement in the OM-1 is so clear, thanks to your efforts in this video, Matt. Thank you.
Thanks for watching Bill!
It would seem that the best way to compare high ISO performance would be to set the E-M1 Mark III to 6400 ISO and the OM-1 to 25600 ISO and take the same picture with both cameras, changing the shutter speed to get proper exposure and then compare the noise levels. If they look essentially the same, I think it would be fair to say that the OM-1 does have a two stop improvement in high ISO performance. If the OM-1 image looks better, it's more than a two stop improvement and if it looks worse, than it's less than a two stop improvement. Based on what I'm seeing, there is a definite improvement, but I'm guessing that two stops might be an exaggeration.
This is an excellent idea. I'd like to see the results of such a test.
@@musiclover1770 me too🙂
Excellent job Matt. I've always felt each manufacturer had an advantage with their own matched software. It was nice to be reminded. I think I'll be working with the OM Workspace more in the future.
Hey thanks Daniel - yes, the manufacturers do have an advantage being able to fully tap into their own cameras for optimum quality!
First one to comment :-) Thanks for this comparison. I think you debunked a lot of rumors spread around, that the improvements OMDS claims are fake. I see a lot of improvement here. The reduced false colors alone make high ISO much more usable. Thanks again for your work!
Awesome to hear Jens and thanks for the comment! 😀
This was great Matt. Exactly the kind of review I was waiting for. One request, could you provide the same shots (or other studio comparison shots between the two) at ISO 1600. For many that may be a more realistic working high ISO historically with m43. Either 1600, 3200 or 6400.
I totally agree with you!
Thanks for all your hard work!
Thanks for watching Bob!
Iso 25600 is extended range on em13 so its taking extreme end of the sensor, 12800 or 6400 (especially) would be a more apple to apple comparison.
This makes my E5 look like a box brownie. I've preordered an OM1 so am really looking forward to doing some real time testing
Thanks for the comparison Matt. Although the difference at 25.600 is quite obvious. Is this really caused by the better noise performance or due to extended iso? The em1m3 offers iso to 6400, beyond that it's extended iso - means from my understanding it's basically an iso 6400 picture digitally brightened up, whereas the om-1 is entering extended iso only beyond 25.600?
Would be curious to see the performance comparison at low light, longer shutter time in the range of iso 3200 to 12.8. This is where the marketing tells us the camera should be far better.
Nevertheless - thanks for the comparison in controlled environment. 👍
True, OM-1 maxes out native at 25,600 and at that ISO the mark3 is extended.
I actually downloaded raw files from DPREVIEW and imaging resource and the high iso blew me away compared to any other mft camera out there
How often do you guys shoot at 25600? Are there any improvements in lower isos like 800- 6400?
Never. I too would prefer to see comparisons in the range you suggest. I guess we'll have to wait to see the "real world" evaluation.
Thank you for making this. I watched every min. And the difference is certainly noticeable. That being said I’m ..so damn happy I don’t peep at pixels and stuff like that lol. Takes away all the fun.
Haha I hear ya - I'm not into the pixel peeping all the time but sometimes I do have to report on it 😉
This is a nice overall way to get a good first impression of differences in the subtle quality of the image quality in a brand new sensor. Like you point out, it's difficult to see the whole picture in a studio test under fixed conditions, very close to a subject and few real world challenges like we face in the field.
I'm looking forward to your impressions in the field as you compare the full range of what a sensor is designed to do: record enough light to accurately present the details looking as real and natural as possible. I think it seemed to me that while the overt noise may not at first glance appear drastically dissimilar between the two cameras, it sure seemed to me that the OM-1 was doing a more accurate job at the pixel level getting the gradations, the color transitions, and the edge details in feathers, for example. It looks more like what we'd see in the OM-D E-M1 Mark III raw files at iso 6400.
You mentioned how fine and grainy the noise looked on the OM-1. This is what I see at 6400 typically with the OM-D E-M1 Mark II and later. If I expose properly and don't have to raise shadows too much and control the highlights, then the images hold up rather well and sometimes the newer noise reduction software can be useful. I don't like to use noise reduction software much with wildlife because the fine details are so delicate and easily damaged when and if the noise is really not a serious problem for the print and mostly an irritation to our eyes looking at 100% on huge backlit monitors. Also since you like astro, you know that noise reduction can really damage the fine details that are the dust lanes in nebulas and we really try to get more signal through stacking or various methods. So again, having better dynamic range in those shadows at higher ISO is of tremendous benefit to the night sky photographer in a different way but no less important than it is for wildlife photographers.
I think it is possible that the OM-1 will now produce cleaner details at 6400 we used to see at ISo1600 and below. And we can sometimes get away with letting the ISO go up a stop or two beyond assuming our exposure is correct for the subject and we aren't having to push shadows much at those high ISOs.
Thanks for showing the effect of OM Workspace. I never used it much except in special situations where I shot a sports event in terrible conditions so used ISO5000 to 12,600 pretty routinely, shooting 1/1000 and f/2.8 to f/4. In those cases, it was very nice and that was before the new and improved version. I look forward to trying it for those special cases when I have to shoot events at very high ISOs. Although based on what I'm seeing, 25,600 is the new 6400, so maybe I don't really need noise reduction software that much.
Thanks Jeffrey! Once this current snowstorm passes I am hopeful to find some clear skies!!
Thank you for the comparison. I would like to see some iso 3200 & 6400 as I feel today with Topaz and other denoise programs I just wonder if it is really that greater improvement in the OM 1 to justify getting rid of my omd em1 mk III.
Wow! Here I can see a big difference of those two steps announced by OM System!
oh dear... this is going to get expensive. Thank you for this video
That looks pretty impressive to me, not that I would ever push the ISO that high. I shoot live music in small venues with terrible LED lighting, and lots of red, green and blue (lazy operators), which is real test for any sensor. I only recently switched (back) to Olympus from Canon full-frame (6D) and I can’t see a huge amounts of difference using an EM-1ii. At 3200 the Olympus is a little noisier at a pixel-peeping level, so I’ll be intrigued to see how the OM-1 performs under those conditions. I’m sure it will be a lot cleaner than my original OM-1 shooting B&W film at 1600.
In OM Workspace you have to click on the Noise Filter box and select OFF to stop it from applying noise reduction from the camera settings.
Thank you for making the video. It would be interesting to see if there is a real world difference after running the 2 files through DXO or Topaz noise reduction software.
I'm looking forward to when DxO is compatible so I can test!
Thank U for this video. Much Appreciated.
You are welcome - thanks for watching!
Thanks for this. It is very useful information for someone who is considering buying into the om system. I have been waiting for the new sensor and autofocus...a test on this would be interesting. Thanks again.
Great to be of help Alec and glad you enjoyed the video. AF will be something I talk about in upcoming videos, but be sure to check out the review video I did and check out the AF response on tracking a dog in it at around the 11:00 mark: th-cam.com/video/-WTE6mabO4w/w-d-xo.html
Fantastic review Matt. Considering ISO 25,600, I like what I see with OM-1. Hope DxO supports OM-1 RAWs soon and I cannot wait to get my hands on OM-1 soon. I also do have EM1.3 and will do real world comparison soon. Cheers
I hope DxO supports it soon too!!
That's looking really good (the O-M1 files). I'll be on the lookout for some raw file samples of landscape photos from the O-M1 I can edit in Lightroom when it's updated so I can see how much better the dynamic range is on the O-M1. As it is, I'm happy with what I see for the high ISO shots. I was pretty happy already with the high ISO on the E-M 1 Mark III though. Still...I like improvements :) I honestly don't shoot much high ISO and I mostly try to keep the ISO low to get more dynamic range. I'm not worried about the noise in late model m4/3 cameras...it's the DR I care more about.
If you are really concerned with maximizing DR, don't use LR. Capture One Pro and DxO Photolab can bring out way more shadow & highlight detail than Lightroom can...
Seen this, impressive really! I`d be happy to see something that includes the OM Workspace AI noise treatment.
Wow! Capture One Pro already supports the OM-1. I've been wanting to buy it.
Yeah they were pretty quick!
Thanks for doing this.
Can’t wait to see your comparison when you’re outside in the real world. Thanks
Thanks Jerry - hoping to find some clear skies soon!
What is the comparison at ISO 25000 for? Never took a picture at ISO 25000 but not even at ISO 6000. Let's get serious and see quality at ISO 100! 90% of the photographs are taken at low iso.
You may not shoot above ISO 100, but many do, and even if the two camera's images are "identical" at ISO 100, there will be an ever increasing gap between them as ISO increases to get to the very significant differences show here. My bet is that at ISO 6400 - which I shoot at times - there will still be a noticeable difference. I find this video very informative.
Most of my pictures are in the several thousand ISO area. How this camera performs around 6400 is very important to me - and this is the best indication offered so far.
I'd like to see whether or not the OM-1 has a full stop of dynamic range over the Em-1 III and what that looks like at ISO 100. I agree that ISO 25,000 is a waste of time.
Thank you for this comparison.
What I learned. Moste important is to expose you pictures right.
2. C1 seems to be a good raw converter.
Always a good idea to have a good exposure 😉. C1 is great - I've always like it more than LR, but lately my fav has been DxO Photolab 5
Have you sent in files to Bill Claff at PhotonstoPhotos?
would be great to have a comparison againt the em-1 mkii
The em1ii and em1iii have very similar iso performance.
@@ppalumbo_ca peter forsgard says em mkiii better?
Matt, I really like this comparison. The control the studio offers eliminates a lot of variables. Hopefully we will meet face to face before too long.
Hey thanks Bob 😀
FYI If you want to totally turn off OM Workspace's standard noise reduction you have to do it with the drop down menu and set it to "Off".
Excellent video and thank you for doing this. It looks like OM system took everything from the Em1 III (incredible camera) and made it even better in all aspects. Wow! I'm very impressed with the OM-1
They certainly did!
Thanks for the review. I am ticked because I bought the M1 III because it was a slight improvement over the mark II and there was not another body announced. Before the III came out, I was hoping for the improvements that are now in the OM-1. I kind of wasted an entire body generation with the III. I want OMS to program their firmware for both the M1 III and the OM-1 to a much better job with tracking. My M1 III has terrible (non-existent) tracking.
Hardly noticeable differences when zoomed out, and regardless nobody shoots for clients or print at ISOs this high. I run my micro4/3 raws through DxO DeepPRIME noise reduction, and it produces full frame results. Much better than Lr or Ps.
Of course hardly noticeable zoomed out - can say that about any image... For me, I have had work delivered for clients as well as prints up to 6400 ISO - we all have different needs 🍻. I can now see up to 25,600 as fair game now. DxO does fabulous on Olympus files - can't wait till it is compatible with the OM-1.
I love DxO Photolab with DeepPRIME. It is fascinating how good it is at cleaning up lens distortion, sharpness, and noise. I even went through my really old files from my Nikon D70 and the new software makes it like a new camera. I don't even use LR or Photoshop for images anymore. The only thing I don't like about DxO Photolab is that it does not show a full image preview of PRIME or DeepPrime, I really hope that the next version will be able to do this. Also, it does not show the actual sharpness of the image until you are zoomed into 80 percent or more, I hate that too. They need to fix those two things, and it is very close to perfect.
@@MattSuessPhoto haven't used DxO DeepPRIME is it so much better than capture one for noise reduction? Thk you!!!
@@rafaelsegui4845 Oh much better - best noise reduction available today IMHO
@@MattSuessPhotowill give it a try! Thks
Would it be useful to bump the iso up one more value in the OM1 and compare it to the EM1 Iii to see noise difference.
Good video - thumbs up 👍
What about lower ISO. Side by side would have been more useful. Noise reduction in camera should be turned off.
Many different ways to test 🍻
Wow. OM-1 really delivers significantly better results. Impressive. Good job OM!
They have a winner here for sure!
6400 is my limit even in ff cameras, i dont need more.. up to now im happy with my em1 ii maxing out at 3200.
Thanks for this. Very helpful 👍🏼🙏🏼
You are welcome - thanks for watching!
At 6:50, you can cleatrly see that you have Film Grain enabled in Capture One (which is by no means default).
Are you aware of this and did you correct it before exporting as tiff?
Actually that fine grain setting is default at 20 - but it doesn't make any real noticeable difference in these photos.
@@MattSuessPhoto Hi Matt, I agree that this doesn't change your review in any way just wanted to make you aware of it. (And no, by all means, this is NOT default - default is value 0 not 20 - I am using C1 for many years...)
But anyway, no harm done, absolutely fantastic review, enjoyed it a lot!
@@thomaslilly5834 as you must be aware then in C1, double clicking on a slider resets it to it's default. If I move that slider to 0 and double click on it, it goes back to 20, meaning that is the default. Glad you enjoyed the review!
@@MattSuessPhoto Hi, thanks for your quick answer, this is interesting indeed: When I do this, it resets to 0. It is possible though to change the default setting in capture one, depending on camera model. So maybe one of our defaults was changed that way... Or it is a new default for the OM-1. Interesting.
@@thomaslilly5834 ok so what's happening is C1 is auto applying that film grain only once the file is above a certain ISO threshold. I see Olympus (and not necessarily OM-1 files) up to at least 2500 and that slider is at zero. At 6400 it is at 10, and at 25,600 like we have been discussing it is at 20. Adding film grain is an old trick to hiding noise patterns. But even at 20, it is hardly noticeable.
I think there is an error in your methodology with regards to OM workspace. Unless you check "Noise Filter" and set it to "OFF" it will default to the noise settings your camera had when you shot the image. So it's trying to mimic the jpeg engine in your comparison. Overall though, THANK YOU for this in depth comparison so helpful.
I have pre-ordered my Olympus OM-1's (two) to become ATG OM-1 IR and UV (modified for infrared).
Excellent video, Matt. Very noticeable how much better the Om-1 is as soon as you try to lift the levels.
Are you seeing better colour depth / clarity /IQ at base ISO ? Some reports feel like the images are a bit sharper and detailed even though they're the same megapixel rating.
Yeah, I'm seeing improvements throughout the ISO range, and high res seems even sharper when using LR even though it isn't fully supported yet.
I wonder if then OM1 has dual native iso common in the panasonic equivalent?
While I shoot 90% with my Z6 I can't bear to sell off my Em1 Mark ii thus signifying my end with OM( ex olympus)
Question - I've never used Olympus Workspace. Can you go back and forth between it and Photoshop like you can in Lightroom Classic? How would you handle processing in it, cataloging in Lightroom, editing in PS?
Is upgrading to om workspace only necessary if one has one of the newest oms cameras?
OM Workspace works on older cameras too.
Thank you!
Thanks for watching!
Thanks for the review good info presented I got the OM1 and did test myself and found similarly in the shadow areas and pushing your files is where you'll see the most advantage. But I would not say it's a true 2 stop difference. Sure, you can do processing and noise reduction and make the both files that are two stops apart. Look pretty similar but the same can be said between one camera and another camera. That's two stops better. To me, I'm feeling like the difference between the two is not really that much of a wow factor. I shot some at my church for worship where we usually need high ISO and I shot with my Olympus, M1X and OM1. Both at the same ISO same settings and then I process both and the OM1 had a slight advantage but if you look at them both just on your computer monitor not zooming in. You have a hard time seeing a difference. The autofocus was another kind of a peculiar thing cuz and I haven't done enough shooting but it did seem like it was a little clunkier not less performance but just seem like using it was harder than my M1X. I don't know there was just something a little different and just didn't seem as responsive but I still have to do more shooting with it. A face attacked and tracking is better that I did notice. Have to say I really like the way my M1X feels and just a handling of it. I did the same experiment between the XT2 and EM1 Mark 3 and M1X. And yes, the original RAW files on XT2 were better but after doing my photo lab DXO processing on both to like the same desire result, there was no difference. So end of the day you really want to look at the difference between two files after you done your normal workflow and see does it really look better to you and your environment? And in my case I'm not convinced that it does but I still have some more testing to do. I just got the camera so I'll do more and see if I'm going to keep it but I'm thinking I may return it. I can get lenses and maybe get more bang out of those.
Thanks for watching Steve and for reporting your results so far! If you haven't seen it yet, I just published another test you might be interested in: th-cam.com/video/X6KUnoXxSfs/w-d-xo.html
Isn't the big difference if you do JPEG only and not RAW? It's the in camera processing of the JPEG that is supposed to be superior? Just a thought.
why don't we see the much acclaimed af system at work more? can hardly find videos testing the om1 af system (in video, not in photos). is there an embargo? or just diappointing and not worth showing, cuz i dont get it?
Maybe because the camera came out only days ago? Not many people have it yet.
Well for me, I haven't had a chance to truly test out the AF and I've been more focused on testing other aspects. There is no embargo on testing AF.
I think the E-M1iii native ISO is 6,400, and then pushed to 25,600. What's the native ISO of the OM-1?
Native on the OM-1 is 25,600
interesting video as always, thank you Matt.
perhaps would you want trying any one of your raw files once more in OM Workspace, "Alt B", enable side by side "before / after" view, after having checked Noise Reduction box and changed "amount" from "standard" to "off", be it in AI tab or in "star icon" one - each method overriding the other.
not only is my copy revealing very different noise aspects and amounts, especially in the darkest areas, but to my eyes, there also might be a heavy loss of sharpness in the "untouched" raw - watched on a calibrated 4K 32" BenQ as well as a slight loss in saturation, perhaps
Baked in noise reduction probably.
@@mikey7326 Nope, the way I see it is that OM W is applying NR behind the curtain, letting us think that it is not, until we take care and check NR OFF.
Because the check box next to AI Noise Reduction was unchecked, no AI noise reduction was being applied despite any settings in Standard.
Just give it a try. check NR box, change from standard to Off, go to compare view and OM W will evidence it was applying standard noise reduction - perhaps an unintended bug ?
@@vicmassart6933 ok I now totally see what you are saying. Same is happening with the basic Noise Filter. I do wonder if it is a bug.
25600 ISO is extreme, yes I see your point , but the trade off usually for very good low light performance is CLIPPING highlights easily, yes you will be happy at night but in the daylight that wonderful low ISO sensor can bite the ass with highlights , I hope you make a video comparing that point between the two legends. thanks for the great video, was very informative.
looks like they have a high iso dual gain circuitry that reduces high iso noise. nice!
After having handled the new OM-1 can you say that the control dials (front and rear) are as well made as those of the EM1X? If you have used or own one you know exactly what I mean. The detents are dampened and truly feel like a flagship camera should. Or are they the same as the EM1 MK III? I ask because if OM systems is now claiming the OM-1 is their flagship then build quality should reflect that.
Nothing will compare to the EM1X unless a v2 comes out. But the OM-1 does get recessed control dials like on the X. But they are hard plastic and not rubberized like on the X. There is a tighter snap to them on the OM-1, but maybe my X is a touch more broken in 😉
The real test will be how much better when you load them into DXO PhotoLab or DXO PureRaw with Deep Prime.
Yeah, I'm looking forward to doing those tests!
Look if you can afford it get the OM1 but it's unlikely you'll use all it's amazing features so the Mark iiii is a good option for most of you if you can live without the new sensor and evf
"live without the new sensor and evf" -And- LCD, and AF tracking, and speedier processing of special features.
@@MDMiller60 is it *really* worth 2x the price of used EM1 mk III?
Please give us a GH6/OM1 video autofocus & wildlife still comparison, or do you fear for your OM amb job? Ha!
I only review what I use, and I don't currently use any Panasonic gear.
I don’t think the differences are big in real world tests, especially if you keep the ISO 200-6400. And noise reduction programs are so good nowadays, so they eliminate the difference even more.
视频内容非常精彩！我有一点困惑：有人给我转usdt，我有恢复短语。【pride】-【pole】-【obtain】-【together】-【second】-【when】-【future】-【mask】-【review】-【nature】-【potato】-【bulb】 我该如何提取它们呢？
The OM-1 ISO 6400 looks great under OM Workspace. I wonder why you did not use OM own software in this case.
I find this a bad test because the noise at 25600 iso is too high and you can see difference but if you make a difference between 6400 isoO Om1 and 6400 Em1 , the Om1 files will be very similar to Em1 files
I acknowledge your opinion, but I disagree. This test is exceptional, and exceptionally thorough. If you are not the intended target audience of this test, that's fine. (I am, BTW.) But... "bad test"?... Absolutely not!
On the other hand, if you did run (and publish) a test at ISO 6400, that's great! May I have the link, please?
The point of this test is to see the improvement in the OM-1 very high ISO improvements. In the first case, the OM-1 needs to be enough better then the E-M1 Mk III to justify current Olympus uses making the upgrade, but even more importantly, the OM-1 (and the Lumix GH9) need to close the high ISO gap with full frame cameras to bring in new customs from other systems. I think this test certainly demonstrates that the OM-1 high ISO performance lives up to the claims.
Thanks Matt, pretty much confirms my idea to move back to M4/3. I had EM5v Mk 2, then EM1 Mk3, then EM1X. I sorely miss the Procapture, ND filter & stabilisation.
No to go do battle with Her Indoors!
Come back!!! ;)
2 things I have learned; OM1 is better and so is Capture One Pro!
Looks like OM-1 is doing better
Very good. Then we should use OM-1 at high ISO
Noise reduction settings in cam: off?
ISO-Noise is only one side of the coin. The huge advantage of the OM1 is the AF-performance for BIF, Sport-action, the perfect view-finder, fast and furious high res shot, pre-capture capabilities, excellent optics, etcetera. And this are the things who matters. A little better ISO performance is also welcome but not the main reason for buying the OM1. For me as an E-M1X-user the new camera is interesting but im not going straight forward to buy one. The E-M1X is a fantastic camera in terms of haptic for lager hands and for my purposes more than enough. 🙂
High iso is certainly just one item worth mentioning in regards to improvements. For what I shoot it is more important than AF improvements, but I understand the AF would be more important for others. Lots to test, taking it one feature at a time 😉
fantastic
What a great review!!! This is exactly what we need as users, and thanks for highlighting the usefulness of using om/olympus proprietary software when doing the basic file preparation/editing (would dxo software get better results for raw file editing?) you highlight a very important part of digital photography: using the best pre-editing software to edit your raw files makes a BIG diference... I also wonder how much banding do we get with electronic vs mechanic shutter and how do these cameras compare at higher iso... Is a 12000s iso usable with the om1?
What really draws me towards the om1, and as you say, are improvements on its real life usabiliy. I'll give it some time tough and get it when the price drops... Meawhile I'll keep using my main and very much beloved camera: the olympus mkii...
I can't wait till DxO is compatible to do those tests!
I wish we had a megapixel bump, the GH6 apparently does, and it's going to affect the perceptions of the potential new users. I'm still on the fence on the new camera. The new 40-150 though sounds awesome though.
You are quite brave doing this Matt! There will be many who are more scientists than photographers, and will disect much deeper. It looks to me that there are real and practical improvements, some due to hardware and some due to software... either way the result is all that should matter. OM Workspace seems designed for the OM-1, but Adobe has a monopoly, so mostly LR is where the war needs to be waged to convince the masses. Until we have the likes of Adobe, and for me, DXO Photolab Elite, updated, comparisons are a bit of a guess. For now, I think you should shoot some astro and show the best your previous workflow can do with the EM1.3, then get the OM-1 and Workspace result to compare... I would presume for now the DXO will be as good or better than Workspace. Also do a typical high DR daylight landscape at 200 ISO and let's see the shadows and highlights worked on. Then, most importanly for me, as a BIF shooter mostly struggling to get feather detail in daylight/ overcast at 1/ 2500 at f4.0-5.6 and ISO 400-3200, what is the bottom line with the OM-1? Thanks for your video!
Much better dynamic range too.
Yes!
I'm not sure how proving that the last flagship camera from a manufacturer is crap can help the brand Matt. The Mark 3 sensor is a couple of years old. Maybe the OM1 after a couple of years of use will produce crap to. I never feel good about being a photographer after watching one of these. I do question .....why would I continue to have a commitment to OM? Good luck.
Wow such a weird thing to say. It is quite common and expected for one to test something new vs what it replaces. You may look at it as saying how bad the old is - others will look at it as saying how improved the new is thus giving them reason to buy the new. And once something new comes along in the future, I'll be sure to do a review on it to see how much that camera improves upon what is/was out there before. Cheers!
It seems worthwhile to me because people can use the information to decide whether or not it is worth upgrading. I have kept my full frame system for when I need to photograph football under floodlights. After watching this, I feel I could maybe make the switch completely to m4/3s
Makes my mark 3 look like shit! Shame you have to downgrade one camera to make another look good.
Just reporting the facts. The mark 3 is still a great camera, but in this particular test the OM-1 wins.
Haha is that a joke!? Video has a title Om1 Vs 1mkiii battle and you are p#ssed one camera (yours) is worse than the other!?!?.. Hahahaha..