ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.พ. 2022
- OM Digital Systems has released its long awaited digital camera-dubbed the "Wow" camera on the Internet-but properly known as the OM-1, in honour of the classic camera designed by Maitani Yoshihisa 50 years ago, and recognizing the start of a new generation of compact, portable, cameras under their stewardship.
Listen to me ramble, and effectively argue with myself for nearly ten minutes as I try to decide what I think of the camera and the future of µ43 under OM Systems-and whether I plan to get the new OM-1 camera.
15 months ago, I posted my first video explaining why I bought back into the MFT system, and have since invested in new glass, including several Olympus Pro lenses including the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150 F/2.8 Pro and the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-400mm f/4.5 TC1.25X IS PRO, among others.
With improved autofocus, supported by the new generation TruePic X processor; the improved back-illuminated (BSI) sensor, and resulting dynamic range improvements; and improved video features: is it worth dropping $2,200 on the body?
Spoiler: no. I still think the OM-D E-M1X is the stand-out value in the Micro Four Thirds line-up, albeit this is coming from the view of someone who isn't making a living from the system-where a $2,000 USD investment in marginally better dynamic range may pay dividends. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
I agree, the OM1 is what the em1iii should be 2 years ago. But for me is the right choice! Why? Because I love the em1/OM1 ergonomics, I love the mft size and weight and because I have already many mft lenses! I would love to see 24mp and 4k 120fps, but both are not a dealbreaker to me! I think that the new Sony, Canon and Nikon are great, but I don’t want to change a complete system and I don’t want to carry huge equipment.
I enjoyed the video even though I don’t necessarily come to the same conclusions. I shoot M43 (Panasonic G9) and Canon FF (R6) and for me the OM-1 checks most of my boxes. I shoot mostly birds and some motor sports. We also travel a lot so size does matter. I live in Texas so I don’t need to wear gloves often enough for that to matter. What I want is really solid AF for birds in flight in a smaller system I don’t mind 20 megapixels. I use Topaz Gigapixel and I manage to crop quite a bit with 20mp with nice results. I like that they’ve finally managed to get 4K 60p with no time limit. I rarely shoot long form video but I find an arbitrary video recording limit based on a defunct EU tax to be very annoying. Early reviews suggest that the new sensor produces dramatically less noise than the previous one. If the AF is really solid for birds like Canon and Sony then this will easily be the cheapest new body with competitive AF for wildlife. The 50 FPS mode with AF is intriguing as well. I like to shoot hummingbirds and it might be useful for them. The biggest issue for me might be lens choice. Many people report poor results with the Oly 100-400mm. I have not used it as it didn’t exist the last time I owned an Olympus camera. The 150-400 Pro sounds nice but even if I could afford it seems hard to come by. I waited 6 or 7 months for the Canon RF 100-500. I have no desire to do that again. I wish they could manage to sell that one for $4500 or so instead of $7500. I have used the 300 Pro and it’s good but I prefer zooms most of the time. So small and light, reasonable priced, solid video features with no time limit, possibly really good AF, better high ISO performance, lots of cool computational tricks that I wouldn’t use a lot but when you need them they could be important to have. I am mostly brand agnostic and sensor size agnostic. I want the smallest sensor that will do the job. Maybe this will be it. It will be interesting to see how that goes over with everyone else.
Thanks for watching, and the wealth of context in your response! I agree with a number of those things (and certainly understand your point of view on the others). The 30 minute limit was annoying-my R6 has that also, as you're likely aware-although in practice I haven't hit it often, when I've hit it it's disruptive and I often wonder if/how much I actually missed (overheating was a bigger concern, but that's been fine after the early firmware updates); it's nice that OM has really upped the video bona fides of the line with the OM-1.
Going from my experience with the E-M1X-the AF performance on that was competitive with the R6, but inferior-based on reviews of the OM-1 I saw, I'm not convinced it's clearly better than the R6, but it's hard to tell without actually testing it on the subjects and in the situations about which you care… the nice thing of the Olympus/OM cameras (compared to the R6-and presumably the R3?) is that you can narrow-down the focus points used for tracking-AF which can help give you an edge, but in a clear scene the R6 Just Works.
The 150-400 Pro is an exceptionally designed lens, in terms of usability and even portability-it's pricey; but given the aperture, ergonomics, and quality in a zoom: I think it's a fair price between the smaller aperture RF 100-500 for instance and a larger RF prime. It's a little bigger than the 100-500, but I can still fit it in many of my bags-including my old Lowepro Microtrekker, if I don't mind re-attaching the camera on-site. Something with the reach on RF would have required a dedicated bag. I like the 100-500 on the R6 for things like soccer, where it's got a good range and I don't need a teleconverter; with M43, the 40-150 f/2.8 with the MC14 or MC20 gives a more compact package for less (and the lens is readily available used), but isn't as sharp-I could see it easily paired with the OM-1. The RF 100-500, optically is impressive, and it packs-up nicely without a TC attached.
Canon R6 can focus continously with 50 fps ?
How many cameras can focus continously with 50 fps ?
And now it's been out 5 months and it's been a hit ! WOW
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.
If the 2 stops better iso and one stop better dynamic range work out to be true then this is a nice little camera. I have the EM1X and EM1.2 and I am thinking of selling both to buy just this one camera and simplify my kit. I also have the 300mm F4 and 40-150 F2.8 lenses. I use the EM1X for wildlife and the M1.2 with the 12-40 F2.8 for travel and backup. But it only has 5k shots on it after all these years so I don't think I really need two cameras anymore. I will wait to see how the OM 1 test out.
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 …
A year later do you still feel the same? I’m currently trying an om-5 with 75-300 and sorely miss bird tracking in the R7. Having a lighter and smaller rig is important but a used em1x for about half the cost of the om5 has me questioning my choice. A quick test this morning has me feeling 300 isn’t quite enough reach at times. A less expensive body leaves room for better glass. I also plan on adding a second light body for full spectrum and infrared. That might change my needing a lighter main camera.
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...
IMO, Olympus has always appealed to a very specific market segment, that being the outdoor adventure community. This community primarily shoots landscapes, macros, animals, BIF and some Astro. It sounds like OMDS has decided to target this group even more rather then try to compete with other brands in all areas. The OM-1 is going to have its greatest appeal to people like me that are in the target audience. From the EM1-2 that I currently soot and love, this camera offers a dozen ot so upgrades and new features that I would love to have. “Outsides” would not be able to understand this and simply try to compare some headline features to other camera and understand its appeal to its niche audience.
I look at the M43 system mainly as a light travel system for nature and wildlife. I currently have the Z9 and 500 f5.6 pf that is way smaller and lighter than the old DSLR lenses. I have used fuji XT and XH bodies but left disappointed with the process of post processing files to get optimum quality. Changing workflow and systems is a major change with little gain in IQ. I compare price of the OM-1 to a very good almost new OMD EM1x and the 60% price difference does not justify the OM-1. one the OMD EM1m3 the difference is even bigger.
It would've been nice to have more megapixels but I don't think it is essential. Let's face it, Sony make the sensors so OM have their hands tied to an extent. The GH6 will be 20mpx too, coincidence?
From the videos I've seen, there is a huge performance boost with the OM-1. It will be interesting to see whether the numbers will deliver in real life. If the ISO can go higher, maybe that will help bird photographers, for example. The ND filter, high Res shot, handheld live time, these are something special.
It is aimed at wildlife photography because they see a niche there. But I too would like OM to make a travel and street camera, a PEN F2 or E-P8. But I suspect then next model will be the OM-5. I just hope they get the features balanced to the price with that model.
It's unfortunate about Sony's position and dominance in the sensor-supply, although it's not without reason. The GH6 is expected to be 24/25MP as I understand it (I've been assuming at least 24MP based on the 5.7k video, and more recent rumors have pointed to around 25MP-not that there's a lot difference there). I don't mind 20MP much of the time, it's a good balance between unwieldy files and some cropping latitude-but I was hoping for a Halo body of sorts, which begs for something a little bigger, if just to guard against the argument that FF only needs so many MP to crop to such-and-such lens on MFT.
ND, et al were nice additions…in the previous model; I think I'd hoped for more cleverness there. I also like what I've read about the menu behaviour-indicating why things are disabled for instance-just like those computational modes, that's the designers thinking about usability and that's exactly what I want in a camera (and why I love Leicas for normal-wide; I love the Panis for video-the usability in those situations is unmatched). If OM can keep sourcing reasonable sensors but really drive making the user experience unparalleled, maybe they've got something special…
@@NottaPro I didn't notice the GH6 was 25mpx, that is nice. I wonder why OM went for the 20mpx model, maybe the 20mpx was the one with phase detect so it was the only choice for OM?
Maybe we have to wait a couple of weeks or so for the dust to settle to find out which has better high ISO and image quality. I think those are the most important concerns.
I have a GX9 now, maybe Pany will make a GX10 with that 25mpx sensor? I wish...
My M1X works fine, no need to upgrade. I'm looking for glass to upgrade instead. The 150-400mm f4.5 would be my next upgrade for bird photography.
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.
I have the em-1 mk ii which is a great camera but i cannot decide between upgrading to the em-1 x or the om-1 which in itself is a failure on om systems part.
The new EVF is attractive and for me the new bird tracking but reviewers seem too desperate to highlight the bird tracking because there are not too many big selling points otherwise.
I hope they do not fail though because i love olympus cameras and lenses.
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.
I think 20mp is about the top for MFT without looking at even more low light noise. This stacked sensor has greater speed and greater dynamic range and a little better noise reduction. I'd rather have that than more pixels. The company was distracted with going bankrupt during the period when technical advancements might have been considered for their flagship cameras so release of the OM-1 is a bit of a miracle if not a WoW! Yes, it does improve in a number of areas that needed improvement: AF speed, AF stickiness, and speed of processing while retaining and refining a number of other areas. Technically, it is better than the M1X without the size and weight. Remember, the M1X starting price was $3K. I like that I can assemble an entire backpack full of a wide range of lenses without breaking my back carrying it. Something I cannot do with my FF systems without employing a Sherpa guide. Their largest and heaviest lens is less than half the size and weight of a FF equivalent and has a faster f stop. I could also mention at one third the price and it is a zoom, not a prime which is much easier to use when chasing small birds. I might also mention I rarely use a tripod anymore. Pro level weather sealing just completes a package that is hard to beat or even match with any other camera system.
OM-1 doesn't look bad... but I too would choose the EM-1X (my dream camera). Both of which are a step up from my EM-1.
Thanks for watching!
The E-M1X ticks so many boxes-I wouldn't mind cleaner images from the new sensor, in particular, but at current prices, the E-M1X represents such a great value. There are obvious benefits to the OM-1 if you're packing light, but I love the handling of the E-M1X when I'm not worried about the extra size-and while I'm sure I'd use it in specific situations if I had the capability, 50fps AF bursts isn't something I've been missing.
I'd be surprised if there's ever a true successor to the E-M1X, so I am looking forward to an OM-1 MII … or OM-3 or whatever they end-up calling it and hand grip to eventually replace it.
That Wow is what Nikon delivered with the Z9
Even though almost nobody needs that…
I stick with my EM1M2 and Nikon Z7
MP is just one of several factors in IQ. MP increase of 20% (20-24) is of marginal value, especially when considering the noise increase. From the raws I've seen from the OM-1 (not mine), I see greater DR and less noise. For me that is a far greater IQ improvement than 473 more pixels to the width and 355 to the height.
Something major you missed and it's because you don't have the camera, is the om-1 works better with Panasonic lenses. Previous oly cameras did not let you use any pro-capture modes, you can use a 25fps pro capture mode with Panasonic's 200mm and 100-400mm lenses. That is a pretty big difference imo.
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.
Making a video with the flickering of the background monitor is is no no.
I’m interested in the OM-1 as a wildlife shooter. A higher resolution would be nice, but for the magnification to size and weight ratio the Olympus wins, more magnification means less cropping. Also only the Sony has better resolution in the price range, but the Sony has its own problems. The hit rate with the Olympus together with that form factor, with unbeatable image stabilisation, so good you can produce the kind of shots you’d need a tripod with other systems, again weight.
As someone with back problems and a possible holiday in Iceland next year the OM1 is looking pretty good.
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.
The megapixels debate is moot. 24 versus 20 megapixels is meaningless. Even 30 versus 20 megapixels is not really a meaningful improvement as to real world print quality impact. And for non-print, 8MP is still more than plenty, as most screens do not offer 4K (8MP) resolution yet, so 20MP offers a lot of cropping space for digital distribution.
Let me say I love my Sony A9 and the full frame advantage. But the OM-1 with it's new emphasis on fast action specs has me excited. This camera along with its longer, faster cheaper, and lighter telephoto lenses is a no brainer for wildlife shooting. In my opinion M43 has finally arrived for fast action photography. EM1X was a disappointment. OM-1 seems to fit the bill.
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.
You ain't not gotta tell me, i own 2 Xs
I would have to disagree with some of this I own the EM1X and I shoot it less because of the size and weight
That's fair, if you don't want the grip ergonomics the E-M1X becomes less appealing compared to the E-M1 (no-X) models--and the new OM-1 brings all of the internal improvements from the E-M1X into the E-M1 form-factor plus a shiny new sensor. I would love to have an E-M5 that has the improved sensor, although I wouldn't be surprised if some of the burst rates were reduced for heat or market segmentation.
If you aren't optimizing for the smaller body, I think the E-M1X is a stand-out value and I'd pick it over the OM-1 for shooting sports, for instance, unless I could justify the extra (~$800 with grip?). If you want to splash the cash, there are definitely instances where a little bit of less noise or higher-ISO would definitely be helpful--I look back at the hack photos in the OM 150-400 video for instance and which I'd either dropped the shutter a bit more or the camera had been a little cleaner like with the R6. Cruelly, the lower the level of some sports, the better the sensor/camera you might need as well--but the cameras from the last five or so years are so much better in that regard than with what I show in skating rinks 20 years ago, I'm not too concerned.
@@NottaPro I own the EM1-X, and from the videos I’ve seen the OM-1 has vastly improved autofocus, obviously making it a better camera for sports photography regardless of sensor size. Yes, the new camera is more expensive, but that is the nature of all new cameras. I just don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here - we didn’t get a bigger sensor, so none of the other improvements are worthwhile?
I recognize early on in the video that there are 20MP sensors in the price range-the R6 specifically. I come back to it a few times principally, because M43 repeatedly runs into these plateaus (it was at 16MP for generations before finally bumping-up to 20MP). There were two main points for my disappointment/reluctance in upgrading that I call out.
The first is the hype that was built-up on the Internet-and I explain that after cutting back through that, I realize it was built-up from the Internet rather than directly from Olympus, so perhaps it was unfair: but there was a lot of hype that this would be revolutionary, while what we got was in my opinion evolutionary (sensor, processor), and in many cases just fixing issues with the E-M1.3. I think OM could have done a better job of setting expectations, and giving us an idea of what they were working-on and on what they weren't to address that.
The second thing, is just how great a value the current models are-specifically the one I settled on a coupe years ago: the E-M1X. I picked Olympus/OM because of its photo-centric feature, and the ergonomics with a vertical grip are attractive to me, which means the OM-1 in that form (and dual-batteries) is about a $850 price gap. If I'm shooting the E-M1X, I've decided I don't *need* the R6's 2-stop improvement in those situations-although I'd appreciate it. I'm not saying the OM-1 is necessarily overpriced-what I'm saying, is that I think the E-M1X is still an exceptional value in the market right now given only incremental benefits from the OM-1.
The autofocus tests I've seen have been more mixed-but it's hard to tell how that translates to specifically how an individual might use it. Maybe, as more people get to test it more thoroughly (and if I get a chance, maybe I'll change my mind) the improvements there may change my mind.
Wow in price.
a killer review ;)
in fact no. So wait and see reviews in real life after all these adds ;
I guess safely that it's, at least, the "real" EM1 MkIII.
Everything a little better, including noise but certainly not 2 stops improvement (lol!)
The last Olympus camera, so something to grab because I'm not too optimistic for the future with a real OMDS product...
(Albeit, my future camera purchase is Canon, for the very first time...)
Om-1 has reduced mechanical shutter burst down to 10fps. It is 15 fps on 6 year older Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II
15 fps without C-AF.
@@williamhumber5890 yes at c-af it is the same 10 fps. Very confusing when stated benefits(speed) are traded for accuracy and rolling shutter.
Lord.
Look at the cost
Look at the software
Look at the affordable lens offering
----
You should do a more holistic analysis
By the software, you mean the in-camera computational functionality?
My holistic analysis? I think the E-M1X is still a stand-out value. If I didn't like the E-M1X ergonomics and preferred the E-M1/OM-1 form factor? That's tough. There were a number of frustrating aspects with the E-M1 MIII, but if I were looking for a durable travel camera (one of the areas where I'd tend toward the form factor over the E-M1X) I'd really have to look at the cost vs. benefits-personally, yeah, I'd get the OM-1 in that case. Having paired UHS-II slots alone …. Is probably worth more than is reasonable…to me; and then it's a modest premium to the OM-1.
However the OM-1 lacks the GPS module the E-M1X has, and reviews have been somewhat mixed on improvements to the AF with respect to real usage. I don't *need* the increased burst rates, but I know I'd use them-it sounds like the buffer could be faster in those situations as well. The video on the E-M1X is frustrating to use because of the file-splitting, even on file systems that don't need it-it'd be nice to not need to worry about that, but I just don't use the E-M1X for video (and both Olympus and Canon still use micro-HDMI for an external recorder, which isn't ideal; and external would also eliminate the weather sealing benefit of the OM body).
The more I look at the OM-1, the more it grows on me-which is evidenced by my shifting view as I edited the video (and I tried to be honest in the summary about that, and the sometimes contrary points I was making given the shifting opinion. I think it reflects a lot of the opinions that have been being espoused, which are in some cases diametrically split even among Olympus fans. I like the vertical grip-even when packing for most trips (where I'm just just packing a Leica), and I think the E-M1X for combination of features and value is the best value, and gets most of what the OM-1 has in terms of shooting envelope (excluding video). I'd probably get the OM-1 over a non-X E-M1 model, unless there were a really good deal on.
OM-1's sensor is actually 80mp natively. The image gets binned down to 20mp, so you are getting the benefit of better image quality. But instead of getting more resolution you're getting better DR and ISO performance. I think OM picked the right trade off, and also who cares about more than 20mp? Bigger files and slower post processing. No thanks.
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.
The megapixel argument is so tired. Focus on the many new features that the OM-1 offers that full frame cannot.
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.
Nit pick much? Of course bazookas feel comfy for people with huge hands!
My hands are average-sized but I do prefer the improved ergonomics from including a battery grip for longer telephoto lenses. Stabilization of the 300mm f/4 with my arms folded-in feels better balanced on the E-M1X than it does with either the OM-1 or the E-M1ii. For most other pro lenses, going without the battery grip is pretty good ergonomically, though it feels even better to be able to space out my fingers on the landscape grip of the E-M1x. I don't have that on the OM-1.
The 20 Mpix gripe is ridiculous! First, this is a M43. To increase the count will be a hit on noise. You look at other things to make improvements. Look at what they did. BSI stacked sensor with more light efficiency to the sensor sites. This argument of only 20M is lame. It will get more detail and sharpness by the other things they did. Read Sirmo comment below---"OM-1's sensor is actually 80mp natively. The image gets binned down to 20mp, so you are getting the benefit of better image quality. But instead of getting more resolution you're getting better DR and ISO performance. I think OM picked the right trade off, and also who cares about more than 20mp? Bigger files and slower post processing. No thanks." Please look at the real specs and see the benifit rather crying about only 20Mpix!
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 think the om-1 has too many positives over the em1x to warrant staying with the 1x af tick iso performane tick size tick starry sky tick ip53 tick 4k 60p tick future upgrades tick
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.
No. And this a valid statement for every M43 in 2022. It is just a relic from the last, let‘s out it to rest now. R.I.P.
Wholly irrelevant.