Previous page Next page

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review


Based on a production Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Firmware 1.0

The E-M1 is the second model in Olympus's OM-D series and extends the range further into semi-pro/enthusiast territory. There are two main distinctions that set the E-M1 apart from its little brother (the E-M5) - a more sophisticated autofocus system and a 'buttons for everything' design approach. As such the two models will coexist, with the E-M1 sitting at the very top of Olympus's lineup.

The biggest technological step forward on the E-M1 is the addition of on-sensor phase detection elements, giving the camera two distinct focus modes. The phase-detection system is used when lenses from the original Four Thirds system, which were designed for use that way, are attached. With native, Micro Four Thirds lenses, the camera will mainly stick with the contrast detection system that has proved so fast and accurate on the E-M5. Only if you use tracking AF will the camera utilize phase-detection information with a Micro Four Thirds lens.

The E-M1 also gains the excellent 2.3M-dot electronic viewfinder panel we first saw as the VF-4 accessory for the PEN E-P5. Not only is the resolution very impressive, but the viewfinder optics give a viewfinder with magnification of up to 1.48x (depending on display mode), which puts it only a fraction behind the 0.76x viewfinder in Canon's 1D X and ahead of Nikon's pro-grade D4 DSLRs.

There's also a more advanced 'TruePic VII' processor in the E-M1 that conducts a variety of lens corrections, when creating JPEGs, leading the company to proclaim the best image quality offered by one of its cameras. Not only can the E-M1 remove the colour fringing caused by lateral chromatic aberration, Olympus says that it also tunes its sharpening to take into account the lens's sharpness, and to combat any softening due to diffraction (particularly at very small apertures).

The biggest difference between the E-M1 and the E-M5, though, is the degree of direct control on offer. We really liked the E-M5's twin-dial control system, but the E-M1 goes beyond that by providing button-and-dial combinations for quickly changing almost every imaginable setting on the camera. It's the kind of approach you don't usually get until the very top of manufacturers' lineups - it means you have to get used to where every function is, but can shoot fluidly once you have.

The E-M1 inherits the '2x2' dial approach Olympus previously used on the E-P5 - flicking a switch on the camera changes the dials from controlling shutter speed, aperture or exposure compensation to changing ISO and white balance. However, all this direct control doesn't come at the expense of the potentially slower but easier to find touch-screen interface - the E-M1 has this too. Overall the camera can be operated pretty much however you fancy.

Olympus OM-D E-M1 specification highlights:

  • 16MP MOS Four Thirds format sensor with no low-pass filter
  • On-sensor phase detection elements
  • Twin control dials (front and rear) with '2x2' dual-mode option
  • '5-axis' image stabilization with automatic panning detection ('S-IS Auto')
  • ISO 'LOW' (100 equiv) - ISO 25,600
  • Up to 10fps continuous shooting (6.5 fps shooting with continuous AF)
  • 1.04M-dot 3" LCD touchscreen display - tilts 80° upwards and 50° downwards
  • Electronic viewfinder: 2.36M-dot LCD, 0.74x magnification (equiv.), eye sensor
  • Built-in Wi-Fi for remote shooting and image transfer to smartphone or tablet
  • Dust, splash and freeze-proof (to -10 °C)

Gained over the E-M5

  • True Pic VII processor, with lens corrections
  • 1/8000 sec top shutter speed, 1/320 sec flash sync
  • Built-in microphone socket (rather than optional accessory adapter)
  • Flash X-sync socket
  • Built-in Wi-Fi
  • Focus 'peaking' display
  • In-camera HDR blending (two modes), previewed in viewfinder

Four Thirds is dead. Long live Four Thirds.

As well as representing the highest-end Micro Four Thirds camera yet, the E-M1's role is also about offering continued support for users of the original Four Thirds SLR system. Olympus created some very nice Four Thirds lenses, but the company struggled to make enough impact in the SLR market to justify the cost of continuing development for both systems in parallel.

The company claims to have studied what the E-M1 and a hypothetical 'E-7' SLR could offer, and concluded that, while image quality, durability and speed would have been the same, the OM-D design allowed both a substantial size advantage and a much greater viewfinder magnification than would be possible with an optical finder. As such the E-M1 should be considered the successor to the E-5.

We'll look at the performance of the camera with Four Thirds lenses in a little more depth later in this article. But in principle, the on-sensor phase detection autofocus system should be much more effective than contrast detection when it comes to controlling Four Thirds lenses, all of which were primarily designed to be driven by phase detection-based systems.


If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted) PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2013 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page
1153
I own it
687
I want it
145
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 2142
56789
Gesture
By Gesture (10 months ago)

Good job updating results.

0 upvotes
smafdy
By smafdy (10 months ago)

I own a lot of cameras, from a variety of manufacturers — Oly among them.

I have to say that Oly is the most innovative camera manufacturer of them all, and the IQ of the 4/3 system is up to par with the larger sensor offerings (my criteria being a full page — roughly 9" x 12" — color separation).

I'll be buying this camera.

28 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (10 months ago)

I agree, Oly is one of the few camera companies still innovating, however innovation doesnt always lead to commercial success or widespread acceptance.

9 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (10 months ago)

I am a big fan of Oly and really admire them for flying the flag of M4/3 and believe that M4/3 is the best compromise between camera/lens size and IQ but for innovation you just can't beat Sony.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
lazy lightning
By lazy lightning (10 months ago)

Yeah, using the same old sensor and implementing PDAF which has been done for years now. Everything else, processor, IBIS are just incremental upgrades. Nothing innovative or groundbreaking here. Just a not so small anymore, expensive system with a maddening user interface and small sensor from a company desperately trying not to fold up shop.

2 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

"I have to say that Oly is the most innovative camera manufacturer of them all" - time to buy Sony camera than.
Sorry, but Oly doesn't even come close to what Sony been doing in last 3 years.

1 upvote
SirSeth
By SirSeth (10 months ago)

My 4/3rds lenses will live again. Good job Olympus. 4/3rds zooms, Micro4/3rds primes, about any legacy lens... what an amazing selection of glass is suddenly open to us with dual focus + legacy. My dream set: E-M1, 11-22mm f2.8-3.5, 12-40mm f2.8, 50-200mm f2.8-3.5, 150mm f2, 60mm macro, 45mm f1.8, & Nikkor 400mm f3.5.

8 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

Why 11-22 in this picture, for extra 8% of view?

5 upvotes
Jim in Hudson
By Jim in Hudson (10 months ago)

I am so clueless about this AF fine adjustment. Why would any on-sensor AF system, whether CDAF or PDAF, need any adjustment at all? If the system is in focus and the system is on the sensor, what is there left to adjust?

Also, what about low light AF sensitivity limit that never gets mentioned? That is where CDAF has always been behind PDAF and so has this new on-sensor PDAF closed the gap at all?

2 upvotes
CharlesTokyo
By CharlesTokyo (10 months ago)

PDAF basically takes a measurement, then tells the lens where to focus. Any little deviation results in the focus being off. Variation in the PDAF sensors themselves (although probably less common when they are in sensor). Variation in the lenses. In older lenses the accuracy of the measurements on how far the focus moved often weren't accurate enough. Canon for example has improved this in their most recent bodies and lens (but you need both to see the benefit). There are a number points where PDAF can be inaccurate and those will vary from body to body and lens to lens.

CDAF looks at the actually light creating the image and works to get the maximum contrast. Although flaws may come in from picking a strong contrast point which isn't where the photographer wants it, or software flaws, it doesn't have the inherent accuracy issues that PDAF does. Better software/algorithms and faster processors improve CDAF. (Well, and fast sensor readouts and proper motors & communication with lens)

5 upvotes
Jim in Hudson
By Jim in Hudson (10 months ago)

CharlesTokyo -- many thanks but I think most everyone here already knows how CDAF and PDAF function. Traditional PDAF has sometimes required micro-adjustment precisely because the AF sensor module is NOT on the image sensor itself. However, when the AF sensor and the image sensor are the same "thing", it remains to be explained what is actually being achieved with an adjustment. All I can think of (though I've not seen it mentioned anywhere) is an error in the beam splitter. Perhaps the two beams are converging on the image sensors AF pixels when the overall non-split image itself is not converging on the sensor. Just a guess.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
alatchin
By alatchin (10 months ago)

Simple, the adjustment is fo rwhere the lens stops. Not to do with the measurement. Lenses can overshoot and undershoot as a flaw, this will compensate.

1 upvote
ksang
By ksang (10 months ago)

I see a possible market for companies or Olympus to develop tools/products to make these adjustments if the need is great.

0 upvotes
chj
By chj (10 months ago)

live view, continuous shooting PDAF
weather sealing
touchscreen focusing
focus peaking
good high ISO performance
The Oracle told me I would find "The One"
(although it is missing a fully articulated screen)

9 upvotes
luisflorit
By luisflorit (10 months ago)

I'd suggest to do the tests with a faster lens (75mm @ F1.8 or 50-200 @200 & F3.5), and/or at longer focal lengths, specially the second one.
Because just about EVERYTHING in the frames is essentially in focus (actually, I think the trunk behind the horse in #17 has better focus than the horse itself), so the test has no much useful information.
I would suggest also to disable NR, since it ruins sharpness judgement (the hair of the girl is an ugly mess).

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (10 months ago)

The second set of images has now been replaced with a series that illustrates focus tracking much more clearly.

2 upvotes
fakuryu
By fakuryu (10 months ago)

I just saw the video review of this camera by blunty (and it is practically a full review) and all I can say is wow. Never did expect that quality from a m43 especially that video mode with that IBIS.

Low light performance is a given but honestly it is not bad at all. m43 users will be in for a treat.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
20 upvotes
tecnoworld
By tecnoworld (10 months ago)

Af tracking is very good on samsung nx300, considering the big sensor. It performs better than nikon d7100 and pentax k5-ii. And it's much better than em5. Now, perhaps, em1 is better BUT you never tested and/or considered nx300, which has been out for almost 6 months, now, so you can't say that mirrorless are not good at af tracking simply ignoring one camera.

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

Of course, you STILL do not have any objective tests to support your words.

7 upvotes
tecnoworld
By tecnoworld (10 months ago)

Of course I have:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51955665

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

Right, G6 tracking 6 times better than A77 and better than D7100, and V2 is better than 1Dx. Total and complete BS, don't even need to look at their method to see why.

5 upvotes
devlin2427
By devlin2427 (10 months ago)

I could've predicted that because the camera with the huge dof has got to do something right. Not exactly earth shaking news.

2 upvotes
tecnoworld
By tecnoworld (10 months ago)

Peevee: you asked for an objective test and I gave it to you. If you don't like it since it does not favour the cameras you'd like, I'm sorry :-)

As devlin correctly said, the nikon 1 has huge dof and tiny sensor, so it's easy to do af tracking right.

But I was talking about the aps-c based nx300, a neglected camera here on dpr, where it won't get reviewed (or it will when the next model is out).

This is a camera with af as fast as the dslr cameras, as the test proves, and with iq up to the best aps-c around and better than any m4/3 out there.

Of course costing much less :-)

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

Two things stand out form the RAW files:

* the higher per-pixel sharpness and detail of the D7100 vs the E-M1.
* And how biased to red the EM-1 RAWs are.

(ducks)...

6 upvotes
Edwaste
By Edwaste (10 months ago)

Ya think? Nikon D7100 is a 24 megapixel camera vs. Oly's 16.
Considering the Nikon's extra 8 megapixel's it doesn't offer that much more detail.

Also looking at detail quality of RAW files can be skewed, too much depends on the person performing the RAW>JPEG conversion and how detail and sharpness is adjusted.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

> Ya think? Nikon D7100 is a 24 megapixel camera vs. Oly's 16.

Which is why I said "per-pixel" sharpness something DPR talks about in almost every review. But I could also have said higher acutance with Image Size : Full.

Not going to matter in the real world, but fun to look at the new test chart RAWs.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

the difference is more than you see in the studio shots because DPReview effectively cut off D7100 into a 4:3 sensor of smaller area with 21.3MPix and then compare it with m4/3" ones.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

> Considering the Nikon's extra 8 megapixel's it doesn't offer that much more detail.

Really? In RAW, look at the Beatles patch, the drawing to the left of it, the hair, the Schilling note. The difference in acutance is pretty surprising.

The E-M1 looks closer to the X-Pro1 in RAW which is surprising consider previous issues the Fuji has had with ACR RAW conversions from the X-Trans sensor. The GX7 is also matching the E-M1 pretty well.

> much depends on the person performing the RAW>JPEG conversion and how detail and sharpness is adjusted.

DPR uses the exact same RAW workflow for each camera, AFAIK. If they didn't the RAW comparison would be meaningless.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
McFern
By McFern (10 months ago)

It really doesn't matter. You can not see the difference with the naked eye in an 8X10 at arms length or in a 20X30 from the 6 feet away that you should view it from. All this yammering about pixels and processor tricks are all as irrellevent as Ford or Chevy. I went Nikon for digital at first, changed to Oly for my own personal reasons that would not make a bit of difference to anyone else, and I love my Olys. I will put up with any inconvenience to contiue to use my Olys till they dont work any longer and there are none to get, new or otherwise. If you need to get to work, the Ford or the Chevy either one will accomplish the task. Which one you love is as subjective as choosing a spouse. Same with the camera...any camera can get to the photo. The one you love? Well that has nothing to do with pixels and abstract factoids but all to do with you.

12 upvotes
Edwaste
By Edwaste (10 months ago)

"DPR uses the exact same RAW workflow for each camera, AFAIK. If they didn't the RAW comparison would be meaningless."

Exactly my point. Each camera demands a different workflow to get the best image.

The Nikon D7100 is a fine camera. So are the Olympus. and so are the Canons, Sonys and so on.

Most important of all is the operator. a person that understands the advantages and limitations of his equipment, and knows how to get the most out of, during the shoot, and in post processing.

This pastime of pitting one camera against the other is a childish game of oneupmanship...something to do after they realize their creative juices have long dried up.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

> All this yammering about pixels and processor tricks are all as irrellevent as Ford or Chevy.

Which is why DPR has a RAW Studio comparison tool, so people can download and compare the RAW output from different cameras. Most digital cameras at this level offer good IQ but that doesn't mean pixel peeping or converting some sample RAWs is a total waste of time. For example, one reason I sold my E-PL5 was because of the extremely warm colors biased to red. So I'm interested to see if the E-M1 RAW files are as warm as the E-PL5 and it turns out they are dramatically more red (the faces look sunburnt). That is an example of why DPR even bothers with the RAW test scenes.

And when Olympus releases a so-called Pro or Prosumer EM-1 at a price point considerably higher than their previous flagship EM-5, not to mention the GH3 and GX7, prospective buyers are going to want to see how IQ compares to them, and to the rest of the competition.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

@Edwaste

> This pastime of pitting one camera against the other is a childish game of oneupmanship something to do after they realize their creative juices have long dried up.

Seriously, that's what you are going with?

Researching cameras includes comparing files with other similarly priced cameras. That is why DPR even has a comparison tool. It's not about "oneupmanship", but about figuring out what is best for your needs, what a new model can do, what RAW files can do in Lightroom, how a camera compares to a previous model and to other cameras on the market.

These are some of the reasons why DPR provides us with RAW files and the studio comparison tool.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Edwaste
By Edwaste (10 months ago)

Of course the reviews are worth reading and studying. How else can someone make an educated decision when purchasing a camera.

It's what the readers that post here have to say about the reviews, like your original comment, that I find tiresome, and useless.

You must have been frothing at the mouth, unable to hold back from posting your opinion that the Nikon D7100 was per pixel sharper.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

> frothing at the mouth

Not really, I don't care all that much. Just test driving the new studio scene.

But considering that you've more than likely read all the ridiculous comparisons to the D600, 6D, and 5D3 below, and talk of "the EM-1 as the death knell to the mirror box" and other such koolaid sipping talK, it's funny how upset you get by my simple observations.

If the situation were reversed and the EM-1 test photos somehow looked dramatically better than a D7100 or 70D, rest assured that EVERY OTHER comment would have mentioned it. So kindly give me a break.

3 upvotes
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (10 months ago)

@ marike6
For someone who doesn't "care" you seem to spend a lot of time and effort, not caring. And not caring, and not caring.

A true comparison of output is done with jpg not RAW - if you want to compare the default the settings of the manufacturers. RAW files are cooked, by the software, by the users ability to work with the software and very dependent on display card and monitor. If you're not comparing prints, you're comparing pixels and that's about as meaningless as it gets.

If the e-pl5 output you were getting from RAW was too red, the first place to look is your workflow, methodology and software settings.

If I was shooting a D800, I sure wouldn't be arguing with Olympus users. However, definitely keep reminding us of our errors...

2 upvotes
McFern
By McFern (10 months ago)

Gentlemen. In the original post there were 2 observations; the first was camera A is sharper per pixel than camera B which is pixel peeping; and the second that the raw files are too red which is subjective. Both observations lead to the inferred conclusion that camera A is better than camera B...hence the (ducks). Shoot a wedding with either camera and hand the bride's mamma the 8X10s and, having no extreme enlarged crop on a Retina screen to compare them, she will not be able to tell the difference and will be thrilled, assuming the person running the camera can indeed run the camera. And without another 8X10 to compare, she wont be able to tell which is redder and therefore will still be thrilled. Same thing happens with the print hanging on the wall for all to enjoy. Sorry I started this with saying such things as "camera A is better than camera B" don't matter but it just doesn't.

3 upvotes
McFern
By McFern (10 months ago)

continued...

If you say "I like my spouse better than your spouse", that is a valid statement and better be accurate. But if you say' "My spouse is better than yours because they are 2 weeks younger" then that comment is invalid because such a tiny value is of no consequence. Or if you say, "My spouse is better because they weight less", that statement is also invalid as it is subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have an 11X16 print in my office of Crabtree Falls printed by The Slideprinter from Kodachrome 25 (tellin my age).
It was taken in1981 with a Pentax K1000 and 50mm f2. People comment always when they first see it, yet it was taken with a camera that was only suited for photography students as determined by "folks in the know" of that day. If I had had a Nikon that day, it could not be anymore beautiful. And that is the point...the best camera is the one you have with you.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

@mapgraphs

Comparing JPEGs is meaningless as it only shows a manufacturers NR and sharpening algorithms. There is no cooked RAWs in Olympus or Nikon AFAIK, and DPR uses the same exact RAW default LR ACR setting to convert every RAW to JPEG for web viewing. But analyzing JPEGs for purpose of comparison is a waste of time.

Re: the E-PL5, my RAW workflow is the same with all cameras. I shoot RAW with a AWB, open in LR with WB set to "As Shot". And the E-PL5 RAWs shot in Daylight are as warm as any I've ever seen. Have you ever seen a yellow flower rendered as almost orange? But I didn't think such a warm bias could get any more extreme until I saw these E-M1 RAWs above with the red faces. Surely I'm not the only one who noticed.

Anyway, not arguing with anyone, just researching, playing with new test scene and procrastinating. Cheers.

1 upvote
McFern
By McFern (10 months ago)

And I understand what your saying as I have from the first post. And yes, there is no argument, just a lack of higher understanding. You are absolutely correct that comparing JPEGS is a waste of time, BUT, so is comparing the relatively minute differences in RAW or COOKED or SMELTED or whatever. No one will ever walk by a print hanging on a wall being lit by ambient light and say, "Wow that print would be so much better if the camera had not had so much red bias in its raw files". In the film days we dealt with this type of thing with filters and film choices, now we use camera settings and post processing. Either way, its still subjective and it still doesn't matter. One could take a D50, shoot a wedding, and, as long as they didn't need to crop much, the results would be beautiful. Certainly any modern camera could do at least as well.

0 upvotes
McFern
By McFern (10 months ago)

continued...

Tiger Woods can take my clubs that I can't hit to save my life and beat everyone I know to death with them (on the links). But somewhere is a golf blog where folks are lamenting over Ping vs Calaway. For Tiger, this doesn't mater except for personal preference...ditto for me. It does not matter.

0 upvotes
ccm
By ccm (10 months ago)

@marike6

I don't have my EM5 on me right now but I recall it being very warm in AWB when I first got it. I went into the menu and toggled off something to the effect of "preserve warm tone" and have for the most part been pleased with AWB since.

1 upvote
McFern
By McFern (10 months ago)

Exactly, any look can be accomplished in modern cameras with camera controls and post processing in the products of any of the camera makers. Once on the wall, who cares what buttons were pushed? If we can't afford the camera, adapt to what we can afford or buy it used, whatever it takes to take a camera with us. So we can be ready when the picture and us arrive in the same place! The best camera is the one we have in our hand regardless of the pixels or WB tweaking.

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

Still printing pictures and putting them on a wall in frame, huh?
Last time I printed anything was like... 3 years ago. I moved to some more... modern-age gear ever since.

0 upvotes
McFern
By McFern (10 months ago)

Eh, cant help Im old, I still like prints. BUT, prints, ipad, smart phone, 70 inch flat screen...it still doesnt matter.

0 upvotes
Sumicron69
By Sumicron69 (10 months ago)

Ahhhhh looks like a nice camera but I will not be giving up my EM5 for this. It is still one of the finest cameras I have ever used.

3 upvotes
luisflorit
By luisflorit (10 months ago)

I don't know you, but in the IQ DPR tests, I cannot tell the difference in noise and sharpness between the EM1 and EM5, or the GX7..... It's just me??

Something is telling me that, as always, DxO marks will show all these m43/43 cameras of the same generation have quite on par sensors.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (10 months ago)

By not having retro-rangefinder styling, they are going to lose the all-important hipster camera market. :-)

5 upvotes
GrahamJohn
By GrahamJohn (10 months ago)

Can't wait for you folks to start offloading your E-M5's so I can pick up a second body cheap.

8 upvotes
showmeyourpics
By showmeyourpics (10 months ago)

Words of truth. I got my Pentax K5 for $830 as soon as the K30 showed up. Also, I buy grade A refurbished without a problem. Feature per feature, the E-M5 is still a masterpiece of portability.

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

First impression review updated with a reassessment of AF speed with 43 lenses.

9 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (10 months ago)

Many of the negative comments here are probably from CANIKON users who concern the future of DSLR.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

many people complain about the high price which is a positive thing for the maker and negative for the user.

I cannot see why users should fight a proxy war for the makers. Skokholm syndrome is a mental illness though I understand we are all human.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
coroander
By coroander (10 months ago)

Fortunately those users worried about high price can get the superb E-M5. But for those who need a large buffer (50+ RAW), 1/8000th shutter, 0.74x 100% viewfinder, improved support for 43 lenses, and direct controls for practically everything, not to mention 1/320th sync speed, 10 fps and improved continuous autofocus the E-M1 is available. The E-M1 isn't a replacement for the E-M5 -- they are different product lines in the same excellent m43 system.

3 upvotes
rxbot
By rxbot (10 months ago)

Agree the E-M5 is now available for $850 body only a realistic and good value purchase. I couldn't say the same for a $ 1400 12bit, one card slot no cross type PDAF on sensor elements, I would not calll that camera (E-M1) a prosumer never mind a pro.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

Why would Canikon users be worried about anything, when Canon and Nikon are two of the only profitable companies left and lead other brands in popularity by a huge margin?

8 upvotes
coroander
By coroander (10 months ago)

Cross type PDAF sensors are useful when you are using a single PDAF point on a camera with only 9 or 18 or 45 PD sensors which are much larger than a single-pixel PD sensor. The OM-D doesn't have just 9 or 45 PD sensors it has 1 million. And so uses thousands or 10s of thousands of PD sensors to autofocus on a single point as opposed to 1. In addition it also combines the highly accurate CDAF system.

At $1400 it's still the only camera under $1500 with a 100% 0.74x viewfinder, 50+ RAW image buffer, 1/8000 shutter, 10fps, image stabilisation that works with all lenses and a 1/320 sync speed. And it's the smallest camera with all these features.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

> At $1400 it's still the only camera under $1500 with a 100% 0.74x viewfinder.

The D7100 has a 100% Pentaprism VF with 0.94X magnification, 14-bit RAW, class leading resolution and IQ, 1080/24p and 720/60p video, in-camera crop modes, 1/8000 shutter and D4 AF system for $1199. That's the rub for some.

5 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

marike6: "The D7100 has a 100% Pentaprism VF with 0.94X magnification,"

It is APS-C 0.94x, meaning 0.63x to Oly 0.74x FF-equivalent.

coroander, $700 NEX-6 has viewfinder about as big (0.73x FF-equivalent, nobody would notice a difference) and just as detailed. 10 fps are without AF or tracking - not totally useless, but then NEX-6 has 10 fps with C-AF (and old A57 has something like 12). And you need 1/8000 why? Because E-M1 has no native ISO100, just the pulled down one? Well, NEX-6 does have ISO100. For $630 actually: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-alpha-NEX-6-16-1-MP-Digital-Camera-Black-Body-Only-/130958397672?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item1e7dba90e8

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

@peevee1 "It is APS-C 0.94x, meaning 0.63x to Oly 0.74x FF-equivalent".

Not that .11x matters much, especially when you are comparing an OVF to an EVF, but why is the Oly 0.74x FF equivalent when it's a 4:3 aspect ratio image that the EM-1 shoots?

I'm a bit confused. Thanks.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
rxbot
By rxbot (10 months ago)

It does not have 1 million sensors for PD do you really think they would give up 1/16 of their pixels for resolution. It has some sensors per line nobody knows but Olympus how many are used for phase detection.

2 upvotes
NZ Scott
By NZ Scott (10 months ago)

rxbot: actually, Olympus has stated publicly that 1/16 of the pixels are used for phase detection (see Robin Wong's latest blog entry, for example). However, it's important to note that this does not occur across the entire frame, as it is just a diamond-shaped pattern in the middle which is capable of phase detection.

I don't know how many pixels were lost, but at a rough estimate I would say 1/16 across half of the frame, which is 500,000 pixels, or half a megapixel.

S.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

a note on cross type AF sensor, it's not one sided story.

I prefer the 51-point AF with 15 cross points which I think is much better than 19-point all cross type 7D.

I cannot fail the zero cross point 70D dual-pixel AF because I cannot hold the camera exactly parallel to curtain blades and may be because the blades themselves have small curves.

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

yabokkie - you don't shoot too much, do you? If you would - you'd know that linear AF sensors get lost not only if you set them exactly parallel to the lines in a photograph.
You would also know that the advantage they bring is also in higher sensitivity (though since on-sensor phase detection came out - noone seems to care anymore about AF sensitivity - they are happy if AF can track basic slow-moving objects in bright daylight).

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Reactive
By Reactive (10 months ago)

Looking at the specs and prices, this looks like a direct competitor to the Canon EOS 70D. Is there some killer feature that would make a buyer choose the Olympus over the Canon (or vice versa)? A side by side list would be very useful.

2 upvotes
coroander
By coroander (10 months ago)

The killer features are many, but two killer features are 5-axis image stabilisation that works with all lenses (not just OIS on canon lenses that is only available on some of their lenses). The Olympus image stabilisation is also amazing on video. The other killer feature is weight and size -- there are many here who abandoned DSLRs for m43 for a superb system that is much lighter and smaller and just as (or more) capable.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (10 months ago)

On top of that is the 70D is not one of Canon's pro grade bodies. It is not made to the same standard. Also the buffer. Olympus Raw 50 photos. Canon 70D Raw 16 photos.

3 upvotes
plevyadophy
By plevyadophy (10 months ago)

There are no, as far as I am aware, cross-type arrays on any of the Oly PDAF sensors. So whilst the standard Four Thirds DSLR lenses will work better on this new Oly cam, they still aren't working optimally.

If that matters to some users, then I guess the Canon cam is better (but then, I guess, if a consumer is so concerned about cross-type AF sensors they'd not even be looking at an EVF based live view camera).

1 upvote
rudik
By rudik (10 months ago)

It is all about how good olympus advertise their product and how canon/nikon do this as well. Most of people, specially the beginer always remain in popular brand. Another one, is advertised by how many people using the olympus can spread ther thought about olympus to the other by using many media. The last one, how all camera brand make many improvement of their product.

0 upvotes
fibonacci1618
By fibonacci1618 (10 months ago)

As usual, the m4/3 haters hv come out to bash the new E-M1 with the same old tired & irrelevant comparisons with FF cams. I see it as a compliment that some folks r so jealously flinging mud at the E-M1 by pitting it against the FF cams. It's like comparing a BMW M3 vs M5... each has it's merits & if you're in the market for one, it comes down to your personal preferences. Do you NEED one? Who CARES? That's your privilege! Just stop being so bitchy about everything, ESPECIALLY if you're not interested in one.

What really matters to Oly, Canon, Nikon et. el. is whe consumers adopt their products. If the numbers coming from Amazon US r anything to go by, then it's highly promising so far!

"12 hours after the announcement the Olympus E-M1 is the most sold (orders+ preorders) digital camera at Amazon US. The ranking includes all camera like compact cameras, Sony QX, DSRL and Mirrorless cameras... And the 12-40mm lens is on second place of the Lens ranking..." according to 43rumours.

30 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

> comparisons with FF

equivalency is nothing more than a physical expression of what we get in the image, which anyone who shots and processes should be able to see without any calculation.

you can go to Olympus' website and find the equivalencies currently they give
- image angle of view, or focal length equiv.
- image magnification, ratio x2,
- image contrast/resolution, MTF at double frequencies,

because anything not measured against the image (or the frame, frame area) cannot be used directly when we compare images.

4 upvotes
genamak
By genamak (10 months ago)

yablokkie, even greater news for you, Olympus read your post and decided to stop using equivalency to ff

0 upvotes
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (10 months ago)

Well, it appears to says something when the Equivalentists measure Olympus/Panasonic/Sony/Fuji etc. against FF but won’t do the same against Nikon or Canon crops. And they don’t dare compare FF to MF.

It will probably be another 10 years before any of them actually buy a digital camera.

Too funny.

0 upvotes
McFern
By McFern (10 months ago)

As much as digital is different, the physics of photography are the same with digital as it is with film. Despite all the yammering about pixals and IQ, the truth remains that all formats up to FF are amateur formats just like they are in film. An 8X10 out of FF is 720 sq mm vs 297 for Nikon APS-C, 277 for Canon, and 211 for Oly. Not much difference when compared to an 8X10 out of 645 at 2324, 6X7 at 3920, and 4X5 at 11,834! All this yammering is like the deer hunters that argue 7mm Mag over 270's...both will kill an elk, ergo... During the film only days, Pros chose the different formats for obvious reasons, size and weight with small farmat, compromise with medium format, and ultimate IQ with large format. And then they chose their system by their preferences and needs. Same today. No one is 'brillant' for choosing Nikon nor is any one 'demented' for choosing Oly. And the bottom line, A decent rifle is better than the shooter just like A simple camera is better than the photographer.

10 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

McFern - it's not that simple. Someone wise once told that you see a large difference in an image if you compare sensors which area difference is greater or equal to 50%. In case of m4/3 - it is exactly that comparing to FF.
By your logic - we should all switch to 1" or heck: even some better smartphone cameras, cause after all only "pro" is large format.

0 upvotes
McFern
By McFern (10 months ago)

Apples and oranges. The point is about the relatively insignificant difference between one small format camera and the other...apples and apples. The preocupation with worrying about little differences is a habit with folks like nicotine. Anyhoo, by your logic Galen Rowell would have used a 8X10 like Ansel Adams because its the best. (I would classify each as a pro) My point is, and always has been, choose what works for you and take it with you. That smartphone photo will be better than all the photos not taken. I have searched for the perfect camera and found that it does not exist but then Im not a perfect photographer either, nor is anyone else. But Galen or Ansel could take a smart phone and blow us away...and that's all Im saying.

0 upvotes
Ayoh
By Ayoh (10 months ago)

Something seems not quite right here. At all resolution levels including "Print" and "Web" the E-M1 has visually similar noise level (perhaps within 0.5 EV) to the Canon 5D Mark III (within the shadows in particular). Theoretically there should be a 2 stop advantage to the 5d, and even is the E-M1 sensor has better per-pixel S/N performance than the 5d, I would not expect them to be so similar.
Were both sensors really exposed to the same amount of light per sensor area?

0 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (10 months ago)

The whole purpose of a studio test scene is to equalise the playing field so performance can be compared across different cameras.

I can only imagine that they are comparable. In good light I would expect performance to very close, but at the extremes the 5d should pull away.

1 upvote
Ayoh
By Ayoh (10 months ago)

Checking the EXIF exposure parameters shows that the 5D is underexposed relative the E-M1 . Is the light source controlled or varied? If varied than these test shots are not controlled and do not give an accurate comparison of expected noise levels between cameras.

Note that I am basing these comments on comparison of RAWs under the "Low Light" scene option

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Ayoh
By Ayoh (10 months ago)

There are also a number of large regular square purple blotches in the EM-1 images at ISO 25600. Strange artefacts, perhaps associated with the contrast or PDAF sensor sampling region.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

Look again, but make sure you select RAW at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200, for example. (JPEGs seem to have heavy NR so it's not all that instructive)

It's goes 5D III > D7100 > GX7 > E-M1 in order from least chroma noise to most. And this is true in Full, Print and Web.

5 upvotes
Ayoh
By Ayoh (10 months ago)

Look at:

RAW
ISO 25600
LOW LIGHT

EM-1 has similar noise to 5D and lower noise than 7100 under all sizes. The amount of light received must have been different between the cameras to get the is result.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (10 months ago)

You must have been looking at jpeg samples. The 5DIII despite being behind Nikon in sensor performance, still is substantially ahead of the m4/3 sensors even at a print size of 8MP.
What I find revealing though is how close the m4/3 sensors perform versus APS sensors, even the d7100. The APSC might be resolving better but I doubt it useful at 8MP print sizes, even the RX100 MII is not far behind in that mode. Very interesting times.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

DPReview's tool cannot be used to compare image qualities. one needs to have a definition of image quality first before designing a test.

1 upvote
SirSeth
By SirSeth (10 months ago)

It's really amazing how crop sensor cameras have closed the gap. Remember, these are well lit comparisons and FF does have an advantage when pushing a RAW file in tough lighting situations. That said, the difference between APS-C and 4/3rds has shrunk to almost nothing--something that many didn't expect and a few don't believe even when they see it.

0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (10 months ago)

We are still in the beginning of the digital photography era and people are scared, obsessed, prejudiced, manipulated, influenced, etc. So they can't observe things in peace, form an educated opinion without interruption and 'sage advices' from 'pixel-peeping gurus', 'tech pundits', lobbyists, never sleeping 'f-stoppists', paranoiFFs, etc.
I think m4/3 has its place in the world, it deserves to be more often considered and fairly reviewed, and I wish Olympus and Panasonic all the luck with it. E-M1 looks like a brilliant camera.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
48 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (10 months ago)

your post makes too much sense. Haters gotta hate.

18 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (10 months ago)

Hmm, not really. It's just the fanboys.

1 upvote
Jon Ragnarsson
By Jon Ragnarsson (10 months ago)

Get out of here with your thoughtful, sensible posts!

9 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

Ironically your last paragraph falls exactly into your own categories of "tech pundit", "sage advices" and "lobbyist".

5 upvotes
schirmer
By schirmer (10 months ago)

Well, digital is the key word here. Pulled many people into photography (again) which is good. Sadly it gave an easy way to argue / flame to the same people. And emotions also go digital, both in love and hate. My hope are clean ISO 1000000000000000000000000 images so everybody can go out even in darkest night taking images instead of hanging around and waiting for better light ;)

0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (10 months ago)

My last paragraphs just reiterates the Beatles song, 'Let it be'. Being pro-choice means to be a lobbyist for life's fundamental values.

2 upvotes
Anfy
By Anfy (10 months ago)

Why are the E-M5 images in jpg, low light, especially at high ISO noticeably darker than those of other cameras, making a comparison difficult?

0 upvotes
Jon Ragnarsson
By Jon Ragnarsson (10 months ago)

Looks similar to me.
http://i.imgur.com/emDz7GF.png

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

"Pro m43"? Isn't that an oxymoron? :-)

2 upvotes
new boyz
By new boyz (10 months ago)

Yeah, just like entry level full frame.

13 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (10 months ago)

"Pro" generally means - MAKE $$

There any tool can be PRO, even an iphone.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

PRO means "for those who don't know it"

1 upvote
Antony John
By Antony John (10 months ago)

Nah, just elicits moronic comments.

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (10 months ago)

Olympus's E-5M was like Chrysler's re-introduced Challenger. A nice piece of nostalgia, expensive, nice-looking, high-performance, but ultimately not up to the task of competing on a handling level with a modern design. Hence, the new body with the grip and more conventional design.

1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (10 months ago)

Yes an improved layout and putting the on switch to where the auto/manual switch was on the OM-4 is a nice touch.

0 upvotes
rxbot
By rxbot (10 months ago)

Just found out raw files are 12 bit not 14. I had assumed a $1400 without lens camera would be 14 bit. If you want a 14 bit weather sealed APS-C body buy a D7100 or K5iis. Cheaper too.

2 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (10 months ago)

I wouldn't trust the D7100 body as being weather "sealed." Maybe rain-proof at best. The only truly sealed camera was the Olympus E-1, which had industrial grade 4 seals whereas other cameras were only grade 1 or 2, at best.

8 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

> I wouldn't trust the D7100 as being weather "sealed".

Wow, pulled that one out of thin air, didn't you?

From Nikon D7100 specs : Body materials / Magnesium alloy - weather and dust sealed.

Heck my K-30 was completely weather and dust sealed, just like the K20D before it and all three versions of the K-5. I've shot in pouring rain with the K-30 a number of times without a single issue. Pentax, Nikon and Canon have been building robust weather sealed bodies for years.

5 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (10 months ago)

Not really, it is know that Nikon and Canon pro sealing is better on their pro cameras than prosumer range. There are different levels of sealing also some camera do not have as many parts sealed.

5 upvotes
ZoranHR
By ZoranHR (10 months ago)

So to you 12 bit v 14 bit makes difference. Please show us example in wich such difference is visible to human eye.
I think people who really need such depth for their work,don't buy cameras found on this review site.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

@ Stu 5

The same can be said for Olympus.

There have been reports of weather sealing failures with the E-M5 (moisture appearing in the EVF window, for example). So anyone coming from the more "pro-like" E3 or E5 had to be more careful with their E-M5. Not inflict as much abuse.

So the news of better weather-sealing with the newer E-M1, more comparable to the E3/E5, is good news.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
sbszine
By sbszine (10 months ago)

Where did you see that it's 12 bit? The specs I've seen say 14 bit.

0 upvotes
JimChristie
By JimChristie (10 months ago)

Very disappointed. Olympus has given up on trying to be a semi-professional camera in both looks and function. I'm not about to use an adapter to connect my Olympus 4/3 lenses to a to a less than 4/3 camera. I guess I'm ready to chuck it all in and go to a full frame, full functioning camera. Up until now, I've been happy with my E-5 and the 5 lenses, but now I have lost total faith and patience with Olympus. Looks like they are in a downward death spiral.

2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (10 months ago)

Lets see a body partly based on the pro OM-3 and OM-4 and the grip from the pro E-1. So that is not pro enough for you? And the problem with using an adaptor is? I am a professional photographer and the adaptor is so easy to use. No different to using a lens board adaptor on a pro large format camera from Sinar to Linhof.

5 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (10 months ago)

No, it was their best move. The huge E-3 and E-5 bodies looked almost silly with their little 4/3rds sensor. The case can be made that a larger body will always be more easily handled, but Olympus and the camera makers aren't actively trying to ape pro Nikons and Canons any more.

9 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (10 months ago)

What the EM-5 has shown with some pro photographers using an Olympus digital interchangeable camera for the first time, there is a market for a small pro grade body.

3 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (10 months ago)

This camera is light years ahead in performance vs E5 (except maybe in tracking focus) so what is your complaint. An adapter just sits where the "Mirror" would be - like a spacer. You never need to take it off so whats the big deal?

6 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (10 months ago)

Agree with Stu 5.

There is a market for a small Pro grade camera. In photography, one cannot compare a full frame 35mm DSLR, a medium format DSLR and a micro 4/3 digital camera. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. One just have to use the right one for the occassion. Only trolls make a big fuss out of it.

I have been using a micro 4/3 camera happily along my Canon 5D MkII for about 5 years. On many occassion, I may even use my humble Canon G12 for intrepid shots. Cameras are just tools to get the shots.

3 upvotes
Anastigmat
By Anastigmat (10 months ago)

This camera is only about 1/2 an inch narrower than the full frame Nikon D600 and it is not much cheaper. The difference in image quality between a 4/3 sensor and a full frame is huge. The Olympus therefore sacrifices image quality without any benefit in compactness or a much lower price. Olympus fans may swoon over this new toy, but most other photographers will simply walk away.

5 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (10 months ago)

When you use a camera you need to use a lens as well. Now compare the two with say the equivalent of a 28-70 f2.8.

850g to 1660g

Plus the D600 is not a pro grade camera built body. Raw buffer is 50 compared to 14 as well.

14 upvotes
Jon Ragnarsson
By Jon Ragnarsson (10 months ago)

No it is not huge. Quite the opposite, it is much less than people think.

4 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (10 months ago)

Try comparing to a PRO grade FF body not an entry level FF body.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

Yes, the IQ difference is huge between the EM-5 / EM-1 and the D600. Anybody who is telling you different is either a m43 fan or a snake oil salesman.

Have a look at DxOMark Sensor ratings where the D600 scores 21 points higher than the EM5 - 95 to 71. That's huge.

Or better yet download some full size EM-5 and D600 images and see for yourself. I get that people are excited about a new Olympus body, but a little reality check is in order.

Note: the Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 is a pro-grade film era lens, hardly a requirement for making images with a D600. Come on guys, be serious.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (10 months ago)

Here we go again comparing apples with oranges.

As soon as you say anything with the word 'pro' in it pro camera owners get all defensive. Well, Olympus 4/2 lenses are PRO quality and here is the body that best matches those lenses. It may not be FF but neither are the size of the lenses.

Cheers

6 upvotes
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

I strongly suggest you put this camera next to a D600, and you'll see quite a considerable difference is camera body size. The E-M1 is *much* more compact than a D600. And even more compact when you add in the lenses. As for IQ, well, not everyone is an anal pixel peeper. It really all depends on what you're shooting, and how big you print. There will be plenty of people who will prefer the more compact size of this camera and the m4/3 system, relative to the D600 and full frame lenses.

1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (10 months ago)

It's entirely a different market. The consumers chose to go and pay for a m4/3 that satisfied their needs in terms of performance and image quality, and the size/weight advantages is good value for them.
As someone already stated above, IQ is sufficient at print sizes. It was a revelation to me using DPRs new studio tool and the (8MP)Print Mode.

The EM-1 is a flagship product with an even smaller performance/price ratio for a niche market.

0 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (10 months ago)

That's right. It depend on what one is using the image for.

If you are a travel photographer like me, the Micro 4/3 quality is more than enough. No complaints at all. Most travel photos would be printed up to A4 size only. At most, occassionally, a double page spread which is A3. The print quality is absolutely fine. In fact, on many occassion, a Canon G12 or Lumix LX7 is more than capable enough.

Obviously, if one is shooting sports like surfing one will need a completely different combo. In this case, you will need a Canon 1DX with a 200-400mm f/4.0L IS lens on a monopod.

If one is shooting a motor GP, for example, you will definitely need a Canon 1DX with a 500mm f/4.0L IS lens with a monopod. That's a different ball game. Even a Pro photographer will find it challenging if he is not used to it.

Well, that's photography.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (10 months ago)

Sorry just noticed that I typed 28 instead of 24. Those weight figures are including a 24-70mm f2.8.

0 upvotes
MayaTlab0
By MayaTlab0 (10 months ago)

There are three main benefits to FF sensors : resolution, DOF control, and low-light performance. Of these three only one remains roughly independent from the lens' aperture : resolution (it is only affected by the lens' resolution performance, not its max aperture per se). The other two remain valid only insofar as the lens aperture remains a constant variable. If you think about it, for a (roughly) similar weight and size, you can either have a Canon 6D + 40mm or a E-M1 + 20mm f1.7 (or the 17mm or 25mm). That the 40mm is more than one stop slower than equivalent lenses available on m43 partially negates the advantage of a FF sensor (without nullifying them of course). Same for zooms. Then think about other benefits from the E-M1 (better build, faster frame-rate, quieter shutter, customisation, etc…) and you realise that it isn't a poor competitor to entry-level FF cameras. Photographers will prefer one over the other according to which characteristics they value most, that's it.

1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (10 months ago)

Still quite a difference even on that combo, 900 grams compared to 584 grams.

0 upvotes
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (10 months ago)

A great follow-up of the E-M5.

I really like this no holds barred attitude in Olympus.

11 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (10 months ago)

The E-M5 will be updated soon, having many of the new features of the EM-1 minus the pro specs.

0 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (10 months ago)

What about those FT lenses which, back then when contrast detection AF in live view was added to Four Thirds DSLRs, officially were declared to be contrast-detection-AF-compatible? Like the ZD 14-54 II, or the later Panasonic/"Leica" lenses? Are they forced into phase detection AF like the other FT lenses, or can they be used with contrast detection AF? Do I get to choose?

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (10 months ago)

They're all focused by PDAF - you don't get to choose.

However, while some of those lenses were 'compatible' with CDAF, they were always faster when focused in PDAF mode, so it's entirely logical that this camera would try to drive them using the method for which they were primarily designed.

7 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (10 months ago)

Thanks for the information! The reason I was asking is that, in dim light and with those lenses, I sometimes switch the E-30 to live view only to put it into contrast detection AF mode, because, while much slower, in conditions like that it sometimes turns out to be more reliable and more precise than phase-detection AF. Even with the E-30's quasi-prehistoric implementation of contrast AF...

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
M DeNero
By M DeNero (10 months ago)

I want one of these. However, it will be no more successful than the EM-5, thus I think Olympus will not survive.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

I'd want to see Oly survive but better survive without cheating.

1 upvote
genamak
By genamak (10 months ago)

yablokkie, I have a good news for you, Olympus read your comments and decided to go away and stop producing cameras

0 upvotes
rxbot
By rxbot (10 months ago)

We all know it is a good camera. The ? is is it a $550 better than E- M5 camera. For those that have the money don't rush into buying yet. In Oct. we should see full frame mirrorless NEX 7 size ilc camera for about $2000, hoping it comes with EVF but perhaps an option.

1 upvote
M DeNero
By M DeNero (10 months ago)

A major reason this camera will not make a big enough splash, dooming Olympus.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

now Olympus don't have own mount any more. then they may at a better position to make E mount cameras and lenses, too, before they can claim: blended m4/3" with APS-C" to create E-M-1.

Sony can do the full-frame version in the meantime.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
coroander
By coroander (10 months ago)

Unfortunately the NEX system doesn't have many quality lenses, and those that are quality are just plain massive. It's the nonsense of NEX -- tiny bodies matched with large lenses (or small aperture lenses). Just wait for the FF NEX -- with a body double the price and even larger lenses. Unlikely that NEX will ever pick up enough users to support the range of lenses that m43 offers now.

6 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (10 months ago)

A FF mirrorless will still be huge, and have Huge lenses. there is still a market for a smaller system like m/43.

3 upvotes
ntsan
By ntsan (10 months ago)

FF NEX body is priced like RX1, so expect $2500 to $3000 for just the body, and $1K for those Zeiss branded len

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Quiverbow
By Quiverbow (10 months ago)

Whatever the arguments are on here, it's all just opinion. Some like the E- M1, others don't. Some like Canon and Nikon, others don't, which is all very fair.

As for the price, some might think it's value for money whist others won't. Everything is all subjective anyway, so what's all this, "The Raw photos at 3200 on my 7100 are better than this, so all you Olympus buyers don't know what you're on about" stuff. It's all in the eye of the beholder and what the individual thinks.

After all, you can take rubbish photos with a £5,000 piece of kit and damn good ones with a £100 camera.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 50 seconds after posting
12 upvotes
wylun
By wylun (10 months ago)

im not going to lie.. the OMD EM5 looked better in that "page 9 image quality" test thing you guys put up.

0 upvotes
FrankS009
By FrankS009 (10 months ago)

It is good that Olympus did not completely abandon their 4/3rds lens customers. They deserve kudos for that, whether or not one buys this or other Olympus cameras.
F.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

all mirrorless will go PDAF which has nothing to do old customers.

1 upvote
genamak
By genamak (10 months ago)

yablokkie, I am granting your wish, from now on all mirorrless will have PDAF

1 upvote
babalu
By babalu (10 months ago)

The single, most important message this camera sends out, is that the era of the optical viewfinder is coming to an end. Adieu mirror. Welcome EVF, preferrably tiltable .

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
16 upvotes
M DeNero
By M DeNero (10 months ago)

Isn't that the single, most important message the EM-5 sent out? The optical viewfinder is superior in most regards and isn't going anywhere.

7 upvotes
Midwest
By Midwest (10 months ago)

Why are people who have EVF cameras so anxious to see the OVF go away? Because it is the only way they will ever be able to prove that the EVF is better. Which, as a viewfinder, it is not.

I suppose if someone can't see that, they also can't see how homely the E-M1 is. It does look functional. So does a toilet plunger.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
M DeNero
By M DeNero (10 months ago)

I like the looks of the E-M1, the EM-5 and most of the latest PENs. Why do some, especially Oly fanboys, want to see the OVF go away? I think it is because Olympus has taken a different route. Not necessarily a better one, but a different one. And not necessarily by choice, but by force. And so their faithful want to see Olympus trump the big boys. It isn't going to happen.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
Jon Ragnarsson
By Jon Ragnarsson (10 months ago)

Yes, the OVF is dead. It's a relic from the film days. A clever and refined relic, but it will only live on in a few nostalgic cameras in the future. If we were inventing cameras today, with live sensors, and somebody would suggest putting a mirror in front of the sensor for the photographers to frame the picture, people would think that person were mad.

4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

Sure the OVF is dead. That's must be why DSLRs outsell mirrorless cameras by a huge margin in some areas like Europe by as much as 9-to-1. And that must also be why the overwhelming majority of professional photographers are shooting a Canikon FF with big, bright beautiful OVFs. And that must also be why none of the mirrorless vendors are making a profit at all and some are even precariously close to shuttering their doors forever.

So nice theory, poor grasp of reality.

6 upvotes
babalu
By babalu (10 months ago)

I remember the outcries of film fans not so long ago that digital will never achieve the quality of celuloid photos . Film today is less than a niche, almost obsolete. Same will happen to the optical viewfinder . In a world digital, a mirror has no place. Wait and see.

0 upvotes
M DeNero
By M DeNero (10 months ago)

It will take a long time before an EVF equals an OVF. Basically all new, non-scanning technology is needed. MF with any EVF is a joke.

1 upvote
M DeNero
By M DeNero (10 months ago)

15 years ago (not "not so long ago") I remember the outcries of film fans that it would take many, many years (not "never") for digital to achieve the quality of celluoid photos. Thanks to Canon it happened rather quickly.

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (10 months ago)

In order for EVFs to even have a chance of replacing OVFs completely and especially in the pro market the fallowing has to happen:

No perceptible lag difference between OVF and EVF in ALL lighting conditions.

On sensor phase detection AF has to become just as fast and accurate as the dedicated phase detection AF modules for both static and moving subjects and in all lighting conditions. Until the on sensor AF if up to shooting say the Olympics, a football game or even just a middle school track and field meet OVFs and dedicated phase detection AF modules are here to stay.

EVFs need to have much more dynamic range, at least within a stop of the sensor in the camera but ideally match or exceed it.

Higher capacity batteries or lower power consumption EVFs are needed.

EVFS still need some improvement in resolution but they are getting there on this one.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (10 months ago)

@Jon ragarsson

"If we were inventing cameras today, with live sensors, and somebody would suggest putting a mirror in front of the sensor for the photographers to frame the picture, people would think that person were mad."

Until that person explained it allowed for the use of the far superior, especially at tracking moving subjects, dedicated Phase detection AF module and a bright, real time OVF that provides a much clearer view of the scene, is usable in all lighting conditions and significantly improved the battery life of the camera. In fact if digital cameras with EVFs using CD AF or even on sensor PD AF were invented first and film never existed it is likely when OVFs and dedicated phase detection AF modules showed up they would replace EVFs almost over night.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Dave Oddie
By Dave Oddie (10 months ago)

M DeNero:

"Isn't that the single, most important message the EM-5 sent out? The optical viewfinder is superior in most regards and isn't going anywhere."

Well I use a Sony A77 and I can tell you optical viewfinders are inferior to EVF's in most regards and the main reason why is we are talking aps-c (or for Oly 4/3) sized sensors and even the best OVF's on cameras with these sized sensors are like looking down a tunnel.

On full frame OVF's work and I doubt Canikon will be switching to EVF's anytime soon but for smaller sensor camera they simply knock spots off OVF's and that is before you consider the inherent advantages such as the fact you have a WYSIWYG representation of the photo you are about to take.

I'll never buy another OVF camera again.

0 upvotes
Dave Oddie
By Dave Oddie (10 months ago)

"On sensor phase detection AF has to become just as fast and accurate as the dedicated phase detection AF modules for both static and moving subjects and in all lighting conditions."

This problem has already been solved by Sony which has PDAF with an EVF on the SLT's.

0 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (10 months ago)

Yay for Olympus for bringing out a fantastic new camera.

Yay for consumers who have a choice of a range of great cameras from many manufacturers.

Yay for trolls who can now be quiet and buy the stuff they say they love and avoid the constellation of inferior gear they are complaining about.

15 upvotes
walkaround
By walkaround (10 months ago)

I want it!!

7 upvotes
Donnie G
By Donnie G (10 months ago)

Well, if there really is a huge base of mirrorless ILC fans out there outside of Japan, then this new Oly should be a huge success for the company. We will know by the end of the Christmas shopping season. Good luck Oly!

3 upvotes
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (10 months ago)

I'm liking the range of recent offerings from Fuji, Sony, Panasonic and Olympus. Good range of price points and mix of functionality and output. The short flange, "crop" sensor "mirrorless" may not be for everyone but then Medium format isn't either.

Good job Olympus, melding the 4/3 and m4/3. Nice to know I'll be able to use M, ZD and Cosina all on one body if I want.

5 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (10 months ago)

Hey Panny and Oly, are you not still going to make an RX100 equivalent?
With the prize of the RX100 M2, to me that sounds profitable.

1 upvote
PowerG9atBlackForest
By PowerG9atBlackForest (10 months ago)

Is there some pin cushion distortion to be seen on P9090128 (the last but one) in the sample gallery? I think I noticed it with the outmost right vertical line of bricks.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (10 months ago)

In Print Mode (8MP), the RX100 is making a compelling case here both in resolution and higher ISO, even after including the d7100.

I suggest more Print modes such as 15MP and 20MP. Though I won't be printing that large, it is a fun tool and keeps me coming back.

0 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (10 months ago)

Does this camera have similarly bizarre and confuse-o-matic firmware as the E-M5? No hints? Didn't you notice in the time available?

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
1 upvote
PowerG9atBlackForest
By PowerG9atBlackForest (10 months ago)

In the beginning, I found the menues of the E-M5 bizarre and confusing, too.

It took me some time of practizing and I discovered the deeper secrets of and the logics behind it - then they not only did make sense to me but also gave me the freedom of being able to choose from a wild variety of options I hadn't considered before.

I am quite familiar with everything now.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (10 months ago)

Yeah, I know how to use it now too. That doesn't mean it was well designed.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (10 months ago)

body will cost 1499 euro here .... stupid price.

nuff said....

5 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

ha ha how about re-posting yet again how this camera won't earn Olympus any money?

Clearly not enough said. Has to repeated over and over, day after day, in the same (p)review comment section.

20 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (10 months ago)

30+ reactions from Henry in the comments of this camera about how he dislikes Olympus and how expensive this camera is. We are talking with someone who has serious issues. Mr Woodford?

11 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (10 months ago)

Henry, did you see the price of the previous model? Second hand it's so cheap now there's not much of a reason to not get that instead ~

2 upvotes
moizes 2
By moizes 2 (10 months ago)

No-no, guys, you have no rights to criticize Henry's opinion. He will send you back to your cave, and you will go, no choice there, or he will take your license coze you are not pro, to his eyes! He knows everything, he is fortune teller, all of us must worship him! So shut up and listen to profit!

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
1 upvote
pdelux
By pdelux (10 months ago)

For someone so disinterested in this camera, and will certainly never consider using one, henry sure spends alot of time in the comments section of this article with his negative comments.

Some people might consider that trolling.

7 upvotes
DT200
By DT200 (10 months ago)

Thanks to Sony, Olympus is proving sensor size matters little and that a smaller sensor can perform as good or better than larger ones. We saw this with the RX100 too.
Add those F/2 zooms and improved 5 axis IBIS and I can see why this camera is so popular.
The new Sony Alpha cameras will be very similar - 5 axis ibis and same ospdaf -but sans the Olympus jpeg engine.
EDIT: If they get PDAF working well, the extra reach of the 4/3rds lenses will make this very popular with people who love small but long telephoto lenses.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Jim in Hudson
By Jim in Hudson (10 months ago)

The 70D is probably the only camera that can do a true focus technology shootout with itself. Hopefully, someone will do a thorough review of how that cameras performs in focus tracking using traditional PDAF vs LV/on-sensor PDAF. Probably the same for very low light AF, too. Until then, we're mostly just guessing at how good on-sensor PDAF has become.

0 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (10 months ago)

No need to guess, the preview already states that the on sensor PDAF performance is not up to the traditional PDAF, and you wouldnt expect so, at least in this generation. But is it good enough??

Maybe.

0 upvotes
Markintosh
By Markintosh (10 months ago)

I'm happy for Oly fans, but personally don't see the point in bulky, oversized mirrorless camera with small sensor compare to DSLR. The price of body and lenses is separate story — you can find the full frame options very close to this price. All impressive features still doesn't make this camera a professional tool — and here Olympus lost the touch with reality a little bit. Again, this is just my personal opinion.

4 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (10 months ago)

I think the point is that M43 is a complete system with a lot of choice. Within that system you have cheap, small cameras (EPM3, GF5), highly capable small cameras (EM-5, EP-5, G6) and larger (but still small compared to DSLR) fully featured cameras. And you can use the same lenses across the whole range.

Yes, the biggest M43 cam is not dissimilar in size to the smallest APS DSLR, but the system as a whole is significantly smaller and lighter.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
19 upvotes
whawha
By whawha (10 months ago)

I would never disagree with Captain Beefheart :o

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (10 months ago)

In my opinion, FF is a different market. It is significantly larger and better image quality. I think Oly priced the EM1 just right, positioning it against flagship APSC DSLRs.
Some people are willing to pay the price for a compact/lighter system, especially those making money from their photography.

3 upvotes
moizes 2
By moizes 2 (10 months ago)

To Markintosh - while I understand your point, look at that new 2 zooms - they are big! 100-300 - big for smaller body, too. But, you see, I can't say that you are wrong. THX!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
bofo777
By bofo777 (10 months ago)

Add in the SHG 4/3 lenses and YOU do have a professional too...cheers

0 upvotes
lazy lightning
By lazy lightning (10 months ago)

(Reuters) - To stem the red ink on its loss-making camera division, Olympus Corp has decided to rely on a format that so far has been a flop outside of its home turf in Japan.

The company on Tuesday released the "OM-D E-M1", a mirrorless model Olympus says is the first of its kind to compete on quality with traditional single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras.

Olympus is now hoping the E-M1, priced for the pro market at 145,000 yen ($1,500) for the body alone, will help it boost mirrorless and SLR sales by 24 percent to 7.3 million units to allow its camera business to finally break even for the first time in four years.

The E-M1 illustrates Olympus's dedication to the mirrorless format, heralded at its inception as a happy marriage between the size of a compact camera and the picture quality of an SLR. But the format has so far failed to connect with consumers outside of Japan, with most seeing it as an awkward compromise.

2 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (10 months ago)

If outside Japan is the US, than this article made some sense. But outside Japan and the US there are other countries. In Europe Olympus managed to gain marketshare since the introduction of m4/3. For Olympus, a small company with small marketshare, m4/3 is a success. In Japan a great hit, in other countries a smaller hit, but still it's successful.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
lazy lightning
By lazy lightning (10 months ago)

But from what I understand, not successful enough to be profitable.

Another quote from the same Reuters article,

(Reuters) - Last year, the company's camera division lost 23.1 billion yen ($231.99 million) as compact camera sales shrank by a third and it shifted 6 percent fewer interchangeable lens camera sales, mostly mirrorless.

In May, the company announced a plan to trim its camera division by cutting 30 percent of staff and whittling its production base to two factories from five.

3 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (10 months ago)

It's a well known fact that almost every camera division losses money on point and shoot models. Olympus losses a lot on the point and shoots. So they decided this year to quit with the lowest class point and shoots and only produce a hand full of special models. That, and some other minor things, should bring the Olympus camera division to a profit.

In the same report Olympus states that the E-M5 was a huge commercial success. A major hit for them. They lost some marketshare with the PEN's. But the Olympus marketshare in the mirrorless market is good.

My advise, read the report itself and not the small summary of Reuters.

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

is providing a URL against DPReview's rule?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/10/olympus-mirrorless-idUSL3N0H61YD20130910

> compact camera sales shrank by a third
may be a good news if it means people prefer mobility over quality and satisfied with lower quality. but the market may have shrunk for good.

feel sorry about layoff. Olympus employees are among the best that I know of. those in China are also very capable.

0 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (10 months ago)

Are you keen to see M43 'fail', lazy lightning?

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
lazy lightning
By lazy lightning (10 months ago)

I would like to see M4/3 succeed in the narrow niche it occupies. But as many outside of this myopic M4/3 forum have discovered, it really is an awkward compromise with a very steep price.

2 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (10 months ago)

So what you are saying is that you don't want it to achieve widespread success?

0 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (10 months ago)

This is a year of "below expectations" for camera companies. Anything is possible, but I doubt that Olympus' camera division will break even this calendar year. They have already said that PEN sales were down 12%.

1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (10 months ago)

as always you tell nothing but BS thorgrem.. ignoring the facts.

olympus has said a few times that they will not meet their own expectations. stopp telling BS on purpose. the E-M5 a great success? yeah for oly maybe.

in one BNC ranking this year the EOS-M had 9% of the mirrorless market share and canon was not satisfied. this is 9% with only ONE camera modell.
oly is easy to please that´s all.....

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
lazy lightning
By lazy lightning (10 months ago)

No don_van_vliet, now you are putting words in my mouth. I would like it to have "widespread success" in the small niche M4/3 has created for itself. That is the small number worldwide of people that don't feel this is an overpriced, oversized camera for the compromises that one needs to accept.

That it will be very popular with the couple of thousand M4/3 enthusiasts that frequent dpr and sites like it is unquestioned. But worldwide widespread success? No! Why would a more expensive, larger camera in the same format come to Oly's rescue or at least achieve some modicum of commercial success when it's cheaper, smaller brother could not?

2 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (10 months ago)

Hmm. Reading your message and mine, I don't think I misinterpreted you!

0 upvotes
lazy lightning
By lazy lightning (10 months ago)

I have merely brought to light a financial news report from a respected source. That I happen to be in agreement with said report does in no way infer that I want to see M4/3 fail.

I get the feeling you are of the "M4/3 will rule the photography world and make all other systems obsolete crowd."

0 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (10 months ago)

Now who's putting words into peoples mouths? ;-)

0 upvotes
lazy lightning
By lazy lightning (10 months ago)

You are confused, I did not imply you said that. I said it "was my feeling" that you were of that opinion.

Either way, I've grown bored of you!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
dombi
By dombi (10 months ago)

It is 1600,- EUR for body only here in Europe.
Ouch!

0 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (10 months ago)

Here in the Netherlands -Europe it's 1499,- in all the camera stores.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (10 months ago)

still.... a stupid amount of money.

i rather burn 500 euro right now and buy the camera in 7 months for 800 euro... i would still save a few bucks.

in the end olympus gear is only worth 50-60% after a few month.

0 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (10 months ago)

Yes we saw it with the price of the E-M5. It did come down 50% in a few months time.... O no, it didn't. Even a year after introduction it was almost the same price as the introduction price. Some of the PEN's did go down fast in price. Like the E-PL3 and E-PM1, but not the higher models like the E-P3, E-M5, E-5. Get your facts straight, maybe than someone will take you serious.

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
9 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (10 months ago)

Great I'll buy one to use 14-54II and 11-22mm 4/3 lens.

0 upvotes
emircruz
By emircruz (10 months ago)

Come on oly.. Put this sensor plus the is and wifi tethering on an $600 e-xxx and 43 is truly alive again! Add weather sealing for $999

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

SLR 4/3" has no chance, just like Pen or OM cameras.
it's good Olympus abandoned them. let them rest in peace.

0 upvotes
Martin Datzinger
By Martin Datzinger (10 months ago)

Yeah, let's see how Oly screws its customer base in another 10 years

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

may not be a bad thing if they move to Sony E next year.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (10 months ago)

m43 has no chance on this price level either.

a few oly fanboys will buy it.... that´s it.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
kreislauf
By kreislauf (10 months ago)

sure about that? personally, i think, mFT is a very nice compromise between small and "large size" sensors (whatever that means).

it has a chance in this "price level" because
1. mFT is significantly smaller than APS or FF
2. mFT is cheaper than APS or FF

hate to state it, but because there are point and shoot cameras like the Olympus E-PL3 Kit for 250 euros out there, more people can afford the mFT system, compared to EF or F. we will see how the situation will be in 10 years. i think: amazing!

1 upvote
nathondetroit
By nathondetroit (10 months ago)

Hmm… perhaps some Canikon adapters to utilize our legacy glass too?

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

I don't know what they did, probably upped NR Canon and Fuji style, but ISO 25,600 looks quite usable.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

"The E-M1 devotes every 16th pixel to autofocus duties, arranged in offset stripes of left and right-looking pixels. The focusing pixels sit behind clear sections of the color filter array to increase their capability in low light and do not contribute to the final image. "

That might be a preview of Sony technology soon to be seen in new NEX and Alpha cameras.
Not contributing the extra light to the image is just stupid, and using just 1/16 does not seem enough.

1 upvote
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (10 months ago)

While in practice image quality even in RAW still seems fine, approximately as good as that of the E-M5, and PDAF, while possibly disappointing, may still be usable, I agree, and it doesn't forebode well for the coming generation of Sony cameras either, regarding their compatibility with A-Mount lenses. Canon's technology with every pixel being able to both provide image data and work as a PDAF element does seem more sophisticated indeed. On the other hand, in practice, neither image quality nor live view AF performance of the EOS 70D are something to write home about.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

I think the better scheme (while we are waiting for useable multi-layer sensors) is having RGBW filter with each W (clear) pixel serving as PDAF pixel (directional) and contributing to the whole picture. The total efficiency will be about the same as the traditional RGBG Bayer sensor while PDAF system would receive 4 times the light of the E-M1 system.
As it is now, PDAF in E-M1 works like it is behind 4-stop ND filter and blur filter reducing sharpness by the factor of 4. I will be VERY surprised if it works in gym lighting even with f/2.8 lenses.

0 upvotes
Sasha B
By Sasha B (10 months ago)

@peevee1 contrast based AF is still there and it receives the rest of light. PDAF needed to get the lens movement direction right in the first place.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

Only PDAF is used for 4/3 lenses, and PDAF is mainly used for C-AF (including in video) where hunting is unproductive.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 2142
56789