OM1 Image quality - is it really a step up?

Member said:

...

Where m43rds could really shine is making a pro or semi pro competitive body with a similar or equal sensor that is a smaller body. That would be something that the competition wouldn’t be able to touch, and is precisely the unique selling proposition of m43rds.

But the bodies have grown bigger, the smallest bodies are no longer made for years now, and the middle and entry level always got “hand me down” outdated tech. Some confuse this with saying “we want a G9ii packed in a GM5” which is of course an absurd expectation. But there’s definitively technology and ability to pack better tech in those smaller bodies than the hand me down tech they usually have gotten.

And AF is still behind the competitors.

- Ricardo

Click to expand...

... and these are the problems of M43 in a nutshell.
The last selling points of M43 are the lenses and to some extend IBIS (but on paper IBIS data look better and better in the rivals Canon and Sony).

Peter

Hmm1000 said:

Hmm1000 said:

Hmm1000 said:

No side by sides, but here is a link to an independent review of the benefits of the new OM-1 sensor compared to the previous Olympus sensors.

The author of this review is primarily an astrophotographer but also an engineer with some advanced testing equipment available to him.

Click to expand...

This guy? Also an engineer? NO man, this guy made some really weird claims about it. He’s off. Anyway.

Click to expand...

He seems far more convincing than you allow.

These are some of his claims:

OM1 vs EM1x:

QE 92% vs 76%

HFD. 5.7 vs 4.9

Sharpness value 48.875 vs 41.811 (better rgb filters from Sony?)

Unity Gain iso 1000 vs 2000

Read Noise at Highest Iso 0.9e vs 1.45e

Dynamic Range in dB 27 vs 24

Full Well Capacity 40,000 vs 34,000

I don't understand these. What they add up to, he says, is a one stop advantage for OM1 for astrophotography -- and he's a real fan of the new Sony sensor. He illustrates the advantage convincingly with photographs; and quantifies this -- for the same shot the OM1 picked up 965 stars to the EM1x's 887.

He realises this puts him at odds to DPR. He also realises that he has different results to PhotonstoPhotos -- but has run the test for those results repeatedly. (They're not far off but they are distinct -- and better.)

These figures come after a year of usage and testing. They persuaded him to buy a second OM1.

He also notes, as a negative for him, that the OM1 batteries won't charge below 0C, where 1x and others would.

Click to expand...

Those figures look very odd. Publish this in the PST forum where you will get an authoritative response. If they were true, you would see a huge difference, which isn’t there in the images I’ve studied from an OM1 and EM1X of the same scene. There is a difference, it’s just not so very large.

Those QE figures should be the first alarm bell.

Andrew

I think now, every sensor is at its peak. Has been for a while. I've just sold off my 2 full frame cameras. Z6 and sony A7r4. The sony is just plain overkill for normal everyday photography. Neither full frame give ME any advantage over 43rds. The lenses are just plain too BIG. Image quality surpassed my needs/expectations years ago. 90% of the stuff in a modern camera i'll never use.

I have just bought an oly OM1. The picture quality is superb. its no better than the MK3. BUT, its worth the money just for the viewfinder / monitor.

Hmm1000 said:

Hmm1000 said:

What most miracle believers miss is that in the end this m43rds sensor is made by Sony, [...] Or somehow OM systems with much less resources than Sony and knowledge of sensor tech somehow make better use than Sony of their own sensors?

Click to expand...

Well, Nikon have less resources than Sony, and have historically made better use than Sony of their own sensors (according to others, like byThom)

Click to expand...

So true and its what annoyed me and drove me away from Sony. My A77 was noisy at iso800, yet the same sensor in the Nikon was clean at iso1600 !

eques said:

RealRaist3d said:

...

Where m43rds could really shine is making a pro or semi pro competitive body with a similar or equal sensor that is a smaller body. That would be something that the competition wouldn’t be able to touch, and is precisely the unique selling proposition of m43rds.

But the bodies have grown bigger, the smallest bodies are no longer made for years now, and the middle and entry level always got “hand me down” outdated tech. Some confuse this with saying “we want a G9ii packed in a GM5” which is of course an absurd expectation. But there’s definitively technology and ability to pack better tech in those smaller bodies than the hand me down tech they usually have gotten.

And AF is still behind the competitors.

- Ricardo

Click to expand...

... and these are the problems of M43 in a nutshell.
The last selling points of M43 are the lenses and to some extend IBIS (but on paper IBIS data look better and better in the rivals Canon and Sony).

Peter

Click to expand...

I Totally disagree.

The fabulous selling points are hand held stacking, in camera stacking, built in ND, hand held Hi-Res (not just for high resolution either, As I use it for slow motion effects.

Then there's the hand held 800mm (ff equivalent) option which requires no tripod or monopod.

That's just a few off the top of my head. Not to mention 120/fps full size RAWs.

At the end of the day it depends on what people want a camera for. I like getting out and about in the wilds with mine.

j tokarz said:

I think now, every sensor is at its peak. Has been for a while. I've just sold off my 2 full frame cameras. Z6 and sony A7r4. The sony is just plain overkill for normal everyday photography. Neither full frame give ME any advantage over 43rds. The lenses are just plain too BIG. Image quality surpassed my needs/expectations years ago. 90% of the stuff in a modern camera i'll never use.

Click to expand...

I've seen a few posts saying that sensors have peaked and for a while thought that was probably true. My opinion is now changing. I found this video very interesting.


His reasoning is that it is probably more or less true for QE but (a) recent sensors coming to the market have considerable improvements in some areas even though they haven't made it into new cameras yet; (b) inspections of patents out there suggest considerable remaining future potential and (c) the demands from the automotive industry are driving investment and innovation in sensors.

He suggests that a lot of the developments are likely to help at high ISOs and that is consistent with what he and a few others (Andy Rouse among them) have observed about the OM-1; i.e. it can give better outcomes at high ISOs (6400 and 12800) with modern PP than its predecessors, even with RAWs.

So, for practical purposes, sensors may have more-or-less peaked at normal ISOs; any future improvements seem most likely to help with BIF, astro and indoors when driven to high ISOs.

These images are based on RAWs from the DPR studio test scene. I checked the EXIF data and they all have the same exposure - f5.6 and 1/5000. The ISO in each case was 12,800.

I used Capture One Pro v23 with the only adjustment being to crop out part of the scene.


EM1.3




OM1

My eyes see a small advantage for the OM1 here, but nothing dramatic.

To calibrate this against a real "2 stops" advantage, here is the same crop from the A7Riv.




A7Riv

The 5D mk iv has an older and less capable sensor than the Sony, so this gives some indication of small changes in sensor technology.





Finally the two Olympus files put through PhotoLab 7 with whatever defaults DxO have for each body, plus DeepPrime XD.




EM1.3




OM1

Again, the impact of AI NR maybe looks like 2 stops and the OM1 result looks modestly better to me.

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

ahaslett said:

These images are based on RAWs from the DPR studio test scene. I checked the EXIF data and they all have the same exposure - f5.6 and 1/5000. The ISO in each case was 12,800.

I used Capture One Pro v23 with the only adjustment being to crop out part of the scene.

My eyes see a small advantage for the OM1 here, but nothing dramatic.

To calibrate this against a real "2 stops" advantage, here is the same crop from the A7Riv.

he 5D mk iv has an older and less capable sensor than the Sony, so this gives some indication of small changes in sensor technology.

Finally the two Olympus files put through PhotoLab 7 with whatever defaults DxO have for each body, plus DeepPrime XD.

Again, the impact of AI NR maybe looks like 2 stops and the OM1 result looks modestly better to me.

Andrew

Click to expand...

Attached is the comparison of the OM1 and EM1.3 at 25600 using WS AI for the DPR images. Exposure was raised 1.00 for both in LR6.14. While the RAW files look similar, the OM1 files processed by WS AI and by DXO PL7 DPXD look better than the EM1.3 images. The OM1 files appear to be easier to control noise/detail when PP, than the EM1.3 files, at least for the examples I have seen.







--
drj3

drj3 said:

ahaslett said:

These images are based on RAWs from the DPR studio test scene. I checked the EXIF data and they all have the same exposure - f5.6 and 1/5000. The ISO in each case was 12,800.

I used Capture One Pro v23 with the only adjustment being to crop out part of the scene.

My eyes see a small advantage for the OM1 here, but nothing dramatic.

To calibrate this against a real "2 stops" advantage, here is the same crop from the A7Riv.

he 5D mk iv has an older and less capable sensor than the Sony, so this gives some indication of small changes in sensor technology.

Finally the two Olympus files put through PhotoLab 7 with whatever defaults DxO have for each body, plus DeepPrime XD.

Again, the impact of AI NR maybe looks like 2 stops and the OM1 result looks modestly better to me.

Andrew

Click to expand...

Attached is the comparison of the OM1 and EM1.3 at 25600 using WS AI for the DPR images. Exposure was raised 1.00 for both in LR6.14. While the RAW files look similar, the OM1 files processed by WS AI and by DXO PL7 DPXD look better than the EM1.3 images. The OM1 files appear to be easier to control noise/detail when PP, than the EM1.3 files, at least for the examples I have seen.

Click to expand...

If we were only seeing differences in the fine detail areas that would be one thing, but that this example shows a huge difference even in the uniform background color areas is a pretty clear indicator that WS AI is doing something very different between the OM1 and E-M1iii files. This very much looks like different strengths of NR are being applied, the E-M1iii you can still mostly see the original character of the luminance noise while in the OM1 the luminance noise is heavily smeared out.

drj3 said:

ahaslett said:

These images are based on RAWs from the DPR studio test scene. I checked the EXIF data and they all have the same exposure - f5.6 and 1/5000. The ISO in each case was 12,800.

I used Capture One Pro v23 with the only adjustment being to crop out part of the scene.

My eyes see a small advantage for the OM1 here, but nothing dramatic.

To calibrate this against a real "2 stops" advantage, here is the same crop from the A7Riv.

he 5D mk iv has an older and less capable sensor than the Sony, so this gives some indication of small changes in sensor technology.

Finally the two Olympus files put through PhotoLab 7 with whatever defaults DxO have for each body, plus DeepPrime XD.

Again, the impact of AI NR maybe looks like 2 stops and the OM1 result looks modestly better to me.

Andrew

Click to expand...

Attached is the comparison of the OM1 and EM1.3 at 25600 using WS AI for the DPR images. Exposure was raised 1.00 for both in LR6.14. While the RAW files look similar, the OM1 files processed by WS AI and by DXO PL7 DPXD look better than the EM1.3 images. The OM1 files appear to be easier to control noise/detail when PP, than the EM1.3 files, at least for the examples I have seen.

Click to expand...

I’m not familiar with Lightroom and unsure why you added an extra software step instead of brightening both images in Workshop.

As it happens, the EM13 image looks better to me, with less odd colour shifts. I’m not sure that comparing at 25,600 is photographically meaningful. It’s not an exposure level I’ve managed to get usable images at with MFT.

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

No criticism of DPR’s test scene, but it is flooded with light compared with needs of astrophotography. I’m guessing, for example, the difference between capturing 900 and 800 stars will be undetectable to dpr’s tests. (Another eg at 25600 on dpr scene shutter is 1\5000 whereas narrowband will be 1000 iso as best for long exposures.)

Hmm1000 said:

No criticism of DPR’s test scene, but it is flooded with light compared with needs of astrophotography. I’m guessing, for example, the difference between capturing 900 and 800 stars will be undetectable to dpr’s tests. (Another eg at 25600 on dpr scene shutter is 1\5000 whereas narrowband will be 1000 iso as best for long exposures.)

Click to expand...

Astro is quite different. Longer exposures, low light, very high DR... Flooded with light sort of depends on how long the exposure is and the sensor dark current and fixed pattern noise. But what do I know - I don't shoot astro.

I like posts where people explain what they have done in enough detail that you could do a duplicate experiment and where they show image results with intact EXIF or post a link to the base RAWs. I'm almost allergic to videos after wading through so much nonsense a few times. That doesn't mean all videos are bad, just most of them.

My interest is mostly landscape, so deep shadows at base ISO.

Andrew

> Why anyone would accept the paid opinion of a brand promotor , I will never understand , the actual raw files show no such difference .

Well I think the reason the brand ambassadors have a little more cred than the "objective" reviewers is

- everybody's got a prejudice and with the "objective" reviewers it's probably NOT favoring Olympus; and

- we assume (rightly or wrongly) that the brand ambassadors know how to squeeze the maximum advantage from the camera.

I've known a couple of brand ambassadors who switched brands, which I took as evidence of their integrity.

That said you're certainly right that controlled tests like we trust DPReview's folks to do are almost certainly the most reliable.

In the end, very little of this stuff matters to me. In my view "IQ" isn't just a matter of noise or color fidelity. I shoot raw. I find Olympus's color fidelity to be very good overall (like nearly all the other cameras I use from Sony and Fujifilm). As for noise, I've never card about it as much as some people. I bought the OM-1 for its subject (especially bird and animal) autofocus, for the pre-focus capture feature, and for its overall usability. I had the Fujifilm X-H2s here for a bit and returned. I loved the X-H2s. In terms of focusing, pre-focusing capture and other things, it's as good as the OM-1. (Sony full-frame cameras might be even better.) But the controls on the OM-1 suit me better. The two cameras weigh about the same with a 100-400 lens on them, but the OM-1 has better "reach" because of the relative crop factors. And the Fujifilm doesn't seem to have anything to correspond to the Olympus 75-300 II zoom, which is very lightweight and pretty good.

They're just tools. I am tempted by everything and if I were a millionaire I'd probably own everything, just for the heck of it. But owning everything would surely be counterproductive, at least for me. I hate switching from Olympus to my Sony cameras. Maybe when I was younger I could do it. Nowadays I don't want to have *remember* where I go to change key settings.

Noise levels are basically the same. But the OM-1 maintains color fidelity at higher ISO levels better than the E-M1 III.

AF is much better; more accurate, and easier to use for moving subjects. RAW processing is much better. You can use higher ISO so you can shoot a faster shutter speed. Compared with the EM1.1 it has higher resolution. For general photography in good light not much difference from the EM1.2 but better than the EM1.1 if you have to crop much.

Hmm1000 said:

No criticism of DPR’s test scene, but it is flooded with light compared with needs of astrophotography.

Click to expand...

So are most things

Hmm1000 said:

I’m guessing, for example, the difference between capturing 900 and 800 stars will be undetectable to dpr’s tests. (Another eg at 25600 on dpr scene shutter is 1\5000 whereas narrowband will be 1000 iso as best for long exposures.)

Click to expand...

They do have a low light option { not starlight dark } which reflects more common uses of high ISO , such as being forced to use higher ISO in poor light to get a useable shutter speed or DOF for the subject . Either , way the differences in image quality are for me insignificant and not a major consideration comparing models.

EZGritz said:

AF is much better; more accurate, and easier to use for moving subjects. RAW processing is much better. You can use higher ISO so you can shoot a faster shutter speed. Compared with the EM1.1 it has higher resolution. For general photography in good light not much difference from the EM1.2 but better than the EM1.1 if you have to crop much.

Click to expand...

The OP is comparing the E-M1.3 to the OM-1. Yes, I went from an E-M1.1 direct to an OM-1 and it was a quantum leap.

James Stirling said:

drj3 said:

James Stirling said:

drj3 said:

James Stirling said:

Mait said:

unhappymeal said:

gurudave said:

Hi Guys

Ignoring the AF advancements and added bells and whistles - how much better is the IQ on the OM1 than the EM1 mk111 - in both normal lighting and low light?

Anyone got any side by side comparisons ??

Thanks in advance guys

Click to expand...

It's exactly the same. Ify you want a side-by-side comparison, DPReview has a tool for you to use. The only way to get more IQ out of the system is through the G9 II (and even then it's not 100% of the time).

At this point, if you shoot m4/3, you just need to accept that unless there is a massive leap forward in sensor tech, our IQ is at its peak (outside of computational tricks).

Click to expand...

I watched this video few days ago, this guy points out that the grain is finer, there is less banding and it holds color better, maybe he is lying but that was his conclusion with samples:

Click to expand...

With all ambassadors of all brands a mighty pinch of salt is needed. There are controlled raw files available from DPrieview , same subject same lenses , same lighting same exposure the difference is marginal at best and probably down to processing more than anything. Stacked sensors are more about speed than any major advances in image quality.

Why anyone would accept the paid opinion of a brand promoter , I will never understand , the actual raw files show no such difference . I have the OM-1 so not nitpicking , buy the OM-1 for it's superb feature set AF etc but don't expect any great shake re image quality. These days the latesT AI NR software will give better results than any sensor generation jump

Click to expand...

Download the RAW ISO 25600 image for the OM1 and the E-M1.3, run DXO PL7 DPXD on both.

Attached is a crop of the two. Compare the left side of the females face and compare the right side of the males face. While the RAW files look very similar, DXO appears to be able to be able to provide a better image from the OM1.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I tried out the 25600 ISO file using various NR options DXO shows the difference you pointed out clearly in the other 2 not an issue. So a processing difference seems most likely. Either way it is still of negligible difference for me . The OM-1 is a major feature packed beast but I stand by my image quality being at best marginal

No NR



Topaz Photo AI 2.3



DXO PURERAW 3.8



Adobe ACR { 16.1 } Denoise









--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

Bobapingu said:

EZGritz said:

AF is much better; more accurate, and easier to use for moving subjects. RAW processing is much better. You can use higher ISO so you can shoot a faster shutter speed. Compared with the EM1.1 it has higher resolution. For general photography in good light not much difference from the EM1.2 but better than the EM1.1 if you have to crop much.

Click to expand...

The OP is comparing the E-M1.3 to the OM-1. Yes, I went from an E-M1.1 direct to an OM-1 and it was a quantum leap.

Click to expand...

I think to see any noticeable difference as you did a multi generation jump is needed. The original E-M1 used the older Panasonic sensor so the advance is down to using Sony sensors moving forward from it. The OM-1 moves the ball forward in just about every area

Though looking at the DPreview raw samples at 25600 ISO { normal light setting } the OM-1 looks to be not quite a stop ahead

OM-1 25600 ISO , E-M1 25600 ISO and finally E-M I 12800 ISO



It is not just m43 I think realistically the advances have been similar in all formats. With the AI NR now other than the most extreme use cases it is not much of a problem



--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post