Don't confuse Oly's prospects with those of the EM1X

[vicsin]

I don't think that the EM1X is going to be a successful pro sports camera at all. Professional sports are mostly played under lower light. The NFL often plays at night, indoors or in the late afternoon into the evening, not to mention cloudy, rainy and snowy days. The NBA is always played in doors and baseball usually in the late PMs into the evening, again including cloudy days. Etc for other pro sports.

Magazines and newspapers rarely want narrow focal plane types of shots. In other words they want as much in focus as possible. They're not like fathers who usually want to isolate their kid during a play. This means narrower apertures, at faster shutter speeds to freeze action, in low light. A combination not well suited at all for mft and a big disadvantage compared to FF. What pro sports photog is going to want to go to war on the sidelines and compete with other photogs shooting with that disadvantage esp when their competitors have the big Nikon and Canons on their side with all their lower light iq & focus advantages. And being able to shoot 20-60 shots a second is no advantage at all, just a gimmick really. Not that much happens in a second and it's a real pain dealing with all those photos, not to mention filling your buffer, cards and draining your battery life. Really 5-10 shots is more than sufficient for a second. I'm sure they'll sell some but I doubt too many to pro sports guys.

Oly as a company, on the other hand makes terrific optical gear and their big advantage is size, weight and reach. If they would just put their resources into improving those strengths and continue to innovate and improve those things there will always be people like us who want and need those advantages to buy their products. And also they have a great opportunity now to pull way ahead in mft because more than likely Panny will be distracted by FF for quite some time.

They certainly have the right to make anything they want but I hope not at the expense of sacrificing innovation for the majority of their customer base. Those of us who bot mft for its size, weight and reach benefits. If they can do it all more power to them. I just don't think this new camera can compete on the sidelines with the larger more established players and I hope their desire to try to make it happen doesn't lesson they're commitment to the rest & majority of us. All this is just my opinion obviously, just curious if anyone agrees or not.

 

[bobn2]

I don't think that the EM1X is going to be a successful pro sports camera at all. Professional sports are mostly played under lower light. The NFL often plays at night, indoors or in the late afternoon into the evening, not to mention cloudy, rainy and snowy days. The NBA is always played in doors and baseball usually in the late PMs into the evening, again including cloudy days. Etc for other pro sports.

Magazines and newspapers rarely want narrow focal plane types of shots. In other words they want as much in focus as possible. They're not like fathers who usually want to isolate their kid during a play. This means narrower apertures, at faster shutter speeds to freeze action, in low light. A combination not well suited at all for mft and a big disadvantage compared to FF. What pro sports photog is going to want to go to war on the sidelines and compete with other photogs shooting with that disadvantage esp when their competitors have the big Nikon and Canons on their side with all their lower light iq & focus advantages. And being able to shoot 20-60 shots a second is no advantage at all, just a gimmick really. Not that much happens in a second and it's a real pain dealing with all those photos, not to mention filling your buffer, cards and draining your battery life. Really 5-10 shots is more than sufficient for a second. I'm sure they'll sell some but I doubt too many to pro sports guys.

Oly as a company, on the other hand makes terrific optical gear and their big advantage is size, weight and reach. If they would just put their resources into improving those strengths and continue to innovate and improve those things there will always be people like us who want and need those advantages to buy their products. And also they have a great opportunity now to pull way ahead in mft because more than likely Panny will be distracted by FF for quite some time.

They certainly have the right to make anything they want but I hope not at the expense of sacrificing innovation for the majority of their customer base. Those of us who bot mft for its size, weight and reach benefits. If they can do it all more power to them. I just don't think this new camera can compete on the sidelines with the larger more established players and I hope their desire to try to make it happen doesn't lesson they're commitment to the rest & majority of us. All this is just my opinion obviously, just curious if anyone agrees or not.

I think that the EMIX is a very carefully thought through camera, designed of necessity and I think it will do exactly the job that Olympus wanted it to, which is not to compete against the sports/action big guns. It is a specific niche camera for a small subset of current mFT users, who will buy it and enjoy it, and produce a very healthy boost to Olympus Imaging division's bottom line and possibly save it from closure.

 

[CharlesB58]

I take it you are an experienced professional sports photographer?

No?

Then perhaps you should not comment on what pro sports photographers actually want in a camera, at least not in such a presumption of authority on the matter. See, as odd as this may sound, the folks at Olympus actually asked pros what they would like to see in an action-oriented flagship camera. That means they spoke to the very people you assume you know about.

I'm a working photographer myself (though I don't shoot sports personally). I know a lot of working photographers. Whenever I read people who think they know what pros want I don't know whether to guffaw or gag.

Example: the light levels at NFL and NBA events are sufficient to shoot at action stopping speeds with ISOs as low as ISO 200. Also, those pros, and the outlets they shoot for, are not nearly as concerned about noise levels as the pixel-peeping "experts" on these forums. Photo editors want a "decisive moment" photo that captures the action while being in focus and reasonably free from motion blur. A noisy peak of action shot of a touchdown catch or buzzer beating 3 pointer is more important than a low noise photo that misses the best moment.

Then there are the thousands of events every year that are shot outdoors, often under great lighting. (far more events qualify for this than the low light levels mentioned).

Sure, it's great to have both low noise and capturing the moment, but that isn't the real reason why Canon and Nikon have dominated among sports pros. A big part of it has been AF performance and lens selection. It's also the pro support those brands provide. That is where Olympus will struggle to compete, in providing pros with the level of support (such as fast turnaround repairs, and on sight loaners gear at events) when it comes to offering an action oriented flagship.

--
Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed. Quote by Garry Winogrand
http://ikkensimages.com

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

I take it you are an experienced professional sports photographer?

No?

Then perhaps you should not comment on what pro sports photographers actually want in a camera, at least not in such a presumption of authority on the matter. See, as odd as this may sound, the folks at Olympus actually asked pros what they would like to see in an action-oriented flagship camera. That means they spoke to the very people you assume you know about.

I'm a working photographer myself (though I don't shoot sports personally). I know a lot of working photographers. Whenever I read people who think they know what pros want I don't know whether to guffaw or gag.

Example: the light levels at NFL and NBA events are sufficient to shoot at action stopping speeds with ISOs as low as ISO 200. Also, those pros, and the outlets they shoot for, are not nearly as concerned about noise levels as the pixel-peeping "experts" on these forums. Photo editors want a "decisive moment" photo that captures the action while being in focus and reasonably free from motion blur. A noisy peak of action shot of a touchdown catch or buzzer beating 3 pointer is more important than a low noise photo that misses the best moment.

Then there are the thousands of events every year that are shot outdoors, often under great lighting. (far more events qualify for this than the low light levels mentioned).

Sure, it's great to have both low noise and capturing the moment, but that isn't the real reason why Canon and Nikon have dominated among sports pros. A big part of it has been AF performance and lens selection. It's also the pro support those brands provide. That is where Olympus will struggle to compete, in providing pros with the level of support (such as fast turnaround repairs, and on sight loaners gear at events) when it comes to offering an action oriented flagship.

Train AI AF apparently.....

 

[onlyfreeman]

I don't think that the EM1X is going to be a successful pro sports camera at all.

In other words they want as much in focus as possible. This means narrower apertures, at faster shutter speeds to freeze action, in low light. A combination not well suited at all for mft and a big disadvantage compared to FF.

I thought that if you want greater DoF and high shutter speeds for action in low light situations, the exact opposite thing happens and the sensor size mostly becomes irrelevant?

So no format would have an advantage by much?

If greater DoF is needed for professional sports, then I think that means this camera will be very useful and successful?

 

[CharlesB58]

I take it you are an experienced professional sports photographer?

No?

Then perhaps you should not comment on what pro sports photographers actually want in a camera, at least not in such a presumption of authority on the matter. See, as odd as this may sound, the folks at Olympus actually asked pros what they would like to see in an action-oriented flagship camera. That means they spoke to the very people you assume you know about.

I'm a working photographer myself (though I don't shoot sports personally). I know a lot of working photographers. Whenever I read people who think they know what pros want I don't know whether to guffaw or gag.

Example: the light levels at NFL and NBA events are sufficient to shoot at action stopping speeds with ISOs as low as ISO 200. Also, those pros, and the outlets they shoot for, are not nearly as concerned about noise levels as the pixel-peeping "experts" on these forums. Photo editors want a "decisive moment" photo that captures the action while being in focus and reasonably free from motion blur. A noisy peak of action shot of a touchdown catch or buzzer beating 3 pointer is more important than a low noise photo that misses the best moment.

Then there are the thousands of events every year that are shot outdoors, often under great lighting. (far more events qualify for this than the low light levels mentioned).

Sure, it's great to have both low noise and capturing the moment, but that isn't the real reason why Canon and Nikon have dominated among sports pros. A big part of it has been AF performance and lens selection. It's also the pro support those brands provide. That is where Olympus will struggle to compete, in providing pros with the level of support (such as fast turnaround repairs, and on sight loaners gear at events) when it comes to offering an action oriented flagship.

Train AI AF apparently.....

As someone posted in another thread, photographing trains is a very popular aspect of photography. Also, developing AI by testing it with fast moving bullet trains that follow a predictable path fits with how such AI must be developed and tested. Since this was already an aspect of developing the AI, it makes sense to leave it in the final software.

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

I take it you are an experienced professional sports photographer?

No?

Then perhaps you should not comment on what pro sports photographers actually want in a camera, at least not in such a presumption of authority on the matter. See, as odd as this may sound, the folks at Olympus actually asked pros what they would like to see in an action-oriented flagship camera. That means they spoke to the very people you assume you know about.

I'm a working photographer myself (though I don't shoot sports personally). I know a lot of working photographers. Whenever I read people who think they know what pros want I don't know whether to guffaw or gag.

Example: the light levels at NFL and NBA events are sufficient to shoot at action stopping speeds with ISOs as low as ISO 200. Also, those pros, and the outlets they shoot for, are not nearly as concerned about noise levels as the pixel-peeping "experts" on these forums. Photo editors want a "decisive moment" photo that captures the action while being in focus and reasonably free from motion blur. A noisy peak of action shot of a touchdown catch or buzzer beating 3 pointer is more important than a low noise photo that misses the best moment.

Then there are the thousands of events every year that are shot outdoors, often under great lighting. (far more events qualify for this than the low light levels mentioned).

Sure, it's great to have both low noise and capturing the moment, but that isn't the real reason why Canon and Nikon have dominated among sports pros. A big part of it has been AF performance and lens selection. It's also the pro support those brands provide. That is where Olympus will struggle to compete, in providing pros with the level of support (such as fast turnaround repairs, and on sight loaners gear at events) when it comes to offering an action oriented flagship.

Train AI AF apparently.....

As someone posted in another thread, photographing trains is a very popular aspect of photography. Also, developing AI by testing it with fast moving bullet trains that follow a predictable path fits with how such AI must be developed and tested. Since this was already an aspect of developing the AI, it makes sense to leave it in the final software.

well the current crop of camera seem to cope without this AI train stuff rather well, there was a recent challenge for it also

https://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Challenge.aspx?ID=13683

 

[Okapi001]

Magazines and newspapers rarely want narrow focal plane types of shots. In other words they want as much in focus as possible. They're not like fathers who usually want to isolate their kid during a play. This means narrower apertures, at faster shutter speeds to freeze action, in low light. A combination not well suited at all for mft and a big disadvantage compared to FF.

I'm afraid you are one of those who do not understand equivalency correctly. It doesn't only mean full-frame has a 2-stops advantage. It also means than whenever more than minimal DoF is required, larger sensors have 0-stop advantage.

 

[vicsin]

I can't disagree with any of that. It's just that I often see it billed as a pro sports camera and I don't really think it will be very successful at breaking into that market. For what it is it's great, I just don't expect to see a lot of them being used by pro sports photo journalists along any sidelines, thus for me at least the erroneous billing.

 

[Olyinaz]

I don't think that the EM1X is going to be a successful pro sports camera at all.

Magazines and newspapers rarely want narrow focal plane types of shots. In other words they want as much in focus as possible. They're not like fathers who usually want to isolate their kid during a play. This means narrower apertures, at faster shutter speeds to freeze action, in low light. A combination not well suited at all for mft and a big disadvantage compared to FF.

The µ4/3ds camera bearer is going to be shooting with half the focal length vs. a FF camera...which gives MORE depth of field. In fact, the EM1X might be able to shoot a stop or more wider, which also means a stop or more lower ISO (mitigating the FF camera's ISO advantage)...all for the same DOF and shutter speed. So frankly what you are saying here makes no sense to me at all.

But I do agree that Olympus is not anchored to this small volume camera. They need to put out some volume cameras...like the EM5 MkIII which is sadly overdue.

Oly

 

[Steen Bay]

I don't think that the EM1X is going to be a successful pro sports camera at all.

In other words they want as much in focus as possible. This means narrower apertures, at faster shutter speeds to freeze action, in low light. A combination not well suited at all for mft and a big disadvantage compared to FF.

I thought that if you want greater DoF and high shutter speeds for action in low light situations, the exact opposite thing happens and the sensor size mostly becomes irrelevant?

So no format would have an advantage by much?

If greater DoF is needed for professional sports, then I think that means this camera will be very useful and successful?

Correct, in such a scenario the FF shooters would have to use 2 stops higher ISO than mFT, meaning that the IQ would be pretty much the same.

 

[Tommi K1]

I don't think that the EM1X is going to be a successful pro sports camera at all. Professional sports are mostly played under lower light.

And so it was all the time done on film era with far worse IQ and much, a much lower ISO film....

Seriously, nothing has really changed for decades in sports photography than got a little better IQ.

 

[erichK]

...at least as you define them. And it would be suicidal for Olympus to try to - especially internationally - build up the support infrastructures Canikon have in place. Apparently they are hoping that it will sell well on local markets for the upcoming Tokyo Olympics,

The EM1x, as Olympus too, keeps trying to explain, is, like the D5 and 1Dmark whatever, a muti-purpose 'pro" camera; that is, a picture-taking-apparatus that "will-get-the shot in almost any situation because it has the sealing, durability, AF/CAF, etc, etc. This is what all the demonstrations/user reports and the extensive international touring campaign are all about.

The pro-sports that you refer to, are indeed its weakest area, and your are likely right that there'll be few EM1x's there (OTOH, it should do well in Tennis, one area Oly has a toehold in). BUT the EM1x also has areas - extreme IBIS, handheld HR - in which the 1D and D5 can't compete at all.

So Olympus is staking a lot on gouging out some market-share, especially as photographers are growing older and a lighter system becomes more attractive, and cell phones and GoPros make the standard behemoth "pro" systems look more and more ridiculous.

 

[Felice62]

I don't think that the EM1X is going to be a successful pro sports camera at all. Professional sports are mostly played under lower light. The NFL often plays at night, indoors or in the late afternoon into the evening, not to mention cloudy, rainy and snowy days. The NBA is always played in doors and baseball usually in the late PMs into the evening, again including cloudy days. Etc for other pro sports.

Magazines and newspapers rarely want narrow focal plane types of shots. In other words they want as much in focus as possible. They're not like fathers who usually want to isolate their kid during a play. This means narrower apertures, at faster shutter speeds to freeze action, in low light. A combination not well suited at all for mft and a big disadvantage compared to FF. What pro sports photog is going to want to go to war on the sidelines and compete with other photogs shooting with that disadvantage esp when their competitors have the big Nikon and Canons on their side with all their lower light iq & focus advantages. And being able to shoot 20-60 shots a second is no advantage at all, just a gimmick really. Not that much happens in a second and it's a real pain dealing with all those photos, not to mention filling your buffer, cards and draining your battery life. Really 5-10 shots is more than sufficient for a second. I'm sure they'll sell some but I doubt too many to pro sports guys.

Oly as a company, on the other hand makes terrific optical gear and their big advantage is size, weight and reach. If they would just put their resources into improving those strengths and continue to innovate and improve those things there will always be people like us who want and need those advantages to buy their products. And also they have a great opportunity now to pull way ahead in mft because more than likely Panny will be distracted by FF for quite some time.

They certainly have the right to make anything they want but I hope not at the expense of sacrificing innovation for the majority of their customer base. Those of us who bot mft for its size, weight and reach benefits. If they can do it all more power to them. I just don't think this new camera can compete on the sidelines with the larger more established players and I hope their desire to try to make it happen doesn't lesson they're commitment to the rest & majority of us. All this is just my opinion obviously, just curious if anyone agrees or not.

EM1X is definitely designed for a niche market and you wonh't find it on sale at large store, that's sure.

Whether or not it was well though of, that's a different story. Olympus demonstrated their tremendous expertise in engineering performing optical devices.

But I think this is not enough. THey must come out with cameras that sell like candies as volume sales and profit margins attract investors more that a beautiful camera that won't score sales records

But who am I to criticize olympus for their great work, anyhow?

 

[Jeff]

I take it you are an experienced professional sports photographer?

No?

Then perhaps you should not comment on what pro sports photographers actually want in a camera, at least not in such a presumption of authority on the matter. See, as odd as this may sound, the folks at Olympus actually asked pros what they would like to see in an action-oriented flagship camera. That means they spoke to the very people you assume you know about.

I'm a working photographer myself (though I don't shoot sports personally). I know a lot of working photographers. Whenever I read people who think they know what pros want I don't know whether to guffaw or gag.

Example: the light levels at NFL and NBA events are sufficient to shoot at action stopping speeds with ISOs as low as ISO 200. Also, those pros, and the outlets they shoot for, are not nearly as concerned about noise levels as the pixel-peeping "experts" on these forums. Photo editors want a "decisive moment" photo that captures the action while being in focus and reasonably free from motion blur. A noisy peak of action shot of a touchdown catch or buzzer beating 3 pointer is more important than a low noise photo that misses the best moment.

Then there are the thousands of events every year that are shot outdoors, often under great lighting. (far more events qualify for this than the low light levels mentioned).

Sure, it's great to have both low noise and capturing the moment, but that isn't the real reason why Canon and Nikon have dominated among sports pros. A big part of it has been AF performance and lens selection. It's also the pro support those brands provide. That is where Olympus will struggle to compete, in providing pros with the level of support (such as fast turnaround repairs, and on sight loaners gear at events) when it comes to offering an action oriented flagship.

I'm no pro, and certainly no sports pro, but your last paragraph certainly has a ring of truth.

Back in the day when the Chicago Calumet store on Goose Island held Sat morning workshops, I had a few opportunities to sit on sessions where Canon and Nikon reps would hold Q&A's with the pros. It was genuinely eye-opening. Questions like "why should my shutter need overhaul after just 800,000 releases?" And "why does it take so long for the couriers to get to me with loaner lenses?" It's pretty clear that for these folks its all about the professional service they can get. Olympus simply doesn't play in that league, and shouldn't even try if they can't compete with the necessary services.

But the jounalism industry is also profoundly different today than it was 10 years ago. Outside of the major urban areas, there are a lot of downsized, small-town newsgroups with a handful of staff who have to be a jack of all trades. For them, the value proposition of the EM1x may be more compelling. As you mention, the vast majority of amateur sports, which is the meat and potatoes of small-town reporting takes place in daylight.

 

[bobn2]

I can't disagree with any of that. It's just that I often see it billed as a pro sports camera and I don't really think it will be very successful at breaking into that market. For what it is it's great, I just don't expect to see a lot of them being used by pro sports photo journalists along any sidelines, thus for me at least the erroneous billing.

That billing is a fan one, not a company one. That's one of the things that makes it even more clever, I't designed to appeal to existing mFT users with proness envy. Olympus' statement makes it pretty clear (https://www.dpreview.com/interviews...ympus-exec-explains-the-thinking-behind-e-m1x):

We believe that there will be three types of users. One is users stepping up from existing M43 cameras, like the E-M1 Mark II. That’s a good camera, but in certain circumstances it doesn't work for sports photography. For example having a joystick on the vertical and horizontal grips - that’s the kind of thing that’s needed for wildlife and sports. That’s the number one target group.

Very clear, the major group it's aimed at are existing Olympus users that want a big body.

Second is photographers who are stepping up from APS-C, like Canon 7D users. Those people are buying APS-C to make use of tele lenses, to get longer focal lengths. And the system is smaller than full-frame. Those people aspire to EOS-1D X type products but they’re not affordable. And they’re big, it’s a hassle. This camera will create new demand. You can shoot at long focal lengths and still hand-hold.

Second group, reach on a budget, primarily birders, I'd think.

The third group is people who are making an additional purchase, in addition to 5-series, 1D-series or D5 cameras who want to try the new system. Because what this camera does is basically the same. People may think that they need full-frame but once they’ve seen this camera’s performance I don’t think that that will be an argument, considering the difference in size and weight.

So, some Canon and Nikon people might buy it as a second body. Third priority, and a no-hoper, I would think. But saying so helps reinforce groups 1 and 2.

 

[Searching]

Totally agree with you. Excellent thread, well thought out and written.

 

[vicsin]

I appreciate the comments, though I don't agree with some, but really that's what makes the world go around. I'm certainly not an engineer but I like many of you have shot thousands of action photos in low light & most of the time came away wishing I could have gathered more light. In the late afternoons in my backyard with my G9 & 100-400 or 50-200 I struggle to make anything but black and white photos, very little DR , while shooting hummingbirds in flight or perching high above in tree limbs, even with exp comp turned up. I suppose it could be just me, but too many attempts and experimentations leaving me feeling the way I do. Any suggestions for squeezing more DR and color in those situations would be appreciated. Maybe a larger sensor wouldn't help in those situations. I know for sure though I could never reach those shots at 800- 1600 ff equivalence, hand held, with anything but mft. FF obviously would be too big, heavy and expensive for me.

As well I really think that given a choice between a grainy shot and a less grainy shot all other things being equal photo editors will choose less grain and pros know this. Time will tell and honestly I hope it does succeed technology trickles down.

I really want mft to thrive and innovate but selfishly speaking, in smaller, lighter and better iq and focusing packages. Better sensors, low light capability, CAF, etc. Chasing after a market that's well established and advantaged, in my opinion and only my opinion, is just a distraction, that they do have a right to pursue though. Again, time will tell and I must admit I am curious about how it goes.

 

[vicsin]

Good point about the mom and pop sports events, maybe those guys can't afford the big cameras or don't want to. Haven't thought of that. Thx

 

[vicsin]

I agree abt the birding community but still think it'll need good light.