OM-1 noise improvements as dpreview shows their comparisons

[gary0319]

I do see an improvement at the 12,800 - 25,600 ISO range, but it doesn't come close to the Canon R6.

I'll say that there is an 0.25 - 0.5 stop improvement at best.

How often do you shoot in the ISO 12,800 - 25,600 range? Most of my photography is at ISO 200-800, where the differences just aren't worth the change.

Cheers Kevin

I’m assuming that if you shoot mostly at ISO 200-800 you don’t shoot fast moving subjects in low light, or night scenes hand held. If so, this camera might be a waste of money for your use case, IMO.

Hi Gary

Yes, I have come to that conclusion as well. Seems OM System is moving toward the outdoors and wildlife market and I won’t be in the “target market”. Shame, because I like the cameras and have been with Olympus since 1975.

i have decided to rent a Sony A7R4 for the weekend to see if shooting full frame at ISO 100 gets me better image quality and allows me to “slow down”.

Cheers Kevin

Hi Kevin

For what it’s worth, I only shoot my E-M1 III for those fast action type occasions or for Hand Held Hi Rez, and will use the OM-1 the same. For all else ( and particularly for those “slowed down” times) I have found both my E-M5 III and E-M10 IV to be almost completely noise free at ISO 1,000 and can go well beyond with a bit of NR…. and I hate noise. I much prefer the smaller smaller form factor cameras for the street, festivals etc and the 5 and 10 series do a great job.

That said, I have a friend that shoots Sony and gets amazing images with their pro lenses.

Good luck, Gary

 

[MarkAndrewsUK]

Luminance noise looks about the same or maybe very slightly worse at mid range ISOs, but I don't think it's a major deal, desirable in some cases. Colour noise looks a bit better (imho) and it was the colour noise at 6400 that made it really difficult to use before.

OK so only a modest improvement, but I think we were all being hopeful to expect more.

Maybe the processor in the OM-1 is fast enough that OM could eventually update the firmware to include improved noise reduction processing of the quality like we see in DeepPrime and OM Workspace 2, including an option for those who want it to bake the NR into RAW files.

People arguing about using ISO at 25,600... heh...

 

[Cafe Racer]

So I think it's pretty obvious at this point we are not getting the OM-1 to be "2 stops better noise" and probably not even to 1 stop but a modest improvement.

But, some people are saying now there's no difference based on the dpreview studio RAW comparison- I don't think that's correct either.

I think you really need to download the RAWS from EM1.3 and OM-1 and play with them a bit to see there's actually a modest but still noticeable benefit.

What about DR, is there a modest but still noticeable benefit for the OM-1?

According to photos to photos the answer is virtually no benefit there. But that's part of my point- that there seem to be other benefits with the new sensor like the color, which at least means something moved forward even if not by much.

What's the benefit of colour with the new sensor? Couldn't a raw converter have some influence on colour like it can on highlights and shadows?

 

[Gary from Seattle]

I do see an improvement at the 12,800 - 25,600 ISO range, but it doesn't come close to the Canon R6.

I'll say that there is an 0.25 - 0.5 stop improvement at best.

How often do you shoot in the ISO 12,800 - 25,600 range? Most of my photography is at ISO 200-800, where the differences just aren't worth the change.

Cheers Kevin

I’m assuming that if you shoot mostly at ISO 200-800 you don’t shoot fast moving subjects in low light, or night scenes hand held. If so, this camera might be a waste of money for your use case, IMO.

Hi Gary

Yes, I have come to that conclusion as well. Seems OM System is moving toward the outdoors and wildlife market and I won’t be in the “target market”. Shame, because I like the cameras and have been with Olympus since 1975.

You shouldn't feel slighted because OM and other manufacturers "are moving towards wildlife". That simple fact has nothing to do with whether a camera is also good for general purpose photography. All mid and upper grade modern cameras are going to do just fine with general purpose photography. That goes for older as well as newer caneras.

i have decided to rent a Sony A7R4 for the weekend to see if shooting full frame at ISO 100 gets me better image quality and allows me to “slow down”.

You are chasing rainbows. You can slow down with any camera, even a cellphone if you so choose.

Cheers Kevin

 

[Gary from Seattle]

So I think it's pretty obvious at this point we are not getting the OM-1 to be "2 stops better noise" and probably not even to 1 stop but a modest improvement.

And reviewers not showing data at best Got some links to look at?

Look up Petr's Ecuador trip part 2. You should be smart enough to do that. Hint: Be sure to scroll down....

Petr is an ambassador. He also acknowledge there aren't 2 stops of ISO.

Yes, he is a very good photographer. He suggested something approaching two stops. You must have missed that part. But, he had not looked at all of his 7000 images, yet. Of course, that is but a small sample......

https://www.sulasula.com/en/petr-bambousek-awards/

As I recall, I think Chrs-Eyres Walker and Peter Baumgarter in the Tesni Ward/Peter Baumgarter review all adressed this.

All Ambassadors?

Yes they are really good photographers. They know what they are doing and know the gear.

Now, my nephew is not an "Ambassador", I'll put you in contact with him; he would be completely independent and may even humor you.

much appreciated, thanks

Your welcome. But, then I look at real information from photographers with considerable shooting experience, and a lot less at dribble of this and that chart. Now, if charts are what you shoot, you are on track....

What's baffling is that I am actually saying that some are reaching the wrong conclusions by just looking at dpreview charts saying there's no improvement but you still angry .

No, just laughing pretty hard.

 

[Sam Bennett]

I think you really need to download the RAWS from EM1.3 and OM-1 and play with them a bit to see there's actually a modest but still noticeable benefit.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65975723

I wouldn't call it a "same performance" per se as I see some people calling it. I think there is indeed an improvement. A modest one, a noticeable one still. I wouldn't call it the same.

What areas are you looking at? If anything, at ISO 6400 under flash lighting the OM-1 actually appears worse .





In these examples it looks like the OM-1 might look a little "better" simply because it's marginally sharper?

Ultimately there's always a bit of variability here in terms of the ambient temperature, how long the camera's been turned on, blah blah blah that means that the differences between the OM-1 and the E-M1 Mark III are basically a wash. In this particular test with these particular samples, the OM-1 (to me) appears a bit worse at ISO 6400. Shuffle the conditions up a bit and maybe the OM-1 would come out better. That is why to me there's essentially "no change". They are far more similar than they are different.

Maybe the OM-1 files are more "film like" and will "clean up" better, but again the differences are quite small. Buy it for the AF, better speed, etc - not for "better" image quality.

What a turn around from one of the optimists ;-)

Check out the comparison with the color on the threads I did on iridient digital

This thread is about the DPReview tests, which are a useful way of comparing different cameras in very similar conditions. The results speak for themselves here.

No, that' snot quite correct- it's not "a thread just about dpreview tests"

It's actually about people looking at the dpreview and concluding there's pretty much no difference, without looking at the RAWS. If you look at my opening post of the thread it clearly links to evidence I found where I saw a modest yet still noticeable improvement and the need to play with the RAW file so we can see some differences.

I am basically saying "it' def. not 2 stop ISO, but there's after all some improvement even if modest."

I provided evidence and a link, that' pretty clear in the opening post I did.

"I think you really need to download the RAWS from EM1.3 and OM-1 and play with them a bit to see there's actually a modest but still noticeable benefit.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65975723"

That's right there.

That said, thanks for highlighting your own observations with dpreview's data. Maybe check the raws for yourself downloading them and play with tnem- should show a bit more difference. Do note that the link I gave above uses RAWS from Imaging Resource also done in controlled conditions.

Ah, my apologies I didn't follow that link originally since I assumed it linked to the DPReview article announcing they added their studio scene shots.

Personally I process my RAW files (for better or worse) in Lightroom, so I'm not interested in checking out the results from other RAW processors - but even in following your link I fail to see any "modest" improvement.

Again, these shots seem to reflect what I saw with the Imaging Resource shots - at ISO 6400, the OM-1 and E-M1 Mark III are essentially the same. Beyond that, the OM-1 seems to have better color reproduction in the shadows.

As the DPR guys said, the fact that OMDS was able to maintain quality while increasing the readout speed (which is important in my work since I use the silent shutter most of the time) and greatly improving AF is an accomplishment to be recognized. It's a great camera. It just still can't compete with some of the latest FF cameras at higher ISOs - each of us will have to decide for ourselves how important that is.

Sidenote: In looking at these comparisons it was interesting to me to see that for the Sony camera I'm interested in (the A9 II), the difference in noise performance is actually smaller than I thought. Whereas the Canon R6 appears to be about 2 stops better (ISO 25,600 only marginally more noisy than the OM-1/E-M1.3 at 6400), the A9 II is only about 1 stop better. So, for me, that's another nail in the coffin for moving to Sony FF. I'd rather have MFT's significantly smaller overall system size than that "modest" improvement in noise handling.

--
Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett

 

[Parshua]

I do see an improvement at the 12,800 - 25,600 ISO range, but it doesn't come close to the Canon R6.

I'll say that there is an 0.25 - 0.5 stop improvement at best.

How often do you shoot in the ISO 12,800 - 25,600 range? Most of my photography is at ISO 200-800, where the differences just aren't worth the change.

Cheers Kevin

I’m assuming that if you shoot mostly at ISO 200-800 you don’t shoot fast moving subjects in low light, or night scenes hand held. If so, this camera might be a waste of money for your use case, IMO.

There are FF cameras that can do that far better which cost as much or are cheaper than the OM-1. There is no reason to shoot m43 in such high ISOs, it's just the worst tool for the job.

Any tool should be used where it's fit for purpose, and that applies to m43 as well.

 

[LeonardoV]

I do see an improvement at the 12,800 - 25,600 ISO range, but it doesn't come close to the Canon R6.

I'll say that there is an 0.25 - 0.5 stop improvement at best.

How often do you shoot in the ISO 12,800 - 25,600 range? Most of my photography is at ISO 200-800, where the differences just aren't worth the change.

Cheers Kevin

I’m assuming that if you shoot mostly at ISO 200-800 you don’t shoot fast moving subjects in low light, or night scenes hand held. If so, this camera might be a waste of money for your use case, IMO.

There are FF cameras that can do that far better which cost as much or are cheaper than the OM-1. There is no reason to shoot m43 in such high ISOs, it's just the worst tool for the job.

Any tool should be used where it's fit for purpose, and that applies to m43 as well.

You can't get a lightweight setup with 600/840/1200mm reach in FF world with all the added features the OM has, with fast and sticky AF, (OM-1 and 300 pro with the TCs) or you must spend double the money and still heavier or with objectable better specs (A9 does not fare that much better than OM-1 noise-wise, and with 200-600 it is far bigger heavier, cost more and handles worse, eventually Canon R6 with 100-500 but cost more and lose all the advantages in ISO due to the smaller diaphragm - and with TCs it's worser)

 

[Woodman100]

Studio scenes and technical measurements like photons to photons are all well and good and I dont knock them but there are plenty of comparisons I have spent hours looking at in the past only to find that a camera that may not look brilliant in such scenarios produces fantastic images.

It’s early days, but to my eyes the well taken images I am seeing do look noticeably better than anything I have seen from the system previously. Maybe it’s the AI in camera processing or the colour science tweaks, but samples look clearer with deeper and richer colour tones. lets remember that all digital files are processed. Personally I think the images are looking great and I am excited to get mine.

 

[victorav]

that was then, this is now and tech moved foward.

Here, I fixed it for you:

In my opinion, there isn't much point comparing to years old FF cameras...



In my opinion, there is a point. And I pretty clearly (and skillfully, if I do say so myself) explained the point.

That said, I agree OM-1 has a wide range of coverage, etc. But the point was on some people concluding there was no benefit form EM1.2/3 and I don't think that's accurate to conclude either, even if the improvement is modest.

the test images are just that . real life subjects should be used.

You can do both, and I'm sure people have.

Ds

--
The confusion starts when the scientists can't agree amongst themselves. Henry F

 

[Parshua]

I do see an improvement at the 12,800 - 25,600 ISO range, but it doesn't come close to the Canon R6.

I'll say that there is an 0.25 - 0.5 stop improvement at best.

How often do you shoot in the ISO 12,800 - 25,600 range? Most of my photography is at ISO 200-800, where the differences just aren't worth the change.

Cheers Kevin

I’m assuming that if you shoot mostly at ISO 200-800 you don’t shoot fast moving subjects in low light, or night scenes hand held. If so, this camera might be a waste of money for your use case, IMO.

There are FF cameras that can do that far better which cost as much or are cheaper than the OM-1. There is no reason to shoot m43 in such high ISOs, it's just the worst tool for the job.

Any tool should be used where it's fit for purpose, and that applies to m43 as well.

You can't get a lightweight setup with 600/840/1200mm reach in FF world with all the added features the OM has, with fast and sticky AF, (OM-1 and 300 pro with the TCs) or you must spend double the money and still heavier or with objectable better specs (A9 does not fare that much better than OM-1 noise-wise, and with 200-600 it is far bigger heavier, cost more and handles worse, eventually Canon R6 with 100-500 but cost more and lose all the advantages in ISO due to the smaller diaphragm - and with TCs it's worser)

For sure, I wasn't disputing that. The topic was very high ISOs (12800+) and low light, where any talk of using m43 is moot, unless you are not a pro and that's the only camera you have.

 

[Raist3d]

So I think it's pretty obvious at this point we are not getting the OM-1 to be "2 stops better noise" and probably not even to 1 stop but a modest improvement.

And reviewers not showing data at best Got some links to look at?

Look up Petr's Ecuador trip part 2. You should be smart enough to do that. Hint: Be sure to scroll down....

Petr is an ambassador. He also acknowledge there aren't 2 stops of ISO.

Yes, he is a very good photographer. He suggested something approaching two stops.

whete? That’s not what I read he said

You must have missed that part. But, he had not looked at all of his 7000 images, yet. Of course, that is but a small sample......

https://www.sulasula.com/en/petr-bambousek-awards/

As I recall, I think Chrs-Eyres Walker and Peter Baumgarter in the Tesni Ward/Peter Baumgarter review all adressed this.

All Ambassadors?

Yes they are really good photographers. They know what they are doing and know the gear.

Now, my nephew is not an "Ambassador", I'll put you in contact with him; he would be completely independent and may even humor you.

much appreciated, thanks

Your welcome. But, then I look at real information from photographers with considerable shooting experience, and a lot less at dribble of this and that chart. Now, if charts are what you shoot, you are on track....

What's baffling is that I am actually saying that some are reaching the wrong conclusions by just looking at dpreview charts saying there's no improvement but you still angry .

No, just laughing pretty hard.

 

[Sucama]

But it is so small difference it isn-t worth mentioning IMO

I dare to disagree. It makes ISO settings above 3200 much more usable for a wider range of shooting scenarios. In previous models, really bad things were going on in shadows at ISO 6400 and ISO 12800 was completely useless. The improvement at ISO 12800 is staggering.

What are you talking about? where do you see the improvement?

 

[Raist3d]

I think you really need to download the RAWS from EM1.3 and OM-1 and play with them a bit to see there's actually a modest but still noticeable benefit.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65975723

I wouldn't call it a "same performance" per se as I see some people calling it. I think there is indeed an improvement. A modest one, a noticeable one still. I wouldn't call it the same.

What areas are you looking at? If anything, at ISO 6400 under flash lighting the OM-1 actually appears worse .





In these examples it looks like the OM-1 might look a little "better" simply because it's marginally sharper?

Ultimately there's always a bit of variability here in terms of the ambient temperature, how long the camera's been turned on, blah blah blah that means that the differences between the OM-1 and the E-M1 Mark III are basically a wash. In this particular test with these particular samples, the OM-1 (to me) appears a bit worse at ISO 6400. Shuffle the conditions up a bit and maybe the OM-1 would come out better. That is why to me there's essentially "no change". They are far more similar than they are different.

Maybe the OM-1 files are more "film like" and will "clean up" better, but again the differences are quite small. Buy it for the AF, better speed, etc - not for "better" image quality.

What a turn around from one of the optimists ;-)

Check out the comparison with the color on the threads I did on iridient digital

This thread is about the DPReview tests, which are a useful way of comparing different cameras in very similar conditions. The results speak for themselves here.

No, that' snot quite correct- it's not "a thread just about dpreview tests"

It's actually about people looking at the dpreview and concluding there's pretty much no difference, without looking at the RAWS. If you look at my opening post of the thread it clearly links to evidence I found where I saw a modest yet still noticeable improvement and the need to play with the RAW file so we can see some differences.

I am basically saying "it' def. not 2 stop ISO, but there's after all some improvement even if modest."

I provided evidence and a link, that' pretty clear in the opening post I did.

"I think you really need to download the RAWS from EM1.3 and OM-1 and play with them a bit to see there's actually a modest but still noticeable benefit.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65975723"

That's right there.

That said, thanks for highlighting your own observations with dpreview's data. Maybe check the raws for yourself downloading them and play with tnem- should show a bit more difference. Do note that the link I gave above uses RAWS from Imaging Resource also done in controlled conditions.

Ah, my apologies I didn't follow that link originally since I assumed it linked to the DPReview article announcing they added their studio scene shots.

Personally I process my RAW files (for better or worse) in Lightroom, so I'm not interested in checking out the results from other RAW processors - but even in following your link I fail to see any "modest" improvement.

look carefully at the reds in the threads as the iso climbs

Again, these shots seem to reflect what I saw with the Imaging Resource shots - at ISO 6400, the OM-1 and E-M1 Mark III are essentially the same. Beyond that, the OM-1 seems to have better color reproduction in the shadows.

ok - so that’s a modest difference, right? ;-) that could totally be related to my observations about color and higher iso difference

As the DPR guys said, the fact that OMDS was able to maintain quality while increasing the readout speed (which is important in my work since I use the silent shutter most of the time) and greatly improving AF is an accomplishment to be recognized.

Its expected of the new sensor per Sony published specs

It's a great camera. It just still can't compete with some of the latest FF cameras at higher ISOs - each of us will have to decide for ourselves how important that is.

of course! Note I I said from the beginning that was not happening and people were setting up for disappointment. Even the computational photography hasn’t been really new here except that now marketing is highlighting it. . No multi stacked shots as a general cell phone case, bokeh, etc

Sidenote: In looking at these comparisons it was interesting to me to see that for the Sony camera I'm interested in (the A9 II), the difference in noise performance is actually smaller than I thought. Whereas the Canon R6 appears to be about 2 stops better (ISO 25,600 only marginally more noisy than the OM-1/E-M1.3 at 6400), the A9 II is only about 1 stop better. So, for me, that's another nail in the coffin for moving to Sony FF. I'd rather have MFT's significantly smaller overall system size than that "modest" improvement in noise handling.

just like I suggest playing owth the raws for the om1 to see any differences the same should apply to the sony.

Of course in the end you buy what you want and feel fits your needs Speaking for myself I want to see the om1 key techs on an em5 or penf ii The om1 body isn’t for me - at least with the current work I do

--
Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett

--
Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - Apparently Selwyn Duke and not George Orwell

 

[Raist3d]

So I think it's pretty obvious at this point we are not getting the OM-1 to be "2 stops better noise" and probably not even to 1 stop but a modest improvement.

But, some people are saying now there's no difference based on the dpreview studio RAW comparison- I don't think that's correct either.

I think you really need to download the RAWS from EM1.3 and OM-1 and play with them a bit to see there's actually a modest but still noticeable benefit.

What about DR, is there a modest but still noticeable benefit for the OM-1?

According to photos to photos the answer is virtually no benefit there. But that's part of my point- that there seem to be other benefits with the new sensor like the color, which at least means something moved forward even if not by much.

What's the benefit of colour with the new sensor? Couldn't a raw converter have some influence on colour like it can on highlights and shadows?

It could but the interesting part is using the same raw converter on an em1.3 raw file and the om1 raw file shooting the same subject

it seems the om1 can keep color better as iso climbs over previous

 

[Sam Bennett]

I think you really need to download the RAWS from EM1.3 and OM-1 and play with them a bit to see there's actually a modest but still noticeable benefit.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65975723

I wouldn't call it a "same performance" per se as I see some people calling it. I think there is indeed an improvement. A modest one, a noticeable one still. I wouldn't call it the same.

What areas are you looking at? If anything, at ISO 6400 under flash lighting the OM-1 actually appears worse .





In these examples it looks like the OM-1 might look a little "better" simply because it's marginally sharper?

Ultimately there's always a bit of variability here in terms of the ambient temperature, how long the camera's been turned on, blah blah blah that means that the differences between the OM-1 and the E-M1 Mark III are basically a wash. In this particular test with these particular samples, the OM-1 (to me) appears a bit worse at ISO 6400. Shuffle the conditions up a bit and maybe the OM-1 would come out better. That is why to me there's essentially "no change". They are far more similar than they are different.

Maybe the OM-1 files are more "film like" and will "clean up" better, but again the differences are quite small. Buy it for the AF, better speed, etc - not for "better" image quality.

What a turn around from one of the optimists ;-)

Check out the comparison with the color on the threads I did on iridient digital

This thread is about the DPReview tests, which are a useful way of comparing different cameras in very similar conditions. The results speak for themselves here.

No, that' snot quite correct- it's not "a thread just about dpreview tests"

It's actually about people looking at the dpreview and concluding there's pretty much no difference, without looking at the RAWS. If you look at my opening post of the thread it clearly links to evidence I found where I saw a modest yet still noticeable improvement and the need to play with the RAW file so we can see some differences.

I am basically saying "it' def. not 2 stop ISO, but there's after all some improvement even if modest."

I provided evidence and a link, that' pretty clear in the opening post I did.

"I think you really need to download the RAWS from EM1.3 and OM-1 and play with them a bit to see there's actually a modest but still noticeable benefit.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65975723"

That's right there.

That said, thanks for highlighting your own observations with dpreview's data. Maybe check the raws for yourself downloading them and play with tnem- should show a bit more difference. Do note that the link I gave above uses RAWS from Imaging Resource also done in controlled conditions.

Ah, my apologies I didn't follow that link originally since I assumed it linked to the DPReview article announcing they added their studio scene shots.

Personally I process my RAW files (for better or worse) in Lightroom, so I'm not interested in checking out the results from other RAW processors - but even in following your link I fail to see any "modest" improvement.

look carefully at the reds in the threads as the iso climbs

Where? In DPR's examples? Again, the difference is pretty subtle.

Again, these shots seem to reflect what I saw with the Imaging Resource shots - at ISO 6400, the OM-1 and E-M1 Mark III are essentially the same. Beyond that, the OM-1 seems to have better color reproduction in the shadows.

ok - so that’s a modest difference, right? ;-) that could totally be related to my observations about color and higher iso difference

At ISO 6400, no - it's a wash. At ISO 12,800 and above? The differences seem mainly in the shadow color and I haven't experimented with shadow tint to see if that would essentially eliminate the difference. But again, both the E-M1 and OM-1 are into the realm of "unusable", IMO, so it's a moot point.

--
Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett

 

[Cafe Racer]

So I think it's pretty obvious at this point we are not getting the OM-1 to be "2 stops better noise" and probably not even to 1 stop but a modest improvement.

But, some people are saying now there's no difference based on the dpreview studio RAW comparison- I don't think that's correct either.

I think you really need to download the RAWS from EM1.3 and OM-1 and play with them a bit to see there's actually a modest but still noticeable benefit.

What about DR, is there a modest but still noticeable benefit for the OM-1?

According to photos to photos the answer is virtually no benefit there. But that's part of my point- that there seem to be other benefits with the new sensor like the color, which at least means something moved forward even if not by much.

What's the benefit of colour with the new sensor? Couldn't a raw converter have some influence on colour like it can on highlights and shadows?

It could but the interesting part is using the same raw converter on an em1.3 raw file and the om1 raw file shooting the same subject

it seems the om1 can keep color better as iso climbs over previous

In practical terms I see nothing in the OM-1 and E-M1iii high ISO colour that would make me choose one camera over the other.

Pink on the OM-1 seems to render slightly darker than the others.

 

[gary0319]

So I think it's pretty obvious at this point we are not getting the OM-1 to be "2 stops better noise" and probably not even to 1 stop but a modest improvement.

But, some people are saying now there's no difference based on the dpreview studio RAW comparison- I don't think that's correct either.

I think you really need to download the RAWS from EM1.3 and OM-1 and play with them a bit to see there's actually a modest but still noticeable benefit.

What about DR, is there a modest but still noticeable benefit for the OM-1?

According to photos to photos the answer is virtually no benefit there. But that's part of my point- that there seem to be other benefits with the new sensor like the color, which at least means something moved forward even if not by much.

What's the benefit of colour with the new sensor? Couldn't a raw converter have some influence on colour like it can on highlights and shadows?

It could but the interesting part is using the same raw converter on an em1.3 raw file and the om1 raw file shooting the same subject

it seems the om1 can keep color better as iso climbs over previous

I'm a strong detractor of using Adobe Camera Raw converted ORF files for any noise comparisons, particularly across brands. From my comparisons with all my Olympus cameras, ACR introduces a lot of artifacts that I do not see in any of my conversion with OM Workspace. It's no surprise to me that one doesn't see much difference between the OM-1 and the E-M1 III as DPR uses ACR for its sample images, so those artifacts are in both samples.

 

[Raist3d]

I think you really need to download the RAWS from EM1.3 and OM-1 and play with them a bit to see there's actually a modest but still noticeable benefit.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65975723

I wouldn't call it a "same performance" per se as I see some people calling it. I think there is indeed an improvement. A modest one, a noticeable one still. I wouldn't call it the same.

What areas are you looking at? If anything, at ISO 6400 under flash lighting the OM-1 actually appears worse .





In these examples it looks like the OM-1 might look a little "better" simply because it's marginally sharper?

Ultimately there's always a bit of variability here in terms of the ambient temperature, how long the camera's been turned on, blah blah blah that means that the differences between the OM-1 and the E-M1 Mark III are basically a wash. In this particular test with these particular samples, the OM-1 (to me) appears a bit worse at ISO 6400. Shuffle the conditions up a bit and maybe the OM-1 would come out better. That is why to me there's essentially "no change". They are far more similar than they are different.

Maybe the OM-1 files are more "film like" and will "clean up" better, but again the differences are quite small. Buy it for the AF, better speed, etc - not for "better" image quality.

What a turn around from one of the optimists ;-)

Check out the comparison with the color on the threads I did on iridient digital

This thread is about the DPReview tests, which are a useful way of comparing different cameras in very similar conditions. The results speak for themselves here.

No, that' snot quite correct- it's not "a thread just about dpreview tests"

It's actually about people looking at the dpreview and concluding there's pretty much no difference, without looking at the RAWS. If you look at my opening post of the thread it clearly links to evidence I found where I saw a modest yet still noticeable improvement and the need to play with the RAW file so we can see some differences.

I am basically saying "it' def. not 2 stop ISO, but there's after all some improvement even if modest."

I provided evidence and a link, that' pretty clear in the opening post I did.

"I think you really need to download the RAWS from EM1.3 and OM-1 and play with them a bit to see there's actually a modest but still noticeable benefit.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65975723"

That's right there.

That said, thanks for highlighting your own observations with dpreview's data. Maybe check the raws for yourself downloading them and play with tnem- should show a bit more difference. Do note that the link I gave above uses RAWS from Imaging Resource also done in controlled conditions.

Ah, my apologies I didn't follow that link originally since I assumed it linked to the DPReview article announcing they added their studio scene shots.

Personally I process my RAW files (for better or worse) in Lightroom, so I'm not interested in checking out the results from other RAW processors - but even in following your link I fail to see any "modest" improvement.

look carefully at the reds in the threads as the iso climbs

Where? In DPR's examples? Again, the difference is pretty subtle.

I told you were - I have you the link to my imaging resource conversion! Remember again what I pointed this thread is about

Again, these shots seem to reflect what I saw with the Imaging Resource shots - at ISO 6400, the OM-1 and E-M1 Mark III are essentially the same. Beyond that, the OM-1 seems to have better color reproduction in the shadows.

ok - so that’s a modest difference, right? ;-) that could totally be related to my observations about color and higher iso difference

At ISO 6400, no - it's a wash. At ISO 12,800 and above? The differences seem mainly in the shadow color and I haven't experimented with shadow tint to see if that would essentially eliminate the difference. But again, both the E-M1 and OM-1 are into the realm of "unusable", IMO, so it's a moot point.

look at the comparison I made with iridient digital. anyway - didn’t think I would be defending the om1 with you ;-)

I thiught you would have checks my other thread but this is a kore direct link apologies if I just wasn’t clear eniuth

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65975760

I will agree it’s possible / likely / a fact the em1.3 does as well in some areas of the shot

--
Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett

--
Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - Apparently Selwyn Duke and not George Orwell

 

[Raist3d]

So I think it's pretty obvious at this point we are not getting the OM-1 to be "2 stops better noise" and probably not even to 1 stop but a modest improvement.

But, some people are saying now there's no difference based on the dpreview studio RAW comparison- I don't think that's correct either.

I think you really need to download the RAWS from EM1.3 and OM-1 and play with them a bit to see there's actually a modest but still noticeable benefit.

What about DR, is there a modest but still noticeable benefit for the OM-1?

According to photos to photos the answer is virtually no benefit there. But that's part of my point- that there seem to be other benefits with the new sensor like the color, which at least means something moved forward even if not by much.

What's the benefit of colour with the new sensor? Couldn't a raw converter have some influence on colour like it can on highlights and shadows?

It could but the interesting part is using the same raw converter on an em1.3 raw file and the om1 raw file shooting the same subject

it seems the om1 can keep color better as iso climbs over previous

In practical terms I see nothing in the OM-1 and E-M1iii high ISO colour that would make me choose one camera over the other.

Pink on the OM-1 seems to render slightly darker than the others.

Compare the last two shots at higher iso

i think my point is that stretching the raw file I see a notch more flexibility for the om1. You have to download and play with them, not just look at the default shot (and again try higher isos)

I think at the lower iso range both behave more and more similar

--
Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - Apparently Selwyn Duke and not George Orwell