Micro 4/3 Sensors

[Minos82]

Since OM System has decided that ultra light photographers should stick to a decade old sensor and processor technology and that technology prowess stopped in 2019, I am wondering about other options.

There is the new Panasonic sensor that increases a bit the MP which is not necessaily a good thing for pixel size and low leight. What about the Hasselblad 4/3 CMOS 100 found in the new DJI Mavic 4. Any idea how these drone sensors compare to what is found on the various micro 4/3 cameras?

Minos

 

[drj3]

Since OM System has decided that ultra light photographers should stick to a decade old sensor

The problem is that we are still waiting on IQ improvement compared to those decade old sensors.

Sony A7R2 from 2015 - DXO Score = 98

Sony A1 - DXO Score = 98

Nikon Z9 - DXO Score = 98

Canon R5 - DXO Score 95

and processor technology and that technology prowess stopped in 2019, I am wondering about other options.

There is the new Panasonic sensor that increases a bit the MP which is not necessaily a good thing for pixel size and low leight. What about the Hasselblad 4/3 CMOS 100 found in the new DJI Mavic 4. Any idea how these drone sensors compare to what is found on the various micro 4/3 cameras?

Minos

 

[Mark Ransom]

The problem is that we are still waiting on IQ improvement compared to those decade old sensors.

Sony A7R2 from 2015 - DXO Score = 98

Sony A1 - DXO Score = 98

Nikon Z9 - DXO Score = 98

Canon R5 - DXO Score 95

And we're never going to see it. Today's sensors are so good that there's little they can do to improve them. Make the pixels smaller and more plentiful, or improve the readout speed, that's about it.

 

[Minos82]

Since OM System has decided that ultra light photographers should stick to a decade old sensor

The problem is that we are still waiting on IQ improvement compared to those decade old sensors.

Sony A7R2 from 2015 - DXO Score = 98

Sony A1 - DXO Score = 98

Nikon Z9 - DXO Score = 98

Canon R5 - DXO Score 95

and processor technology and that technology prowess stopped in 2019, I am wondering about other options.

There is the new Panasonic sensor that increases a bit the MP which is not necessaily a good thing for pixel size and low leight. What about the Hasselblad 4/3 CMOS 100 found in the new DJI Mavic 4. Any idea how these drone sensors compare to what is found on the various micro 4/3 cameras?

Minos

We got it. You are convinced that sensors and processors have not made any improvement since 2019. Pass along. Processor technology prowess indeed stopped in 2019.

Sony A7R2 from 2015 -> 98

Sony A7R5 from 2021 -> 100

For those of us who believe that OM System would not have put an expensive stacked sensor in the OM1 and OM3, that they incidentally advertised as being one-stop better than previous generation, if it had zero advantage, we like to ponder about other sensor options. Dpreview tests in both raw and jpeg show an improvement going from OM5 to OM3. Not a full stop, but definitely an improvemnet in IQ. And this is not even bringing all the computational improvements brought by the faster sensor/processor/denoising algorithm combination. After all, I am not the one with an intermediate review titled "Three years too late"

Now, with possible new entrants being a lot more forward looking, things may change in the future. DJI which is very active and keeps improving their drone and drone photo IQ year after year have used a micro 4/3 sensor in the Mavic 4 Pro. Maybe they'll release a camera one day. Curious as to how this sensor compares to other senosors/processors within the micro 4/3 'ecosystem'.

 

[Bast Hotep]

Why are we even looking at DXOmark results when they haven't tested anything from Olympus since 2016?

 

[Bassam Guy]

Since OM System has decided that ultra light photographers should stick to a decade old sensor and processor technology and that technology prowess stopped in 2019, I am wondering about other options.

There is the new Panasonic sensor that increases a bit the MP which is not necessaily a good thing for pixel size and low leight. What about the Hasselblad 4/3 CMOS 100 found in the new DJI Mavic 4. Any idea how these drone sensors compare to what is found on the various micro 4/3 cameras?

Minos

The OM-1, OM-1 II, and OM-3 use a "quad-pixel AF Stacked CMOS sensor" (DPR).

If you are interested in Lumix, the GH-6 has a "25MP CMOS sensor with parallel readouts", and the G9 II has a "25MP CMOS sensor with dual output gain". (Are parallel readouts" and "dual output gains" synonymous? Is it the same sensor?)

 

[jjbinx]

Since OM System has decided that ultra light photographers should stick to a decade old sensor

The problem is that we are still waiting on IQ improvement compared to those decade old sensors.

Sony A7R2 from 2015 - DXO Score = 98

Sony A1 - DXO Score = 98

Nikon Z9 - DXO Score = 98

Canon R5 - DXO Score 95

and processor technology and that technology prowess stopped in 2019, I am wondering about other options.

There is the new Panasonic sensor that increases a bit the MP which is not necessaily a good thing for pixel size and low leight. What about the Hasselblad 4/3 CMOS 100 found in the new DJI Mavic 4. Any idea how these drone sensors compare to what is found on the various micro 4/3 cameras?

Minos

We got it. You are convinced that sensors and processors have not made any improvement since 2019. Pass along. Processor technology prowess indeed stopped in 2019.

Sony A7R2 from 2015 -> 98

Sony A7R5 from 2021 -> 100

For those of us who believe that OM System would not have put an expensive stacked sensor in the OM1 and OM3, that they incidentally advertised as being one-stop better than previous generation, if it had zero advantage, we like to ponder about other sensor options. Dpreview tests in both raw and jpeg show an improvement going from OM5 to OM3. Not a full stop, but definitely an improvemnet in IQ. And this is not even bringing all the computational improvements brought by the faster sensor/processor/denoising algorithm combination. After all, I am not the one with an intermediate review titled "Three years too late"

Now, with possible new entrants being a lot more forward looking, things may change in the future. DJI which is very active and keeps improving their drone and drone photo IQ year after year have used a micro 4/3 sensor in the Mavic 4 Pro. Maybe they'll release a camera one day. Curious as to how this sensor compares to other senosors/processors within the micro 4/3 'ecosystem'.

Yes but how much better would your images be if a brand new top technology 4/3 sensor was given to you in an OM-1 Mark 3 ?

How much better would your images look if you could use ISO1600 where you currently need IS2000 ?

I suggest that the aesthetic quality of the images currently being produced within ‘normal’ commercial and enthusiast photography has more to do with photographer skill/creativity and post processing than the sensor technology and camera formats.

jj

 

[john isaacs]

Since OM System has decided that ultra light photographers should stick to a decade old sensor and processor technology and that technology prowess stopped in 2019, I am wondering about other options.

There is the new Panasonic sensor that increases a bit the MP which is not necessaily a good thing for pixel size and low leight. What about the Hasselblad 4/3 CMOS 100 found in the new DJI Mavic 4. Any idea how these drone sensors compare to what is found on the various micro 4/3 cameras?

Minos

OM System doesn't make sensors, it buys them. Incorporating a new sensor costs money and raises prices. 2019 is only six years ago. They had to put out an OM-5 ii to satisfy USB-C requirements. So, they added some newer features to the OM-5, cut out some features (that is a disappointment), and put out the required update at the original price. But they don't offer the FL-LM3 on the website any more, so I think it's discontinued.

I can't imagine them using the Panasonic sensor. I would like to see a ~33mp sensor, but the OM-5 is not the model to use it at this time; it would likely cost a lot. I would have like to see it in the OM-3. May never see it.

 

[Minos82]

Yes but how much better would your images be if a brand new top technology 4/3 sensor was given to you in an OM-1 Mark 3 ?

How much better would your images look if you could use ISO1600 where you currently need IS2000 ?

I suggest that the aesthetic quality of the images currently being produced within ‘normal’ commercial and enthusiast photography has more to do with photographer skill/creativity and post processing than the sensor technology and camera formats.

jj

My photos are 20% Northern Lights, 60% wildlife and 20% random other things (landscapes for the most part). My photos are 100% travel, 100% carry all day, and 50% long hikes. Ultralight is the way to go for me. Hence no interest in bigger format system and unecessarily large cameras such as OM3. Hence why I typically carry a RX100-VII and rent when I need to step up in image IQ or low-light IQ. (I do have fast prime micro 4/3 lenses though).

I want a pocket OM1. Being able to go from 800 ISO to 1600 ISO in SOC jpeg is a big deal for northern lights, safari at dusk, or wildlife under the canopy. I am not looking at 6400 ISO or more as I do not do BIF and do not want to go FF and humongous lenses. The camera that matters to me is the one I have with me, so unecessarily large cameras with better IQ but that stay home is of no use.

However, having the latest sensor tech, the better image processing algorithm (so I do not spend my evenings denoising photos) will certainly allow me to get better shots. Having all that in the smallest form factor on the market with reasonable IQ (ie micro 4/3 as I am tired of 1" sensors) is what I seek. I do not care that it is priced below USD1200. I can do USD1600, heck I can do USD1800 for the body but I want small size, small weight, and small lenses. Hello micro 4/3. Good by OM1 and OM3.

It is not a market segmentation problem. It is a form factor problem.

 

[Asherax]

Yes but how much better would your images be if a brand new top technology 4/3 sensor was given to you in an OM-1 Mark 3 ?

How much better would your images look if you could use ISO1600 where you currently need IS2000 ?

I suggest that the aesthetic quality of the images currently being produced within ‘normal’ commercial and enthusiast photography has more to do with photographer skill/creativity and post processing than the sensor technology and camera formats.

jj

My photos are 20% Northern Lights, 60% wildlife and 20% random other things (landscapes for the most part). My photos are 100% travel, 100% carry all day, and 50% long hikes. Ultralight is the way to go for me. Hence no interest in bigger format system and unecessarily large cameras such as OM3. Hence why I typically carry a RX100-VII and rent when I need to step up in image IQ or low-light IQ. (I do have fast prime micro 4/3 lenses though).

I want a pocket OM1. Being able to go from 800 ISO to 1600 ISO in SOC jpeg is a big deal for northern lights, safari at dusk, or wildlife under the canopy. I am not looking at 6400 ISO or more as I do not do BIF and do not want to go FF and humongous lenses. The camera that matters to me is the one I have with me, so unecessarily large cameras with better IQ but that stay home is of no use.

However, having the latest sensor tech, the better image processing algorithm (so I do not spend my evenings denoising photos) will certainly allow me to get better shots. Having all that in the smallest form factor on the market with reasonable IQ (ie micro 4/3 as I am tired of 1" sensors) is what I seek. I do not care that it is priced below USD1200. I can do USD1600, heck I can do USD1800 for the body but I want small size, small weight, and small lenses. Hello micro 4/3. Good by OM1 and OM3.

It is not a market segmentation problem. It is a form factor problem.

Sounds like the OM-5ii was basically made for you!... maybe with the Pana 9mm f1.7 for your NL shots.

 

[Minos82]

OM System doesn't make sensors, it buys them. Incorporating a new sensor costs money and raises prices. 2019 is only six years ago.

I agree. So why the heck do they carry three product lines (-1,-3,-5) with two different sensors/processors when they could just do with a single one given the outrageously small volumes that OM is able to sell. Just constrain some functionalities (fps, focus points number, ), some stabilization stuff, and some software stuff. Heck constrain flash backward compatibility if you really want to annoy your customers of the cheaper model Use a smaller battery because non-pro may not need 600 shots per day.

Also, why do the outer molds of these cameras keep changing? Cannot they converge to two or three form factors that reflect the way you use the camera and the number of physical dials, buttons, touch interfaces and be done with it? How come a company with over 80 years of photography still experiment with grip size and grip form factor. Shouldn't that have been optimized by now?

People always say integrating this sensor is too expensive. Maybe. Carrying two set of inventories for all this is probably expensive as well. They could spend more time integrating new tech if they were not constantly having to change the machines just to add/remove a ridgeline left or right and growing/shortening the grip every other year.

 

[mmartel]

Since OM System has decided that ultra light photographers should stick to a decade old sensor and processor technology and that technology prowess stopped in 2019, I am wondering about other options.

There is the new Panasonic sensor that increases a bit the MP which is not necessaily a good thing for pixel size and low leight. What about the Hasselblad 4/3 CMOS 100 found in the new DJI Mavic 4. Any idea how these drone sensors compare to what is found on the various micro 4/3 cameras?

Minos

If as light/cheap as possible combined a quite impressive sensor (read on) is your principal goal, you may be shocked how well the totally hapless and doomed little Lumix G100/G100D meets your needs.

It is not weather sealed. The damn thing doesn't have IBIS, a full mechanical shutter (just an EFCS), lacks subject detect autofocus and doesn't even have phase detect autofocus (although people who've never tried Lumix cameras tend to vastly underestimate the capability of Lumix cameras with moving subjects, of course, YMMV depending on your subjects, how they move, lighting, background/foreground clutter, what your thresholds are for hit rates, etc.). It is also so small/light, you may find it less than pleasant with larger/heavier lenses — maybe (some such as our dear, esteemed moderator) find this not to be an issue but YMMV. The G100 version has a viewfinder that works OK for a small camera but colors/contrast are off and the camera only has micro USB charging, while the newer and more costly G100D gets a much-improved EVF along with USB-C charging.

OK, lots of drawbacks.

And yet... the sensor is really good. I can't say with any kind of certainty how it compares with the G9ii or OM1/OM1ii because I don't own those cameras and the G100 was taken so unseriously by DPReview, they never actually did a proper studio test with the camera. If they had, they would have learned that it has an incredibly capable sensor. To my eyes, it's in the neighborhood of 1/2 stop better at high ISOs than my Lumix G9—so approaching the realm of APS-C competition like the Canon R50 and Nikon Z50.

Don't take my word for it, though. Download my test shot RAWs comparing G9 and G100 at ISO 6400 and play with them yourself .

The drawbacks of the G100 are a millionfold.

I got rid of mine because I couldn't tolerate the fussy rear dial because I don't baby my cameras and expect weather-sealed body levels of reliability even when handled with nasty, greasy, dusty, dirty, sunscreen-soiled hiking/camping/outdoors hands. The G100 couldn't handle my level of filth. I got rid of my prior Lumix GX85 for the same reason.

But if it's a sweet sensor in a tiny, tiny package you're after, and you can live with its many drawbacks, you could do worse than the G100.

--
"Gentlemen, it has been a privilege playing with you tonight." - Titanic musician before their final song

 

[vcxz]

Yes but how much better would your images be if a brand new top technology 4/3 sensor was given to you in an OM-1 Mark 3 ?

How much better would your images look if you could use ISO1600 where you currently need IS2000 ?

I suggest that the aesthetic quality of the images currently being produced within ‘normal’ commercial and enthusiast photography has more to do with photographer skill/creativity and post processing than the sensor technology and camera formats.

jj

My photos are 20% Northern Lights, 60% wildlife and 20% random other things (landscapes for the most part). My photos are 100% travel, 100% carry all day, and 50% long hikes. Ultralight is the way to go for me. Hence no interest in bigger format system and unecessarily large cameras such as OM3. Hence why I typically carry a RX100-VII and rent when I need to step up in image IQ or low-light IQ. (I do have fast prime micro 4/3 lenses though).

I want a pocket OM1. Being able to go from 800 ISO to 1600 ISO in SOC jpeg is a big deal for northern lights, safari at dusk, or wildlife under the canopy. I am not looking at 6400 ISO or more as I do not do BIF and do not want to go FF and humongous lenses. The camera that matters to me is the one I have with me, so unecessarily large cameras with better IQ but that stay home is of no use.

However, having the latest sensor tech, the better image processing algorithm (so I do not spend my evenings denoising photos) will certainly allow me to get better shots. Having all that in the smallest form factor on the market with reasonable IQ (ie micro 4/3 as I am tired of 1" sensors) is what I seek. I do not care that it is priced below USD1200. I can do USD1600, heck I can do USD1800 for the body but I want small size, small weight, and small lenses. Hello micro 4/3. Good by OM1 and OM3.

It is not a market segmentation problem. It is a form factor problem.

Some of the people who had early access to the OM-1 (and a communication channel to OM) asked why it was bigger than a Pen F. OM said they couldn't make it any smaller due and keep weather sealing.

Some M43 YouTube channels have explained why M43 bodies are so big now. The gist of it was video features and computational technology makes the cameras bigger and often requires bigger batteries, and the sensor size difference versus full frame is trivial.

So if you want stills only, no advanced features, small size, is that not the OM-5? It sounds like you want the OM-3 in the size of an OM-5. The engineers at OM said it wasn't possible. If you know a way how, start your own company and become a billionaire.

 

[pipituni]

Some M43 YouTube channels have explained why M43 bodies are so big now. The gist of it was video features and computational technology makes the cameras bigger and often requires bigger batteries, and the sensor size difference versus full frame is trivial.

so a couple of software algos make the cameras a lot bigger, but a sensor that is 4 times the size doesn't? that doesn't sound like complete nonsense to you?

Fuji cameras do 6k opengate. the X-M5 is smaller than even the Olympus Pen series cameras, and the new X-E5 is about the same size as the PenF. both have AI subject detect

the Lumix S9 is FF, has subject detect, 6k opengate, hi res mode, and is also the size of the Pen F, albeit a bit thicker

the Sony A7Cii does great video and has class leading AIAF

all the above are a lot more compact than the OM3. maybe they're onto something?

the OM3 being so big is a design choice. we'll know soon enough if it was a wise choice

 

[jlsturbo]

This just in: old sensors can't take photos anymore because charts say so

 

[sciencenerd]

Since OM System has decided that ultra light photographers should stick to a decade old sensor and processor technology and that technology prowess stopped in 2019, I am wondering about other options.

There is the new Panasonic sensor that increases a bit the MP which is not necessaily a good thing for pixel size and low leight. What about the Hasselblad 4/3 CMOS 100 found in the new DJI Mavic 4. Any idea how these drone sensors compare to what is found on the various micro 4/3 cameras?

Minos

I think you are making a good point. The question is: Are there any new m43 sensors available that actually raise IQ compared to the sensors used in the OM5 ii, OM1 or G9ii?

The only thing I have seen about new m43 sensors is this:

Four new Four Thirds sensor for smartphones…that might be used on MFT cameras too? – 43 Rumors

www.43rumors.com

And then there is the Xiaomi phone with a 100 mp m43 sensor:

https://www.reddit.com/r/M43/comments/1j2dece/new_43_sensor_user_xiaomi

Would those sensors be available to OM System in quantity? Are they better than the existing Sony sensors OM System is using? Does anyone know?

 

[C Sean]

Since OM System has decided that ultra light photographers should stick to a decade old sensor and processor technology and that technology prowess stopped in 2019, I am wondering about other options.

So what are you looking for?

Performance, then you need to get the OM-1 with it fully stacked sensor. If you're looking for better image quality and or more megapixels, just like film you need to go with a larger format.

There is the new Panasonic sensor that increases a bit the MP which is not necessaily a good thing for pixel size and low leight. What about the Hasselblad 4/3 CMOS 100 found in the new DJI Mavic 4. Any idea how these drone sensors compare to what is found on the various micro 4/3 cameras?

Minos

What I learned is since autofocus is now so good, there is less incentive to upgrade to the next model. If you're upgrading every few years to get extra juice out of M43, you're wasting your money and better served of getting a larger formats.

Panasonic and Olympus spent years trying to bridge the gap between them and Full Frame. As a result Olympus left the camera industry because m43 became unprofitable for them and Panasonic embrace Full Frame. Fuji on the other hand did what M43 known for, and more eg 40-megapixels and release a small medium on top of that.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/184579125@N06/albums

 

[pipituni]

So what are you looking for?

i don't know how the video specs of a sensor are decided but an OM5 with 10bit full sensor video would be a great upgrade

a humpless, rugged version of the OM5 (RF style EVF) with competitive video would be a buy for me

full sensor video output (instead of downscaled to 4k) and human detect AF would be a nice bonus

the photo IQ is great. why can that not be used for video?

 

[john isaacs]

Since OM System has decided that ultra light photographers should stick to a decade old sensor and processor technology and that technology prowess stopped in 2019, I am wondering about other options.

There is the new Panasonic sensor that increases a bit the MP which is not necessaily a good thing for pixel size and low leight. What about the Hasselblad 4/3 CMOS 100 found in the new DJI Mavic 4. Any idea how these drone sensors compare to what is found on the various micro 4/3 cameras?

Minos

I suggest you take a look at the studio scene for the OM-1 and OM-5. I compare results at ISO 100 and ISO 1600 for both cameras, and I think they are comparable. I also compare results between the Panasonic G9ii, and I think they are also comparable.

I like the Panasonic 25mp sensor for the most part, but readout speed seems to vary between 1/50 and 1/75 depending on whether DR Boost is on.

The readout speed on the OM-1 is 1/125, versus 1/60 on the OM-5. That, in my opinion, is the technology difference between these sensors.

I would have prefered the new sensor in the OM-5 as well, whether they backed that up with subject detection technology and buffer capacity. But I don't use those small cameras for fast action. The difference for me is that the OM-5 does not match the AF performance of the E-M1iii, and limits frames per second with AF. I don't know the reason...couldn't get the right hardware to fit in the body or purposeful limiting of capability. But this is not a sensor issue, since the E-M1iii had the same sensor and a remarkable AF performance.

I do have a DJI Mini 3 Pro, which has the dual resolution sensor. I usually use 48mp mode in good light. It's still a small sensor, so if ISO goes up, image quality goes down, and I switch to 12mp mode. That's a lot of pixels to move, and it takes a bit of time; especially noticeable when I bracket exposure (which I do a lot on the DJI). I prefer the larger 20mp sensor on my Air 2s, and use it more often when I'm not space constrained on my travels. That's not just due to the size of the Air 2s, but the batteries and charger system take up a lot more space.

FInally, I don't see any other options. The OM-5ii is remarkably light, weather resistant, and provides computational modes that are beyond the competition. In particular, I use Live ND a lot, it is so much more convenient than using filters and I can toss in a variety of ND settings for selection when I get back to my computer. And HHHR lets me toss in a high res shot with little effort. For long exposures, the Handheld Viewing display is great feedback for how stable you are holding the camera. If I see it go wild, I try again. When I get back to my computer, the difference is visibly there.

 

[Hustle76]

Some M43 YouTube channels have explained why M43 bodies are so big now. The gist of it was video features and computational technology makes the cameras bigger and often requires bigger batteries, and the sensor size difference versus full frame is trivial.

so a couple of software algos make the cameras a lot bigger, but a sensor that is 4 times the size doesn't? that doesn't sound like complete nonsense to you?

Fuji cameras do 6k opengate. the X-M5 is smaller than even the Olympus Pen series cameras, and the new X-E5 is about the same size as the PenF. both have AI subject detect

the Lumix S9 is FF, has subject detect, 6k opengate, hi res mode, and is also the size of the Pen F, albeit a bit thicker

the Sony A7Cii does great video and has class leading AIAF

all the above are a lot more compact than the OM3. maybe they're onto something?

the OM3 being so big is a design choice. we'll know soon enough if it was a wise choice

I’ve only had a little hands-on time with the OM-3 at a photo show at the weekend and managed to shoot about a hour with it, but own a Lumix S9 and have used that extensive - I really didn’t find that it’s a lot more compact than a OM-3. Personally, I would hesitate saying it’s more compact in any meaningful sense for me.

Although I have no issues with using the S9 without a grip, there’s a lot of commentary that it feels better with one - FWIW, at the above show, on the Panasonic stand, the S9 they had on display has a SmallRig one attached. The same argument for a grip can also be made for the OM-3 but the point is that some will end up making a relatively compact camera less compact by adding a grip.

Lenses really need to be factored in. For L-mount, Sigma’s Contemporary primes are compact but the 45mm one I have is quite heavy and due to the design, feels a bit unbalanced on the body. Panasonic’s 1.8 lenses are a lot larger but due to the weight being at the mount end, they feel lighter to handle but make the camera less compact.

Although the S9 has features like 6K opengate, I wonder how many users that the camera is aimed at (SNS users and people moving from mobile phones) really are going to benefit from that. Personally, I find opengate useful but I don’t need it a 6K.

Panasonic had to make compromises to keep the size and cost down. The lack of EVF, mechanical shutter, hot shoe will be an issue for some - and people need to weigh up the things they need to prioritise, obviously.