Larzac

Hi
I'm a former Leica M intensive user (more than a decade), I don't use it anymore, maybe on day again.
That said, I tried an M11 and a couple of lenses (35-50) few days ago, and theses are my thoughts.
I don't appreciate the rangefinder anymore I'm afraid: not very accurate, not so fast, difficult to operate with progressive lenses glasses...
I know that it still has its avantages such as viewing a larger field, but I found myself using the screen to frame and focus more than the RF.
Which is a weird gesture: leaving the focus ring, double touch the LCD to zoom in, and back to the lens.
The rangefinder costs a lot in the M price, and maybe the Q line is the best way to go for some photographers who want to enjoy a compact Leica with a modern technology (af, ois, evf, closeup).
I'll probably buy a Q with a 50mm...

Because it was not possible to do so on a phone.

@MikeRan
My point is that is it useless to argue beyond. Of course DXO would have improve the Sony images, but we step into a nonsense zone. When an image is excellent, flawless, good enough to print large and nice what is the use to try to go further, endlessly?...

Part 2/2...
On screen impossible to guess which is the Sony, which is the Olympus.
So I export the four images in C1 at 30x40 and 60x80 cm, jpeg 100%.
The only difference I could see was a very very slight for the Sony at 1600 ISO 60x80 export. Probably not visible on a full size print.
My conclusion: if you include a good NR in your RAW process, the Olympus results are similar, at least until 1600 ISO and up to 24x32 inches, to the Sony results (processed in C1 only), which has a 33 Mp sensor.
We should stop arguing pointlessly. With good process and softwares the Olympus can deliver excellent results at usual ISO settings and outputs.
If you need 25600 ISO and/or 60 inches prints, then ok, an A7RIV or a medium format is a better choice.

Part1/2
I don't own an OM-1, so I won't talk about it.
Some feedback though from the real world, not the pixel peeping VR.
I recently downloaded raws from a review website, Sony A7IV (33 Mp) and E-M1 m3 same scene, same light, at 200 ISO and 1600 ISO. Development in Capture One pro 22.
The results:
At 200 ISO the Sony has obviously the edge but slightly, the Olympus picture is as crisp but not as smooth as the Sony's.
At 1600 ISO, the difference is accentuated as expected. The Sony is no longer clear and smooth but clearly better than the Olympus.
Then I processed the Olympus images with the DXO Prime engine, about 15 seconds for each image, with a medium setting for NR, not the default which is too high.

C1 is not cheap at all indeed. But not that expensive: I paid 125 euros for updating from 21 to 22. There are various rebates in autumn.
In France LR+PS subscription is 12 euros/month-144 euros/year (coming with an iPad version), so very similar prices. (I own Affinity Photo).
And C1 leaves you the ability to use the software if you stop upgrading...

Please see attachments. Of course it is not a proof of anything, just an example, but I often see that: _0: no adjustments at all - _HL-100: HL slider down to -100.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-5qojF7Ql9YKZU5pzcnFxAqTuCiJN9tv/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-3T99_voa00VNNAYJhUSKsjRJIQmGiKw/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-5MDcYso_Vb1KMv2Pi-QD7hfW9auZcVk/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-1m8sylv_3BXpt-Msgpd8UEDmzIIRsLd/view?usp=sharing

HDR and Panorama seem to work well. It's nice not have to ping pong with another software.
Panorama lacks some features LR has, auto crop and fill borders. HDR can also be used as a noise reducer if you merge several identical shots (obviously with no mouvement in the frame) and it does a better job than DXO prime but at the cost of a heavier file...
I choose this software for some reasons: excellent RAW converter (better than LR for most of the cameras it seems), by far better HL recovery than LR, excellent interface when you get used to it of course!, masks are amazing and so useful, sessions are very handy in my workflow, quick adjust shortcuts, no subscription..., excellent support, etc.
C1 needs a better NR for sure, and to keep adding and improving features between two releases as they already did, but for me it is a solid work companion.

The A7iv is very appealing by many aspects:
Ideal 33 Mp sensor, fine detailed and somehow cropable images, not too cumbersome though.
Lossless compressed RAWs.
Compact and rugged body, metal feeling unlike the R Canon series, beautifully designed but with this plastic touch...
Good ergonomics: grip, menus, dials and buttons. Better/good colors. Excellent AF.
The best lenses choice among FF.
And I really don't mind the burst limitations and the cropped 4K 120: not into fast action photography or video, like many photographers I guess.

But Sony made a weird choice giving us this poor resolution, fashionable articulated screen.
Better for video? Please tell me why and how compared to a tilting one... Better for vlogging? maybe but who really cares? Better for portrait? The best option is obviously the double tilting screen.
And this 1 million dots panel... A cost issue? The A7iv is not a budget camera!

Anyway, we live in a Youtubers and selfies, speedy and geeky world... not mine.

I have MFT too and intended to keep my Olympus along with a new FF for the same reasons, large and detailed image sensor. And yes compared to the A7r3a there are some drawbacks with the A74, screen definition, price...
BTW where did you get this fair price for the A7r3? :-)

Fair enough Richard, but Sony deserve a big red box on that item, a 1 million dots screen on this body is so stingy! I still cannot understand why they could stick to such a cheap screen in 2021. Even fully articulated...

Two E-M1 M2 indeed. And precisely along with this comeback to FF, I would like to get a better screen to shot with, 1m dots is barely enough in many cases.
Thanks, the A7iv is on the average-good side...
My point is that Sony seems inconsistent on that matter. They recently upgraded A7Riii and A7Riv with better LCDs, why this weird step back with this ambitious (and not cheap) new model?

My main concern about this camera is its surprisingly low res LCD. I can't understand what Sony has done here... All these gorgeous features along with this cheap poor screen.
I do 80% of my pictures using the screen, so it is a great deal for me (not not mention the playback).

At last!
I don't really care for HDR which often the quicker way to ruin a photography, but panoramas is very very welcome.

Actually I think it’s DXO... but Capture One is the best Raw developer for sure.

A “better sensor“ photograph doesn’t need ND filters? Can you develop?

Panoramas are really missing in C1, I have to use LR or Affinity and it's boring and disk consuming.
Probably focus stacking too, but I don't need it.
Regarding HDR, it is the worse invention of photo development process... the results are 99% of times awful and kitsch. C1 have a very efficient tools kit to manage highlights and shadows, and it's perfect for me.

I have both softwares and I no longer use LR... At the beginning of the switch better performance for C1, now I highly appreciate the ergonomics of C1 over LR (layers, etc.). So it's really a matter of use and practice, and habits.

At last it works. And pretty fine indeed.
My main complaint is about the raw engine. ON1 is still weak on its ability recovering highlights, they are often washed out, with significant less latitude to work on them than others softwares.
The contrast slider is typical: it lowers shadows but is ineffective with highlights.
Regarding LR and C1, my advice is to give C1 a real try: real better capabilities on RAWs than LR (not speaking of the DAM). But rather expensive indeed.

Indeed the NR is under average (LR) and far behind bests, like Noise Ninja or maybe Capture One.
I guess On1 is aware of that and will provide a better NR in the future. For now an export in another software is unfortunately a mandatory.