Olympus has posted a teaser video for a high-end mirrorless camera that the company plans to launch on January 24th. The video is short – under 20 seconds – and highlights the camera being used at sporting events. It also features everyone's favorite: a shadowy camera silhouette. Wouldn't be a teaser video without one, would it?
Scenes in the video suggest that the camera will be rugged enough to stand up to some tricky conditions like a sand volleyball match, a point that's driven home as the clip closes on the OM-D logo. Take a look for yourself at the video above and let the speculation begin.
As stated elsewhere by me, according to the NASDAQ stock exchange website Olympus may simply give up its camera business to focus on "global med-tech" (https://www.nasdaq.com/article/refocused-olympus-provides-a-flash-of-hope-20190113-00103). The sound of this does not augur well for Olympus Cameras. The premier MFT camera company may simply pull the plug on its technological wonders and leave the world of photography much poorer and crestfallen, in our opinion. NASDAQ says: "The so-called imaging unit, which produces the OM-D body and M.Zuiko lenses, accounts for less than 8 percent of group revenue, but has distracted management with its falling sales and mounting losses."
Olympus is known in the market as a camera maker more than anything else just like Canon that produces more profitable products than their consumer cameras. Killing their camera business simply means erasing their name off the market completely and even if it happened companies don't just close their business, they sell it. Remember that they've been saying that about Olympus since the invention of the original 4/3 technology, the same thing is being said about Pentax although Pentax keeps on making some of the best cameras and lenses in the market today.
Well, "Kalibrahim," you seem to have a point that Olympus may keep making cameras despite losing money on them to prevent "erasing their name off the market." But the "market" the hedge fund vultures are driving Olympus towards is highly profitable "med-tech" market and not the low-profit consumer camera market. We hope you are correct that Olympus wants to be known in general and will continue to use traditional photography as a vehicle towards that end. For in our opinion, Olympus (while not perfect, and while not cheap but not overly expensive) produces the best compact imaging systems (the PEN F being a great example)--highly capable and versatile cameras with impeccable matched lenses.
I'm curious too. I'm wondering if it's an APS-C mirrorless--maybe they've moved away from the m4/3 sensor. And I don't necessarily mean this as a joke. For them it would be a big step, but even so, the rest of the industry would probably say "meh". And while pixel count isn't everything, there is only so many pixels you can cram onto a m4/3 sensor and still get good performance. And I think 17-20MP is about the limit IMO.
The one thing I did always like about the Olympus bodies is they also have the same retro look like Fuji cameras do, with the dials on top, etc (although the Olympus bodies seem to have less dials).
m43 is amazing sensor ... no reason to move. FF is stupid and based on tech advanced M43 will close the gap. (see last 10y mobile sensors which are much smaller)
With APS-C I need to crop the image to fit into a 12x16 or 20x16 print, whereas with MFT, I do not need to do so. APS-C format is also not ideal for portrait-mode prints since it is too "tall". Once you have considered these issues, the difference between APS-C and MFT is no more than 10% in equivalence. However, MFT lenses are significantly smaller, lighter and yet in general the primes also have bigger apertures, e.g. the Pana 20 and 25 f1.7 and the Oly 45/1.8. I had a free one day loan from Fuji of the XT-2 last year and did not find the difference between that and my EM5 and EM10 cameras sufficient to warrant an expensive switch. Indeed, I could not find anything significant to complain about my MFT cameras!
There is something in Olympus cameras that no other manufacturer can replicate, they are amazing. However Olympus have to talk (PR) to photographers and explain what and why they are doing things, who they target, clearly position cameras, etc. Somehow Pana is much more successful PR'ing what they are doing and who they are targeting.
Calling it an “enthusiast” camera before having seen it let alone having tested - only because of the sensor size and brand - is close minded, condescending and even unprofessional - worthy of an enthusiast journalist.
If Ferrari sold a car with a turbo I-4 just under $100K, people would flock to buy it. Forget that the soul of the V-12/V-8 was gone and performance was severely cut back to keep he price down. As long as it looks the part...
I like Oly cameras just fine. Great for vacations, but when I shoot something I know is going to print, M4/3 is not ever going to be my choice over FF. That's just a practical consideration. Too many times, my designers want to crop a bit, and then M4/3 just leaves you wanting, needing more.
No, they're printed in glossy print high quality publications and we all see a difference. Editors, designers and photographers. Designers in a successful working relationship, ask for and get a little extra room to move an image around. That's a professional courtesy to them by me. It is a functional reality in publications. APS-C can hold up in a pinch, M4/3 just doesn't. I see it first hand, and the publication's designers can pick out the M4/3 images every time. I took a PEN F and 12-40 on vacation, wrote an article on the trip a few months later and the images were great for smaller article insets, but the files would not hold up to one becoming a full page facing the article. It looked good until you saw a FF file in comparison. You can blame the operator all you want, insult my opinion like a troll, but I know what I'm doing with a camera, and you just can't ignore the constraints of a smaller file in a design and publishing environment.
"No, they're printed in glossy print high quality publications and we all see a difference." I worked in publishing for 35 years as a writer, editor, photographer and designer producing magazines and books and that's simply an overstatement. Content is typically the most important factor when choosing photos for publication. The resolution and quality from almost every digital format (10 mp and above) comfortably exceeds what can be reproduced by the offset printing process. Larger formats can provide other benefits, such as a wider tonal and color gamut, but even those gains are marginalized on a printed page. Although there may be art directors for some publications who demand that a particular format be used (it's usually medium format), they're usually the exception. I believe it's fair for you to address your own circumstance but that's not representative of the entire publishing industry.
What you're describing can easily be a function of the optical quality of the lens used.
Sometimes one can see the difference in bit depth, most 4/3 sensored cameras only shoot 12 bit raws. While full framed (and APSC) shoot 14 bit raws. But the difference isn't always visible.
When you had that Olympus Pen F on a vacation were you shooting the same scenes with a full framed camera and zoom lens of an equivalent focal length?
Unless, you can say "yes" to both parts of the question, then the claims don't mean much.
Also magazines really don't print things that well, it's better than the film era, since the nose hairs are sharper, but they almost universally make simplistic over saturated color choices.
It doesn't make sense to compare body-only size and price but the entire system: Olympus OM-D E-M1 II 574 g 1 599 $ M.ZUIKO 7-14mm F/2.8 PRO 534 g 1 199 $ M.ZUIKO 12-100mm F/4 IS PRO 561 g 1 257 $
Total: 1 669 g, 14 - 200mm, 4 055 $
SONY A7 III 650 g 1 998 $ Sony FE 12-24mm F4 G 565 g 1 648 $ Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM 886 g 2 198 $ Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS 1 480 g 2 598 $
Total: 3 581 g, 12-200mm, 8 442 $
The weight and price of the Sony FF system are twice as high as of the Olympus m43 system. Is the image quality of the Sony FF twice as good as Olympus? No. Even with the speculated price and of course heavier weight of the new Olympus OM-D E-M1X, the Oly system looks more attractive IMO.
I totally agree with you. If we are all honest with ourselves, we will find that even the 16MP cameras like the EM5 and 10s can produce outstanding 20x16 prints which are virtually indistinguishable from FF camera. I have compared them with my Nikon D750 and decided to use my MFTs for street or travel exclusively, and even landscape. We have indeed reached the point of ever diminishing returns with digital cameras, just like we have done so with mobile phones, Hi-fi, TVs, etc. All present cameras can produce outstanding images, if the photographer takes the time to explore all the feature sets. Just enjoy what you have and concentrate on improving your photography, that's what I've been saying to my friends and colleagues.
Right, Olympus has not announced a new mirrorless ILC format for their line, so not like Panasonic. (Or of course the new mirrorless ILC formats of the last 24 months from Fuji, Canon, and Nikon. No, I didn't forget Hasselblad. Fuji, Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic all had prior M-ILC formats.)
A FF sensor only has four times the surface area of a 4/3" sensor, meaning that it's not even an order of magnitude larger; and yet the former is supposedly large and the latter "tiny". If a FF sensor is large, then I'd call a 4/3" sensor mid-sized.
Why isn't medium format the Full Frame, with 35mm being the medium sensor and 4/3 being small and the point and shoot size sensors being tiny. Sometimes I think people focusing on this full frame thing are over compensating for some other deficiency. BTW: on Sunday, using my OMD EM1 Mark II, I replicated an image at 12,800 that I had previously taken with my full frame Nikon D700. I shot in JPEG and over exposed 1/3 of a stop. The image looks just as clean as the one I took with the D700. Of course, a newer FX sensor will be cleaner as will be a newer Medium Format sensor. But like anything, what is enough? Someone compared engines. I know of 4 cylinder cards that can beat the larger V-8's. There is more to an engine than size, just like there is more to a camera than sensor size.
One difference between 4/3 sensors and full framed sensors that is generally not a difference between full framed sensors and medium format sensors: Nearly all 4/3 sensors shoot 12 bit raws, while full framed sensors shoot 14 bit raws as do nearly all medium format sensors.
Too many people are missing who they are trying to target here. Stop comparing prices of the lower level FF camera's. That is not what the $3000 price tag should be compared too. This is being marketed as a sports camera. Look at its specs. Then compare the price of a 1 D X mark II ( $5,500) and a D5 ( $6,500) Olympus thinks they got it right with this camera. Obviously. Other than the sensor size, this camera beats the above mentioned two in every way. As long as it focuses as well. You will get a great camera, 1/2 the price and much smaller. What more could a sports photographer want? Stop comparing it to a Sony who's weather sealing SUCKS!! And cannot focus worth a damn. Sorry but thats a fact. The D-850 @ $3300, not a sports camera will get spanked. Anyone else see 50mp HI RES mode? This is the camera Olympus needed to build now. Kind of ( ok here this is what we can do now). With every system there is a trade off. I'd prefer smaller, less expensive and still get great quality
4/3 rumors is suggesting it will likely be 80 mp, handholdable in high res, in RAW; three different high res modes? For me, the most interesting feature with the EM1X is the hand held feature! I’m still scratching my head over that one. If they can pull it off with ibis, that will be a breakthrough. I’m not sure how that could be done, perhaps using the lens stabilization seperately during the moment of exposure?
Actually it can do sports, wildlife, event and Landscapes. Obviously Olympus hasn't targeted ths to just sports and action, but somewhere in the grapevine, someone other than Olympus labeled this way! There are a lot of things I’m sure we don't know yet about this new camera!
When photographing sports and wildlife subjects, it's often very difficult to compose tightly, simply because the subject is moving, often in an unpredictable direction.
High MP allows the subject to be photographed from a greater distance and/or with a lens that has a wider view.
It also allows a multitude of different crops from a single image, which is extremely useful for altering the dynamics of an image, for corrrecting horizons, and for supplying images with different formats and aspect ratios for publication.
There are many other more obvious advantages, such as revealing the full detail of a bird's feathers when out of necessity photographing from a greater distance than would be desired.
... and that's just a few of the advantages of high MP for sports & wildlife.
Wu - Yes of course, but Olympus seems to be hinting that the ultra-fast burst rates of this camera (possibly in conjunction with the ultra-fast readout of a global shutter?) would allow such a tiny time gap between frames, that a series of 4 shots could be taken so quickly that any subject or camera movement would be negated.
At the same time, increased processing power and better algorithms could allow near-instantaneous merging of the frames, resulting in an 80MP image with no apparent subject or camera movement.
At least, that's the theory. Personally I doubt if Olympus or anyone else currently has the technology to do this.
But these multi-frame merged shots such as I mention would be much much easier to do with a small M43 sensor than with a FF sensor, because the amount of physical sensor movement would be less.
So far the only proven semi-pro use for a m43 camera has been video. However, it never fails, every time a new m43 model is launched or rumored, the usual suspects go off making crazy claims that this is the end of ff, that m43 was always the ‘purest’ form of digital and all kinds of other such nonsense. I wish this foolishness stopped but I am not going to kid myself. For any focal lengths of 400 and below ff wins no context. There maybe some application advantages in terms of size above that but that is no use to me. The price advantage was already gone years ago but now olympus is pushing this into a parallel universe.
It won’t have a global shutter and it won’t spank no D850 either It will have a high resolution mode that involves taking some photos (8 is the current number) and then combine them. If the subject moves there will be artifacts The rumor says 1/60s for this operation so it will be of limited use.
Yxa - As I implied, I don't believe *any* manufacturer yet has the technology to implement a truly effective and useful system of shooting a pixel-shift burst and merging in-camera while maintaining sharpness and freedom from artefacts.
But logic dictates that due to the smaller sensor movements the shifting can be done much faster on an M43 camera than on one with a larger sensor.
Like many things, getting it perfect will take many years of development, but Olympus should be given a huge pat on the back for the strides they are making towards improving all aspects of pixel-shift and in-camera merging technology.
And *someone" has to be first with global shutter, so why shouldn't it be Olympus?
I don't particularly like their cameras, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss them. The only real problems with the EM1X are the menu interface and the price - I just can't see anyone buying one when a top quality FF is cheaper!
Ento, i like olympus snappy operation and solid built in both the body and the lenses but the sensor size kills it for me. It is rather amazing after these many years of mirrorless how each manufacturer creates one or more almost fatal flaw in their MILC forcing pros back to ff dslr for still imaging. I imagine this camera will nail everything but ISO, DR and dof due to sensor size making it in essence a $3k paperweight.
For many applications, a car is basically a motorcycle with four times the weight, triple the fuel consumption and unable to fit or access many places. Of course, you can't expect an objective car / motorcycle comparison from someone that doesn't regularly ride/drive both.
photomedium - Yes, FF is really for those of us who demand the ultimate in image quality, and either make large prints, undertake heavy cropping, shoot high ISO, need lots of DR or need/want shallow depth of field.
Yes, that's a lot of us, and neither M43 or APS provide the quality that I personally want to achieve.
But, I wouldn't go as far as you in condemning M43 cameras. They can't match APS and certainly not FF, but for many people who only produce material for webpages or magazine/book images, they are adequate. They are also extremely portable, which for many is a deal-breaker.
Yxa - Almost certainly it will be one of the electronic giants that releases the first global shutter - probably Sony or Panasonic. Even an outside chance of Samsung. But not Canon, they are very conservative and nearly always the last company to launch new technology. And probably not Nikon.
Olympus's association with Panasonic would place them in a strong position too, especially as they have the best in-camera merging tech at the moment.
Although Olympus is dwarfed by the other tech Giants, they are still a behemoth, and their entire buisness is imaging. The consumer imaging market is just a fraction of their buisness. They are more focused on medical, scientific, and industrial imaging. They most certainly are putting vast amounts of money into sensor technology. I wouldn't say they have as good a chance as Sony in releasing the next big thing in sensor tech, but they aren't out of the running.
Yxa - "The rumor says 1/60s for this operation so it will be of limited use"
Ah yes, but we don't yet know whether the "1/60" referred to is the *only* speed, or the *fastest* or the *slowest* speed at which pixel-shift is usable.
I think we have to wait until 24th January for the answer.
Ento, seems to me you are condemning m43 even more! Lol There absolutely is no need to spend $3k for your proposed uses. On these late oly iterations m43 has gained significant mass and the fast lenses are neither small nor cheap. In sum, l m not sure where that leaves m43.
photomedium - Would you be trying to catch me out by any chance? 😂
Honestly, I'd never condemn a camera just because it wouldn't be the best tool for *me*, because it may well be perfect for someone else with different requirements.
There will I'm sure be plenty of people who would jump at 18fps, adaptive AF, and 7.5 stops of stabilisation, I'd love to have all of that, but I'm not convinced that the IQ at high ISO would be good enough for me personally, and a camera that only has 20MP wouldn't allow me to heavily crop shots of birds in flight etc. So it just isn't for me.
Theogrem, Do we really need to explain why in sports photography no one in their right mind would consider using m43 mirrorless cameras, Olympus or not? Unless this m43 sensor pulls off some kind of a miracle this nonsense discussion has gone on long enough.
The high res mode on the EM1 Mark ll kisks ass! (take a look at the high res tests at imaging resourse with the em5 mark ll and Pentax 645, Nikon d810). With the EM 1 ll, with wind blowing leaves, flowing water etc, high res mode rocks. With high res up to 1/60 in the EM1X that will really “nibble” away to quote someone else in the tech savy world,....at Full Frame. Will it be 1/125, 1/250 with future firmware, updates?
Professional M43 camera and lenses means a death blow to the professional FF. Only people who will buy an FF in the future are the inexperienced, and the enthusiasts who have been misinformed, and lured into the big sensor and huge lenses game, with no benefits except for broken backs and more clumsiness. Pro M43 is what the discerning users have been expecting all long; a pro camera and a range of pro lenses that can retire FF mammoths with their bazooka lenses. Mirrorless FF is a devolution anyway, a regress into the precambrian and false idea of what constitutes the imaging. It was a fake call from the beginning, advertisements filled with deliberate lies (like unusably small Sony a7 with 28mm lens). No more lies, please. The future belongs to more adaptable, easily portable, more versatile and usable pieces of equipment, where the sensor size, lens sizes, reach, working distance, image fidelity, etc are all carefully balanced. M43 ticks all the boxes. FF, none. Good call Olympus.
Now that the Canikon elephants started parading the mirrorless arena, if this new Oly does not offer a convnicing upgrade in performance this could be the declining point for the m43 ecosystem, me with my less and less used E-PL5 says... I keep my fingers crossed! At least it wont cost an arm & a leg now that the FF competition appeared at last.... or so I hope...
@Ebrahim, can you show me a LF digital camera that is for sale for consumers? Nope.
You've stated that bigger is better, so why stop at FF when the superieur MF is available? I know why you don't want to answer, because FF is good enough for you. But MFT users can use that exact same argument. So you don't like it.
The answer to "Why FF" and not either MF or 4/3 is easy and I answered it 5 years ag = the best image quality my money could buy. At that time the Nikon D800 with quality as fine as or better than yestercentury MF film quality: much cheaper and much lighter. Would I prefer my diminutive Sony RX100-II for landscapes just because of size? Never. Can RX100 do great photos of a family birthday party when having to travel on an airline with restricted luggage weight? Absolutely! So to me it is either 1" or FF.
Because I have to buy this new product? Or wait, I don't have to. When my E-M5 II is at the end I will look for a successor, probably the E-M5 Mark IV or V. And I did used a ff camera a few times. So any other sh*tty argument?
What a ridiculous discussion. With a given pixel count, a larger sensor will always produce better images. Why? Because each sensor pixel is bigger, allowing more light to reach it, which means less amplification of noise.
But, there are practicalities involved - it's easy peasy to carry a FF around all day long, but much harder to lug a MF or large format camera up a mountain.
Ansel Adams managed it and produced what IMO are still the finest landscapes since the advent of photography, but we are talking here about ordinary mortals, few of whom would be prepared to carry anything heavier than FF for any length of time.
Yes it's ridiculous to claim FF has no advantage over M43s. It's 45mp versus 20mo for God's sake. Markedly higher detail, dynamic range, and lowlight performance.
All of that, while not being much larger than m43s. Actually the A7/Z7 are smaller than this new olympus camera. And lenses are as small or big as you want them to be with the vast selection of FF glass.
That's not to say m43s has great cameras and some advantages.
@Ebrahim Saadawi: well, m43 (and aps c) also have great advantages over ff. Do you have any equivalent to xf 18-55, xf 10-24, Zuiko 7-14mm f2.8... on ff?
Nothing wrong with landscape on ff, aps c or m43..
That's true. I never bought a 16-35mm for my EOS R and just use an 11-22 on my m50 for UWA needs. HUGE size difference. Never also bought the RF 35mm and just use the EF-M 22mm f/2 pancake.
The reason one might look at this Olympus versus an A9 however is the size of telephoto lenses. M43s super tele are TINY compared to the Canon L monsters.
not yet - nice expensive fast lenses counteract much of this but it seems that modern m43 camera sensors are marginally better than the ones presented 6 years ago in the shadows noise department
I remember back to when 35mm was called "miniature" photography. I carried a Nikon with 35, 50, 105, & 200 plus Honeywell potato masher flash all the time in high school. And I only weighed about 120 lbs. So now it is too big and heavy? Did photographers become wimps?
Professional M43 is an oxymoron similar to saying jumbo shrimp. It is used for marketing purposes. I did not see any professionals using M43 during the last major professional sports event I attended last year. Photographers were using 90% DSLR's.
AFAIK there are no tilt shift lenses designed for the M4/3 format. That pretty much eliminates their use for me. The Sony APS cameras can use the Canon TSE lenses with a Speed Booster without cropping, but that is not how I would want to go. I have both the A7RII and A6000 and there is no significant size or weight benefit in using the APS body.
Considering the reality of FF bodies being very high res, one could always choose to use a shorter/lighter telephoto lens and simply crop the image to achieve the same result as using an M4/3 and its smaller lens. And Sony gives me that by allowing me to use the APS format lenses on the FF body and vice versa. So my Canon 100-400 becomes a 150-600 on the A6000.
I think think the APS Sony is pretty good and have not shot with an M4/3. But unless they make 8.5mm and 12mm TSE lenses for it and can match the quality I get with an A7RII, I'm out.
You've seems to miss the fact that the x is Olympus first shot at sports photography. No wonder that no sports photographer is using it now. Also you've seems to miss the fact that the guy which I replied to didn't mention sports but made a general statement.
Thorgem - Yes, it is Olympus first attempt at sports photography and it will certainly be used in that field by a few professionals, especially those who produce images primarily for the web, or for newspaper reproduction, where high resolution is not a requirement.
Personally, I consider the low 20MP* to be a severe limitation - it greatly limits the amount of cropping that can be done. Sports/wildlife photographers often need to do heavy cropping due to the difficulty of accurately framing a subject that is moving rapidly and unpredictably, and is often small in the frame (e.g. birds in flight).
Incidentally (and many here are "guilty" of this), you didn't make it clear whether you were addressing your comments to the OP or to the person immediately above you in the thread.
*The 80MP pixel-shift can obviously not be used for sports or wildlife subjects because they'd move significantly between the exposures.
@Thorgrem - My post above was in response to Olympus claiming their new camera will be a pro sports camera. They would have to convince a lot of pros to go from APS-C and FF to M43, a difficult thing to sell.
I have to agree with other comments: One of the best advantages of Micro Four Thirds and Mirrorless technology is the reduced size and weight. Why create something with all the drawbacks of a full sized DSLR?
Though the body is a little larger than the E-M1 II, the lenses are the same smaller and lighter M4/3 lenses. This is the major advantage to choose M4/3 over Full Frame.
Actually, afterthought, I think DPreview titled this camera as an enthusiast camera knowing it would get more clicks. Jordan and Chris, time to come home.
DPReview, a camera likely at a 3000.00 price point is usually not an enthusiast camera. Since you know nothing about the specs, maybe massage the title of the article a little? I shoot professionally (albeit part time) and shoot with the OMD 1 Mark II.
MFT has a hard time these days with growing popularity of full frame mirrorless and dropping prices. If Olympus and Panasonic want to stay competitive in this market they need to leverage from the strengths of this system and deliver more compact and affordable bodies and lenses. Looking at this video and seeing the huge body and lens, but knowing it has only a tiny 20MP (?) sensor and costing around $3k makes me wonder who this is for?
Professionals - people who make money from photography - are certainly not the target group as there are better alternatives in APSC (e.g. Nikon D500) and FF (1DX 5D, D5, D850 etc.).
Olympus should push bodies like the E-M5 Mark III more and innovate in those areas. Imagine an E-M5 with the latest 20MP or more sensor, the amazing 5-axis IBIS, a 3.6M dot EVF and at a competitive price (under $1.5k); THAT would be a hit!
I don't think so. Olympus is right on track. They have a very wide range from very small to large. The system is great because it's so diverse. Ultra fast to Ultra compact and the image quality is excellent on all. APSC, 35mm, medium format are just alternatives to M43 but not necessarily better. They are all good and server their respective purposes. I for one don't want having a larger sensor, when the 4/3 sensor is so good, because it means giant lenses in comparison. BTW, where did you get the $3000 price and 20MP?
How many MP is the 1DX Mark II? 20.2 How about the D5? Oh right 20.8. Both bodies almost twice the price. Whoa are these for? Oh right PRO's. Your logic is flawed in every word you write. 4/3 is the only truly designed system for digital. They did not take film sizes and convert them into a digital sensor. EVERY SINGLE flaw people have pointed out over the years has been addressed and improved greatly. So much so you cannot tell the difference on a screen or even poster size prints. Yet people still scream that m 4/3 is a flawed system. Olympus is finally coming into it's own. The format is always going to be made to perform in certain ways that FF just can't and won't due to size.
Lens size is nice as long as it can take the photo without compromise. I think you might end up finding this as a complementary camera along a ff one for the reach of that 300mm alone. Or when size matters and you can't stuff a 600mm with the rest of the gear. So adventure stuff I think, that'd be neat. I could see natgeo shot with it, because you really don't need that wide an aperture with telephoto lenses for that, and the rest of the line up is great.
Would I buy another system to compliment my sony gear? Not sure, mostly because I don't need something super rugged and cheap enough not to cry about when something goes wrong. The lure of adventure is great, but it's a tonne of work to do right. And people that want to shoot square would enjoy less of a crop from 4x3
I choose Fuji (X-T20 first, and then X-T3) over m43 because of the lack of mid range camera (like e-m5iii)...I prefered the lens line up and build of Olympus, but the price for a modern (or not too old) sensor was just too high compare to Fuji..
@thetom Depends on what you're shooting. If your shot is wide with lots of detail more is better. Landscapes look fine at 20mp with good glass up to a1 but more is better. And if we're being picky there's a point where the resolution helps to show the subtle character of a lens and can give digital files a more organic look. I really like the file's out of my a7r3 but I don't think the 24mp out of my a9 aren't good enough. For me it's more about the glass
Well, in "pure" IQ not.. Obviously, the A7III offers lower noise, better DR and more resolution.. However, I would personally take the OM-D EM-1 II. any time... but very dark situation.
As casual photographer continue to flock to camera-phones, expect to see more expensive cameras coming to market. Enthusiasts will continue to by more Pro Cameras than the pros do.
@cdembrey Absolutely right. It's all about a $$ return on investment for a pro, and if old kit gets the job done they're still competitive there's no need to shell more $$ out. All you need is the right tool for the job
going big without a removable grip is a bad decision - they should have gone square with the sensor instead - but could not afford building one... there is no need to turn the camera to an unsteady vertical.
What is needed is something like the E-PM2 but with an EVF squeezed in and with the updated 20mp sensor, and no shutter shuck, price of $500 or so with the 14-42 lens. Basically what the GM-5 was--that. You know, a camera with plays up to the strengths mirrorless promised us--quality in your pocket when you don't want to lug a full-frame DSLR and not costing $1500.
I love how DPReview calls it an Enthusiast camera. I am sure it will be a great camera, shame about the sensor. I have the E-M10 and it is my favorite handling camera in terms of size and controls. The sensor lets it down so i only use it when i want to have fun with filters. Its my toy camera so to speak.
IMHO whether you're an enthusiast or a pro, the camera you buy depends on how much money you are willing to spend (ie: enthusiasts with money buy "pro" bodies).
Nothing is wrong with the sensor if you that is your only camera. I have multiple FF and ASPC cameras. I may as well bring the one that takes technically better pictures.
I still use my E-PM1 and love it for B&W because I could not care any less for grain, etc. I use between 200 - 1600 ISO, depending on how I want the image to be printed. Essentially, know your camera well and you will get great results. Indeed, some of my best photos were taken with an E-3 with 10 MP only :)
Just watched that video again...lots of low light telephoto action shots being taken...I've heard they may use the additional real estate in the camera to go dual ISO. If this is true and it's got great auto focus then it could be a great camera. I shoot hockey a lot and high ISO noise is my biggest problem. Give me clean ISO 3200-6400 and I'm all set! But $3000 Olympus!? Screw you! Oh.. and here's my $3000.
Negative. I got rid of my Nikon stuff because I liked the compactness and crop factor (reach on long lenses) of the Olympus kit. I'm sure the IQ on the D500 is amazing tho.
So if this camera performs as well as a 1DX and D5 at 1/2 the price is it still screw you Olympus? Or maybe mortgage your house to get one. If you are using a lower end FF or even the dreadful Sony that cannot focus to save it's life. I'm sure you miss a lot of shots. I've shot hockey. technique means as much if not more than gear. I shot with an E-500, an E-30 and then an E-5 with the 50-200 SWD and 12-60 SWD. None are anywhere as good as my E-M1 Mark 1
Like you, I shoot a lot of hockey ranging from mites up through high school. Starting with an Oly E510 and the 70-300 ten years ago to now using the EM1 mkll and the 40-150 2.8 or the 150F2, my main issue has been the ability to focus on a moving subject with any amount of confidence. I'm still getting enough shots that are good but not enough misses to jump ship. If Olympus can give me a focusing system that I can rely on, done! Anything else that comes with the new camera I'll take as a bonus. Loving the idea of a built in grip too.
How often does anyone need to use ISO3200 and above when they have 5 to 7.5 stop IBIS capability? I stayed with MFT after considering Fuji XT-2 partly because it has no IBIS (neither does XT-3). Indeed, I just took a look at the photos I took in the past two years and I have not gone above ISO 1600 at all. No one single frame. Indeed, most of my shots are at ISO 200 to 400 (probably 85 to 90%), so I could not care less about high ISO capability anymore. Actually, some luminance noise is desirable as it gives the photo a film-like quality instead of looking like a painting.
I'm sure camera reviewers can look forward to another round of press junkets promoting this camera. Perhaps it will help extend the collective amnesia that descended over the huge price hike that came with the EM1 mkII - by all accounts it's going to be an even more substantial pill to swallow this time. I don't doubt the EM1x will be a superb camera. 3K's worth of superb, I doubt. But there again I'm not one of that type of MfT shooter [I have the original EM1 and a G9] who thinks an f2.8 lens is a comparable thing between the formats andt the cost of premium MfT lenses is if anything more exorbitant than the high end bodies. Thankfully that is borne out by the fact you can now adapt almost any glass with a bit of compromise. You can even retain AF with some adapters.
I hope Olympus pushes this hard to the strengths of M43rds. That would be sports with telephoto, and Macro. Portrait is not what M43rds is best at. Pushing hard in the markets where more depth of field and more reach for less size, would really make sense. I hope Olympus finally starts to market that way. Running with a stabilized 600mm equivalent lens on an Olympus is possible. Not so much on 135 format.
I love my pen f, but we also have to look at what competition has to offer, like excellent fuji xt3 half the price this new olympus is going to cost(if rumors are correct).
Must DPR plant in a misinformation, in order to misjudge the future product and create more unnecessary stir? (this is not their first sin) Olympus nowhere wrote "enthusiast camera" for this particular video: not in the footage, not in an email sent to the subscribers. DPR, it is you who made this up. We kinda get that DPR is the site for enthusiasts, so DPR, you have two options: 1. stick to the charter, and state you can't review the professional gear if the camera turns out to be aimed at professionals; 2. stick to the truth, do not mess with misinformation, and if the camera is aimed CLEARLY at enthusiasts, only THEN add that in the description, and then review it. Stick. To. The. Facts. Please.
Wow! Someone got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. From the video, it's clear that this camera is supposed to be high-end. It's shown shooting sports, and has a vertical grip. So, clearly, this is a camera for enthusiasts, not casual shooters. If you're trying to make some sort of obscure distinction between a professional camera and an enthusiast camera, that's just plain silly. Professionals use all sorts of gear, as do enthusiasts who aren't professionals. And I would hope that professionals are also enthusiasts. There isn't enough money in professional photography (for all but a very small number) for it to be worth doing if you're not also an enthusiast about it.
There is a LOT of difference between an enthusiast and a professional. DPR wants to blur the difference in this case so that they may review a camera that, officially, could be outside their charter.
$3000 for a half frame camera? I would rather have a Sony FF or the new Panasonic S1R for that price. I love my E-M5II, but consumers will look at the price, sensor size and take their money elsewhere.
Sensor size obsession often is a remedy for sexual inadequacy issues in males, because in photography, what matters is three: (1) possible magnification (2) fidelity, (3) working distance. In all three the M43 delivers, and in terms of fidelity especially, M43 outclasses the FF format as it delivers truer to life colours, thanks to optical goodness of a smaller format (thin lens elements).
I not paying full price to get half size sensor. A bit like Nikon’s overpriced 1 system. The M43 is a nice format for most things, but a FF sensor will aways beat a M43 sensor. Customers are stupid.
@Photoman — You might consider dusting off your algebra books :-). To make things simple: if you have a 1x1 square and a 2x2 square (units are irrelevant as long as they're the same for both squares), the latter has an area 4 (four) times larger than the former. Try multiplying the values of the sides of the MFT sensor, write down the result; then multiply the values of the sides of the FF sensor, and write down the result. Divide the FF result by the MFT result and see what you get :-).
Bigsensor...please elaborate. Plenty of working professional photographers use this format with excellent results. The 1.8 primes are of very high quality,tiny and very affordable. 20mp is ample for A3 and noise levels to iso 1600 are very acceptable. Of course big sensors will outperform mft but at the cost of weight and in many cases price of lenses. For many big sensor advantages are in limited circumstances which many enthusiasts don't find themselves in
Pedro just compare say a Z6 to the next olympus, two bodies side by side without lenses and look at them for a moment. Particilarly at the sensor. You would be INSANE to go for the olympus. I recently got a xt3 because if all the hype and regretted it straight away it can't come near my 5d iv. I'm investing in GFX at the moment thrilled with the quality the three e-m1 cameras I sold back in 2015 seem like a very very long time ago now, it doesnt make any sense except at the bottom end of the market.
Pedro how big is Japan exactly??? and what is the price and size difference between a6500 or xt3 and OM-D 1 II, even in price, good Olympus cameras like OM-D EM1 II or EM5 II or pen F are higher than 1000$ same as a good APSC
It won’t be long until the new OM-D camera from Olympus hits the shops – giving you something to look forward to in this new year. Dedicated to meeting the demands of professional photographers, this OM-D fits the bill when it comes to easy handling, advanced technology and high-level features. Watch the video and see for yourself!
if the rumoured price is correct then i'd rather try then buy than rely on people who don't have to buy it because of being linked to Olympus....same as any other camera company
Olympus is the mirrorless market leader in Japan, ahead of Canon and third-place Sony. It's a whole different world in Japan. Sony used to be in second place but dropped to third in 2017 and 2018.
Sorry to disappoint, but that is a 40-150 Pro lens with a rubber hood, something that is required poolside apparently. The initial glimpse of a lens is the 300 F4.
The 150-400 is coming & will be announced early this year (maybe only in development to be released later in the year). It is starting to appear to be a reasonably high priced lens.
Woohoo! I love the E-M1 Mk2 (and Mk1). The Mk2 is amazingly fast focusing for sporting events. Use it all the time! I would love to see what this new one can do. Right now I get about 85-90% of my action shots in focus. The Mk1 struggled at this. If Oly makes a big improvement over the Mk2, I'm sure they'll get more of my money. Though I'm not sure how they will be able to do it, but we'll see!! I would also love to see a 200 1.8 lens!
Coming from 42 years of Pro photo- 35mm Leica M - Nikon F - Rolleiflex 6x6 - Sinar 4"5" Nikon D2x , Nikon D800E , Nikon D810 with top glass added Olympus as a side camera some 10 years ago. The Pro Lenses are simply the best I ever had. Outperforming Nikon / Zeiss / Leitz / Schneider . The mechanical quality alone makes one drool. The optics - simple their is nothing that equals it. My style of photography does not require any larger format sensor , but having used the Nikon D810 as my latest camera I dare say that there is no need for it. I do often stitch panoramas resulting in Gigabyte images. An issue many other lens makers had was vignetting - a serious issue when stitching. Olympus Pro lenses simply have ZERO vignetting - consistent super sharpness and 100% rain proof. So if the New Olympus camera is as good as their lenses the 'BIG' brands may face some fierce competition. Given the history of Olympus thinking out of the square I trust that the New camera will be a marvel !
Isn't the zero vignetting the result of lens correction software which is baked in for both OOC JPEGs and for RAW with most RAW image editing programs.
Camley : Does that really matter ? All brands do it , even Leica. The end result is what counts - if I compare the results from Olympus Zuiko Digital Pro lenses with ANY other brand in DXO RAW then Olympus is the clear winner per pixel sharpness. I say per pixel because that is the only fair comparison. Per sensor size it becomes to confusing. To satisfy your skepticism : IN DXO RAW I can turn off the lens corrections - (Unlike Lightroom) even then Olympus Pro wins.
Olympus has gold in its long term devotion to 4/3 - when does one really need a larger sensor: ? Don't tell me "Big Prints" - a 20 MP sensor with a good lens can make bigger prints as 99% of all of us ever will need. Don't tell me "Cropping" - you crop the image BEFORE you press the shutter release - even BEFORE you touch the camera. Don't tell me "Professional" - I know many professionals making a very good living with cheap APSC cameras. Choose a Camera / sensor with your brain - not with your emotional manlyhood !
Jacob - You seem to be getting a lot out of my three lines of text and why such a rude response? I simply said that lens corrections are baked in with m43 RAW files for most editing programs so it isn't unusual to see zero lens vignetting. I am not doubting your "manlyhood" in choosing and trumpeting the virtues of Olympus.
At launch, the EM1 Mkii was around £1850, so this super-duper version with built-in grip and higher specification is likely to start at around £2500, maybe even higher?
Who, I wonder, would be willing to pay that amount, when a Sony a9 can be had for the same price, and has a state-of-art full frame sensor?
Does anyone really need more than the 20fps, 24MP, 1/32000 shutter, etc provided by the a9, which probably weighs about the same and is equally compact and light?
Is anyone spending that amount of money really going to be satisfied with a 20MP M43 sensor which in comparison with FF, or even APS, will have more limited dynamic range, poor high ISO performance, less cropping ability and somewhat softer image quality?
And have they sorted out the diabolically awful menu interface?
I suggest you check my profile before suggesting that I'm a Sony shooter. I shoot Canon, and have done for 9 years now.
I was merely comparing the Olympus to the camera I see as its main competitor, which I think is the Sony a9. And I think the a9 is an infinitely better choice, unless you habitually dunk your cameras in rivers, in which case the Olympus would be more likely to survive!
I will be interested to see how the Olympus performs in terms of image quality, but it would be rather foolish to think it could come close to the IQ of any FF camera, let alone a Sony. Do you not agree?
I'm always prepared to be proven wrong, and to admit it when I am, but take it from me, this time I'm right.
And yes, the Olympus menu system is beyond doubt the worst of any manufacturer. Sony menus and interface are better than in the past, but not up to the standard of Nikon or Canon DSLRs, which are more logically laid out, and much more user-friendly.
News to me that Sony has managed good weather sealing with the A9, right I'm sure it's better than the not great A7III.
While I'm very sure this Olympus will have excellent weather sealing.
Sony also did the non-prograde battery behind a door thing with the A9. Whereas this Olympus is likely to have a battery that slides out like a Nikon D5 or Canon 1DX.
Also screen name onlyfreeman disputes your A9 pricing.
Maybe I just took a couple of hours and RTFM when I started shooting my Olympus cameras.. but I don't find their menu system baffling at all. In fact as time goes on, I keep on finding new things within it-I'm glad they left the whole myriad of options in there.
And Sony shooters-OK not you Mister Canon Shooter who spends the whole post talking about Sony-throw shade at Olympus' menu system from time to time and it's hilarious. Because Oly's ergonomics are.. what's the word I'm looking for here.. better. Yeah, that's it. They're better.
I'll lose a few megapixels and make sure my low light shooting game is on point to compensate for a stop less sensitivity if it's a camera *that I actually enjoy carrying around and shooting.*
I don't know. Olympus is releasing this 'pro' camera for the few and another two more compact cameras this year.
But the menus are NOT diabolical. You press the 'menu' button, and up comes the SCP with access to all important settings for 90% of your needs. I doubt it could have been made any easier.
Mr Bolton - Yes I'm a Canon user but I've no argument with anyone choosing otherr brands! I'm not here to put down other people or their choices.
But with 25 years as a pro and another 8 years afterwards as a semi-pro, during which time I've owned, borrowed or hired just about every brand and model of SLR, DSLR and MILC on the market, I do think that my insights are relevant, neutral, and hopefully of value to people considering purchases.
I give praise where justified and constructive criticism when needed, regardless of brand or model. And if you think I'm blind to faults in my own brand, read my many criticisms of the Canon EOS-R...
Criticisms only upset insecure or unrealistic fanchildren. I've praised the positive aspects of the Olympus EM1 Mkii (weather resistance, durability, general handling) many times here, so don't be so over-sensitive when I point out an aspect that is widely regarded as inferior. Virtually every reviewer makes the same criticism of Olympus menus!
Menus are to some degree a subjective thing. Most reviewers however place Olympus and Sony at the bottom [by some way] in terms of organisation and intuition. I've never used Sony, but I have decent experience of most other marques.
You can get used to anything I suppose. I have got used to the menus and ergonomics of my EM1 - I prefer the menu on virtually any other camera. The ergonomics are decent - plenty of controls - but it is rather fiddly just due to the size. Personally I find Panasonic the best, but the Nikons I've used were probably simpler just by virtue of the fact there were nowhere near as many features as those packed into modern Panasonics.
Noise performance would be give or take, minus two stops behind with any mft camera vs the 4x area of FF. You can mitigate that quite a bit by the superb IBIS in the high end Olympus/Panasonics, but it only works in certain scenarios.
Chris - I'd agree with all your comments about Olympus, based on my experience with the EM1 Mkii, and on comments from a friend who owns an EM1 MKii and an EM5 Mkii.
Both cameras are very comfortable to hold (either by me, with medium-large hands, or by my friend, with small hands), but the controls are fiddly and difficult to locate by touch when the cameras are at the eye.
The Olympus menu is widely acknowledged as the worst in the business, partly due to the huge number of badly organised options, and partly because the GUI is poorly designed.
Olympus cameras occasionally have manufacturing defects (i know of a couple of new EM1 Mkii that had to be returned to Oly USA) but that applies to most brands.
The EM1 Mkii is amazingly well sealed against the weather - as I've mentioned several times on these forums, I have a friend who tripped and dropped her EM1 Mkii in a river. It was fished out and dried in the sun for half an hour, and since then (3 months ago) it has been fine.
My prediction is that this camera will be mind-blowingly fast.
I hope they use that speed to its maximum potential, for things like multi-frame noise reduction, hand-held pixel shift, with better results than we have seen in the past.
Sony too on their fixed lens consumer cameras, but this is a feature only Sony have (as far as I know) on their *pro-level E Mount video cameras* to date. We need this on all *interchangeable lens pro still bodies.*
The Fuji X100 has a built in ND filter. I wonder if this 'live ND Filter' is somehow different from that? Maybe they reduce the actual sensor sensitivity to simulate an ND filter? And if so, wouldn't that then be a huge step forward in low ISO for M43?
I know, right? I still <3 my O.G. E-M5 I and since the sensor is the same pixel density, can't quite see paying to upgrade to the II. However the III, with its 20mp (I'm just going to guess) sensor and several generations newer computer inside it, would be a compelling option for me.
Olympus is underrated enormously, and in all fairness, the camera quoted above is a professional camera, not enthusiast! I've been shooting with an EM1 Mark ll for well over a year now, after leaving my beloved Nikons to travel new territory. For its size, the sensor is second to none, and does an excellent job at virtually all photography. The 12-100 is an incredible technological achievement in its build quality and overall acuity, all apertures edge to edge, closest focus right to infinity...everywhere. Prime like! Olympus glass, especially the Pro line, there is never any doubt! I doubt that the EM1X is meant as a direct competitor to full frame, but is a wonderful alternative, a professional alternative!! which will likely to have exceptional attributes that are not found with other systems! The specs are off the charts! Kudos to Olympus, its all good for photography! Sensor size presents many choices, none of them bad, and all of them pro!
Part of the reason I want to do a test and print out some larger prints is to see if I really need to upgrade to FF or stay with MFT and perhaps buy this new EM1X.
22x30 inch prints are fantastic! Comparable to any 20 -24mp full frame or APSC camera at sensible iso settings 64-400. I have compared my EM1 Mark ll to a D800 with mirror up, remote, on the Nikon, and silent shutter, remote, on the EM1 Mark ll with equivalent aperature settings, and there was little decernable difference....Nikon printed at 20x30 and the Olympus printed at 22x30 (format difference) Both printed on smooth watercolour paper with an Epson pro stylus7880. I showed the prints to friends and and others in the photography business, and it was difficult for anyone to decide between the two, I was quite suprised myself!
Why then do you think manufacturers provide much higher settings?
I'll tell you - because the sports and wildlife photographers who this camera is apparently aimed at, regularly need to shoot at much higher ISO settings. Typically 1600-3200 or even higher. And at those ISO settings the Olympus will I'm afraid produce garbage image quality in comparison with FF or APS.
I'm not saying that Olympus cameras don't have virtues - I know someone who dropped an EM1 Mkii in a river and it was fine after being fished out. But for decent image quality at the sort of ISO speeds the target buyer wants to use, M43 is not the way to go.
Ahh, but you need to do your math! For example, an Olympus camera set to 400 iso, with a 100 mm, set to f 2.8, will have exactly the same results, same framing, same dof as a full frame camera at 1600 iso, with a 200 mm, set to f5.6. On the Olympus the iso will always be two stops lower for exactly the same photograph!
stevevelvia - No, no, no. The old equivalency thing again. Apertures only affect depth of field, *not* exposure:-
A given lighting condition will require exactly the same combination of F number, shutter speed and ISO value, regardless of the sensor size.
Don't believe me? Then go outside on a nice sunny day and take a shot at F16, 1/125 sec and 100 ISO on an Olympus, and then shoot the same scene at exactly the same settings on a full frame, medium format or 8x10 field camera.
The resulting image will be exposed exactly the same (allowing for variations in the accuracy of ISO, shutter & aperture settings, and light transmission properties of the glass).
The biggest I've printed so far is 11x14, with 16mp M43, and if you get out the magnifier you can see every leaf on every tree. And that was with the low end kit lens!
I can’t speak for really large prints but I can say because I have several 11x14 inch prints from my Pen f and 75mm 1.8 they are gorgeous. Yet I will print some 20” prints and see for myself. Getting into wildlife more and more and my Pen F AF really fails with it. This EM1X definitely interest me. And if the currentnEM1 start dropping in price we’ll,there is another one to think about. I can say that so far the 20mp sensor has really impressed me.
Steve and ento - you didnt realice you both are right? IF you use the 200mm at f5.6 you need to bump ISO. But you CAN use it also at f2.8 and ISO 400 - you just need a bigger lens. You have the choice with FF.
The problem with M43 only starts with very high shutter speeds or light conditions you can not control.
Iamjf, fair enough, but that problem is relatively rare, for me, however. For low light I would use, a 17 f 1.2, 25 1.2, or 45 1.2. and possibly the upcoming 12 f1.2 wide open when or if it becomes abailable. The upcomimg Panasonic 10-25 1.7 will be unique. If shooting wildlife in almost every practical situation, there will be many advantages that go to m4/3, the 300 f4, for instance...price and weight difference are enormous, and yes I can’t go wider than f4, but really, thats grasping at straws for the discussion. One can argue on and on, but there is no format that is distinctly better overall than the other. Interestingly, my D750 was not two stops better than my EM1Mark ll., a little over a stop with correct exposure for the scene? With well thought exposure, higher iso values can be excellent on the EM1 Mark ll, less so than full frame of course, but there is no issue with using 1600 or 3200 iso with my EM 1 ll.
You're very confused about ISO Steve. The Olympus sensor is getting 4x less light than a full frame sensor. So to achieve the same brightness it has to amplify/scale 4x. The ISO numbers here don't matter. ISO 100 on the Olympus is not the same thing as ISO 100 on the full frame camera. The pictures taken on the Olympus at the same ISO would have 4x worse noise levels. So you have it exactly backwards. you're basically setting it to ISO 1600 to get it to display ISO 400.
Another thing not mentioned yet the aspect ratio of the mft sensor actually helps it when printing in tradional sixes. For an easy example an APSC or FF sensor needs to crop much of the image out to print 8x10 the MFT sensor does not. A FF or APSC would print an 8”x12” so you are cropping those extra 2” out to get your 8x10 inch print. And on up the different image sizes the same the same.
I love it when people here just say "that's wrong" with nothing to back up what they are saying. That's not a discussion. It's not wrong. I have 3 cameras that all have 16 megapixels. My cell phone, an Olympus EM10-III, and a Nikon Df. I can set all 3 to ISO200 and shoot in low light. Guess how these images shot with the same ISO look? Hint - not the same.
foto64, I printed the image from my Olympus at 22X30, full frame at 20x30, what exactly were you saying? Seems to me I gave the D800 a slight advantage!
Certain sizes on FF sensors have to be cropped down to print. Losing image data. For example if you print an image from a full frame camera. At 8” on the short side you end up with an 8x12 inch print. To get the 8x10 you actually want you are forced to crop and not so with the MFT sensor. So on ff you lose some of that FF advantage when you print certain sizes. That is the difference between the 3x2 and 4x3 aspect ratios between ff and mft.
@entoman: "A given lighting condition will require exactly the same combination of F number, shutter speed and ISO value, regardless of the sensor size."
Sorry, wrong. A given lighting condition will require exactly the same *exposure value* ("EV"), which can by a combination of *any* aperture, shutter speed and sensibility your camera can provide. Usually your camera can provide you more than 100 possible combinations (considering also 1/3rd stops) for each EV.
@others: When talking about prints, please consider that a 20x30cm print at 300 dpi (=what most printers do and roughly what the human eye can resolve at close distance) has about 8.6 Megapixels. At that resolution pictures that look noisy at 20+MP @ 100% will still look ok. Print at 40x60cm and you may start to see a difference.
Also I have the impression that there is some magic ingredient in inks that eats up a lot of noise. Or maybe it's just screens that over-emphasize noise...
Sacher - Yes that is exactly true, thanks for pointing that out. My point was that sensor size does not affect exposure.
I should have said "A given lighting condition will require exactly the exposure value (EV) *regardless of sensor size*".
But my example (the "F16 rule") still stands - "go outside on a nice sunny day and take a shot at F16, 1/125 sec and 100 ISO on an Olympus, and then shoot the same scene at exactly the same settings on a full frame, medium format or 8x10 field camera. The resulting image will be exposed exactly the same (allowing for variations in the accuracy of ISO, shutter & aperture settings, and light transmission properties of the glass)".
For those unfamiliar with the "F16 rule", this was a simple guide to exposure created I believe by Kodak, and printed on a sheet supplied with every roll of film they sold. It gave examples of exposure for the benefit of those who didn't have a light meter.
In typical northern hemisphere lighting conditions on a sunny day the example exposure was F16 with a shutter speed that was the reciprocal of the ISO value.
This setting i.e. 1/125 at F16 at 100 ISO (actually 125 ISO to be strictly accurate) was applicable regardless of whether the camera used was half-frame, 35mm, 120, or 8"x10". Exactly the same guide would be applicable to sensors, regardless of size.
@entoman: Right, exposure is independent of the sensor size. But nobody ever said that sensor size would affect the exposure value :) If you look at the example by stevevelvia50:
I assume that he left the shutter speed unchanged. Both have the same EV (if the shutter speed is the same), just another combination of aperture and sensibility. He did that to have the same FoV and DoF which are independent of the EV.
Sensor size does not affect exposure value, but pixel size sure does. And as a rule, smaller sensors have smaller pixels, which produce inferior results on a 1 to 1 basis. So you better believe that a 20mp M4/3 sensor is being pushed much harder than a 20mp full frame sensor when you set the same settings on both, including the same ISO.
tm8 - The amount of light hitting a given area of sensor will be the same if the F number, shutter speed, ISO and lighting level are identical. But yes, a smaller pixel will receive less light, and therefore will require more electronic amplification, which results in higher levels of luminance noise.
Foto64 - Yes, that's *one* of the reasons why e.g. a 30MP 5DMkiv FF sensor is less noisy (at a given ISO setting) than a 50MP 5DS FF sensor. It's also the reason why people who specialise in low light photography or videography should choose a sensor with large pixels (and that *usually* means a bigger sensor).
People make the assumption that low light performance is based solely on sensor size and that a newer sensor will not perform better in low light than an older one. I can say that I have seen an improvement between the low light performance of my EM5 vs. the low light performance of my EM1 mkii. In fact, at ISO 12,800, which I recently tested, my mkii performed similarly to my 12MP Nikon D700 from a few years back. Technology moves forward. Saying a 4/3 sensor can't get better low light performance than previous versions is like saying you will never get more than 250 HP from a v-6 engine. Interestingly, the V-6 in my SUV has the same horsepower than the mid size V-8 in my truck and also outperforms most V-8's of the muscle car era. I use the analogy simply to demonstrate that technology tends to overcome many theories people at one time considered absolutes.
The high res function is in my experience an underrated feature. I do not need it often, but every time I try it I'm delighted by the level of detail and the absence of artifact from the de-mosaicing. Would be great to have this available hand held. @dpreview, when you do the studio shots please do not use the 45/1.8 again. This is a very nice cheap little lense but built for portraits and has a significant field curvature, just take any pro lens, even the zooms 12-40 or 12-100 handle 50 MP well.
I bought a piece of mind when I bought the Sony RX10 MIII 24-600mm, it got everything I need and more with excellent IQ. Camera manufacturers are taking us for a ride as long as they increase the prices and we keep on buying.
They 're telling us that the prices are higher because the market share is geting smaller and people are moving from DSLRs to mobile phones. I believe it's the other way around mobile phones got millions of people hooked on photography and then they wanted to expand to better featured and capable cameras, mobile phones introduced millions to photography and opened up the DSLR market.
Dudes who complain about the camera, should consider the lenses, and take them into the equation. Being smaller and with lighter elements, by default M43 lenses absorb more of the faster B and G light, which comes to the sensor abundantly and deliver brilliant colour qualities. (Famed Olympus blues and greens are not magic – simply physics.)
On an FF camera that is hardly possible. Only FF lenses with very low number of elements may match that M43 goodness, but that ain't happening today: modern FF lenses aree choke full of glass which must have thicker elements for the required surface, suffocates B and G lights, while absorbs inert R light. The results look bleached out, must be cooked up to look like colour.
M43 is the system that in normal conditions delivers maximum absorption of all light, and thus best colour image quality possible.
What matters more to have a better light transmission ? The overall thickness of the glass or the number of elements ? Given that there is a small loss each time the light crosses the interface between two adjacent elements...
Tosic's theory is interesting. I wouldn't just reject it out of hand as I've always been very pleased with the colors on my Olympus cameras. I'd like to see more info on this.
Digital dudes know little about optics; only what unlettered salesmen try to sell them.
Try this: buy old manual focusing FF lens off the eBay, say for the M42 mount, that uses 3 to 5 lens elements. It delivers absolutely superior colour output when compared to any modern heavily stacked FF glass. But not the sharpness. For more critical sharpness & less distortions, more elements are needed. There complications start. FF lenses have 4x larger surface, and thus the lens elements are also substantially thicker than what is required for the M43 system.
3-5 elements in an FF lens equates roughly to 7-12 elements in a M43 lens – combined thickness of glass which the light must pass through. Remember: the glass diminishes light. More glass, less light information passes through, especially faster B and G waves. (Foveons therefore have B layer on top). How fares 7-12 element FF lens compared to a 3-5 element FF lens? First delivers better sharpness; second superior colour.
m4/3 color magic? - who cares ... Looking at the actual images makes things perfectly clear. FF quality is much better. Colors are just colors. There is no "Special Blue" or "Special Green" color, There are only right and wrong colors. And if it looks nicer than it realistically should, then it's rather a bad thing. Equivalent lenses are very similar in all aspects (except price), same size, same weight, same glass surface, same thickness, same colors etc. No matter what system format. You've been fooled by the marketers and now you are spreading this stupid nonsense while hoping that if more people believe it then it will become true. But it won't. You are just making a fool of yourself.
ecka, I've been shooting M43 for years, which means I've been reading the pros and cons for most of that time. This is the first I've heard of the theory that thinner glass and less of it, lets through more light than thicker glass and more of it.
It's not that difficult of a concept to grasp, actually. How much of a difference it makes is certainly up for debate, however.
I think that you are right. It's much more complicated than just the thickness of the glass (people watch too much of the angry photographer on youtube). I think that sensor/pixel size has a lot more to do with everything. But, logically, there is some truth to it. However, when I put two images side by side, m4/3 vs FF, I see that there is no debate (there shouldn't be). The larger sensor size compensates for the thicker glass and even more. The m4/3 can do fine in ideal lighting conditions, with super fantastic lenses. in a studio. Still, it's not the same and those lenses can be insanely overpriced. On FF it is possible to get like near flawless image quality with $100-500 primes. But I've never seen that with m4/3.
This is what happens when you let engineers loose in a company without adult supervision. They'll come up with a technology marvel for a very small market segment that is overpriced and over-featured for most people. Meanwhile where is the E-m5 mark 3? Pdaf in the pen-f? 20mp sensor in the E-m10 and epl lines? Good pancake primes? Profits for the shareholders?
Olympus is the number one seller in Japan, so their shareholders are doing fine. Also, the camera division is only a small part of Olympus' whole portfolio.
Their shareholders are not doing fine, unless they bought in right after the accounting scandal, but it's true Olympus has always had more stable businesses than cameras.
I wish they would continue to leverage the small size of m43 with a Pen-F II. A few more megapixels and fewer features to get the menus under control, would be great. And yeah, hand-held high res. I don't see how, but a truly small 80mp camera would be impressive.
The Nikon Z6 may not offer the incredible resolution of its sibling, the Z7, but its excellent video quality and faster performance make it an impressive camera at a considerably lower price.
The Peak Design Travel Backpack 45L is the centerpiece of the brand's new Travel Line - it's pricey but awesome. Other components of the line are pricey and less-awesome.
The Panasonic Lumix DC-LX100 Mark II is a rather belated update to one of our favorite enthusiast compact cameras. Is it enough of a refresh to keep up with the times?
Many cameras today include built-in image stabilization systems, but when it comes to video that's still no substitute for a proper camera stabilization rig. The Ronin-S aims to solve that problem for DSLR and mirrorless camera users, and we think DJI has delivered on that promise.
If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.
A question frequently asked on the Internet is 'what's the best DSLR?' In this buying guide we've answered that question – but also whether it's the right question to be asking in the first place.
What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Professional commercial photographer Moe Lauchert shares an incredible gallery of film photographs he captured on Ilford HP5 with a Nikonos 5 while serving as a diver at NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory in Houston, Texas.
This week, Sony introduced its newest APS-C camera, the a6400. Of course, Chris and Jordan were on hand to take it for a spin and test out all the new features.
The Sony a6400 is, in many ways, just a refreshed a6300, but its overhauled AF system makes a big difference. We look at how it compares with its rivals in and beyond the E-mount system.
We've been shooting with a beta version of the Sony a9's upcoming firmware 5.0. While there's much more analysis to come, we can say it makes for a dead simple AF tracking user experience. Take a look at some of our samples.
A statement following internal investigation by DJI alleges a number of employee were part of an internal corruption scandal that overcharged DJI for parts and materials.
Astrophotography fans will be treated to the sight a rare super blood wolf Moon this weekend, and lots of helpful people are offering advice on how best to photograph it.
Accessory maker K&F Concept is offering a range of adapters, allowing the use of non-Nikon as well as Nikon F lenses on the new Nikon Z mirrorless cameras.
Lens maker Tamron has confirmed that new firmware issued at the end of last year to make certain lenses compatible with Nikon’s Z7 camera will also work for owners of the Z6.
NASA's OSIRIS-REx spacecraft has captured a photo of Earth that's being compared to the iconic 'Pale Blue Dot' captured by the Voyager 1 space probe in 1990.
GoPro has updated its Fusion ecosystem with new firmware for the Fusion camera and updates to the Fusion Studio software as well as the Adobe Premiere and After Effects plug-ins.
The Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4 is a compact and light-weight lens for full-frame Canon and Nikon DSLRs. We took it on grand tour of Seattle's top tourist spots and found it makes a pleasant, albeit wide, walking around lens.
Fujifilm has announced its new GF 100-200mm F5.6 R LM OIS WR tele-zoom lens. The lens, equivalent to 79-158mm when mounted on a GFX camera, has image stabilization (with a claimed 5 stops of shake reduction), a linear AF motor and weather-sealing.
Amongst all of the camera news yesterday, Sony also announced its new Imaging Edge mobile app, which replaces PlayMemories Mobile. Three desktop applications have also been updated, adding support for time-lapse movie creation.
Our intrepid team is in San Diego, for the launch of the new Sony a6400. In this short overview video, Carey, Chris and Jordan talk through the main specifications of the new camera, and what they might mean for photographers and videographers.
The Sony a6400 is the company's new midrange mirrorless camera, whose standout features include an advanced autofocus system, flip-up touchscreen LCD and oversampled 4K footage with Log support. Learn more as we go hands-on with the a6400.
Sony has announced major firmware updates for the a7R III, a7 III and a9. All three cameras gain improved Eye-AF, the ability to recognize and focus on animals' eyes, and timelapse capability. The a9 gets more sophisticated subject tracking.
Sony has announced the a6400, an updated 24.2MP mirrorless camera with a flip-up rear touchscreen and the processor and autofocus system 'borrowed from the a9'.
The latest CamFi model lets you tether your camera wirelessly to your computer and transfer images directly into 3rd-party apps such as Capture One, Lightroom or EOS utility.
United States Transportation Secretary Eleain Chao introduced a proposed rule change that could make it easier for commercial operators to use drones at night and above crowds of people.
Comments