Olympus E-M1X review in progress

I agree, I had hoped that they had improved the high iso noise but also realised that physics is not in favour with m43 generally having higher pixel density and smaller pixel size than FF. The GH5S sensor does appear to be a gem for low light performance but it obviously is compromised in other ways.

The ISO 800 performance on MFT will always be on par with the ISO 3200 performance on FF. Anyone that is happy with their FF camera performance at ISO 3200 (and I haven't heard anyone complain about it), should not complain about how MFT performs at ISO 800, because there is no difference.

A QUARTER FRAME (in 35mm terms) sensor camera for $3,000. LMFAO, suckers line up! So much for how smaller formats were always going to be so much cheaper because of the sensor costs/yields/insert additional "crop factor" propaganda here!

I didn't realize that everything in any cameras value should compared as a dollars per unit of sensor size. But then, I only shoot large format film, I never understood why anyone would settle for a miniscule 35mm crop? But if I were to buy a 35mm cam, I would get a low end cheap body, because according to you there is no value proposition in things like speed, autofocus, or processing power.

When the only attribute that some person can wrap their mind around is sensor size, that's the only thing they can comment about.

A7 is the lightest and oldest Sony A7*, why not compare it to GM1 then?

Scrollop, you need the coffee! and you don’t have clear thinking. Haha...next time you’re out make sure you bring along your 24-70 and 70-200 f4zooms, with your Sony, so you can get the facts on the weight of your system, oh and you should leave your tripod at home to save more weight. Me? I’ll just leisurely shoot ultra sharp hand held 1/4 second photos while walking around with my EM1ll and razor sharp 12-100. (24-200 Pro)

Scrollop...
I am only using manual focusing lenses on my a7 ( which I'm about to sell, no use).
The Samyang 85 1.4 is heavy and the Canon FD 135 2.0 is even more. My 50 1.4 Zeiss planar is manageable. But I can take three or four micro43 lenses with me with the same weight as one of those full frame monsters.
Thanks, I had my coffee. You want some?

At least Pentax has strength in value and specialization. K-1 is one of the best for landscape, architecture, item or anything low motion. Only A7R III and Panasonic full frame can do better in there, but they cost at least twice more. This Olympus seems to just pack lots of features which are then crippled by the sensor when looking at the price, weight and size.

Weird the IQ on my Em1.1 measures up just fine as it did on my Gh5s. Maybe you broke your cameras?

Like the middle class right. We are better off with poor phones or medium format cameras. I own a latest model phone, an M4/3 and 2 FF. I could not think of a more fun addition. Costs very little too and easy to carry.

He lumped the hi-res systems together as if they use the same system. The Olympus system gives full colour, the others are a joke. He is also doing the same hatchet job on the new Panny S1. He is either incredibly ignorant or is slyly getting funded and or being provocative to steer validated Sony users to order via his site.

Size. So much blather about sensor size. Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the near total domination of "my sensor is bigger and better than your sensor" comments are submitted by boys and men?

ca·thex·is. Dictionary result for cathexis
/kəˈTHeksəs/Submit
noun PSYCHOANALYSIS
the concentration of mental energy on one particular person, idea, or object (especially to an unhealthy degree).

Why are people comparing a m43 and FF? I don't seen anyone comparing F1 to a go cart league in motor sports. It's just silly.

That's just exactly my point. None of that holds unless you compare apples and oranges.

Dear Trk,

I am a professional sports and wildlife photographer with over 5,000 images published in the national newspapers. I shoot Olympus and have ordered 2 E-M1X's which together cost less than a 1DX or D5. For it's quality and target audience it is a performance bargain! Shutters rated at 400,000 shots, extra battery life and phenomenal IS and AF are reason enough without looking at the inbuilt ND and 50mp handheld hi-res allowing me to do full days of wildlife and landscape shooting in a compact package with no tripod. It is something that you may not understand, but to a lot of professional photographers, size and weight with beautiful commercial image quality is far more important than pixel peeping.

Size matters, can we see your pictures?

Well researched mate! well done!

For the quality you need, you can get a Canon 6D MK2 or Nikon D500 with the lens, or better yet, get the Tamron 150-600, will have better cost benefit for much better IQ.

I spent less than $10,000 on Canon gear to get very good result.

Phileas Fogg except the part where you compare Olympus 300m F4 to Canon 600mm or Nikon F4, for Canon or Nikon you should select appropriate equivalent lenses that means cheaper lens, e.g. 300mm F4 and 2x teleconverter. Olympus is 2500USD, Canon 300 F4 is 1350USD Canon TC is 430USD so Canon full frame is significantly cheaper than Olympus.
But normal people know it and will never buy big, heavy and expensive M43 camera.

Next example Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS - 1100USD, Olympus M 40-150mm f/2.8 - 1250USD
Full frame is just cheaper than M43 format and I suppose Canon lenses are sharper .

Yet another clueless comparison ignoring equivalence and pixel count. 45MP FF sensor can be cropped by 1.5x to be used as 20MP APS sensor. m43 300mm f4 is equivalent to ff 600mm f8, not 600mm f4. There is absolutely no weight advantage of m43 system IF you do correct comparison.

LianMIng.

I compared TOP PRO GRADE camera bodies as the EM-1X is meant in all ways to compete with 1DXMKII, D5 and A7III.

Trk

I use COMPARABLE lenses not just in FOV but in maximum aperture as such the Oly choices are as close to direct comparison as the Canon, Nikon or Sony lenses.

You have given us SLOWER lens choices not equal. Full frame is not cheaper based on general comparison of equal bodies, build wise and usability, equal lenses in terms of PRO build to max. aperture. Plus I doubt that Canon, Nikon or Sony PRO grade lenses are any sharper under real world scrutiny. PIXEL PEEPERS may or may not see some variations (more so due to acceptable manufacturing tolerances) but I doubt it and I bet 99% of any viewers or buyers of images from any of these FOUR kits will see nor care any differences. Fact is a pro using the Oly kit here will get in general as good/usable images in same situations as CAN/NIK/SON set ups and keep lots of cash, save his back/shoulders too. :-)

nerd2

You are not comparing effectively similar gear. 45MP shooters are not going to shoot 100's or 1000's of images and then sit in post CROP them to 20MP. No sports shooter HAS THE TIME AS HE/SHE likely has a deadline.

EM-1X, 1DMKII, D5 and A7III are all between 20-24 MP OUT OF CAMERA.

Equivalency is an FF shooters whine and moot point. WHY NOT SHOOT DIGITAL MF THEN IF IT MATTERS SO MUCH!?! I noted M4/3rds shooters know in terms of DOF and noise m4/3ds gives a compromise. But in reality LIKELY NOBODY CARES! In terms of lens speed, F. stops are F.stops F1.8, is F1.8, F2.8 is F2.8, etc.

I am comparing DIRECTLY out of the BOX and gear to gear equal range PRO bodies and PRO lenses of same or similar FOV and max aperture. Kits above a sports, motorsports and wildlife shooter (or anyone for that matter) can get similar and just as FANTASTIC to viewers eyes images with Oly kit and save $, weight and size.

The FF kits are superb no doubt but I'll give a bit of DOF and noise and keep $$$

once again .. well said Phileas .. glad someone else on this forum have eyes :)
Your last line about DOF though, I would say for sports, astro and landscape work, I would rather have 4/3 sensor's DOF. It's plenty where needed and blurry where not. For eg this one, tell me why would you want shallower than this:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/hakeem-na/23736139913/in/album-72157660267381795
and all from tiny gx7 and tiny oly 45mm lens.
For High ISO performance even E-m1-II sensor outperformed Canon 80D and less than one stop EV difference than 6D and very comparable to Sony's popular 6500A. Check and compare on notorious Dxo!

As usual when Oly users compare Oly with FF, it's apples and oranges. You take Oly f2.8 lenses and compare them with FF f2.8 lenses. That's nonsense. You can't just take the beneficial part of equivalence and leave the negative part out. You have to compare your f2.8 lenses with FF f5.6 lenses and those are considerably cheaper and lighter.

Your comparison is totally meaningless as you can call anything a pro gear. You need to compare equipment with EQUIVALENT CAPABILITIES. m43 sensors has two stops of IQ disadvantage with the same sensor tech (because of 1/4 sensor area). And m43 sensor is years behind in sensor tech, which makes the gap even larger (No BSI, no stacked sensor)

Let's assume you are taking indoor sports photography. You need 1/1000 seconds of exposure to freeze the motion. (In case you don't know, stabilization won't help against moving subjects). You need 2.8 lens with m43 system because ISO higher than 1600 is unusable. With APS system, one can use f4 lens and ISO 3200 to get the same shutter speed. With FF system, f5.6 lens and ISO 6400 will work. That's how equivalence works.

And there is no DOF *advantage* with small sensor system either. FF+f5.6 lens has the same DOF with APS+f4 lens or m43+f2.8 lens. Due to the diffraction limit, you cannot stop down too much without losing image quality. The diffraction limit is based on the pixel pitch, which is inversely proportional to sensor size if the MP count is the same.

All of this is can be straightforward learned after taking a number of shots inddors in available light.

Oh dear, I shoot full frame but the amount of full frame apologists in this frame is appalling. M43 have strong cost and weight advantages. It's pathetic to see weird arguments about cropping et c.

@Einride; truly mate and they keep on saying the same gibrish over and over again. dof, f2.8 f5.6 bla bla bla! like we had no idea before buying 4/3 sensor camera how big is the sensor size and lens apertures :))
pathetic truly!!

I shot M43 and FF and the amount of idiots in the FF camp is staggering. Someone should do study on this.

So basically you are correcting someone then you are apologist of that brand?

Don't make stupid claims and no one will show up to correct them.

@nerd2, I see you here again posting things that are half true or erroneous. 45mp cropped is less than 20mp so you already have a crazier result. The 45mp also hace very high density and can’t have the same IQ as 25mp FF so again comparing apples to chicken. Also, you cannot crop weight. You cannot crop price. And you cannot replicate any of the advantages that are allowed by this camera. 7.5 ibis or 7 is 2 stops vs FF, and that is not doable in your version. Also, the highest quality at FF will come from primes. The second you touch a prime at the distance, now the world needs to dance around you at the exact focal length. Guess what? It won’t. So you put an extremely heavy zoom lens now. Another innacuracy is you mislead. F4 is F4. The equivalence applies to dof not LIGHT. Actually, you are stating cropping to 1/4 the picture, you are discarding 3/4 of the pic. And you are then keeping 1/4, any distortion of the lens gets amplified and you win little.

Why? Because the technology in the E-M1X is so much superior that it cannot even be compared.

Yes, I am sure that is it.

Like what? The em1-x has 7.5 stops of IS, what good is that to a sports shooter? Built in computational ND filter, again what good is it to a sports shooter? So please describe how the technology of the EM1-x is so much better then the D500 for a sports photographer.

The image stabilization is a cool gimick but for a sports shoot it's really not that important for a sports shooter. Your not shooting sports at 1 sec. And the high ISO advantage of the full frame sensor is a lot more useful then 7.5 stops of IS.

Then please enlighten me how 7.5 stops of stabilisation helps a sports shooter? Or any of the other gimick that the EM1-x has for that matter

@turbsy, why don’t you tell us, instead, how a heavy system that costs 2x and weights 2 or 3x benefits the photographer? Motor sports shooters capture motor sports shots. Tell us how it does help them to not have a car tracking feature? Sports in your definition is a guy sitting still near a trippod. In Oly definition it’s someone moving, active, part of it.

What are you talked ng about? Your little thing about needing to be more active? Shooting sports needs high Shutter speeds. Having 7.5 stops of IS does not help in any way. And the D500 and the Nikon 300mm f4 will weigh less then the olympus.so the heavy system thing is a lame argument.

So you have no valide argument is really what your saying. Sports require high shutters press it's not that hard to figure out. Usually in low light. This camera has amazing tech. I just do not see it as a benefit to a sports shooter.

How exactly am I trolling? I asked a question that you clearly don't want to answer. Just because I'm not a fan boy of Olympus doesn't make me a troll.

The only adventure is the price

it worked on me MikeRan .. it didn't on you ...
whenever you will be a pro sports + wildlife photographer who don't like to carry a telescope (sized lens) to shoot little birds and a heavy tripod, you will get it!

The slogan worked on you?!?!?

Was it:
“it’s more than a camera”
Or
“It’s a declaration of freedom”
that makes you interested to investigate this camera?

The lenses are smaller while the camera is a comfortable size.

You are mistaken. That is still a much, a lot smaller than any comparable system. Your mistake is that you think that m4/3 is only all about GM1 and 12-32mm lens with it and nothing more.

I presently carry the Em1 Mark II covering FF equivalent 14mm through 300mm in pro grade weather sealed glass and a 75mm f1.8 lens along with a complete ND filter set, an accessory flash, a commander flash, a battery charger, a couple cords, memory cards and an external hard drive in a medium size sling bag. I will soon be able to drop a 2x teleconverter in the bag and cover up to 600mm. All while getting very good IQ up to ISO 3200 and shooting handheld.

I am able to readily and easily carry the entire package anywhere and into any conditions with virtually no meaningful burden. I have taken that entire package 22 miles into the Atlantic ocean on a Jetski with everything but the 75mm f1.8, the hard drive, the battery charger and the flashes because they are not weather sealed. Soon, I'll be able to throw a weather sealed flash in the bag.

There is NO FF system capable of doing the same thing. Not one.

You're correct though, if I bought this I'd need a large sling bag.

DP, I would bet that my E M1 with the battery grip is probably the same weight as the EM1X, if not heavier. I down sized for a Canon 1D MK III and having full control in portrait mode was ideal, well worth the small charge. That Canon (exactly the same shape and layout as the M1X) with an EF 70-200/2.8 L weighed about 7 lbs. Then add the 16-35 and 24-70/ 2.8 Ls and the m.Zuikos are light as feathers. I am very satisfied with the 1.7 primes, compared to the Canon EF 1.4s or 1.8s...the Oly glass is miniscule. I prefer the tilt LCD on the EM1 and don't want the articulated one as video is not my thing.

Smaller lenses.

He is not on the Olympus payroll.

He left them quite a while ago - maybe 2017..although I think he has some kind of external role, much like Fuji do. I have always found him to be fair.

Let me add two things:

I think many people ( including me ) would be very happy with the images Robin has taken with this camera.

And I think the hand held shots at 10 seconds are simply remarkable. Being able to do that when travelling cannot be underestimated. Color me impressed.

nope he's an Olympus visionary,a brand ambassador for Olympus Malaysia

@Wu Jiaqiu

I'm not sure if he is still an Oly ambassador but you can also check out his non-Oly reviews especially the Pentax 645Z review, he is just generally a really good photographer.

What I liked about hos EM1X review is he that actually posted a 100% crop of some of the photos he shot (I haven't checked other reviews aside from DPR, his, and some YT vids).

yes he is, he clearly states this on his EM1x hands on

@fakuryu It's a bit confusing as he used to be a direct employee of Olympus but he left some time ago to work with Ming Thein. He became an Olympus Visionary recently though so while he's not a direct employee you can be sure he's not going to say anything negative about the camera although I don't really think that means he's going to be dishonest at all, just maybe downplay some of the stuff he doesn't like as opposed to an independent reviewer who may rant about the negatives.

Another. This was shot at ios 6400 at a 600mm FF equivalent handheld. I suspect it could have been shot at a much lower iso like 200-400 relying on the IBIS.

Even at 6400 its very useable but that camera is capable of much better performance without a monopod and a. Backbreaking. Lens connected to it.

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/7114239063/olympus-e-m1x-sample-gallery/2942213246

Instagram quality and absolute garbage for anything serious.

It's nowhere close to what that camera can do which is my point. Whoever shot those images didn't actually use the capabilities of the camera. The Nascar shot could have been shot at ISO 800 at a 300mm FF equivalent with a bit higher fstop and 1/60 to 1/80 shutter speed. It would have been a tack sharp clean file with excellent color rendition.

What FF camera can achieve that performance in a handheld set up?

The seated portrait should have been shot at ISO 200-400 handheld at much much lower shutter speed and the image would have been a tack sharp perfectly clean file. Again, what FF system can do that in a handheld system at 600mm without a tripod?

"what ff camera"

lol, that is ridiculous.

Yes. It's easier to hand hold slow speeds on a M43. OTH, you get the shutter speed back with the FF high ISO advantage. No knock on either. Both ways have advantages.

Using long zooms my subject is often moving so I don't want the motion blur that comes with the slower speed. The real advantage of M43 and the greater IBIS ability is with wide angles and deliberate motion blurring of water or clouds.

That's you. I laugh when a m4/3 guy says there is no difference in IQ between FF and M4/3. Just because you can live with it doesn't mean everyone can.

If you don’t need 500mm+, extreme w dealing and much better mobility then you don’t need this camera. It’s a “no Tripod needed” usb-c thetered charging that gets 0.0 ms lag (actually it has a NEGATIVE LAG) and is ready for heavy rainstorm, desert storms or your -10C or even worst conditions with a package that has lens weighting and costing about 1/2. People are overlooking it’s a camera to be abused. It’s not a pet. It’s a bull. Could it be FF? No because Olympus has no lenses or foundry to survive, and it would also not be able to do 7.5 stops stabilization, nor negative lag, no something you’d want to carry.

The bottom line: this cañera is not about sacrificing quality for no savings. This camera is about all the magnificent shots that wiould have never happened otherwise. And we’ll only prove this when the pics start coming

Hmmm... I can have the sam IQ as FF 90% of the time where my gear it at least half the weight, is half the size and half to a quarter of the price of FF. The other 10% the loss in IQ is acceptable for me.

So... in my opinion... FF is not an alternative and does not come close to my needs.

You M4/3 are so insecure its funny.

@nex55: I don't really understand what you are saying but if it is: that attention does not lead to sales, then I must demur. It may not lead to "more" sales of this camera—which is rather specialised, but it will quite likely lead to sales of their other cameras. In other words: it brings attention to the brand and that is a large part of marketing.

he-he, but after attention they will need sales )

Canon cameras also attract negative comments from stup.d trolls but Canon has been the market leader for a loooooooong time

They have a suite of cameras just like anyone. Else. It's now more robust. And it's drawing attention to the Whole brand. And they are showcasing significabt advancements as well. It's absolutely a good thing.

@Yandrosxx: I agree, I was making a similar point :-)

Too bad olympus can't stabilize their profits, the wind blowing or m43 going extinct.

D850 plus 500mm pf is the same weight as this. D850 has 46MP so you have more than 20mp AFTER 1.5 crop (and you get 750mm effective focal length that way)

Combination of smaller size and much better IBIS for the Oly could mean more keepers. FF cams just can’t stabilise as well - certainly not 7 stops.

@ Daft Punk: I don't buy your argument, since you could use higher ISO with a larger sensor camera, and still end up with at least the same image quality.

Ibis is a nice feature, but I would not put too much into the effect of stabilization for action/wildlife/birds in flight and stuff like this. I would rather use higher ISO settings to get faster shutter speed to freeze the subject.

I am not so sure - extra reach, smaller lens, 7 stops of IBIS and OK IQ to, say, 1600, could swing it.

Someone should try it compared to say, a Nikon or Canon rig and compare output. THAT would be a proper test worth reading. :)

@Daft Punk: Compared to the D500 (or the D850 in DX crop mode) with the 500/5.6 PF, the E-M1X along with the 300/4 doesn't offer any "extra reach" at all. In addition, the size difference between the Olympus 300/4 and the Nikon 500/5.6 PF is negligible from my point of view.

@Magnar W: You can only do one thing, cropping or using higher iso due to larger sensor, both will not work. you have to die one way

@ the decent exposure: Actual variables are pixel pitch (resolution), sensor area that is covered by the subject (noise), focal length (the size of the projected image on the sensor, independent of sensor size as long as the subject is smaller than the smallest sensor), lens aperture wide open (limiting shutter speed) and ISO (noise, expanding use of fast shutter speed). Then just do the calculations.

@Magnar W: no matter what you want to say, you have to got one or the other way, you can't crop and still get the high iso from the FF sensor.

@ the decent exposure: Who have claimed you could? Unless you can move so close that the subject fills the full frame sensor, based on camera to subject distance and the variables mentioned above … real world possibilities rarely is the one or the other, rather a mix of possibilities and fuzzy limitations.

Hi Magnar W, you would not do it because it would be as practical as buying a Ferrari to go shopping at the local market and take the kids to school. There are so many misguided comments in these fora that must come from people who are theorizing without practical experience. I work with both a Nikon D3s and Olympus E-M5II's with pro lenses and am quite clear about when to use which. So do the many pros who have added an M43 system to their FF gear. As I keep saying, if an M43 sensor can give you the output you need, then an M43 system can put the fun back into a full day of (outdoor) shooting and drastically reduce your chiropractor bill. If you truly need an FF sensor then the discussion is futile. Ironically, many people posting in these fora do not have the technique to exploit even an M43 sensor and should stick to their cell phones.

@Magnar W

Not really.. Use a Sony A7R3 ( 42 million px). You can crop to make 300mm a 600mm (just an example, consider 600mm image is 2x zoom of 300mm which may not be true) but you only get 10.5 million when Em1x offers 20 million.

Also A7R3 is 10fps in burst mode while Em1x is 18fps. More pixels slower shots.

Unless you can have a 80 million pixels FF sensor, there is no such crop trade-off. Also 80 million means even slower FPS in burst mode since 1 shot has much more data to deal with.

Cropping kills IQ. Compare same effective focal lengths instead.
I'd rather carry the 300mm vs. 600mm Sony. Is there an $11,000 Sony 600mm lens?

Olys strengths are, potentially smaller lighter lenses, and much more durable. For wildlife those are big strengths.

@ Zed Man: There are pixel dense cameras, so that you don't have to carry this 600 mm lens or care much about crop factor. Resolution is about much more that field of view.

you don't need to stabilize 7 stops. THis is crazy. Look at the samples in the gallery here.. the lack of details from 1600 ISO is unacceptable.
I'd rather go 46MP FF and shorter FL, then crop in. even at 6400 ISO A9 or D850 images will be fully usable..

Well, for hiking and outdoor, I long gave up FF... everyone can choose its own compromise, but I prefer to take 1kg with me and loose 1 noise in high ISO rather to take 2-3 kgs...

In this regards, APS-C or m43's system are just great. Well.. let people choose that they want to take. Even if it's a smartphone :)

The Sony trolls invade this topic... again...

ozturert
you are right about Sony trolls. the same guy who says Sony's never overheat, and build quality doesn't matter, now said there is no penalty for severe cropping.

To match a 43 4000mm lens, you still need a much more expensive FF camera and a giant 600mm lens, and then need at least a 1.5x crop. And since that FF camera doesn't have very good IBIS (if any), you'll need faster shutter speeds and higher ISOs. Ouch.
And if it is a Sony, the build quality and resistance is very questionable. A smartphone is more durable.

Hi Magnar W, there is still a significant difference in portability (between M43 and larger sensors) in terms of lenses. On my web site (my posting name), under Tech Talk check out the side-by-side pics of my EM5II and D3s with similar lenses on. Since I got the D3s (about a year ago), when shooting outdoors I often carry the D3s with the short zoom and one of the EM5II's with the 40-150mm + 1.4 converter (112-420mm f/4 eq, total weight a little over 3lb). The family friend from whom I got the D3s gave away his Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 because he couldn't stand the combined weight (over 8lb). I stick with the EM5ii's without a grip to keep them at minimum size and weight. After 50 years of various kinds of part-time pro photography and a career in electronic engineering I can make my gear jump through hoops. The EM5ii's can handle everything I throw at them (excluding very low light and fast action for which the D3s reigns) and print high quality up to 20x30" at ISO 800.

@fferreres
You are wrong in very many ways.

a) 45MP /1.5 / 1.5 = 20MP, not 17MP
b) 1/1.5/1.5= 0.444 or 44.4%, not 38%
c) 40-150 f2.8 lens + m43 sensor is equivalent to FF 80-300mm f5.6 lens, not 80-600mm!!!!

They are elementary school arithmetic...

Quick lesson for you zxaar.
Cropping an image also magnifies lens flaws on top of reducing a the usable sensor size to APSC or M43.

Why spend $6,000 on a really really big lens and crop 1.5x or 2x to get an image inferior to M43? Makes no sense.

And there is no FF sensor that is 20MP when cropped 2x. Not even close.

@ wondrouslightdotcom: I had to take a look at your web site, a nice site that is a joy to explore. ;-)

Comparing one of the smallest MFT cameras to one of the biggest and heaviest DSLR cameras is ok if you want to contrast size and weight to the extreme. But the new E-M1X is not that small, and mirrorless aps-c and full frame cameras are with a noticeable margin smaller than the D3s, and more pixel dense than this Nikon camera.

When talking about print size, I agree fully with you! From my own tests, well exposed 20-24 Mp files from MFT, aps-c and full frame, look pretty much the same, even when judged from large format prints. For many, the work they present, tell that they don't quite take advantage of the full potential of their cameras.

I would say that a weighty argument for MFT is: You don't use larger shoes than you need! ;-)

Sonys highest resolution sensor cropped 1.5x is only about 17-18 MP. Crop it 2x and you are at a terrible 10.5 MP.

And compare the price and size of Sonys 400mm zoom to the M43 zoom. Remember with Sony despite carrying that massive lens, you'll have to crop down to 10 MP to compete.
So you have to buy a lenses that costs twice as much, that is over twice the size, and you end up with a terrible picture with half the resolution.
And... Sony's IBIS is the worst in the industry (still better than none) so you might end up with a blurry 10MP mess.

Well known iso cheat.

For me as user, it does not matter if is ISO-200 or IS0-100 underexposed with 1 stop.
If Olympus discovered that ISO-100 underexposed with 1 stop is better than ISO-200 well exposed, I do not mind to have the first option.

Anyway both options will give the same exposure time.
Where is the "fake amplification" ?
Do you know what "ISO variant" camera means ?

Toni Genes, it is issue, because Olympus has to use slower shutter speed so slower shutter speed is used in comparison with other cameras, you can see this in jpeg in dpreview comparison tool.
So you end either with underexposed image or with image where shutter speed slower than expected has been used. It is big issue.
Issue manifested in arrogant youtuber Jared Polin's review, where he used Olympus E-M1X fake camera like normal camera during football shoot. That yielded in image quality he defined as amateurish.

The same cheating goes to fuji. If I use manual mode on my fuji x100s and my 5dm3 the fuji catches half the light with given iso, aperture and time. Try it by yourself.

Apart from that the best can in this regard is the first Canon 5D.the iso modes are nearly spot on.

ISO is a convenience, but it it's about image brightness not exposure, and I would agree that to compare like with like from different camera manufacturers the only reasonable thing is to compare images taken with the same exposure - no matter what "ISO" the camera claims it is.

I guess the trouble is with consumers that treat the "MAX ISO 512.000" the way kids look at the largest number on a car's speedometer as some sort of proof of how well the thing can handle speed like that.

In the case of Olympus, they have had a long tradition of underexposing the sensor, making for grainier and noisier sample images of the same scene than their competitors, but less risk of blown highlights. What the actual ISO "number" is less important to the viewer than what the image output looks like.

Fujifilm does that obviously. But you need to look at the result. I like the files from Olympus cameras and that's what matters.

Oh, no, the crap about "cheating on the ISO" bubbles up to the surface again. Sigh....

No cheating, reality. It's very easy to test... Just try it.

Kodachromeguy, I have used Fujifilm X100s, XE2, XT3, XT10 and XH1. At the same ISO value (usually more than ISO400) all gave about 1 stop more exposure time than my Canikon DSLRs. All. Olympus cameras also behave similarly above ISO3200.

I think there is missunderstanding about what "manufactured ISO" means.
I also checked dpreview comparison tool and found that all cameras had the same exposure time. There is no cheating from Olympus.
I tried to explain what "manufatured ISO" means but nobody tries to understand...

Whats so difficult to understand? For a given light and a given aperture you have a specifiy exposuretime for ISO 100 f.e.. If the picture is to dark you know how much light is lost... same goes to vignetting.

Most sensors are slightly off the mark, except of some old cams like the first Canon 5D. But what Fuji and Olympus do is too much to be considered as a variance.

@VCSD - from E-M1 MARK II measurements :
For ISO-64 DXO measured a manufactured ISO - 83
For ISO-200 DXO measured a manufactured ISO - 83 again.
Do you think you will get the same exposure time for ISO-64 and ISO-200 ?
No, for sure no.

It is the same for the other ISO values.
Instead of real ISO-400 Olympus uses an underexposed ISO-162. In both cases the exposure time is the same.
So Olympus shots an underexposed ISO-162 and increase the brightness of the picture in the camera engine.
There is no cheating. Actually they get nosier pictures, but they preserve better the lights.

My order limited experience using D500 for wildlife makes me think that I have never got enough reach..so am M43 camera will be good enough.

This camera is still compacter as peers (1DX, D5). And like others models, m43 makes everything smaller but the pure IQ is a worse (1 or 2 stops).

Make your choice.

AFAIK, the others models did not stop working 2 days ago :)

Passionateofphotography: I've never felt compromised by using a single battery in my E-M1 body--it lasts for hundreds of shots, especially if you only use the viewfinder display. And, if I run out of juice, a battery change takes less than a minute. But what about not wanting the added bulk and weight? That's the main advantage of m43 cameras.

NicoPPC you’re forgetting the Sony a9, this would be a similar size and weight. It’s an interesting concept and might have been interesting if the a9 and the Fuji xt3 weren’t already here. Based on many reviews both of these cameras have better hit rates than the Olympus so far. I’d personally spend $1,400 for the xt3 over $3,000 for the e-m1x, it’s half the weight, half the size and half the price with proven autofocus. Plus video at 4K 60 FPS.

Judging from the preliminary images shown here I don't see any IQ advantage over the 5 years older generation of MFTs.
This is quite suprising as despite speed ergonomics a camera in this price bracket should be also able to provide top notch IQ.
Doesn't look like the case here.

I agree..that's a strange way to try to frame the value proposition of the OMD.

The problem with the high res mode is that it ties up the camera for several seconds, and it can't really handle very well moving objects. I think one reviewer said it took about 10 to 12 seconds for the camera to composite the stacked image...ouch.

I can use any number of cameras like the Z7, D850, 5DsR, A7R3...and get similar resolution in the blink of an eye and don't have to worry about motion in the frame. And I get the advantages of FF.

That image stacking is a neat trick, but not that practical when considering the alternatives.

I guess Exaggeration to make a point is beyond your mental capacity.....

You can take 50MP photos hand held with the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DSR even of moving subjects and in continuous shooting mode.

But with the camera while taking a shower, I don't want to think about what 50mp photos you would like to take while taking a shower..

The shower question seems a little bit strange but if we translate it to a real world situation it is not. In country's like Scotland, the Netherlands and Norway it actually rains a lot. Without good weather resistant body and lenses you are seriously restricted as a photographer. In country's like Brazil and Indonesia it also rains a lot and the climate is humid. In snow you also want a real good weather sealing. Also on the beach with sand, you don't want sand in your camera or on the sensor. Speaking of, Olympus has upgraded it's leading sensor clean technologie. This camera is build like a tank, that's a benefit for a lot of situations where people who do need the camera to make money.

@PostModernBloke, this world is wide. You have to believe this TRUTH.

Where I live now, and the countries nearby, there're 4-6 months/year of light shower to heavy rainstrom, etc.

There are lot of waterfalls; also numerous damped and muddy caves.

In 3 years, my EM1 was exposed to very fine volcano dust once; dropped down in the waterfall once & ~into~ the mud pool inside the cave twice. Not to mention of how many time it's soaked from the heavy rain while I'm in the trip.

Well, it may not what one who always stays before the quiet and peaceful computer screen could comprehend. So, believe in that sentence : The world is wide.

In any rare case where pixel shift seems to be useable you can also stitch together with the double focal length... Means in reality it makes no sense in most situations. The world is not stop spinning while we take pictures