Olympus OM-D E-M1X review

Was most of this shot with production FW then?
If not did you notice any difference?
My guess is the only difference would be bug fixes.

so, you're saying you reviewing pre-production camera with firmware update and now you call it production? is that all that's really different?
How many "production" cameras did you test before then?

why would you want a smaller camera as this’one Is aimed at having heavy telelenses ??

@dansclic

To reduce the weight of the combo, extending the time you can hand hold it.

Foveon would have even worse IQ. Sure, you get much more res per MP, but don't try adjusting highlights/shadows, or shooting past ISO 100...

To Rob890... An "organism"??? ;)

The a9's RAW frame rate is 12fps.

Same sensor as the G9/GH5 (but with microlenses adjusted to add PDAF) so same readout limits.
https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/products_en/IS/sensor2/img/products/IMX272AQK_Flyer.pdf
(Note not all the pixels on a sensor are used for the image, so don't worry that there are a few more than reported for the camera.)

DxO has the EM1ii rated a little higher than the GH5. Could be a DxO thing though.

@Dr_Jon

"Same sensor as the G9/GH5 (but with microlenses adjusted to add PDAF) so same readout limits."

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4172029

Wow, hope it's been improved. Over ISO 800, it's no better than the average camera in readout.

@SidneyVision

"DxO has the EM1ii rated a little higher than the GH5. Could be a DxO thing though."

Probably from the different CFA in use. CFAs can have an effect on noise, depending on how thick/thin they are.

@BlueBomberTurbo That readout parameters seems like it's something tuneable or they are indeed slightly different sensors. In the Pen-F/E-M1ii that change in readout speed occurs at ISO 8000 instead of ISO 1000 like on the GH5/G9.

It doesn’t make sense. 1/50 readout speed and 60FPS means the sensor is reading out the bottom of one frame while sample the top of the next one?

1/50 readout speed is not fast enough anyway...

It's 1/60s, the flash sync speed is 1/50s likely due to the sync delay.

@Magnar:
Yes, the a9 shoots at 12fps for uncompressed RAW.

Quote of the day: "No one uses Uncompresssed raw." 😂

No quote of the day is “figuratively not literally.” Haha..

Haha! 😎

Uncompressed and losslessly compressed Raw are identical except the compressed version takes up less disk space. Now lossy compressed raw is really down to what the manufacturer did - for example see Sony as what not to do...

@ Dr_Jon: The signature Sir 7 said Sony files, so this is about lossy raw compression. Nobody would be able to tell the difference from processed and presented work, and hardly from 100 or 200% pixel peeping, unless you know to provoke the raw files, and know exactly what to look for.

@Magnar:
For fine prints, I definitely disagree about lossy compressed vs. uncompressed RAW. Social media/online, newspaper and magazine are generally fine. And AP photographers MUST shoot JPEG and nobody complains about the shadow detail in reportage/journalism. More or less for sports also.

But when it comes to editing fine art photos and printing them large for sale, lossy compressed will not do. And 16-bit+ would really be better.

I know the M1X isn't aimed at landscape or fashion pros. Rightly it shouldn't be as 4/3 simply isn't the choice for that. Sports sensor IQ isn't too important though. What matters for sports is AF speed & accuracy, subject tracking, frame rate, and lens characteristics. In that respect the a9 is pretty good, except for lack of much selection in sports optics and AF still is not "true pro" good, as lighting matters more than it should for a no-excuses pro sports machine where earnings are on the line. Which is why sports pros haven't switched to Sony...

And yes, lossless compressed RAW gives identical IQ to uncompressed RAW. Why Sony sticks to lossy is a mystery to me!

So really, shooting the a9 in lossy compressed RAW for sports, and therefore getting the full 20fps, should generally be fine as ultimate IQ isn't so important. And not many people with an a9 shoot sports professionally. Or really even that seriously. Nor will they make big prints for sale or personally. So for them, they'll get fantastic sports shots they'll be totally stoked with. For them, 20fps is the big feature that will enable capturing the exact moment.

But if you shoot other stuff with the a9 and forget to take it out of lossy, there will definitely be times you regret it. Sony just needs to implement lossless, and I don't know why they don't...

@ Sir 7: So what exactly is the loss when shooting compressed raw (cRAW) with the A9, compared to uncompressed?

Lost data matters. No offense, but I'm not going down a pedantic debate path about this. If it didn't matter, uncompressed RAW wouldn't exist.

@ Sir 7: So you don't even know the difference?!? Haven't you tested this yourself, since you are so sure about your claims?

If there are visible differences that affect the end result, even for pretty hard pushed files, this should be easy to document.

Fact is that the differences are mostly buried into pure noise, where you can't separate any detail, no mater how you process the files. There might also be some other hardly visible issues when pixel peeping, that should be easy to explain, but hard to provoke.

Yeah, sorry guys. I'm not getting into a debate about lost data not mattering. The very premise is a non-sequitur. This is self-explanatory. So I'm not wasting time explaining it. If lossy RAW or SOOC JPEGs work perfectly well for you, great. I'm happy you're stoked. Simply not good enough for my wants, needs, and desires though.

Cheers, and good night.

@ Dr_Jon: Why not link to results from newer cameras? You could link to older Nikon cameras with harsh spatial filtering too … or maybe we should move back to Olympus, that have their share of artefacts too, like a purple grid pattern for areas with strong backlight. Fact is that there are imperfections with raw files from all brands ...

Firstly I don't know why we are talking about Sony on this page and secondly for some people the issues are a big problem, as you say for many not. You don't need 100% viewing.

@ Dr_Jon: I just responded to an early post here, and then responded to other posters who brought up questions on Sony file quality, and those who followed up ... like you yourself, with several posts!

Why not ask those who brought up this topic?

Lol! You ARE the one that brought it up, Magnar... 😅All i did was mention the a9's frame rate.

@ Sir 7: The first that mentions the A9 in this tread, is the signature Sir 7 - third post, before my answer. The tread evolves from here.

You shot yourself in the foot here, sir!

Magnar, I don't know why it's so hard for you to accept the simple self-explanatory fact that lossy RAW simply does not offer all the image quality that uncompressed RAW does. There are benefits and drawbacks to both formats, but from a purely IQ standpoint, lossy will always be inferior to uncompressed.

That's not to say the lossy benefits (smaller filesize, faster fps) don't outweigh uncompressed IQ technical superiority. As pretty much all of us here have stated, lossy is generally very usable. Pretty sure we all agree that for all but the most demanding IQ work, lossy is plenty good enough.

But like I said, I routinely do deep (to really deep) pulls (lol, just occurred to me I meant pushes, woops) in post. Plus, I'm a pixel-peeper. I spend a lot of money on gear to indulge my photo habit and I wring every drop out of that gear. And my subject matter is my subject matter and my style is my style. Yours may be different and I'm totally cool with that. So for me, lossy is useless.

Oh yeah, and as MikeRan alluded, my mention of a9 frame rate was in reply to the OP regarding the M1X not having a faster frame rate than the a9. Maximum resolution vs. maximum resolution, the M1X is faster. But the M1X gives 12-bit and the a9 gives 14-bit. Still, technically, max. vs. max., the M1X shoots 50% faster than the a9 with AF on. Then of course, there's the M1X's 60fps without AF. Which is crazy! But I don't know if that's max. rez or what...

Cheers!

Hey guys, should this statement be clear enough that it’s futile to engage? As soon as he mentioned something along this line I rolled my eyes a little and moved on

“my mention of a9 frame rate was in reply to the OP regarding the M1X not having a faster frame rate than the a9. Maximum resolution vs. maximum resolution, the M1X is faster. But the M1X gives 12-bit and the a9 gives 14-bit. Still, technically, max. vs. max., the M1X shoots 50% faster than the a9 with AF on.”

@MikeRan We also have to see if the E-M1X is actually able to hit that advertised 18 fps with C-AF. The E-M1ii has the same advertised specification but in reality it maxes out at around 14.5 fps with C-AF. The X-T3 and G9 are pretty much the same. Maybe with the extra processor it will actually live up to the advertised specs like the A9.

@MikeRan:
Not to put words in your mouth, and please correct me if I'm wrong; but is your last post directed at me? And are you suggesting my favorite brand is Oly?

Maybe. Some have reported A9 with AF up to 24FPS but I’m not sure. For sure with good lenses it does 20 as spec'd...

Sir. You seem to argue in their defense like you work there. Or maybe you’re just a Sony hater. Or insecure about your camera choices?

But Yeah. I do mean if we all stop talking maybe you will too..

@MikeRan Interesting, I haven't tested an A9 yet but that would kind of make sense as it's the same architecture as the RX100V and RX10IV which both run at 24fps. Would also make sense why it is able to hit the spec exactly if the true limit is 20% higher.

From my perspective the 24 is hearsay. Maybe it’s possible. It certainly is plausible. I have confirmed 20 FPS myself though. No doubt the A9 hits 20FPS. Oh. And it’s with a 1/160s readout speed. Virtually no rolling shutter. The Olympus 18FPS is with a reported 1/60 readout speed? Maybe not fast enough...

@MikeRan:
Lol, sorry you took it that way. :D All I did was quote the a9's full-rez frame rate, then state the obvious that lossy RAW is technically inferior to uncompressed RAW for IQ. Then those simple clear verifiable facts got attacked.

I don't own an Oly, don't plan on getting one, and am pretty neutral on the brand.

I do hate Sony though. And I say that as an owner of a 7RM2 and RX10M3. Obviously, they are not my primary and secondary cameras. They are specific-use. 7RM2 for manual-focus lenses, and the RX10M3 stays in my car so I can shoot anything with 24mm to 600mm at anytime. No denying the IQ from those cameras though; superb. Just a total pain to shoot with (ergos/haptics/menus), and absolutely horrible AF.

Lol, never thought about security or insecurity about my camera choices. Don't really know what that means. I buy what I buy and I don't what I don't. People can hate on my stuff and love on what I don't love. Cool. Different stuff for different people.

Cheers!

Yeah, had Olympus been able to increase the readout speed to something near, or better than, the A9 I think the response to this camera would have been different. The current readout speed is definitely not bad, but it's in a kind of murky zone where it's mostly good enough but there are still plenty of situations where it's just not really usable. Had Olympus done that and upgraded the EVF to be blackout free I would have been in for one of these at $3K no problem, but as it is I'll probably still get one but wait until I can pick one up at the $2K mark. I'd love to switch to the A9 but it's going to be expensive to switch systems now, especially given the poor resale value of m43 gear, and I honestly still can't stand Sony ergonomics. All I wanted was a m43 version of the A9, why must you taunt me Olympus?

@Sir7 Regarding the compressed RAW issue and the A9, there's really zero reason to ever use uncompressed RAW on the A9 due to the readout noise behavior of that particular sensor. The compression issues only occur in the most extreme shadow areas and were only really noticeable on the previous bodies because of how clean the shadows are on those bodies. On the A9, the higher readout speed comes at a cost of read noise, both in quantity and quality so that extreme shadow range is already kind of contaminated.

@whumber:
No, I agree. I'm not so sure why many here are misconstruing what I'm saying. I've even said on this very thread that lossy RAW for sports is totally fine. And even that the gain in frame rate from lossy likely outweighs the IQ gain from uncompressed.

I mean, I'm seriously confused as to what's going on here. I'm in agreement with pretty much everyone here about pretty much everything. Aside from the statement that lossy RAW = uncompressed RAW. ALL I'm saying is that they're not EQUAL. I even explained on this very thread that BOTH have benefits and BOTH have costs.

But Sony fans are ALWAYS offended at what I have to say about Sonys despite my actual experiences with or ownership of the Sonys I'm talking about so I can't concern myself with their perceptions. The irony with them is that they're usually RABIDLY advocating for cameras they've never owned, and often have never even tried. That's probably the camera choice insecurity MikeRan is talking about, lol. :D

You were quite insistent that the Olympus 18FPS is faster than the A9 because the A9 only shoots at 12FPS. So. Yeah. Now you say it doesn’t really matter. Yeah they’re different. But not significantly.

Go back and read what you wrote....

Lol, "insistent"? Come on, Mike. You are misquoting me, and way out of context. YOU go back and read this whole thread to see what I ACTUALLY wrote. I just re-read it.

This whole vomit show is about whether lossy RAW is equal to uncompressed RAW. Frame rate is almost none of what I'm talking about. That's simply what I started with. Then Magnar wigged-out. :D

Whatever dude. Lots of other people didn’t like the A7II. The new Sony’s are new beasts all together. You can’t let go of your Sony hate based on your bad experience on a few years old camera. Perhaps the technology wasn’t good enough for you then. It’s good enough for many now. But... you still can’t let go of your hate. so there’s really no point in arguing.

As you said yesterday. Cheers and good night..

Well, 7RM2, not 7M2. ;)

I've said many times that 3rd gen Sonys and the a9 have made a lot of improvements over previous gens. Mainly in responsiveness and AF. But their ergos/haptics/menus still suck. Better, but that says nothing, really. The a9 is getting kinda close regarding ergos I consider adequate, but still not there for me.

Yes. I do hate shooting Sonys. But it's not a blind hate. It's not because it doesn't say "Nikon" on the prism. It's because their ergos/haptics/menus suck. And even more so because their AF sucks. Yesss, even the a9's AF sucks. I know, that is the most grave form of blasphemy to the Sony congregation; criticizing a9 AF... It simply isn't that good. I've been shooting pro Nikons for over 30 years. I've been accustomed to and demanded the best AF available for decades. Sorry, a9 AF really is not all that great. In bright sunlight it's great... just like every other camera's AF... Other than that, no.

Cheers, and good night. :)

Not sure I want to delve back into all this, but the fastest speed with AF/AE and the mechanical shutter is an important consideration in a sports camera (for people who have that usage, many won't). This is as under certain lighting and with certain animated advertising hoardings the electronic shutter can really screw up, plus rolling shutter effects on fast movement can be intrusive, also flash can be impossible at shutter speeds you might want.

BTW The Oly is the same underlying Sony sensor as the GH5/G9/EM1-II and so has a 1/60th sec full-sensor read. The A9 is about 1/160th so clearly better, but still brave if you're being paid to shoot or really can't repeat something. (Mechanical shutters vary, Canon/Nikon sports ones will be over 1/300th.)

The fastest mechanical shutter speeds with AF/AE are 10 and 5 fps (the A9 being the slower). I think 10fps is generally fine for sports, but with the A9 you'd want to be sure you could use the e-shutter for things you care about.

Yes. Agree A9 really wants to use E-shutter.. you lose the blackout free shooting with mech shutter (of course). And yes. Usually 10FPS is plenty. Although it’s nIce to have 20 sometimes.

Listen to you who probably does not own any Olympus ?

I certainly don't. I have no need for Train tracking :-)

@MikeRan

"But I can’t help to think it’s large partially so it can feel like it can play with the big boys and to justify the price."

This. Sure, it's easy to build a big body and litter it with buttons and levers. But it's what's inside that counts. Even a standard DSLR body D500 would run circles around this, let alone something like a D5. That the internals weren't completely upgraded is the biggest issue. High end sports cams always showcase the latest tech in everything. This is literally a sheep in wolf's clothing.

Figuratively, not literally. 😉

Probably, but that's why they won't get any "converts"...

What's really compelling... is that this camera isn't tiny and it looks to have good truly usable ergos! With particular attention to vertical shooting!

No, IQ won't be FF or APS-C caliber (though I'd like to see a lot of real-world handheld stacked "50MP" and "80MP" tripod images before making that conclusion...). But so what? Even 1" RX100M3 images look great.

So what it really truly comes down to is whether it can AF and track as well as a good DSLR can. If, and that's a BIG if, it can then it will be a legit sports monster in a really compact package relative to APS-C and FF "equivalents". And cheap too, in relative terms!

I'm really no 4/3 fan, mainly because they're too small with poor ergos compared to DSLRs, and they can't AF or track. It's a camera like this that *could* finally make me a 4/3 believer. Though, I won't be giving up my DSLRs for it no matter how much better (if any, hopefully) it is than all other 4/3 to date, unless it's truly a quantum leap. Continued...

But 12-bit is limiting as I do a lot of deep pulls in post. Plus, 20MP isn't very appealing. I'll never forgive Nikon for the 20MP decision in the D7500 and D500. But, for a small sensor, 20MP should really represent the MP ceiling. 16MP would be a lot better for general IQ so long as big prints and/or crops aren't going to be common.

I really don't know why this camera is getting so much hate. If one wants a small 4/3 camera, there are a ton to choose from. But not 1 big one, aside from this one. 4/3 fans should be glad to see this step! Done...

Well, if it can't AF like a DSLR, it's dead to me. Just like all other mirrorless cameras are. That's the mirrorless deal-breaker for me. Until AF is every bit as good as DSLR AF, mirrorless can't do anything for me.

@ Sir 7: Your gallery tells a lot about your need for speed … LOL!

While ignoring all information that this was a m43 camera...

LCD - thanks, seemed odd so good to know.

Sadly, even with the smaller sensor and higher price, it does not seem to C-AF as well as the D500. Or probably even a D7200.

They didn't even think of adding a LCD screen on the top like the G9

Only if you think a D5 is "basically" a D750.

If they have an AI "bird mode" included, then yes. Otherwise, AF seems to be the same as the E-M1 II as per DPR TV.

Huh? Double Talk.

New exciting Camera..Old Sensor from older model cameras. Makes you say to Olympus..R u serious?

It's a good sensor (Sony IMX272, as in GH5, G9, EM1mk2), but it is a shame they still don't have BSI (perhaps due to low volumes of m43 sales Sony hasn't done one yet, as new premium m43 cameras presumably are 20-50k pa or so, depending on price point).

Athonline - Oly and Panasonic both sell somewhat under 500k ILCs per year, so a new higher end model by one or even both won't do huge volumes.