New Olympus High End m43 Camera

[ptomsu]

I'm starting to understand why I like this camera, at least if it lives up to the rumours. If I upgrade from my GX8 bodies, I would want the best stills capabilities and the best video capabilities available with m4/3, or else there's no point upgrading. That would mean a G9 for stills and a GH5s for video. However, I would also like the build quality of my D2Xs.

I don't doubt that this camera can, more or less, match the Nikon pro bodies for build quality, and the rumours claim that it will surpase the G9 for image quality and be as good as the GH5s for video (Almost. The rumours say 120fps for 1080p vs. 240fps for the GH5s, and nothing about 4K 60p).

If that is the case, this would be the do-it-all body for me, and $3,000 is certainly cheaper than the combined price of a G9+GH5s. I could always question wether I need all this, and there's a compromise called the GH5, which is even available second hand.

But there's more, like 4/3 lenses. I already have two (Zuiko 9-18 and PL 14-50) that are not worth much on the second hand market (tried to sell them for a reasonable price for almost a year now). No other camera will be more suitable for those lenses than the E-M1X, and at the moment, I don't have WA and high quality normal zooms in m4/3 mount.

You see where this is heading don't you :ROTFL:

Fully understand you! For me is staying in m43 (with Olympus) or moving up to a Nikon Z-system, but I have the fear that the current Z-cameras are not quite at the evolutionary step with AF and of course the native lenses are missing. That will change over the next few years, but then I have to wait anyway. The EM1X mould solve a number of these things as it would get me a very capable stills and video camera and allow me to stay in the Olympus ecosystem. Not really cheap though

A side note to the video capabilities - from rumours I think this camera will be able to shoot 4k/60fps internal and 4k/120fps external

We will see ...

 

[biglouis]

Fully understand you! For me is staying in m43 (with Olympus) or moving up to a Nikon Z-system, but I have the fear that the current Z-cameras are not quite at the evolutionary step with AF and of course the native lenses are missing.

We will see ...

I spent some time playing with the Z cameras in a store the other day. It is hard to put them down and handle, say, a D500 or D850 afterwards. If they sported the same AF capabilities as either of their conventional and older Nikon siblings I probably would have whipped out my credit card there and then and traded in all my Panasonic gear. The Z7 even with the monster 200-500 handles very well, believe it or not, and I am most impressed that the FTZ adapter behaves transparently as far as I can tell. The main issue is price. Both cameras are ridiculously overpriced for what they are at present. In particular the Z7, which appeals to me most makes the projected price of the EM1X look like a bargain.

The big problem for Panasonic, Olympus and Sony (in particular) will be when the second generation Nikon products roll out with upgraded AF and a value proposition which makes the price worthwhile.

Just sayin'

LouisB

 

[ptomsu]

The big problem for Panasonic, Olympus and Sony (in particular) will be when the second generation Nikon products roll out with upgraded AF and a value proposition which makes the price worthwhile.

This is also why I am so reluctant on fully jumping on that EM1X train, even with the also to be announced 150-400 Pro lens.

My guess is similar that yours that the next generation of Nikon Z-cameras will simply be stellar in all areas and then also the S-lens lineup will be pretty interesting and covering all I need and want. I guess that will be in 2-3 years. So maybe we need to sit that out with our m43 gear

 

[Knorp]

This is also why I am so reluctant on fully jumping on that EM1X train, even with the also to be announced 150-400 Pro lens.

My guess is similar that yours that the next generation of Nikon Z-cameras will simply be stellar in all areas and then also the S-lens lineup will be pretty interesting and covering all I need and want. I guess that will be in 2-3 years. So maybe we need to sit that out with our m43 gear

Of course the next generation Z-series will be stellar and much improved. But think of what the next generation EM-1X will bring to the table ... :facesmack:

 

[pegelli]

Or the next generation Canon, Panasonic, Sony..... (to name a few)

But waiting for something better can be very low cost and take a long time, maybe even forever

 

[ptomsu]

Of course the next generation Z-series will be stellar and much improved. But think of what the next generation EM-1X will bring to the table ... :facesmack:

The question is of course what I really need and/or want. Not sure yet and maybe the phase throughout the next 2-3 years will show me more clearly what that is. There is also the Panasonic FF L-mount cameras and lenses coming and that might be another way to go. And sure it could be also Sony whenever they decide to increase the body size of their A-cameras just a little bit :facesmack:

So putting €3000.- for an EM1X plus €4000.- for that 150-400 PRO on the table might be a bit too much when considering selling all of that again in 2021 or 2022 and loose some 50%.

Thus waiting and saving that money for whatever comes in FF mirrorless systems by then is clearly a good idea - well I hope I can find enough issues with that EM1X to keep me convincing so.

 

[biglouis]

Of course the next generation Z-series will be stellar and much improved. But think of what the next generation EM-1X will bring to the table ... :facesmack:

Or the next generation Canon, Panasonic, Sony..... (to name a few)

But waiting for something better can be very low cost and take a long time, maybe even forever

The problem is that no one is ever going to convince me that the m34rds-sized sensor is going to go beyond the physical challenge which governs the size of the microsites and the s/n ratio and deliver clean usable results above the current level so far achieved.

That said, under certain circumstances I have got useable photographs at iso2500-3200 but really I need to keep the iso to no more than iso800-1250 (max) if I want to rely on not losing small detail to noise..

I really envy the fact that Nikon and Canon sensors can be very clean at iso6400 and even usable at iso128,000.

m43rds has had 10 years to achieve what has been done with APS-C and FF sensors and I just wonder whether the size of the sensor is below what the laws of physics will allow as far as delivering low noise high-iso photographs.

LouisB

 

[pegelli]

The problem is that no one is ever going to convince me that the m34rds-sized sensor is going to go beyond the physical challenge which governs the size of the microsites and the s/n ratio and deliver clean usable results above the current level so far achieved.

Theoretically (assuming similar technology) a M4/3 sensor will be 2 stops more in high iso noise vs. Full Frame. In practice this might be more because probably less R&D is plowed into M4/3 sensor development vs. FF sensor development (my assumption, happy to be proven wrong if someone has real data). I think the current best M43 is the OM D E1 mk2 with a DXO high iso score of 1312 and the best 24 MP FF is the Sony A7iii with 3730, so a factor of 2.8 stops for comparable resolution (20-24 MP).

However some of this disadvantage can be regained by shorter/brighter lenses. For instance a 300/2.8 on M4/3 will need 2 stops lower iso to achieve the same shutter speed and dof as a 600/5.6 on FF for essentially the same image. By the time you use brighter/long lenses on FF there are no longer M4/3 equivalents available and you'll lose out.

So M43 is probably at a disadvantage, but in some cases the disadvantage is not as big as it seems at first sight.

 

[retow]

I spent some time playing with the Z cameras in a store the other day. It is hard to put them down and handle, say, a D500 or D850 afterwards. If they sported the same AF capabilities as either of their conventional and older Nikon siblings I probably would have whipped out my credit card there and then and traded in all my Panasonic gear. The Z7 even with the monster 200-500 handles very well, believe it or not, and I am most impressed that the FTZ adapter behaves transparently as far as I can tell. The main issue is price. Both cameras are ridiculously overpriced for what they are at present. In particular the Z7, which appeals to me most makes the projected price of the EM1X look like a bargain.

The big problem for Panasonic, Olympus and Sony (in particular) will be when the second generation Nikon products roll out with upgraded AF and a value proposition which makes the price worthwhile.

Just sayin'

LouisB

But before the second generation Nikon will be "rolled out", Sony will already have substantially improved A7/9 versions in the market. And then there is the ever growing number of e-mount lenses from Sony, Zeiss, Tamron, Sigma, Voigtlander.....

 

[biglouis]

However some of this disadvantage can be regained by shorter/brighter lenses. For instance a 300/2.8 on M4/3 will need 2 stops lower iso to achieve the same shutter speed and dof as a 600/5.6 on FF for essentially the same image. By the time you use brighter/long lenses on FF there are no longer M4/3 equivalents available and you'll lose out.

So M43 is probably at a disadvantage, but in some cases the disadvantage is not as big as it seems at first sight.

The problem here is that optimal aperture for my kind of photography, e.g. birds is about f7.1, so you see I am immediately at a disadvantage with lighting that requires an iso of 800 or more. For landscape, especially using a tripod it is no problem.

But before the second generation Nikon will be "rolled out", Sony will already have substantially improved A7/9 versions in the market. And then there is the ever growing number of e-mount lenses from Sony, Zeiss, Tamron, Sigma, Voigtlander.....

Yeah... but the one thing Sony will never have is lens range, including legacy glass from Nikon. I suppose one can adapt lenses so maybe there isn't that much of an advantage in it.

LouisB

 

[ptomsu]

Some more specs leaked ....

https://www.43rumors.com/some-more-e-m1x-spec-confrimations/

I cannot help myself but thinking that all these fancy specs and features are mainly there to fool people that at the heart of this camera is still a m43 sensor that is (and will always be) inferior to FF sensors with much larger photo sites at comparable and even at much higher resolutions. So actually a Sony, Nikon of Canon FF >50MP camera will not need any of these fancy high res modes and killer IBIS etc. just to produce higher res pictures, but can achieve this more "naturally" and with better results in the end.

I am meanwhile very sceptical - unfortunately :banghead:

 

[pegelli]

The problem here is that optimal aperture for my kind of photography, e.g. birds is about f7.1, so you see I am immediately at a disadvantage with lighting that requires an iso of 800 or more. For landscape, especially using a tripod it is no problem.

I don't fully understand Louis, on what format do you need f7.1 and why?

For instance if you need it for depth of field on M4/3 you will need f14 on FF with a two times longer lens to get the same dof (and image framing) which (when keeping shutter speed constant) would require an iso of 3200 or more (vs. the 800 or more on M43).

But if you need the f7.1 for something else my logic might not help, so can you please explain further?

 

[pegelli]

Yeah... but the one thing Sony will never have is lens range, including legacy glass from Nikon. I suppose one can adapt lenses so maybe there isn't that much of an advantage in it.

Native E-mount you can basically get primes from 10 to 135 mm with a wide choice of maximum apertures and brands as well as a Sony 400/2.8 and a reasonable stable of zooms from 12 to 400 mm at very decent maximum apertures. It's mainly a larger variety of long end specialty tele's that are lacking vs. Nikon and Canon, but how many people really need that. My feeling is that the native E-mount glass is more than half full and not so empty anymore.

By the time you start adapting the number of options really explode further (and you'll need an adapter for legacy Nikon lenses to use on Nikon Z's as well)

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Many of these discussions get very theoretical. When it comes to telephoto lenses, I would never be able to afford the kind of lenses, like a 400mm f/2.8 or 800mm f/5.6, that would give a full frame camera an advantage over m4/3. The Nikkor 400mm f/2.8 costs $11,000 and the 800mm f/5.6 $16,000. And even if I could afford them, why would I want to carry them? Their combined weight is more than 8 kg. I may be the only person in the world who thinks like this, but I suspect a couple of the others who don't are lying to themselves.

There are clearly photographers doing work for big news media and well healed sponsors who still buy, and maybe even need, those lenses, but already with the current standard of sensor technology, it's becoming a questionable investment, also for them. Then there's the qustion of health. At my age, my body simply can't take the strain of carrying those heavy bags around the track, golf course or stadium. With m4/3, I could prolong my sports shooting carreer by 10 years if I wanted or needed.

When it comes to shorter lenses, it's a different story, but surprisingly, in spite of technological development, lenses for full frame cameras keep getting bigger and heavier. I don't know the reason for this, since Leica, Panasonic and Olympus don't seem to have any problems making tiny lenses of very high quality. I am for sure not going to buy into a system where the best portrait lenses weigh a kilo or more. People may talk about equivalence till the cows come home, but the best lenses for m4/3 are at a quality level that few can compete with, and with f/1.2 plus IS, the situations when I need to go above ISO 3200 are so rare that it's insignificant. No, I don't need portraits where only the first third of the eye lashes are in focus.

Sure, there's visible noise sometimes, at least when pixel peeping, and sure, that photo of a black cat in a dark tunnel might not be so cool, but only 20 years back, I travelled the world with an OM-1, 10 rolls of Velvia and no tripod. That was a challenge. Nothing I do with any current camera compares. If I was worth my salt, I should sell all my gear and get a Canon A95 again, just to prove my point. Unfortunately, I'm getting old and lazy

The Panasonic S1 will be tempting of course, simply because it looks like such a perfect machine, but what Olympus is doing with the X looks like they have understood the challenge, and since I have most of the lenses I need for the Olympus and none for the Panasonic, I'd better spend those monies going to strange places that are still not crowded by CaNiSony cameras and selfie sticks, and take some strange photos while there.

Fuji S3 with Tamron 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 @ 24mm, f/3.5, 1/25s and ISO 1600

Sorry for the somewhat off topic image. It's taken with another camera that had a built-in grip

 

[pegelli]

Many of these discussions get very theoretical.

I agree, and it also leads to some heated debates as people sometimes fail to say what is a constant and what varies in these discussions. Depending on that the outcome can go in every direction.

But here's an article I liked about this subject (watch out, very technical):
Equivalence theory for cross-format photographic image quality comparisons

D. Andrew Rowlands
Optical Engineering, 57(11), 110801 (2018).

When it comes to shorter lenses, it's a different story, but surprisingly, in spite of technological development, lenses for full frame cameras keep getting bigger and heavier.

While some mirrorless lenses are indeed getting bigger (and optically bright with stellar IQ) it doesn't seem to me as a universal truth they are all getting bigger. Just think of the Samyang 24 and 35 mm lenses, Voigtlander lenses (for M and E-mount) are similar sized vs. their Leica counterparts and I can think of many other examples. Even some of the new Nikon S-mount lenses and Sony E-mount lenses are smaller than their DSLR counterparts, taking advantage of the shorter registration distance.

 

[biglouis]

Well said, Jorgen. Especially about weight and age, and budget.

I was in a hide recently where a guy arrived with a Nikon D850 plus a 600mm bazooka. I mean the one which when standing on the floor comes up to your waist. I'm thinking, hang on, I have a 560mm/f4 (the 200mm with the TC1.4) and I can easily hand hold for my birding shots - is the IQ advantage really so great as to justify the size and weight of the Nikon kit?

LouisB

 

[Knorp]

Well said, Jorgen. Especially about weight and age, and budget.

I was in a hide recently where a guy arrived with a Nikon D850 plus a 600mm bazooka. I mean the one which when standing on the floor comes up to your waist. I'm thinking, hang on, I have a 560mm/f4 (the 200mm with the TC1.4) and I can easily hand hold for my birding shots - is the IQ advantage really so great as to justify the size and weight of the Nikon kit?

LouisB

IMO the question is do you find your equipment good enough for you ?
I mean there is always something better looming on the horizon and you can't keep jumping forever from one system to the other, can you ?
Just because one system, for a while, has that slight advantage over the other.

My 2 guilders ...

 

[Knorp]

Let me add that I nevertheless very much enjoy the theoretical discussions ... :grin:

 

[Thorkil]

Fuji S3 with Tamron 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 @ 24mm, f/3.5, 1/25s and ISO 1600

wonderful old-fashioned image despite (/or perhaps because of..) old-fashioned equipment, Jørgen

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

wonderful old-fashioned image despite (/or perhaps because of..) old-fashioned equipment, Jørgen

Thank you Thorkil. This photo in many ways represented my return to photography after having struggled to see the value of digital cameras. Despite of because of? Yes, that's an interesting question with many answers.