Industry News: OM System launches the OM-1

[josephandrews222]

What I don't really understand (and I've tried, trust me)...is the size-and-weight-and-volume thing.

camerasize.com already has the new Olympus up for comparison...and the darn thing, with a M43 sensor, is darn near the size of the EOS R (!?).

I've always sort of thought that the Canon M-series of cameras was a rather successful attempt to put the largest sensor into the smallest possible body.

I like that.

 

[usern4cr]

Indeed, Olympus tried to stay the course, but ultimately decided that there wasn't enough profit in cameras to keep its shareholders happy. (Samsung were a thousand times worse, kicking their photographic customers in the teeth, after concluding that smartphones were a better long term investment).

But getting back to "Olympus" - this OM1 isn't an Olympus camera, despite the name. It's under different ownership, and I don't think JIP would be pouring investment into the OM System unless they intended to stay the course. Whether they are able to do so of course depends on how well the cameras and lenses sell. If 20MP was enough for me, I'd have no hesitation in buying this camera and a few Zuiko lenses.

Agree with what you've said, entoman.

I gave my Oly system to my brother when I got the R5 etc, but what I'd suggest to someone new buying into Oly right now would be this:
OM-1
1st lens for general travel: 12-100 f4 pro
2nd lens for tele: either 300mm f4 pro or 150-400mm f4.5 1.25xTC pro (or both if you're rich enough)
3rd lens: 45mm f1.2 pro for portraits
4th lens if into macro: 28mm f2.8 macro (2X macro 56mm f5.6 FF equivalent, just shrunk onto smaller sensor)

Use a good post software and you'd get some really beautiful photos, and you'd carry your equipment more places than you probably would with a bigger system.

 

[entoman]

As has been pointed out by others, the whole 20 Mpx sensor on the M4/3 is the same as cropping the centre of an 80 Mpx sensor, and taking the middle 25%. For most of my shots, I crop that amount from the centre of the R5, so a M4/3 shooter is getting higher Mpx crops than me or you when we are limited by reach. So, the M4/3 has better cropping ability for those who need it. The real disadvantage of M4/3 is in the opposite direction: when you don't need to crop, the uncropped large sensor image is advantageous to an uncropped image from the small sensor in terms of noise, DR, diffraction etc.

So, are you saying that the OMI produces an 80MP image from a single shot? Because my interpretation of the specs, and my understanding of how hi-res has been achieved with other lo-res sensors, is that several images are taken in rapid succession, and then merged in-camera to produce the hi-res final frame.

One major limitation to this is that the subject can move between these "sub-shots", so even with a fast readout, moving subjects will suffer from motion blur in hi-res mode. Even with some apparently static shots there will be movement of leaves, grasses, water etc which can result in weird and aesthetically undesirable artefacts. This issue will remain until global shutters finally make it into our cameras,

Another probable limitation is that if 4, 8 or 16 shots are used to build the final hi-res image, in order to get a respectable burst speed, the camera will have to be shooting at the full 50fps, and reports indicate that the buffer fills in 2 seconds even with the fastest cards, and you have to wait 16 seconds before the camera is operable again. That would appear to render the camera useless for hi-res action photography such as BIF. Maybe I've misunderstood how the OM1 produces it's hi-res files, but it looks to me that shooting a *series* of short 2 second hi-res bursts is impossible. So that takes us back to square one, and you're stuck with 20MP and consequent very limited cropping ability.

 

[vangelismm]

Commonsense: giant sensor 1mx1m with 1 pixel 1mx1m, amount of detail resolved = 0; small sensor 10mmx10mm with 20 Mpx, amount of detail resolved = lots

M6 with 32MP or RP with 26MP, both with a hipotetical perfect lens?

 

[AlanF]

So, are you saying that the OMI produces an 80MP image from a single shot? Because my interpretation of the specs, and my understanding of how hi-res has been achieved with other lo-res sensors, is that several images are taken in rapid succession, and then merged in-camera to produce the hi-res final frame.

One major limitation to this is that the subject can move between these "sub-shots", so even with a fast readout, moving subjects will suffer from motion blur in hi-res mode. Even with some apparently static shots there will be movement of leaves, grasses, water etc which can result in weird and aesthetically undesirable artefacts. This issue will remain until global shutters finally make it into our cameras,

Another probable limitation is that if 4, 8 or 16 shots are used to build the final hi-res image, in order to get a respectable burst speed, the camera will have to be shooting at the full 50fps, and reports indicate that the buffer fills in 2 seconds even with the fastest cards, and you have to wait 16 seconds before the camera is operable again. That would appear to render the camera useless for hi-res action photography such as BIF. Maybe I've misunderstood how the OM1 produces it's hi-res files, but it looks to me that shooting a *series* of short 2 second hi-res bursts is impossible. So that takes us back to square one, and you're stuck with 20MP and consequent very limited cropping ability.

Of course I am not saying that. It‘s simply that the pixel density of a 20 Mpx M4/3 is the same as an 80 Mpx FF sensor so a single shot from the M4/3 has the same number of pixels as cropping 20 Mpx from an 80 Mpx FF. it’s exactly the same situation that a 20 Mpx 7DII has higher resolution than a 20 Mpx FF and has the same resolution or reach as a 50 Mpx 5DSR. You have repeatedly confused that simple situation with stitching together multiple shots.

 

[AlanF]

M6 with 32MP or RP with 26MP, both with a hipotetical perfect lens?

Assuming then a hypothetical perfect lens, diffraction etc. then an image that fills the 32 Mpx sensor will be able to be blown up to 10.9 % larger in width and 10.9% larger in height for printing of the same image that fills the 26 Mpx sensor. If you are standing at the same distance with same lens and taking a photo of a small bird, then you will be able to blow up the crop of the bird from the 32 Mpx sensor 77.5% wider and 77.5% higher.

 

[entoman]

Of course I am not saying that. It‘s simply that the pixel density of a 20 Mpx M4/3 is the same as an 80 Mpx FF sensor so a single shot from the M4/3 has the same number of pixels as cropping 20 Mpx from an 80 Mpx FF. it’s exactly the same situation that a 20 Mpx 7DII has higher resolution than a 20 Mpx FF and has the same resolution or reach as a 50 Mpx 5DSR. You have repeatedly confused that simple situation with stitching together multiple shots.

No confusion on my part. My post was about whether the OM1 can maintain shoot hi-res bursts, given that both of us (presumably) shoot a series of short hi-speed bursts for BIF and other wildlife, and given also that we both have stated a preference for hi-res, because (among other things) it allows us to leave space around a fast and erratically moving subject to compensate for framing errors, which involves often heavy cropping in post.

The OM1 looks to be a superb camera in most regards, but initial reports strongly suggest to me that it isn't suitable for shooting series of hi-res RAW bursts due to a reported 16 second wait during which the camera is inoperable between bursts. If these reports are true, the OM1 would appear to be a bad choice for BIF, given our shooting styles.

The subject of FF vs APS vs M43 is in my view quite separate, as there are a large number of factors other than cropping that affect format choices. To be frank, I think you are concentrating too much on the science, and not giving enough consideration to the practicalities of using this particular camera.

 

[Czardoom]

For landscapes, architecture and some other applications, pixel shift is fine and a good way to get high resolution at minimal cost. But if you're shooting action subjects like sports or wildlife (which both often involve heavy cropping) pixel-shift will result in soft images showing subject movement, and will often also display ugly digital artefacts.

If the OM1 had a global shutter, pixel-shift would work for some action scenarios, as the series of frames could be shot almost instantaneously, but they would still need to be merged, and the camera would require a massive buffer and a very fast processor to be able to shoot bursts at 50MP. On the other hand you could shoot many RAW 45/50MP bursts in quick succession with a R5, A1 or Z9.

Pixel-shift hi-res is great in theory, but in practice is only usable for static subjects. Ironically, the inclusion of bird and animal-eye AF, car and bike AF etc indicates that the OM1 is intended to be a sports/wildlife camera...

Sorry. You must have misunderstood. I am not talking about pixel shift. I am referring to pixel size, often referred to as pixel pitch. So, while 20 MPs sounds like a low resolution, on a M4/3's camera, it is high resolution. Higher than the R5, A1, Z9, etc.

 

[AlanF]

No confusion on my part. My post was about whether the OM1 can maintain shoot hi-res bursts, given that both of us (presumably) shoot a series of short hi-speed bursts for BIF and other wildlife, and given also that we both have stated a preference for hi-res, because (among other things) it allows us to leave space around a fast and erratically moving subject to compensate for framing errors, which involves often heavy cropping in post.

The OM1 looks to be a superb camera in most regards, but initial reports strongly suggest to me that it isn't suitable for shooting series of hi-res RAW bursts due to a reported 16 second wait during which the camera is inoperable between bursts. If these reports are true, the OM1 would appear to be a bad choice for BIF, given our shooting styles.

The subject of FF vs APS vs M43 is in my view quite separate, as there are a large number of factors other than cropping that affect format choices. To be frank, I think you are concentrating too much on the science, and not giving enough consideration to the practicalities of using this particular camera.

@Czardoom and I are trying to explain to you that having 20 Mpx on a M4/3 is giving you the equivalent of a crop from a high resolution 80 Mpx FF sensor and is a real advantage and not a disadvantage for bird photography where you are limited by reach. This is precisely the reason why bird photographers love the Canon 7DII and Nikon D500 which also have 20 Mpx sensors. Your comments below from this thread are simply misinformation, equivalent to saying the 7DII and D500 are at a disadvantage for nature and bird photography because they make cropping more difficult as they have only 20 Mpx sensors. There are disadvantages to small sensors like M4/3 or ASPS-C, but resolution is not one of them, it is their strength. That is the practicality of the situation, as most nature photographers know.

What lets M43 cameras down for many, is the low MP count, which is a negative factor if you need to crop heavily, as most wildlife photographers do. When shooting BIF in particular, filling the frame with a bird, and keeping it from wandering beyond the frame edge, calls for a great deal of skill and experience. A higher MP sensor allows a safety margin that just doesn't exist with 20MP.

But you have to weigh these good points against a couple of potential negatives - an apparently poor buffer that may diminish its usability for shooting a series of short high speed bursts, and a 20MP limitation which won't affect generalists but will severely limit cropping ability for those who need it.

 

[justaCanonuser]

@ AlanF: "I do prefer high Mpx FF sensors myself for BIF. But, the 20 Mpx Nikon D500 is reckoned by serious extreme BIFers to be the best DSLR for birds in flight, and I can testify to how good it is."

I agree, we have both a Nikon D500 and an EOS 7D2, and the D500 is the first Nikon since many years that impresses me. It beats the 7D2 in many respects, that's why I still hope for an R7 to update...

 

[entoman]

@Czardoom and I are trying to explain to you that having 20 Mpx on a M4/3 is giving you the equivalent of a crop from a high resolution 80 Mpx FF sensor and is a real advantage and not a disadvantage for bird photography where you are limited by reach. This is precisely the reason why bird photographers love the Canon 7DII and Nikon D500 which also have 20 Mpx sensors. Your comments below from this thread are simply misinformation, equivalent to saying the 7DII and D500 are at a disadvantage for nature and bird photography because they make cropping more difficult as they have only 20 Mpx sensors. There are disadvantages to small sensors like M4/3 or ASPS-C, but resolution is not one of them, it is their strength. That is the practicality of the situation, as most nature photographers know.

You are labouring your point (which I accept) about comparing 20MP M43 with a 80MP FF, but you don't seem to understand that the purpose of my post is NOT about comparing a 20MP M43 with an 80MP FF, it's about whether or not the hi-res mode of the OM1 is up to the task of shooting short RAW bursts in quick succession, which is how BIF photographers commonly operate.

But if you want to discuss using the OMI versus using a R5, Z9 or A1, my opinion is that any of those cameras are far more suitable for BIF, simply because they won't lock up the buffer and go on strike for 16 seconds between bursts. There is no point at all in having a minor crop advantage with the OM1 if the camera is going to lockup after a 2 second burst. THAT is my point.

I genuinely hope I'm wrong, as in most other regards the OM1 looks to be a great camera, and one that appeals to me in many ways, but as I've stated, initial reports indicate that buffer issues in hi-res mode *appear* to make the OM1 unsuitable for BIF, and the only way around it would be to use much faster SD cards than those currently available.

 

[josephandrews222]

No confusion on my part. My post was about whether the OM1 can maintain shoot hi-res bursts, given that both of us (presumably) shoot a series of short hi-speed bursts for BIF and other wildlife, and given also that we both have stated a preference for hi-res, because (among other things) it allows us to leave space around a fast and erratically moving subject to compensate for framing errors, which involves often heavy cropping in post.

The OM1 looks to be a superb camera in most regards, but initial reports strongly suggest to me that it isn't suitable for shooting series of hi-res RAW bursts due to a reported 16 second wait during which the camera is inoperable between bursts. If these reports are true, the OM1 would appear to be a bad choice for BIF, given our shooting styles.

The subject of FF vs APS vs M43 is in my view quite separate, as there are a large number of factors other than cropping that affect format choices. To be frank, I think you are concentrating too much on the science, and not giving enough consideration to the practicalities of using this particular camera.

My two cents here:

...when placed in proper context, you NEVER go wrong concentrating on the science when discussing photography and modern digital photography in particular.

As long as the science is accurate.

Then, after concentrating on accurate science during discussions of photography (and making good decisions and choices based on good science), now comes the action/art of image acquisition.

Posts on this very website by AlanF, on the physical basis of diffraction effects as far as sensor resolution and aperture are concerned, for example, are highly instructive...very technical (because it is necessary!)...and what a three decade career in academic science (physical organic chemistry) has taught me, though, is that knowledge of accurate science alone sometimes isn't enough--communicating said science is in many ways just as difficult...especially on an internet board. LIke this one.

But the actual process of image acquisition, it seems to me...well, the science and technical thinking sort of needs to be done ahead of time...all of which enables the very best image acquisition...and here, in real time, all of the science in the world sort of doesn't help as at least for me it is a different side of (what is left of!) my brain takes over.

Having said all of this--I keep coming back to CR...and if you wade through the comments at DPR on the new 'Olympus' system, the pedantics on CR can't hold a candle to those on DPR!

 

[entoman]

Having said all of this--I keep coming back to CR...and if you wade through the comments at DPR on the new 'Olympus' system, the pedantics on CR can't hold a candle to those on DPR!

Pedantry I can handle, heated debates are fine, so is constructive criticism. I come here to learn and to contribute my own experiences and opinions.

What really hacks me off is condescension, downright rudeness and wokism (is that a word?).
Which is why I don't participate in drpreview debates - although I still tune in regularly to the reviews, technical articles and videos.
Fortunately, most of the time, CR is a pleasant place to be.

 

[tron]

You are labouring your point (which I accept) about comparing 20MP M43 with a 80MP FF, but you don't seem to understand that the purpose of my post is NOT about comparing a 20MP M43 with an 80MP FF, it's about whether or not the hi-res mode of the OM1 is up to the task of shooting short RAW bursts in quick succession, which is how BIF photographers commonly operate.

But if you want to discuss using the OMI versus using a R5, Z9 or A1, my opinion is that any of those cameras are far more suitable for BIF, simply because they won't lock up the buffer and go on strike for 16 seconds between bursts. There is no point at all in having a minor crop advantage with the OM1 if the camera is going to lockup after a 2 second burst. THAT is my point.

I genuinely hope I'm wrong, as in most other regards the OM1 looks to be a great camera, and one that appeals to me in many ways, but as I've stated, initial reports indicate that buffer issues in hi-res mode *appear* to make the OM1 unsuitable for BIF, and the only way around it would be to use much faster SD cards than those currently available.

Since you do not object that 20mp 4/3rds sensor has the same pixel density of a 80Mp FF and about the same pixel density of 90D why you think
of using a method that uses pixel shift which requires many seconds for birding? This obviously targets landscape photography mostly.

This processing is reported to be a few seconds per complete photo (50 or 80mp in case of a tripod).
This process would produce a pixel density equivalent to 200mp FF (handheld) or to 320 Mpixel (tripod mode)

The formula is Mpixels * ( crop-factor squared) So for 20Mpixel the FF equivalent is 20 * 2^2 = 20 * 4 = 80.

Back to pixel shifting:

Do you know of another camera with a equivalent pixel density so as to use it for birding? I do not think so. (i refer to the higher pixel density created from shifting).

You continue mentioning that since this method cannot be used for birding (of course it can't) then we are stuck to 20Mp with limited crop ability.

But a 20mpixel 4/3rds camera needs LESS cropping than a FF 20mpixel or 45mpixel camera or a APS-C 20mpixel camera?

Buffering is another issue I am not responding to that. It remains to be seen at least when using reasonable to high fps (10 to 20 for example) for birding

This camera is not for me because I have Canon and Nikon equipment but for people that want to carry small and light equipment it looks like a decent solution at least for daylight birding.

 

[tron]

Olympus must have done something right to cause so many heated discussions

Now, where is my R5 1.6.0 firmware ?

 

[entoman]

Since you do not object that 20mp 4/3rds sensor has the same pixel density of a 80Mp FF and about the same pixel density of 90D why you think
of using a method that uses pixel shift which requires many seconds for birding? This obviously targets landscape photography mostly.

This processing is reported to be a few seconds per complete photo (50 or 80mp in case of a tripod).
This process would produce a pixel density equivalent to 200mp FF (handheld) or to 320 Mpixel (tripod mode)

The formula is Mpixels * ( crop-factor squared) So for 20Mpixel the FF equivalent is 20 * 2^2 = 20 * 4 = 80.

Back to pixel shifting:

Do you know of another camera with a equivalent pixel density so as to use it for birding? I do not think so. (i refer to the higher pixel density created from shifting).

You continue mentioning that since this method cannot be used for birding (of course it can't) then we are stuck to 20Mp with limited crop ability.

But a 20mpixel 4/3rds camera needs LESS cropping than a FF 20mpixel or 45mpixel camera or a APS-C 20mpixel camera?

Buffering is another issue I am not responding to that. It remains to be seen at least when using reasonable to high fps (10 to 20 for example) for birding

This camera is not for me because I have Canon and Nikon equipment but for people that want to carry small and light equipment it looks like a decent solution at least for daylight birding.

It's not me that thinks pixel-shift requires many seconds for birding, it's what I quoted from Camnostic in my original post, that you appear not to have read:

"It uses twin UHS-II SD cards. This will be a disappointment to those excited about the fast frame rate, as this buffer is going to clear only as quickly as the card will eat them. That buffer offers only two seconds of RAW full rate shooting before you are limited to your card speed. And, boy, even the super expensive V90 cards will spend a quarter of a minute eating those two seconds of shots, making it difficult to use the camera in that framerate for sports or wildlife." - Camnostic

Even for a single hi-res shot, pixel shift will be pretty hopeless, as the subject will move while the necessary series of images is shot.

BIF photographers usually shoot a series of short rapid bursts, in quick succession, but if that is attempted with the OM1 it reportedly locks up after a couple of seconds and then makes you wait 16 seconds before the camera is operable again.

You say "of course it can't" be used for birding, yet this is a camera equipped with bird-eye AF and designed to track subjects at very fast burst speeds. Yet reports indicate that it can't do so at high resolution. That is precisely why a A1, Z9 or R5 is far superior - all of them can shoot at their maximum resolution (45/50MP) for successive high speed burst of BIF.

I would guess that the OM1 can maintain successive bursts without overloading the buffer at standard 20MP resolution, but for BIF and other rapidly moving subjects, that is what you're stuck with - 20MP.

We may simply be misunderstanding each other, or talking at cross-purposes, but I think perhaps that the point you and Alan are disregarding, is that being limited to 20MP for BIF makes life a lot harder, because of the limited cropping options - regardless of format. This isn't a debate about M43 vs FF, it's about 20MP vs 45/50MP, specifically for BIF and other action subjects.

 

[tron]

Regarding buffering: I clearly stated that I did not comment on that. It is ... documented as an improvement going from 12 from a previous model to 7 per set of photos. It is what it is. We do not know many cameras that do this shifting so as to compare.

If they used a slow flash card controller they committed suicide of course (I still remember the slow SD slot of 5DMkIII)

Regarding cropping: Once more: You need LESS since it's a more dense sensor and there are MORE pixels per bird than A1, Z9 or R5 when shot at the same distance and a similar mm lens.

They only have an advantage as FF cameras in BIF because we can target easier.

I am not referring to other action subjects that we may be not Focal Length limited. Only to birds.

For the record I use both Canon and Nikon cameras and I am not interested in Olympus but I still believe it will make a viable solution to people who like birding and want to travel very light and/or cannot lift much weight.

 

[AlanF]

We may simply be misunderstanding each other, or talking at cross-purposes, but I think perhaps that the point you and Alan are disregarding, is that being limited to 20MP for BIF makes life a lot harder, because of the limited cropping options - regardless of format. This isn't a debate about M43 vs FF, it's about 20MP vs 45/50MP, specifically for BIF and other action subjects.

The problem is not one of misunderstanding on our part but it is that you are not reading posts in this thread. It certainly isn't a debate "about 20MP vs 45/50MP, specifically for BIF". I had already written that I prefer high Mpx FF sensors myself before all of this. I was just trying to correct your several times repetition about the inadequacy of 20 Mpx for cropping, which you now grudgingly accept. Both @tron and I use (or have used) both high Mpx R5, 5DSR and D850 and also 20 Mpx crop cameras and have considerable experience with them.

I do prefer high Mpx FF sensors myself for BIF. But, the 20 Mpx Nikon D500 is reckoned by serious extreme BIFers to be the best DSLR for birds in flight, and I can testify to how good it is. And the 20 Mpx 1DX and Nikon D series are no slouches. The R6 is good too.

 

[entoman]

The problem is not one of misunderstanding on our part but it is that you are not reading posts in this thread. It certainly isn't a debate "about 20MP vs 45/50MP, specifically for BIF". I had already written that I prefer high Mpx FF sensors myself before all of this. I was just trying to correct your several times repetition about the inadequacy of 20 Mpx for cropping, which you now grudgingly accept. Both @tron and I use (or have used) both high Mpx R5, 5DSR and D850 and also 20 Mpx crop cameras and have considerable experience with them.

No, we are in disagreement.

IMO, in many cases 20MP is inadequate for anything but the most minimal cropping. It's fine for subjects that can be composed tightly and don't need cropping, and it's fine even after cropping if one is only posting images of modest dimensions on the internet. But in cases where rapidly and erratically moving subjects are being photographed, more MP is highly beneficial for reasons I've already explained several times, and which you appear to agree with.

There is obviously a point where you can have too much MP, e.g. as pixel pitch is reduced the per-pixel light gathering becomes lower, requiring greater amplification that typically results in higher noise levels (although good editing software goes a long way to alleviating the issue).

But yet again you are not addressing my basic argument, i.e. that a camera that can only achieve hi-res by pixel-shift and its associated motion blurring and weird artefacts will produce images technically and aesthetically inferior to those from a camera with *native* hi-res.

And, if the pixel-shift hi-res is impossible to implement at fast burst speeds without the camera locking up every 2 seconds, followed by a 16 second wait before it becomes operable again, then in terms of usability, it is vastly inferior (for BIF) to a camera with native hi-res that can shoot fast bursts without aforesaid lockups and delays.

Phew!

 

[entoman]

You need LESS since it's a more dense sensor and there are MORE pixels per bird than A1, Z9 or R5 when shot at the same distance and a similar mm lens.

They only have an advantage as FF cameras in BIF because we can target easier.

On that matter, we are in agreement , although a more dense sensor can result in other issues such as increased noise levels, so it's swings and roundabouts.

What concerns me is that the OM1, due to it's very fast burst speeds, bird-eye AF, vastly improved tracking and light weight lenses, is targeting BIF shooters, who may find that they'd get much higher keeper rates with a camera that has *native* hi-res, allowing them to target the subject more easily and leave empty space around it, creating many more options for cropping in post.