Olympus announces the M-D E-M1X, an EOS-1D X Mark II killer?

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,342
22,517
Just handled one after the local store called me in. It is very heavy and the grip isn't deep enough for me and I found it uncomfortable and very heavy to handle with the 40-150mm and the 300mm f/4. It does annoy me when the salesman tells me how much smaller the lenses will be compared with FF when the high density FF sensors make them not far behind the 20mpx MFT sensor in terms of resolution, only 25%-40% and not the factor of two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Hector1970

CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,554
1,162
Just handled one after the local store called me in. It is very heavy and the grip isn't deep enough for me and I found it uncomfortable and very heavy to handle with the 40-150mm and the 300mm f/4. It does annoy me when the salesman tells me how much smaller the lenses will be compared with FF when the high density FF sensors make them not far behind the 20mpx MFT sensor in terms of resolution, only 25%-40% and not the factor of two.
Yes the weight is surprising. Is an extra battery that heavy?
 
Upvote 0
Oct 26, 2013
1,140
426
Just handled one after the local store called me in. It is very heavy and the grip isn't deep enough for me and I found it uncomfortable and very heavy to handle with the 40-150mm and the 300mm f/4. It does annoy me when the salesman tells me how much smaller the lenses will be compared with FF when the high density FF sensors make them not far behind the 20mpx MFT sensor in terms of resolution, only 25%-40% and not the factor of two.

Yes, but high-density FF sensors are NOT what the majority of FF owners have. And this camera is meant for the same sports/action market which does not have high MPs - but rather a comparable amount of MPs. So, yes, you can't make a sweeping comparison between FF and m4/3rds - either way. For some, it is a 25/40% factor, for others it is indeed almost a factor of two.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,342
22,517
Yes, but high-density FF sensors are NOT what the majority of FF owners have. And this camera is meant for the same sports/action market which does not have high MPs - but rather a comparable amount of MPs. So, yes, you can't make a sweeping comparison between FF and m4/3rds - either way. For some, it is a 25/40% factor, for others it is indeed almost a factor of two.
The marketing hype about telephotos giving twice the reach on MFTs is aimed also at those who need the reach, ie wildlife photographers. As a group, they tend to use high density FF sensors, be they Canon or Nikon, or APS-C. And those who use 20mpx sensors usually have f/4 400-600mm lenses + TCs or 150-600mm lenses that are unavailable in the MFT range at present. It’s a sweeping statement to make the claim by MFTs about having twice the reach (and ignoring sensor density) but no one is making a sweeping statement in the other direction - high density FF sensors are very available to those who want or need them.

Of the 1000s of bird photographers I see each year, there is just one who uses an Oly + 300 f/4. But, there are many who use 1” and 2/3” superzooms for the convenience and price. Do you see many sports photographers with MFTs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,246
1,939
Canada
The marketing hype about telephotos giving twice the reach on MFTs is aimed also at those who need the reach, ie wildlife photographers. As a group, they tend to use high density FF sensors, be they Canon or Nikon, or APS-C. And those who use 20mpx sensors usually have f/4 400-600mm lenses + TCs or 150-600mm lenses that are unavailable in the MFT range at present. It’s a sweeping statement to make the claim by MFTs about having twice the reach (and ignoring sensor density) but no one is making a sweeping statement in the other direction - high density FF sensors are very available to those who want or need them.

Of the 1000s of bird photographers I see each year, there is just one who uses an Oly + 300 f/4. But, there are many who use 1” and 2/3” superzooms for the convenience and price. Do you see many sports photographers with MFTs?
Agreed!
 
Upvote 0
I just saw this topic and header :)

I had a chance to use E-M1X along with my old 1D X for indoors sports shooting - ATP 250 tennis.
1D X with even older Sigma 300 2.8 gave me a better overall performance and image quality. The price of the combo second hand was about the price of the E-M1X body only. With 1D X II and newer Canon lenses E-M1X would be far away from killing :)

Here is a summary, if you want more with pics you can check my first impressions blog - https://nonchoiliev.com/blog/6478
Olympus E-M1X is a great professional camera, which gives you many opportunities for settings and personalization. Amazing image stabilization. Pleasant user interface and controls.
Disadvantage found during indoor sports shooting – there is a need for more predefined tracking focus algorithm for different sports.
If they really wanna show their best – we need some telephoto lenses like 120 2.0, 180 2.0 and 250 2.8. I did not invent those by myself – Olympus had such 180 and 250mm bright lenses а few decades ago.
 
Upvote 0