Industry News: OM System launches the OM-1

Jan 22, 2012
4,472
1,328
The light and compact lenses are what makes M43 attractive, together with the legendary Olympus weather sealing (I know someone who dropped a EM Mkii in a river - we fished it out, dried it in the sun, and it's still working fine 3 years later!).

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.

The OM1 is also let down by the small buffer. Imagine having to wait 15 seconds for the buffer to clear, before you can shoot the next burst. So as a sports or wildlife camera I feel this is a complete failure. And for most other purposes, a FF camera will be better.
Is this meant to be a wildlife camera?
 
Upvote 0
Jan 27, 2020
826
1,796
The light and compact lenses are what makes M43 attractive, together with the legendary Olympus weather sealing (I know someone who dropped a EM Mkii in a river - we fished it out, dried it in the sun, and it's still working fine 3 years later!).

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.

The OM1 is also let down by the small buffer. Imagine having to wait 15 seconds for the buffer to clear, before you can shoot the next burst. So as a sports or wildlife camera I feel this is a complete failure. And for most other purposes, a FF camera will be better.
People criticize the 20 MP of Olympus cameras seemingly forgetting they have the pixel pitch of an 80 MP FF sensor. So it all depends on the lenses you have when it comes to the need to crop. I have the R6, also 20 MP, and an Oly E-M1 II (20 MP). For each camera, I have a 100-400mm lens, but my Oly is already cropping the image as if it were 800mm on the long end. For the same size image, my Canon is now only an approx 8 MP image.

Whe it comes to resolution, pixel pitch is far more important than MP count as far as I know. The 20 MP MFT sensor outresolves all the FF cameras as far as I know, when using the same focal length lenses. I may be wrong, of course, but this is my understanding as well as my experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
The light and compact lenses are what makes M43 attractive, together with the legendary Olympus weather sealing (I know someone who dropped a EM Mkii in a river - we fished it out, dried it in the sun, and it's still working fine 3 years later!).

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.

The OM1 is also let down by the small buffer. Imagine having to wait 15 seconds for the buffer to clear, before you can shoot the next burst. So as a sports or wildlife camera I feel this is a complete failure. And for most other purposes, a FF camera will be better.
Agree with almost everything you say except the buffer. I shoot Olympus almost exclusively for wildlife (mostly birds) and with a half decent UHS-II SD card I have never filled the buffer, let alone wait 15 seconds for it to clear. Not even using Procapture at 60FPS have I encountered buffer issues.
Perhaps you've seen it/tested it with slower cards?

Now if we talk AF, noise, and the other known drawbacks of the system, that's all true.
 
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
Is this meant to be a wildlife camera?
It's got animal-eye AF and bird AF, so the answer is yes. It's also got face/body AF, car AF and motorcycle AF, so it's meant to be a sports camera too. For people shooting JPEGs the buffer should be adequate, but for RAW shooters indications are that it won't cope. 15 seconds is a hell of a long time to wait between bursts!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
People criticize the 20 MP of Olympus cameras seemingly forgetting they have the pixel pitch of an 80 MP FF sensor. So it all depends on the lenses you have when it comes to the need to crop. I have the R6, also 20 MP, and an Oly E-M1 II (20 MP). For each camera, I have a 100-400mm lens, but my Oly is already cropping the image as if it were 800mm on the long end. For the same size image, my Canon is now only an approx 8 MP image.

Whe it comes to resolution, pixel pitch is far more important than MP count as far as I know. The 20 MP MFT sensor outresolves all the FF cameras as far as I know, when using the same focal length lenses. I may be wrong, of course, but this is my understanding as well as my experience.
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...
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,346
22,522
People criticize the 20 MP of Olympus cameras seemingly forgetting they have the pixel pitch of an 80 MP FF sensor. So it all depends on the lenses you have when it comes to the need to crop. I have the R6, also 20 MP, and an Oly E-M1 II (20 MP). For each camera, I have a 100-400mm lens, but my Oly is already cropping the image as if it were 800mm on the long end. For the same size image, my Canon is now only an approx 8 MP image.

Whe it comes to resolution, pixel pitch is far more important than MP count as far as I know. The 20 MP MFT sensor outresolves all the FF cameras as far as I know, when using the same focal length lenses. I may be wrong, of course, but this is my understanding as well as my experience.
That's quite correct. And a 20 Mpx 1" sensor resolves even more with its even tinier pixels. The Olympus with the new 150-400mm f/4.5 zoom and built in 1.25xTC looks a formidable combination. It's a pity Canon has doesn't haven't that beautiful Olympus feature of recording images before you click the shutter and can get get earlier shots. Trouble is that lens costs £6500 and weighs 1.8 kg, and so the combo weighs more than my R5 + 100-500mm.

A 32 Mpx APS-C has the same pixel size as 20 Mpx M4/3, and I would choose a Canon R7 with that sensor.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
Agree with almost everything you say except the buffer. I shoot Olympus almost exclusively for wildlife (mostly birds) and with a half decent UHS-II SD card I have never filled the buffer, let alone wait 15 seconds for it to clear. Not even using Procapture at 60FPS have I encountered buffer issues.
Perhaps you've seen it/tested it with slower cards?

Now if we talk AF, noise, and the other known drawbacks of the system, that's all true.
I based my comments about the buffer capacity on comments made by dpreview and camnostic, which talk of 15-16 second waits for the buffer to clear after shooting a fairly short burst.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I based my comments about the buffer capacity on comments made by dpreview and camnostic, which talk of 15-16 second waits for the buffer to clear after shooting a fairly short burst.
I wonder what their test parameters were. In day to day use I always shoot either 18fps or 60 if using ProCapture. Often times way more shots than it is reasonable and using budget UHD-II cards (Lexar), no issues so far.
 
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
I wonder what their test parameters were. In day to day use I always shoot either 18fps or 60 if using ProCapture. Often times way more shots than it is reasonable and using budget UHD-II cards (Lexar), no issues so far.
"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

I'm assuming that means 50fps RAW on the fastest available V90 cards. Two second burst followed by 15 seconds to clear the buffer before the camera becomes operable again. Most of the time users will probably be shooting at slower burst speeds (I find 20fps more than fast enough for BIF), but I can't see any reference to buffer clearing time at 20fps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
"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

I'm assuming that means 50fps RAW on the fastest available V90 cards. Two second burst followed by 15 seconds to clear the buffer before the camera becomes operable again. Most of the time users will probably be shooting at slower burst speeds (I find 20fps more than fast enough for BIF), but I can't see any reference to buffer clearing time at 20fps.
Sorry, Only now just realised you were referring to this latest camera on the buffer statement. I understood it as OMD cameras in general (reading comprehension -1). Of course this new one I can't vouch for since I haven't tried yet. I was referring to the EM1X and EM1MKIII.
Sorry for the confusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
That's quite correct. And a 20 Mpx 1" sensor resolves even more with its even tinier pixels. The Olympus with the new 150-400mm f/4.5 zoom and built in 1.25xTC looks a formidable combination. It's a pity Canon has doesn't haven't that beautiful Olympus feature of recording images before you click the shutter and can get get earlier shots. Trouble is that lens costs £6500 and weighs 1.8 kg, and so the combo weighs more than my R5 + 100-500mm.

A 32 Mpx APS-C has the same pixel size as 20 Mpx M4/3, and I would choose a Canon R7 with that sensor.

I do not understand one thing, if the small sensor resolves more detail, why it is a common sense that big sensors are better for details in prints?
 
Upvote 0

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
721
971
USA
I do not understand one thing, if the small sensor resolves more detail, why it is a common sense that big sensors are better for details in prints?
Resolution, or pixel pitch, is the number of pixels per unit area. Commonly referred to as 'pixels per duck' by the bird crowd. So the smaller pixel pitch sensors have pixels closer together, and can in theory show finer detail because of it. So if you're comparing a 20mp APSc sensor to a 20mp FF sensor, the pixels on the FF are quite a bit larger, since the same number of them cover an area about 1.6x as large. If the duck takes up the whole size of the APSc sensor, there are 20mp that make up the image of the duck. If its that same size on the FF sensor, only about 8mp (rough math, don't hold me to it). That's the resolution difference.

If you had a FF sensor that was around 50mp, then in that case described the duck would have the same number of pixels on it in both images, and the 'resolution' advantage of the smaller sensor is not there anymore. The pixels are the same size.

The smaller the pixel, the less light it sees, so therefore the more noise it could have, and the less info it has to make color and exposure decisions. This obviously varies a lot by the sensor technology, with newer sensors generally better than older ones. So that 20mp FF sensor has bigger pixels which can see more light each during the same exposure, compared to the 20mp APSc sensor with its smaller pixels. Once again, raise that FF sensor to around 50mp, and the pixels are the same size and the performance difference will be similar for similar generations of technology. (for reference, a 32mp APSc sensor would be equaled in pixel pitch by about an 80mp FF sensor (again rough math)).

Bottom line, the differences are really overblown, particularly when comparing the same or similar generations of technology. There are some more differences when it comes to lens selection. To get the same FOV on an APSc you need a lens about 1.6x shorter in focal length. That means to take a 50mm portrait FOV equivalent on a FF you need a 35mm lens on a APSc. That also comes with the resulting deeper depth of field at a given aperture (shorter focal lengths have a deeper depth of field at a given f/stop compared to longer ones at the same f/stop). If you want wide angle, like a 16mm FF FOV, you need a 10mm lens on an APSc. On the telephoto end, you are getting more pixels underneath your duck at a given focal length. Back to our 20mp example you'll have to use a 560mm lens on a FF to get the same number of pixels on that duck as if you had a 400mm lens on the APSc. So that is another thing to consider.

-Brian
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,346
22,522
I do not understand one thing, if the small sensor resolves more detail, why it is a common sense that big sensors are better for details in prints?
Commonsense: giant sensor 1mx1m with 1 pixel 1mx1m, amount of detail resolved = 0; small sensor 10mmx10mm with 20 Mpx, amount of detail resolved = lots.
 
Upvote 0
Learned to shoot on an original, handed down, battered OM1 and fell in love with a proper camera.

Saved for years and bought an OM-PC, and a few Zuiko lenses. Olympus abandoned the whole line and left us all hanging.

They jumped into compact cameras, with a couple of very feature rich, well equipped models, and then abandoned that.

If you are thinking of buying a system for the longer haul, think about their history. Customer loyalty needs to go both ways, at least a bit.
 
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
Learned to shoot on an original, handed down, battered OM1 and fell in love with a proper camera.

Saved for years and bought an OM-PC, and a few Zuiko lenses. Olympus abandoned the whole line and left us all hanging.

They jumped into compact cameras, with a couple of very feature rich, well equipped models, and then abandoned that.

If you are thinking of buying a system for the longer haul, think about their history. Customer loyalty needs to go both ways, at least a bit.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

josephandrews222

Square Sensors + AI = Better Images
Jul 12, 2013
608
1,845
65
Midwest United States
I'm looking at the price of this body (north of 2K USD) and quite pricey lenses to take advantage of the wonderful technologies within that body.

I think I get it. Here's (at least part of) what you get for your investment:

*high frame rate etc. and all that goes with it
*weather-'proofed' kit or close to it
*state-of-the-art (or near) silicon-assisted image massaging and focus abilities (although that needs verifying)
*the MFT sensor and all that goes with that (including diffraction 'issues' as so eloquently explained by AlanF)

(what am I leaving out?)

I look forward to having one of these in my hands...but I also wonder what Canon has up its sleeve in the smallish body 'ILC' space.

Imagine what Canon could/would put into the M6MkIII if its selling price was more than double than that of the MkII (body only) price...

FWIW: I would pay that price. One or two for me...and one each for my two daughters.
 
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
I'm looking at the price of this body (north of 2K USD) and quite pricey lenses to take advantage of the wonderful technologies within that body.

I think I get it. Here's (at least part of) what you get for your investment:

*high frame rate etc. and all that goes with it
*weather-'proofed' kit or close to it
*state-of-the-art (or near) silicon-assisted image massaging and focus abilities (although that needs verifying)
*the MFT sensor and all that goes with that (including diffraction 'issues' as so eloquently explained by AlanF)

(what am I leaving out?)

I look forward to having one of these in my hands...but I also wonder what Canon has up its sleeve in the smallish body 'ILC' space.

Imagine what Canon could/would put into the M6MkIII if its selling price was more than double than that of the MkII (body only) price...

FWIW: I would pay that price. One or two for me...and one each for my two daughters.
The truth is that you get a great deal for your $2K - great ergonomics, competitive AF, very high burst speeds, compact system of superb lenses, incredible durability and weather-sealing, good EVF, - and the number one feature - ProCapture. It's also a rather pretty camera that would give you pride of ownership.

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.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,346
22,522
The truth is that you get a great deal for your $2K - great ergonomics, competitive AF, very high burst speeds, compact system of superb lenses, incredible durability and weather-sealing, good EVF, - and the number one feature - ProCapture. It's also a rather pretty camera that would give you pride of ownership.

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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0