Industry News: OM System launches the OM-1

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,723
14,940
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!
Another example of your not reading posts @Czardoom who has being saying the same as me throughout has stated specifically in his reply to you that we were not discussing pixel-shift technology but the resolution of sensors.
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.
 
Last edited:

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
962
1,148
UK
Another example of your not reading posts @Czardoom who has being saying the same as me throughout has stated specifically we were not discussing pixel-shift technology but the resolution of sensors.
Let's just get this straight - *You* might only be interested in discussing comparisons between different sensor resolutions.

But, the subject of this thread is "OM System launches the OM1", and I and others are fully entitled to introduce other relevant subjects - namely in my case the *means* by which that higher resolution is obtained, and its *impact* on BIF and action photography, particularly as the other features of the camera (bird-eye AF, tracking at fast burst speeds etc) make it clear that its target buyers include BIF photographers.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,723
14,940
You are fully entitled to discuss anything relevant you wish and no-one is denying you that. But, we are equally entitled to discuss specifics and have replies that stick to the point under discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

tron

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,124
1,503
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.
Two ways to interpret this:

native hi-res OK we get it you want more mpixel say 50mp at the 4/3rds sensor which means a pixel density (and pixel size) equal to a FF camera 50 * (2^2) = 50 * 40 = 200Mpixel. Yes right!
target the subject more easily in a 2X crop camera: Not happening

OR you mean a FF camera with 50Mpixel which in that case you really need/want a Z9/A1/D850 which I can perfectly understand AND AGREE with you
BUT then we are OUT OF TOPIC since Olympus is a 4/3rds camera (with a 2X crop factor) and that is not going to change. We have to take that into account.

The first interpretation is not reasonable thinking in my opinion.
The second interpretation is reasonable and the reason most of us use Canons and/or Nikons.
 

dcm

It's not the gear. But it helps.
CR Pro
Apr 18, 2013
1,054
732
Colorado, USA
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.

You might take a look at this content that Olympus posted to DPReview about the Olympus High Res Shot modes. It provides a pretty good summary of the mechanism and the conditions where it works. The OM1 doesn't appear to be substantially different from the EM1's in this regard, other than reducing the required number of frames and reducing the processing time from 15 seconds to 5 seconds per image. This has nothing to do with the card speed, buffer speed, or shutter speed. It's akin to doing HDR with 16 images, the processing takes time.

The 80 megapixel tripod mode is useful for "scenes where nothing in your subject is moving" - architecture, landscape (on a still day), interiors, still life, macro, and night sky. The 50 megapixel handheld mode where "slight movement in your image is unavoidable, like a posed portrait or landscapes" - landscapes, portraits (static), general photography at wide/medium focal lengths, or any situation where a tripod isn't practical/allowed. The tips at the bottom of the article are also enlightening.

Bird portraits using bird-eye AF might work with high res. BIF is probably not included in any of these scenarios.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Jasonmc89

EOS RP
Feb 7, 2019
392
462
UK
If Canon released a 20mp camera with a sensor smaller than the M series there would be an avalanche of negative comments. If they then said they were going to charge $2,200 plus tax for it the comments would be, at best, histrionic.

Just saying...
Ture
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
962
1,148
UK
Two ways to interpret this:

native hi-res OK we get it you want more mpixel say 50mp at the 4/3rds sensor which means a pixel density (and pixel size) equal to a FF camera 50 * (2^2) = 50 * 40 = 200Mpixel. Yes right!
target the subject more easily in a 2X crop camera: Not happening

OR you mean a FF camera with 50Mpixel which in that case you really need/want a Z9/A1/D850 which I can perfectly understand AND AGREE with you
BUT then we are OUT OF TOPIC since Olympus is a 4/3rds camera (with a 2X crop factor) and that is not going to change. We have to take that into account.

The first interpretation is not reasonable thinking in my opinion.
The second interpretation is reasonable and the reason most of us use Canons and/or Nikons.
Your second interpretation is the correct one. But I don't agree that it is out of topic - anything concerning the OM1 is on topic.

Many people here including myself hoped that the camera would have a global shutter, and if that had been the case (as I pointed out in another post) it WOULD have been possible to use hand-held hi-res for BIF and action, and would have put the OM on par with our FF Nikon, Canon and Sony cameras. Virtually instantaneous readout would have meant the period between the successive shots was so brief that they could be composited quickly enough to virtually eliminate motion blur and the weird artefacts that occur with moving water and foliage in current pixel-shift cameras.

Many speculated that the Nikon Z9 or Canon R3 would have global shutter. It wasn't the case, but the technology seems to be very close to the point where it will appear on hi-end conventional cameras. I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation, and if OM had been first, it would have been massive for publicity and sales.

Another thing - the 16 sec freeze between hi-speed bursts at hi-res is blamed (according to Camnostic and dpreview) on the slow speed of SD cards, so why didn't OM fit the camera with a CFE-B slot (1 CFE-B and one SD)? I'm pretty sure that it would have been possible within the physical dimensions of the camera, and it would have allayed much of the criticism.

Overall, my view is that the OM1 is a superb camera, but due to the 20MP native resolution and consequent limitations on cropping, it is only usable for BIF etc, by people who already have considerable skill (e.g. gun sportsmen) at targeting small fast-moving airborne subjects. It's a great shame that the camera falls short in this regard, because I truly believe that smaller formats, in combination with AI, are where the future of photography lies.
 

raptor3x

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2012
631
114
State College, PA
whumber.com
Many people here including myself hoped that the camera would have a global shutter, and if that had been the case (as I pointed out in another post) it WOULD have been possible to use hand-held hi-res for BIF and action, and would have put the OM on par with our FF Nikon, Canon and Sony cameras. Virtually instantaneous readout would have meant the period between the successive shots was so brief that they could be composited quickly enough to virtually eliminate motion blur and the weird artefacts that occur with moving water and foliage in current pixel-shift cameras.
Global shutter wouldn't enable HHHR for moving subjects unless you also had an absurdly high maximum burst rate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
962
1,148
UK
Global shutter wouldn't enable HHHR for moving subjects unless you also had an absurdly high maximum burst rate.
The OM1 *does* have an absurdly high maximum burst rate, and with global shutter the burst rate could be far higher.

But of course, iris actuation, buffer size, processor and chosen shutter speed and probably some other factors will limit the maximum burst rate.
 

raptor3x

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2012
631
114
State College, PA
whumber.com
The OM1 *does* have an absurdly high maximum burst rate, and with global shutter the burst rate could be far higher.

But of course, iris actuation, buffer size, processor and chosen shutter speed and probably some other factors will limit the maximum burst rate.
Nowhere close to making HHHR usable for moving subjects. You'd need to be looking at 1000fps+ to have any chance at that.
 

tron

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,124
1,503
Your second interpretation is the correct one. But I don't agree that it is out of topic - anything concerning the OM1 is on topic.

Many people here including myself hoped that the camera would have a global shutter, and if that had been the case (as I pointed out in another post) it WOULD have been possible to use hand-held hi-res for BIF and action, and would have put the OM on par with our FF Nikon, Canon and Sony cameras. Virtually instantaneous readout would have meant the period between the successive shots was so brief that they could be composited quickly enough to virtually eliminate motion blur and the weird artefacts that occur with moving water and foliage in current pixel-shift cameras.

Many speculated that the Nikon Z9 or Canon R3 would have global shutter. It wasn't the case, but the technology seems to be very close to the point where it will appear on hi-end conventional cameras. I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation, and if OM had been first, it would have been massive for publicity and sales.

Another thing - the 16 sec freeze between hi-speed bursts at hi-res is blamed (according to Camnostic and dpreview) on the slow speed of SD cards, so why didn't OM fit the camera with a CFE-B slot (1 CFE-B and one SD)? I'm pretty sure that it would have been possible within the physical dimensions of the camera, and it would have allayed much of the criticism.

Overall, my view is that the OM1 is a superb camera, but due to the 20MP native resolution and consequent limitations on cropping, it is only usable for BIF etc, by people who already have considerable skill (e.g. gun sportsmen) at targeting small fast-moving airborne subjects. It's a great shame that the camera falls short in this regard, because I truly believe that smaller formats, in combination with AI, are where the future of photography lies.
It is a 4/3rds camera you cannot change that! Period! Considering though that 150-400 is a very rare lens - and practically unavailable - the most probable birding lens is the 300mm f/4 Pro which gives a 600mm equivalent field of view. Canon's 400mm at a crop camera (1.6X) gives a 640mm equivalent FOV. It is not that difficult and I am NOT a pro. Quite the opposite!

And BY THE WAY: Even if it was a 50mp camera it would still be 4/3rds camera and targetting birds would be equally difficult!!!
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
962
1,148
UK
Nowhere close to making HHHR usable for moving subjects. You'd need to be looking at 1000fps+ to have any chance at that.
*My calculations are very approximate* :

OM1 can already reach 120 fps (at low resolutions with AF and AE locked), using electronic shutter.
In practice of course even 30 fps is plenty fast enough for most BIF photography.
500 fps could easily be achieved with global shutter.

500 fps would allow 1/2000 shutter speed if using 4 pixel-shifted images per final frame, if my maths is correct.

If we take into account additional delays in processing, and the need to physically move the sensor for IBIS, the maximum practical fps would be rather lower, let's say 200 fps.

But IBIS is a short-term mechanical solution to pixel-shift and camera-shake issues, and within a few years will become obsolete, replaced by far more efficient digital stabilisation than is currently available. In 5 years time people will be ridiculing IBIS in exactly the same way that some fold currently ridicule DSLRs.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
962
1,148
UK
Even if it was a 50mp camera it would still be 4/3rds camera and targetting birds would be equally difficult!!!
How do you reach that conclusion?

Accurate targeting only requires two things:

Enough skill on the part of the photographer to keep the camera aligned with the subject (helped of course if the camera and lens are light and easy to manoeuvre).

and

Enough empty space around the subject to allow for erratic subject movement, and to allow more options (square, horizontal, vertical) in cropping.

The above factors apply exactly the same whether you are using a native 50MP FF or a hypothetical native 50MP M43. The relevant limiting factor of M43 is the fact that it isn't currently possible to fit it with a native 50MP sensor.

Lenses are not relevant because the user will automatically choose a 300mm on M43 to get the same angle of view as a 600mm on FF.

Clearly M43 has a significant size/weight/cost advantage over FF, but the one area where it falls short is sensor resolution, and I think everyone is agreed that pixel-shift hi-res just doesn't work for BIF, particularly if you have to wait 16 seconds after each 2 second burst...
 

raptor3x

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2012
631
114
State College, PA
whumber.com
500 fps could easily be achieved with global shutter.

What makes you think global shutter allows you to achieve higher framerates? Just because you can readout the pixel simultaneously doesn't mean you can move the data off the sensor any faster than a rolling shutter sensor. If anything the additional electronics required for implementing a global shutter will likely reduce how quickly you can move data around.
500 fps would allow 1/2000 shutter speed if using 4 pixel-shifted images per final frame, if my maths is correct.
Here's the rub, to use a simple hires type of composite you need all 4 images to be aligned within less than 1/2 pixel pitch. At 500fps, and that's not including the time it takes to shift the sensor into the new position between shots which is going to significantly slow things down, your subject would have to be moving slow enough that it doesn't move more than 1/2 pixel pitch within 1/125s which limits you to slowly walking person range. Handheld hires modes are a bit more forgiving but not much if you actually want to see any additional detail from the resulting image.
If we take into account additional delays in processing, and the need to physically move the sensor for IBIS, the maximum practical fps would be rather lower, let's say 200 fps.

But IBIS is a short-term mechanical solution to pixel-shift and camera-shake issues, and within a few years will become obsolete, replaced by far more efficient digital stabilisation than is currently available. In 5 years time people will be ridiculing IBIS in exactly the same way that some fold currently ridicule DSLRs.
You're setting yourself up to be very disappointed here. Digital stabilization will never help with this as it cannot prevent blurring within a single frame, all digital stabilization can do is shift and rotate a subsection of the full image to give the appearance of stabilization when moving from frame to frame.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,723
14,940
Overall, my view is that the OM1 is a superb camera, but due to the 20MP native resolution and consequent limitations on cropping, it is only usable for BIF etc, by people who already have considerable skill (e.g. gun sportsmen) at targeting small fast-moving airborne subjects. It's a great shame that the camera falls short in this regard, because I truly believe that smaller formats, in combination with AI, are where the future of photography lies.
I do much prefer high resolution FF sensors with shorter telephotos for BIF as I am not very skillful compared with the experts. Even so, I can get acceptable results for my standards with a 20 Mpx crop camera with my limited skills. Here is a selection of some I took with the 20 Mpx D500 and the 500PF in the first year of Covid. Most of us posting in the Birds in Flight thread shoot within this range of subjects and modes. And I threw in a DIF.

DSC_1923-DxO_longtailed_tit+insects_flying-ss.jpg DSC_2551-DxO_teal_flying.jpg DSC_3228-DxO_Emperor_dragonfly-flying_lsss.jpg DSC_3663-DxO_mallard_drake_flying.jpg DSC_3785-DxO_flying_mallard.jpg DSC_5402-DxO_cormorant_flying_vvg.jpg DSC_5433-DxO_Kingfisher_flying_towards_me-ls-ssm.jpg DSC_6011-DxO_Heron_flying-c.jpg DSC_6941-DxO_Wigeona_flying.jpg
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
962
1,148
UK
What makes you think global shutter allows you to achieve higher framerates? Just because you can readout the pixel simultaneously doesn't mean you can move the data off the sensor any faster than a rolling shutter sensor. If anything the additional electronics required for implementing a global shutter will likely reduce how quickly you can move data around.

Here's the rub, to use a simple hires type of composite you need all 4 images to be aligned within less than 1/2 pixel pitch. At 500fps, and that's not including the time it takes to shift the sensor into the new position between shots which is going to significantly slow things down, your subject would have to be moving slow enough that it doesn't move more than 1/2 pixel pitch within 1/125s which limits you to slowly walking person range. Handheld hires modes are a bit more forgiving but not much if you actually want to see any additional detail from the resulting image.

You're setting yourself up to be very disappointed here. Digital stabilization will never help with this as it cannot prevent blurring within a single frame, all digital stabilization can do is shift and rotate a subsection of the full image to give the appearance of stabilization when moving from frame to frame.
I did start the post by saying that my calculations were very approximate, and I did say there would be additional delays due to processing time etc. I also said that digital stabilisation will before long replace mechanical IBIS, which would negate your 2nd para.

A few years ago the technology and availability of gear that we take for granted today would have been undreamt of, and considered impossible. We already have the technology to send Webb millions of miles into space and to align its sub-mirrors to an accuracy measured in nanometers. What appears to be impossible to you, appears to be quite achievable to me, it's just a matter of how long it takes, and I think gear such as I describe enabling HHHR at BIF-capable burst speeds is very close to reality.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
962
1,148
UK
I do much prefer high resolution FF sensors with shorter telephotos for BIF as I am not very skillful compared with the experts. Even so, I can get acceptable results for my standards with a 20 Mpx crop camera with my limited skills. Here is a selection of some I took with the 20 Mpx D500 and the 500PF in the first year of Covid. Most of us posting in the Birds in Flight thread shoot within this range of subjects and modes. And I threw in a DIF.

View attachment 202515 View attachment 202516 View attachment 202517 View attachment 202518 View attachment 202519 View attachment 202520 View attachment 202521 View attachment 202522 View attachment 202523
I haven't at any time said that shooting with only 20MP is impossible for BIF, only that it is a great deal easier if you have more MP to allow for framing errors with fast moving birds.

You have greater ability at targeting subjects than me and you clearly devote a great deal of time to BIF. You will also have more success simply because you shoot a far greater number of images than most people - if I recollect correctly, in a recent post you said you'd taken 60,000 shots on your R5. Your shots of mallard and wigeon in flight are excellent, as I would expect from anyone as devoted to BIF as you clearly are. I've only been shooting BIF for about a year, and it only accounts for about 5% of my photography. I need the safety margin that the 45MP of the R5 provides, to achieve similar BIF shots.

I'm not going to post my own images, because I don't want to turn this into a silly competition to prove who is "best" at anything. I prefer instead to just discuss equipment, and its suitability for its intended tasks, which is why I have posted about the OM1, and why I consider it to be a less than ideal choice.
 

raptor3x

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2012
631
114
State College, PA
whumber.com
What appears to be impossible to you, appears to be quite achievable to me, it's just a matter of how long it takes, and I think gear such as I describe enabling HHHR at BIF-capable burst speeds is very close to reality.
Nowhere did I say it was impossible, just that your previous claim that a global shutter alone would make it possible is incorrect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user