OM System Wow Camera

[Pitachu]

All brands new models always cannibalize sales of previous years models.

OMDS has updated the firmware of the EM1, EM1x and EM5 in mid 2021, but it could be the last update as OMDS moves on to newer models. I have owned Sony and Canon, and after a while, they also stopped updating their previous years model.

New Buyers No chance?
You will be hard pressed to built a Rugged Weather Proof Camera Body with a 600mm F4 lenses at the same price / features as the OM-1
or the Panasonic GH6 with a 20mm to 50mm F1.7 (superb for indoor videos) with the same features and price range.

I am 100% sure that there will be new buyers because I still have a Sony and a Canon system with more than 3 lenses each at my disposal but I started buying into Olympus when I started trekking 3 years ago.

Every camera target a certain market. Otherwise the manufacturer would not have went ahead to manufacture them. Don't be blinded by your own prejudice and lack of understanding.

 

[one eye jack]

Will the OM-1 mirrorless cannibalize sales of Olympus EM-1X and the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III?
Probably. At this stage, OMDS may not care about products made by the previous regime.
As many reviewers have pointed out, this is for those with Sunken Costs already deeply invested in the MFT system. New buyers? No chance.

I think you of all person know it's a common sense question but your "insistance" that photography will be fullframe once costs are palatable or cheap for consumers does not reflect reality but thank you just the same for enlivening this thread.

Just as you know know basic economics 101 that the market will bear what it can afford so just look at the flagship models of canon ,Nikon and sony, they are in the near $10k ballpark just for body alone. This is clearly for professionals and rich enthusiasts.
Of course you can cite canon R6 which is priced similarly for to om1
but a fullframe at that but also at 20mp. Resolution. Sure sure can argue that fullframe can crop further for wildlife or birding but that is not the point. As in economics there is freedom of choice which benefit consumers. You argue from the standpoint of quality but it is also subjective like smartphone quality..it is good enough on web and social media Vs price and convenience so the fact is the majority that used to constitute the photography market has shifted to smartphones which leave the professionals and camera enthusiasts only which is a very small niche but it is a growing sector growing 5.6% yearly to 2028 short term. It is no small change or profit for manufacturers.

Just like you the camera makers or private investors that aquire them also know that the consumers or market decide what they want in a camera so offer various models to temp buyers. That said, whether a particular model will canibalise earlier models remain the choice of buyers and manufacturers will have to tweak or offer attractive products. As far as om1 is concerned it has a new sensor and image processor ,menu layout and new improved features so the arguement of canibalising older models does not hold as it is a significant upgrade. Whether it wows buyers or not is just marketing. I know this will not placate you as you already hold a certain view just like Putin wants the world order to be back to 1996 status but Biden said if he chooses to act it will be a war of CHOICE and he will have to bear the consequences. While this is not a war but of personal choice and enjoyment of photography.
Cheers.

 

[Pitachu]

Comparing the OM-1 to the R6, the R6 at the same resolution of 20mp, is not able to crop further for wildlife.

The R6 is 20% heavier, and only have 60% of the OM1 battery life, but cost US$300 more.
The Canon RF lenses is pale in comparison with M43 and some as slow as F11 (like cheap mirror lenses)
and not even weather sealed which is needed for sports and wild life photography.
Why would you want a 800mm F11 that can only be used indoor?

The OM1 also has much better video features.

I am not saying that the Canon R6 is no good, as it probably has its own strengths which are different from the OM1
(eg. Higher Mechanical Shutter speed etc).

I am just saying that it is does not have strengths in every aspect that the OM-1 has no chance against it.

 

[swifty]

Let buyers buy what they want to buy.
I'm really not interested in championing any particular brand or format but I do take issues when technical advantages/disadvantages are misrepresented.
And m43 do have many advantages, some of which I have listed in the past. And if a buyer (new or old) decides their needs are best served by m43, then so be it.
I suspect in the healthy enthusiast wildlife segment of photography, a good portion may be looking for less expensive and/or lighter options than flagship FF and exotic superteles, especially in the aging population of western nations. This is one area m43 (more Olympus/OMD actually) appears to be targeting. And if those buyers end up having other photography needs, there's a whole ecosystem around them with the same mount.
Catering to many needs under the same system is an advantage, and I do agree that the mounts with multiple format sizes do have an advantage as long as they actually make the products available in the different format.
I'm a Nikon FF shooter and have been for donkey years. They have both FF and APS-C under the same mount (F previously and now Z). But I keep having one foot in m43 because Nikon doesn't make the same depth or breadth of products in their APS-C line and m43 does better for my needs, at least in the past. But this may change of course in the future and I'll evaluate according.
M43's the first to jump for relatively affordable high performance flagships so they have an advantage, if only temporary.

 

[swifty]

R6 doesn't have nearly the pixel density as m43. Pixel density is really another way of saying reach via cropping.
But m43 also don't have a 600mm f/4. It's 300mm f/4 actual or 600mm f/8 equivalent.
The closest comparison today to an OM1+300 f/4 might be a Sony A9 I or II + 200-600. But even there it's not particularly apples to apples. One combo's ahead in one area, the other is ahead in another.

 

[Pitachu]

I do not know the technical terms on how to explain this.
M43 300mm F4 is a 600mm F4 in terms of aperture speed, which allows you to set a higher shutter speed.
This is because M43 format is a focal multiplier, which is different from using a 2x teleconverter to achieve 600mm.
It is only equivalent to a Full Frame F8 only in terms of depth of field (which affects background blurness)
You can go into a lot of physics and equivalence theories, but the speed & the image size is equal to a Full Frame 600mm F4.
Yes, the image quality may suffer 10 to 20% but you are comparing to a full frame setup at 4 times the price and 3 times the weight.

But m43 also don't have a 600mm f/4. It's 300mm f/4 actual or 600mm f/8 equivalent.

 

[JW73]

I do not know the technical terms on how to explain this.
M43 300mm F4 is a 600mm F4 in terms of aperture speed, which allows you to set a higher shutter speed.
This is because M43 format is a focal multiplier, which is different from using a 2x teleconverter to achieve 600mm.
It is only equivalent to a Full Frame F8 only in terms of depth of field (which affects background blurness)
You can go into a lot of physics and equivalence theories, but the speed & the image size is equal to a Full Frame 600mm F4.
Yes, the image quality may suffer 10 to 20% but you are comparing to a full frame setup at 4 times the price and 3 times the weight.

In practice, when i have used to have FF 600mm f4, in good light , we will set aperture to F8 so that the subject bird will be sharp due to FF ‘s narrower depth of field. In such case, 300mf4 on m43 has its advantages as is depth of field is already F8 but light gathering is F4 and i can maintained lower iso and higher shutter speed as mentioned. And with Om-1 better high iso performance and better AF, I think it is a killer nimble birding combo with 300mm or the 100400mm.

When i use 300mmf4 out there, i still tell people its a 300mm lens but i got the view/composition of a 600mm. 300mmf4 bokeh blur will never win a true 600mm if u do those boring side by side comparison.. But it can still create a good one if u know what to do (like going low , eye level with subject, changing angle of view, take more care on background vs subject distance)

 

[swifty]

I do not know the technical terms on how to explain this.
M43 300mm F4 is a 600mm F4 in terms of aperture speed, which allows you to set a higher shutter speed.
This is because M43 format is a focal multiplier, which is different from using a 2x teleconverter to achieve 600mm.
It is only equivalent to a Full Frame F8 only in terms of depth of field (which affects background blurness)
You can go into a lot of physics and equivalence theories, but the speed & the image size is equal to a Full Frame 600mm F4.
Yes, the image quality may suffer 10 to 20% but you are comparing to a full frame setup at 4 times the price and 3 times the weight.

No, it is an f/4 lens so it has an f-number of 4 and is exactly as you would expect it to be when calculating your exposure.
F/4 is not the aperture. The aperture is the size of the ‘hole’ and it is written as f / number because it is the focal length / f-number. So a 600 f/4 lens has an aperture of 150mm and a 300 f/4 lens has an aperture of 75mm.
It is not only equivalent to f/8 in terms of DOF. It is the reason why the SNR can be better because a 600 f/4 lens lets in far more light than a 300 f/4 lens. The sacrifice is dof. You cannot have more light without having thinner dof.
It is not 10-20% less IQ. What it is is it lets in 1/4 of the light at the same AOV. That might mean nothing to the IQ produced or it might mean everything to the IQ produced but it depends on the actual shooting condition. You don’t automatically loose IQ by using a slower lens. You just hit the upper limits of capabilities sooner depending on the shooting conditions.

It really doesn’t help the m43 cause when ppl go on about a 300mm f/4 equaling a 600 f/4 lens because it doesn’t. If you convince a 600 f/4 shooter to use a 300 f/4 thinking it is the same, you’re going to get backlash when it isn’t.
Equivalence is not hocus pocus. It’s embed in science.
Saying exactly how it is doesn’t disadvantage m43 one bit. It lets ppl know exactly what they get and lets them make informed decisions.

 

[swifty]

While I’m at it, let’s crush this notion that you automatically loose IQ when you’re shooting on a smaller format. You don’t. For all overlapping shooting envelopes, you will get exactly the same IQ with respect to SNR on the resultant image.
FF and larger formats just have a larger shooting envelope but m43’s shooting envelope is already large and growing with increasing tech and expanding lens lineup.
And we’re only talking about one aspect of the image quality related to SNR. There are many other things to look at than just SNR.
Eg. That 300mm f/4 will AF like an f/4 lens (because it is f/4) and supply a bright feed to the EVF. These factors are not related to equivalence theory but will very likely positively affect how the photographer gets the final image.

Like I said b4, it’s human nature and ppl like to think they are purchasing the best. But a lot of the time the wider performance potential are never realised. Often it’s only used for tribal posturing.

 

[Pitachu]

Very good technical reply and you are right to say even with a F4 aperture, we usually set it at F8.
1) Using a F4 lenses at F8 produce better Image quality than a F8 lenses at F8
2) although we usually shoot at F8 when light permits, usually when we need to increase shutter speed without increasing ISO beyond 800, we need to widen the aperature a little and many a times are "forced" to use F5.6 or F4.

 

[JW73]

A typical example on a 300mmf4 set at F5.6 . If someone is using a true 600mmf4, I will set at F11 so the 2 birds at different “depth” will be sharp and maintain blur BG. So when u watch some youtubers keep comparing the equivalent aperture vs FF lens..take a pinch of salt.

 

[JW73]

Om-1 vs em1iii

 

[swifty]

DOF is the leveller. If you want the same dof, you will get the exact same image quality regardless of format.
JW73 is absolutely right in his example of the pair of birds. If f/5.6 on m43 is required to achieve adequate dof, it doesn’t matter what other lens on another format was next to him shooting the same scene, they won’t get a better quality image in regards to SNR. The FF shooter next to him with the 600mm f/4 lens will get exactly the same image quality as it’d need to be set to f/11 to achieve the same dof. This is in the same overlapping shooting envelope and m43 will achieve the same image quality.
In this scenario other factors start becoming more important. Eg. f/5.6 may be the sweet spot for the 300mm f/4 lens being used whereas f/11 on the 600mm f/4 may be well past its best. The AF could also be working better compared to f/11 on the FF camera which before the mirrorless era probably wouldn’t even AF. The weight of the 600mm f/4 may be a hindrance whereas the smaller 300 f/4 with arguably better ibis may enable sturdier hand-holdability.

 

[Pitachu]

I think you nailed it.
Yes, The Depth of Field on a M43 300mm F4 lenses at F5.6 is about the same as F11 on a Full Frame 600mm lenses.
But there are times where you may not have the luxury of using F11 to shoot, especially when the birds are under the shade of leaves or it is near evening. That is why I am always careful to qualify myself when I say the M43 300mm F4 lenses is equal to a FF 600mm F4 lenses. It is only in terms of speed, not depth of field. Generally, the larger the sensor size, the more pleasing is the DOF.

A typical example on a 300mmf4 set at F5.6 . If someone is using a true 600mmf4, I will set at F11 so the 2 birds at different “depth” will be sharp and maintain blur BG. So when u watch some youtubers keep comparing the equivalent aperture vs FF lens..take a pinch of salt.

View attachment 100238View attachment 100238

 

[Pitachu]

Great video for comparison. ALmost tempted to preorder the OM1

Om-1 vs em1iii

 

[one eye jack]

This may be off topic but I feel I should dispel the myth that fullframe gives better /shallow dof than crop sensor. It really depends on camera to subject distance and focal length of lens and to lesser or greater extent of background to subject distance.

Why this video is inaccurate..( full frame lens longer than crop sensor lens. ) Full frame Vs Apsc.

Because of the need to have equivalent focal length to full frame the focal length of crop sensor is Always shorter than fullframe lens but the truth is if all things being equal the crop sensor has SHORTER dof! As proof from this video. The difference is crop sensor background is compressed because of "telephoto" effect ( field of view ) although logically it should be same plus subject is bigger.

Here is the second rub of crop sensor, when fullframe lens is longer than crop sensor then full frame has shallower dof. So to maintain same subject size/area of subject crop sensor camera need to pull back to get same field of view, thus having more depth of field. ( For 50mm ).

100% crop for pixel peepers.

So the talk about m43 300mm f4 Vs full frame 600mm f4 guess which lens has shallower dof? That's why wildlife pros still use heavy fullframe as it beats crop sensor no matter what if one wants to stand out or have a better edge.

In truth dof is just one aspect of photography and it should not be the sole determining factor when it comes to creating a photo. Don't be fixated with dof and full frame.
To be honest I would recommend a full frame if someone is doing portaiture as a pro. It gives more confidence to the shooter and less processing/editing in terms of colour , noise and printing big photos. But I guess with the new OM1 things might turn out overall more user friendly all in all for enthusiast users. The final arbiter is knowing one's gear and skills. There are no absolutes just personal tastes and perceptions.

The dof video..

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/amp/photography/tips-and-solutions/depth-field-part-3

 

[ricohflex]

Will it sell in big quantities to NEW buyers?
Jury is still out. But as time passes, the answer will be known.
In the mean time, can ignore the trumpeting and puffing statements of the manufacturer OMDS.

The usual statements like " we have overwhelming demand more than we anticipated ".
But if they refuse to reveal sales figures, then that is telling you the real situation.

So if OMDS made many units and can sell very little then does OMDS (with parent company JIP) take a financial hit?
For how long can a company survive at a great financial loss?
The previous Olympus Camera Division was wound up when it consistently lost money. Despite all the incessant bragging. And denials.

In 2022 and beyond, plugging MFT sensor based camera is like a computer salesman trying to convince NEW PC buyers in 2022 that a 16 Bit Intel 80286 CPU based computer is all that you would ever need. Why would you even want to have something better or more powerful or more up to date?
Will the thing still work? Yes.

But would you want it? And does it have a future? As the 2020's move on into 2030's.

The answer also lies in what the competition has to offer.
Nikon Z, Canon R, Leica/Panasonic L systems have growth potential.

 

[swifty]

Nope, it’s more like a Mac mini. Its power grows with tech improvements and covers more of the average person’s needs than ever.
But it’s no gaming rig for those that plays at the highest resolution and fps.

 

[Pitachu]

Sell big quantities to NEW buyers? Ha! Ha!
Even Nikon, Canon and even Sony don't dare to make such claims.
The market has changed. New buyers who even consider any Mirrorless Cameras are those whose interests and skills are above the limits of what a decent Mobile Phone can offer, at the expense of convenience.

I am sure all of us are already used to marketing statements eg. overwhelming demand etc. Apple does it every year and Rolex did that too. In the end, Rolex has actually cut back 90% of the qty it produce during its hey days. So dont think you are the only one who knows and keep pointing it out to us.

Also, don't have to worry whether OMDS meet its sales target or not. The investment on the tooling would probably costs millions. Any manager who make the decision to produce the OM1 probably has done the market research and sufficient data to support his decision to go ahead and produce.

I don't think it is a fair to compare the OM1 to a 16bit 8-286 with the latest Intel processors (more than 30 years technology gap).
It only shows that you are either ignorant or totally bias against Olympus and M43.
The OM1 easily beat most cameras produced 5 years ago. In fact, it is better than any Canon, Nikon and Sony DSLR (Non Mirrorless) produced a few years ago, in terms of appeal. Who still wants to buy a non-mirrorless DSLR anymore!

The OM1 don't have to sell like in large quantities. I think that was never the intention. If you look at the features, it is basically targetted towards Outdoor, Wildlife and Sports Photographer who prefer a lower priced and lighter setup.

Will it sell in big quantities to NEW buyers?
Jury is still out. But as time passes, the answer will be known.
In the mean time, can ignore the trumpeting and puffing statements of the manufacturer OMDS.

The usual statements like " we have overwhelming demand more than we anticipated ".
But if they refuse to reveal sales figures, then that is telling you the real situation.

So if OMDS made many units and can sell very little then does OMDS (with parent company JIP) take a financial hit?
For how long can a company survive at a great financial loss?
The previous Olympus Camera Division was wound up when it consistently lost money. Despite all the incessant bragging. And denials.

In 2022 and beyond, plugging MFT sensor based camera is like a computer salesman trying to convince NEW PC buyers in 2022 that a 16 Bit Intel 80286 CPU based computer is all that you would ever need. Why would you even want to have something better or more powerful or more up to date?
Will the thing still work? Yes.

But would you want it? And does it have a future? As the 2020's move on into 2030's.

The answer also lies in what the competition has to offer.
Nikon Z, Canon R, Leica/Panasonic L systems have growth potential.

 

[swifty]

Btw it still seems equivalence is poorly understood.
Equivalence is about getting an equivalent final image with respect to motion, noise and dof.
It is needed as a basis of comparison when there are non-equal equipment. If the equipment are all equal there would be no need to find its equivalent.

The starting basis is there are different sensor formats. And because the sensor format is different you need different lenses with different focal lengths set to different f-numbers to produce the same equivalent resultant image.

Dof doesn’t equal image quality. Neither does SNR alone although that is now often used as the proxy.
But if you equalise the dof between formats, you arrive at the same SNR and that’s why it’s the leveller for SNR IQ comparisons. If the intention is get deeper or the same dof, you gain NO advantage with the larger formats. In fact you gain no advantage with larger formats when they’re both shooting within their shooting envelopes because they would be producing the same resultant image, as per equivalence theory.
The larger formats can have the advantage when you WANT a shallower dof. This is an example where the larger format has a larger shooting envelope not covered by the smaller formats in practice. But shallower dof doesn’t equal IQ in itself, but it does enable a higher SNR by letting more light through so some people are mistaking equating shallow dof as IQ.

Anyways, I’ve said enough about equivalence. It’s basic maths grounded in science. It’s all or nothing, not pick the part that suits whatever side of the argument you’re on, with caveats and footnotes.
Bowing out. Cheers