# Industry News: OM System launches the OM-1



## canonnews (Feb 15, 2022)

> Today the OM System launched a new OM-1 and several lenses.
> Olympus was my first ever camera system back in the film days, so I still have a soft spot for them.  With the OM-1 camera body, OM has also launched two new professional category lenses, the ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II and the 40-150mm F4 PRO.
> OM System’s Press Release is below.
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## entoman (Feb 15, 2022)

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.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 15, 2022)

A fantastic camera for trekking/hiking, if weight matters. Just take a close look at its characteristics!
But not for large hands.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2022)

canonnews said:


> OM-1 Interchangeable Lens Camera with a New Stacked BSI Live MOS Sensor and *Cross Quad Pixel AF*


Canon, the gauntlet has been thrown down.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 15, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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.


There are some really good improvements to new Camera and a sign that new owner of OM brand is quite interested in actually selling cameras to photographers(JiP has notorious reputation in laptop sector). New menu system is really great and lets wait for final production units to see how the new sensor compares and performs to older ones.

Edit: Checked B&H turns out along with new battery OM System has released a new charger to charge dual batteries(though quite expensive). I know Fuji sells similar dual battery charger for their own batteries and I hope Canon also comes out with a 1st party Dual battery chargers soon.
Link for new charger https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod..._blx_1_lithium_ion_battery_charger.html/specs


----------



## Berowne (Feb 15, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon, the gauntlet has been thrown down.


Competition is good for business.


----------



## entoman (Feb 15, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> There are some really good improvements to new Camera and a sign that new owner of OM brand is quite interested in actually selling cameras to photographers(JiP has notorious reputation in laptop sector). New menu system is really great and lets wait for final production units to see how the new sensor compares and performs to older ones.
> 
> Edit: Checked B&H turns out along with new battery OM System has released a new charger to charge dual batteries(though quite expensive). I know Fuji sells similar dual battery charger for their own batteries and I hope Canon also comes out with a 1st party Dual battery chargers soon.
> Link for new charger https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod..._blx_1_lithium_ion_battery_charger.html/specs


Yes I agree. I struggled to comprehend Olympus past menus system which had indecipherable terminology, ambiguous icons on a horrible grid-style interface, and low resolution. So I very much welcome the improvements. With the OM1 on paper almost everything has been improved, including the ergonomics, and the camera can match most FF cameras on specification, and has the added bonus of Pro-capture (*a feature that *all* cameras should have*) and in-camera merging for focus-stacking and HDR.

I also absolutely appreciate the weight-saving and greater portability of M43, which would allow me to pack a complete M43 system in a flight case, and to carry a wider range of lenses in the field - so I've been tempted by M43 in the past. Many of the reasons that have prevented me from using M43 in the past have been answered with the OM1, but the meagre buffer and low MP count are total deal-breakers for me.

When I read about the "wow camera" stories, I hoped that the OM1 would have a global sensor, as this, combined with a really powerful processor, would enable near-instantaneous in-camera multi-shot merging, with massive benefits for hand-held pixel-shift with moving subjects, focus-bracketing, HDR and noise-reduction. I still believe that smaller formats such as M43 are the future, I'd much prefer a compact system to my existing FF, but OM have not yet come close to realising the full potential of the small format.

I wish the new company well though, and look forward to seeing their future offerings.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 15, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## tron (Feb 15, 2022)

A future R7 say with a version of 90D's 32.5Mp sensor would give a SQRT(32.5/17.5) = 1.36X advantage over R5 with the same lenses. 17.5Mpixels correspond to the 1.6 crop mode of R5.

Of course this is more suitable for static birds and not BIF.

Same Olympus equivalence is 2X (crop factor) so talking about heavy crops has no meaning in birding. With the same lens focal length we have to crop more using Canon rather than Olympus. The criteria is Pixels per ... Duck 

IQ due to pixel size is a totally different matter of course.


----------



## Franklyok (Feb 15, 2022)

Is canon testing out quad pixel


----------



## kaihp (Feb 15, 2022)

Franklyok said:


> Is canon testing out quad pixel


I believe that the standing assumption is that they are working to deliver QPAF in an R1 body (whenever that is planned to arrive).


----------



## hoodlum (Feb 15, 2022)

It is interesting that every 2nd frame readout during C-AF is an 80mp quad pixel structure for more accurate C-AF. The 20mp image is still readout out at 120fps so it looks like the sensor is capable of 240 fps.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 15, 2022)

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...


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 15, 2022)

Franklyok said:


> Is canon testing out quad pixel


Doesn't Canon have the patents for DP AF and QD AF?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Doesn't Canon have the patents for DP AF and QD AF?


Yes, but it's not too difficult to design around a patent, TBH. At least in my field, we do it all the time.


----------



## Tremotino (Feb 15, 2022)

Franklyok said:


> Is canon testing out quad pixel


Was thinking the same. Isn't the IBIS in R5/R6/R3 a new development based on the Olympus tech? There was once rumored the technology cooperation. But I'm not sure anymore.


----------



## hoodlum (Feb 15, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Doesn't Canon have the patents for DP AF and QD AF?


Canon's implementation is different that what Olympus is using with this sensor from Sony. Canon is able to capture both the DP and image data at the same time while Olympus needs to read 2 frames alternating between the 80mb QP PD data and the 20mp. Due to the very fast readout from the stacked Sony Sensor the OM-1 still has a very faster readout for the 20mp images.


----------



## TukTuk (Feb 15, 2022)

"Canon's implementation is different that what Olympus is using with this sensor from Sony. Canon is able to capture both the DP and image data at the same time while Olympus needs to read 2 frames alternating between the 80mb QP PD data and the 20mp."

And where did you get an idea that Sony Semi sensor needs to alternate anything and Canon does not ? from raw files ? that is what firmware writes... Olympus simply does not write anything by binned data in the raw files... Canon R3 does not have raws with DP-data either... does it mean that it alternates 48mp DP PD and 24MP ?


----------



## TukTuk (Feb 15, 2022)

"Doesn't Canon have the patents for DP AF and QD AF?" - both things are used in cell phone sensors for a while... does Canon make sensors for cell phone cameras ?
for example = https://www.androidauthority.com/all-pixel-phase-detect-autofocus-1065470/









All-pixel Auto Focus (AF) Technology | Technology | Sony Semiconductor Solutions Group


Sony Semiconductor Solutions Group develops device business which includes Micro display, LSIs, and Semiconductor Laser, in focusing on Image Sensor.




www.sony-semicon.co.jp





and somewhat related 








Quad Bayer Coding | Technology | Sony Semiconductor Solutions Group


Sony Semiconductor Solutions Group develops device business which includes Micro display, LSIs, and Semiconductor Laser, in focusing on Image Sensor.




www.sony-semicon.co.jp


----------



## usern4cr (Feb 16, 2022)

I wish Olympus luck. I enjoyed their EM1-II and their 300mm f4 lens (FF EQ 600 f8) was really amazing for close focus, extreme sharpness and ease of use.

I wonder what the OM-1 and their 150-400mm f4.5 1.25xTC lens would do as far as image quality? It would certainly cover the FF 300-1000mm range (f9-~11) with close focus ability without swapping lenses.


----------



## sanj (Feb 16, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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?


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 16, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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.


----------



## maulanawale (Feb 16, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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.


----------



## steen-ag (Feb 16, 2022)

canonnews said:


> Continue reading...


So what. Is it a waw camera?


----------



## entoman (Feb 16, 2022)

sanj said:


> 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!


----------



## entoman (Feb 16, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> 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...


----------



## AlanF (Feb 16, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> 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.


----------



## entoman (Feb 16, 2022)

maulanawale said:


> 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.


----------



## maulanawale (Feb 16, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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.


----------



## entoman (Feb 16, 2022)

maulanawale said:


> 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.


----------



## maulanawale (Feb 16, 2022)

entoman said:


> "_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.


----------



## vangelismm (Feb 16, 2022)

AlanF said:


> 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?


----------



## bbasiaga (Feb 16, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> 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


----------



## AlanF (Feb 16, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> 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.


----------



## WMurray (Feb 16, 2022)

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.


----------



## entoman (Feb 16, 2022)

I predict that this will be the biggest selling camera "Olympus" since the original film OM1.

Yes, I'm telepathic


----------



## entoman (Feb 16, 2022)

WMurray said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Feb 16, 2022)

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.


----------



## entoman (Feb 16, 2022)

josephandrews222 said:


> 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:
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 16, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Feb 16, 2022)

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 (Feb 16, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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 (Feb 16, 2022)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Feb 16, 2022)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Feb 17, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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 (Feb 17, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> 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 (Feb 17, 2022)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Feb 17, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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 (Feb 17, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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.



entoman said:


> 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.





entoman said:


> 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 (Feb 17, 2022)

@ 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 (Feb 17, 2022)

AlanF said:


> @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 (Feb 17, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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 (Feb 17, 2022)

josephandrews222 said:


> 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 (Feb 17, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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 (Feb 17, 2022)

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

Now, where is my R5 1.6.0 firmware ?


----------



## entoman (Feb 17, 2022)

tron said:


> 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).
> ...


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 (Feb 17, 2022)

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 (Feb 17, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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.


AlanF said:


> 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 (Feb 17, 2022)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Feb 17, 2022)

tron said:


> 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.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 17, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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.


Czardoom said:


> 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.


----------



## entoman (Feb 17, 2022)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Feb 17, 2022)

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.


----------



## tron (Feb 18, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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 (Feb 18, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Feb 18, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> 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


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 18, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> I hope Canon also comes out with a 1st party Dual battery chargers soon.


From what I am hearing about the R5 C, Canon could use a Quad battery charger


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 18, 2022)

josephandrews222 said:


> 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.


The OM-1 is not particularly small.
An R7 would be the competition.


----------



## entoman (Feb 18, 2022)

tron said:


> 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
> ...


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 (Feb 18, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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.


----------



## entoman (Feb 18, 2022)

raptor3x said:


> 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 (Feb 18, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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 (Feb 18, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Feb 18, 2022)

raptor3x said:


> 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 (Feb 18, 2022)

tron said:


> 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 (Feb 18, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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.


entoman said:


> 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.


entoman said:


> 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 (Feb 18, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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.


----------



## entoman (Feb 18, 2022)

raptor3x said:


> 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 (Feb 18, 2022)

AlanF said:


> 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
> ...


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 (Feb 18, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 18, 2022)

entoman said:


> 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.


If you have been taking BIF for only about a year, and only 5% of your shots are of BIF, do you think you have the knowledge and experience to make repeated confident and dogmatic disparaging comments about 20 Mpx sensors and write off the Olympus?


----------



## entoman (Feb 18, 2022)

raptor3x said:


> Nowhere did I say it was impossible, just that your previous claim that a global shutter alone would make it possible is incorrect.


Er, I didn't claim that a "global shutter alone would make it possible". I appreciate that there are many posts here and that it's easy to miss things that other posters have said, but I also mentioned that a faster processor and faster cards would be needed to achieve high burst speeds with pixel-shift technology. I also mentioned that I believe that mechanical IBIS will fairly soon be ousted by improved digital stabilisation, which will make for faster pixel-shift speed. Olympus/OM System have more experience than other brands with AI tech too, so if anyone can do it, they can.


----------



## entoman (Feb 18, 2022)

AlanF said:


> If you have been taking BIF for only about a year, and only 5% of your shots are of BIF, do you think you have the knowledge and experience to make repeated confident and dogmatic disparaging comments about 20 Mpx sensors and write off the Olympus?


Nowhere have I "written off" Olympus so do not try to twist my words. I'm brand-neutral, format-neutral and I have heaped praise on other aspects of the camera.

What I've said is that I believe a camera using pixel-shift to achieve hi-res is far less suitable for BIF than a camera with native hi-res. I've given my reasons for that, and I stick firmly with that view.

I've also been a photographer for over 50 years, including 30 years as a professional industrial photographer, and I've spent the last 10 years as a hobbyist with over 2000 published wildlife images, so I have a full appreciation of the relative merits of different sensor sizes, different pixel densities and different technologies.

Sadly, I feel that continuing this subject with you is degenerating and heading down a path that I have no wish to follow, so I'll wish you goodnight.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 18, 2022)

entoman said:


> Nowhere have I "written off" Olympus so do not try to twist my words. I'm brand-neutral, format-neutral and I have heaped praise on other aspects of the camera.
> 
> What I've said is that I believe a camera using pixel-shift to achieve hi-res is far less suitable for BIF than a camera with native hi-res. I've given my reasons for that, and I stick firmly with that view.
> 
> ...


I have no doubt you can offer excellent advice on industrial photography and, I assume from posts about your travels, butterfly photography.


----------



## tron (Feb 18, 2022)

1. If you have such appreciation of different sensor sizes why you continue with the thought that OM-1 is a low resolution camera? (or at least a lower resolution camera than other ones?)

In the part of the R5's, Z9's and D850's sensor in the center in an area equal to Olympus sensor size (2X crop) it has about 11.25 Mpixels.
Sony's A1 corresponding sensor part has 12.5 Mpixels

A bird that covers all the frame of Olympus would have 20Mpixels.
*If shot with Canon, Nikon or Sony at the same distance with the same lens Focal Length *it would contain almost half the megapixels (11 to 12 as stated above).

So OM-1 as all other 4/3rds cameras have higher pixel density than almost all DSLRs and mirrorless cameras (one exception I know is Canon's 90D). It just doesn't use a FF or a APS-C sensor but a smaller one with its advantages and disadvantages.

2. Also who mentioned in Olympus that pixel-shift is meant to be used for moving subjects ?

Sure if a bird is ... sleeping you could use it....


----------



## raptor3x (Feb 18, 2022)

entoman said:


> Er, I didn't claim that a "global shutter alone would make it possible". I appreciate that there are many posts here and that it's easy to miss things that other posters have said, but I also mentioned that a faster processor and faster cards would be needed to achieve high burst speeds with pixel-shift technology.


Here's what you said


> 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.*


The bolded statement is simply incorrect.


entoman said:


> I also mentioned that I believe that mechanical IBIS will fairly soon be ousted by improved digital stabilisation, which will make for faster pixel-shift speed. Olympus/OM System have more experience than other brands with AI tech too, so if anyone can do it, they can.


Digital stabilization is fundamentally incompatible with pixel shift. There's a disconnect in your understanding of how either digital stabilization work, how pixel-shift methods work, or both.


----------



## entoman (Feb 18, 2022)

raptor3x said:


> Here's what you said
> 
> The bolded statement is simply incorrect.
> 
> Digital stabilization is fundamentally incompatible with pixel shift. There's a disconnect in your understanding of how either digital stabilization work, how pixel-shift methods work, or both.


Please clarify *why* you believe the bolded statement is incorrect. It represents what I believe to be possible. Are you saying that a global shutter would not have "virtually instantaneous readout"? Do you think that pixel-shift is and always will be impossible for HHHR, and if so, why? Are you saying that if by its use, HHHR would still not be fast enough to be comparable with FF cameras that have high native resolution?

I understand how pixel-shift works - the sensor is moved in tiny increments for successive shots, which are then merged in-camera to produce a single image with higher resolution, typically twice the native linear resolution of the sensor. In what way is it "fundamentally incompatible" with digital stabilisation? I'm very happy to withdraw that part of my statement if you can explain why digital stabilisation can't be used for pixel-shift (and that would also negate my comment about DS being capable of reducing the overall time to take and composite the images).


----------



## entoman (Feb 18, 2022)

tron said:


> 1. If you have such appreciation of different sensor sizes why you continue the idiotic thought that OM-1 is a low resolution camera? (or at least a lower resolution camera than other ones?)
> 
> In the part of the R5's, Z9's and D850's sensor in the center in an area equal to Olympus sensor size (2X crop) it has about 11.25 Mpixels.
> Sony's A1 corresponding sensor part has 12.5 Mpixels
> ...


1 - It seems to me that anyone buying a lens would choose it primarily for its *angle of view*! Wide angles for wide views, long focal lengths for narrow angles of view to pick out smaller or more distant objects.

The whole point of M43 for many people is the fact that you can obtain the same *angle of view* on M43 with a nice lightweight 300mm lens that you would need a heavy and vastly more expensive 600mm lens if shooting on FF!

To make a comparison between formats, as you are doing, based on focal length, is a bit odd, to say the least...

2 - Pixel-shift on early cameras was slow and resulted in ghastly artefacts on moving water or foliage. It rendered moving objects, even slow-walking humans occupying a small part of the frame, as blurs. Processors are faster now, BSI sensors have faster readouts, and M43 has the advantage that the smaller sensor has to be moved a shorter distance to produce pixel-shift, so is faster, and more usable for hand-held hi-res, and for slow moving subjects.

Ultimately the aim must be for M43 to be able to compete directly with FF by offering similar (or better) performance, including hand-held hi-res bursts. The OM1 can't do that, which is why I'm disappointed. But, I believe if it had a global shutter, a faster processor and used CFE-B instead of slower SD cards, it would come much closer to matching the performance of A1, Z9 and R5. And guess what - if it did, I'd sell my FF gear and switch to Olympus!

I'll certainly be very interested in following further developments with the OM system, and hopefully a global shutter, faster processor and CFE-B slot will appear within a couple of years.

3 - Accusing a fellow poster of having "idiotic thoughts" is provoking escalation and usually results in retaliation or rudeness. I have no intention of descending to that level, but it's something you should consider when replying to people.


----------



## raptor3x (Feb 18, 2022)

entoman said:


> Please clarify *why* you believe the bolded statement is incorrect. It represents what I believe to be possible. Are you saying that a global shutter would not have "virtually instantaneous readout"? Do you think that pixel-shift is and always will be impossible for HHHR, and if so, why? Are you saying that if by its use, HHHR would still not be fast enough to be comparable with FF cameras that have high native resolution?


As I pointed out to you earlier, global shutters read out all of the pixels on a sensor simultaneously but that doesn't mean you get higher framerates. That is largely controlled by how quickly you can move data off the sensor. In global shutter sensors you will tend to have more electronics built into the sensor devoted to the global shutter which tends to result in reduced ability to move data off the sensor quickly. Again, the point is that global shutter is great but you need global shutter and a sensor with a massive framerate, a global shutter doesn't automatically mean you can shoot at a high framerate.


entoman said:


> I understand how pixel-shift works - the sensor is moved in tiny increments for successive shots, which are then merged in-camera to produce a single image with higher resolution, typically twice the native linear resolution of the sensor. In what way is it "fundamentally incompatible" with digital stabilisation? I'm very happy to withdraw that part of my statement if you can explain why digital stabilisation can't be used for pixel-shift (and that would also negate my comment about DS being capable of reducing the overall time to take and composite the images).


It's because digital stabilization only works for video to keep the viewpoint from moving around but has no ability to stabilize a still image (or even a single video frame) to keep the image sharp or make sub pixel shifts required by a fixed pattern hires mode. The Olympus cameras in handheld hires modes rely on a combination of turning off the IBIS to allow random hand tremors to reposition the sensor and then quickly turning the IBIS back on to stabilize each individual sub-frame.


----------



## tron (Feb 18, 2022)

entoman said:


> 1 - It seems to me that anyone buying a lens would choose it primarily for its *angle of view*! Wide angles for wide views, long focal lengths for narrow angles of view to pick out smaller or more distant objects.
> 
> The whole point of M43 for many people is the fact that you can obtain the same *angle of view* on M43 with a nice lightweight 300mm lens that you would need a heavy and vastly more expensive 600mm lens if shooting on FF!
> 
> ...


You keep repeating the same thing over and over again without reading the arguments against it. I was harsh so I apologize. I will delete that comment from the post. I made the mistake of wasting a lot of my time trying to respond to you - and I am still doing it but finally I marked this thread as "ignore" - so that's it.

My mistake of course as I said.


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 18, 2022)

I think that there are trade-offs with different systems and the choices that people make will depend on what is more important to them. If a wider angle of view is what you are looking for so that you can better track and capture fast moving birds, then you might not choose the 
MFT camera and will choose the FF. If higher resolution is more important, then you might want to choose the MFT camera, where, if you crop the R5's FF image down to MFT size, you would get 11.25 MPs instead of 20 MP for the Olympus. Different strokes for different folks, so to speak.


----------



## entoman (Feb 19, 2022)

raptor3x said:


> As I pointed out to you earlier, global shutters read out all of the pixels on a sensor simultaneously but that doesn't mean you get higher framerates. That is largely controlled by how quickly you can move data off the sensor. In global shutter sensors you will tend to have more electronics built into the sensor devoted to the global shutter which tends to result in reduced ability to move data off the sensor quickly. Again, the point is that global shutter is great but you need global shutter and a sensor with a massive framerate, a global shutter doesn't automatically mean you can shoot at a high framerate.
> 
> It's because digital stabilization only works for video to keep the viewpoint from moving around but has no ability to stabilize a still image (or even a single video frame) to keep the image sharp or make sub pixel shifts required by a fixed pattern hires mode. The Olympus cameras in handheld hires modes rely on a combination of turning off the IBIS to allow random hand tremors to reposition the sensor and then quickly turning the IBIS back on to stabilize each individual sub-frame.


Thank you for the explanation, which is appreciated.


----------



## entoman (Feb 19, 2022)

Panasonic GH6 newly leaked specs indicate 25MP, which is an insignificant jump from the Olympus 20MP, but may swing it for some people.
Unfortunately it still has contrast detect DFD and will (probably) still suffer from "DFD wobble".
I know several people who use GH5 and say they don't notice the jittering at all, but others find it irritating and distracting, especially for macro or video.

Given the choice between the two, I'd go for the Olympus, due to the legendary durability and weather-sealing, and (probably) faster and more efficient AF and tracking.


----------



## SteB1 (Feb 19, 2022)

I'm certainly interested in this camera/system. My particular interest is as a replacement for my 7D mkII, 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 mkII combination, which is my standard walk around combination (I have a shedload of macro lenses, other lenses, bodies), but this is my do all combo for nature shooting. I have got a FF camera, a 5Ds at the moment, but FF is a disadvantage in reach terms, both for long lens and smaller macro stuff. In practice if I use FF, I'm just cropping to smaller than APS-C for most opportunistic photos, so FF is wasted. Don't get me wrong, FF is great for my landscape, large butterflies, large dragonflies etc, but birds, smaller insects etc, getting close enough to fill the frame is rare and difficult. I do have to make a mirrorless choice sometime. I'll certainly wait to see if an R7 type camera comes out. If it's 7D level, I'm interested, but if it's cheap plasticky body with M50 type specs, I'm not so interested.


----------



## SteB1 (Feb 19, 2022)

entoman said:


> Panasonic GH6 newly leaked specs indicate 25MP, which is an insignificant jump from the Olympus 20MP, but may swing it for some people.
> Unfortunately it still has contrast detect DFD and will (probably) still suffer from "DFD wobble".
> I know several people who use GH5 and say they don't notice the jittering at all, but others find it irritating and distracting, especially for macro or video.
> 
> Given the choice between the two, I'd go for the Olympus, due to the legendary durability and weather-sealing, and (probably) faster and more efficient AF and tracking.


Personally, I haven't found the difference between my 20mp Canon 7D mkII (+70D) files or those from the 24mp 80D that great in practise. Yes, sure I noticed at first the 24mp had slightly better detail at 100%. But in the real world, for all intents and purposes, they're the same. I think it needs a jump to 30+mp before you start seeing a real world difference.


----------



## entoman (Feb 19, 2022)

SteB1 said:


> Personally, I haven't found the difference between my 20mp Canon 7D mkII (+70D) files or those from the 24mp 80D that great in practise. Yes, sure I noticed at first the 24mp had slightly better detail at 100%. But in the real world, for all intents and purposes, they're the same. I think it needs a jump to 30+mp before you start seeing a real world difference.


Absolutely, assuming a 3:2 format, here are the relative frame widths for various resolutions:

20MP = 5472 pixels
24MP = 6000 pixels
30MP = 6720 pixels
45MP = 8192 pixels
50MP = 8640 pixels
61MP = 9504 pixels

Doubling the megapixel count only adds 50% to the frame width.

It's very difficult to tell any difference between a 20MP and 24MP sensor (assuming same format, generation and degree of enlargement), and a latest generation 20MP sensor will often produce more *apparent* resolution in a print than a previous generation 24MP sensor.

Pixel-shift hi-res of course quadruples the MP, resulting in doubling the frame width, at the expense of introducing motion blur and strange artefacts if there is any subject movement.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 19, 2022)

There’s a simple way of working out the increase in resolution on increasing the number of pixels - the number of pixels wide varies as the square root of the total, so doubling the total increases the number in the width by 41.4%. Increasing from 20 to 24 increases it by 9.5%. A 500mm lens on a 24 Mpx sensor will give you the same resolution as a 548mm lens on a 20 Mpx sensor. Similarly, an increase from 20 to 30 Mpx gives a 22.5% increase in resolution, so your 500mm on the 30 Mpx would be equivalent to having a 610mm lens on the 20 Mpx.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 20, 2022)

entoman said:


> 500 fps could easily be achieved with global shutter


A global shutter just means the exposure happens all at once.
It says nothing about the time between exposures.
Most global shutter CCD cameras have much lower FPS than rolling shutter CMOS cameras.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 20, 2022)

raptor3x said:


> As I pointed out to you earlier, global shutters read out all of the pixels on a sensor simultaneously


Global shutters do not read out from the sensor simultaneously.
The entire sensor in on at the same time so the exposure is simultaneous.
The image processor can still read the serialized image in chunks


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Feb 20, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> I think that there are trade-offs with different systems and the choices that people make will depend on what is more important to them. If a wider angle of view is what you are looking for so that you can better track and capture fast moving birds, then you might not choose the
> MFT camera and will choose the FF. If higher resolution is more important, then you might want to choose the MFT camera, where, if you crop the R5's FF image down to MFT size, you would get 11.25 MPs instead of 20 MP for the Olympus. Different strokes for different folks, so to speak.


The way I see it is that an MFT camera can use a focal reducer with every EF lens as a full-frame camera while gaining a stop of light while a full-frame camera can use a 2x teleconverter with a limited number telephoto lenses while losing two stops of light.
While an MFT camera with a focal reducer can't beat a full-frame camera it is better at being a full-frame camera than a full-frame camera with a 2x teleconverter is at being an MFT camera.
Of course, we can split the difference by going APS-C
#R7


----------



## AlanF (Feb 20, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The way I see it is that an MFT camera can use a focal reducer with every EF lens as a full-frame camera while gaining a stop of light while a full-frame camera can use a 2x teleconverter with a limited number telephoto lenses while losing two stops of light.
> While an MFT camera with a focal reducer can't beat a full-frame camera it is better at being a full-frame camera than a full-frame camera with a 2x teleconverter is at being an MFT camera.
> Of course, we can split the difference by going APS-C
> #R7


Unfortunately, that's not the case for some complicated science. I'll try and explain it. The crucial thing to understand first is that the noise caused by low light (not the electronics) is proportional only to the number of photons hitting the image (statistically the S/N varies as sqrt of N). Accordingly, the number of photons per duck, which determines the signal to noise of the image due to light, does not depend on the f-stop - it depends just on the diameter of the front element of the lens (technically the entrance pupil). The amount of light let into the lens is the area of the front element times the light intensity times the shutter speed. Put a 2xTC on a telephoto lens, you double the f-number and lower the intensity of light hitting the sensor by a factor of 4, so the image of the duck has 1/4 of the number of photons hitting it. But, the area of the duck increases by a factor of 4 so the total number of photons hitting the duck remains unchanged. So, if you simply double the iso when the 2x TC is on, you can use the same shutter speed as without it, and end up with the same S/N. If you do the opposite and put a 2x focal reducer on the MFT, you do indeed increase the light intensity hitting the duck by a factor of 4 but you reduce the area of the duck by a factor of 4 and so the same number of photons hit the duck.

Another way of looking at it, which is less technical, is if you have a smaller image you have to enlarge it more than you have to enlarge a larger image to view them both at the same size.

We use f-numbers to determine exposure, but it's the diameter of the lens that is the crucial factor in how good the image is. And this is true for most things about the image. For example, although it seems counterintuitive, if you had an incredibly high resolution sensor it would be the just the diffraction limits that determine resolution and you wouldn't need long telephoto lenses. This is because diffraction is determined by the lens diameter. It's only because our sensors are still of low resolution that increasing focal length is important.

Although it has been suggested the science isn't important, it is useful when choosing and considering lenses. For example, the RF 100-500mm f/7.1 has the same size front element as the 100-400mm II f/5.6 and so the f/7.1 lens lets in the same amount of light and it's no disadvantage to raise the iso to compensate for this. The same is true of the 800mm f/11, which can be used at twice the iso of the 400mm f/5.6 without increasing the noise in a cropped image of a duck. I did some threads about this.






Extenders and high iso with the R5


Concerns are frequently expressed about lenses like the RF 100-500mm with f/7.1 being narrow and so the images must surely be noisy because high isos are necessary in dim light? Some claim the 400mm f/5.6 is superior in low light because it is 2/3 of a stop faster (or a 1/3rd faster than the...




www.canonrumors.com










Iso, noise, extenders, cropping, and 600mm f/6.3 vs 500mm f/5.6 zooms


Another one of my geek notes that may be of some practical use. This has been stimulated by discussion in the threads about 600mm f/6.3 vs 500mm f/5.6 telephoto lenses. It is usually thought that the larger f-number of the longer lens means either a slower shutter speed or introducing more...




www.canonrumors.com










Effects of diffraction and R5/R6 sensor on resolution of f/5.6, f/7.1 and f/11 lenses and TCs


Another of my geek articles, which does have some implications for actual use. What I do here is to calculate the contributions of diffraction and sensor Mpx size (R5 vs R6) to the resolving power of the 400mm f/5.6 and 500mm f/7.1 zooms and the 600mm and 800mm f/11 primes and how resolution is...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## raptor3x (Feb 20, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Global shutters do not read out from the sensor simultaneously.
> The entire sensor in on at the same time so the exposure is simultaneous.
> The image processor can still read the serialized image in chunks


Agreed, sloppy language on my part.


----------

