# new Olympus EM1X - Everything and the kitchen sink - updated feature list rumor



## Aglet (Jan 23, 2019)

It's a pretty comprehensive list that looks like a computer translation of a Japanese news release to english but it's plenty readable.
About the only trick this camera doesn't have is the astro-tracer trick that Pentax has...

https://www.43rumors.com/ft5-these-are-the-full-e-m1x-specs/

That's a heck of a lot of camera!


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 23, 2019)

A tiny sensor, a huge and expensive camera, I'd rather buy FF than this steroid- boosted little monster.
If I'm not mistaken, MFT advantages used to be small size, low weight and "affordability". Where have they gone?


----------



## AlanF (Jan 23, 2019)

Well, put an FF sensor in it and it will be a winner! I don't know how Olympus does it, but the current E-M1 II has the same DR profile as the 5DSR, nearly as good as the 1DXII at higher isos and much better than the 7DII or 80D http://www.photonstophotos.net/Char...rk II,Canon EOS 80D,Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 23, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> A tiny sensor, a huge and expensive camera, I'd rather buy FF than this steroid- boosted little monster.
> If I'm not mistaken, MFT advantages used to be small size, low weight and "affordability". Where have they gone?


It would seem that to get the performance and battery life, you need size.....


----------



## AlanF (Jan 23, 2019)

I read the comments on the site. They make our naysayers sound like pussycats.


----------



## Aglet (Jan 23, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> A tiny sensor, a huge and expensive camera, I'd rather buy FF than this steroid- boosted little monster.
> If I'm not mistaken, MFT advantages used to be small size, low weight and "affordability". Where have they gone?



Those size advantages still exist, just somewhat less so with this new body. Don't forget to consider the size and weight of the lenses used.
And, as Don stated above, that extra bulk houses the increased battery capacity that can drive this level of performance and shooting time.

My EM1v2 has become my overall favorite camera to use, even if I have others that can deliver better IQ in most situations. It's a really good system and it's getting even better.
While this new body is not revolutionary compared to the EM1v2 it sure does a good job of bumping the performance and adding even more features into an already good system. If I did a lot of sports shooting I'd be all over this. As it is, my existing kit is more than adequate for everything I throw at it and my FF gear gets used only when it's really required for its particular advantages.

I think this will really hit the mark as a professional ML camera that can do well enough to run with the established players' offerings in that niche. 

The only thing it will lose out on is light-gathering ability when there's subject movement.
Everywhere else it will prove itself quite adequate.


----------



## Nelu (Jan 23, 2019)

Aglet said:


> The only thing it will lose out on is light-gathering ability when there's subject movement.
> Everywhere else it will prove itself quite adequate.



That's kind of what happens with wildlife and sports. Wildlife is more active at dusk and dawn and sports often happen in low light, crappy facilities.
So, what's this camera actually good for? Weight-lifting?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 23, 2019)

For those who post with their text in purple.... if you put the viewer in dark mode your text is almost invisible


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 23, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> A tiny sensor, a huge and expensive camera, I'd rather buy FF than this steroid- boosted little monster.
> If I'm not mistaken, MFT advantages used to be small size, low weight and "affordability". Where have they gone?


You still have the smaller lenses.

It’s hard to beat a micro 4/3 F6.3 zoom lens for small size.....


----------



## AlanF (Jan 23, 2019)

Nelu said:


> That's kind of what happens with wildlife and sports. Wildlife is more active at dusk and dawn and sports often happen in low light, crappy facilities.
> So, what's this camera actually good for? Weight-lifting?


Most bird photography is not done at dawn and dusk. In fact, if you run through the Bird Portraits and Birds in Flight threads in CR, you would be pushed to find any shots then, though quite a few are done in poor light and the shade. Dragonflies are most active under bright sun. I know Olympus users who get superb wildlife shots. My favourite gear is Canon FF plus supertelephotos, but there are many occasions when smaller kit would be desirable.


----------



## JBSF (Jan 23, 2019)

I love this. Olympus is conceding that a MFT body that behaves like a 1DX or D5 actually has to be the size and shape of a 1DX or D5. I don't have anything against MFT. I still use a 2011 Panasonic G3, which in good light is capable of producing beautiful jpegs. I am really curious to see what Panasonic's FF body will offer.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 24, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Most bird photography is not done at dawn and dusk. In fact, if you run through the Bird Portraits and Birds in Flight threads in CR, you would be pushed to find any shots then, though quite a few are done in poor light and the shade. Dragonflies are most active under bright sun. I know Olympus users who get superb wildlife shots. My favourite gear is Canon FF plus supertelephotos, but there are many occasions when smaller kit would be desirable.


I have a 6D2 and a 7D2. I usually use the 7D2 for wildlife/birds because of the superior AF and burst rate. For landscapes, evening, night, and indoors the 6D2 beats it hollow. Every tool has advantages and disadvantages, but when it comes to moving targets, it's all about AF.... after all, who cares about DR on a blurry picture?

Two features on the Oly that bird photographers would love to see on their Canon, Nikon, or Sony are the super high burst rates and the "pro capture" which captures a number of shots before you press the shutter, great for all those times when your reactions are not fast enough....


----------



## Aglet (Jan 24, 2019)

Nelu said:


> That's kind of what happens with wildlife and sports. Wildlife is more active at dusk and dawn and sports often happen in low light, crappy facilities.
> So, what's this camera actually good for? Weight-lifting?



Certainly not good for weight-lifting. LOL
I don't shoot indoor sports in poorly lit venues so i don't know hot bad it can get.
I've had no issues with images at higher ISO from any of my MFT Oly's. With some quick NR in post you can take it all the way to 25600 for a usable online or small to medium print image so if that's inadequate?.. 

e.g. Hi ISO supplement at I-R for the EM10v3

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m10-iii/olympus-e-m10-iiiTECH2.HTM


----------



## Aglet (Jan 24, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> For those who post with their text in purple.... if you put the viewer in dark mode your text is almost invisible


Good point... I don't use dark mode and I miss the old system color selector where "brown" was a nice subtle text accent color.

*MEANWHILE - all the tech info is out now:*

https://www.imaging-resource.com/ne...zing-tech-underlying-new-OM-D-series-flagship


----------



## Nelu (Jan 24, 2019)

Aglet said:


> Certainly not good for weight-lifting. LOL
> I don't shoot indoor sports in poorly lit venues so i don't know hot bad it can get.
> I've had no issues with images at higher ISO from any of my MFT Oly's. With some quick NR in post you can take it all the way to 25600 for a usable online or small to medium print image so if that's inadequate?..
> 
> ...


I had a look at the examples and I have to say, the high ISO results are inadequate for my use, at least. Starting from ISO 800 that camera is breaking apart.
I do sell photos online and requirements are high; those example photos wouldn't make the first cut in my workflow.
Yes, for social media and tiny printouts they're fine, but not more than that.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 24, 2019)

Great spec list. Thanks for sharing, Aglet.
Somehow I am glad that I ended up with Canon FF before an OM-D E-M1 entered the market.
Maybe I wouldn't be here then.
O course I prefer the form factor of the OM-D E-M1 (Mark II) but I am sure this high FPS beast will be balanced well together with a M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm 1:4.0 IS PRO or the f/2.8 M.ZUIKO PRO zooms.

By the way:
In Germany this is no rumor anymore but released on the Oly HP (in German).


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 24, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> It would seem that to get the performance and battery life, you need size.....



The story goes that they 'had' to add the battery grip not only to balance larger lenses but to house a second processor and heat dissipation for the added processing. If anyone uses longer lenses a lot then the chances are they nearly always add the battery grip anyway so there is little weight penalty in that respect..


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 24, 2019)

Nelu said:


> I had a look at the examples and I have to say, the high ISO results are inadequate for my use, at least. Starting from ISO 800 that camera is breaking apart.
> I do sell photos online and requirements are high; those example photos wouldn't make the first cut in my workflow.
> Yes, for social media and tiny printouts they're fine, but not more than that.



Out of interest - are those your requirements are those of your clients/buyers? 
I ask because I read of many pros selling MFT images are 1600-3200.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 24, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> Great spec list. Thanks for sharing, Aglet.
> Somehow I am glad that I ended up with Canon FF before an OM-D E-M1 entered the market.
> Maybe I wouldn't be here then.
> O course I prefer the form factor of the OM-D E-M1 (Mark II) but I am sure this high FPS beast will be balanced well together with a M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 300mm 1:4.0 IS PRO or the f/2.8 M.ZUIKO PRO zooms.
> ...


For me, a weakness is the narrow range of telephoto lenses for wild life. The longest Oly is the 300mm f/4, which is a superb lens but relatively heavy at 1.27 kg. For longer, you have to go to the Pana-Leica 100-400mm, which is f/6.3 and not very sharp at 400mm. 
Further, the resolution of the 20mpx MFT sensor is relatively not that great (3.3 µ pixels). It is touted as a 2x crop factor but has only 12% more resolution than has a 24mpx Canon APS-C or 24% more than the 50mpx 5DSR (4.1 µ pixels). So, 300mm on the Oly is equivalent in resolution to 372mm on a 5DSR, and I get more reach with a 100-400mm II on my 5DSR, with all the advantages of a zoom and 4x the area of sensor.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 24, 2019)

What I take away from this release are some of the things that can be done with a mirrorless camera if it has enough computing power. I would expect to see some of these features (but not all) on a higher end R camera. It will be very interesting to see what the R equivalent of the 1DX2 will be.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 24, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> What I take away from this release are some of the things that can be done with a mirrorless camera if it has enough computing power. I would expect to see some of these features (but not all) on a higher end R camera. It will be very interesting to see what the R equivalent of the 1DX2 will be.


Agreed Don. As I wrote at the beginning; put an FF sensor in it and it will be a winner. But, Panasonic are coming out with an FF body and they are giving Olympus a good run in the MFT department. Also, Sigma will be supplying lenses for their new L mount, which will make up somewhat for the lack of Panasonic FF lenses.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 24, 2019)

Price has just been released - £2799, presumably similar in USD.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 24, 2019)

Wrote too soon about the lack of Olympus Telephoto lenses, they have just announced one https://www.olympus-global.com/news/2019/nr01035.html
M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 150-400mm F4.5 TC1.25x IS PRO with a built in 1.25xTC and an external 2xTC, available next year. But, to put it into perspective, the effective reach is only about the same as a Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm on a 5DSR (496mm without the TC, 620 with the TC), with half the field of view.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jan 25, 2019)

Some day I hope to get bird shots as good as yours, but for now, perhaps you can help me understand your math above. When you say "effective reach" with 2X TC is 620, what are you taking into account? To me, 400 mm w/1.25 TC is 500 mm; adding another 2X TC takes it to 1000mm... what am I overlooking?


----------



## Pape (Jan 25, 2019)

he wasnt adding 2x cause its more future stuff i guess. It need to be really amazing otpical quality lens if allow 2 converter and give still more sharpness on suchs tiny pixel camera than 20mpixel mft . sounds very difficult + 2x tc makes it go under diffraction limit so i would think 2x is waste of money?
maybe that 2x is meaned for 300mm 4f zuiko?
or maybe not, doesnt diffraction start affect after 5.6 on MFTs? on aps-c lens tests give shapest pic on 5,6 and mft is even smaller.
i guess it depends lens sharpness ,if big white quality diffraction would drop sharpness on 4 or 2,8 already when 5,6 is for average lens ?


----------



## AlanF (Jan 25, 2019)

old-pr-pix said:


> Some day I hope to get bird shots as good as yours, but for now, perhaps you can help me understand your math above. When you say "effective reach" with 2X TC is 620, what are you taking into account? To me, 400 mm w/1.25 TC is 500 mm; adding another 2X TC takes it to 1000mm... what am I overlooking?


Pape is correct, I was referring to the built in 1.25xTC. He is also absolutely right about diffraction. The diffraction limited aperture for the Olympus is f/5.3. The 1.25xTC on f/4.5 gives f/5.6 at 500mm, just breaching the DLA, and add 2x to that gives f/11, which is more than 2x the DLA. Adding the 2xTC will give no increase in resolution because the doubling of the focal length is negated by halving the resolution by diffraction and further so by the hit on IQ of a 2xTC (usually 20-30% loss).


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 25, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Pape is correct, I was referring to the built in 1.25xTC. He is also absolutely right about diffraction. The diffraction limited aperture for the Olympus is f/5.3. The 1.25xTC on f/4.5 gives f/5.6 at 500mm, just breaching the DLA, and add 2x to that gives f/11, which is more than 2x the DLA. Adding the 2xTC will give no increase in resolution because the doubling of the focal length is negated by halving the resolution by diffraction and further so by the hit on IQ of a 2xTC (usually 20-30% loss).



As far as I am aware diffraction is irrelevant in these circumstances.
For a given viewing size, the diffraction is identical. But given a choice between a lower resolution sensor and (theoretically less) diffraction versus a higher resolution sensor with (theoretically more) diffraction, the image from the higher resolution sensor will always win. Diffraction will not negate the higher resolution.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 25, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> As far as I am aware diffraction is irrelevant in these circumstances.
> For a given viewing size, the diffraction is identical. But given a choice between a lower resolution sensor and (theoretically less) diffraction versus a higher resolution sensor with (theoretically more) diffraction, the image from the higher resolution sensor will always win. Diffraction will not negate the higher resolution.


Exactly, the diffraction limit is not a brick wall!


----------



## Pape (Jan 26, 2019)

nope it isnt but difference between using extender or not .may be so small that isnt really worth of 4x longer shutter speed
complex thingies to think ,should always test with real equipments


----------



## AlanF (Jan 26, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Exactly, the diffraction limit is not a brick wall!



The MTF value (resolution) drops to zero at the diffraction limit, ie is a brick wall cut off, and above that increases progressively with increasingly widening aperture until eventually it is not diffraction limited. Here is a page from textbook with a computed graph https://spie.org/publications/tt52_151_diffraction_mtf?SSO=1 and the equations.
When you read articles that say the diffraction limit is not a brick wall they are oversimplifying and what they mean is that there is progressive loss of resolution as the aperture is decreased until you hit the diffraction limit. That is, you cannot resolve details that are smaller than the diffraction limited but larger ones get progressively sharper with increasing size. This has been a classic problem facing astronomers and microscopists throughout the generations. Once you hit the diffraction limited aperture, increasing the focal length of a telescope, for example, without increasing the size of the aperture does not increase the cut-off resolution dictated by the diffraction of light.

The above applies to a purely diffraction limited system. But, there are other factors such as aberration of the lens, Baeyer, AA-filter etc that will lower the diffraction-limited MTF still further. Oversampling, change of strength of filter and the effect of the TC on aberration might help to some extent.The take home message is that putting a 2xTC on a predominantly diffraction-limited system will double the size of an image but won't do much to the minimum size of an object that can be resolved. You would do just about as well by up-resolving in Photoshop.


----------



## Pape (Jan 26, 2019)

ah yeah i see i got wrong about term diffraction limit .always thought its point where image quality start degrease . But it means point where image quality totally collapses. yep its brick wall there eventually. on f8 where it really start dive straight downward mtf curve .


----------



## AlanF (Jan 26, 2019)

Pape said:


> ah yeah i see i got wrong about term diffraction limit .always thought its point where image quality start degrease . But it means point where image quality totally collapses. yep its brick wall there eventually. on f8 where it really start dive straight downward mtf curve .


That's right. Opticallimits in their testing with the 5DSR say that you see the effects of diffraction from f/4 upwards and you can see it in their charts.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 26, 2019)

Pape said:


> ah yeah i see i got wrong about term diffraction limit .always thought its point where image quality start degrease . But it means point where image quality totally collapses. yep its brick wall there eventually. on f8 where it really start dive straight downward mtf curve .


Same here


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 26, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The MTF value (resolution) drops to zero at the diffraction limit, ie is a brick wall cut off, and above that increases progressively with increasingly widening aperture until eventually it is not diffraction limited. Here is a page from textbook with a computed graph https://spie.org/publications/tt52_151_diffraction_mtf?SSO=1 and the equations.
> When you read articles that say the diffraction limit is not a brick wall they are oversimplifying and what they mean is that there is progressive loss of resolution as the aperture is decreased until you hit the diffraction limit. That is, you cannot resolve details that are smaller than the diffraction limited but larger ones get progressively sharper with increasing size. This has been a classic problem facing astronomers and microscopists throughout the generations. Once you hit the diffraction limited aperture, increasing the focal length of a telescope, for example, without increasing the size of the aperture does not increase the cut-off resolution dictated by the diffraction of light.
> 
> The above applies to a purely diffraction limited system. But, there are other factors such as aberration of the lens, Baeyer, AA-filter etc that will lower the diffraction-limited MTF still further. Oversampling, change of strength of filter and the effect of the TC on aberration might help to some extent.The take home message is that putting a 2xTC on a predominantly diffraction-limited system will double the size of an image but won't do much to the minimum size of an object that can be resolved. You would do just about as well by up-resolving in Photoshop.



I am not denying that diffraction exists. I was arguing the effect of diffraction between different sensor models.
Because what you seem to be saying is that if I put the 100mm f2.8 macro on the 30D (8MP) and on the 5DSR (50MP) and stop down to f16 for both cameras, then the image on the 5DSR will be worse than the 30D because the diffraction is 'higher' on the 5DSR.
The only reason you will not see diffraction on the 30D is because it has insufficient resolution to show the detail being affected by diffraction. 

I agree totally that diffraction will cause an image to collapse, but the aperture at which this happens is irrelevant of the sensor resolution. And anyway, the aperture at which that happens is so tiny that it is in effect irrelevant to photographers.
You mention about astrophotography but that is because they are magnifying images of a tiny tiny fraction of the sky and are in effect doing extreme magnifications. Even doing wildlife needing heavy cropping you will hit atmospheric resolution issues way before diffraction becomes an issue. 

Unless of course you can present actual pictorial evidence to show I am incorrect.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 26, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> I am not denying that diffraction exists. I was arguing the effect of diffraction between different sensor models.
> Because what you seem to be saying is that if I put the 100mm f2.8 macro on the 30D (8MP) and on the 5DSR (50MP) and stop down to f16 for both cameras, then the image on the 5DSR will be worse than the 30D because the diffraction is 'higher' on the 5DSR.
> The only reason you will not see diffraction on the 30D is because it has insufficient resolution to show the detail being affected by diffraction.
> 
> ...


You are attributing to me ideas I have never had or promulgated and have distorted what I have written and what I am trying to get across. No way have I ever stated or implied that diffraction would cause a high density sensor to have lower resolution than a low density one. What diffraction does is to smear out points of light (by making Airy disks) so they become larger than the size of the pixels. The smaller the pixels, the sooner that happens with increasing f-number but, all things being equal, a high density sensor never has worse resolution than a lower density sensor. What I stated absolutely clearly and unambiguously is the take home message: "_The take home message is that putting a 2xTC on a predominantly diffraction-limited system will double the size of an image but won't do much to the minimum size of an object that can be resolved. You would do just about as well by up-resolving in Photoshop_."

I never even mentioned astrophotography - I wrote about telescopes, because the astronomers were aware of diffraction limitations way before sensors were invented. It was in 1835 that AIry published his work on the Airy disk, whose diameter is used to calculate diffraction limited apertures. The astrononomers knew nearly 200 years ago that their early telescopes with relatively narrow apertures were limited by diffraction. If you think that "Even doing wildlife needing heavy cropping you will hit atmospheric resolution issues way before diffraction becomes an issue." then I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you must spend your time photographing wildlife in a heat haze.

An image doesn't collapse as f-number increases, it progressively loses the finer details as the size of the Airy disk increases and obscures the smaller elements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk
Edit: It's worth adding that when you double the focal length of the lens, you double the size of the image but if you are doing this with a 2xTC you double the size of the Airy disk because you double the f-number.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 26, 2019)

Here is an amusing collage I made a little while ago that illustrates diffraction limitations with the P1000. I took a series of shots at different focal lengths with the diffraction limited Nikon, and compared them with some Canon gear. You can see that at a supposed 3000mm focal length the resolution is poorer than at 2000mm which is similar to 1600mm. Increasing the focal length without increasing the aperture didn't help the Nikon and its increased aberrations actually lowered resolution. (All taken at same distance and scaled to same size.)


----------



## AlanF (Jan 26, 2019)

And here is evidence about the loss of resolution with increasing f-number. ePhotozine has measured the MTFs of lenses on the 5DSR. I have plotted them for the best lenses under where they are diffraction limited. Under ideal conditions, the MTFs should tend to 5792 lines/picture height. You can see how the image loses resolution with increasing f-number

.


----------

