# Olympus announces the M-D E-M1X, an EOS-1D X Mark II killer?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 24, 2019)

> Latest OM-D Body Provides Absolute Confidence for Professional Photographers
> *CENTER VALLEY, PA., January 24, 2019 – *Today Olympus expands the OM-D series with the introduction of the OM-D E-M1X professional Micro Four Thirds*®*interchangeable lens camera. The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is packed with industry leading speed, performance, reliability and high-quality image output that rivals that of full-frame DSLRs. This new professional model, positioned alongside the award-winning Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II, incorporates an integrated vertical grip to provide a secure grip and superior operability, whether held horizontally or vertically and offers the world’s highest[1] image stabilization performance with approximately 7.5 shutter speed steps of compensation. Zero-lag Pro Capture...



Continue reading...


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jan 24, 2019)

There you go.. the kind of camera that canon needs to release for the EOS R. Now that would be a dream and sell like hotcakes.. for us gear heads at least. on a side note, Olympus, you must be reading this forum.. lol


----------



## Viggo (Jan 24, 2019)

cellomaster27 said:


> There you go.. the kind of camera that canon needs to release for the EOS R. Now that would be a dream and sell like hotcakes.. for us gear heads at least. on a side note, Olympus, you must be reading this forum.. lol


M4/3 , full frame , whatever


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 24, 2019)

Wow! Did I read that right? Optical view finder? If so, kudos to Olympus for that. Hate the electronic VF on my Olympus.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 24, 2019)

As I said in the other M1X thread (CR: maybe merge them?):

Great spec list.
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.
Of 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 (+ the latest M.ZUIKO PRO announcements).


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 24, 2019)

Viggo said:


> M4/3 , full frame , whatever


Yeah, it's M4/3.


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 24, 2019)

cellomaster27 said:


> There you go.. the kind of camera that canon needs to release for the EOS R. Now that would be a dream and sell like hotcakes.. for us gear heads at least. on a side note, Olympus, you must be reading this forum.. lol


Would require four or five processors and a large structure to handle the data from a ff sensor and to dissipate all the heat from the processors. Maybe someday when the technology arrives.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 24, 2019)

BeenThere said:


> Would require four or five processors and a large structure to handle the data from a ff sensor and to dissipate all the heat from the processors. Maybe someday when the technology arrives.


The 1DXII has the same number of pixels as the Olympus, so why would it require more processors to process the same amount of sensor data?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 24, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Wow! Did I read that right? Optical view finder? If so, kudos to Olympus for that. Hate the electronic VF on my Olympus.


as they say: "The viewfinder features a new optical design using an industry-leading magnification of 0.83x (35mm equivalent). This four-element configuration designed with aspherical and high reflective index lenses provides a clear, distortion-free display right up to the edge of the viewfinder. As found on the OM-D E-M1 Mark II, a 120 fps (progressive scan) high-speed frame rate with a 0.005 second latency are provided for stress-free moving subject photography."

It is an EVF, but I believe that it has an optical assembly in front of it so that you can do diopter adjustments.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 24, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> as they say: "The viewfinder features a new optical design using an industry-leading magnification of 0.83x (35mm equivalent). This four-element configuration designed with aspherical and high reflective index lenses provides a clear, distortion-free display right up to the edge of the viewfinder. As found on the OM-D E-M1 Mark II, a 120 fps (progressive scan) high-speed frame rate with a 0.005 second latency are provided for stress-free moving subject photography."
> 
> It is an EVF, but I believe that it has an optical assembly in front of it so that you can do diopter adjustments.


Thanks Don. I can't keep up with things like I used to.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 24, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The 1DXII has the same number of pixels as the Olympus, so why would it require more processors to process the same amount of sensor data?


The features like 60FPS, the 80Mp pixel shifted images, and the autofocus modes take a lot of processing power. This beast is a dual quad-processor, (8 processors to the 1DX2's 3), and has considerably more computing power than the 1DX2. Note that they had to go to the larger body for the heat handling and battery life required to make this fly.....


----------



## Viggo (Jan 24, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah, it's M4/3.


I know my point was that what can be done “easily” with m4/3 isn’t automatically possible with full frame.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 24, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> The features like 60FPS, the 80Mp pixel shifted images, and the autofocus modes take a lot of processing power. This beast is a dual quad-processor, (8 processors to the 1DX2's 3), and has considerably more computing power than the 1DX2. Note that they had to go to the larger body for the heat handling and battery life required to make this fly.....


I know, but why would a 20 mpx FF require 4-5 processors to do the same things that a 20 mpx 4/3 does with 2?


----------



## Aglet (Jan 24, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> The features like 60FPS, the 80Mp pixel shifted images, and the autofocus modes take a lot of processing power. This beast is a dual quad-processor, (8 processors to the 1DX2's 3), and has considerably more computing power than the 1DX2. Note that they had to go to the larger body for the heat handling and battery life required to make this fly.....



ACTUALLY... it's _worse_ than that. 

It has TWO dual-quad processors... so there are 16 processor cores in the EM1x!

from the spec list on Oly's web site and also in report at imaging-resource.

quote excerpt from wikipedia on the TruePic VIII:

"The TruePic VIII Image Processor uses a dual quad core system with four CPU cores and four image processing cores.."

So seems like a general purpose 4-core CPU + another dedicated, image-processing-optimized, 4-core, DSP-like processor in _each_ TruePic VIII package.

That's a heck of a lot of bit-flippin' potential!


----------



## raptor3x (Jan 24, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> The features like 60FPS, the 80Mp pixel shifted images, and the autofocus modes take a lot of processing power. This beast is a dual quad-processor, (8 processors to the 1DX2's 3), and has considerably more computing power than the 1DX2. Note that they had to go to the larger body for the heat handling and battery life required to make this fly.....



It's actually dual 8-cores processors for a total of 16 cores. Unfortunately the camera is basically just an E-M1ii in a larger body with some firmware upgrades at twice the price. I'll be shocked if this thing doesn't completely tank, and that comes from someone who has been shooting m43 exclusively for almost 3 years now.


----------



## Aglet (Jan 24, 2019)

raptor3x said:


> It's actually dual 8-cores processors for a total of 16 cores. Unfortunately the camera is basically just an E-M1ii in a larger body with some firmware upgrades at twice the price. I'll be shocked if this thing doesn't completely tank, and that comes from someone who has been shooting m43 exclusively for almost 3 years now.



I don't think it'll "tank" but it's not going to be a huge seller at that price when it has to compete with all the APSC & FF gear out there which are also very capable now.

I think it's niche will be rugged reportage and wildlife use where it can deliver adequate image quality in a smaller lighter package which will be up to the job in any weather. Not a big number in marketing but how many high end bodies does any mfr sell compared to their mainstream models? Existing MFT pro's who've been wishing for something a bit more beefy may be able justify adding this to their kit.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 24, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I know, but why would a 20 mpx FF require 4-5 processors to do the same things that a 20 mpx 4/3 does with 2?


The thing is, it isn’t doing the same thing. The AF system is very AI intensive, it has a 60FPS burst rate, and then we have the 50 and 80 megapixel modes. This is the level of computing power that one needs for the latest and greatest functions. 

The sensor format really does not matter to the computing needs, if Canon wants to ramp up with a R equivalent of the 1DX2, they are going to need to double the computing power


----------



## AlanF (Jan 24, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> The thing is, it isn’t doing the same thing. The AF system is very AI intensive, it has a 60FPS burst rate, and then we have the 50 and 80 megapixel modes. This is the level of computing power that one needs for the latest and greatest functions.
> 
> The sensor format really does not matter to the computing needs, if Canon wants to ramp up with a R equivalent of the 1DX2, they are going to need to double the computing power


I ask questions to try and understand what I don't understand, so please bear with me as I still don't understand. Your keep explaining why the MFT requires a huge amount of computing power, which I do understand. What I don't understand is why the FF should require double the computing power of the MFT. To my naif understanding, it seems that the MFT is producing data from 20.6mpx that has to be processed and the FF is producing a very similar 20.2 mpx of data and so the same amount of computing power is needed for image processing for both. So, where does the FF have to have double the computing power of the MFT? Is it because they will be using different AF systems or what?


----------



## Talys (Jan 24, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I ask questions to try and understand what I don't understand, so please bear with me as I still don't understand. Your keep explaining why the MFT requires a huge amount of computing power, which I do understand. What I don't understand is why the FF should require double the computing power of the MFT. To my naif understanding, it seems that the MFT is producing data from 20.6mpx that has to be processed and the FF is producing a very similar 20.2 mpx of data and so the same amount of computing power is needed for image processing for both. So, where does the FF have to have double the computing power of the MFT? Is it because they will be using different AF systems or what?


Maybe I'm wrong but I think Don is saying EVF and hybrid or DP AF will hog up a ton of CPU relative to OVF and dedicated PDAF. So to get the exceptional AF of the 1DX2 on a mirrorless camera, it will take a lot more processing power.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 24, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> The features like 60FPS, the 80Mp pixel shifted images, and the autofocus modes take a lot of processing power. This beast is a dual quad-processor, (8 processors to the 1DX2's 3), and has considerably more computing power than the 1DX2. Note that they had to go to the larger body for the heat handling and battery life required to make this fly.....



I am tempted, temporarily anyway. Time will probably change that. Can't stand the ergonomics on my Olympus E-M5 Mark II, but this is different. If the grandson was school age and playing sports it would be much more tempting. If I were near a beach full of beach bunnies I think I'd get one for sure.  This seems to be a really nice camera. I get good output from the one I have, I just hate the ergonomics. Of course if money wasn't a problem... 1DX II and a 600L would be my way forward.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 24, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I know my point was that what can be done “easily” with m4/3 isn’t automatically possible with full frame.


Yeah, I was agreeing with you.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 24, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I ask questions to try and understand what I don't understand, so please bear with me as I still don't understand. Your keep explaining why the MFT requires a huge amount of computing power, which I do understand. What I don't understand is why the FF should require double the computing power of the MFT. To my naif understanding, it seems that the MFT is producing data from 20.6mpx that has to be processed and the FF is producing a very similar 20.2 mpx of data and so the same amount of computing power is needed for image processing for both. So, where does the FF have to have double the computing power of the MFT? Is it because they will be using different AF systems or what?


I was trying to say that a 20 megapixel FF sensor and a 20 megapixel 4/3 sensor require the same amount of computing power, but that the AI enhanced AF modes on the Oly require substantially more computing power than the relatively simple AF modes on mirrored DSLRs

It looks like Olympus had to go big on this one for heat management and battery life.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 24, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I am tempted, temporarily anyway. Time will probably change that. Can't stand the ergonomics on my Olympus E-M5 Mark II, but this is different. If the grandson was school age and playing sports it would be much more tempting. If I were near a beach full of beach bunnies I think I'd get one for sure.  This seems to be a really nice camera. I get good output from the one I have, I just hate the ergonomics. Of course if money wasn't a problem... 1DX II and a 600L would be my way forward.



Yes, I hate the ergonomics of the one at work. Large hands do not fit tiny cameras very well. If I were a foot shorter, I would probably have a different opinion


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 24, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Yes, I hate the ergonomics of the one at work. Large hands do not fit tiny cameras very well. If I were a foot shorter, I would probably have a different opinion


Wow! Those are some long hands!  Do y'all use an E-M5 at work? The ergonomics are the main gripe for me. That and battery life. I would say I only need the 40-150 and then the 300mm, but those fast primes have me very curious. I don't need to be curious.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 25, 2019)

Talys said:


> Maybe I'm wrong but I think Don is saying EVF and hybrid or DP AF will hog up a ton of CPU relative to OVF and dedicated PDAF. So to get the exceptional AF of the 1DX2 on a mirrorless camera, it will take a lot more processing power.


It is much tougher to autofocus a camera as the sensor gets larger, the DOF decreases so AF must be more accurate. Canon uses DPAF which is very processor intensive for AF and tracking, but thats how it gets its performance. With a small sensor, you can get high performance for everything but low light and resolution.


----------



## Aglet (Jan 25, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> ..but those fast primes have me very curious. I don't need to be curious.



you mean those "Bright Prime Lenses" in the future lenses category of the lens roadmap?..
or the existing f/1.2 Pro series?

As for the ergonomics, I prefer the 1 and 10 series over the 5 series bodies.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 25, 2019)

Aglet said:


> you mean those "Bright Prime Lenses" in the future lenses category of the lens roadmap?..
> or the existing f/1.2 Pro series?
> 
> As for the ergonomics, I prefer the 1 and 10 series over the 5 series bodies.


The existing ED 45mm f/1.2 Pro, which is one of the bright primes in my book anyway. Do you think they'll make then even faster? Can't wait to see that. There are already some out there (f0.95).


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 25, 2019)

That 150-400mm lens is really interesting especially with small m43 sized sensor it really can be a good solution for wildlife. Though it's a ridiculous long wait.


----------



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

Don: I agree, E-M5II can be awkwardly small, but adding the grip improves ergonomics significantly IMO. I was lucky enough to play with the E-M1X tonight and talk with a couple of the Olympus Visionaries. It's clearly targeted to be a mini 1DXII but its overall size is not a lot smaller, partly to allow for "better" button spacing. Big difference is body weight and eq. FL lens size & weight. Olympus has put a lot of features in it -- both hardware and firmware. (For what its worth, comment was made to anticipate more computational photography technology making its way into pro grade m43 cameras. ) 150-400 lens seems aimed at 2020 Olympics as well as wildlife shooters. Lens roadmap was likely an effort to counteract TN video claiming m43 is dead. The 50 mp hand-held high res. shots are amazing from small sensor. Of course, it is nearly the same price as a 5DsR.


----------



## tmc784 (Jan 25, 2019)

Spend $3800 for M3/4 ? no way !


----------



## bhf3737 (Jan 25, 2019)

When I want a small system, lenses and good quality photos I'd go for smaller sensor APS-C camera (EOS-M or Fuji) and when I want larger system, sharper lenses and better quality pictures I grab the full frame system.
I may be wrong but I think there are not many who may want a large system (look at the size of the 150-400mm lens, although excellent glass) and a small M3/4 sensor with the full frame system price point, unless the camera offers something drastically different than what I can get from a full frame system. Better weather sealing and having a few more frames does not cut it.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 25, 2019)

It's a very interesting tour de force of technology, but it's not for me for my purposes. It's low density sensor gives hardly any more resolution than a high density FF, it weighs as much as a 5D (or more than an R) and I value the wide field of view and image quality of an FF sensor more than the high frame rate and pro view etc. But, I am sure it will delight others.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 25, 2019)

The comments I read suggested that in low light the AF tanks, and noise is a problem. We are always faced with required shooting parameters that force high ISO and I doubt this camera has solved that issue. IS doesn't solve subject movement. If you want/need high FPS does it not follow that it's because the subject is moving or at least some aspect of the subject is changing?

Here is my sample 1/1250 was not really fast enough. I was at F8 due to 800mm. So that left me with ISO 2000 (manual) and it was underexposed so I've had to push the shadows. Perhaps the correct ISO would have been 3200 or 6400

. Maybe this new "smart" camera would have focused on the eyes but given the speed of movement I somehow doubt it - for sure my 1DX2 won't refocus as fast as this bird moves, so I'm dependent on luck with 14 FPS. Remember the new 1DX2 ad demonstrating "fast" AF with an otter running (plodding) straight towards the camera. Apparently Nikon does much better but I doubt it would be that much better here.

Jack


----------



## mpb001 (Jan 25, 2019)

I thought the whole idea of M4/3 was the smaller form factor? What happened to that idea?


----------



## raptor3x (Jan 25, 2019)

Aglet said:


> I don't think it'll "tank" but it's not going to be a huge seller at that price when it has to compete with all the APSC & FF gear out there which are also very capable now.
> 
> I think it's niche will be rugged reportage and wildlife use where it can deliver adequate image quality in a smaller lighter package which will be up to the job in any weather. Not a big number in marketing but how many high end bodies does any mfr sell compared to their mainstream models? Existing MFT pro's who've been wishing for something a bit more beefy may be able justify adding this to their kit.



The problem is it offers almost nothing over the existing E-M1ii at nearly triple the current street price. The E-M1ii is smaller, has the same same, same AF system, same excellent weather sealing, same EVF, same drive modes. The only thing the E-M1X offers is the integrated grip and a, to be blunt, relatively minor firmware update. Heck, in many ways it's inferior to the $1200 Panasonic G9. They did a good job with the subject tracking for cars and trains but the actual AF system is exactly the same. I had fully intended to buy this camera before release, but Olympus has apparently been sitting on their hands for the last two years. This camera would have been great had they released it alongside the E-M1ii in 2016, but releasing this for $3K in 2019 is an absolute disaster for Olympus.


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 25, 2019)

For those interested, Jared Polin did a preview of the camera after using it hands on. You can look it up on YouTube. 

Summarized, the AF seems to be very good indeed, but he wasn’t impressed by the image quality. The main issue is the lack of depth of field. He found lack of bokeh and background separation. Further the ISO performance is poor compared to FF cameras. Last, he didn’t like the EVF at all. He found it to be the worst he had seen in years, mainly because of the lack of resolution.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 25, 2019)

raptor3x said:


> The problem is it offers almost nothing over the existing E-M1ii at nearly triple the current street price. The E-M1ii is smaller, has the same same, same AF system, same excellent weather sealing, same EVF, same drive modes. The only thing the E-M1X offers is the integrated grip and a, to be blunt, relatively minor firmware update. Heck, in many ways it's inferior to the $1200 Panasonic G9. They did a good job with the subject tracking for cars and trains but the actual AF system is exactly the same. I had fully intended to buy this camera before release, but Olympus has apparently been sitting on their hands for the last two years. This camera would have been great had they released it alongside the E-M1ii in 2016, but releasing this for $3K in 2019 is an absolute disaster for Olympus.



It does offer a few more things than the EM-1 II:
Joystick to move AF points
Better weather sealing
More effective SSWF dust reduction filter
Hand held high res shooting
Improved IBIS - from 7 to 7.5 stops
Low light AF is now rated down to -6EV with use of F1.2 PRO lenses
Subject tracking
Added "My Menu" customizable menu folder
New Olympus Log format for video
Rated shutter life of 400,000 actuations
New video AF setting options
Simulated ND filters


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 25, 2019)

We should not be fixating on the sensor, what is important here is that this shows what features can be expected with sufficient computing power.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 25, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> The comments I read suggested that in low light the AF tanks, and noise is a problem. We are always faced with required shooting parameters that force high ISO and I doubt this camera has solved that issue. IS doesn't solve subject movement. If you want/need high FPS does it not follow that it's because the subject is moving or at least some aspect of the subject is changing?
> 
> Here is my sample 1/1250 was not really fast enough. I was at F8 due to 800mm. So that left me with ISO 2000 (manual) and it was underexposed so I've had to push the shadows. Perhaps the correct ISO would have been 3200 or 6400
> View attachment 182798
> ...


I sure do admire your photos, Jack!


----------



## AlanF (Jan 25, 2019)

I looked at the MFT forum on fredmiranda. The new Oly is not going down that well. Complaints about old technology in a new body.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 25, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> We should not be fixating on the sensor, what is important here is that this shows what features can be expected with sufficient computing power.


Exactly right. Combine the optics and larger sensor of an interchangeable lens camera with the computational abilities of a smart phone and I think you start to get a sense of where cameras are going. You have to admire the effort.
If you can get decent bokeh and subject seperation with computation vs fast lenses I could see some sports shooters getting on board. MFT sensors should be fine for online content which is where most sports pics live and the lenses will be a fraction of the size and expense of full frame..


----------



## dak723 (Jan 25, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I looked at the MFT forum on fredmiranda. The new Oly is not going down that well. Complaints about old technology in a new body.



Yes, the usual idiotic comments from folks who have never - and will never - touch the camera. Same as folks here who automatically start whining and screaming when Canon uses the same sensor in the R that is in the 5D IV. Doesn't matter if the sensor is excellent, but it should be NEW - even if it is no better.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 25, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I sure do admire your photos, Jack!



Thanks. My only response is that I try hard and persistence plus luck pays off more often than one would think. A nice secondary benefit is learning much more about the behaviour of all the critters in my environment.  What a wonderful hobby.

Jack


----------



## Talys (Jan 26, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> The comments I read suggested that in low light the AF tanks, and noise is a problem. …
> 
> Maybe this new "smart" camera would have focused on the eyes but given the speed of movement I somehow doubt it - for sure my 1DX2 won't refocus as fast as this bird moves, so I'm dependent on luck with 14 FPS. Remember the new 1DX2 ad demonstrating "fast" AF with an otter running (plodding) straight towards the camera. Apparently Nikon does much better but I doubt it would be that much better here.



First of all, Jack, awesome photo 

The issue of low light AF performance (or performance with an extender) is probably always going to be the hardest one for mirrorless to compete with, versus the 1DX2. I am really eager to see how Canon deals with this as they release their first "professional" mirrorless, which to them is synonymous with works well with big whites and TCs.

With regards to animal eye AF, I think that all of these implementations are going to be with useful with respect to animal portraiture, or at most, slow moving, large animals (like a dog that's walking), rather than animals in quick motion. Eve with the best human eye AF, you can't focus on the eye of an athlete as they play basketball, for example, so we can't expect that it will work any better to keep focus on the eye of a bird, or a kitten pouncing a toy. The level of compute required for that is probably far more than what you could put onto a tiny camera.

The easier fix would probably be to simply take consecutive photos with microadjusted focus, and then let the user pick the picture they wanted after (or stack them).


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 26, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thanks. My only response is that I try hard and persistence plus luck pays off more often than one would think. A nice secondary benefit is learning much more about the behaviour of all the critters in my environment.  What a wonderful hobby.
> 
> Jack


And all that beautiful art to hang on your walls!


----------



## raptor3x (Jan 26, 2019)

dak723 said:


> It does offer a few more things than the EM-1 II:
> Joystick to move AF points


This is indeed a positive change, it was ridiculous that they didn't put it in the E-M1ii but good to see they're adding it now, especially since you can buy a G9 now for $1000 and it has a joystick.



dak723 said:


> Better weather sealing


Do we have any evidence it's better than the E-M1ii? The E-M1ii has an IPX rating as well and people have done dunk tests with it.



dak723 said:


> More effective SSWF dust reduction filter


Ok, I guess? The current system seems pretty much perfect so I'm not sure what they're improving.



dak723 said:


> Hand held high res shooting


This is just a firmware update, same methodology as Pentax.



dak723 said:


> Improved IBIS - from 7 to 7.5 stops


This is a nice update, not particularly useful for a sports camera but nice to have anyway.



dak723 said:


> Low light AF is now rated down to -6EV with use of F1.2 PRO lenses


We never got a low light AF specification for the E-M1ii and given that the low light AF is purely CDAF and the cameras share the exact same sensor it's safe to say that this is just another firmware update. The one video I've seen online comparing the low light AF between the E-M1ii and E-M1X shows on a minor improvement; the E-M1ii can focus on everything the E-M1X can do but the E-M1X is just a bit faster.



dak723 said:


> Subject tracking


I assume you mean the "Deep Learning AI" as the actual C-AF + TR is completely unchanged. Again, nice feature but it's just a software change running on the same hardware as the E-M1ii; it would probably just run a lot slower on the E-M1ii.



dak723 said:


> Added "My Menu" customizable menu folder


Firmware.



dak723 said:


> New Olympus Log format for video


Firmware.



dak723 said:


> Rated shutter life of 400,000 actuations


That's nice, although not particularly relevant for a camera which is centered around the electronic shutter, a new sensor with an improved readout speed would be way more useful than increased shutter durability.



dak723 said:


> New video AF setting options


Say it with me, firmware.



dak723 said:


> Simulated ND filters


Give me an F
Give me an I
Give me an R
Give me an M
.
.
.
You see where this is going.

So what non-firmware features do we have? An extra processor, an improved IBIS gyroscope, better dust reduction, possibly better weather sealing, and a joystick. Oh, also higher magnification EVF optics. Is that really worth double the price of the E-M1ii? Had they released this in 2016 alongside the E-M1ii I think this could have been a hit or if they had released it now at $2K I think the reception would have been positive. However, releasing this camera in 2019 for $3K is just an absurd decision on their part. I'll wait until I can pick one up for $2K just like the Panasonic 200 2.8 which was also comically overpriced and was a dud until they dropped the price to around $2K (the official price on the is still $3K but it's super easy to get them for $2K with the 1.4x TC).


----------



## raptor3x (Jan 26, 2019)

dak723 said:


> Yes, the usual idiotic comments from folks who have never - and will never - touch the camera. Same as folks here who automatically start whining and screaming when Canon uses the same sensor in the R that is in the 5D IV. Doesn't matter if the sensor is excellent, but it should be NEW - even if it is no better.



The FM m43 forum is probably the highest density of expensive m43 gear anywhere on the internet, if anyone was going to buy a m43 super camera it's that group.


----------



## ethanz (Jan 26, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> We should not be fixating on the sensor, what is important here is that this shows what features can be expected with sufficient computing power.



I think we've also seen that with the iPhones


----------



## ethanz (Jan 26, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I looked at the MFT forum on fredmiranda. The new Oly is not going down that well. Complaints about old technology in a new body.



Maybe us Canonites should lend them a shoulder to cry on. We hear those complaints a lot.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 26, 2019)

Talys, thanks for the complement. It would be interesting if a burst could be programmed to have a focus shift. When a birds head is not prominently forward and the action is fast it's almost impossible to get the eye in focus and I agree that it's unlikely that computing will be fast enough to remedy that in the near future.

CanonFanBoy, I don't have a single framed photo on any walls, just a couple unframed that a friend printed, in my computer room. I have zero experience with having printing done and have just avoided it, although it's something I need to investigate further.

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2019)

Lots of caveats to many of the features especially the high frame rates with 12 bit compressed RAW images, oh and locking AF AND exposure! Crappy LCD viewfinder, fast glass that still doesn't give you the dof isolation of bigger formats, antiquated and unintuitive multilevel menus. Overly large body for sensor size and low image quality at relatively modest iso levels.

AWESOME image stabilization.

Doesn't sound like a winner to me...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 26, 2019)

Sounds like the usual compromises but in a certain context pretty amazing ... for a lower price. It won't draw me.

Jack


----------



## ethanz (Jan 26, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> Sounds like the usual compromises but in a certain context pretty amazing ... for a lower price. It won't draw me.
> 
> Jack



Apparently for a M43 camera it is very expensive.


----------



## Aglet (Jan 26, 2019)

raptor3x said:


> That's nice, although not particularly relevant for a camera which is centered around the electronic shutter, a new sensor with an improved readout speed would be way more useful than increased shutter durability.



When the thing can flutter its mechanical shutter at 15 to 18fps having 400k longevity is a good thing. (That's only a little over 6 hours of life at full speed!)

The ONE feature that would have ME ordering this body would have been GLOBAL-SHUTTER.

I was really hoping for it since Sony had announced the feature on a recent sensor update press release in FF format I think.
I was hoping there was going to be a 4/3 version in this body.

FWIW, the readout speed of the EM!v2 with e-shutter is pretty quick and I've shot fast action with it and the rolling shutter effect was negligible. I still haven't measure the actual speed of it.
If they've managed to increase the readout speed on this model even by a little bit it would come in handy.




> Had they released this in 2016 alongside the E-M1ii I think this could have been a hit..



True. There's not a lot of differentiation between the 2 unless you really need these latest features.




> releasing this camera in 2019 for $3K is just an absurd decision on their part. I'll wait ..



I can understand them pricing it as such:
- It's still a lot cheaper than a FF sports-body while offering an impressive, but different, set of features
- _everything_ coming out lately is considerably pricier than it was a few years ago.
- launch price is usually high to benefit from the _gotta-have-it_ buyers.
- pricing it too low at launch sends a signal that it's not as high-end a product as they want to position it into.

I still think it is a bit too spendy tho... $2500us might be where it ends up moving.

Now I hope an EM1v3 will get the joystick for AF selection; I found the touchscreen is a bit sensitive for this purpose so turned it off and the D-pad is too small and fiddly. And I also hope it will get a global shutter sensor that can provide at least the same IQ as the current model.
Everything else is just fine and is still my favorite camera, all-round, even with 5 FF bodies of various makes at hand.


----------



## raptor3x (Jan 26, 2019)

Aglet said:


> When the thing can flutter its mechanical shutter at 15 to 18fps having 400k longevity is a good thing. (That's only a little over 6 hours of life at full speed!)
> 
> The ONE feature that would have ME ordering this body would have been GLOBAL-SHUTTER.



If you shoot with mechanical shutter and want C-AF it's limited to 10 fps, 15 fps is with AE/AF locked and 18 fps with C-AF is electronic shutter only. You're correct that the readout speed is pretty quick, for many situations it's good enough but it's also just slow enough that there are plenty of situations where it can be problematic, especially if you're shooting indoors.


----------



## Pape (Jan 26, 2019)

there are pretty awesome lenses or sensor on mft cameras according to doxmark they perform as good sharpnes what 7dii with it lenses and its odd cause MFT sensors got double smaller pixels.? That MOS sensor does difference?
or do they just bribed uptune mos sensor performance ?


----------



## AlanF (Jan 26, 2019)

dak723 said:


> Yes, the usual idiotic comments from folks who have never - and will never - touch the camera. Same as folks here who automatically start whining and screaming when Canon uses the same sensor in the R that is in the 5D IV. Doesn't matter if the sensor is excellent, but it should be NEW - even if it is no better.


Canon used the 5DIV sensor in the R, but with an appreciable drop in price. With Olympus, there has been a huge increase in price, which presumably irks the MFT crowd. The R is very good value for money in terms of IQ.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 26, 2019)

raptor3x said:


> This is indeed a positive change, it was ridiculous that they didn't put it in the E-M1ii but good to see they're adding it now, especially since you can buy a G9 now for $1000 and it has a joystick.
> 
> 
> Do we have any evidence it's better than the E-M1ii? The E-M1ii has an IPX rating as well and people have done dunk tests with it.
> ...




Yes, I see where this is going. Rather than admitting there are a number of features that have been improved or added compared the E-M1 II, you decide to ridicule me. You act as if additions and changes to software aren't really differences or additions, but anyone who has worked with almost any computer program knows how ridiculous that statement is. I suppose, as a drafter, that updates in software don't make a difference or add value to a product, that I could work just as well with the first versions of Autocad as I can today with the new version. Never mind that without Xrefs, paper/model space, annotative text, 3d modeling, as well as a dozen other features, it would take me two to three times as long to produce a drawing.

See where I am going? Software/firmware updates can make a big difference. 

Which is why when you wrote:

"The problem is it offers almost nothing over the existing E-M1ii at nearly triple the current street price."

I replied with a list of a dozen or so items that it DOES offer. If you are not happy about the price, that's not my fault.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 26, 2019)

dak723 said:


> Yes, I see where this is going. Rather than admitting there are a number of features that have been improved or added compared the E-M1 II, you decide to ridicule me. You act as if additions and changes to software aren't really differences or additions, but anyone who has worked with almost any computer program knows how ridiculous that statement is. I suppose, as a drafter, that updates in software don't make a difference or add value to a product, that I could work just as well with the first versions of Autocad as I can today with the new version. Never mind that without Xrefs, paper/model space, annotative text, 3d modeling, as well as a dozen other features, it would take me two to three times as long to produce a drawing.
> 
> See where I am going? Software/firmware updates can make a big difference.
> 
> ...


But it does offer significant hardware changes, much more computing power to handle that new software! Some are fixated on the sensor, but without the software you just have an expensive chunk of metal


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jan 26, 2019)

I had a chance to handle/shoot the E-M1X on Thursday. Two Olympus Visionaries and a tech. rep. met with a roomful of Oly shooters (many of whom make their living shooting with OMD's). They had 3 pre-production E-M1X's to play with. I liked the body and the features (compares nicely w/my gripped Canon stuff - I don't own 1DX, too heavy for me). m43 sensor is more than good enough for 80% of what I shoot (events). Thumbstick implementation is better than on my G9 although I missed the top screen of G9 and all my Canon gear. Computational photography is likely to influence future firmware and there is a lot of processing power in the E-M1X. No comments from Oly as to how much of the capability of the processors is presently being used.

General comments from the pro's in the room: They welcome the significant AF tracking improvements, had hoped for a slight MP bump (24-28 target), happy with current DR although always hope for more, most shoot with grip so size is just fine (although many like being able to reduce size by leaving grip off of E-M1mII or E-M5mII), improved stabilization is nice but most shot subjects that move and not video so not a big deal, wedding shooters still looking for thinner DOF (computational add-on to f1.2 lenses suggested) while event shooters are happy with DOF with current lens line-up. Added GPS and 'field sensors' is something that would help me, but no one else seemed to care. I didn't see anyone pre-order at the $2999.99 price - consensus seemed to be $2400-$2500 was the buy-in point.


----------



## CanoKnight (Jan 27, 2019)

Olympus going backwards at full speed. Takes a lot of guts to do that. Kudos to management.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 27, 2019)

We had film photography, then digital, and we are now moving towards computational photography.

What you should be taking away from the launch of this camera are the things that you can do with sufficient processing power, things like AI autofocus..... how long before they have a bird specific download so that (for example) I can download the chickadee module and the camera knows how to track those little buggers! 

What about the in-camera image shifting and combining? 

The real difference between this camera and its predecessor is the computing power.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Jan 27, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah, it's M4/3.



Yes ... and when I look at the topic title is reminds me of when people name their Chihuahua "Killer" .. lol


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 27, 2019)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> Yes ... and when I look at the topic title is reminds me of when people name their Chihuahua "Killer" .. lol


Intriguing camera. Olympus are a bit ******* with micro 4/3 but really do pull out all the stops. I’ve two Olympus cameras and the lens are great. User interface is terrible on my cameras but newer ones are better. Everything is so much smaller even though this one is a bit more sizable. It’s very expensive for a micro 4/3 camera. I think they will struggle to sell it. Reviews will be interesting. I have a soft spot for Olympus. They are the David versus Goliath in the camera world. They are pushing technology to the max but are hampered by the sensor size. Maybe they can convince buyers small is beautiful but unfortunately it’s also not cheap.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 27, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> Intriguing camera. Olympus are a bit ******* with micro 4/3 but really do pull out all the stops. I’ve two Olympus cameras and the lens are great. User interface is terrible on my cameras but newer ones are better. Everything is so much smaller even though this one is a bit more sizable. It’s very expensive for a micro 4/3 camera. I think they will struggle to sell it. Reviews will be interesting. I have a soft spot for Olympus. They are the David versus Goliath in the camera world. They are pushing technology to the max but are hampered by the sensor size. Maybe they can convince buyers small is beautiful but unfortunately it’s also not cheap.


I'll be waiting for the closeout sale.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 27, 2019)

If Olympus were to take this technology and mate it to a FF sensor, and then give it the Canon R mount, I’d buy one......


----------



## AlanF (Jan 27, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> If Olympus were to take this technology and mate it to a FF sensor, and then give it the Canon R mount, I’d buy one......


It’s called the Panasonic S series with an L mount. Seriously, I think Panasonic has seen the writing on the wall.


----------



## mpmark (Jan 28, 2019)

Lipstick on a pig. This time they put sparkly lipstick.

1. Its micro 4/3, can't complete with a larger sensor.
2. the bokeh is absolutely horrible, like out of a cell phone.
3. colors are bad
4. noise performance is just horrible.

need I say more?


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jan 28, 2019)

Have you ever actually shot m43? While I readily admit it's not hard to pixel peep and see the differences between m43 and FF, I've never had a client or editor tell me your points #2 - #4. Nor can they tell me which camera system I happened to use unless they saw me shooting. As I get older, weight means a lot to me. I loved medium format for years, but gave it up when I felt FF was sufficient for my use. Now I'm trending toward more use of m43, but I'm not dumping my Canon stuff... not yet anyway. Who knows, maybe the EOS R and RF lenses will prove light enough to keep me in the fold!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 28, 2019)

old-pr-pix said:


> Have you ever actually shot m43? While I readily admit it's not hard to pixel peep and see the differences between m43 and FF, I've never had a client or editor tell me your points #2 - #4. Nor can they tell me which camera system I happened to use unless they saw me shooting. As I get older, weight means a lot to me. I loved medium format for years, but gave it up when I felt FF was sufficient for my use. Now I'm trending toward more use of m43, but I'm not dumping my Canon stuff... not yet anyway. Who knows, maybe the EOS R and RF lenses will prove light enough to keep me in the fold!



You're not alone. Provided you can frame a picture the way you'd like it, I'd bet all of our present "decent" cameras would be indistinguishable. We fret too much for our own benefit. Seems there is this problem of aging that needs a solution for many of us.

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 28, 2019)

old-pr-pix said:


> Have you ever actually shot m43? While I readily admit it's not hard to pixel peep and see the differences between m43 and FF, I've never had a client or editor tell me your points #2 - #4. Nor can they tell me which camera system I happened to use unless they saw me shooting. As I get older, weight means a lot to me. I loved medium format for years, but gave it up when I felt FF was sufficient for my use. Now I'm trending toward more use of m43, but I'm not dumping my Canon stuff... not yet anyway. Who knows, maybe the EOS R and RF lenses will prove light enough to keep me in the fold!


As one with both, in good light there is no real difference. They both take images that are good enough for reports. In poor light, yes, the 6D wipes the floor with the Oly, but outdoors the Oly is king. It's not just me either, when people need a camera they usually grab the Oly because of the size.


----------



## Pape (Jan 28, 2019)

on good light and with 50mm tube olympus is sharper than 5dr with 50mm art sigma.
but on long teles they dont seems to do as good ,maybe cause you cant turn design around?


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 28, 2019)

mpmark said:


> Lipstick on a pig. This time they put sparkly lipstick.
> 
> 1. Its micro 4/3, can't complete with a larger sensor.
> 2. the bokeh is absolutely horrible, like out of a cell phone.
> ...


Maybe you should try a modern Olympus
Bokeh I find is very good. Their lens are great and sharp
Colours are very good.
Noise is fine up to about 1600 and then it can't compete with a full frame but its too be expected.

If you said they make their menu systems and touch implementation way to complicated I'd agree.
I've always thought they should have two menu systems - one for the basics and a second for the complicated stuff.
My one has a mind of its own at times.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 28, 2019)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> Yes ... and when I look at the topic title is reminds me of when people name their Chihuahua "Killer" .. lol


Leave my dog out of this!


----------



## Reeperbahn (Jan 28, 2019)

I tried it last week while I have been at the Olympus launch event in Europe.
I know the EM1 mkII and used it quite a few times. 

The body of the new pro-camera is great. Very good ergonomics but much more compact than you would think from watching the images.

My conclusion is:
It is a very impressive camera. It has literally _*everything *_but image quality_. _ 

If you don't print big (news, papers and magazines, weddings, online, ...) it is a good system for a very good price. 
If you need picture quality at ISO6400, that is not the camera system you want.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 28, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Leave my dog out of this!


That's easy for you to say. I made the mistake of letting kids name the cat, and ended up with "Princess Fluffy Molly Marshmallow Puffhead"


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 28, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> That's easy for you to say. I made the mistake of letting kids name the cat, and ended up with "Princess Fluffy Molly Marshmallow Puffhead"


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Jan 29, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Leave my dog out of this!



Hey, I had one too !! Until last July. I named a redwood after her >> http://www.mdvaden.com/redwood_la_leche.shtml


----------



## Aglet (Jan 29, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> Maybe you should try a modern Olympus
> Bokeh I find is very good. Their lens are great and sharp
> Colours are very good.
> Noise is fine up to about 1600 and then it can't compete with a full frame but its too be expected.
> ...



I agree with your arguments but will point out that Oly's _do_ have a simplified basics menu of sorts, called the SUPER CONTROL PANEL, and it's quickly accessed with a press on the OK button, after which you can select the function and option with scroll wheels or D-pad. It's very intuitive and quick! (Touch-screen too if you have it enabled but I've never tried that)
Between that and the customization options for buttons I rarely find a need to use the C-settings on the mode dial.

see pg. 50 of the user manual
http://olympusamerica.com/files/oima_cckb/em1_markii_enu.pdf

Deep-dive into the regular settings with the MENU button.
It takes some getting used to because of all the control they afford, even on lower end bodies, but it's not hard to use, even if there are better user interfaces on some other brands.


----------



## Aglet (Jan 29, 2019)

mpmark said:


> Lipstick on a pig. This time they put sparkly lipstick.
> 
> 1. Its micro 4/3, can't complete with a larger sensor.
> 2. the bokeh is absolutely horrible, like out of a cell phone.
> ...


Yes, please qualify those opinions. 

1. Yup, hard to argue with physics, especially FF.
2. Huh?... Sure, they have more DoF for a given aperture but the bokeh quality is no worse that any other mfr's lens line-up. Some are nice and smooth and others are grunchy, just like Canon's.
3. Huh?... I disagree. Every Oly I've used since they announced the EM10 provides very decent color Q.
4. This, coming from a Canon shooter?.. 
Again, physics. Larger sensors _will_ win but not by enough to make modern MFT look _bad_ and certainly no Canon crop sensor is going to embarrass it. I'll put this old camera up against any current or recent Canon crop body for IQ across the ISO range and you're going to be hard pressed to show _much_ of a difference. In sensor metrics it falls between 60D and 80D.

attached sample is OOC jpg at 6400 iso from an EM10, not quite as good IQ as the EM1 series.
screenshot of EXIF and a 100% crop as the full image was scaled down by CR site.

I've cleaned up raw files from this little camera as high as 25600 ISO using DXO with results good enough to print 16x12" and the EM1v2 is a little better yet.


----------



## Pape (Jan 29, 2019)

Hmm i watched image comparison R and olympys MX1 on dpreview.com. Looks like iso noise difference is around 1 stop with raw images. That doesnt sound much?
If would have as good lens as RF50 used on olympus ,could deliver as sharp picture without phase shift too .
oops forgot this chat was between x and x models . there canon does nearly 2 stop better . canon 100 iso picture looks better than olypus 200 iso less noisy


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 29, 2019)

Some people can't get over the fact that buying X camera doesn't place them 500% better than Y camera. I speak from experience - I spent big on the 300 2.8 II and didn't find it 500% better than my little plastic EF 70-300. There is a law of diminishing returns at play and all the modern gear is pretty good. To get, say 30% more of whatever, you may be paying 200+% more. If you are willing to pay, fine, you have something superior but _don't knock what is very good at the much lower price._

This is my general assessment, not specifically aimed at this particular camera. Let's say you get a 200% reduction in weight with a 20% loss of IQ. If weight is killing you and this weight reduction allows you to keep taking pics then that is a HUGE advantage to YOU and not to be ridiculed, IMHO.

Obviously, this camera has it's place but will it be financial success ... time will tell.

Jack


----------



## Pape (Jan 29, 2019)

yep olympus seems to be very nice camera .
biggest difference to full frame is youll get pretty large view with 50mm objective.
50mm shows world like eyes sees it it . That Mft cant give without panorma stitching.
Others reason not to like olympus are pretty marginal .Iso performance isnt terrible ,colours can be changed with photoshop,difference on image quality is difficult to see. 
about bokeh i got not idea.


----------



## raptor3x (Jan 29, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> Maybe you should try a modern Olympus
> Bokeh I find is very good. Their lens are great and sharp



The latest f/1.2 primes are good, but the Olympus PRO zooms are infamous for terrible bokeh. Especially the 40-150 PRO which looks like a reflex lens at times.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 29, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> Some people can't get over the fact that buying X camera doesn't place them 500% better than Y camera. I speak from experience - I spent big on the 300 2.8 II and didn't find it 500% better than my little plastic EF 70-300. There is a law of diminishing returns at play and all the modern gear is pretty good. To get, say 30% more of whatever, you may be paying 200+% more. If you are willing to pay, fine, you have something superior but _don't knock what is very good at the much lower price._
> 
> This is my general assessment, not specifically aimed at this particular camera. Let's say you get a 200% reduction in weight with a 20% loss of IQ. If weight is killing you and this weight reduction allows you to keep taking pics then that is a HUGE advantage to YOU and not to be ridiculed, IMHO.
> 
> ...


What does 500% better mean?


----------



## Viggo (Jan 29, 2019)

raptor3x said:


> The latest f/1.2 primes are good, but the Olympus PRO zooms are infamous for terrible bokeh. Especially the 40-150 PRO which looks like a reflex lens at times.


Holy [email protected]!


----------



## Aglet (Jan 30, 2019)

Good example. Typical of "overcorrected" designs I believe.
I'd like to like that lens but I really don't! I could used the performance of it but I cannot get past the horrendously harsh bokeh it can produce in the backgrounds. I refuse to buy it.
The 40-150mm cheapo Olympus kit lens you can get for $100 is not nearly as fast but it can provide much more pleasing backgrounds with decent sharpness but a sports-lens it is not. Performance/price tho, the little plastic kit lens is a winner!

I make a lot of use of the 12-100mm f/4 and while it doesn't provide much blur potential, that which it does create is rendered much more smoothly than the 40-150mm f/2.8.

The Oly 1.2 Pro lenses are specifically engineered to produce smoother bokeh and, from the examples I've seen, they succeed. Out of my price range tho I'm temted to get the 17mm version. I've been using the Oly f/1.8 primes which are quite good but I am moving to the Panasonic equivalents for a better balance of sharpness with more pleasing bokeh.

A Canon example I really didn't like was the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS ii... pretty darn sharp and contrasty but also could show horridly rough bokeh in transition areas under some circumstances... mostly where I needed it! Tamron equivalent performed much better for my use.

Darn compromises.. They're everywhere!





raptor3x said:


> The latest f/1.2 primes are good, but the Olympus PRO zooms are infamous for terrible bokeh. Especially the 40-150 PRO which looks like a reflex lens at times.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 30, 2019)

mpmark said:


> Lipstick on a pig. This time they put sparkly lipstick.
> 
> 1. Its micro 4/3, can't complete with a larger sensor.
> 2. the bokeh is absolutely horrible, like out of a cell phone.
> ...



How about:

1. Sure it can compete with FF if you are a competent photographer.
2. Bokeh is fine if you are a competent photographer.
3. Olympus colors are excellent - I would rank them 2nd to Canon and much better than Sony.
4. Noise is better than many APS-C camera and easily controllable if you are a competent photographer.

Need I say more?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 30, 2019)

AlanF said:


> What does 500% better mean?



Alan, my comments mostly relate to people referring to items as worthless or obsolete when they might lag slightly in some spec like DR. I get annoyed at the idiotic put downs based on, "what's not the best is junk".

500% means whatever you choose to have it mean. It could mean if you pay 5X the amount you feel you should observe 5X the detail with your expensive lens. Obviously it doesn't work like that at all. Perhaps a 10X price increase gets you a 1.2X increase in performance. Now if you're in competition and you're getting a prize and you now have a 20% advantage you could say it's well worth it. Maybe it's scientific and you must have the absolute best. Or maybe it's just your pet indulgence; that's OK but costly for what you get. _But mostly my point is that the item that is 20% better doesn't imply that the cheaper item should be described as poor or unacceptable, when it actually performs quite well._

Some things are very subjective while others can be measured. When I see the bokeh in the pic above I can't put a % on it but I can sure say I don't want it. Sometimes what we get is good value and we're happy in spite of not getting the absolute best performance. That's my take anyway.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 30, 2019)

I think we've all seen pretty horrible bokeh from pretty much all of our lenses under certain circumstances so a single illustrative shot doesn't necessarily imply a lens is unworthy. I'd like to see the identical scene and lighting using all the various lenses and then I'd judge between them.

I love my 400 DO II but bokeh with bright rippling water in the background is not it's strength.

Jack


----------



## tmroper (Jan 30, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> as they say: "The viewfinder features a new optical design using an industry-leading magnification of 0.83x (35mm equivalent). This four-element configuration designed with aspherical and high reflective index lenses provides a clear, distortion-free display right up to the edge of the viewfinder. As found on the OM-D E-M1 Mark II, a 120 fps (progressive scan) high-speed frame rate with a 0.005 second latency are provided for stress-free moving subject photography."
> 
> It is an EVF, but I believe that it has an optical assembly in front of it so that you can do diopter adjustments.



A small OVF to see the EVF. Now that's progress!


----------



## AlanF (Jan 30, 2019)

Lenstip have this morning https://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=554 reviewed the Zuiko Digital ED 17 mm f/1.2 PRO. Quite sensational resolution in the centre. The bokeh isn't up to much apparently, possibly because of so many aspheric elements, they say.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 30, 2019)

tmroper said:


> A small OVF to see the EVF. Now that's progress!


You need a magnifying glass in front of any evf that's a few mm from the eye unless you are pathologically short sighted.


----------



## Pape (Jan 30, 2019)

peaks on 2,8F like best lenses with 5dr ,i guess absolute sharpness is then about same


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 30, 2019)

AlanF said:


> You need a magnifying glass in front of any evf that's a few mm from the eye unless you are pathologically short sighted.



Alan, CR for the humour! 

Jack


----------



## Aglet (Jan 31, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Lenstip have this morning https://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=554 reviewed the Zuiko Digital ED 17 mm f/1.2 PRO. Quite sensational resolution in the centre. The bokeh isn't up to much apparently, possibly because of so many aspheric elements, they say.


I was actually reading that review last night as I hadn't visited that site in a while.
Impressive sharpness across the frame and outstanding center performance but, as you said, the bokeh is still lacking.
While lower constrast OOF image elements are rendered quite nicely, highlights still have that bright rim effect which I find unpleasant and undesirable in a lens at that price.
Unfortunately the site doesn't have similarly comparable sample images for the Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2 Noctitron, nor any at all for the Olympus 45mm f/1.8
However, checking out the affordable Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7 shows a lens that is still impressively sharp, but doesn't appear to have the same bright rim outlined highlights, but a rather neutral rendering. I'd buy that. 
https://www.lenstip.com/440.12-Lens...mm_f_1.7_ASPH._POWER_O.I.S._Sample_shots.html

It seems like many lens designs with aspheric elements have similar issues with grunchy bokeh, but not all.

Fuji's 50-140mm f/2.8 is a pretty complex zoom that avoids aspherics and has a pretty good overall performance and a pleasant rendering, _most_ of the time.
However, busy, contrasty backgrounds that are not far enough OOF cans still look... textured. I generally like this using lens but it can falter too. But now we're well off-topic for this thread. 

EDIT: image below is linked from LensTip site review of Fuji 50-140mm lens gallery.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 31, 2019)

Is this photo Montreal?

Jack


----------



## Aglet (Feb 1, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> Is this photo Montreal?
> 
> Jack


The photo is linked from the Lenstip review site, samples for Fuji 50-140/2.8. I think it may be somewhere in Poland.
I should have stated that in above post.. .now edited.
I haven't shot any images with that lens which show so well how a busy background can still look like a bokeh-mess even on a good lens without aspheric elements.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 1, 2019)

Aglet said:


> The photo is linked from the Lenstip review site, samples for Fuji 50-140/2.8. I think it may be somewhere in Poland.
> I should have stated that in above post.. .now edited.
> I haven't shot any images with that lens which show so well how a busy background can still look like a bokeh-mess even on a good lens without aspheric elements.



Oops, thought it was personal photo.

Jack


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 1, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> Maybe you should try a modern Olympus
> Bokeh I find is very good. Their lens are great and sharp
> Colours are very good.
> Noise is fine up to about 1600 and then it can't compete with a full frame but its too be expected.
> ...


He's never tried one at all. He's just flapping around. He's right on #1 and wrong on the rest. The main problem I have with mine is the small size of the body. He'll probably come back and say he's read this or that, from so and so. Or he watched a YouTube video.

Bokeh itself can be very subjective as to what is good and what isn't. I'm satisfied with the bokeh. The colors reproduce faithfully and are quite good. Mine is used indoors quite often and the noise is fine. The IBIS is fantastic on my short zoom lens (fantastic lens, BTW). I couldn't say for myself on longer Olympus lenses (I wish I could)... which is the real point: One shouldn't speak with authority about something one hasn't experienced.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 1, 2019)

Just handled one after the local store called me in. It is very heavy and the grip isn't deep enough for me and I found it uncomfortable and very heavy to handle with the 40-150mm and the 300mm f/4. It does annoy me when the salesman tells me how much smaller the lenses will be compared with FF when the high density FF sensors make them not far behind the 20mpx MFT sensor in terms of resolution, only 25%-40% and not the factor of two.


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 1, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Just handled one after the local store called me in. It is very heavy and the grip isn't deep enough for me and I found it uncomfortable and very heavy to handle with the 40-150mm and the 300mm f/4. It does annoy me when the salesman tells me how much smaller the lenses will be compared with FF when the high density FF sensors make them not far behind the 20mpx MFT sensor in terms of resolution, only 25%-40% and not the factor of two.


Yes the weight is surprising. Is an extra battery that heavy?


----------



## dak723 (Feb 1, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Just handled one after the local store called me in. It is very heavy and the grip isn't deep enough for me and I found it uncomfortable and very heavy to handle with the 40-150mm and the 300mm f/4. It does annoy me when the salesman tells me how much smaller the lenses will be compared with FF when the high density FF sensors make them not far behind the 20mpx MFT sensor in terms of resolution, only 25%-40% and not the factor of two.



Yes, but high-density FF sensors are NOT what the majority of FF owners have. And this camera is meant for the same sports/action market which does not have high MPs - but rather a comparable amount of MPs. So, yes, you can't make a sweeping comparison between FF and m4/3rds - either way. For some, it is a 25/40% factor, for others it is indeed almost a factor of two.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 2, 2019)

dak723 said:


> Yes, but high-density FF sensors are NOT what the majority of FF owners have. And this camera is meant for the same sports/action market which does not have high MPs - but rather a comparable amount of MPs. So, yes, you can't make a sweeping comparison between FF and m4/3rds - either way. For some, it is a 25/40% factor, for others it is indeed almost a factor of two.


The marketing hype about telephotos giving twice the reach on MFTs is aimed also at those who need the reach, ie wildlife photographers. As a group, they tend to use high density FF sensors, be they Canon or Nikon, or APS-C. And those who use 20mpx sensors usually have f/4 400-600mm lenses + TCs or 150-600mm lenses that are unavailable in the MFT range at present. It’s a sweeping statement to make the claim by MFTs about having twice the reach (and ignoring sensor density) but no one is making a sweeping statement in the other direction - high density FF sensors are very available to those who want or need them.

Of the 1000s of bird photographers I see each year, there is just one who uses an Oly + 300 f/4. But, there are many who use 1” and 2/3” superzooms for the convenience and price. Do you see many sports photographers with MFTs?


----------



## Pape (Feb 2, 2019)

superzooms are lot cheaper ,i hope canon makes 500E 400mm 5,6f plastic version for M mount


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 2, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The marketing hype about telephotos giving twice the reach on MFTs is aimed also at those who need the reach, ie wildlife photographers. As a group, they tend to use high density FF sensors, be they Canon or Nikon, or APS-C. And those who use 20mpx sensors usually have f/4 400-600mm lenses + TCs or 150-600mm lenses that are unavailable in the MFT range at present. It’s a sweeping statement to make the claim by MFTs about having twice the reach (and ignoring sensor density) but no one is making a sweeping statement in the other direction - high density FF sensors are very available to those who want or need them.
> 
> Of the 1000s of bird photographers I see each year, there is just one who uses an Oly + 300 f/4. But, there are many who use 1” and 2/3” superzooms for the convenience and price. Do you see many sports photographers with MFTs?


Agreed!


----------



## noncho (Apr 29, 2019)

I just saw this topic and header 

I had a chance to use E-M1X along with my old 1D X for indoors sports shooting - ATP 250 tennis.
1D X with even older Sigma 300 2.8 gave me a better overall performance and image quality. The price of the combo second hand was about the price of the E-M1X body only. With 1D X II and newer Canon lenses E-M1X would be far away from killing 

Here is a summary, if you want more with pics you can check my first impressions blog - https://nonchoiliev.com/blog/6478
_Olympus E-M1X is a great professional camera, which gives you many opportunities for settings and personalization. Amazing image stabilization. Pleasant user interface and controls.
Disadvantage found during indoor sports shooting – there is a need for more predefined tracking focus algorithm for different sports.
If they really wanna show their best – we need some telephoto lenses like 120 2.0, 180 2.0 and 250 2.8. I did not invent those by myself – Olympus had such 180 and 250mm bright lenses а few decades ago._


----------

