Olympus OM-D E-M1X

[DickyOZ]

What ever was Olympus thinking of when this body was approved for production?
The OM-D Edsel would have been more appropriate.
What a huge disappointment.

Improved AF but CAF and tracking still abysmal; low light still poor. EVF and LCD sub standard. Same old sensor but improved machine gun photography to get more keepers. A menu system that has gone from D- to F.

Hand held Hi Res at 1/60sec. Great, I can now record heat haze in 50MB RAW. OK, static butterflies would look good - I'll get another can of Baygon.

But it does have all the sensors (GPS, magnetometer, barometer, thermometer) that my cheapo phone has.

OK, I'm just a grumpy old man. who doesn't want to part with AU$4800 for a small sensor and moderate IQ.

[mugge]

I think you may be right except for the small sensor. I am getting the Olympus m-1 mark 2, small sensor and all and heaps of reasonably priced lenses that I can carry about me well into old age. Try to do that with a full frame camera. Do an experiment in enlargement of photos of full frame camera and micro 4/3 and there are no discernable differences.

I will never own a full frame camera. Simply because they are way too bulky and heavy to carry around. Photography should be pleasurable not a heavy load

[xpatUSA]

I think you may be right except for the small sensor. I am getting the Olympus m-1 mark 2, small sensor and all and heaps of reasonably priced lenses that I can carry about me well into old age. Try to do that with a full frame camera. Do an experiment in enlargement of photos of full frame camera and micro 4/3 and there are no discernible differences.

I agree with the sentiment, Ole, but can not agree with the all-encompassing statement. There will have to be differences I reckon, if only based on the dreaded subject of equivalence. One glaring example is f-number: if you had a f/1.4 lens on a 135 format camera, you would need to get an f/0.7 lens for the Olympus - kind of hard to do, I would have thought ... or pretty expensive, anyways.

I will never own a full frame camera. Simply because they are way too bulky and heavy to carry around. Photography should be pleasurable not a heavy load

But there does seem to be a choice of "rangefinder" style 'full frame' ILC cameras, these days ... fairly small, like they used to be. I myself have an APS-C compact camera albeit fixed lens which takes better shots than it's DSLR (same sensor) brother.

[Manfred M]

I think you may be right except for the small sensor. I am getting the Olympus m-1 mark 2, small sensor and all and heaps of reasonably priced lenses that I can carry about me well into old age. Try to do that with a full frame camera. Do an experiment in enlargement of photos of full frame camera and micro 4/3 and there are no discernable differences.

I will never own a full frame camera. Simply because they are way too bulky and heavy to carry around. Photography should be pleasurable not a heavy load

Ole - there are a number of questionable assumptions in your posting:

If all you are doing is posting images on the internet, then a smaller sensor is going to have a more limited impact on your image than a large one simply because you are throwing most of the pixels your camera has captured away. If, on the other hand, you are a large format printer like me, the difference in image quality in a larger print (A2 / 17" x 22") is obvious, especially if any cropping has been done in the shot. As a retoucher, I vastly prefer working with images with a high pixel count; it simply gives me a lot more material to work with. The simple truth is that the image from a small sensor camera has to be enlarged a lot more than a large sensor one and the artifacts of upsampling (primarily softening), reduced pixel count and lens sharpness all tend to reduce image quality.

Another problem with small sensors is that when using the same equivalent focal length (i.e. getting a similar FoV / AoV) with a smaller camera body, one needs to compensate by using a wider aperture. If I have a full frame camera and shoot at f/2; on an APS-C sensor camera I would need an f/1.4 lens for the equivalent DoF and on a mFT camera I would need an f/1 lens. So the smaller the sensor, the more I need a large aperture lens which increases price and weight and generally decreases image quality, especially when one gets faster than f/1.4. The Cosina company recognized this need for mFT cameras had has made good money producing and selling ultra fast (and expensive) Voigtländer lenses for this market.

Smaller camera bodies, especially mirrorless ones, are more compact and weigh less than full frame ones, but they tend to suffer from two problems. The first is that there is less physical space for controls, so functionality that can be put on the camera body on a full-frame camera is often buried in menu settings. This means that rather than being to work by feel and make adjustments without removing my eye from the viewfinder, I have to go through a much more complex operation of finding and making my choices with a menu. I can 100% guarantee missed shots, because that has definitely happened to me.

Small cameras also tend to have smaller viewfinders and this can be a real disadvantage when people get older and have a higher degree of visual issues. I find it interesting that I see a lot of experienced photographers holding and shooting their high end Sony and Fujifilm cameras as if they were point and shoot cameras; using the screen on the back of the camera body, rather than the viewfinder.

So sorry, it's not as simple and straight forward as you thing, Ole. The camera body itself may be smaller, but some of the other tradeoffs come into play as well. The real answer depends on the type of shooting you are doing and the tradeoffs you are willing to make.

[mugge]

I go out quite often with my Olympus m-1 and my 40-150mm 2.8 lens. After 4 to 6 hours it gets a bit uncomfortable in temperatures about 25 degrees. I have done the same with a full frame Canon (5d) and a 70-300mm lens. Very uncomfortable. I know all the bad points about the micro 4/3 system. I like taking photos and enjoy it as well and micro 4/3 fits the bill.

That is the main reason I switched to micro 4/3 format and I do also like all the reasonable quality lenses available to me at prices that will not disturb me too much.

Cheers Ole

[DickyOZ]

I think you may be right except for the small sensor. I am getting the Olympus m-1 mark 2, small sensor and all and heaps of reasonably priced lenses that I can carry about me well into old age. Try to do that with a full frame camera. Do an experiment in enlargement of photos of full frame camera and micro 4/3 and there are no discernable differences.

I will never own a full frame camera. Simply because they are way too bulky and heavy to carry around. Photography should be pleasurable not a heavy load

I have the E-M1 and will probably get the Mk2 if my Mk1 dies. I too could not go to full frame because of the weight and the need for a tripod compared to my E-M1 and 300mm F4 which I can hand hold down to 1/60sec. I can also hike great distances over rough terrain without needing a camel. The IQ is adequate for my needs but many of the forums I visit show the right FF would leave me for dead (in more ways than one ). The E-M1X is clearly targeting a different section of the market to me. At AU$4500 it is a lot to ask for an MFT body - which has grown to almost FF size. Future releases of firmware may add the features I need - small target CAF and tracking. Low light will always be a problem for MFT - I struggle in rain forests where many interesting subject live but move too quickly for the ISO and shutter I am constrained to.

[xpatUSA]

What ever was Olympus thinking of when this body was approved for production?
The OM-D Edsel would have been more appropriate.

Got me beat!:



That is a seriously stupid-looking camera, IMNSHO.

I am reminded of when Sigma came out with their Quattro models ...

I am also reminded of recent car styling with open gaping "mouths" at the front ...

<>

Hand held Hi Res at 1/60sec. Great, I can now record heat haze in 50MB RAW.

"50MB, mate? Call that big? Now this is big!" (selects DNG on a Sigma Quattro).

Pardon the levity.

OK, static butterflies would look good - I'll get another can of Baygon.

But it does have all the sensors (GPS, magnetometer, barometer, thermometer) that my cheapo phone has.

OK, I'm just a grumpy old man, who doesn't want to part with AU$4800 for a small sensor and moderate IQ.

Me too. Quite happy with my 12MP μ4/3rds early Panasonics (G1, GH1) which are already way too "big" for my 2MP monitor.

[Manfred M]

Ole / Richard / Ted - the one thing that these comments tell me is that you are not the target audience of this camera.

Ted - Seriously stupid looking? In that case, my I show you what the top of the line Canon and Nikon pro cameras look like?






Note that they have the same stupid look. Both these cameras have the same target audience as the Olympus camera that the three of you are complaining about. These are aimed at sports / action photographers who are planning to do a lot of shooting without having to be overly concerned with battery life (the grip holds an oversized, high capacity battery) and will be shooting in both horizontal / landscape orientation and vertical / portrait orientation. The oversize grip has secondary controls and a second shutter release button that are set at a 90 degree orientation versus what more standard cameras have.

As a portrait shooter, I use an add-on grip most of the time on my camera body, definitely a feature that many portrait shooters use because it is far more comfortable to hold and use the camera in vertical / portrait orientation. My arm and hands are a lot steadier and less tired at the end of the day when shooting this way.

[xpatUSA]

Ole / Richard / Ted - the one thing that these comments tell me is that you are not the target audience of this camera.

Ted - Seriously stupid looking? In that case, may I show you what the top of the line Canon and Nikon pro cameras look like?

Perhaps I was showing some bias, Manfred.

I started digital with a Kodak point-and-shoot in the 90's and moved on to a Nikon D50 for more serious snaps - it felt big and heavy by comparison with a good few more buttons, IIRC. These days, I trend toward minimal with a vengeance:



Do observe the paucity of button-ware ...

So perhaps you can now understand why the Olympus, crammed with buttons/wheels from top to bottom (even compared to it's smaller cousin) looked "stupid" to my eyes.

[Manfred M]

Perhaps I was showing some bias, Manfred.

I started digital with a Kodak point-and-shoot in the 90's and moved on to a Nikon D50 for more serious snaps - it felt big and heavy by comparison with a good few more buttons, IIRC. These days, I trend toward minimal with a vengeance:


Do observe the paucity of button-ware ...

So perhaps you can now understand why the Olympus, crammed with buttons/wheels from top to bottom (even compared to it's smaller cousin) looked "stupid" to my eyes.

I can understand it from the perspective from what I mentioned in #4 and #8; you are not the target audience of this camera, so you don't understand why someone would find this size / configuration useful.

When I shoot in the studio by myself, I can tell you what my camera settings are: ISO 64, shutter speed 1/160th sec, flash white balance, single focus point and a target aperture of f/8. I can go through a whole shoot without ever changing any of those settings. In fact, I will adjust the lighting so that I am in that range and the only setting that does change will be my aperture where I will work between f/5.6 and f/11 depending on what I am doing.

Get me out in the field shooting action and I want to be in a position to change all those variables, focus mode, metering mode, shooting mode, exposure compensation, etc. without taking my eye off the viewfinder. A large(r) camera body, like this Olympus appears to have been designed with people that shoot this way in mind; specifically event, sports and wildlife shooters who might miss a key shot if they had to take the camera away from their eye to make these types of adjustments.

[xpatUSA]

<> you are not the target audience of this camera, so you don't understand why someone would find this size / configuration useful.

Not sure how my comments amounted to a lack of understanding. I don't like whiskey but I can understand why some people do.

I'll leave the Last Word to your good self ...

[davidedric]

I'm also struggling to see which market this camera is aimed at. It must be either aimed at creating a new niche, or muscling in on an existing one and I just can't see how to make money there.

As Manfred illustrated in post #8, there are existing cameras with a similar set of controls, and if I were in that market, then I wouldn't be buying the Olympus.

As has already been said, this is a major departure from the original micro four thirds concept (heck, even the G9 was a step too far for me).

However, I have to assume that the good folks at Olympus know more than I do (though beware the Abiline paradox), so I will watch and wait.

Dave

[DickyOZ]

Ole / Richard / Ted - the one thing that these comments tell me is that you are not the target audience of this camera.

Ted - Seriously stupid looking? In that case, my I show you what the top of the line Canon and Nikon pro cameras look like?
al / portrait orientation. My arm and hands are a lot steadier and less tired at the end of the day when shooting this way.

I think we are all agreed we are not the target market for this camera. I personally was not too worried by the size it it had delivered on CAF and tracking and would work better than my E-M1 in poor light. I would have shelled out the big dollars.

But most of us were expecting MICRO not MEGA four thirds.

A lot of E-M1.2 owners are hoping the X firmware will trickle down to their current camera, but it won't (and can't) - the the X has two powerful processors to cope with the load.

Many think it was designed with the 2020 Olympics in Japan in mind. But unless they've added monster truck madness and locomotive racing to the list of events the Tracking will need some serious work before then. At the moment it doesn't seem to be able to keep anything smaller than a Landcruiser in focus.

[DickyOZ]

One other disappointment is the 150-400mm F4.5 to be released early next year. It will be eye-wateringly expensive but still too dark for birding except in bright sunlight. The MC-20 due out in a couple of months will turn my 300mm F4 into a 600mm F8.

So all in all the Olympus 2019 announcements have so far have missed a huge section of the Olympus faithful and fan club.

[Manfred M]

I But unless they've added monster truck madness and locomotive racing to the list of events the Tracking will need some serious work before then. At the moment it doesn't seem to be able to keep anything smaller than a Landcruiser in focus.

Unfortunately, that is still a key deficiency with contrast detect autofocus systems. There is a reason that high end sports photographers are shooting the Canon 1Dx Mk II and the Nikon D5 with their dedicated phase detect hardware.