There are really four distinct "types" of image quality in the interchangeable lens camera market today... Cameras within each category have broadly similar maximum IQ when you account for resolution, dynamic range, noise and all other factors that go into making a good print, assuming a similar lens. Some may have an unusual strength or weakness in some area... The most extreme versions of a sensor with an unusual strength are the D5 and EOS-1Dx mkII, with modest IQ at base ISO, but very high maximum ISO. At least as I see it, from having used and printed from all of these types, each type should be differentiable from the types above and below it in a good print of an appropriate size (don't expect to tell III from IV in an 8x12" print of a low-dynamic range scene,for example). There are plenty of cameras below Type I in use - a dear friend has an old Nikon D70 she uses mainly as a viewfinder for her 4x5" view camera. You can't buy one with interchangeable lenses today unless there's a Nikon 1 or a Pentax Q sitting on a shelf somewhere. Some medium format cameras (100 and 150 MP CMOS, 80 MP CCD under ideal conditions) probably come in well above Type IV, but I've never used one.
Type I (smaller, older, and low-resolution sensors):
The very common (no longer sold, as far as I know, but still out there in huge numbers) Sony 16 MP "D7000" sensor found in many Nikons, Sonys, Fujis and Pentaxes from a few years ago is the classic Type I sensor. Most Canon APS-C sensors fall in this category, as they give up dynamic range and noise handling to the D7000 sensor that compensates for their slightly higher resolution. The newest improved Canon APS-C sensors may well be Type II. Any Micro 4/3 sensor I've seen is clearly Type I, including the newest 20 MP sensor. The 20 MP Micro 43 sensor slightly underperforms the D7000 sensor in my limited experience with it. The very best 1" sensors may scrape the bottom of Type I. There are some oddities in here like the resolution-starved, but otherwise excellent 12 MP sensor in the D3 and D700 with its much lower resolution, but much better DR, than most others in this category. At low ISOs, Type I will comfortably print 13x19, and pushes up to 16x24" without too much work, although you can go bigger with lower-detail subjects. Most of them have a maximum "decent" ISO around 1600 (makes a good 8x12" print), no matter what the menu says. The odd D3/D700 sensor which will go quite a bit higher is the biggest exception to the ISO rule.
Type II (good 24 MP sensors)
The classic Type II sensor is the ubiquitous Sony 24 MP APS-C sensor. It's found in so many cheap cameras that one of the major issues with it is that it is often paired with lenses that don't do it justice (any non-Fuji 18-55, for example). With the good glass it usually finds in its Fuji guise, or with a well-chosen lens on a Sony, Nikon or Pentax, it'll push right on up to 24x36" on many subjects, and 16x24" is its sweet spot at low ISO. It has a lot more dynamic range than any Type I sensor except for the D3/D700 sensor. Also in Type II are most ~16-24 MP FF sensors - the difference between the latest 24 MP APS-C sensor behind a Fujinon 16-55 f2.8 and 24 MP FF is not easy to see. Maximum "decent" ISO for an 8x12" print varies between 1600-3200 for the older versions of the Sony APS-C sensor and some of the Canons up to some unimaginable number for the odd sensors in the D5 and 1Dx mkII. At ISO 200, I'd prefer the IQ of an X-T2 to either of those, but I don't want to THINK of shooting an X-T2 at a six-dight ISO, and a D5 can (sort of) do that. The two "sports titan" sensors are almost a subtype of their own, with their relatively modest base ISO IQ but absurd maximum ISOs.
Type III (high-resolution FF, below the latest BSI sensors).
The most common Type III sensor is the 36 MP Sony FF sensor that showed up in the original A7r, the D800/D800e/D810, and the two versions of the Pentax K1. I don't know the Canon 30 MP sensor found in the 5D mk IV and EOS-R well, but it might be in the bottom of this category or at the top of Type II. The oddity here is the 50 MP sensor in the Canon 5Ds and 5Ds R, which gives up dynamic range and noise performance to anything else in this category, but has a ton of resolution. The Sony sensor has maybe an extra stop of DR over a good APS-C Type II sensor, although not over some of the newer 24 MP FF designs. It also has a nice resolution bump that makes 24x36" prints easier to hit at reasonable ISOs (below 400 or 800?). It'll make a nice 8x12" print at ISO 6400...
Type IV (the best we have right now - other than $40,000 Phase backs)
This category is defined by a pair of near-twin Sony BSI full-frame sensors, Sony's own 42.4 MP version and the one they make for Nikon with a bit of a resolution bump to 45.7 MP and a base ISO of 64. Other occupants include the common (by medium-format standards) 50 MP 33x44 mm sensor and a few CCD-based medium-format oddities with extraordinary base ISO performance but maximum usable ISOs around 400 . There's an extra stop of low-ISO dynamic range here over Type III - much of it due to low base ISO on the Nikon sensor and big pixels on the MF sensors. The resolution bump is less significant than the extra stop, but it's noticeable. The biggest difference I have noticed between my new Z7 and Type III cameras I have used is that noise just isn't there on the Z7 (and almost certainly its close relatives) at ISO 64. Zoom in to 100% and it's all image detail, no noise. Think of a 4x5" transparency on a light box - drop any reasonable loupe on it, and all you get is more and more detail... The 36 MP sensor was by no means noisy, but it wasn't utterly noiseless at any ISO. How big will this print? Well, what's the widest roll of paper you've got? I don't have a 44" printer, but I have a VERY strong suspicion these sensors will be just fine at those sizes at or near base ISO. I haven't run the ISO up to see, but the reputation of these sensors other than the CCDs in older Phase and Hasselblad backs is very strong. It's almost a shame to touch the ISO dial, though - I've shot the Z7 as high as 1600, and it's very, very good - but it isn't utterly noiseless the way it is near base ISO.
There may be a Type V
Some recent medium-format oddities like the Phase One 100 MP backs, especially the Trichromatic, the new 150 MP backs, and probably the as-yet unseen 100MP 33x44mm sensor (Fuji GFX 100) offer yet another level of image quality. Right now, the price of entry is around $40,000 - if the GFX 100 lives up to expectations, it'll drop the cost of this level of performance by 75%.
What makes the new Olympus odd is that it is almost certainly a Type I sensor and, unless they've done something unexpected, it's not even likely to be an especially good performer at high ISO within its class. Unless it's a new sensor that's significantly above the current performance/size curve, it will offer raw sensor performance significantly below what you can get for $500. Of course, its images will be better than 99% of what you see from $500 cameras, both because of lenses (it's rare to see a $1000 lens on a $500 body, although many of the lenses that would show the full potential of the Sony 24 MP sensor cost $1000) and because it is likely to be used by people who understand exposure and composition.
Assuming a $1000+ price bump over the E-M1 mk II, it's a ~$3000 camera. The big Canon and Nikon sports bodies have always been at least a $2000 bump over anything else in their lines, while the Sony A9 is a $1300 bump over the much higher resolution A7rIII and a $2500 bump over the A7III. The only other cameras at that price point or above offer either Type IV image quality or extreme high ISO performance (or are Leicas, which operate by their own rules). The most expensive camera that is neither full-frame or larger nor a Leica is the Fuji X-H1, which lists for $1900 but often carries a rebate. You can often find one around $1500-$1600 if you count the value of included accessories. The X-H1 probably offers the highest image quality of any non full-frame camera, unless its own stablemate (the X-T3) has pulled slightly ahead.
What could Olympus possibly do to offer value at nearly double the price of the X-H1 without using a larger sensor? They aren't going to break the laws of optical physics and come up with a sensor 1/4 the size of any other camera over $2000 that offers comparable performance to even the most basic FF sensor. If they have such a sensor, it won't be long until someone makes a bigger one and drops it in an APS-C or FF body. Can they ruggedize it enough over the already excellent E-M1 mkII to give it even a small niche? If so, it had better carry a depth rating of at least 50 feet and hopefully more (and it'll need new lenses - existing Micro 43 lenses aren't rated for diving)! Can they speed it up? The E-M1 mkII is already a 15 FPS camera - If it's 30 fps, why not simply call it a dedicated camcorder that has a good enough resolution/compression combination that you can extract stills from the video? A few sports photographers do this with REDs and other high-resolution video cameras. It seems very unlikely that it will have usable 6-digit ISOs when every other Micro 43 camera realistically tops out under 3200 - if it does, it's a sensor breakthrough...
Olympus engineers' lives are further complicated by the fact that the existing E-M1 mk II is already as close to the big-body sports titans as its sensor will allow. It actually has a higher frame rate than either Canon or Nikon, although it lags the 20 FPS of the Sony A9 slightly. Its rugged build will stand up to any abuse short of swimming or diving with it. Its AF system is right in the running for the best there is. Its base ISO image quality lags the rest, and its high-ISO performance lags the rest significantly, simply because it's exposing 1/4 as much silicon to the light. It's hard to improve what's already state of the art, especially when the size and price of the new design mean losing two of its most compelling features - being half the size of the non-Sony competition, and being 1/3 or 1/4 the price of any competitor.
Another of the E-M1 mk II's special features is its image stabilizer - and, again, it probably can't be significantly improved. With the specific lens that engages the full power of the stabilizer, the 12-100mm f4 PRO, Olympus engineers claim they've hit a limit imposed by the rotation of the Earth. They could build more lenses that get 6.5 stops of stabilization, and that would be worthwhile.
Lenses are a huge issue to compete in the pro sports arena...
The standards are:
70-200mm f2.8 - the m43 equivalent would be a 35-100 mm f1.4. This (or something close) may actually exist as a cinema lens, but it's bigger, heavier and more expensive than a 70-200 f2.8 for full-frame. If they can make it to sell for $2000-$2500, a 35-100 f1.4 may actually make sense...
300 mm f2.8 - the m43 equivalent would be a 150mm f1.4. Something close to this does exist as a cinema lens from a number of manufacturers. It's a 135mm with T-stops between 1.3(!!!) and 1.9(T-stop measures actual light transmission, while f-stops are theoretical - a f1.4 lens will typically be between T1.5 and T1.9) , but most versions of it are much more expensive than a 300mm f2.8. There is a Chinese lens that's only a little more expensive than Canon and Nikon 300 mm f2.8s.
400 mm f2.8 - NOBODY makes the equivalent 200mm f1.4, even as a $50,000 cinema lens - or, if they do, B&H doesn't know about it.
600mm f4 - Nikon actually made a 300mm f2.0 for still photography in the 1980s, in very small numbers (400-500 ever made). It was a "real enough" lens to show up in Nikon catalogs, and B&H even stocked it for a time. Canon seems to have made a few (tens or less) 300mm f1.8s for photo-finishes at horse races in the 1980s or 1990s - if so, they never made it into a Canon catalog or the Canon museum. No autofocus versions of the Nikkor ever existed, although the Canon was an autofocus lens! At least some examples of the Nikkor exist and occasionally show up for sale! Most survivors are now in cinema mounts.
180(200)-400mm f4 - the m43 equivalent is a 90-200mm f2, which doesn't presently exist.
All of the prime lenses are at least possible - the 150mm f1.4 is a shorter member of the 200mm f2/300mm f2.8/400mm f4 lens family with a front element diameter around 100mm or a little over, generally weighing around 5 lbs and costing around $6000. The other two are in the 300mm f2.0/400mm f2.8/600mm f4/800 mm f5.6 family, with front element diameters over 150mm, weighing 8-10 lbs and costing over $10,000.
The question is whether they make sense for Olympus (or anyone else) to make? Even in Nikon F-mount, it looks like the 300mm f2.8 Nikkor in its various guises, the least exotic of these lenses, has sold a few thousand per year. Canon may sell 10,000 300mm f2.8s annually, but that's probably high. My best guess (and it's little more than a guess, slightly informed by Nikon serial numbers) is that Nikon sells between 5000 and 10,000 of the big primes 300mm f2.8 and above combined per year, along with a couple thousand of the 180-400mm zoom. Canon may sell twice that, and Sigma, Sony and now Fuji may combine to sell a few thousand lenses in this range each year. Pentax and Phase/Mamiya sell a negligible number of lenses like this (have you ever seen either one other than at PhotoPlus or Photokina?) - old designs that they made a batch of years ago and sell one or two every now and again.
Canon and Nikon have been at this for decades, and have full lines of exotic telephotos. Sigma has long sold lower-priced versions of similar lenses, often with innovative focal lengths or zooms where the competition is prime - a 120-300mm f2.8 that competes with 300mm f2.8 lenses or a 300-800mm f5.6 instead of a straight 800mm. They also have an unbelievable 200-500mm f2.8 zoom that may well be the next generation of legendary white elephants like the Nikkor 300mm f2.0. Sony and Fuji have one exotic telephoto apiece, both recent designs - Sony's 400mm f2.8 and Fuji's brand-new 200mm f2.0 (300 mm f2.8 equivalent).
What would Olympus sell? 500 150mm f1.4s per year? That's almost a quarter of the equivalent 300mm f2.8s Nikon sells with 50 years in the supertele business and the second largest pro user base. Could Olympus sell 1000 of all of the primes and the 90-200 f2 zoom combined each year? Maybe, at most...
The one of these lenses that might actually sell in sensible quantities is a 35-100mm f1.4. Nikon sells about 50,000 70-200 f2.8s annually (Canon undoubtedly sells more than that, but their serial numbers don't point to production quantities). If Olympus could sell 5000 35-100 f1.4s annually, it might be worth it, especially with the bragging rights of "the world's fastest zoom".
The cameras Olympus really needs to make are not a $3000 body with unbelievable features but that weighs and costs more than MANY cameras with far superior image quality (it's going to be the same price as and heavier than a bunch of cameras nearing the IQ of 4x5" film, and it's bringing "good 35mm film" IQ to the party). The right direction is something that takes advantage of m43's size and weight advantages! Update the E-M1 mkII if there's something worth adding, especially if there's a new sensor - the sensor is BY FAR its biggest weakness since even a $1500 camera that lags every $500 Sony-sensored APS-C camera in maximum image quality is a tough sell, no matter how much better it is in every other way.
1.) A $1000 camera that is most of an E-M1 mk II (ideally with a better sensor if available) - it would probably be an E-M5 mk III. It can dispense with the 15 fps top speed (7-10 with AF is fine), and the big battery won't fit. Keep the amazing IS! Maybe it's not QUITE as rugged as the E-M1 mk II, but it needs to be as rugged as, say, an X-T2. Should be as small and light as the original E-M5. Basically, it's a mid-range APS-C camera (think Nikon D5600 or D7500, Canon 77D or 80D, Fuji X-E3), that trades off some image quality for smaller size, a bit of speed, some extra ruggedness and sealing and a superb IBIS system.
2.) The lightest camera they can possibly make that preserves the ruggedness and the IBIS. Go to 3-5 FPS, ditch some of the external controls, relocate the OVF to the left side. Sell it for $700 to outdoor sports enthusiasts!
Poll
29 (34.1%)
