Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: E-M1x specs posted  (Read 1917 times)

DP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
Re: E-M1x specs posted
« Reply #20 on: January 25, 2019, 09:47:58 pm »

Not to forget true R-G-B capture on pixel level instead of demosaicing, like Foveon or 3CCD.
except Foveon does not capute R-G-B... it has to use subtractive math to get to R-G-B data... do not believe marketing pictures showing RGB colored layers in Foveon they are not what is really captured
Logged

mcbroomf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 895
    • Mike Broomfield
Re: E-M1x specs posted
« Reply #21 on: January 26, 2019, 06:27:14 am »

There are two reasons I'm highly skeptical of the image quality of the 50 MP stitch mode approaching that of true 40+ MP sensors - dynamic range (and related) performance and stitching/subject movement.
.....

The second issue is the Sony A9, which offers two stops of extra DR and otherwise much better image quality in a similarly speedy camera for a similar price (when the A9 is on sale). Yes, you trade off some stabilization and the best-in class weather sealing for the image quality.

For low ISO the OM 1DII and 5DII already match the 40MP+ sensors in DR with their high res mode, at least according to the data supplied by Bill Claff
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_HighResShotMode.htm#Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1%20Mark%20II,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1%20Mark%20II(HR),Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M5%20Mark%20II,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M5%20Mark%20II(HR)

The Sony A9 gives up a stop+ of low ISO DR to all of the 40+ mp sensor cameras (and presumably then the high rez OM) and the 24mp A73, perhaps partly due to the high frame rate
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D850,Nikon%20Z%207,Sony%20ILCE-7M3,Sony%20ILCE-7RM3,Sony%20ILCE-9

Stitching and subject movment are real of course and limit the use of the feature.
Logged

Dan Wells

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 978
Re: E-M1x specs posted
« Reply #22 on: January 26, 2019, 12:40:13 pm »

How is the stitching adding DR? I trust Photons to Photos that it is, but I didn't realize that it was using different shutter speeds for the multiple exposures (which would seem to be the easiest way of accomplishing what is effectively an HDR merge in addition to the pixel-shifting). I wonder if the handheld multi-shot mode on the EM1x will be capable of the same trick?

I also didn't realize that the A9 was a unique sensor. I thought it was part of the 24 MP Sony-sensor pack, although with unusually fast readout and processing hardware. These results look like it's a different sensor that gives up some low-ISO performance for speed.

The improved DR by stitching makes the question of "stitch or bin" all the more interesting. High-resolution sensors are rapidly reaching the point where they could produce a decent file size by binning adjacent pixels. I'd imagine it would require modified hardware, notably  either a different Bayer filter pattern or a way of summing nearby pixels of the same color - they wouldn't actually be adjacent, because there would be a differently filtered pixel in between.

If the summing could be done directly on the sensor in fast hardware, it should offer close to 4x frame rate and ISO for a given noise level. Some old Phase backs did this, admittedly going from ~1 fps to 3+ fps, not 5 to 20...

A really good "speed/resolution" camera that used binning in speed mode would, of course, need the AF system of a sports-oriented camera (speed and tracking) to work well at those speeds.

It would make for interesting times if the EM1x's multishot modes work very well and the Nikon Z9 or Sony A9r turns out to be 60 mp at 6 fps, but also 15 mp at 22 fps... Especially if it's also 60mp 16 bit, even if that's at 1.5 fps.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6418
Re: E-M1x specs posted
« Reply #23 on: January 26, 2019, 02:15:19 pm »

How is the stitching adding DR? I trust Photons to Photos that it is, but I didn't realize that it was using different shutter speeds for the multiple exposures (which would seem to be the easiest way of accomplishing what is effectively an HDR merge in addition to the pixel-shifting).
I do not know the implementation details, but even taking multiple exposures at the same shutter speed will give extra information that can increase the effective (perceived) dynamic range, for example by averaging which lowers the noise level relative to the signal level. (This is somewhat related to the fact the increasing the number of pixels while keeping the per pixel DR the same effectively increase "per image DR": the shadow handing and such seen at equal display size will be improved though the smaller apparent size of each pixel in the displayed image, and the consequent dithering or spatial averaging by the eye.
Logged

Dan Wells

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 978
Re: E-M1x specs posted
« Reply #24 on: January 26, 2019, 03:08:26 pm »

DPReview just posted their studio test shots for the EM1x -the interesting part is that 80MP (tripod) pixel shift was included.

While the magnification of the image is clearly 80 MP, the actual detail is not. In an absolutely ridiculous comparison, I was able to look at it alongside a Phase One IQ180 - sorry, not in the same league (but it shouldn't be - the Phase costs $19,000 used - and if you think an EM1x is heavy...). The Phase also has a base ISO of 35. Confirming that DPReview had used the 80MP mode, rather than the 50MP mode, the image size was just about identical.

Against a more reasonable comparison, a Nikon Z7 that is somewhat lighter and slightly more expensive, the Olympus holds its own. The Z7 holds detail a little better in every part of the image, but only a little (and it has a 1 2/3 stop ISO advantage).

The Olympus may have had a lens advantage (DPReview doesn't say what lens they used for each camera). It's almost certain that the Olympus was one of the very sharp Olympus PRO lenses - the 45mm f1.2 PRO? Was the Nikkor one of the 85mm G lenses on the FTZ? The f1.4 is quite sharp, as is a good copy of the f1.8, but I'd be surprised if either of these 8 year old lenses is as sharp as the upcoming 85mm Z lens will be. The best comparison would have been the 25mm PRO against the 50mm Z lens, but DPReview shoots their target with a portrait lens...

Stepping down a little to try and find something very close to the same detail level, a D810 works very well. In some parts of the image the Olympus seems to have a little more detail, in other places the Nikon does.

The pixel shift mode clearly has more resolution than an X-T2. I would have been very concerned if it didn't!

Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1445
Re: E-M1x specs posted
« Reply #25 on: January 27, 2019, 12:31:29 am »

Against a more reasonable comparison, a Nikon Z7 that is somewhat lighter and slightly more expensive, the Olympus holds its own. The Z7 holds detail a little better in every part of the image, but only a little (and it has a 1 2/3 stop ISO advantage.)

Actually, the Z is almost a pound lighter (14.5 oz.)

The Z is also more than 3 centimeters shorter and almost a centimeter thinner. (The Oly is insignificantly wider -- 2mm.) The Z7 costs about $400 more, but a better camera-to-camera comparison IMHO would be with the Z6 with its 24.5 megapixels vs. 20.4 for the Oly. The Z6 costs about $1000 less.

Some of the weight and size difference would be negated by the bigger FF lenses.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6418
E-M1x: size and weight comparisons
« Reply #26 on: January 27, 2019, 08:01:35 am »

Weight and size comparisons only make much sense vs other cameras with vertical grips, including adding accessory grips to potential rivals like the D500. (One aspect being that the weights then include the extra batteries.) Those of us who do not need or want that bulky vertical grip option are better off looking at the E-M1; either the current Mk 2 or the hoped for Mk 3.

Aside: the increase in size over the E-M1 is far greater than the increase in weight; is a lot of of it about more and bigger buttons with more room between them, for the sake of fast-paced operation?
Logged

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1293
    • Robert's Photos
Re: E-M1x specs posted
« Reply #27 on: January 27, 2019, 11:38:21 am »



I find these size and weight discussions/criticisms bizarre. The E-M1X is bigger and heavier than the other Olympus bodies in much the same way and for probably similar reasons to why the Nikon D5 is a bigger and heavier than other Nikon "full-frame" bodies. No one had a bird when the D5 was announced.

I have a E-M1 and use a grip now and then, and the combo is not far off the size of the E-M1X, so what's the big deal. The E-M1X is a niche product and if you're not in that niche you probably shouldn't buy one. I can't see the D5 being used for street photography much either.

If you shoot sports/action in m4/3s, then it's a good product. The combination of the E-M1X with the Oly 40-150/f2.8 is still A LOT smaller and lighter than any Nikon/Canon field-of-view equivalent, so for those who want to use this m4/3s system they can now do so with a better body.

Logged
--
Robert robertroaldi.zenfolio.com

Rory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 528
    • Recent images
Re: E-M1x specs posted
« Reply #28 on: January 27, 2019, 05:32:14 pm »

If you shoot sports/action in m4/3s, then it's a good product.

It will be if the CAF is up to the task.  The E-M1.2 CAF was a major disappointment (I own one, but did not buy it as an action camera) and from what I have seen so far, the E-M1X CAF does not appear to be able to cut the mustard.  If that is the case then it is not a good product for action.  It looks to me as another case of Olympus over-hyping the AF.
Logged
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/roryhi

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1445
Re: E-M1x specs posted
« Reply #29 on: January 27, 2019, 07:28:48 pm »


I find these size and weight discussions/criticisms bizarre. The E-M1X is bigger and heavier than the other Olympus bodies in much the same way and for probably similar reasons to why the Nikon D5 is a bigger and heavier than other Nikon "full-frame" bodies. No one had a bird when the D5 was announced.

I have a E-M1 and use a grip now and then, and the combo is not far off the size of the E-M1X, so what's the big deal. The E-M1X is a niche product and if you're not in that niche you probably shouldn't buy one. I can't see the D5 being used for street photography much either.

If you shoot sports/action in m4/3s, then it's a good product. The combination of the E-M1X with the Oly 40-150/f2.8 is still A LOT smaller and lighter than any Nikon/Canon field-of-view equivalent, so for those who want to use this m4/3s system they can now do so with a better body.

I guess the big deal (for many people) is that *all* cameras are sort of niche products, because it's impossible to find one that does everything the way everybody wants it to. I would say that the big niches are (1) resolution, (2) speed in the sense of shooting speed, buffer and continuous auto-focus, (3) system equipment and (4) camera size. M4/3 cameras have good resolution, decent speed, respectable system size, without being a leader in any of those things, but is outstanding in providing excellent cameras in small size, especially for street shooting and for travel/backpacking uses. I have no doubt in my mind that if Galen Rowell were alive, he'd be shooting m4/3. The new Oly goes against that m4/3 strength. It's quite large, yet really doesn't seem to be fully competitive with other large cameras -- the Canikons -- which are mostly FF with much higher resolution and have huge systems supporting them (the new Oly seems to be closing the gap in speed, though.) What worries people like me is that Olympus is attempting something that seems likely to fail -- going head to head with Canon, Nikon and Sony -- and we *really* don't want it to fail, because we own substantial m4/3 systems and we like those systems, and feel that Oly would be much better off emphasizing upgrades to existing (small) cameras. My own m4/3 cameras, the GX8s, which I think are the best combination even now of speed and compactness, are getting long in the tooth, having been announced in 2015. M4/3 needs better sensors, better flash systems, a few fill-in lenses (though the lens offerings are really pretty good) and so on. A big fat camera, not so much.
Logged

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1293
    • Robert's Photos
Re: E-M1x specs posted
« Reply #30 on: January 27, 2019, 10:32:54 pm »

It will be if the CAF is up to the task.  The E-M1.2 CAF was a major disappointment (I own one, but did not buy it as an action camera) and from what I have seen so far, the E-M1X CAF does not appear to be able to cut the mustard.  If that is the case then it is not a good product for action.  It looks to me as another case of Olympus over-hyping the AF.

You may be correct that it may not be as good as the top action bodies of Canon/Nikon but does it need to be? The pro sports shooters with arsenals of Canon/Nikon lenses are not going to switch to Olympus in large numbers regardless. It is going to appeal to those with m4/3s lenses who shoot action. Obviously Olympus thinks that there are enough of them to warrant building a body for them. They have a known (to them) sales history of E-M1s and E-M1-2 so they must have some belief that it will sell well enough. If it's lacking in a specific feature that you or others need, how is that any different than any other camera?
Logged
--
Robert robertroaldi.zenfolio.com

Dan Wells

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 978
Re: E-M1x specs posted
« Reply #31 on: January 28, 2019, 12:21:17 am »

The key to your statement about the E-M1 is that you "use a grip now and then". The E-M1x doesn't give you that choice. Integrated grip bodies are big and heavy all the time, and that's a notable feature that's worth talking about, although it's not always a negative feature.

The Olympus PRO zooms are pretty good-sized lenses. An E-M1x plus an Olympus Pro 12-40 plus the Pro 7-14 is 253 grams heavier than a Z7 plus the Z 24-70 plus the upcoming 14-30 (and those are very comparable lenses - opinions will differ on which is "faster", since the Nikkors have a stop more DOF isolation, but the Oly lenses let in a stop more light)... Adding modest telephoto capability doesn't really change that - although there really aren't equivalent lenses. A Nikkor 70-300 G EG VR plus the FTZ adapter is almost exactly the same weight as the Olympus 40-150. The Olympus is almost certainly the better lens, although the Nikkor isn't bad. Alternatively, if you're willing to go without the zoom, the Nikkor 300mm PF on the FTZ is also just about the same weight, and is probably of comparable quality to the Olympus lens. I'd personally love to see Nikon make a Z-mount 70-300mm f4 PF.

Sony's A9 is very similar in size to the Z7, although some of the better lenses are heavier, with speed versus image quality tradeoffs that are closer to the philosophy of the E-M1x. While they're a reasonable cost/weight comparison, I can't imagine any image where a Z7 and an E-M1x are both the right tool for the job. You could concievably shoot landscape with an E-M1x or sports with a Z7, but why?

Of course, you can pick other lenses that make the weight difference huge - including anything longer than Nikon's 500mm PF and Canon's 400mm DO - or heavier options in modest focal length ranges.

Oly has a niche in relatively compact super high-speed cameras, and even the E-M1x is a great deal smaller and lighter than a D5 or 1Dx (but not a Sony A9, depending on lenses). An E-M1 mk III that brings some of these technologies to a smaller, less expensive camera could be a real hit.
Logged

Rory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 528
    • Recent images
Re: E-M1x specs posted
« Reply #32 on: January 29, 2019, 01:08:55 pm »

You may be correct that it may not be as good as the top action bodies of Canon/Nikon but does it need to be? The pro sports shooters with arsenals of Canon/Nikon lenses are not going to switch to Olympus in large numbers regardless. It is going to appeal to those with m4/3s lenses who shoot action. Obviously Olympus thinks that there are enough of them to warrant building a body for them. They have a known (to them) sales history of E-M1s and E-M1-2 so they must have some belief that it will sell well enough. If it's lacking in a specific feature that you or others need, how is that any different than any other camera?

The appeal is in bringing "pixels per duck" to a smaller, lighter package with superb IBIS.  This is a winning formula that pushed a lot of people to buy the 7D2 + 100-400 and then the D500 + 200-500 or 500PF.  If the E-M1X matched the D500 focus a lot of folks would notice.  But without that focus, the word gets around, and few will buy.  Seriously, I don't really know of a significant shooting segment that would buy this package without the CAF.

I actually know a number of folks, including myself, with those large arsenals of CAnon and Nikon super-teles, that would seriously consider the E-M1X if the CAF was up-to-par.  I personally know 8 people who have or are ditching Canon for either Sony or Nikon.  I don't hear many openly criticizing the Canon focus system, but if your shooting birds in flight it isn't your first choice.  If your shooting people it isn't your first choice.

The bottom line is that getting tack sharp focus is the most important factor for action and wildlife photographers.  No other feature really matters if you can't nail the focus.  But if you can, then the weight, size, image stabilization, grip, UI and pixels per duck start to play a bigger role.
Logged
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/roryhi
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up