Olympus E-M1X is more than a big body

[VidThreeNorth]

There are a few reviews already around for Olympus' OM-D E-M1X camera, but this article goes deeper into the development of the camera and its advanced AI. Understand this clearly: you will NOT be able to simply load a firmware upgrade into a E-M1II body to get the improved performance because the E-M1X has an extra main processor (for total of 8 cores), and part of the design of the new body was the inclusion of a "heat-pipe" to distribute the resulting heat created by the extra processing. Likewise, the extra battery space is necessary because of the increased power requirement. It will be years before the "new technology" will trickle down to lower models.

"Olympus E-M1X Q&A: A closer look at the amazing tech underlying the new OM-D series flagship" Jan. 24, 2019, by Dave Etchells, Imaging Resources:

"Olympus E-M1X Q&A: A closer look at the amazing tech underlying the new OM-D series flagship"

 

[Tropicalmemories]

Hmmm. Not sure about using the added technology to try and overcome the limitations of the small sensor, if the body ends up bigger?

Why not just go for a bigger sensor mirrorless?

And there's still the issue of limited control over depth of field with the smaller sensor.

And do we really need more pixels?

 

[jcdeboever]

Looks like the D850 is lighter and less money. Why anyone would buy this is beyond me.

 

[Braineack]

Looks like the D850 is lighter and less money. Why anyone would buy this is beyond me.

can the D850 shoot up to 60FPS? or even 18FPS for that matter?

can the D850 capture up to 103 RAW images at a rate of 16FP?

does the D850 offer 7.5 stops of image stabilization?

does the D850 have heat management so it can record 4K videos for longer?

can the D850 take 16 images instantaneously stitching them together aligning the RGB pixels to quadruple it's MP output?

does the D850 offer a two-year extended warranty against enviromental issues (freezing, dust, water)

does the D850 have AI based autofocus that was trained through thousands and thousands of image references? (including cars, and birds, and eyes)

does the D850 have a virtual ND filter?

can the D850 run off USB power?

can the D850 focus to -6EV?

does the D850 offer a built in battery grip?

does the D850 has a flippy screen?

does the D850 have two-processors for improved rendering (jpg only)?

does the D850 offer both 121 phase and 121 contrast detection AF points, all cross-types with 80% frame coverage?

can the D850 shoot up to 1/32,000sec?

can the D850 do live-composite shooting up to 3 hours?

does the D850 have a field-sensor to factor in environmental conditions?

does the D850 offer two UHS-II card slots?




the D850 is heavier with battery, FWIW.

 

[Tropicalmemories]

Does most of that really matter?

The latest Sony, Canon and Nikon full frame mirrorless models have more capability than most of us will ever use, and they do not need extra party tricks to overcome a small sensor.

Unfortunately size still matters when it comes to sensors.

 

[Braineack]

in what ways does size still matter when it comes to sensors? specifically.


I want to make sure I'm understanding your position correctly: Innovation & advancement means nothing if the sensor is small.

 

[jcdeboever]

I do see a lot of olympus on the sidelines of sporting events, and wildlife photography. What is the market for this, video? The video specs are not that much better previous model. What's the point of micro 4/3, I thought size.

 

[Braineack]

What's the point of micro 4/3, I thought size.

or reach.

I'm sure they stuck with micro 4/3 to dominate the small-sensor sports market where they've been doing well in.

The E-1Mx seems to be targeting pro-sports photographers -- especially with the 150-400mm with x1.25tc lens they are releasing.


A camera can only be so small, regardless of mirror or sensor size. you cant get over the physics of lenses, or the size of your hands.

 

[jcdeboever]

What's the point of micro 4/3, I thought size.

or reach.

I'm sure they stuck with micro 4/3 to dominate the small-sensor sports market where they've been doing well in.

The E-1Mx seems to be targeting pro-sports photographers -- especially with the 150-400mm with x1.25tc lens they are releasing.


A camera can only be so small, regardless of mirror or sensor size. you cant get over the physics of lenses, or the size of your hands.

You mean crop, right? It doesn't reach further. What's the point in coming out with a "so called" improved model with a small sensor, heavier body, and non improved IBIS, questionable AF acquisition for sports action, wildlife? You could spend far less on a smaller body, bigger sensor, better AF? Again, who is their target audience? I trust we will find all these improvements are marketing hogwash that don't mount up to a practical user, who ever that person is. I mean if it's for video and occasion still life use, there are better options. It doesn't even have a full articulating screen for the vlogger. At the end of the day, this one could put them right out of business.

 

[Tropicalmemories]

in what ways does size still matter when it comes to sensors? specifically =QUOTE]

I moved from micro 4/3 as I mainly do portrait and travel shots, and adequate control over depth of field when using 'normal' zoom lenses is important for me.

Small sensors need very wide aperture prime lenses to give enough control over dof, and shots with kit lenses or 'travel zooms' on mft bodies look flat and uninteresting in my view.

I also want good high iso/low light performance, and smaller sensors still struggle with this.

If macro or sports in good light are your main interests, then mft is probably good enough, but I gave away my Lumix GX7 and Olympus/Panasonic lenses as they did not have the capabilities I wanted, and the new Olynpus looks to have added more 'features' that I don't need.

For me, handling and the images are more important than the high speed/high pixel specifications, and in body stabilization is of limited value to me as my subjects tend to move.

 

[Braineack]

You mean crop, right? It doesn't reach further. What's the point in coming out with a "so called" improved model with a small sensor, heavier body, and non improved IBIS, questionable AF acquisition for sports action, wildlife? You could spend far less on a smaller body, bigger sensor, better AF? Again, who is their target audience? I trust we will find all these improvements are marketing hogwash that don't mount up to a practical user, who ever that person is. I mean if it's for video and occasion still life use, there are better options. It doesn't even have a full articulating screen for the vlogger. At the end of the day, this one could put them right out of business.

ROFL.

1. NO. I don't mean crop, I mean reach. Reach is Real -- those who say otherwise believe the earth is flat.
2. This is not an "improved model", this is a completely new offering.
3. Who is questioning the AF acquisition?
4. What if body size doesn't matter (it's no larger than the E-M1 with grip)? What is sensor sensor doesn't matter? Define better.
5. PRO SPORTS PHOTOGRAPHERS -- as already mentioned and pretty much mentioned in every write-up.
6. They weren't designed for the practical user. Nor was the D5 or D850.
7. THIS CAMERA IS NOT DESIGNED FOR A FREAKING VLOGGER. and yes it does...
8. ROFL.


you're not even trying.

I'm not saying I'm running out to dump my Nikon stuff and buy this camera, but it has some of the more impressive specs from a body released in quite some time.

 

[Braineack]

I moved from micro 4/3 as I mainly do portrait and travel shots, and adequate control over depth of field when using 'normal' zoom lenses is important for me.

Small sensors need very wide aperture prime lenses to give enough control over dof, and shots with kit lenses or 'travel zooms' on mft bodies look flat and uninteresting in my view.

I also want good high iso/low light performance, and smaller sensors still struggle with this.

If macro or sports in good light are your main interests, then mft is probably good enough, but I gave away my Lumix GX7 and Olympus/Panasonic lenses as they did not have the capabilities I wanted, and the new Olynpus looks to have added more 'features' that I don't need.

For me, handling and the images are more important than the high speed/high pixel specifications, and in body stabilization is of limited value to me as my subjects tend to move.

what if I told you this particular camera isn't designed to be a portrait camera? But yes, this has merit, you're not going to get the same backgrounds out of this camera. Hopefully the tech and development they put into this trickles into full-frame offerings at competitive prices.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

This camera has specific selling points. The biggest is that the AI at launch is specifically tuned for "motorsport" including motorcycles and automobiles, trains and aircraft. I don't know why they covered trains and aircraft, but "motorsport" is a huge money area for sports photography. It includes "World Cup" Rallying, Formula 1, NASCAR "Stock Car" racing, Indy car racing, European Saloon/Sedan racing, Australian Sedan racing, North American Drag Racing, Grand Prix Motorcycle racing, Motocross, and more.

If I were picking target fields for this camera's future, I guess I would pick "Olympic" individual events like High Jump, Long Jump, Pole Vault, Gymnastics, Figure Skating and Tennis. If the Olympus can prove itself BETTER than other cameras in a "money" field, then the Pros who work that field will use it. But I think they need to prove "better than" and not just "as good as". Sony A9 is already making inroads into sports photography based on clear, though, I think "small", advantages over Nikon and Canon. But that's what it takes -- advantages. "As good as" is not good enough to get people to change.

 

[LK_Nature_Photography]

I would like to try this camera. I shoot wildlife and I see that this camera has a lot of potential in that field. When you have to choose a full frame 600mm which is a big and heavy lens and a 300mm which has the same reach with this camera... lighter smaller option. Sometimes I have to hike a lot on some steep mountains, and in some places, it's not allowed to drive a car. I´m shooting lots of videos too, and his stabilization system is interesting, 4K, 120fps in full HD... it looks robust.

 

[zombiesniper]

1) Who said a m4/3 mirrorless had to fit in a small box?
2) This AF isn't tuned for motor sports. It has some motorsports tuned presets. More will be coming. Anyone questioning the AF without actually trying it is just another brand/sensor size fanboy....period.
3) In order for me with Canon to do HALF of what this camera can do I'd pay more than 2x the price.
4) Low light! Low light! Not all of us are vampires and can only shoot at night. I personally could give 2 shits about low light performance.
5) Having trouble with shallow depth of field without having full frame? You need to learn more.

Holy crap people love to complain about gear they NEVER intend to own. Get over it. Not every dam camera will fit in your little box of what a camera should be.