@@EricGibaud Yeah.....kinda seems like Tony has an agenda and he generally does not like M4/3 system. He seems to be obsessed with sensor size and crop factor being applied to the aperture. I think maybe he misses the point of the smaller (in many cases) system. I don't even shoot M4/3 but I do appreciate the system for what it is. It would be nice to see a bit better performance for the tracking auto focus but as a Fuji shooter that has no experience with the M4/3 systems I would assume that it is perfectly adequate. In the end nobody cares what camera or what system you are shooting with. All that really matters is the final imagery.
@@JHuffPhoto exactly. Before moving onto Olympus, I was using Canon 5D MK2 and MK3 as a pro photographer and my clients never complained or noticed less quality shooting micro 4/3. Tony has some interesting contents, but on some topics like these he seems to have some kind of benefits bashing m43. I remember him hating Sony and now he spends more time with a Sony camera than with Chelsea LOL. I use Olympus and Fujifilm. Regards
@@EricGibaud in 2017 I was shooting with a Nikon D90 and wanted to update my camera. I was not too heavily invested in lenses, and I have no brand loyalty. I considered the FF offerings from Sony but was quite uninspired. I was torn between the Fuji and Olympus systems. Ultimately I chose Fuji for the overall shooting experience. My decision had nothing to do with sensor size or any perceived advantage in image quality. I could have gone either way and I still keep an eye on the OMD cameras to see if I would maybe want to switch. At this point I am pretty happy with my Fuji cameras and lenses so I will likely not be switching.
I agree with what Tony said about the advantages of Olympus’s cameras especially when image stabilization is mentioned. He especially said a bigger sensor does not always give you the best image quality at low light because with a good stabilization, m43 can deliver equivalent image quality at low light as far as noise level go. But I completely disagree with the wildlife photography section where he compared the R6 setup to the Olympus EM1X setup. First of all, I have owned both system but I had the R5 before with the 100-500 rf lens. That combination is light but the external zoom nature of the lens plus the fact that you can’t use the whole zoom range once you attach the teleconverter is troublesome. I think others have mentioned those 800,600 f11 lenses aren’t weather sealed and once you attached TC, the focus area is only limited in the middle. Olympus cameras have no such issue. You can focus the whole area even though you attach a 2 time tc on the lens. While it is true that the autofocus tracking isn’t as reliable as a R6 or R5, the EM1X never overheats or lock up in the field and my R5 overheated and shut down many times to the point that I found it just unreliable to use. The light gathering between those lenses are true but at 800 F11, you would struggle to focus in a forest on a perched bird, while the Olympus 300 f4 focuses quick and accurate at the same situation. I used both system extensively for a year to make this comment. Canon R5 can do 8k and raw video and it is impressive but the limitations of the still sides are there but Tony, you never mention those and simply say m43 is worst than full frame. Those comments are misleading. I wonder whether you have shoot the EM1X extensively in wildlife to make such a comment.
Well said, I love both my EM1Xs, got some fine birds in flight lately, and with the 300 f4, so light. I also have the Nikon D500, and the 200-500. I find the image quality and hit rate between the 2 cameras to be equal, but that 200-500is so heavy, needs monopod while the Olympus does not.
Totally agree. I can emphasize what you said about the canon f11 and the olympus f4+tc: even though the depht of field is equivalent, it’s clear that the olympus lens will grab a lot more light. I don’t understand why this aspect is always overlooked.
how many wildlife photographers actually care about the 300 f4 not giving the same amount of bokeh as the 600f4 on ff? i assume not many. the deeper DOF might actually help mittigate issues such as the wing of a bird being in focus, but the body not.
I'm a diehard FF Sony shooter with multiple bodies and lenses (A74 x2, A7r3, Fx3)... I absolutely love my Olympus Em1 Mark3. When I do weddings and portraits I alway go with Sony. But when I do Street, landscape and travel photography, I always go with Olympus. Use the right tool for the job. And I'm definitely excited for this camera because of the new sony sensor and video features.
After having seen this and many other of your videos, which I found interesting and useful, Tony, I started to dig deeper into your claims about equivalent apertures for FF vs. MFT. I have checked your earlier videos, your web site and your references as well. As an engineer and physicist I have to object your claims: Frankly, this equivalence is not just misleading, it is totally wrong from a scientific point of view. To analyse this we have to separate the properties of the optics from the properties of the sensors, which is very important. Why, will be apparent soon. So let us start with the optics: In this video you say, Tony, for example, that an MFT lens (e.g. the 300mm f4 with the 1.4 teleconverter = 420mm) with the aperture of f5.6 corresponds to an FF lens (800 mm) with the aperture of f11. This is not true: there is no such aperture equivalence at all and the mathematics you apply in an earlier video is not correct because it doesn’t reflect the physical reality of optics. f5.6 is always f5.6 regardless of sensor size and regardless of crop factor and it is easy to understand why. Here is the explanation: When saying that a lens has a specific aperture (or f-stop) it means that each square inch of the sensor is hit by a certain amount of light quanta, ie photons, regardless of the sensor size. An FF-sensor needs more total amount of light though, and it is very obvious why: it is needed to cover and distribute the light over a bigger area to have the same amount of photons of each square inch as for the MFT-sensor. So both these sensors are hit by the same amount of photons for each square inch for a specific aperture or f-stop (provided that the shutter speed and ISO also are the same for both the MFT- and the FF-sensor). When putting an FF-lens on an MFT-camera, only 1/4 of the total amount of light will hit the MFT-sensor, but still each square inch will gather the same amount of photons as before (if the aperture/f-stop, shutter speed and ISO still are the same). The rest of the light (3/4), will fall outside the MFT-sensor. It is wasted and it is of no use to the MFT-sensor. Therefore, the idea that the total amount of light needed for the FF-sensor is related to the MFT-sensor is totally wrong. The aperture equivalence-”theory” is nonsense. There is only one case where an MFT-sensor can benefit from the ”superfluous” light from an FF-lens: It is when a speed booster is used between the FF-lens and the MFT-camera, which easily is understood from, and a consequence of, my arguments above. The Sensor and its noise: In one of your earlier videos, Tony, you say that an MFT-camera introduces more noise than an FF-camera ”…because the MFT-camera is gathering a less total amount of light”. No, that is not the reason. It’s not because of that. As I already have explained: The MFT-sensor gets exactly as much light per square inch as the FF-sensor. The amount of light that the FF-sensor needs, is irrelevant for the MFT-sensor. The reason for more noise in the MFT-sensor depends on the sensor itself. In general the size of each pixel of an MFT-sensor is smaller than the pixel size of an FF-sensor. Therefore, each MFT-sensor-pixel gathers less amount of photons. Think of a pixel as a funnel: the smaller pixel/funnel, the less photons it can catch. When the photons reach the bottom of the pixel, a conversion from light energy to electrical energy takes place. But all kind of electronic devices (including camera sensors) generate noise. (Noise is defined as an unwanted disturbance in an electrical signal). The noise is constant and when we have a weak optical signal (few photons, because of small pixel), the noise in proportion to the generated electrical signal is high: we say that the signal to noise-ratio is low (because of the low signal). The result is images that look noisy. When we have a big or strong optical signal (many photons, because of big pixel) the noise in proportion to the generated electrical signal is low: we say that the signal to noise-ratio is high (because of the strong signal). The result is images that look less noisy. What I now have explained is also true for FF-sensors, which means that an 80 Mp-FF-sensor has pixels of the same size as an 20 Mp MFT-sensor. This FF-sensor generates the same amount of noise in a picture as a 20 Mp-MFT-sensor. But this reasoning is only partly true. Manufacturing technology and sensor generation may differ. (Note that the new OM-1 has a stacked back-illuminated live M-sensor of a new generation which means less noise and more dynamic range). Furthermore, all kind of signal "handling", from the signal conversion to the creation of the RAW-data-file and rendering of the raw data into a visible representation of the image, is processed by software, which also can reduce the noise to varying degrees. Olympus (now OM Digital Solutions) has also developed techniques that overcomes many of the drawbacks with an MF-sensor: For example is Olympus/OM Digital Solutions market leader in image stabilization technology, which means that you can take photos in low light conditions with slower shutter speeds without cranking up the ISO (- high ISO means more noise as we all know). So with this said, I hope I have punctured the equivalent aperture ”theory” forever. *** Unfair and biased comparisons: I got very confused over your strange comparison, Tony, between Olympus and Canon products in this video. The most striking is the comparison between the Olympus 300 +1.4 teleconverter f5.6 with the Canon 800 f11-lens, not only because of the faulty equivalent aperture ”theory”. As ryan Tang says in a comment below: ”…but at 800 F11, you would struggle to focus in a forest on a perched bird, while the Olympus 300 f4 focuses quick and accurate at the same situation.” That is, the 800 mm f11-lens is definitely two f-stops slower than the Olympus lens (incl. the teleconverter) and has not the same focus precision. And another thing which I find remarkable: The Canon f11-lens has ONLY that aperture/f-stop of 11: You cannot choose any other f-stops! Furthermore, the Canon lens is not weather-sealed, neither the cameras Canon R5 and R6. And they are not specified down to -10°C, which the Olympus pro-cameras and lenses are. All OM-D EM1-cameras and the new OM-1 are designed to be very tough when it comes to environmental requirements, than most other camera systems on the market. And the new OM-1 and the two new OM System-lenses meet even higher environmental requirements when it comes to sealing (IP-class 53), which is unique in the camera world. This is a huge advantage for us who love wildlife photography in any weather condition. And I have still not seen so many useful features like Pro Capture, ND, photo stacking, etc, built into the same camera body from any other camera brands. So I wonder Tony, why do you do these comparisons? They feel very much FF-biased.
Good explanations! Now for another challenge: explain how depth of field is different between MFT and FF sensors. With a given lens or with equivalent fields of view.
Very precise and nice comment, this video is totally being sponsored and interested in promoting FF isntead of other formats. I am on the MFT and APS-C since 2010, today only have MFT and thinking about a FF compact kit for low light situations instead of an OM1 simply due to the fact that there is no used market for other formats than FF gear.
Precapture mode works at 120 fps and it will keep the last 120 frames according to the leaked specs. So 120fps option can be succesfully be used to capture fast action moments, you will not miss the moment.
Come on Tony, I agree with many things you say in your Video, but you can’t compare the Canon 800 not weather sealed, not stabilzed, focus limited f11 Lens to the 300 from Olympus which is soooo much better, please 🥺 Also, the other Canon Lenses are so heavy and expensive
Tony obviously doesn't care about image quality in that comparison. More megapixels is more better, right Tony? Ignore the fact that the Canon lens is nowhere near as sharp, has trouble focusing, and is harder to hold steady. But hey, you can really crop in like crazy on that unsharp, out-of-focus, motion-blurred photo without seeing the edges of the pixels, right?
Gordon Laing is a micro four thirds shooter if anything he’s biased. Tony and Chelsea own a range of cameras from full frame to micro four thirds. As professionals they’ve chosen to use full frame cameras for their work to give the best results but they don’t deny that the their Olympus is great for travel and has many features that other systems don’t have such as pre capture and hi res shooting. They provide unbiased reviews and always have. Gordon Laing has not provided unbiased reviews, it’s based on his personal preference whilst Chelsea and Tony perform real world tests and compare against the current market which is the only way. This is why some companies are failing and some aren’t. The evidence is there just some don’t like to hear it
Hi Tony, many parts of the review are well done; however, throughout the reveiw comments are clearly dated relateive to tracking. I agree at release, tracking on my EM1X was hit or miss; however, with subsequent firmware, the tracking was much improved. In particular the bird tracking of my EM1X was well ahead of what Canon/Nikon offered until their most recent cameras. Jump to the present and the newest Canon and Nikon systems have better tracking for sure. As you noted, we don't know where OM Digital will shake out. Time will tell on that. There is a major flaw in your wildlife logic relative to Canon. You may be close on effective DoF, but with the number the OM Digital camera being lower, by 2 stops, that means much more latitiude on the other points on the exposure triange - shutter speed and ISO. This latter one has been key in the past as I will be quick to admit my ISO limit for wildlife with the EM1X was at least a full stop lower than the ISO limit I imposed on my 1Dx MkII. By the way, I am a wildlife shooter and DoF and bokeh can be a big deal; however, when I'm in Namibia, Kenya and Tanzania, the background is forever away so no problem Actually, often a benefit. I see ton's of friends with 300 f/2.8 or 400 2.8 or 600 f/4 lenses having too shallow a DoF on our Africa trips resulting in either soft eyes or soft nose and ears. The Olympus 150-400 at f/4.5 usually gets the head sharp on wildlife more often that the fast big glass lenses. I've shot my share of full frame/big glass. In doing so, I've been challenged to get my gear on the planes to Africa. I've also come home time and again with a really sore elbow and shoulder from hefting the big glass. For 3 years now, I've flown with all of the key Olympus/OM Digital gear in a backpack that ways only 2/3 as much and all fits in a single Gura Gear Kiboko bag ... oh, and after a month in Africa my elbows and shoulders are still not sore with this gear.
I can attest to the full frame gear being painfully heavy. My A9 with 200-600mm is a workout. If the OM-1 af tracking can perform up to 80-90 % accuracy, I'll take it. The long tele's are smaller, lighter, faster, and cheaper.
@@sosomelodies659 6 months have passed... I think OM-1 bird tracking and performance had surpassed sony a1/nikon z9/canon r3 by fraction of the cost. you should be able to find plenty of resource of OM-1 with pro capture features on youtube and facebook. Thank you.
Pretty sad how the camera world works. If you’re not ff canon or Sony guys like tony just bash it. I love the part when he tried to talk about taking pictures of athletes. Olympus has been notoriously stressing their lightweight body and lens, top grade weather sealing and tons of features that supports the type of photographer who Wants to be outdoors with light head and capture Quality… and this man is out here talking about athletes and low light….typical
This video was not unreasonable, but I disagree with some of the assumptions. M43 has a rich ecosystem of both body styles/sizes and lenses. They adapt well to many legacy lenses. I think simply comparing FF equivalent lense values and weight and price is certainly part of the equation potential buyers make, but m43 is also the system for photographers with every conceivable lens option ready in their camera bag. A mount adapter and a range of renowned vintage lenses for different looks. Big dslr-style bodies AND a tiny rangefinder-style body. High quality lenses and goofy plastic lenses and body cap lenses. I know much of that is available in other systems, but I actually SEE m43 users do all that crazy stuff. I see Canon and Nikon shooters with their big wildlife zooms and nothing else. Style of work, or what you look for in a hobby, are also very important factors in which system suits you. There is no question that a Sony FF camera tailored to a specific job is probably safer and easier, but there are still people buying and reviewing others brands, so... All budget classes of m43 cameras of the same generation have similar image quality, they differ in level of control and features. This sensor and some of these features will end up in a future OM10 interation, for instance. I'm excited about that. Small, the recent tech, all my lenses work, nobody is intimidated when you point that tot camera at them.
"I see Canon and Nikon shooters with their big wildlife zooms and nothing else." You talk about reasonableness and assumptions and then you counter with personal anecdote. Odd.
M43 can adapt only old DSLR lenses and not the new mirrorless lenses due to the flange range. This situation isn’t relevant for new users as they doesn’t have any old lenses. Most of this DSLR lenses are now discontinued so in the future there will be less users with this long flange DSLR lenses. The weight argument is also nullified by the new mirrorless FF cameras. Nikon Z6 and even Pana S5 are the same size as the OM EM1. It is matter of time that FF producers will produce small F/4 zoom lenses or even primes. The example of the total price of Canon R6 with an equivalent lens for action, sports and wildlife makes sense as OM is targetting this segment. It seems that EMX couldn’t not even beat Nikon D500 for this market segment. m43 is entering the declining fase as they cannot provide any Unique selling point. The only USP that m43 can provide is an video spec, that is why Panasonic introduced their Lumix S line of FF bodies and upgrading only the Lumix GH line as for the same price no FF can provide better video spec.
@@smaakjeks I write that comparing FF focal length, aperture, weight and price are not the only considerations. I don't say it is wrong to *have* assumptions. I mention a personal anecdote to illustrate an additional point that I think is relevant. But it's OK, my wife thinks I talk nonsense too ;-)
@@smaakjeks I got rid of my Nikon long lenses and trip/gimbal head. I found I was rooted to the spot. It reminds me of the old plate cameras with cloth hoods and wooden tripods. The Olympus system does away with all that. Portability, and creates more possibilities.
Hi Tony, Once and for all, I dare to disagree with two statements in your comparison: 1) the aperture is given by the ratio of the diameter of the input lens and the focus, so you can not say that the amount of light per area from the lens 300/4 on M43 is equivalent to 600/8 FF (this equality only applies to comparing depth of field, they are identical) 2) pixel density / mm2 determines how much detail I get on the chip. When using a lens with the same focus on FF and M43, the result may be as follows: 20Mpix on the M43 system is 4x denser than on the Canon R6 20Mpix and therefore with a lens of the same focal length I get 2x more details on the Olympus M1X ...
Whining about the "outdated" 20 MP Sensor on the new OM-1 and then recommending an even more expensive 20 MP Full Frame camera body (Canon R6) a few minutes later has something comical ^^
F/11 lenses from Canon have a big limitation : cannot use all focus points from the sensor, only the zone from the center of the sensor wich is about 25% of the sensor area. And in low-light a F/4.0 lens will focus much better than a F/11 lens. In my opinion Olympus 300mm F/4.0 is a much better option than F/11 lenses from any point of view.
Strange comparision as the Olympus cost more then the Canon one. Strange that FF manufacturers are not making telezoom lenses at F8 Aperture. Maybe this lenses are not provitable.
Quad Bayer doesn't mean you get four colour filters for each pixel, it's the opposite. It means the sensor has 80mp worth of photosites but a 20mp filter so you have four photosites of the same colour in a square for each pixel. This allows you to reduce noise by taking readings from all four photosites and averaging them into a single pixel. Phone cameras use this trick to reduce noise and to effectively lie about their resolution in marketing. My phone claims to have a 48mp sensor but only takes 12mp images. OMDS is just being more honest in their marketing instead of claiming to have an 80mp sensor.
Two points; 1. Train focusing options - Japan is quite a train obsessed nation, rightly proud of their train network. Having visited, I now notice how even my old film camera brochures showed lots of trains. 2 - I realise you have more technical knowledge than I do so except and respect that. In my experience EM1 MkII is my go to kit for travelling (when we can - travel still limited in Western Australia). Like for like lenses are lighter and the aperture equivalence issue was always balanced by the IBIS, allowing a longer exposure. My R5 has good IBIS, but the Em1 mkII remains better in my experience (hand held waterfalls). Canon's 600mm is cheap and light, however it would not be as robust in a travel backpack I suspect.
OK Tony, but what about WR on those f/11 lenses? What about optical quality? What about handholding those focal lengths? Because Olympus has all that. I’m not saying it’s always better, but there are a lot of factors you’re leaving out.
Those F/11 lenses cannot use all focus-points from sensor, only the area from the center of the sensor. Tony forgot to mention this. So those F/11 lenses are not a serious option and of course it cannot match the performance of 300mm F/4.0. In low light a F/4.0 lens will always focus better than a F/11 lens.
Other important differences are, the closest focusing distance of the canon lens is atrocious 4.5m whereas for the olympus lens it is 1.4m. The olympus can be hand held to much lower shutter speed.
I don't know why the rumoured release of the OM-1 prompts the question "Is m43 back" when Panasonic is officially releasing the GH6 on the 22nd Feb with no mention on this channel at all. I'm well and truly invested in the Sony camp now, but I never have as much fun with these cameras as I did with my GH5.
Micro 4/3 is back for Tony he has been buriying m43 for the last years so he believes his own inventions I am afraid… Tony wished Olympus disapeared but, sorry for him, it has not
@@JetBen555 yeah, depends on the subject, the lens, etc. In some cases I got amazing results, but generally it's better to just start with the high res sensor.
I just love the combination of quality durability and portability my oly em1 mkii and f4 300mm bring to me . I get tempted by the full frame and then I see guys lumbering around(including tony and chelsea on their nature shoots) and think jeez would I be so bothered to take it around like I do the oly? Walking, cities , nature reserves, the beach, up mountains ......no problem . The best camera is the one you have with you ......and therefore I know olympus and om system wins hands down for me .
Well said. I go out with an Em1x, 300mm F4 plus 1.4 and 2 xTC. There's also a 12-40F2.8 all contained in my Billingham shoulder bag! This covers all my needs and hence the reason I moved away from FF and APSC. Love Oly M43 gear and it's much more reliable in adverse weather too
Have you forgotten that Olympus/OM System cameras have Pro Capture? With Pro Capture, you can just half depress the shutter and wait for the action to happen instead of holding down the shutter and filling up your buffer with 180 images before anything happens. That also means you have a lot fewer junk images to sort through. That's why I shoot in Pro Capture mode more often than not for wildlife photography.
I don't think he forgot. He has seemed to have it out for Olympus for years. Either he is incompetent, or purposely being misleading. P.S. This is part of the comment I wanted to make.
I agree,eye detection in m1x is not good , but in m1iii it is excellent. When it comes to evf lag and rolling shutter, oly m1 is 2.5 times faster than r6. The 800mm f11 is the worst lens I've ever had in my hand. You forgot to say that the autofocus with the 800/600 f11 only works in the center of frame. The image quality is not even close to 300mm f4. You also forgot to say that they are not sealed against rain and dust. Wild life in the zoo?? Maybe. 😉
Which is why I hate that he only mentioned half of the story and mislead people who are new into the system buying into Canon’s 800 and 600 f11 RF lenses and thinking they are better than the Olympus 300 f4.
@@EstelonAgarwaen Sadly, Olympus and Panasonic have not done themselves any favors during the past five years or so to further improve what they are good at while Sony and Fujifilm have made leaps and bounds advancement in terms of autofocus capability and other features which made a lot of people switched into their system. Let’s see what the OM1 is about when they announce it tomorrow.
@@charliegreen1989 wishful thinking. I have the EM1X also but I doubt they have the financial resources to invest further into past cameras given their current financial position. Look, OMDS is now a relatively small camera manufacturer compares to Sony who is a billion dollars corporation and probably have invested heavily into their R&D so it is not easy to even survive against big boys like Canon and even Nikon.
Lovely!!! I really enjoyed this video. 23 minutes of nonsense info based on incomplete rumors. Wow! 😍 What a fun, especially being using this camera in field for last 3 weeks. And comparison examples? Even better. Ignore newer generation of face detect in E-M1 III and use the worse AF setting combination of older E-M1X is the best. Keep going, I can't wait for your next video. 😍
It can be confusing when Olympus named that recompose mode as 'C-AF+Tr'. However, the manual is clear, use C-AF and area select to track subjects, same as with a DSLR. No Olympus shooter uses C-AF+Tr for tracking moving subjects AFAIK, only a few reviewers.
As an Olympus video shooter I’m stoked! I understand other cameras may be better or cheaper… but I love my oly primes and the ibis for video in the “mode 1” mode is just incredible. I think I may sell my EM1 mkii and mkiii for this!
Remember that Olympus has the Pro Capture mode. You don't have to take pictures for several seconds to ensure you got that goal winning kick. Are you really saying that the Olympus 300mm + 1.4x is equivalent to the Canon 800mm f11??
In Olympus cameras there is procapture mode that allows us to press the shutter a few seconds AFTER the action has happened and it still records the action. So what Tony is saying about not having enough buffer resulting in missing a sports shot is totally wrong and shows that he has not mastered this unique feature of Olympus. Rather, this unique feature of the camera plus 120fps will ensure that we almost never miss the shot in sports photography. Greater depth of field of MFT ensures that even if the focus is fixed still many frames are in focus.
See this is why my sceptical mind is confounded by Tony. I know he knows about ProCapture. I know he does thorough testing. He looks like he eats well. So I struggle to buy that he's innocently ignorant / going senile. Yet I hear many falsehoods from him concerning Olympus, and always to their detriment - this video has several off-putting errors if they were to be believed. What's up with that?
Tony, first of all, I do enjoy some of your videos over the years but I must echo the majority of your viewers that your negative remarks on the Micro 4/3 system are very biased and unfair. Either you don’t fully understand this system or you just don’t want to admit that your prediction made three years ago (Micro 4/3 would be dead) has been proven wrong. It is definitely here to stay and serve in the photographic industry in a bigger and better way. Now the new Olympus OM-1 and Panasonic GH-6 are the proofs of that. Of course the system will continue to improve in line with all the major camera systems in the industry. Many professional photographers and film makers as well as equipment manufacturers are enormously supporting the Micro 4/3 system. I myself have been a Nikon full frame and DX shooter ever since digital camera became available in the consumer market. As well my Olympus and Panasonic gears are excellent tools and they are better suited for many of my professional projects with better results. To further illustrate my point, some professional wildlife, adventure and event photographers have confirmed that full frame’s extremely shallow depth of field on telephone lenses simply does not produce the balanced sharp images unless the lens is stopped down. But the lighting condition for wildlife, adventure and event photography is usually poor resulting in much higher ISO and slower shutter speed, never mind the big and heavy lenses making the shooting experience very unpleasant. Of course there are many other benefits for shooting with Micro 4/3 cameras not mentioned here. My personal advice to you Tony is that no one should step down on any brand or system in the photography world. Each system has its own merit & uniqueness and it will be better suited in different shooting environments. The genuine content creators and gear lovers would make their choice as which system they need for each specific project with the expected results in mind, when they truly know what they are doing in photography. I would like to take this opportunity to salute the Micro 4/3 system for its truly innovative and ground breaking technologies, just to name a few: mirrorless idea incorporated into the enthusiast and professional cameras in early days, compact form factor on both body & lens, 5-axis in-body imaging stabilization, certified weather sealing, true to life electronic view finder etc. At the same time, I congratulate the full frame and APSC research and development for producing more efficient & effective models in recent years so that everyone can enhance the image making experience. Tony & Chelsea, all the best to you and your UA-cam channel.
Your fair and unbiased points of discussion based on your personal shooting experience with various formats of cameras are well received. I couldn't agree with you more. Thank you!
"don't buy this till after I review it" Who does this guy think he is. The pope of cameras? Seriously. This might as well have been a payed Canon advertisement too.
On other top Olympus cameras you can solve the problem of the buffer by half pressing the shutter, and then going to a full press after the action, and it will give you a series of shots before it.
Solid video until.... It took Tony 19 minutes to again hit on the crop-factor/aperture discussion. OM keeps on comparing without taking into account the f-stop change on crop. But Tony keeps forgetting to mention it's only the case for DOF (or composition change with equal DOF) not actual light-gathering (which impacts ISO/Shutter-speed). An f/4 lens will always be an f/4 on any sensor if you look at light gathering. It's the DOF/Composition that's different on a crop sensor. It's this exact reason you cannot simply convert a 300mm f/4 to a 600mm f/8. It's more complicated then just doing times 2 or divide by 2. So who keeps on telling the same wrong story here ? Both OM and Tony if you ask me. I don't compare FF with M43 at all. Same reason I don't compare FF to Medium Format or phones. They are all different systems. Pick the one that suits you, and stop comparing. I don't compare a Minivan to a Sportscar either. Even though they're both cars and allow you to so some shopping or go from A to B. I pick the one I like, or just get both.
I doubt that he don't know it.. it seems to be a topic that he intentionally don't want to understand. In wildlife photography having a F11 or F4 is a huge huge difference as you want to have the stutter as fast as possible. It is just nonsense to say that a F4 is equivalent to a F8...
"But Tony keeps forgetting to mention it's only the case for DOF (or composition change with equal DOF) not actual light-gathering (which impacts ISO/Shutter-speed)." Wrong. It's fully equivalent in terms of results. And results is what matters. "I don't compare FF with M43 at all. Same reason I don't compare FF to Medium Format or phones. They are all different systems." You do you. But if you wanted to compare them, you could. By converting by the crop factor. "Pick the one that suits you, and stop comparing." No. Comparisons shall be made. All of them. All the comparisons. Mwuahaha
@@gavinlagrange6322 m4/3 set-up for a photo: 100mm, f4, ISO 200 Let me know what FF set-up (assuming similar sensor tech) you think one would use to get the same results on a similar sized print.
4.5 x 1.25=6.6? You might want to double check your math there slugger. The 150-400mm 4.5 with the 1.25 teleconverter engaged gives you a 500mm 5.6 at the long end.
Yes the depth of filed on M43 is double the full frame, but F4 in Lumix/Olympus lenses is brighter than F8 in full frame... and the greater depth of field on M43 is beneficial to help the subject in focus while using telezoom lens, regardless how "poor" the autofocus (so-they-say) compared to Sony, Canon or Nikon.
This is the argument I never get about full frame snobs. I don’t care about how much shallow depth of field my Leica 8-18mm f/2.8-4 can or can’t make. What matters is that I’m literally getting the same light gathering as is advertised on the lens with more of the frame in focus. I rented a Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 for my now sold Sony A7III, needless to say I had to stop down like a mf to get the similar amount of in focus area throughout the frame as my Leica 8-18mm at f/4. I think I would stop down at f/7.1-8 on the Sony. It was ridiculous and James Popsys goes over this topic in a video using the Lumix S5 and Lumix G9.
@@mariuscamenita9643 I have the 45mm f/1.2 and that fisheye. I'll be heading down to Mesa Verde in late spring (before fire season) to do some astro. Been practicing at Black Canyon NP, which is pretty damned dark.
Demand for the OM-1 has far exceeded expectations (3 months waiting time at the moment), so many people see value in this camera that Tony apparently doesn't.
If they do achieve the claimed 2-stop noise improvement on the sensor, the 300mm f/4 would actually be equivalent to a 600mm f/4 on a full-frame camera, exposure-wise. Of course, the 300mm MFT would have a longer depth of field, but that is not necessarily a disadvantage.
@@undergreenthunder8037 No. You still end up with a lot less. It's always better to have more DOF capabilities. It's easy to go from f/4 to f/6.3...or f/8. Better to have more range.
@@JACKnJESUS Right but with 4/3 you can still go to f8 and have even more depth of field. Especially if they demolish the light dilemma than I am getting this camera.
@@undergreenthunder8037 lol..no. Every camera can go smaller aperture...until diffraction kicks in. No, you want to start as wide as you can. Why be limited?
@20:33 That comparation is just.........Bro, there is Olympus PRO 150-400 that is ~7500$ yes, but there is also a 100-400 ~1200$. Which system is cheaper? This is not an honest review.
this is a very exciting development M43 is not dead! every sensor size has its place and what works for you , works! OM-D has really blown me away with its capabilities at live gig shoots! I use FF and APS-C too, transferring from Nikon to OM-D is silky smooth!
It really is shameful that they put their thumb(s) on the scale so blatantly. I think most of us who switched from FF did so for portability of the LENSES. It’s fine that the OM-1 is relatively large and expensive. It’s built to balance Pro lenses. I’ll stack my OM lenses against Sony or Canon (12-40mm f2.8; 40-150mm f2.8 and 300mm f4.0) for quality, speed and WEIGHT anytime. Oh, yes and value too. Tony might cherry-pick a body and lens for his comparison - but a broader and more pragmatic view of an outdoor photographer’s bag would be fairer. I don’t deride FF photographers for their choices (indeed, I use Canon FF myself at times) so why do they snub MFT. Fear of competition or paid opinions. This constant bashing by these two is starting to get on my tits!! (Ornithologically speaking of course).
This guy is not serious. An F4 lens has exactly the same light and speed at 4/3 or full frame. They only diverge in depth of field, so yes, f8 at 4/3 is equivalent to f4 at full frame, and Tony's bokhe there is different.
As much as I respect Mr Northrup as a professional & reviewer, I still always get the feel that he gives Oly (OMS) a waaaay harder time than deserved, not recognizing the good & really maximizing the not so good. The new (YES NEW) sensor is an enormous improvement, AF tracking is going to be incredibly better than before, ISO a bit better, DR bit better too, FPS in full AF-C is 50 (NOT 20! as Tony mentioned when completing with the Canon R6, come on Tony!)... Anyway, I think the new camera is an OUTSTANDING improvement on previous Oly's. I totally get his comparison to FF for wildlife photography, but there is still soooo much to like about the lighter & cheaper options that MFT gives compared to FF when not doing the super high end wildlife setup comparison's. If you are invested into MFT or not solely dedicated to high end WL photography (wanting more megapixels) the OM-1 is an INCREDIBLY FEATURE PACKED camera. I'm selling my em1 mkII & getting one as soon as I can. Hopefully in months, not years :-) MFT IS ALIVE! YUJU!!!!! PS that doesn't mean I'm not ever going to use my FF Canon, that I also love, I use whichever is best suited to the particular type of photography that I will be doing, & yes of course sometimes that is my FF... But believe me the percentage of times that happens is getting smaller & smaller. I tend to have more fun with my Oly, & still get the photos I was hoping for. Simply that.
The lens comparison is not accurate... In telephoto wildlife photography the amount of light that reaches the sensor is far more relevant than depth of field... A 300mm f4 m4/3 is indeed better for wildlife photography than a 600mm ff f11... And there are other factors such as sharpness, color fringing and refraction that must be taken into consideration when comparing lenses (especially telephoto lenses)... You also do not bring macrophotography into the discussion, why? It's far from being niche photography.... m4/3 format and the olympus 60mm f2.8 macro excel at it in comparison with the competition... I've compared the olympus 60mm f2.8 lens with the nikon 105mm f2.8 macro, canon 100mm macro and the sigma 150mm f2.8 macro it is sharper than any of these at their optimum aperture (nonetheless in terms of overal quality, nothing compares to the bokehlicious sigma 150mm f2.8). Sharpness wise and handheld wise olympus m4/3 cameras + macro lenses are far better for macro photography because of that stellar image stabilization and good quality lenses... In terms of the high res mode sony does not reach the heals of olympus... Saying that it is not useful for landscape photography is not true... I live in Canada, just like you, and I have had very good results using it in many situations, even at sunset. I also have had very good results using olympus hi-res mode for 'on the field' macro photography (for subjects that do not move) using an olympus em1 mkii (it's a great way of getting large format images on the fly)... I trully hope that OM systems have improved the focus speed and low light performance of the camera... They say that the sensor is retroilluminated, I hope this shows up in low light performance and dynamic range... By the way, one thing that you've never mentioned in your videos: when using af tracking for shooting wildlife with olympus cameras, limiting the focussing range (browse the focus menu - A or B) greatly speeds it up and considerably improves 'on focus hit rate' up to almost on par with what you get with other faster af tracking cameras (again with an em1 mkii)... I think this is something sony cameras do automatically when one is using af tracking, that's one of the reasons it works well... The original sony a 7 and a7r were focus slugs up to the models mkii to iii so it's not that impossible that we see very significant improvements in the om1, I hope so... As for the sensor resolution it's a compromise between resolution low light dynamic range and camera speed... For me, I'm perfect with 20Mp as long as low light performance and focus have improved significantly... Again, one thing that you forgot to mention is that you may have a bigger buffer on sony or canon/nikon cameras but then you have to wait like 5 minutes before the buffer clears out vs 10-20 seconds on an olympus (probably any other 20Mp) camera... This affects your photography experiece way more than being able to take 12 more photos at high speed mode... In terms of video, it seems that om systems may have finally done it, let's hope the om1 is filled with all those beautiful things, and some new features, one can only find in panasonic cameras... I'm far from being a brand/format loyal fundamentalist but I'm objective and unfortunatelly I don't think you are. You should evaluate pros and cons of the gear you revise/talk about in an open, transparent and objective way. There is not a perfect system, m4/3 format is not bad in anyway, and olympus cameras (hopefully now OM systems cameras) are so good in so many aspects, are so versatile, have so many good features that translate into artistic freedom, are so customizable and wonderful to use. Image quality wise the proof that these cameras are quite capable is pattent in many international photo competitions... I've also won more than a few photography competitions using m4/3 cameras (from the EPL5 to the em1 mkii) and many, if not most, of my competitors were using sony, nikon and canon cameras... Another field at which m4/3s cameras excell is underwater photography, the form factor the quality and the price are there, and make underwater photography much more accessible to most of us... For the price of an underwater housing for a sony a, nikon z, or canon r you can buy a complete system for a m4/3 camera: housing a pair of flashguns, housing tray and articulated arms for the flash guns...
If you want to compare the OM-1 with the R6 together with lenses, the comparison should use comparable lenses, not top against entry or you can do it also the other way: why not comparing the Canon 100-500 against the Olympus 100-400 which is much cheaper then the Canon? Also the max aperture of the Olympus 150-400 with built in tc was calculated wrong: a 4.5 aperture with 1.25 tc ends up at 5.6 , not 6.6!
Hello Tony. Olympus m43 has never been in the shadows, but it has been ignored or maligned by the FF goose-steppers. i recently bought a Canon 5d Classic and likely will buy a 5D mk2 later as well, with principal reason to use all my collection of excellent old film era Oympus OM series manual focus lenses in a FF context. I will NOT be buying or using any Canon auto focus or electronic lenses on the Canon bodies. i do use my manual lenses on my OMD EM1 mk2 and enjoy the experience. i will not be buying the new OM becasue it is simply too expensive for me.
Thanks for reviewing this new camera, but Micro 4/3 was never dead (in spite of you declaring it so). Looking at the specs of this OM-1, they look very similar to a Panasonic G9, which has been out for a few years and just keeps getting better with every firmware update.
Tony! You are again WRONG! The Canon 800mm F11 and Oly 300mm F4 + 1.4x (840mm) are giving nearly the same angle of view and depth of field BUT this Oly combo is only F5.6. that means it is two stops faster than the Canon 800mm F11. The light transmission of the lens is F4+TC1.4x=F5.6. The amount of light passing the lens is two stops more and the light on the sensor/1mm is also more. Just set both the cameras to the wider apperture and read the time value given automaticaly by the cameras. Please don't fool the readers all the time. How much cost a Canon 800mm F5.6 ???
It’s the difference between the sensors Janos, a 5.6 aperture on micro four thirds is the same as f11 full frame due to how much light it hits the sensor and the pixel density. Tony is right
@@adambennett6173 I disagree. As I wrote, the amount of light/square mm on the sensor using this Oly combo is twice of the Canon's 800mm/f11. Just give it a try, the Oly combo will give you two times faster shutter speed.
@@janosnemeth917 I have it doesn’t make any difference, image quality is also miles better and dynamic range allows you to render shadows even more on the R6. There is no argument. The only thing the OM-1 has is 7 stops of stabilisation which it needs due to the lack of light it lets in. The R6 sensor is 4 times the size of the 4:3 so it lets 4 times the amount of light in. So having an 2.8 aperture is like having a 5.6 or even in some cases as I’ve seen it 6.3 aperture
@@janosnemeth917Yes, with four times the noise. If you want to take pictures that are actually equivalent, you need to shoot M43 at two stops lower ISO. The light per square millimeter doesn’t matter nearly as much as the total amount of light the sensor gathers, because we look at pictures, not square millimeters of the sensor. The Olympus shot at F5.6 and 100 ISO will give you the same results as the full frame shot at F11 and 400 ISO.
A lot of people struggle with this. Equivalence isn’t about whether you can use the same settings in your exposure triangle across systems. It’s about getting the same results across camera systems. And you’ll get the same result shooting a full frame f11 at 1/250 and 400 ISO as an M43 f5.6 at 1/250 and 100 ISO. Also aperture is defined by the focal length divided by the diameter of the iris. So a 50mm f2 has an opening of 25mm. You can’t say a 50mm f2 is equivalent to a 100mm f2 on M43, because that’s not how math works. You can’t change just half of an equation.
Being invested quite deeply into M43, I would have appreciated a higher resolution sensor using computational features just like modern smartphones. Let's wait for the GH 6, but according to the leaked specs, I don't expect a much higher resolution, it'l probably use the same IMX 472 sensor. One word about your frame rate considerations: If I were on to shoot the goal, I would not use ordinary serial shooting, but "Pro-Capture" mode, which buffers before fully pressing the shutter. With that you can wait for the goal as long as the battery or your arms can hold it and won't miss the shot. In my eyes, a must-have feature for any upper class camera.
At 120fps, pro-capture will only be able to hold less than 1 second still, so if you fully press the shutter 1.0085 second too late, you're still missing the shot.
@@youuuuuuuuuuutube 1 sec is certainly long enough. I use this regularly for songbirds in flight (at 20 - 40 fps), which are way faster than any men doing sports.
I don't understand the point of comparing the OM-1s + 300mm f4 lens + 1.4 teleconvertor with a Canon R6 +800mm f11 in a _preview_ of the new Olympus OM-1. The comparison seems contrived. For one thing, only a tiny fraction of the total Olympus and Canon shooters use these cameras _only_ with those particular lenses. Second, users of the Olympus 300mm f4 lens primarily use it _without_ the teleconverter. Third, the vast majority of Olympus and Canon shooters who even use these lenses, use _other_ lenses most of the time.
Why do these reviewers insist on reviewing cameras without a camera. Please wait till you actually have the camera before you start bagging it. That said, you probably could NOT give a honest opinion simply because you have always had a negative approach towards M43 cameras.
Tony, you are really misleading people here. 1.- The buffer on current Olympus cameras is not so important compared with old tech traditional cameras like R6's or A7's... with Olympus you can "time travel" and never lose the moment with the special feature you forgot to mention. If you don't want to lose that moment, Olympus has the advantage ProCapture 2.- I am tired to use HRes mode with tripod on the field (both modes actually), so you were wrong there. 3.- "All you know that f4 is equivalent to f8" that's only if you are talking about bokeh... but f8 means more ISO than f4 at the same shooting speed... and you also forgot to mention that increasing the ISO drastically reduces dynamic range.... so small sensor can be better in these conditions. 4.- Comparing the "I know that you will never spend what a good tele FF lens, but I have to feed you with the FF bullshit even when it has no sense, so I give you a piece of plastic with two glasses for 1000USD, so please buy my oversized camera (f11 Canon Teles, just in case you didn't get it)" lens with the 300 f4 is just ridiculous. The focusing speed, sharpness, close focusing, stabilization, etc, would put each lens inits own category. You better compare with the 75-300 which costed me 350€ 5.- eye AF works wonderfully on EM1,3 (never tested the EM1x myself). Better than any Sony or Canon?? Probably not, but the difference can't never be a definitive purchase argument (example 1800 photos to jumping ballerinas in Barcelona streets with AF (all bursts)... I lost maybe 10... shot at 1,8 BTW my friend uses an R6 and it is an AWESOME camera...
@@verbraekenchristophe8233 now, marmophoto is a real sports photographer, not like tonny... and a really good one. Would love to see a real review from him.
I don't think anything can truly well me but this camera seems quite good and I will be buying it as an upgrade from my Mark 2. If I already had a Mark 3 I probably wouldn't upgrade just yet. I am perfectly comfortable with the micro four thirds format notwithstanding the criticisms of it. It works for me. And why replace all my lenses?
You are a very intelligent presenter. But I wish you would stop the misleading M43 aperture conversions you apply. You know that if you take a hand held incident meter reading, the reading is applied the same to both M43 and full frame, and for that matter what ever format you use. You know that if you alter that reading by two stops you will blow the exposure. So don't confuse people by some esoteric comparison of total light gathering over the total surface area of the sensor. By that logic an optic that covers 4x5 film has a real aperture of f 0.95 or something. Having a full Sony outfit with every GM lens along with my "OM System" makes me neutral in the fan boy arena. By I am a fan boy of truth and logic.
@@MrJed_s I am aware of his attempt to confuse people with total surface area and noise. It is not the same discussion as true aperture which is a simple mathematical measure that was true with film and with digital He is presenting a blend of truth with misinformation. He can not change mathematics regardless how hard he tries. I don't care, but he is misleading others who are less well grounded and that is not fair.
@@donwhite332 Doesn’t it all come down to shutter speed? If you have an Olympus rig with an f/4 tele and a FF rig with an f/8, it seems like the FF setup is going to cut off faster shutter speeds necessary for minimizing blur.
I thought originally this was a passive-aggressive video, but the more I watched it the more I realised that this was an aggressively negative review for a camera that’s not even out yet. Also, the f stop numbers on any lens pertain to the ratio between the aperture diameter and the lens length so when Olympus say f2.8 they are correct, the lens has f/2.8 light gathering capability. however you do get double the depth of field - but that is not the f stop. it really came across that you want m4/3 to fail and created your own perceived reality. I’m now wondering how you can give an open minded review when the camera does come out? As a subscriber to your site I respect your view and never buy kit without checking to see if you have reviewed it first. This is the first time I felt a bias in your view.
and fairly often having more DOF paired with more light gathering is a bonus. Bokeh can be manipulated by increasing subject separation (I.E. making the background further away from the subject). For wildlife this can be as easy as getting lower down to the ground. For landscapes, you can shoot at F/4 or F/5.6 to get F/8 or F/11 style DOF, which can be better for twilight or pre-dawn shoots due to the wider aperture. Especially when shooting without a tripod. I believe that many MFT user do misconstrue the crop factor to the benefit of the MFT system, but Tony does exactly the same thing for the opposite side. The real truth lies somewhere in the middle. There are trade-offs to both full-frame and MFT. Full frame wildlife gear is bigger and more expensive. MFT is smaller and cheaper. Full frame gives a shallower DOF, which is sometimes a good thing and sometimes a bad thing (Missing focus on animal eyes because DOF is so thin). I do not understand why the Northrups despise MFT so much. It's clear they've never used the system. I used to shoot wildlife on full frame w/ Nikon and now I shoot on MFT. I do not regret switching. I can take my full kit on long hikes and not notice the extra weight. The results are comparable, especially if you don't pixel peep. And it was much cheaper.
@@balboa0621 the ISO penalty would be on full frame at f/8, not MFT at f/4. Full frame f/8 would have 2 stops higher ISO than MFT at f/4 (at same shutter speed). The argument can be made that full frame handles high ISO better (less noise/nicer looking noise) but if you ask anyone if they would prefer to shoot at 8000 ISO instead of 2000 ISO, they would say no.
@@themxtr not exactly. Ff f8, 1/200, 6400 would look the same as m43 f4, 1/200, 1600. M43 sensors are two stops worse in iso performance. Ff f4, 1/200, 1600 would look the same as m43 f4, 1/200, 400. You need a two stop faster lens to negate the two stop iso penalty. F4 m43 won't produce the same result as f4 ff because 1600 iso is two stops better in noise performance over 1600 m43. If you only shoot under 800 iso, it's not a big deal (dof notwithstanding).
@@balboa0621 I’m not sure I agree. F stop is a calculated number from two fixed points, iso is irrelevant to it. In saying that the iso is better on full frame, l shoot Nikon too. In all honesty though iso {keep it low) is the last thing I adjust in the exposure triangle, but I rarely do anything low light.
It's funny in the old film world we never heard reviewers talking about how medium format 'captured more light' than 35mm full frame. What mattered more to people was 35mm full frame cameras could be carried around, whereas medium format you could not carry it around all day, it weighed too much. 35mm full frame took nearly all the market. In 2022 we have micro four thirds cameras that have much smaller lenses. I wonder.what could happen to the market going forward?
Tony really has a crop burr in his pants. The light and shutter speed matter to some people. The greater depth of field can be welcomed, when you don't have to sell shutter to get it. I think MFT has the same place in a FF world, that FF has in MF world. I hope they keep the system going. That said only about 1/4 of my favorite images are MFT, rest are FF. I Don't feel the need to MF yet.
Does equivalence apply to autofocus? Im not sure it does. I’m guessing a 400mm 5.6 4/3 lens will focus better in low light than the 800mm f/11 full frame. I’d like to see some sort of test on this.
@@AlpacoFilms it’s also equivalence when it comes to image quality and total light. A full frame 800mm f/11 lens will produce a similar image (depth of field and noise ) as a 400mm 5.6 ff lens when shooting in the same conditions. Given the total light equivalency, and argument can be made that autofocus would also be equivalent because there is an equal amount of total light for the autofocus system to work with.
@@PowerfulGaz18 no, it's light density, light per unit sensor area what does not change. However, the image quality depends on the light per whole image, not per unit area. 2.8 on 4/3 is four times less light than 2.8 on FF, so 4 times more noise. So DOF equivalency is exactly the same as IQ equivalency.
so, when i adapt 300mm f4 canon ef lens on a mft camera, the lens becomes a 600 f8? no, it is still a 300mm f4 lens. so, wenn i shoot a foto with a ff camera with a 300/4 lens and crop from this picture a "mft" picture, does the lens change than to a 600mm f8? no. because of the sensorsize, only the field of view change, nothing more! it is totally wrong, when you say: a 300/4 mft is like a 600/8 lens. yeah, many begiiners say said, but it is wrong.
I think what you did not mention is, people will have options with OM's system. Can Canon, Nikon, Sony, or even Fuji make zoom lenses with 12-100mm focal length (24-200mm equivalent)? Or 8-25mm (16-50mm equivalent)? Or small portrait lens like the 45mm f1.8 (90mm equivalent)? Some people are willing to let go of the advantages of other systems, and make use on what's available with OM, as long as they have the flexibility of carrying relatively small lenses.
I also ask this question, why no other manufacturers are not making MFT equivalent lenses something like 24-200 mm f8.0. I think they know that those lenses will not be profitable.
the OM 1 is one of the best cameras on the market under Euro 2500. I has high res handheld with 50 Mpx, it has pro capture with 70 pictures, it has Live composite, Focus stacking, Focus bracketing, Live ND filter, many excellent pro lenses, the best image stabilizer of all. So what do we need more ?
Tony! How come the sound on your videos is always substantially lower than any other videos on UA-cam? It sounds fine turned up, but I always have to turn my volume up only on your videos.
No disrespect to Tony at all, but I’ve noticed the same thing. But then Chelsea’s & Tony’s content is so great and knowledgeable that I don’t actually mind now.
They may be staying classy and sticking to the respectful -12db broadcasting standard. Unfortunately with low-class advertising boosting their audio all the way up, content creators are often matching that now.
Your disdain from Olympus to OMD was so smooth it’s almost commendable. I actually agree with the first half of your clip, you seem cautiously optimistic like most others who have invested in these cameras. But you just had to beat your chest and go down the equivalence path and compare Canon’s 800mm f11 and Olys 300mm f4. Really?
I love gear. I read and watch videos about it. I think every sensor format has its pros and cons. And every camera brand has its strengths and weaknesses. What kind of photography you do en what are important points for you ultimately determines the choice for a system. Every system has its place. Years ago I chose to invest in Olympus en now I own an O-M1 Mark III. I probably won't replace it with the OM-1. The E-M Mark III is already a fantastic camera which is sufficient for me. However, I have to compliment OM DS. The company has listerned carefully to the criticisme and has fully committed to make improvements. All the enthusiastic en professional photographers who attach great importance to quality/features and still want a relatively light and affordable system, will be happy with this development. M43 is still alive.
There are times when crop factor works to your advantage too. For instance, if you use an Olympus 8-25mm f/4 lens for real estate photography, not only do you have a much smaller, lighter weight camera to carry around, but you can also use smaller, less expensive strobes and you don't run the batteries down as fast because you are shooting at f/4 instead of f/8. The same is true for corporate headshots or other studio portrait photography scenarios with the 40-150 f/4 lens. You get a smaller, lighter, less expensive lens and smaller, lighter, less expensive strobes.
The Olympus 8-25 is the opposite of smaller and lighter. It is a 400 grams lens. The small and light ethos of MFT died many years ago and Olympus killed it.
@@LevAizik Compare that to the Canon and Nikon 16-35mm f/4 lenses which cost over $1,000. They only go to 35mm on the long end instead of 50mm and they weigh 50% more. And if you don't need to go all the way to 25mm, you can get the Pana/Leica 8-18mm f/2.8-4. And by the way, Olympus didn't kill anything. The only micro four thirds lens that they've discontinued, as far as I can remember, was the 17mm f/2.8 and I can totally understand why. f/2.8 just isn't bright enough to get much bokeh on a micro four thirds sensor, at least at 17mm. You might as well just use a cell phone. So unless you're of the opinion that the whole purpose of MFT is to have a bunch of mediocre pancake lenses that create images that look just like cell phone pics, I don't know why you're saying that Olympus killed small and light. Compared to full frame cameras and lenses MFT cameras and lenses are tiny, yet most of them outperform cell phones in many different respects, but you can't cheat physics and you can't have your cake and eat it.
Hi-res photo. Why does he keep banging on about the being limited. It's easy, I've used it loads. It's about as limiting as a long exposure shot maybe even less so. Also, I shoot full frame atm, honestly I'd go back to MFT in a heart beat for my wildlife photography. Half the things that full frames are praised for now have been a staple of MFT for years. With improvements to sensor tech things like low light will become less and less troublesome. Don't believe entirely the full frame zeitgeist folks. MFT was such a versatile and less burdensome way to shoot.
Tony - nice review, but you are still the Q-Anon disinformation king re you crop factor math. 1) The the angles of view of a f/4 600mm FF lens and the F/4 300mm m43 lens is the same. Fact. 2) the exposure amounts at ISO 200 are the same. Fact. 3) the depth of field does differ as the FF sensor has half the DOF of the m43 sensor - fact. But in wildlife photography at 600 to 1000mm, you want more DOF to get more than the bird’s eye and part of the head in focus. 4) In dim light, the affordable Canon 600mm and 800mm lenses have very small maximum apertures requiring higher much ISOs than the OM/Olympus m43 100-400mm 1.4x at their equivalent fields of view-facts. 5) the OM-Olympus lens is stabilized which synchronizes with the camera’s IBIS - the canon lenses don’t - facts. Is the OM-Olympus 100-400mm 1.4x lens more expensive that the budget (but functional) Canon lenses you reference? Yes, because it is faster, optically superior, stabilized in sync with IBIS, and has a built in teleconverter and is highly weather sealed. Tony, there is no way your canon lens choices can compete with the m43 combo photographing secretive birds in a mountain cloud forest. Yes, the R6 eye AI is fabulous, but maybe the “OM Wow camera” will catch up some. So Tony, please stop your one man disinformation campaign on the m43 crop factor.
best comment so far. I only wish Tony would have the dignity to actually respond to this kind o comments and to prove his point (cause he won't be able to do that as he is wrong :) ).
They're not the same. They have different amount of light (read: image noise) and different depth of field. If you adjust for the depth of field and amount of light then you get exactly what Tony is saying. And that's also what DPReview is saying and what every photography authority on the planet (with half a clue) is saying. And it can be tested easily empirically. If you want more DoF, why would you insist on using the same F-number on the FF lens, instead of using the same effective aperture? Is it just because that fits your narrative better than the truth does?
@@marcus3d Time for a rethink, Marcus (unless hubris is your thing. 1) The apertures of f/4 on FF and m43 produce the same exposure EV on their respective sensors at the same normal range ISO. This is a fact of physics and the electronics of the sensors. 2) A experienced and international award winning wildlife photographer such as myself knows very well how to vary depth of field with his/her lens, but it is nonsense to say that a person must automatically adjust DOF to match a FF lens at the same f/stop. With many situations the greater DOFs of the 2x, 1.6x and 1.5x crop factor sensors are an advantage (think macro, extreme telephoto focal lengths and large subjects such as architecture and big mammals). 3) You claim that FF sensors always have less noise that crop sensors so a crop sensor photographer is always behind the curve and - what? The facts are that for most of the normal range of ISO use, especially in day light, the sensor noises of FF and crop sensors are so similar as to be inconsequential. Further, new de-noising software such as Topaz DeNoise AI combined with Topaz Sharpen AI greatly flatten the playing field. The sensor crop factor arguments that Tony N. and that you endorse are not credible given scientific facts and advances in camera capabilities. I suggest that it is not illogical for you to try and rethink your position. And, finally there is your dig about my cluelessness. My career has been in scientific research and application. My IQ is measured within the top 1%. I am not clueless.
@@jonerikrolf2029 1) The same F-number produce the same intensity per area unit. So what? (Keep in mind: The more of the projected area you capture the more of the light you capture. A sensor that's 1/4 the area capture 1/4 the light. See point 3 below.) 2) Nobody says that you need to think in equivalent terms. You do you. Think however you like. I was only saying that if you want the same results then you need equivalent settings. Nobody forces you to make equivalent results. 3) No, I don't claim that FF sensors have less noise. I'm saying that to get equivalent ISO you square the cropfactor.
Bulk and normal operation weights still favor Olympus and m43 but that lack of comparably slow but high quality FF lenses make comparisons tough. Specs tell me OMsystems is not innovating, just rebranding and that is a shame. EM1markiii is such a jewel, it deserved to continue.
This camera with the Panasonic 10 - 25 f1.7 is my dream combination. What full frame camera offers 20 to 50mm at F3.5 It covers my complete range that I use including the F3.5
I can't say why I just looked at this clip really.. I haven't seen this guys work for at least a few years now. The thing is that it's always the same bla bla specs on a screen comparison. There are people making a living out of these cameras and for what I've heard national geographic likes them to? How come? What is it that they don't get? I mean now we all know that their results would be so much better if they'd be using something else. Olympus cameras are rugged, nimble and fun to use so why not buy one if it fits your needs? There was a time when I too looked at clips just as this one and thought I learned something, got something out of them. Now I don't...
Since you're always talking about crop factor, why don't you compare the OM-1 + 300mm f/4 to a Z6 + 300mm f/4 + 2x teleconverter and see which one focuses faster and more accurately, which one produces more noise, and which one produces sharper images?
The 2 stop low light comes from this new sensor being Back Side Illuminated (BSI) and also having 2 native ISOs. Totally within reason to believe they can get 2 extra stops of lowlight!
No it's not. It's literally not possible, that would put it on par with modern full frame sensors are are already BSI. Almost all new cameras already have two native ISOs as well.
Why does Tony even bother to talk about micro-four thirds, he starts out fine but by the end he always stresses the things "he doesn't" like about micro four thirds. I shoot micro four thirds. I agree it has it limitations, but once you learn how to adapt to those, you can get great results. There are a lot of professional photographers producing some very good pictures with micro four thirds.Tony, why don't you invest some time there. They obviously know something that is not being presented in your analysis. The cost analysis with the Canon system was just smoke and mirrors. That sounded like it came straight from Canon's marketing department. I shoot micro four thirds mainly because I don't like the weight and size of the full frame systems. For me it's no fun to go on a long hike or hop on an airplane with all that heavy full frame gear. I have found that micro four thirds holds up nicely to full frame camera's when you play to the systems strengths!
I have both Sony and Oly systems and what people like Tony forget is that no one goes out with only one lens unless you are going to shoot something specific. Most will carry more lenses. So add to that huge Sony lens which I have and it’s massive, a close-up macro lens and something for landscapes and something if you go out to shoot street later and something for video. I don’t even own a bag that the Sony 200-600 will fit in…lol.
Its never left. While Fuji and Sony were sleeping, Olympus, I mean OM Digital made a bunch of new lenses. The new OM-1 is supposedly as good, if not better, than the Z9. Now Sony and Canon have to answer.
2 stops come from the BSI stacked sensor and the newer configuration that allows more efficiency of providing light to the sensor. Now that the reviews are out, it does seem to make a big difference in low light performance. Features a 20MP Stacked BSI Live MOS Sensor. There are sites that talk about the technical aspects and how this sensor is very different than in any M43 camera and it actually does make sense that you could get close to or 2 stops difference. It's a lot more than just sticking a sensor in. You lose light by the time light hits the sensor. The OM-1 made big improvements on the delivery of light to the sensor. that alone will give a good improvement just based on the physics.
I just bought a Lumix G9 and 100-400mm lens plus a 8-18 wide-angle zoom. What I was looking for is some of the technology (animal track) available in the Sony A1, Canon R5 and, now, Nikon Z9, in a more portable package and lower cost to keep from breaking my back and bank account. As a hobbyist in wildlife photography it was nice to find equipment that was sophisticated and affordable. I don't expect the G9 to perform on the same level as the just mentioned cameras but after almost a month of use, I'm feeling good about my purchase and eager to tackle some new challenges that were once out of reach. MFT has its place just as the Mazda Miata doesn't need to be a Chevy Corvette.
Funny that you compare to a Canon 800mm f 11 with no weather sealing, no aperture control, that needs to be "deployed" to be used and is actually larger when in used, you lose access to all sensor coverage. When is your double down on this hypocrisy going to end? Did you even update the "information" you got that you so get AF-C at 25 and 50 Pro Capture?
If you need weather sealing just wrap some nylon around the 800mm and it will be fine. Seriously nobody is swimming with their camera gear. The 300mm lens also needs to be "deployed". The teleconverter and lens don't magically appear on the camera mount.
When comparing Olympus 300mm to other full frame 300mm. I'm with Olympus. The Object in focus will look the same. I agree with Tony that the background will be different. I don't buy a lens to look at the blurry bits. If I bought another brands 300mm 5.6. It won't be weather sealed. So it's also not competitive with the Olympus lens.
I have the full range of Canon gear - R5 and the big tank busting primes, 100-500 and tele converter et al. However I also own the Lumix G9 and a range of lenses. The G9 has its place - on a Baltic cruise in various locations inc. Russia - my Canon 5d stayed in the ship's cabin and the G9 came into its own..perfect including using the 200mm prime when it was fine for inobtrusive photography; great in/around busy locations when the size mattered! Having said that, the R5 and 500mm prime or 100-500 for wildlife is exceptionally good. Suggestion - why not review the plus/minus of the big Canon primes vs the 100-500 with/without 1.4 teleconverter. The times 2 loses too much definition.
Complete speculation and much of it wrong. OM-1 Sales have been strong for a very good reason, a very good camera and a good price that targets to a very specific market. I hope MFT does great just to call BS on all the dissing that this channel as done to MFT. MTF should have been gone by now, remember???
This dude can't even get the name right. It's "OM System" in the singular with no "s" at the end (and with a teleprompter). Granted, it must be hard for him as his reputation has been completely shot for calling it a dead format. Who's listening to him anymore?
I love my Olympus cameras for family pictures, walking-around and street photography, some landscape and architectural, in short for almost of the photography that I actually do. (All with Moderately wide to moderately long lenses) I love the colors and the small and convenient size and light weight. I get perfectly acceptable 11 x 14 inch and even 16 x 20 prints. If I wanted to do any of the things that Tony's talking about here, like high speed sports photography, I'd probably use a Canon, but that not what I mostly do. I have Canon dslrs that I use for airshows and car races and such. I am a bit price sensitive, and I won't be buying a $2500 Olympus. Tony's point about comparing a $2500 Olympus to a $2500 full-frame Canon is well taken. To be fair, I've usually either bought used, or new, but the not-quite-newest version of Olympus. It's also worth noting that the tech in Olympus high-end cameras generally works its way down to the more affordable models in a year or so.
I moved from Olympus to Fuji a couple of years ago and still wistfully long for my old camera sometimes. It was just so much fun to shoot with. The 40-150 pro was my favourite ever lens. Build and optical quality was fantastic. I moved to Fuji for better tracking autofocus, but didn’t realise most of the lenses were slow as f*ck. You can have the best tracking in the world, but if the focus motor in the lens can’t keep up, it’s useless!
I have an Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mk III that I am incredibly happy with and haven’t even remotely begun to bump into its limits. There isn’t enough new in this new OM Systems body to tempt to to upgrade, nor am I tempted to switch to full frame. I’ll likely continue shooting my existing body and lenses for a least several more years.
Someone has never heard of procapture or understands exactly what quad bayer is lol. 2 stops seems real. 4x light sensitivity improvement? Check. Quad Bayer arrangement is 4 sub pixels per color filter. 2 stop improvmenet by stacking 4 images into one. Can't even get a second of 120fps? Sounds like you never actually tested the e-m1x. Pro capture has a circular buffer that lets you record "before" you push the shutter button. At 120fps. You will always get the shot with pro capture.
The company is called OM Digital Solutions. OM System is their brand name.
In Tony’s usual m43 bashing this is too much to learn 2 separate names I am afraid.
@@EricGibaud Yeah.....kinda seems like Tony has an agenda and he generally does not like M4/3 system. He seems to be obsessed with sensor size and crop factor being applied to the aperture. I think maybe he misses the point of the smaller (in many cases) system. I don't even shoot M4/3 but I do appreciate the system for what it is. It would be nice to see a bit better performance for the tracking auto focus but as a Fuji shooter that has no experience with the M4/3 systems I would assume that it is perfectly adequate. In the end nobody cares what camera or what system you are shooting with. All that really matters is the final imagery.
@@JHuffPhoto exactly. Before moving onto Olympus, I was using Canon 5D MK2 and MK3 as a pro photographer and my clients never complained or noticed less quality shooting micro 4/3. Tony has some interesting contents, but on some topics like these he seems to have some kind of benefits bashing m43. I remember him hating Sony and now he spends more time with a Sony camera than with Chelsea LOL. I use Olympus and Fujifilm. Regards
@@EricGibaud in 2017 I was shooting with a Nikon D90 and wanted to update my camera. I was not too heavily invested in lenses, and I have no brand loyalty. I considered the FF offerings from Sony but was quite uninspired. I was torn between the Fuji and Olympus systems. Ultimately I chose Fuji for the overall shooting experience. My decision had nothing to do with sensor size or any perceived advantage in image quality. I could have gone either way and I still keep an eye on the OMD cameras to see if I would maybe want to switch. At this point I am pretty happy with my Fuji cameras and lenses so I will likely not be switching.
@@JHuffPhoto Fujifilm has great cameras. I had the same doubt and went for Olympus for the IBIS.
I agree with what Tony said about the advantages of Olympus’s cameras especially when image stabilization is mentioned. He especially said a bigger sensor does not always give you the best image quality at low light because with a good stabilization, m43 can deliver equivalent image quality at low light as far as noise level go. But I completely disagree with the wildlife photography section where he compared the R6 setup to the Olympus EM1X setup. First of all, I have owned both system but I had the R5 before with the 100-500 rf lens. That combination is light but the external zoom nature of the lens plus the fact that you can’t use the whole zoom range once you attach the teleconverter is troublesome. I think others have mentioned those 800,600 f11 lenses aren’t weather sealed and once you attached TC, the focus area is only limited in the middle. Olympus cameras have no such issue. You can focus the whole area even though you attach a 2 time tc on the lens. While it is true that the autofocus tracking isn’t as reliable as a R6 or R5, the EM1X never overheats or lock up in the field and my R5 overheated and shut down many times to the point that I found it just unreliable to use. The light gathering between those lenses are true but at 800 F11, you would struggle to focus in a forest on a perched bird, while the Olympus 300 f4 focuses quick and accurate at the same situation. I used both system extensively for a year to make this comment. Canon R5 can do 8k and raw video and it is impressive but the limitations of the still sides are there but Tony, you never mention those and simply say m43 is worst than full frame. Those comments are misleading. I wonder whether you have shoot the EM1X extensively in wildlife to make such a comment.
Well said, I love both my EM1Xs, got some fine birds in flight lately, and with the 300 f4, so light. I also have the Nikon D500, and the 200-500. I find the image quality and hit rate between the 2 cameras to be equal, but that 200-500is so heavy, needs monopod while the Olympus does not.
Totally agree. I can emphasize what you said about the canon f11 and the olympus f4+tc: even though the depht of field is equivalent, it’s clear that the olympus lens will grab a lot more light. I don’t understand why this aspect is always overlooked.
how many wildlife photographers actually care about the 300 f4 not giving the same amount of bokeh as the 600f4 on ff? i assume not many. the deeper DOF might actually help mittigate issues such as the wing of a bird being in focus, but the body not.
@@EstelonAgarwaen exactly.
Well said!
I'm a diehard FF Sony shooter with multiple bodies and lenses (A74 x2, A7r3, Fx3)... I absolutely love my Olympus Em1 Mark3. When I do weddings and portraits I alway go with Sony. But when I do Street, landscape and travel photography, I always go with Olympus. Use the right tool for the job. And I'm definitely excited for this camera because of the new sony sensor and video features.
Well that scenario might be the right tool for you when it comes to portrait photography
After having seen this and many other of your videos, which I found interesting and useful, Tony, I started to dig deeper into your claims about equivalent apertures for FF vs. MFT. I have checked your earlier videos, your web site and your references as well. As an engineer and physicist I have to object your claims: Frankly, this equivalence is not just misleading, it is totally wrong from a scientific point of view.
To analyse this we have to separate the properties of the optics from the properties of the sensors, which is very important. Why, will be apparent soon. So let us start with the optics:
In this video you say, Tony, for example, that an MFT lens (e.g. the 300mm f4 with the 1.4 teleconverter = 420mm) with the aperture of f5.6 corresponds to an FF lens (800 mm) with the aperture of f11. This is not true: there is no such aperture equivalence at all and the mathematics you apply in an earlier video is not correct because it doesn’t reflect the physical reality of optics. f5.6 is always f5.6 regardless of sensor size and regardless of crop factor and it is easy to understand why. Here is the explanation:
When saying that a lens has a specific aperture (or f-stop) it means that each square inch of the sensor is hit by a certain amount of light quanta, ie photons, regardless of the sensor size. An FF-sensor needs more total amount of light though, and it is very obvious why: it is needed to cover and distribute the light over a bigger area to have the same amount of photons of each square inch as for the MFT-sensor. So both these sensors are hit by the same amount of photons for each square inch for a specific aperture or f-stop (provided that the shutter speed and ISO also are the same for both the MFT- and the FF-sensor).
When putting an FF-lens on an MFT-camera, only 1/4 of the total amount of light will hit the MFT-sensor, but still each square inch will gather the same amount of photons as before (if the aperture/f-stop, shutter speed and ISO still are the same). The rest of the light (3/4), will fall outside the MFT-sensor. It is wasted and it is of no use to the MFT-sensor. Therefore, the idea that the total amount of light needed for the FF-sensor is related to the MFT-sensor is totally wrong. The aperture equivalence-”theory” is nonsense. There is only one case where an MFT-sensor can benefit from the ”superfluous” light from an FF-lens: It is when a speed booster is used between the FF-lens and the MFT-camera, which easily is understood from, and a consequence of, my arguments above.
The Sensor and its noise:
In one of your earlier videos, Tony, you say that an MFT-camera introduces more noise than an FF-camera ”…because the MFT-camera is gathering a less total amount of light”. No, that is not the reason. It’s not because of that. As I already have explained: The MFT-sensor gets exactly as much light per square inch as the FF-sensor. The amount of light that the FF-sensor needs, is irrelevant for the MFT-sensor. The reason for more noise in the MFT-sensor depends on the sensor itself.
In general the size of each pixel of an MFT-sensor is smaller than the pixel size of an FF-sensor. Therefore, each MFT-sensor-pixel gathers less amount of photons. Think of a pixel as a funnel: the smaller pixel/funnel, the less photons it can catch. When the photons reach the bottom of the pixel, a conversion from light energy to electrical energy takes place. But all kind of electronic devices (including camera sensors) generate noise. (Noise is defined as an unwanted disturbance in an electrical signal). The noise is constant and when we have a weak optical signal (few photons, because of small pixel), the noise in proportion to the generated electrical signal is high: we say that the signal to noise-ratio is low (because of the low signal). The result is images that look noisy.
When we have a big or strong optical signal (many photons, because of big pixel) the noise in proportion to the generated electrical signal is low: we say that the signal to noise-ratio is high (because of the strong signal). The result is images that look less noisy.
What I now have explained is also true for FF-sensors, which means that an 80 Mp-FF-sensor has pixels of the same size as an 20 Mp MFT-sensor. This FF-sensor generates the same amount of noise in a picture as a 20 Mp-MFT-sensor.
But this reasoning is only partly true. Manufacturing technology and sensor generation may differ. (Note that the new OM-1 has a stacked back-illuminated live M-sensor of a new generation which means less noise and more dynamic range). Furthermore, all kind of signal "handling", from the signal conversion to the creation of the RAW-data-file and rendering of the raw data into a visible representation of the image, is processed by software, which also can reduce the noise to varying degrees.
Olympus (now OM Digital Solutions) has also developed techniques that overcomes many of the drawbacks with an MF-sensor: For example is Olympus/OM Digital Solutions market leader in image stabilization technology, which means that you can take photos in low light conditions with slower shutter speeds without cranking up the ISO (- high ISO means more noise as we all know).
So with this said, I hope I have punctured the equivalent aperture ”theory” forever.
***
Unfair and biased comparisons:
I got very confused over your strange comparison, Tony, between Olympus and Canon products in this video. The most striking is the comparison between the Olympus 300 +1.4 teleconverter f5.6 with the Canon 800 f11-lens, not only because of the faulty equivalent aperture ”theory”. As ryan Tang says in a comment below: ”…but at 800 F11, you would struggle to focus in a forest on a perched bird, while the Olympus 300 f4 focuses quick and accurate at the same situation.” That is, the 800 mm f11-lens is definitely two f-stops slower than the Olympus lens (incl. the teleconverter) and has not the same focus precision.
And another thing which I find remarkable: The Canon f11-lens has ONLY that aperture/f-stop of 11: You cannot choose any other f-stops! Furthermore, the Canon lens is not weather-sealed, neither the cameras Canon R5 and R6. And they are not specified down to -10°C, which the Olympus pro-cameras and lenses are. All OM-D EM1-cameras and the new OM-1 are designed to be very tough when it comes to environmental requirements, than most other camera systems on the market. And the new OM-1 and the two new OM System-lenses meet even higher environmental requirements when it comes to sealing (IP-class 53), which is unique in the camera world. This is a huge advantage for us who love wildlife photography in any weather condition. And I have still not seen so many useful features like Pro Capture, ND, photo stacking, etc, built into the same camera body from any other camera brands.
So I wonder Tony, why do you do these comparisons? They feel very much FF-biased.
Good explanations! Now for another challenge: explain how depth of field is different between MFT and FF sensors. With a given lens or with equivalent fields of view.
Love your coment! Great info my friend
Thx for that comment
You should make video of that.
Yes there's already channel who discuss that,
but you seems have knowledge to share with your point of view
Very precise and nice comment, this video is totally being sponsored and interested in promoting FF isntead of other formats. I am on the MFT and APS-C since 2010, today only have MFT and thinking about a FF compact kit for low light situations instead of an OM1 simply due to the fact that there is no used market for other formats than FF gear.
Precapture mode works at 120 fps and it will keep the last 120 frames according to the leaked specs.
So 120fps option can be succesfully be used to capture fast action moments, you will not miss the moment.
Exactly
So if you're 1.0085 second too late, you're still missing the shot even with procapture.
@@youuuuuuuuuuutube if you're over a full second late with your shutter finger, you should rethink action photography
If you are that slow, yes.
With a little practice, you will learn to trigger the moment. You will not miss moments.
I don't think the buffer is large enough for 120 images.
Come on Tony, I agree with many things you say in your Video, but you can’t compare the Canon 800 not weather sealed, not stabilzed, focus limited f11 Lens to the 300 from Olympus which is soooo much better, please 🥺 Also, the other Canon Lenses are so heavy and expensive
Tony obviously doesn't care about image quality in that comparison. More megapixels is more better, right Tony? Ignore the fact that the Canon lens is nowhere near as sharp, has trouble focusing, and is harder to hold steady. But hey, you can really crop in like crazy on that unsharp, out-of-focus, motion-blurred photo without seeing the edges of the pixels, right?
Worst review ever. The telephoto lenses that you have chosen are not comparable.
I couldn ‘t agree more with you spanksen
Thank god we have people like Gordon Laing who actually does unbiased reviews.!
Gordon Laing is a micro four thirds shooter if anything he’s biased. Tony and Chelsea own a range of cameras from full frame to micro four thirds. As professionals they’ve chosen to use full frame cameras for their work to give the best results but they don’t deny that the their Olympus is great for travel and has many features that other systems don’t have such as pre capture and hi res shooting. They provide unbiased reviews and always have. Gordon Laing has not provided unbiased reviews, it’s based on his personal preference whilst Chelsea and Tony perform real world tests and compare against the current market which is the only way. This is why some companies are failing and some aren’t. The evidence is there just some don’t like to hear it
@Adam Bennett I repeat, Thank God we have people like Gordan Laing who actually does unbiased reviews!!!!!!!
Total lies but preach whatever nonsense Gordon has brainwashed you with
@@adambennett6173 Saying it again, Thank god we have people like Gordon Laing who actually does unbiased reviews!
What happened with "Micro Four Third is DEAD"?
Hi Tony, many parts of the review are well done; however, throughout the reveiw comments are clearly dated relateive to tracking. I agree at release, tracking on my EM1X was hit or miss; however, with subsequent firmware, the tracking was much improved. In particular the bird tracking of my EM1X was well ahead of what Canon/Nikon offered until their most recent cameras. Jump to the present and the newest Canon and Nikon systems have better tracking for sure. As you noted, we don't know where OM Digital will shake out. Time will tell on that.
There is a major flaw in your wildlife logic relative to Canon. You may be close on effective DoF, but with the number the OM Digital camera being lower, by 2 stops, that means much more latitiude on the other points on the exposure triange - shutter speed and ISO. This latter one has been key in the past as I will be quick to admit my ISO limit for wildlife with the EM1X was at least a full stop lower than the ISO limit I imposed on my 1Dx MkII.
By the way, I am a wildlife shooter and DoF and bokeh can be a big deal; however, when I'm in Namibia, Kenya and Tanzania, the background is forever away so no problem Actually, often a benefit. I see ton's of friends with 300 f/2.8 or 400 2.8 or 600 f/4 lenses having too shallow a DoF on our Africa trips resulting in either soft eyes or soft nose and ears. The Olympus 150-400 at f/4.5 usually gets the head sharp on wildlife more often that the fast big glass lenses.
I've shot my share of full frame/big glass. In doing so, I've been challenged to get my gear on the planes to Africa. I've also come home time and again with a really sore elbow and shoulder from hefting the big glass. For 3 years now, I've flown with all of the key Olympus/OM Digital gear in a backpack that ways only 2/3 as much and all fits in a single Gura Gear Kiboko bag ... oh, and after a month in Africa my elbows and shoulders are still not sore with this gear.
I can attest to the full frame gear being painfully heavy. My A9 with 200-600mm is a workout. If the OM-1 af tracking can perform up to 80-90 % accuracy, I'll take it. The long tele's are smaller, lighter, faster, and cheaper.
You don’t have 2 more stops latitude. Your sensor is 75% less surface area, aka, 2 stops.
@@sosomelodies659 6 months have passed... I think OM-1 bird tracking and performance had surpassed sony a1/nikon z9/canon r3 by fraction of the cost. you should be able to find plenty of resource of OM-1 with pro capture features on youtube and facebook. Thank you.
@@wansonicful this comment inspired me
looks like he's trying to finish the hit job he started a few years ago towards M4/3.
He is trying to prove how he was right and now he is wrong.
Pretty sad how the camera world works. If you’re not ff canon or Sony guys like tony just bash it. I love the part when he tried to talk about taking pictures of athletes. Olympus has been notoriously stressing their lightweight body and lens, top grade weather sealing and tons of features that supports the type of photographer who Wants to be outdoors with light head and capture Quality… and this man is out here talking about athletes and low light….typical
This video was not unreasonable, but I disagree with some of the assumptions. M43 has a rich ecosystem of both body styles/sizes and lenses. They adapt well to many legacy lenses. I think simply comparing FF equivalent lense values and weight and price is certainly part of the equation potential buyers make, but m43 is also the system for photographers with every conceivable lens option ready in their camera bag. A mount adapter and a range of renowned vintage lenses for different looks. Big dslr-style bodies AND a tiny rangefinder-style body. High quality lenses and goofy plastic lenses and body cap lenses. I know much of that is available in other systems, but I actually SEE m43 users do all that crazy stuff. I see Canon and Nikon shooters with their big wildlife zooms and nothing else.
Style of work, or what you look for in a hobby, are also very important factors in which system suits you. There is no question that a Sony FF camera tailored to a specific job is probably safer and easier, but there are still people buying and reviewing others brands, so...
All budget classes of m43 cameras of the same generation have similar image quality, they differ in level of control and features. This sensor and some of these features will end up in a future OM10 interation, for instance. I'm excited about that. Small, the recent tech, all my lenses work, nobody is intimidated when you point that tot camera at them.
"I see Canon and Nikon shooters with their big wildlife zooms and nothing else."
You talk about reasonableness and assumptions and then you counter with personal anecdote. Odd.
M43 can adapt only old DSLR lenses and not the new mirrorless lenses due to the flange range. This situation isn’t relevant for new users as they doesn’t have any old lenses. Most of this DSLR lenses are now discontinued so in the future there will be less users with this long flange DSLR lenses. The weight argument is also nullified by the new mirrorless FF cameras. Nikon Z6 and even Pana S5 are the same size as the OM EM1. It is matter of time that FF producers will produce small F/4 zoom lenses or even primes. The example of the total price of Canon R6 with an equivalent lens for action, sports and wildlife makes sense as OM is targetting this segment. It seems that EMX couldn’t not even beat Nikon D500 for this market segment. m43 is entering the declining fase as they cannot provide any Unique selling point. The only USP that m43 can provide is an video spec, that is why Panasonic introduced their Lumix S line of FF bodies and upgrading only the Lumix GH line as for the same price no FF can provide better video spec.
Well said!
@@smaakjeks I write that comparing FF focal length, aperture, weight and price are not the only considerations. I don't say it is wrong to *have* assumptions. I mention a personal anecdote to illustrate an additional point that I think is relevant. But it's OK, my wife thinks I talk nonsense too ;-)
@@smaakjeks I got rid of my Nikon long lenses and trip/gimbal head. I found I was rooted to the spot. It reminds me of the old plate cameras with cloth hoods and wooden tripods. The Olympus system does away with all that. Portability, and creates more possibilities.
Hi Tony,
Once and for all, I dare to disagree with two statements in your comparison:
1) the aperture is given by the ratio of the diameter of the input lens and the focus, so you can not say that the amount of light per area from the lens 300/4 on M43 is equivalent to 600/8 FF (this equality only applies to comparing depth of field, they are identical)
2) pixel density / mm2 determines how much detail I get on the chip. When using a lens with the same focus on FF and M43, the result may be as follows:
20Mpix on the M43 system is 4x denser than on the Canon R6 20Mpix and therefore with a lens of the same focal length I get 2x more details on the Olympus M1X ...
Whining about the "outdated" 20 MP Sensor on the new OM-1 and then recommending an even more expensive 20 MP Full Frame camera body (Canon R6) a few minutes later has something comical ^^
F/11 lenses from Canon have a big limitation : cannot use all focus points from the sensor, only the zone from the center of the sensor wich is about 25% of the sensor area. And in low-light a F/4.0 lens will focus much better than a F/11 lens.
In my opinion Olympus 300mm F/4.0 is a much better option than F/11 lenses from any point of view.
Also, the Olympus 300mm is a pro weather sealed lens.
@@gonzalolaurie8243 Puls it has much better minimum focus
Same thing with the rf100-500
Costs 3x of the Canon lens, though. And, f4 in m3/4 = f8 full frame. So, it's not that much slower.
Strange comparision as the Olympus cost more then the Canon one. Strange that FF manufacturers are not making telezoom lenses at F8 Aperture. Maybe this lenses are not provitable.
+Tony & Chelsea Northrup Is it safe to assume Olympus didn't send you an OM-1 to review?
lol
Quad Bayer doesn't mean you get four colour filters for each pixel, it's the opposite. It means the sensor has 80mp worth of photosites but a 20mp filter so you have four photosites of the same colour in a square for each pixel. This allows you to reduce noise by taking readings from all four photosites and averaging them into a single pixel. Phone cameras use this trick to reduce noise and to effectively lie about their resolution in marketing. My phone claims to have a 48mp sensor but only takes 12mp images. OMDS is just being more honest in their marketing instead of claiming to have an 80mp sensor.
Yeah, he also missed the BSI part, that might be another contributing factor for better noise performance.
Two points; 1. Train focusing options - Japan is quite a train obsessed nation, rightly proud of their train network. Having visited, I now notice how even my old film camera brochures showed lots of trains. 2 - I realise you have more technical knowledge than I do so except and respect that. In my experience EM1 MkII is my go to kit for travelling (when we can - travel still limited in Western Australia). Like for like lenses are lighter and the aperture equivalence issue was always balanced by the IBIS, allowing a longer exposure. My R5 has good IBIS, but the Em1 mkII remains better in my experience (hand held waterfalls). Canon's 600mm is cheap and light, however it would not be as robust in a travel backpack I suspect.
OK Tony, but what about WR on those f/11 lenses? What about optical quality? What about handholding those focal lengths? Because Olympus has all that. I’m not saying it’s always better, but there are a lot of factors you’re leaving out.
Those F/11 lenses cannot use all focus-points from sensor, only the area from the center of the sensor. Tony forgot to mention this. So those F/11 lenses are not a serious option and of course it cannot match the performance of 300mm F/4.0. In low light a F/4.0 lens will always focus better than a F/11 lens.
Tony is comparing top lenses from Olympus with low budget lenses from other manufacturers. 600 mm f/4 from Canon is $13.000
Other important differences are, the closest focusing distance of the canon lens is atrocious 4.5m whereas for the olympus lens it is 1.4m. The olympus can be hand held to much lower shutter speed.
M43 never died Tony ...
I don't know why the rumoured release of the OM-1 prompts the question "Is m43 back" when Panasonic is officially releasing the GH6 on the 22nd Feb with no mention on this channel at all. I'm well and truly invested in the Sony camp now, but I never have as much fun with these cameras as I did with my GH5.
Micro 4/3 is back for Tony he has been buriying m43 for the last years so he believes his own inventions I am afraid… Tony wished Olympus disapeared but, sorry for him, it has not
I enjoyed the process of taking pictures with my Pentax. I fight with my Sony.
Ok, the next person to say "the death of micro four thirds" has to photograph cats exclusively for a full year.
Is that what happened to Phil Bloom?
Some people see that as enabling an addiction.
I took hi-res mode shots with the E-M1 mk 2 leaning against the roof of an idling car. It is WORLDS better than the Sony version.
It should be.. the sensor is half the size
The crop factor is 2, meaning the sensor is basically 1/4th of the surface of a FF sensor, that's why readout is faster
but those ''50 megapixel'' photo don't even compare to an actual 40+ mp photo from a FF camera, its not even close
@@JetBen555 yeah, depends on the subject, the lens, etc. In some cases I got amazing results, but generally it's better to just start with the high res sensor.
I have used both system and I agree with you completely.
I just love the combination of quality durability and portability my oly em1 mkii and f4 300mm bring to me . I get tempted by the full frame and then I see guys lumbering around(including tony and chelsea on their nature shoots) and think jeez would I be so bothered to take it around like I do the oly?
Walking, cities , nature reserves, the beach, up mountains ......no problem .
The best camera is the one you have with you ......and therefore I know olympus and om system wins hands down for me .
Well said. I go out with an Em1x, 300mm F4 plus 1.4 and 2 xTC. There's also a 12-40F2.8 all contained in my Billingham shoulder bag! This covers all my needs and hence the reason I moved away from FF and APSC. Love Oly M43 gear and it's much more reliable in adverse weather too
Have you forgotten that Olympus/OM System cameras have Pro Capture? With Pro Capture, you can just half depress the shutter and wait for the action to happen instead of holding down the shutter and filling up your buffer with 180 images before anything happens. That also means you have a lot fewer junk images to sort through. That's why I shoot in Pro Capture mode more often than not for wildlife photography.
I don't think he forgot. He has seemed to have it out for Olympus for years. Either he is incompetent, or purposely being misleading.
P.S. This is part of the comment I wanted to make.
I agree,eye detection in m1x is not good , but in m1iii it is excellent. When it comes to evf lag and rolling shutter, oly m1 is 2.5 times faster than r6. The 800mm f11 is the worst lens I've ever had in my hand. You forgot to say that the autofocus with the 800/600 f11 only works in the center of frame. The image quality is not even close to 300mm f4. You also forgot to say that they are not sealed against rain and dust. Wild life in the zoo?? Maybe. 😉
Which is why I hate that he only mentioned half of the story and mislead people who are new into the system buying into Canon’s 800 and 600 f11 RF lenses and thinking they are better than the Olympus 300 f4.
Wish they would update the M1X firmware to upgrade the eye detection to be the same as the Mkiii.
@@ryantang8146 here we have proof that reviewers tell loads of BS to sell the cameras that make the most money with their affiliate links.
@@EstelonAgarwaen Sadly, Olympus and Panasonic have not done themselves any favors during the past five years or so to further improve what they are good at while Sony and Fujifilm have made leaps and bounds advancement in terms of autofocus capability and other features which made a lot of people switched into their system. Let’s see what the OM1 is about when they announce it tomorrow.
@@charliegreen1989 wishful thinking. I have the EM1X also but I doubt they have the financial resources to invest further into past cameras given their current financial position. Look, OMDS is now a relatively small camera manufacturer compares to Sony who is a billion dollars corporation and probably have invested heavily into their R&D so it is not easy to even survive against big boys like Canon and even Nikon.
Tony has moved on from being an Olympus hater to a JIP hater.
Lovely!!! I really enjoyed this video. 23 minutes of nonsense info based on incomplete rumors. Wow! 😍 What a fun, especially being using this camera in field for last 3 weeks. And comparison examples? Even better. Ignore newer generation of face detect in E-M1 III and use the worse AF setting combination of older E-M1X is the best. Keep going, I can't wait for your next video. 😍
It can be confusing when Olympus named that recompose mode as 'C-AF+Tr'. However, the manual is clear, use C-AF and area select to track subjects, same as with a DSLR. No Olympus shooter uses C-AF+Tr for tracking moving subjects AFAIK, only a few reviewers.
As an Olympus video shooter I’m stoked! I understand other cameras may be better or cheaper… but I love my oly primes and the ibis for video in the “mode 1” mode is just incredible. I think I may sell my EM1 mkii and mkiii for this!
Remember that Olympus has the Pro Capture mode. You don't have to take pictures for several seconds to ensure you got that goal winning kick. Are you really saying that the Olympus 300mm + 1.4x is equivalent to the Canon 800mm f11??
I wonder if he's aware of it. As you say, it completely negates his point
In Olympus cameras there is procapture mode that allows us to press the shutter a few seconds AFTER the action has happened and it still records the action. So what Tony is saying about not having enough buffer resulting in missing a sports shot is totally wrong and shows that he has not mastered this unique feature of Olympus. Rather, this unique feature of the camera plus 120fps will ensure that we almost never miss the shot in sports photography. Greater depth of field of MFT ensures that even if the focus is fixed still many frames are in focus.
See this is why my sceptical mind is confounded by Tony. I know he knows about ProCapture. I know he does thorough testing. He looks like he eats well. So I struggle to buy that he's innocently ignorant / going senile. Yet I hear many falsehoods from him concerning Olympus, and always to their detriment - this video has several off-putting errors if they were to be believed. What's up with that?
Hi Tony and thanks for your "Confirmation Bias" which involves favoring information that confirms your previously existing beliefs or biases.
Tony, first of all, I do enjoy some of your videos over the years but I must echo the majority of your viewers that your negative remarks on the Micro 4/3 system are very biased and unfair. Either you don’t fully understand this system or you just don’t want to admit that your prediction made three years ago (Micro 4/3 would be dead) has been proven wrong. It is definitely here to stay and serve in the photographic industry in a bigger and better way. Now the new Olympus OM-1 and Panasonic GH-6 are the proofs of that. Of course the system will continue to improve in line with all the major camera systems in the industry. Many professional photographers and film makers as well as equipment manufacturers are enormously supporting the Micro 4/3 system. I myself have been a Nikon full frame and DX shooter ever since digital camera became available in the consumer market. As well my Olympus and Panasonic gears are excellent tools and they are better suited for many of my professional projects with better results. To further illustrate my point, some professional wildlife, adventure and event photographers have confirmed that full frame’s extremely shallow depth of field on telephone lenses simply does not produce the balanced sharp images unless the lens is stopped down. But the lighting condition for wildlife, adventure and event photography is usually poor resulting in much higher ISO and slower shutter speed, never mind the big and heavy lenses making the shooting experience very unpleasant. Of course there are many other benefits for shooting with Micro 4/3 cameras not mentioned here. My personal advice to you Tony is that no one should step down on any brand or system in the photography world. Each system has its own merit & uniqueness and it will be better suited in different shooting environments. The genuine content creators and gear lovers would make their choice as which system they need for each specific project with the expected results in mind, when they truly know what they are doing in photography. I would like to take this opportunity to salute the Micro 4/3 system for its truly innovative and ground breaking technologies, just to name a few: mirrorless idea incorporated into the enthusiast and professional cameras in early days, compact form factor on both body & lens, 5-axis in-body imaging stabilization, certified weather sealing, true to life electronic view finder etc. At the same time, I congratulate the full frame and APSC research and development for producing more efficient & effective models in recent years so that everyone can enhance the image making experience. Tony & Chelsea, all the best to you and your UA-cam channel.
Good points, well said
Your fair and unbiased points of discussion based on your personal shooting experience with various formats of cameras are well received. I couldn't agree with you more. Thank you!
"don't buy this till after I review it" Who does this guy think he is. The pope of cameras? Seriously. This might as well have been a payed Canon advertisement too.
That’s what they do.
On other top Olympus cameras you can solve the problem of the buffer by half pressing the shutter, and then going to a full press after the action, and it will give you a series of shots before it.
Yeah but the buffer is so small that you will still miss the action. The feature is great but it needs a much larger buffer.
@@youuuuuuuuuuutube Pro capture side steps this issue entirely. I have never experienced a full buffer on my Em1x even at 60fps.
Solid video until....
It took Tony 19 minutes to again hit on the crop-factor/aperture discussion. OM keeps on comparing without taking into account the f-stop change on crop. But Tony keeps forgetting to mention it's only the case for DOF (or composition change with equal DOF) not actual light-gathering (which impacts ISO/Shutter-speed). An f/4 lens will always be an f/4 on any sensor if you look at light gathering. It's the DOF/Composition that's different on a crop sensor. It's this exact reason you cannot simply convert a 300mm f/4 to a 600mm f/8. It's more complicated then just doing times 2 or divide by 2.
So who keeps on telling the same wrong story here ? Both OM and Tony if you ask me.
I don't compare FF with M43 at all. Same reason I don't compare FF to Medium Format or phones. They are all different systems. Pick the one that suits you, and stop comparing. I don't compare a Minivan to a Sportscar either. Even though they're both cars and allow you to so some shopping or go from A to B. I pick the one I like, or just get both.
Thank you for your great comment
I doubt that he don't know it.. it seems to be a topic that he intentionally don't want to understand. In wildlife photography having a F11 or F4 is a huge huge difference as you want to have the stutter as fast as possible. It is just nonsense to say that a F4 is equivalent to a F8...
"But Tony keeps forgetting to mention it's only the case for DOF (or composition change with equal DOF) not actual light-gathering (which impacts ISO/Shutter-speed)."
Wrong. It's fully equivalent in terms of results. And results is what matters.
"I don't compare FF with M43 at all. Same reason I don't compare FF to Medium Format or phones. They are all different systems."
You do you. But if you wanted to compare them, you could. By converting by the crop factor.
"Pick the one that suits you, and stop comparing."
No. Comparisons shall be made. All of them. All the comparisons. Mwuahaha
@@smaakjeks It's not fully equivalent in terms of results, you're laughably incorrect.
@@gavinlagrange6322
m4/3 set-up for a photo:
100mm, f4, ISO 200
Let me know what FF set-up (assuming similar sensor tech) you think one would use to get the same results on a similar sized print.
4.5 x 1.25=6.6? You might want to double check your math there slugger. The 150-400mm 4.5 with the 1.25 teleconverter engaged gives you a 500mm 5.6 at the long end.
Yes the depth of filed on M43 is double the full frame, but F4 in Lumix/Olympus lenses is brighter than F8 in full frame... and the greater depth of field on M43 is beneficial to help the subject in focus while using telezoom lens, regardless how "poor" the autofocus (so-they-say) compared to Sony, Canon or Nikon.
This is the argument I never get about full frame snobs. I don’t care about how much shallow depth of field my Leica 8-18mm f/2.8-4 can or can’t make. What matters is that I’m literally getting the same light gathering as is advertised on the lens with more of the frame in focus.
I rented a Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 for my now sold Sony A7III, needless to say I had to stop down like a mf to get the similar amount of in focus area throughout the frame as my Leica 8-18mm at f/4. I think I would stop down at f/7.1-8 on the Sony. It was ridiculous and James Popsys goes over this topic in a video using the Lumix S5 and Lumix G9.
I've been shooting with my EM-1 mkIII, and it's simply astounding. The Olympus PRO glass is fantastic. 50MP handheld pictures of the moon?
Yes please!
And if you use the fast 1.2 lenses or the fisheye f/1.8 you might even capture the milky way handheld. I want to see an FF system user doing that :)))
@@mariuscamenita9643 I have the 45mm f/1.2 and that fisheye. I'll be heading down to Mesa Verde in late spring (before fire season) to do some astro. Been practicing at Black Canyon NP, which is pretty damned dark.
Demand for the OM-1 has far exceeded expectations (3 months waiting time at the moment), so many people see value in this camera that Tony apparently doesn't.
If they do achieve the claimed 2-stop noise improvement on the sensor, the 300mm f/4 would actually be equivalent to a 600mm f/4 on a full-frame camera, exposure-wise. Of course, the 300mm MFT would have a longer depth of field, but that is not necessarily a disadvantage.
I would honestly prefer to have more in focus
@@undergreenthunder8037 No. You still end up with a lot less. It's always better to have more DOF capabilities. It's easy to go from f/4 to f/6.3...or f/8. Better to have more range.
@@JACKnJESUS
Right but with 4/3 you can still go to f8 and have even more depth of field. Especially if they demolish the light dilemma than I am getting this camera.
@@undergreenthunder8037 lol..no. Every camera can go smaller aperture...until diffraction kicks in. No, you want to start as wide as you can. Why be limited?
I remember your channel and similar ones kept telling us MFT is dead. So can't take you seriously now..
@20:33 That comparation is just.........Bro, there is Olympus PRO 150-400 that is ~7500$ yes, but there is also a 100-400 ~1200$. Which system is cheaper? This is not an honest review.
this is a very exciting development M43 is not dead! every sensor size has its place and what works for you , works! OM-D has really blown me away with its capabilities at live gig shoots! I use FF and APS-C too, transferring from Nikon to OM-D is silky smooth!
It really is shameful that they put their thumb(s) on the scale so blatantly. I think most of us who switched from FF did so for portability of the LENSES. It’s fine that the OM-1 is relatively large and expensive. It’s built to balance Pro lenses. I’ll stack my OM lenses against Sony or Canon (12-40mm f2.8; 40-150mm f2.8 and 300mm f4.0) for quality, speed and WEIGHT anytime. Oh, yes and value too. Tony might cherry-pick a body and lens for his comparison - but a broader and more pragmatic view of an outdoor photographer’s bag would be fairer.
I don’t deride FF photographers for their choices (indeed, I use Canon FF myself at times) so why do they snub MFT. Fear of competition or paid opinions. This constant bashing by these two is starting to get on my tits!! (Ornithologically speaking of course).
This guy is not serious. An F4 lens has exactly the same light and speed at 4/3 or full frame. They only diverge in depth of field, so yes, f8 at 4/3 is equivalent to f4 at full frame, and Tony's bokhe there is different.
No, Toni have another video and he explain that the crop factor is for f number too. The f numbers on M43 lies, its pure marketing.
@@mistergiovanni7183 Does Toni can change the fisics law?
As much as I respect Mr Northrup as a professional & reviewer, I still always get the feel that he gives Oly (OMS) a waaaay harder time than deserved, not recognizing the good & really maximizing the not so good. The new (YES NEW) sensor is an enormous improvement, AF tracking is going to be incredibly better than before, ISO a bit better, DR bit better too, FPS in full AF-C is 50 (NOT 20! as Tony mentioned when completing with the Canon R6, come on Tony!)... Anyway, I think the new camera is an OUTSTANDING improvement on previous Oly's. I totally get his comparison to FF for wildlife photography, but there is still soooo much to like about the lighter & cheaper options that MFT gives compared to FF when not doing the super high end wildlife setup comparison's. If you are invested into MFT or not solely dedicated to high end WL photography (wanting more megapixels) the OM-1 is an INCREDIBLY FEATURE PACKED camera. I'm selling my em1 mkII & getting one as soon as I can. Hopefully in months, not years :-) MFT IS ALIVE! YUJU!!!!! PS that doesn't mean I'm not ever going to use my FF Canon, that I also love, I use whichever is best suited to the particular type of photography that I will be doing, & yes of course sometimes that is my FF... But believe me the percentage of times that happens is getting smaller & smaller. I tend to have more fun with my Oly, & still get the photos I was hoping for. Simply that.
The lens comparison is not accurate... In telephoto wildlife photography the amount of light that reaches the sensor is far more relevant than depth of field... A 300mm f4 m4/3 is indeed better for wildlife photography than a 600mm ff f11... And there are other factors such as sharpness, color fringing and refraction that must be taken into consideration when comparing lenses (especially telephoto lenses)...
You also do not bring macrophotography into the discussion, why? It's far from being niche photography.... m4/3 format and the olympus 60mm f2.8 macro excel at it in comparison with the competition... I've compared the olympus 60mm f2.8 lens with the nikon 105mm f2.8 macro, canon 100mm macro and the sigma 150mm f2.8 macro it is sharper than any of these at their optimum aperture (nonetheless in terms of overal quality, nothing compares to the bokehlicious sigma 150mm f2.8). Sharpness wise and handheld wise olympus m4/3 cameras + macro lenses are far better for macro photography because of that stellar image stabilization and good quality lenses...
In terms of the high res mode sony does not reach the heals of olympus... Saying that it is not useful for landscape photography is not true... I live in Canada, just like you, and I have had very good results using it in many situations, even at sunset.
I also have had very good results using olympus hi-res mode for 'on the field' macro photography (for subjects that do not move) using an olympus em1 mkii (it's a great way of getting large format images on the fly)...
I trully hope that OM systems have improved the focus speed and low light performance of the camera... They say that the sensor is retroilluminated, I hope this shows up in low light performance and dynamic range...
By the way, one thing that you've never mentioned in your videos: when using af tracking for shooting wildlife with olympus cameras, limiting the focussing range (browse the focus menu - A or B) greatly speeds it up and considerably improves 'on focus hit rate' up to almost on par with what you get with other faster af tracking cameras (again with an em1 mkii)... I think this is something sony cameras do automatically when one is using af tracking, that's one of the reasons it works well...
The original sony a 7 and a7r were focus slugs up to the models mkii to iii so it's not that impossible that we see very significant improvements in the om1, I hope so...
As for the sensor resolution it's a compromise between resolution low light dynamic range and camera speed... For me, I'm perfect with 20Mp as long as low light performance and focus have improved significantly...
Again, one thing that you forgot to mention is that you may have a bigger buffer on sony or canon/nikon cameras but then you have to wait like 5 minutes before the buffer clears out vs 10-20 seconds on an olympus (probably any other 20Mp) camera... This affects your photography experiece way more than being able to take 12 more photos at high speed mode...
In terms of video, it seems that om systems may have finally done it, let's hope the om1 is filled with all those beautiful things, and some new features, one can only find in panasonic cameras...
I'm far from being a brand/format loyal fundamentalist but I'm objective and unfortunatelly I don't think you are. You should evaluate pros and cons of the gear you revise/talk about in an open, transparent and objective way.
There is not a perfect system, m4/3 format is not bad in anyway, and olympus cameras (hopefully now OM systems cameras) are so good in so many aspects, are so versatile, have so many good features that translate into artistic freedom, are so customizable and wonderful to use. Image quality wise the proof that these cameras are quite capable is pattent in many international photo competitions... I've also won more than a few photography competitions using m4/3 cameras (from the EPL5 to the em1 mkii) and many, if not most, of my competitors were using sony, nikon and canon cameras...
Another field at which m4/3s cameras excell is underwater photography, the form factor the quality and the price are there, and make underwater photography much more accessible to most of us... For the price of an underwater housing for a sony a, nikon z, or canon r you can buy a complete system for a m4/3 camera: housing a pair of flashguns, housing tray and articulated arms for the flash guns...
If you want to compare the OM-1 with the R6 together with lenses, the comparison should use comparable lenses, not top against entry or you can do it also the other way: why not comparing the Canon 100-500 against the Olympus 100-400 which is much cheaper then the Canon? Also the max aperture of the Olympus 150-400 with built in tc was calculated wrong: a 4.5 aperture with 1.25 tc ends up at 5.6 , not 6.6!
Tony is just fake new now. What a math error.
Hello Tony.
Olympus m43 has never been in the shadows, but it has been ignored or maligned by the FF goose-steppers.
i recently bought a Canon 5d Classic and likely will buy a 5D mk2 later as well, with principal reason to use all my collection of excellent old film era Oympus OM series manual focus lenses in a FF context.
I will NOT be buying or using any Canon auto focus or electronic lenses on the Canon bodies.
i do use my manual lenses on my OMD EM1 mk2 and enjoy the experience.
i will not be buying the new OM becasue it is simply too expensive for me.
You lost me at FF shooters = Nazis
Thanks for reviewing this new camera, but Micro 4/3 was never dead (in spite of you declaring it so). Looking at the specs of this OM-1, they look very similar to a Panasonic G9, which has been out for a few years and just keeps getting better with every firmware update.
Tony! You are again WRONG! The Canon 800mm F11 and Oly 300mm F4 + 1.4x (840mm) are giving nearly the same angle of view and depth of field BUT this Oly combo is only F5.6. that means it is two stops faster than the Canon 800mm F11. The light transmission of the lens is F4+TC1.4x=F5.6. The amount of light passing the lens is two stops more and the light on the sensor/1mm is also more. Just set both the cameras to the wider apperture and read the time value given automaticaly by the cameras. Please don't fool the readers all the time. How much cost a Canon 800mm F5.6 ???
It’s the difference between the sensors Janos, a 5.6 aperture on micro four thirds is the same as f11 full frame due to how much light it hits the sensor and the pixel density. Tony is right
@@adambennett6173 I disagree. As I wrote, the amount of light/square mm on the sensor using this Oly combo is twice of the Canon's 800mm/f11. Just give it a try, the Oly combo will give you two times faster shutter speed.
@@janosnemeth917 I have it doesn’t make any difference, image quality is also miles better and dynamic range allows you to render shadows even more on the R6. There is no argument. The only thing the OM-1 has is 7 stops of stabilisation which it needs due to the lack of light it lets in. The R6 sensor is 4 times the size of the 4:3 so it lets 4 times the amount of light in. So having an 2.8 aperture is like having a 5.6 or even in some cases as I’ve seen it 6.3 aperture
@@janosnemeth917Yes, with four times the noise. If you want to take pictures that are actually equivalent, you need to shoot M43 at two stops lower ISO.
The light per square millimeter doesn’t matter nearly as much as the total amount of light the sensor gathers, because we look at pictures, not square millimeters of the sensor.
The Olympus shot at F5.6 and 100 ISO will give you the same results as the full frame shot at F11 and 400 ISO.
A lot of people struggle with this. Equivalence isn’t about whether you can use the same settings in your exposure triangle across systems. It’s about getting the same results across camera systems. And you’ll get the same result shooting a full frame f11 at 1/250 and 400 ISO as an M43 f5.6 at 1/250 and 100 ISO.
Also aperture is defined by the focal length divided by the diameter of the iris. So a 50mm f2 has an opening of 25mm. You can’t say a 50mm f2 is equivalent to a 100mm f2 on M43, because that’s not how math works. You can’t change just half of an equation.
Being invested quite deeply into M43, I would have appreciated a higher resolution sensor using computational features just like modern smartphones. Let's wait for the GH 6, but according to the leaked specs, I don't expect a much higher resolution, it'l probably use the same IMX 472 sensor. One word about your frame rate considerations: If I were on to shoot the goal, I would not use ordinary serial shooting, but "Pro-Capture" mode, which buffers before fully pressing the shutter. With that you can wait for the goal as long as the battery or your arms can hold it and won't miss the shot. In my eyes, a must-have feature for any upper class camera.
At 120fps, pro-capture will only be able to hold less than 1 second still, so if you fully press the shutter 1.0085 second too late, you're still missing the shot.
@@youuuuuuuuuuutube 1 sec is certainly long enough. I use this regularly for songbirds in flight (at 20 - 40 fps), which are way faster than any men doing sports.
I don't understand the point of comparing the OM-1s + 300mm f4 lens + 1.4 teleconvertor with a Canon R6 +800mm f11 in a _preview_ of the new Olympus OM-1. The comparison seems contrived. For one thing, only a tiny fraction of the total Olympus and Canon shooters use these cameras _only_ with those particular lenses. Second, users of the Olympus 300mm f4 lens primarily use it _without_ the teleconverter. Third, the vast majority of Olympus and Canon shooters who even use these lenses, use _other_ lenses most of the time.
Are you reading the comments Tony ?
Why do these reviewers insist on reviewing cameras without a camera. Please wait till you actually have the camera before you start bagging it. That said, you probably could NOT give a honest opinion simply because you have always had a negative approach towards M43 cameras.
Tony, you are really misleading people here.
1.- The buffer on current Olympus cameras is not so important compared with old tech traditional cameras like R6's or A7's... with Olympus you can "time travel" and never lose the moment with the special feature you forgot to mention. If you don't want to lose that moment, Olympus has the advantage ProCapture
2.- I am tired to use HRes mode with tripod on the field (both modes actually), so you were wrong there.
3.- "All you know that f4 is equivalent to f8" that's only if you are talking about bokeh... but f8 means more ISO than f4 at the same shooting speed... and you also forgot to mention that increasing the ISO drastically reduces dynamic range.... so small sensor can be better in these conditions.
4.- Comparing the "I know that you will never spend what a good tele FF lens, but I have to feed you with the FF bullshit even when it has no sense, so I give you a piece of plastic with two glasses for 1000USD, so please buy my oversized camera (f11 Canon Teles, just in case you didn't get it)" lens with the 300 f4 is just ridiculous. The focusing speed, sharpness, close focusing, stabilization, etc, would put each lens inits own category. You better compare with the 75-300 which costed me 350€
5.- eye AF works wonderfully on EM1,3 (never tested the EM1x myself). Better than any Sony or Canon?? Probably not, but the difference can't never be a definitive purchase argument (example 1800 photos to jumping ballerinas in Barcelona streets with AF (all bursts)... I lost maybe 10... shot at 1,8
BTW my friend uses an R6 and it is an AWESOME camera...
Conclusion - OM hasn't given Tony a prerelease body to review. Who do we think has one already?
My bet would be Red35!
Matt horsepool,Chris-eyre walker,marmophoto..and dp review :)
@@verbraekenchristophe8233 now, marmophoto is a real sports photographer, not like tonny... and a really good one. Would love to see a real review from him.
@@JulioFeoUNAM yes,i like him 2.Check out Matt Horsepool,also a good photographer.👌👍
Whatever you do, ignore the Northrups.
Didn't get your pre production copy ? What a shame
I don't think anything can truly well me but this camera seems quite good and I will be buying it as an upgrade from my Mark 2. If I already had a Mark 3 I probably wouldn't upgrade just yet. I am perfectly comfortable with the micro four thirds format notwithstanding the criticisms of it. It works for me. And why replace all my lenses?
You are a very intelligent presenter. But I wish you would stop the misleading M43 aperture conversions you apply. You know that if you take a hand held incident meter reading, the reading is applied the same to both M43 and full frame, and for that matter what ever format you use. You know that if you alter that reading by two stops you will blow the exposure. So don't confuse people by some esoteric comparison of total light gathering over the total surface area of the sensor. By that logic an optic that covers 4x5 film has a real aperture of f 0.95 or something. Having a full Sony outfit with every GM lens along with my "OM System" makes me neutral in the fan boy arena. By I am a fan boy of truth and logic.
Tony did the experiment, I suggest you watch it (mentioned in the video)
@@MrJed_s I am aware of his attempt to confuse people with total surface area and noise. It is not the same discussion as true aperture which is a simple mathematical measure that was true with film and with digital He is presenting a blend of truth with misinformation. He can not change mathematics regardless how hard he tries. I don't care, but he is misleading others who are less well grounded and that is not fair.
@@donwhite332 Doesn’t it all come down to shutter speed? If you have an Olympus rig with an f/4 tele and a FF rig with an f/8, it seems like the FF setup is going to cut off faster shutter speeds necessary for minimizing blur.
I thought originally this was a passive-aggressive video, but the more I watched it the more I realised that this was an aggressively negative review for a camera that’s not even out yet. Also, the f stop numbers on any lens pertain to the ratio between the aperture diameter and the lens length so when Olympus say f2.8 they are correct, the lens has f/2.8 light gathering capability. however you do get double the depth of field - but that is not the f stop. it really came across that you want m4/3 to fail and created your own perceived reality. I’m now wondering how you can give an open minded review when the camera does come out? As a subscriber to your site I respect your view and never buy kit without checking to see if you have reviewed it first. This is the first time I felt a bias in your view.
and fairly often having more DOF paired with more light gathering is a bonus. Bokeh can be manipulated by increasing subject separation (I.E. making the background further away from the subject). For wildlife this can be as easy as getting lower down to the ground.
For landscapes, you can shoot at F/4 or F/5.6 to get F/8 or F/11 style DOF, which can be better for twilight or pre-dawn shoots due to the wider aperture. Especially when shooting without a tripod.
I believe that many MFT user do misconstrue the crop factor to the benefit of the MFT system, but Tony does exactly the same thing for the opposite side. The real truth lies somewhere in the middle. There are trade-offs to both full-frame and MFT. Full frame wildlife gear is bigger and more expensive. MFT is smaller and cheaper. Full frame gives a shallower DOF, which is sometimes a good thing and sometimes a bad thing (Missing focus on animal eyes because DOF is so thin).
I do not understand why the Northrups despise MFT so much. It's clear they've never used the system. I used to shoot wildlife on full frame w/ Nikon and now I shoot on MFT. I do not regret switching. I can take my full kit on long hikes and not notice the extra weight. The results are comparable, especially if you don't pixel peep. And it was much cheaper.
But you have to consider the two stop iso penalty. I used Olympus for years and loved it, but Tony is right. F4 m43 produces f8 f resulrs
@@balboa0621 the ISO penalty would be on full frame at f/8, not MFT at f/4. Full frame f/8 would have 2 stops higher ISO than MFT at f/4 (at same shutter speed).
The argument can be made that full frame handles high ISO better (less noise/nicer looking noise) but if you ask anyone if they would prefer to shoot at 8000 ISO instead of 2000 ISO, they would say no.
@@themxtr not exactly. Ff f8, 1/200, 6400 would look the same as m43 f4, 1/200, 1600. M43 sensors are two stops worse in iso performance.
Ff f4, 1/200, 1600 would look the same as m43 f4, 1/200, 400.
You need a two stop faster lens to negate the two stop iso penalty. F4 m43 won't produce the same result as f4 ff because 1600 iso is two stops better in noise performance over 1600 m43.
If you only shoot under 800 iso, it's not a big deal (dof notwithstanding).
@@balboa0621 I’m not sure I agree. F stop is a calculated number from two fixed points, iso is irrelevant to it. In saying that the iso is better on full frame, l shoot Nikon too. In all honesty though iso {keep it low) is the last thing I adjust in the exposure triangle, but I rarely do anything low light.
It's funny in the old film world we never heard reviewers talking about how medium format 'captured more light' than 35mm full frame. What mattered more to people was 35mm full frame cameras could be carried around, whereas medium format you could not carry it around all day, it weighed too much. 35mm full frame took nearly all the market.
In 2022 we have micro four thirds cameras that have much smaller lenses.
I wonder.what could happen to the market going forward?
This is no review, c'mon. You did not even touch the WoW camera.
Tony really has a crop burr in his pants. The light and shutter speed matter to some people. The greater depth of field can be welcomed, when you don't have to sell shutter to get it. I think MFT has the same place in a FF world, that FF has in MF world. I hope they keep the system going. That said only about 1/4 of my favorite images are MFT, rest are FF. I Don't feel the need to MF yet.
Those 108MP phone camera sensors are usually quad-bayer or nona-bayer filters, so just 27MP or 12MP, but lower noise.
If OM Digital Solutions was a phone company, they'd call the OM-1 an 80 megapixel camera.
Does equivalence apply to autofocus? Im not sure it does. I’m guessing a 400mm 5.6 4/3 lens will focus better in low light than the 800mm f/11 full frame. I’d like to see some sort of test on this.
It's depth of field equivalent. Sort of. Amount of light doesn't change in that way, so 2.8 on m4/3 will always be 2.8.
@@PowerfulGaz18 I don't understand why more camera people don't understand this.
@@AlpacoFilms it’s also equivalence when it comes to image quality and total light. A full frame 800mm f/11 lens will produce a similar image (depth of field and noise ) as a 400mm 5.6 ff lens when shooting in the same conditions.
Given the total light equivalency, and argument can be made that autofocus would also be equivalent because there is an equal amount of total light for the autofocus system to work with.
@@PowerfulGaz18 no, it's light density, light per unit sensor area what does not change. However, the image quality depends on the light per whole image, not per unit area. 2.8 on 4/3 is four times less light than 2.8 on FF, so 4 times more noise. So DOF equivalency is exactly the same as IQ equivalency.
@@Calibr21 ah! I see!
That 40-150 F4 IS alongwith the IBIS on the body is going to be special. Alongwith that class leading weather sealing.
The IBIS is THE key value of these cameras.
so, when i adapt 300mm f4 canon ef lens on a mft camera, the lens becomes a 600 f8? no, it is still a 300mm f4 lens. so, wenn i shoot a foto with a ff camera with a 300/4 lens and crop from this picture a "mft" picture, does the lens change than to a 600mm f8? no. because of the sensorsize, only the field of view change, nothing more! it is totally wrong, when you say: a 300/4 mft is like a 600/8 lens. yeah, many begiiners say said, but it is wrong.
I think what you did not mention is, people will have options with OM's system. Can Canon, Nikon, Sony, or even Fuji make zoom lenses with 12-100mm focal length (24-200mm equivalent)? Or 8-25mm (16-50mm equivalent)? Or small portrait lens like the 45mm f1.8 (90mm equivalent)? Some people are willing to let go of the advantages of other systems, and make use on what's available with OM, as long as they have the flexibility of carrying relatively small lenses.
I also ask this question, why no other manufacturers are not making MFT equivalent lenses something like 24-200 mm f8.0. I think they know that those lenses will not be profitable.
the OM 1 is one of the best cameras on the market under Euro 2500. I has high res handheld with 50 Mpx, it has pro capture with 70 pictures, it has Live composite, Focus stacking, Focus bracketing, Live ND filter, many excellent pro lenses, the best image stabilizer of all. So what do we need more ?
Tony! How come the sound on your videos is always substantially lower than any other videos on UA-cam? It sounds fine turned up, but I always have to turn my volume up only on your videos.
No disrespect to Tony at all, but I’ve noticed the same thing. But then Chelsea’s & Tony’s content is so great and knowledgeable that I don’t actually mind now.
They may be staying classy and sticking to the respectful -12db broadcasting standard. Unfortunately with low-class advertising boosting their audio all the way up, content creators are often matching that now.
Your disdain from Olympus to OMD was so smooth it’s almost commendable. I actually agree with the first half of your clip, you seem cautiously optimistic like most others who have invested in these cameras. But you just had to beat your chest and go down the equivalence path and compare Canon’s 800mm f11 and Olys 300mm f4. Really?
I love gear. I read and watch videos about it. I think every sensor format has its pros and cons. And every camera brand has its strengths and weaknesses. What kind of photography you do en what are important points for you ultimately determines the choice for a system. Every system has its place.
Years ago I chose to invest in Olympus en now I own an O-M1 Mark III. I probably won't replace it with the OM-1. The E-M Mark III is already a fantastic camera which is sufficient for me.
However, I have to compliment OM DS. The company has listerned carefully to the criticisme and has fully committed to make improvements. All the enthusiastic en professional photographers who attach great importance to quality/features and still want a relatively light and affordable system, will be happy with this development. M43 is still alive.
There are times when crop factor works to your advantage too. For instance, if you use an Olympus 8-25mm f/4 lens for real estate photography, not only do you have a much smaller, lighter weight camera to carry around, but you can also use smaller, less expensive strobes and you don't run the batteries down as fast because you are shooting at f/4 instead of f/8. The same is true for corporate headshots or other studio portrait photography scenarios with the 40-150 f/4 lens. You get a smaller, lighter, less expensive lens and smaller, lighter, less expensive strobes.
The Olympus 8-25 is the opposite of smaller and lighter. It is a 400 grams lens.
The small and light ethos of MFT died many years ago and Olympus killed it.
@@LevAizik Compare that to the Canon and Nikon 16-35mm f/4 lenses which cost over $1,000. They only go to 35mm on the long end instead of 50mm and they weigh 50% more. And if you don't need to go all the way to 25mm, you can get the Pana/Leica 8-18mm f/2.8-4.
And by the way, Olympus didn't kill anything. The only micro four thirds lens that they've discontinued, as far as I can remember, was the 17mm f/2.8 and I can totally understand why. f/2.8 just isn't bright enough to get much bokeh on a micro four thirds sensor, at least at 17mm. You might as well just use a cell phone. So unless you're of the opinion that the whole purpose of MFT is to have a bunch of mediocre pancake lenses that create images that look just like cell phone pics, I don't know why you're saying that Olympus killed small and light. Compared to full frame cameras and lenses MFT cameras and lenses are tiny, yet most of them outperform cell phones in many different respects, but you can't cheat physics and you can't have your cake and eat it.
Hi-res photo. Why does he keep banging on about the being limited. It's easy, I've used it loads. It's about as limiting as a long exposure shot maybe even less so.
Also, I shoot full frame atm, honestly I'd go back to MFT in a heart beat for my wildlife photography. Half the things that full frames are praised for now have been a staple of MFT for years. With improvements to sensor tech things like low light will become less and less troublesome. Don't believe entirely the full frame zeitgeist folks. MFT was such a versatile and less burdensome way to shoot.
Re: low light noise, I have only one comment - Topaz Denoise AI. It takes about 5 seconds to run a shot through and amazing results
@@Carlos1180 You can denoise FF photos, too, you know.
Tony - nice review, but you are still the Q-Anon disinformation king re you crop factor math. 1) The the angles of view of a f/4 600mm FF lens and the F/4 300mm m43 lens is the same. Fact. 2) the exposure amounts at ISO 200 are the same. Fact. 3) the depth of field does differ as the FF sensor has half the DOF of the m43 sensor - fact. But in wildlife photography at 600 to 1000mm, you want more DOF to get more than the bird’s eye and part of the head in focus. 4) In dim light, the affordable Canon 600mm and 800mm lenses have very small maximum apertures requiring higher much ISOs than the OM/Olympus m43 100-400mm 1.4x at their equivalent fields of view-facts. 5) the OM-Olympus lens is stabilized which synchronizes with the camera’s IBIS - the canon lenses don’t - facts. Is the OM-Olympus 100-400mm 1.4x lens more expensive that the budget (but functional) Canon lenses you reference? Yes, because it is faster, optically superior, stabilized in sync with IBIS, and has a built in teleconverter and is highly weather sealed. Tony, there is no way your canon lens choices can compete with the m43 combo photographing secretive birds in a mountain cloud forest. Yes, the R6 eye AI is fabulous, but maybe the “OM Wow camera” will catch up some. So Tony, please stop your one man disinformation campaign on the m43 crop factor.
Epic Comment
best comment so far. I only wish Tony would have the dignity to actually respond to this kind o comments and to prove his point (cause he won't be able to do that as he is wrong :) ).
They're not the same. They have different amount of light (read: image noise) and different depth of field. If you adjust for the depth of field and amount of light then you get exactly what Tony is saying. And that's also what DPReview is saying and what every photography authority on the planet (with half a clue) is saying. And it can be tested easily empirically.
If you want more DoF, why would you insist on using the same F-number on the FF lens, instead of using the same effective aperture? Is it just because that fits your narrative better than the truth does?
@@marcus3d Time for a rethink, Marcus (unless hubris is your thing. 1) The apertures of f/4 on FF and m43 produce the same exposure EV on their respective sensors at the same normal range ISO. This is a fact of physics and the electronics of the sensors. 2) A experienced and international award winning wildlife photographer such as myself knows very well how to vary depth of field with his/her lens, but it is nonsense to say that a person must automatically adjust DOF to match a FF lens at the same f/stop. With many situations the greater DOFs of the 2x, 1.6x and 1.5x crop factor sensors are an advantage (think macro, extreme telephoto focal lengths and large subjects such as architecture and big mammals). 3) You claim that FF sensors always have less noise that crop sensors so a crop sensor photographer is always behind the curve and - what? The facts are that for most of the normal range of ISO use, especially in day light, the sensor noises of FF and crop sensors are so similar as to be inconsequential. Further, new de-noising software such as Topaz DeNoise AI combined with Topaz Sharpen AI greatly flatten the playing field. The sensor crop factor arguments that Tony N. and that you endorse are not credible given scientific facts and advances in camera capabilities. I suggest that it is not illogical for you to try and rethink your position. And, finally there is your dig about my cluelessness. My career has been in scientific research and application. My IQ is measured within the top 1%. I am not clueless.
@@jonerikrolf2029 1) The same F-number produce the same intensity per area unit. So what? (Keep in mind: The more of the projected area you capture the more of the light you capture. A sensor that's 1/4 the area capture 1/4 the light. See point 3 below.)
2) Nobody says that you need to think in equivalent terms. You do you. Think however you like. I was only saying that if you want the same results then you need equivalent settings. Nobody forces you to make equivalent results.
3) No, I don't claim that FF sensors have less noise. I'm saying that to get equivalent ISO you square the cropfactor.
Bulk and normal operation weights still favor Olympus and m43 but that lack of comparably slow but high quality FF lenses make comparisons tough. Specs tell me OMsystems is not innovating, just rebranding and that is a shame. EM1markiii is such a jewel, it deserved to continue.
This camera with the Panasonic 10 - 25 f1.7 is my dream combination. What full frame camera offers 20 to 50mm at F3.5
It covers my complete range that I use including the F3.5
I can't say why I just looked at this clip really.. I haven't seen this guys work for at least a few years now. The thing is that it's always the same bla bla specs on a screen comparison.
There are people making a living out of these cameras and for what I've heard national geographic likes them to? How come? What is it that they don't get? I mean now we all know that their results would be so much better if they'd be using something else. Olympus cameras are rugged, nimble and fun to use so why not buy one if it fits your needs?
There was a time when I too looked at clips just as this one and thought I learned something, got something out of them. Now I don't...
Since you're always talking about crop factor, why don't you compare the OM-1 + 300mm f/4 to a Z6 + 300mm f/4 + 2x teleconverter and see which one focuses faster and more accurately, which one produces more noise, and which one produces sharper images?
The 2 stop low light comes from this new sensor being Back Side Illuminated (BSI) and also having 2 native ISOs. Totally within reason to believe they can get 2 extra stops of lowlight!
No it's not. It's literally not possible, that would put it on par with modern full frame sensors are are already BSI. Almost all new cameras already have two native ISOs as well.
@@TechnoBabble no it will give it a usable ISO of about 12800. New full framers can go to 51k
Why does Tony even bother to talk about micro-four thirds, he starts out fine but by the end he always stresses the things "he doesn't" like about micro four thirds. I shoot micro four thirds. I agree it has it limitations, but once you learn how to adapt to those, you can get great results. There are a lot of professional photographers producing some very good pictures with micro four thirds.Tony, why don't you invest some time there. They obviously know something that is not being presented in your analysis. The cost analysis with the Canon system was just smoke and mirrors. That sounded like it came straight from Canon's marketing department. I shoot micro four thirds mainly because I don't like the weight and size of the full frame systems. For me it's no fun to go on a long hike or hop on an airplane with all that heavy full frame gear. I have found that micro four thirds holds up nicely to full frame camera's when you play to the systems strengths!
I have both Sony and Oly systems and what people like Tony forget is that no one goes out with only one lens unless you are going to shoot something specific. Most will carry more lenses. So add to that huge Sony lens which I have and it’s massive, a close-up macro lens and something for landscapes and something if you go out to shoot street later and something for video. I don’t even own a bag that the Sony 200-600 will fit in…lol.
Its never left. While Fuji and Sony were sleeping, Olympus, I mean OM Digital made a bunch of new lenses. The new OM-1 is supposedly as good, if not better, than the Z9. Now Sony and Canon have to answer.
2 stops come from the BSI stacked sensor and the newer configuration that allows more efficiency of providing light to the sensor. Now that the reviews are out, it does seem to make a big difference in low light performance. Features a 20MP Stacked BSI Live MOS Sensor. There are sites that talk about the technical aspects and how this sensor is very different than in any M43 camera and it actually does make sense that you could get close to or 2 stops difference. It's a lot more than just sticking a sensor in. You lose light by the time light hits the sensor. The OM-1 made big improvements on the delivery of light to the sensor. that alone will give a good improvement just based on the physics.
I just bought a Lumix G9 and 100-400mm lens plus a 8-18 wide-angle zoom. What I was looking for is some of the technology (animal track) available in the Sony A1, Canon R5 and, now, Nikon Z9, in a more portable package and lower cost to keep from breaking my back and bank account. As a hobbyist in wildlife photography it was nice to find equipment that was sophisticated and affordable. I don't expect the G9 to perform on the same level as the just mentioned cameras but after almost a month of use, I'm feeling good about my purchase and eager to tackle some new challenges that were once out of reach. MFT has its place just as the Mazda Miata doesn't need to be a Chevy Corvette.
I've been using the G9 with the 100-400 lens for the past 3 years and it's a great combination that you won't be disappointed with.
Funny that you compare to a Canon 800mm f 11 with no weather sealing, no aperture control, that needs to be "deployed" to be used and is actually larger when in used, you lose access to all sensor coverage. When is your double down on this hypocrisy going to end? Did you even update the "information" you got that you so get AF-C at 25 and 50 Pro Capture?
If you need weather sealing just wrap some nylon around the 800mm and it will be fine. Seriously nobody is swimming with their camera gear. The 300mm lens also needs to be "deployed". The teleconverter and lens don't magically appear on the camera mount.
When comparing Olympus 300mm to other full frame 300mm. I'm with Olympus. The Object in focus will look the same. I agree with Tony that the background will be different. I don't buy a lens to look at the blurry bits. If I bought another brands 300mm 5.6. It won't be weather sealed. So it's also not competitive with the Olympus lens.
I have the full range of Canon gear - R5 and the big tank busting primes, 100-500 and tele converter et al. However I also own the Lumix G9 and a range of lenses. The G9 has its place - on a Baltic cruise in various locations inc. Russia - my Canon 5d stayed in the ship's cabin and the G9 came into its own..perfect including using the 200mm prime when it was fine for inobtrusive photography; great in/around busy locations when the size mattered!
Having said that, the R5 and 500mm prime or 100-500 for wildlife is exceptionally good.
Suggestion - why not review the plus/minus of the big Canon primes vs the 100-500 with/without 1.4 teleconverter. The times 2 loses too much definition.
Complete speculation and much of it wrong. OM-1 Sales have been strong for a very good reason, a very good camera and a good price that targets to a very specific market. I hope MFT does great just to call BS on all the dissing that this channel as done to MFT. MTF should have been gone by now, remember???
This dude can't even get the name right. It's "OM System" in the singular with no "s" at the end (and with a teleprompter). Granted, it must be hard for him as his reputation has been completely shot for calling it a dead format. Who's listening to him anymore?
I love my Olympus cameras for family pictures, walking-around and street photography, some landscape and architectural, in short for almost of the photography that I actually do. (All with Moderately wide to moderately long lenses) I love the colors and the small and convenient size and light weight.
I get perfectly acceptable 11 x 14 inch and even 16 x 20 prints.
If I wanted to do any of the things that Tony's talking about here, like high speed sports photography, I'd probably use a Canon, but that not what I mostly do. I have Canon dslrs that I use for airshows and car races and such.
I am a bit price sensitive, and I won't be buying a $2500 Olympus. Tony's point about comparing a $2500 Olympus to a $2500 full-frame Canon is well taken.
To be fair, I've usually either bought used, or new, but the not-quite-newest version of Olympus.
It's also worth noting that the tech in Olympus high-end cameras generally works its way down to the more affordable models in a year or so.
I moved from Olympus to Fuji a couple of years ago and still wistfully long for my old camera sometimes. It was just so much fun to shoot with. The 40-150 pro was my favourite ever lens. Build and optical quality was fantastic. I moved to Fuji for better tracking autofocus, but didn’t realise most of the lenses were slow as f*ck. You can have the best tracking in the world, but if the focus motor in the lens can’t keep up, it’s useless!
You compeire cheap canon lens 800mm f11 vs professional Zuiko, aha ..
I have an Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mk III that I am incredibly happy with and haven’t even remotely begun to bump into its limits. There isn’t enough new in this new OM Systems body to tempt to to upgrade, nor am I tempted to switch to full frame. I’ll likely continue shooting my existing body and lenses for a least several more years.
The wow camera would have been a pen f Mkii
Again the misleading f-stop equivalence on lenses, the equivalence is only for depth of field and not lightering, an f4 is f4.
Someone has never heard of procapture or understands exactly what quad bayer is lol. 2 stops seems real. 4x light sensitivity improvement? Check. Quad Bayer arrangement is 4 sub pixels per color filter. 2 stop improvmenet by stacking 4 images into one.
Can't even get a second of 120fps? Sounds like you never actually tested the e-m1x. Pro capture has a circular buffer that lets you record "before" you push the shutter button. At 120fps. You will always get the shot with pro capture.