I use the 80MP high resolution feature on the G9 all the time. It's nice for the occasional still life or landscape. However, where it's really good is for film scanning. This is real 80MP scans coming back from a $1500 rig - camera, macro lens, miscellaneous. I've been using a Nikon CS5000 and CS9000 scanners for years now; the G9 scan results can be better. More generally, I find the high res mode does a number of things better simultaneously. 1. The eight frame averaging reduces effective sensor noise significantly. 2. Spatial resolution is obviously higher. However, I think color resolution increases as well. The process probably effectively backs out interpolation necessary for the Bayer filter, i.e., with high res mode, the hue of each pixel position is explicitly sampled by R, B, G photo sites (rather than interpolated from its neighbor.)
I find myself using the high res modes on my E-M1 Mk III more and more. I'm a landscape and nature photographer based in southern Germany and I use it a lot for the landscapes, whether for stock photos, to improve the dynamic range or, as recently on a trip to Norway, reduce high iso noise in an astro image, which turned out surprisingly well. The camera was mounted on a tripod and I engaged HHHR mode. The camera was more than capable of keeping up with the movement of the stars. Thanks for doing the test though. Interesting to hear your thoughts.
Matti, you should process the OM-1 Hires RAW in OM Workspace and apply *extra* sharpening compared to regular shots. It is well documented that OM HiRes raw files need different post-processing than regular raws to get the most out of them. Lightroom is not optimized for OM Hires raw files, especially default settings like you did in this test. Also, there are other benefits for HiRes besides more resolution: decreased noise, decreased aliasing, and better color. I have compared Olympus E-M5 III Hires with Sony A7RII shots and in my testing they are almost identical, but I did use OM Workspace for pp. I imagine handheld Hires on the new OM-1 should give similar results.
I've heard that tip many times already and I tried it, but did not see any difference compared to LR. I can make the HR photo look sharper, but there is still no more detail. I did mention the noise in video.
Lightroom in general is the worst raw converter in the world . Not only for hi res Olympus files. Use capture one , DXO raw, anything else works better. Don't use Lightroom for any serious test.
I use the high res mode on my E-M1 iii when I encounter something beautiful, usually on a hike in nature, sometimes a work of art in the city. Otherwise I don't use it because of the limitations you mention. So for me it's very occasional use, but I keep it on one of the programmable settings on the mode dial for those uses.
On my E-M1 II I found the tripod hr mode more useable than with the Pen-F, but still very limited. The handheld option which I’m using occasionally on the E-M1 III is more suitable and works good for me. But for really sharp results, I not only have to use only the best lenses, I also have to process the file in OM Workspace, which is a bi annoying. With PhotoLab the the details are too soft, I guess it’s similar with Lightroom. Moving objects can be fixed in post by using the additional standard resolution file as an overlay and copy affected parts from that. If there are only some moving elements, that isn’t too much work. Because of the caveats of this mode I once year consider buying a real high resolution camera, but with lenses that quickly adds up to a 5-digits figure and I haven’t yet found a reason why I need that…
I never use hi-res mode on my OM-D E-m1 mkII. I find 20mp is more than enough for my requirements - which is mostly bird photography with the 100-400mm Pan Leica lens. I document the birds for science not for pixel peepers.
Thanks for the interesting comparison, and you are right about noise suppression, it's an especially useful feature for small sensors that suffer in low light. In many cases having a clean image is more important than extra sharpness. High res is great for architecture and documenting art exhibitions (I am an art curator), I've also used it successfully for portraits. I did try FF frame for a while (A7R2) but I am not fond of heavy FF zoom lenses, so I went back to M43. I just love those tiny, sharp M43 primes that I can easily carry in a small bag
I use the high res modes )primarily the tripod version) quite extensively for landscape photography as works very well for longer exposures with moving water where it will work similarly (but not identically) to LiveND. The speed of the moving water will dictate what minimum shutter speed is needed for natural looking results. For fast moving water or a waterfall, I tend to go with a minimum of 1/2s (which will then be multiplied by the 8 pixel shifted sub exposures). It works the best for “uniformly moving” water as erratic splashing tends to get a messy look. This also greatly increases the dynamic range. The handheld version can be used as a pseudo star tracker and “auto stacker” for Milky Way shots. You need to make sure that the stars fill the majority of the frame to force the camera to align the sub frames rather than any earthbound elements.
“It’s a great feature in paper,” is a good summary. I thought I would use it all the time on my G9, but I often found at least one of three issues: 1) more pixels really didn’t buy me anything, 2) some element somewhere in the frame almost always moved, and 3) when doing “super-pixel-peeping” at 200% I could always see pattern artifacts that probably accounted for a “sub-pixel” softness. However, I know the OM1 may have improved on the last point, but if I could detect a slight softness on UA-cam, your estimate of an effective resolution of 30 mp is probably generous. But here’s the thing: the greatest value having a high resolution sensor for me is that I can crop aggressively, getting essentially digital zoom, and that softness becomes more apparent. (It is worth noting that Topaz Sharpen AI can often fix that softness convincingly, but that is another topic.) Regardless, having this feature as an option is a bonus, even if you don’t use it all the time.
Yes absolutely. The "sub-pixel" softening is probably a little light spillage. This is something known from astrophotography where frame rejection and stacking etc is used to remove such noise. These are often very long exposures and there is always a bit of jitter going on from the tracking and atmospheric lensing.
I thought the sony colors looked like crap. For $4300 less I'll be happy with my OM-1 when I get it. I have never felt limited with the mp in any of my Olympus camera's.
Yes the default Adobe settings can make Sonys look really really flat. Olympus has never got the proper respect for their colours. So like some Kodak or Agfa film stocks.
Sony is sharper but I think the OM-1's blacks, are very nice. Yes movement is an issue but when you weigh the price and size of the OM-1 it's a lot closer.
As a multiple system user own both Em1X and Many other Sony and Ninon FF systems, i can't agree more about your honest assessment regarding the high res mode vs a real High res FF sensor. Actually i don't see that many direct comparison, normally what you will see is the MFT fan talking about how great that High Res mode is and never bother to compare it to other sensor. You are the very few i ran into and did the comparison, and not only that and you offer very honest opinion, not like some of the Olympus ambassadors, always claiming the low res mft sensor in high res mode creating better than competitor . There is no free lunch guys, if you want a high quality 50 MP file, get a 50MP sensor camera. The gap will always be there, and don't forget you can shoot " high res mode" with those 50 -60MP sensor camera to create even high resolution image too.
I commented earlier about the lens, but now I want to comment that I have a GH6 now, and I have found that the high res mode in the GH6 is much, much better than the Olympus Em1 mark iii (I don't have an OM1). While there are tons of advantages of the Sony a1, as you get 50 MP without motion causing an issue...but the GH6 100 MP with the Olympus 17mm f1.2, wow, so crisp and clear!
I think for professional work, the high res shot for OM1 might not be as useful but for instagram or social media use, it is good enough. I have used it side by side with my Nikon Z9 and I don’t use much of a difference in terms of details but definitely more limited to still objects and landscape shots without wind but for occasional use, it js brilliant considering the price point.😊
Hi... Lightroom, Capture one, nor ANY software except OM Worspace is really capable to treat Olympus Hres shots ! Try to open the same Hres picture in LR and OM Workspace, you would be surprised by the HUGE difference !
With every system there are those photographers who will see only the advantages of the system, and there are those who will focus largely on its limitations. Then in the middle there are most of the rest of us. It's not the gear that takes a breathtaking image; it's the photographer. This video helped to remind me of that truth, so thanks.
To my knowledge, Olympus does not claim that a 20MP camera with high res shot mode generally provides the same or better resolution than a 40MP FF camera. It is generally understood that high res shot mode can deliver excellent results in some circumstances. That said, I suspect most people would find it difficult to tell whether an Olympus or Sony captured a specific image on most media where images are viewed. After a little post processing this becomes even more difficult.
I don't think they claim that, but I wanted to find out how it compares. That's all😀 Sure, most photos are shared on social media platforms and it's hard to tell any difference between a 50Mp FF and iPhone😀
@@mattisulanto Iphone can take excellent pictures. However, I find it is more difficult to get good pics with smartphone, because it does not offer the controls I get with a dedicated camera.
I find handheld hi-res very useful for landscapes when there are a lot of details in the distance, e.g. a prominent mountain. It brings out these details effectively. To bring them out most effectively, I have to run the photo through Topaz AI Sharpen and sometimes even upscale the photo a bit further using Topaz Gigapixel AI. If there are motion artifacts that don't dominate the picture as a whole, I sometimes paint them out by adding a non-hi-res layer from the extra 20 Mp image that is provided by OMDS. There's certainly some extra work involved, but not excessively so. The image quality from the OM-1 has improved a lot since the EM1 III, where there sometimes there was a mesh showing over waterfalls, that required a lot of work to clean up, and other times the textures of objects like distance grass disappeared. Now the end result looks more like a nice detailed photo, and less like a nice detailed painting. I am also encouraged by the GH-6 ability to eliminate motion artifacts in HHHR, as reported by DP Review. Maybe if that feature gets introduced into a non-videocentric camera, I'd be interested in buying it. Have you tested the GH-6 HHHR capabilities?
What i've noticed using the EM1 mark 3 HHHR is the pictures are slightly soft at the default lightroom settings. Increasing sharpness a bit fixes this issue. Also i would have tested the 80MP mode using tripod, just for comparison.
You can’t bring the detail to the same level with a native high mp sensor no matter how much you sharpen. However, you can make the picture look sharper.
The Sony has also a HR mode! The handheld ( for Olympus) test makes sense. By the way , using higher resolution like 80/100 Mpx is a challenge even with a tripod.
Let me say i am a A1 owner and i see what you want to compare here, What i like about the OM1 is that they at least more than sony try to use some internal processing to make things happen. My 2 high res sony (A1 and R4) both have highres mode up to 200MP but i have never used it once since its 100% too much work. For the rest you can only take this compare sofar as you pointed out the A1 is all about being able to get 50MP images at 30 fps without rolling shutter issues and solid AF. It really is a jack of all trades and a master of most of it and you pay for that. Its a pity that most of the really interesting computational stuff is done on either mobile phones or smaller sensor cameras since well they are more forced todo it i guess.
I’ve used HH a few times but as an amateur photographer I tend to regard it as a pleasant gimmick. I don’t pixel peek and I don’t print enormous images. To me the selection of the image is the most important aspect. Call me gestalt.
If you already own an Olympus camera for shooting other things such as wildlife or sports and need to do an occasional high-res studio still life, then the high-res mode is great. However, if you regularly need to shoot hi-res photos, which probably means you’re a pro, then buying a dedicated camera makes sense, and possibly means going to medium format such as the affordable Fujifilm GFX range. It’s always about the right tool for the job. If you only bought the Olympus for the high-res mode, then that is a dumb idea, just like buying one only to shoot video when buying a dedicated video camera would be the smart thing to do.
Thanks Matti! One comment on your test. Olympus 12-40 lens has maximum resolution at f/2.8 and (as most of Olympus/OMDS PRO grade lenses) it has a bit remaining spherical aberration for artistic purpose aimed for portraits. If you would try Lumix 12-35 f/2.8 at f/4 you'll find it considerably sharper.
Interesting review. Thank you, Matti ! I use tripod high-res mode for waterfalls, sea landscapes, studio objects shoots and sometimes mountains-landscape. In the picture where there is water, the tripod high-res mode will handle it very well and will give the feeling of 1-2 stops ND filter. The tripod high-res mode generates 80 Mp raw files which looks decent even at 100%. I got fine results even from some kit lenses. And... the tripod high-res mode from my E-M1 MK II handles well moving elements.
Thanks for sharing! I know how the water will come out and it can look decent. However, you have no choice to freeze the water even if you wanted. So you have to take what the high res gives you. But it can work, of course.
Yes, true. We have to learn the possibilities of our cameras and get the best out of it. High-res mode will not cover all scenarios but in some specific cases can generate a nice output.
Very honest review regarding real world use of the hi res mode on the OM1. It does look good on paper but can really only be used in very limited conditions which really makes it not very practical for most purposes. It is fun when it works though and for general photography 20mp is plenty.
Its worth pointing out that there have been a good few tests done to see what size of print is obtainable from Micro 4/3 and a few feet long, which most folk will never ever do, is well within its capability, and that's not hi res mode! Huge prints side by side with full frame are practically indistinguishable. so maybe all this is nit picking and in the real world practically useless.
I agree, this information is not necessarily useful in real world. However, I think it's interesting from the technical point of view to see how these compare and what are the upsides and downsides.
Thanks for this video. Of course handheld high res (HHHR) shots have the limitations you mentioned speaking of moving parts. Also, they are not very sharp regarding to the resolution. But this often can be fixed in post production. For moving parts, you need to open both the ORI and ORF files in Photoshop, upscale the ORI to match the resolution of the ORF file, and then copy it as a new layer of the ORF file and apply a fusion mask. Nower you just need to unmask with a brush the moving parts. Of course, these moving parts will appear with a lower resolution, but with no artifacts. Now, you can also sharpen the high resolution layer, I found that the Topaz Denoise AI plugin, which also has a sharpening slider, works very well for that. But you need some processing power, especially GPU. An other point is the good question you mentioned : what shots deserve HHHR ? Architecture in general is a good candidate for it. Speaking of landscape, it's interesting only if there are significant detailed parts which are far away like rocks, forest, etc. So HHHR may often give good results, but it demands some time and power for post processing. This is, as usual with M43, the price to pay for the smaller M43 sensor. It's like reducing noise from RAW, which sometimes demands a specialized software like DxO PL or Topaz Denoide AI, where full frame shots are OK straight out of the body.
I had an E-m1 Mark II and only used the high res mode once, just to see what it looked like. In everyday shooting I never used it. There was too much of a chance for movement that I may not have detected, so the photo would not be acceptable. I agree with everything you said.
Correct me if I m wrong, but when you compare MFT to APSC or full frame with the same resolution, I always see more details on the bigger sensor when comparing it while pixelpeeping (you shouldnt do it, but it is pretty clear, that a high res mode with the same output resolution couldnt come over this). The 80MP high res mode is much better than hand held high res in terms of resolution and sharpness, but I dont like to work with a tripod, so I dont use that very often - and to be honest, 20MP is more than enough, because with Olympus, you get reach very easily with small lenses.
You know I want to compliment you for doing this. So thank you. I have both of the lenses you used, and as you mentioned the Tamron 28-75mm is a much sharper lens than the 12-40 mark 1. Try using some lenses that are equality sharp. I'd love to see equally sharp lenses with this test...say the Olympus 60mm macro, or 45mm f1.8, even better the 75mm f1.8. I actually think the sharpest Olympus lens I have is the 8mm fisheye f1.8.
Thanks. The Zuiko 12-40mm Pro has been a very sharp lens in many lab tests and as far as I know it's one of the best zooms for MFT. In this kind of a comparison you need a zoom so you can match the angle of view on both cameras. For example there would be no equivalent Sony FF lens for the 75mm F1.8. I also don't have access to every lens so I have to use what I can. I don't think the result in this one would be any different even if I had used some other lens(es).
I not sure we are looking at the same photos - the olympus photos are slightly more exposed which can wash out the details. Also the colors are much more pleasing in the olympus. Agree not a feature usable for moving objects. CAnnot agree the detail is noticibly visable or different. Thanks for the effort to compare -
Actually both photos have almost identical histogram, but the Sony picture is slightly brighter. But anyway, if you see it like you said, then I really can't disagree😀
Today I‘ve done a test with om-5 handheld high-res and a7rv. Out of camera the sony was much better. After using Topaz sharpen ai I must say that the Om picture caught up a lot (it had applied automatically motion blur adjustment). Double computational mode is a cumbersome path to achieve a decent static image.
In italiano. Due fotocamere molto diverse, una costa tre volte l'altra, una è due volte più compatta (corredata di ottica) dell'altra. La OM1 nasce come evoluzione elettronica del vecchio 135, le FF hanno di fatto sostituito le vecchie 4,5x6 a pellicola. Le prime hanno guadagnato in compattezza e velocità rispetto al 135 le seconde hanno guadagnato ancora di più in compattezza velocità e versatilità rispetto al Medio formato. L'una e l'altra conservano vantaggi e svantaggi rispetto all'altra, nascono per essere flessibili fino ad un certo punto e quel punto è la trasportabilità, quando conta poter mettere nello zaino la maggior flessibilità operativa e partire vince la OM1, quando conta la maggior qualità al costo di portare 2 zaini vince la Sony
Hi Matti. Useful video clip. Whilst my OM-1 covers most aspects of my wildlife photography it hits a wall when trying to shoot birds in the distance when a heavy crop is also required in post processing. All you mention in the clip reflects why my wildlife photography friend uses a Sony A1. Together with the Sony 100-400mm lens and x1.4 TC his resulting distance photos of birds are sharper and a heavy crop is easier. Having said that the Sony camera is £6500 plus lens and TC, although works out the same price as my OM-1 and 150-400mm pro lens. If I could afford it I would have both cameras and lenses 😏😏
@@mattisulanto Oh yes, I see. Having a test with the GH6 alone at some point would be still interesting (or maybe you could again loan either the Sony A1 or the OM-1 alongside the GH6). I see these high-res modes only as a "bonus" for MFT cameras, not as a key feature (I use it only for "scanning" film, or maybe for still life at some point).
I agree with Leo. I find that most comparisons here use lightroom. If you are to truly do a comparison use the best raw editor for each file; especially since OM Workspace is free. I tell you one thing on my uncalibrated M1 MacBook Air display I like the OM-1 colors better. My two cents.
There are many views points. I think the same app should be used for a comparison😀 However, I tried OM Workspace and it does not make a difference in this case. But of course, you can make your own comparison and maybe you'll get the results that you like better.
probably need to make the exposure time shorter for A1? the excavator looks more exposed for A1. I did something like you - I took pictures with GFX100s and S5 of the same scene from the same location. Afterwards i think i should have lowered the exposure time for the GFX100s.
Both cameras were on Aperture priority and the OM pictures is a little under exposed. The Sony pictures is perfectly exposed. However, that is beside the point of this video.
I am digitising my analogue fotos using a EM5.2 using high resolution and a Leica 100 f4 macro lens on bellows on a copy stand, backlit with LED. I have an EM1x for both hand-held and tripod high resolution: the hand-held is for relatively static scenes, usually with the 12-100; the tripod mode is more for experimentation and landscapes. Sometimes the artifacts can be as interesting as the original photo, but it's largely hit-or-miss.
I have a 47mp camera in the form of a Leica Q2 and since I do not print large [hardly print at all], the only advantage to me compared to a 20mp camera without using hi-res is the ability to crop. Even so, for me, the difference is of no particular significance or importance. I do not therefore use the hi-res mode with my E-M1, which needs a tripod or solid base to keep it steady enough.
Matti thanks for taking on a very controversial topic. Even the late David Thorpe--a MFT proponent--would say of course FF has better IQ than crop sensor due to physics, so results are not surprising. When Raw converter is available for GH6, I hope you are able to do similar comparison with the Sony A1 or esp between both MFT cameras.
The advantages of full frame cameras is highly debatable in most situations. When looking at the big picture, the extra expense and weight of full frame is not worth it. Now, in the “ real world” as you say, where it counts is in the PRINTS. Please do a comparison of prints between the different sensors, including APS-C. Have people pick their favorites. It would be a very interesting video!
Thanks for sharing. Some like FF some think it's totally useless, there are as may opinions as there are photographers. Almost at least😀 That print test would be interesting, but at the moment I can't do it. Maybe later in the future.
The problem with hi res mode is that it is unreliable. Even if photo looks Ok, some minor artifacts could be found. When I need more megapixels I rather use upscaling software based on artificial intelligence.
Тhere is also one other advantage of the Hi-Res shot and this is better color fidelity. If there are no moving parts every Hi-Res image downsized to the original camera image size will be way better in any aspect. I'm waiting for my OM-1 and will try to make some Hi-Res portraits to see how the camera handles that. Have you tried it for portraits?
What the video teaches me is you get what you pay for. If my 20.4 MP OM-1 is knocking the door of a 35MP camera, happy days! I'm laughing all the way to the bank.
At an eye-watering $8500 Cdn vs $2800, I'd expect the A1 to win out! But even still, I thought the differences were quite minor and visible only with side-by-side pixel peeping. I'd say the OM-1 has 90% of the quality at 33% of the price. Pretty good deal in my books!
For studio work (with a tripod) the 80mp hi-res mode on the OM-1 should give better results. It would be interesting to compare the OM-1 and A1 is this situation, and of course were are waiting for an upcoming hi-res comparison between the OM-1 and the GH6, which would probably be favourable for the GH6 with its 100mp mode. As the handheld hi-res mode depends on 'natural' camera movement (rather than pixel shift in the tripod mode), I would think that consecutive shots of the same scene will yield different (unique) results due the the random nature (and steadiness) of hand movement of the photographer. Could it be possible to train oneself to make more consistently sharp HHHR shots? I wonder if you took only one photo with the OM-1 for this comparison, or if you took several photos and picked the best result.
The OM-1 has a very targeted market. The casual photographer is not in that target. It an amazing camera for the right audience who love what it offers.
Basically you used the wrong tool for processing the HHHR image from the Oly. Processing within the free OM system Workspace software makes a world of difference. Yes there are all the limitations in terms of subject movement as you mentioned, but it is a feature that can be used in many other circumstances. It's fantastic for night city photography, and landscapes without much tree motion etc. No it's not a 50/80 mp camera, but can achieve similar in many occasions.
Movement - whenever I've used high res, I've got and extra seagull or something. It's probably Sod's Law, the best shot will have something that moved. It works for tabletop product shots where everything is static. For the landscape photographers who favour high resolution cameras, they will use a high resolution full frame or even medium format. They still have problems with movement blur at slow shutter speeds. Let us not lose sight of the fact that most full frame are 24Mp and only half of them are over 30Mp. Is 20Mp enough? Or too much? The Sony A1 has 50Mp on a sensor four times the area. If we take 1/4 of that, 12.5Mp, the OM1 has a lot more than that. If we crop the Sony in to half its area, that is roughly the native resolution of the OM1. I do know I can shoot an Olympus walking without breaking stride. Will the Sony do that? If the Oly is given an OIS lens it will use part and part stabilisation, not up to the Dual on the G9 but better than IBIS alone. Something I've observed by extreme pixel peeping on the G9 and PEN-F 20Mp is that because the pixels (photosites) are so small and tightly packed together, is that light can spill into the adjacent pixel more readily than with the 16Mp sensor. This light spillage is known on astronomical cameras, where only one pixel should have been lit, it has flooded onto the adjacent ones. The 20Mp seems more susceptible to movement blur, the 16Mp a more clearly defined edge. When taken with a faster shutter to cure the problem the 20Mp has a less jagged, better defined, edge. I did have to zoom right in to see this on my best monitor, but it tells me to use a faster shutter with the 20Mp if there is going to any movements blur. I surmise this "movement blur" needing a faster shutter would apply to any high resolution sensor. As a (cof) radiometrologist I can get bogged down in the technical whyfor. I have not quantified this but there does seem to be a correlation between shutter speed and sensor resolution for best results.
It is interesting to see if the focussing distance has any effect. I'll try it sometimes with my G9 and my 5:1 macro lens. If I'm right, macro photos in high res mode shouldn't be sharp.
I still get great results from my old fuji s3 pro and olympus E1. I have on my wall 30x40 inch taken with my olympus EM 1 mk1. I have fantastic A2 pictures from the 1st two .
I can't see more Details in the Sony image, although it looks sharper. And there is more colour information per pixel, instead of only one colour as in the Sony. With a bit of sharpening the image will come very close to the Sony,
Thanks for the tip! You are about the 21st person to suggest that😀 I have tried it, but did not see much difference compared to LR. I can sharpen and make the photo LOOK sharper, but there is still no more detail.
This is great. Not much point in doing this with the GH6 with its video-focused sensor. I do wonder how would the S5's high res mode compare with the A1 (or better, with S1R!) though. It didn't seem that impressive even when compared with the G90. Maybe it was the lens though...
I use high resolution photos for my cityscapes and landscapes. Personally, I intend to add a ND on my E-M5ii to get high resolution long exposure photos.
Very nice comparison. I'm not sure if it was a raw file comparison but I feel I can see a magenta shift in sony A1 colors compared to OM1. At 4:38 and also in that CAT picture it's so pronounced. How do you think about the colors. Which one is closer to the natural scene if you can remember? BTW thank you for wearing this hat again!
What is impressive to me is, that a camera around 2000 € (OM-1, MFT Sensor) can make shots that are slightly worse in quality compared to a around 7000 € (A1, Fullframe Sensor) camera. How would you compare the OM-1 to a Sony A7 IV ?
This is not a camera comparison. This compares two different ways to make a 50Mp photo. I think the HHHR would be very close to the A7IV native quality.
Thanks. I used Neutral photo style for both, but of course some other choice would look different. Both cameras expose really well and the histograms look almost perfect, except the OM1 excavator is actually about a stop under exposed. The blacks clips a lot in that one and the whites are not nearly white.
Hello Matti, I would like you to make the following comparison; shoot the same photograph (same megapixel) with a 4/3 and an FF, to see if the image quality is different and how important the sensor size is, thank you very much, a hug.
It would be a surprise to see the OM-1 to be sharper in raw compared to A1. With a little sharpness in post though, I think that OM-1 is really close and the difference is really small. Way smaller than the 4299$ in their price difference
This was not a camera comparison. This was a comparison between two different methods to make a 50Mp photo. Yes, the high res result adds a good amount of resolution to the normal 20Mp and that can be handy.
If you would photograph the om-1 with f8, same as sony, would the pics look sharper? I mean you took kind of landscape shots. Just for fun i would like to know😀 the tripod mode compared to the sony 50mp also very interesting
I wonder if the OM1 at it's native pixel count with the Adobe Lightroom Super Resolution mode would be better than the HHHR mode. I've been using it on some old 5D Mk1 files and it looks great. Yet to try it on my M43 files when that was my main system about 10 years ago.
Interesting comparison! Thanks for the effort. My two cents: High-res full frame sensor in the a1 or a7r4 allows us do crop *after* taking a picture, on the other hand, m43 or aps-c sensor always "crop" when taking the shot. Forget about all those "conversion" between m43, aps-c and full frame, high-res full frame sensor is what makes m43 outdated, as one can always do "m43" crop after taking a picture on a7r4 and get 16.1 mp after the crop.
Sony A1 $10789 NZ, Om-1 $3599 NZ, Sonys have there problems just like any Camera, there is no such thing as the perfect Camera. I have been blown away with the images from my Em1 Mk iii and having just purchased the OM - 1 it has stepped up another level ! and yes I do use high res mode when I think i need the extra resolution and of course it is not for every situation as explained in the Olympus information ! and at the end of the day how many mpx do the average Photographer need ? go OMD !!
Matti I don't know if you know but LightRoom hasn't fully supported Olympus High-res raw files in the past and it still doesn't. I know that most of us use some other software than OM Systems Workspace to process Olympus/OM raw files, but could you make the comparison also with a software that supports OM high-res files OM Workspace? Would be interesting to see if the difference might still be the same.
@@mattisulanto I said that it doesn't fully support HR files. That means according to my own comparisons optical corrections and sharpness and resolution. I know that WS works only with OM/Olympus raw files but because it exists it would be interesting to see if you can see the defference. I brought this up because you can't get the best quality out of OM/Oly HR files if you process them with LightRoom and not with OM Workspace. Edit: Forgot to mention that I use LightRoom as well, but highres files seem to be a little different story.
Piece of advice: take your 20mp Olympus camera and shoot in the normal mode. Open your photo on Lightroom Classic, right-click, Enhance, Super Resolution, Done. You have a new 40mp file.
There are many ways to improve photos, but in this video I wanted to find out if there is any difference between these two 50Mp cameras. Does that Enhance work with Sony A1 photos?😀
@@enricomaggi2100 Like I said I have never tried that. You have to test and see. If your exposure time is 8 seconds and the camera takes 8 exposures that is 64 seconds in total.
Om workspace had an edge, but there is no significant difference any more. Another thing is that it would not be fair to use a different app for each camera.
There are 2 things you should have taken into consideration and adjusted: in camera sharpness (micro contrast) and contrast. In the 1st photo it's obvious that the in camera contrast is much higher in the sony camera... Finally you should have also compared a hi-res with a tripod high res and a non-hires shot with the om1 to find out if there is less sharpness. If so, it is a result from the camera sensor shift + ibis. If not, the diferences you are seeing between both cameras may be also related with the lens...
And yes, I use the hi-res mode more and more with my em1 mkii. Not only the finsl image is noise free but also has much higher dynamic range... The same with the hdr modes...
Thanks for your input. I think I explained in the video that the whole point was to shoot handheld. Anyway, my experience is that no matter how you do a comparison, someone will always think it's all wrong. Please do your own comparison and you'll get the results you want😀
@@mattisulanto What I suggest would be a way of you 1 granting that the testing conditions are similar (you can only compare 2 things if you standardize parameters that may affect your result) and 2 understand if the lesser sharpness is associated with the lens or with ibis+sensor shift for the hi-res... I also thought I was explicit enough too... The only thing you can conclude in your test is sony+sony in camera processing settings+lens1 seems to produce images that are sharper than om1 hi res+in camera settings+lens2... The question is are you confident of your results? I would not be, especially when it is vlear that sony camera internal contrast setting is way higher that om1 camera. I'm all for tests but people like you must be careful to at least disclose that you did not controll for the variables I have mentioned... It's called method... Your method is incorrect and your interpretations may be wrong because of it.
@@diogoferreira9039 This is what I suggest. Make you own comparison, publish it and see how many people disagree and tell you how you should have done it. I respect your opinion, of course, but it's only one opinion. Not right or wrong, just like mine. People tend to disagree if the outcome is not what they expected. I'm now going to leave you to it, because I don't think there is point to continue this discussion. Please, enjoy photography and create some awesome photos😀
How about testing HHHR with subjects that are slow moving or trying to be still like people posing. I think that would be intresting, I mean everyone knows it doesn't work with fast subjects like cars.
@@tomerweiss4900 This video is not about $6500 camera vs $2400 camera. This video is about two different ways to make roughly a 50Mp photo. Those cameras just happen to cost what they cost, but that's not the main point here. I happened to have an easy access to the A1 at the same time I was reviewing the OM-1.
Of course I know that. How do you not know that I know? However, it does not change the result. The perceived sharpness increases, but the real detail does not.
i disagree with you , 20 mega pixel is already enough to print very big because you will see it from from far place , and for big screens it is 4k and you will view it from far place also ,people
Glad you pointing out that moving elements. I have olympus gear and many times I feel it is more for static objects/moments in dim light. Longer expourses with IBIS. Cool feature on paper and bigger files on servers/hdds. That hi-res shutterspeed is still slow imo.
I have Lumix G9 and newer use this mode, is unusable for landscapes and nightshots. I use on all cameras breaketing for landscapes and combine him in PS.More DR and lover noise. 20-25Mp is enoug for portrets and weddings. But now i use everyday Leica d-lux 5 camera (10mp sensor) and for A4 print or internet is enoug. I think cameras like m4 / 3 should give photographers what FF cameras can't give and smartphones in other side. I think is very hard )) But the price is the same $ 2,000, and the camera can do in most situations less than FF. The same camera size, the same price of lenses ( Lumix 50mm 1.8 has the same price of Lumix 25mm 1.4) and even more and worse quality . Hmm.
A lot of waffle to plug your workshop? We can all read the OM-1 manual!! Why didn't you compare it with the GH6 HR mode? Good comment from Andreas R - Can the Sony do that?
@@mattisulanto Please do if you get the chance Matti. I’m a long time Olympus and now OM enthusiast but just got the GH6 for video but very impressed indeed with the camera for stills too. The 100 mp handheld stills would interest you I think.
@@mikecoleridge8982 I have a video about the GH6, but it can very difficult to borrow it again for a comparison. Let's see if I can do that. ua-cam.com/video/VfnwYdXWr3c/v-deo.html
I do underwater photography and hi-rez mode on the OM1 is totally irrelevant. I wish OMS invested in higher resolution camera, >20MP, than this nonsense "hi rez" mode. Hi-rez mode sounds "nice" in marketing but it is soooo restrictive with lots of conditions that make it very useless and impractical to most types of photography.
So much talk here about heavy cropping. If your images and lack of good composition need heavy cropping, learn the basics of photography and composition or find another hobby. Great video Sulanto. Always interesting and useful.
I’m sorry but the need for heavy cropping is not because someone doesn’t understand the basics of photography and composition. Sometimes, even with 600 mm telephoto lenses and teleconverter one simply cannot get close enough to the subject to fill the frame. Have you ever tried shooting an eagle in flight 100 yards away? Or a wood duck at the opposite side of a pond?? How about a bird smaller than the size of your fist from 30 yards away??? Of course, we all recognize that it is best to get close to the subject and mildly crop. But in some situations that is simply not possible. It is a choice of either getting the shot and heavily crop it or not take the shot at all. Of course, in the situations I describe the computational high resolution of the OM-1 is unlikely to be useful because the subject is not still. So a natively higher sensor is the only real option. Unless you are willing to use the Nikon Coolpix with a 3,000 mm full frame reach but with tons of downsides.
@@stevenmeisel4288 If most people valued absolute image quality and cropping ability the way you do, the market for medium and larger format cameras/lenses would be vastly larger than it currently is. After all, those formats offer the same advantages and over full frame that full frame offers over M43.
Panasonic J-9? Or did you mean the Panasonic LUMIX G9? Iirc the recently new Panasonic GH6 has not only a new sensor (25,2MP), but a high resolution mode that can produce 100MP composite shots.
@@VGMLucifier To be honest, I don't have clients that need 100 megapixel files. Perhaps these files are good for "stocks". But I live in Russia, and now all photographers from the Russian Federation who worked with stocks cannot withdraw money. I think everyone knows the reason. The fight against Nazism is punishable.
@@Marco_Chiappetta To be honest, I don't have clients that need 100 megapixel files. Perhaps these files are good for "stocks". But I live in Russia, and now all photographers from the Russian Federation who worked with stocks cannot withdraw money. I think everyone knows the reason. The fight against Nazism is punishable.
Strange story. You are mixing things up. Contrast is no sharpness and the last picture sharper ? Come on,look again. Not a very well documenten test. It looks like the outcome was clear from the start.
I don't think this is a fair comparison. As far as I know the OM1 has the same type of highres mode as my Lumix G9 and Panasonic at least make it quite clear that you should really take high res mode images on a tripod. Also it is made quite clear that it is not suitable for shots with moving subjects (which is obvious when sensor is being moved around). You seem to have purposely taken the Olympus off the tripod and further, ignored what every owner knows about movement. When people buy a camera they should research these things, they are totally different cameras. Surely the vast majority of Olympus and Panasonic camera owners know this. I am certain that the results would be totally different if you did the same tests whilst adhering to these facts. Also the colour on the Olympus (construction machine photo) was much better than the Sony and it has many superior features, so I would still opt for the Olympus over the Sony.
Thanks for watching. This is from OM-System website: "Handheld High Res Shot is also included, for creating 50M high-definition shots by compositing 12 images". There are two HR modes, one for tripod and one for handheld. I do my best to adhere to the facts😀 On the other hand, color rendition is not a fact, it is matter of taste and this video is not about that anyway.
@@mattisulanto Then obviously Olympus is exaggerating somewhat. I still say it was an unfair comparison and poorly implemented trial. Comparing 'chalk & cheese'.
I use the 80MP high resolution feature on the G9 all the time. It's nice for the occasional still life or landscape. However, where it's really good is for film scanning. This is real 80MP scans coming back from a $1500 rig - camera, macro lens, miscellaneous. I've been using a Nikon CS5000 and CS9000 scanners for years now; the G9 scan results can be better.
More generally, I find the high res mode does a number of things better simultaneously.
1. The eight frame averaging reduces effective sensor noise significantly.
2. Spatial resolution is obviously higher. However, I think color resolution increases as well. The process probably effectively backs out interpolation necessary for the Bayer filter, i.e., with high res mode, the hue of each pixel position is explicitly sampled by R, B, G photo sites (rather than interpolated from its neighbor.)
Thanks for sharing.
I find myself using the high res modes on my E-M1 Mk III more and more. I'm a landscape and nature photographer based in southern Germany and I use it a lot for the landscapes, whether for stock photos, to improve the dynamic range or, as recently on a trip to Norway, reduce high iso noise in an astro image, which turned out surprisingly well. The camera was mounted on a tripod and I engaged HHHR mode. The camera was more than capable of keeping up with the movement of the stars. Thanks for doing the test though. Interesting to hear your thoughts.
Matti, you should process the OM-1 Hires RAW in OM Workspace and apply *extra* sharpening compared to regular shots. It is well documented that OM HiRes raw files need different post-processing than regular raws to get the most out of them. Lightroom is not optimized for OM Hires raw files, especially default settings like you did in this test. Also, there are other benefits for HiRes besides more resolution: decreased noise, decreased aliasing, and better color. I have compared Olympus E-M5 III Hires with Sony A7RII shots and in my testing they are almost identical, but I did use OM Workspace for pp. I imagine handheld Hires on the new OM-1 should give similar results.
I've heard that tip many times already and I tried it, but did not see any difference compared to LR. I can make the HR photo look sharper, but there is still no more detail. I did mention the noise in video.
Lightroom in general is the worst raw converter in the world . Not only for hi res Olympus files.
Use capture one , DXO raw, anything else works better.
Don't use Lightroom for any serious test.
I agree in OM1 Lightroom don’t do a good job with high res images
I use the high res mode on my E-M1 iii when I encounter something beautiful, usually on a hike in nature, sometimes a work of art in the city. Otherwise I don't use it because of the limitations you mention. So for me it's very occasional use, but I keep it on one of the programmable settings on the mode dial for those uses.
Thanks for sharing!
On my E-M1 II I found the tripod hr mode more useable than with the Pen-F, but still very limited. The handheld option which I’m using occasionally on the E-M1 III is more suitable and works good for me. But for really sharp results, I not only have to use only the best lenses, I also have to process the file in OM Workspace, which is a bi annoying. With PhotoLab the the details are too soft, I guess it’s similar with Lightroom.
Moving objects can be fixed in post by using the additional standard resolution file as an overlay and copy affected parts from that. If there are only some moving elements, that isn’t too much work.
Because of the caveats of this mode I once year consider buying a real high resolution camera, but with lenses that quickly adds up to a 5-digits figure and I haven’t yet found a reason why I need that…
Thanks for sharing.
I never use hi-res mode on my OM-D E-m1 mkII. I find 20mp is more than enough for my requirements - which is mostly bird photography with the 100-400mm Pan Leica lens. I document the birds for science not for pixel peepers.
Thanks for the interesting comparison, and you are right about noise suppression, it's an especially useful feature for small sensors that suffer in low light. In many cases having a clean image is more important than extra sharpness. High res is great for architecture and documenting art exhibitions (I am an art curator), I've also used it successfully for portraits. I did try FF frame for a while (A7R2) but I am not fond of heavy FF zoom lenses, so I went back to M43. I just love those tiny, sharp M43 primes that I can easily carry in a small bag
Thanks.
I use the high res modes )primarily the tripod version) quite extensively for landscape photography as works very well for longer exposures with moving water where it will work similarly (but not identically) to LiveND. The speed of the moving water will dictate what minimum shutter speed is needed for natural looking results. For fast moving water or a waterfall, I tend to go with a minimum of 1/2s (which will then be multiplied by the 8 pixel shifted sub exposures). It works the best for “uniformly moving” water as erratic splashing tends to get a messy look. This also greatly increases the dynamic range.
The handheld version can be used as a pseudo star tracker and “auto stacker” for Milky Way shots. You need to make sure that the stars fill the majority of the frame to force the camera to align the sub frames rather than any earthbound elements.
Thanks for sharing.
“It’s a great feature in paper,” is a good summary. I thought I would use it all the time on my G9, but I often found at least one of three issues: 1) more pixels really didn’t buy me anything, 2) some element somewhere in the frame almost always moved, and 3) when doing “super-pixel-peeping” at 200% I could always see pattern artifacts that probably accounted for a “sub-pixel” softness. However, I know the OM1 may have improved on the last point, but if I could detect a slight softness on UA-cam, your estimate of an effective resolution of 30 mp is probably generous. But here’s the thing: the greatest value having a high resolution sensor for me is that I can crop aggressively, getting essentially digital zoom, and that softness becomes more apparent. (It is worth noting that Topaz Sharpen AI can often fix that softness convincingly, but that is another topic.) Regardless, having this feature as an option is a bonus, even if you don’t use it all the time.
Thanks for sharing.
Yes absolutely. The "sub-pixel" softening is probably a little light spillage. This is something known from astrophotography where frame rejection and stacking etc is used to remove such noise. These are often very long exposures and there is always a bit of jitter going on from the tracking and atmospheric lensing.
Do you have the latest updates? Panasonic have improved on this in 2021
@@ckelin13 V2.6 was 11 Jan 2022
I thought the sony colors looked like crap. For $4300 less I'll be happy with my OM-1 when I get it. I have never felt limited with the mp in any of my Olympus camera's.
Yes the default Adobe settings can make Sonys look really really flat. Olympus has never got the proper respect for their colours. So like some Kodak or Agfa film stocks.
He stated he just did a import into LR so colors say nothing since its raw and depends on his import settings.
Sony is sharper but I think the OM-1's blacks, are very nice. Yes movement is an issue but when you weigh the price and size of the OM-1 it's a lot closer.
As a multiple system user own both Em1X and Many other Sony and Ninon FF systems, i can't agree more about your honest assessment regarding the high res mode vs a real High res FF sensor. Actually i don't see that many direct comparison, normally what you will see is the MFT fan talking about how great that High Res mode is and never bother to compare it to other sensor. You are the very few i ran into and did the comparison, and not only that and you offer very honest opinion, not like some of the Olympus ambassadors, always claiming the low res mft sensor in high res mode creating better than competitor . There is no free lunch guys, if you want a high quality 50 MP file, get a 50MP sensor camera. The gap will always be there, and don't forget you can shoot " high res mode" with those 50 -60MP sensor camera to create even high resolution image too.
Thanks so much.
I commented earlier about the lens, but now I want to comment that I have a GH6 now, and I have found that the high res mode in the GH6 is much, much better than the Olympus Em1 mark iii (I don't have an OM1). While there are tons of advantages of the Sony a1, as you get 50 MP without motion causing an issue...but the GH6 100 MP with the Olympus 17mm f1.2, wow, so crisp and clear!
I think for professional work, the high res shot for OM1 might not be as useful but for instagram or social media use, it is good enough. I have used it side by side with my Nikon Z9 and I don’t use much of a difference in terms of details but definitely more limited to still objects and landscape shots without wind but for occasional use, it js brilliant considering the price point.😊
Thanks for sharing.
Hi... Lightroom, Capture one, nor ANY software except OM Worspace is really capable to treat Olympus Hres shots ! Try to open the same Hres picture in LR and OM Workspace, you would be surprised by the HUGE difference !
Thanks for the tips! I tried the OM workspace, but I did not see any difference.
With every system there are those photographers who will see only the advantages of the system, and there are those who will focus largely on its limitations. Then in the middle there are most of the rest of us. It's not the gear that takes a breathtaking image; it's the photographer. This video helped to remind me of that truth, so thanks.
Thanks.
To my knowledge, Olympus does not claim that a 20MP camera with high res shot mode generally provides the same or better resolution than a 40MP FF camera. It is generally understood that high res shot mode can deliver excellent results in some circumstances. That said, I suspect most people would find it difficult to tell whether an Olympus or Sony captured a specific image on most media where images are viewed. After a little post processing this becomes even more difficult.
I don't think they claim that, but I wanted to find out how it compares. That's all😀 Sure, most photos are shared on social media platforms and it's hard to tell any difference between a 50Mp FF and iPhone😀
@@mattisulanto Iphone can take excellent pictures. However, I find it is more difficult to get good pics with smartphone, because it does not offer the controls I get with a dedicated camera.
I find handheld hi-res very useful for landscapes when there are a lot of details in the distance, e.g. a prominent mountain. It brings out these details effectively. To bring them out most effectively, I have to run the photo through Topaz AI Sharpen and sometimes even upscale the photo a bit further using Topaz Gigapixel AI. If there are motion artifacts that don't dominate the picture as a whole, I sometimes paint them out by adding a non-hi-res layer from the extra 20 Mp image that is provided by OMDS. There's certainly some extra work involved, but not excessively so.
The image quality from the OM-1 has improved a lot since the EM1 III, where there sometimes there was a mesh showing over waterfalls, that required a lot of work to clean up, and other times the textures of objects like distance grass disappeared. Now the end result looks more like a nice detailed photo, and less like a nice detailed painting.
I am also encouraged by the GH-6 ability to eliminate motion artifacts in HHHR, as reported by DP Review. Maybe if that feature gets introduced into a non-videocentric camera, I'd be interested in buying it. Have you tested the GH-6 HHHR capabilities?
Thanks for sharing. Here is my GH6 video: ua-cam.com/video/VfnwYdXWr3c/v-deo.html
HiRes Mode is great for product pictures or similar. Also when doing Macros it works just fine and gives you that ability to crop the image if needed.
What i've noticed using the EM1 mark 3 HHHR is the pictures are slightly soft at the default lightroom settings. Increasing sharpness a bit fixes this issue.
Also i would have tested the 80MP mode using tripod, just for comparison.
You can’t bring the detail to the same level with a native high mp sensor no matter how much you sharpen. However, you can make the picture look sharper.
The Sony has also a HR mode! The handheld ( for Olympus) test makes sense. By the way , using higher resolution like 80/100 Mpx is a challenge even with a tripod.
Let me say i am a A1 owner and i see what you want to compare here, What i like about the OM1 is that they at least more than sony try to use some internal processing to make things happen. My 2 high res sony (A1 and R4) both have highres mode up to 200MP but i have never used it once since its 100% too much work. For the rest you can only take this compare sofar as you pointed out the A1 is all about being able to get 50MP images at 30 fps without rolling shutter issues and solid AF. It really is a jack of all trades and a master of most of it and you pay for that. Its a pity that most of the really interesting computational stuff is done on either mobile phones or smaller sensor cameras since well they are more forced todo it i guess.
Thanks for your insights.
I’ve used HH a few times but as an amateur photographer I tend to regard it as a pleasant gimmick. I don’t pixel peek and I don’t print enormous images. To me the selection of the image is the most important aspect. Call me gestalt.
If you already own an Olympus camera for shooting other things such as wildlife or sports and need to do an occasional high-res studio still life, then the high-res mode is great. However, if you regularly need to shoot hi-res photos, which probably means you’re a pro, then buying a dedicated camera makes sense, and possibly means going to medium format such as the affordable Fujifilm GFX range. It’s always about the right tool for the job. If you only bought the Olympus for the high-res mode, then that is a dumb idea, just like buying one only to shoot video when buying a dedicated video camera would be the smart thing to do.
Thanks Matti! One comment on your test. Olympus 12-40 lens has maximum resolution at f/2.8 and (as most of Olympus/OMDS PRO grade lenses) it has a bit remaining spherical aberration for artistic purpose aimed for portraits. If you would try Lumix 12-35 f/2.8 at f/4 you'll find it considerably sharper.
Thanks for sharing.
Interesting review. Thank you, Matti !
I use tripod high-res mode for waterfalls, sea landscapes, studio objects shoots and sometimes mountains-landscape. In the picture where there is water, the tripod high-res mode will handle it very well and will give the feeling of 1-2 stops ND filter. The tripod high-res mode generates 80 Mp raw files which looks decent even at 100%. I got fine results even from some kit lenses. And... the tripod high-res mode from my E-M1 MK II handles well moving elements.
Thanks for sharing! I know how the water will come out and it can look decent. However, you have no choice to freeze the water even if you wanted. So you have to take what the high res gives you. But it can work, of course.
Yes, true. We have to learn the possibilities of our cameras and get the best out of it.
High-res mode will not cover all scenarios but in some specific cases can generate a nice output.
Very honest review regarding real world use of the hi res mode on the OM1. It does look good on paper but can really only be used in very limited conditions which really makes it not very practical for most purposes. It is fun when it works though and for general photography 20mp is plenty.
Thanks. It is fun, if you mostly are happy with 20Mp.
Its worth pointing out that there have been a good few tests done to see what size of print is obtainable from Micro 4/3 and a few feet long, which most folk will never ever do, is well within its capability, and that's not hi res mode! Huge prints side by side with full frame are practically indistinguishable. so maybe all this is nit picking and in the real world practically useless.
I agree, this information is not necessarily useful in real world. However, I think it's interesting from the technical point of view to see how these compare and what are the upsides and downsides.
Thanks for this video. Of course handheld high res (HHHR) shots have the limitations you mentioned speaking of moving parts. Also, they are not very sharp regarding to the resolution. But this often can be fixed in post production. For moving parts, you need to open both the ORI and ORF files in Photoshop, upscale the ORI to match the resolution of the ORF file, and then copy it as a new layer of the ORF file and apply a fusion mask. Nower you just need to unmask with a brush the moving parts. Of course, these moving parts will appear with a lower resolution, but with no artifacts. Now, you can also sharpen the high resolution layer, I found that the Topaz Denoise AI plugin, which also has a sharpening slider, works very well for that. But you need some processing power, especially GPU.
An other point is the good question you mentioned : what shots deserve HHHR ? Architecture in general is a good candidate for it. Speaking of landscape, it's interesting only if there are significant detailed parts which are far away like rocks, forest, etc.
So HHHR may often give good results, but it demands some time and power for post processing. This is, as usual with M43, the price to pay for the smaller M43 sensor. It's like reducing noise from RAW, which sometimes demands a specialized software like DxO PL or Topaz Denoide AI, where full frame shots are OK straight out of the body.
Thanks for sharing.
I had an E-m1 Mark II and only used the high res mode once, just to see what it looked like. In everyday shooting I never used it. There was too much of a chance for movement that I may not have detected, so the photo would not be acceptable. I agree with everything you said.
EM1-2 was tripod only !!!
Correct me if I m wrong, but when you compare MFT to APSC or full frame with the same resolution, I always see more details on the bigger sensor when comparing it while pixelpeeping (you shouldnt do it, but it is pretty clear, that a high res mode with the same output resolution couldnt come over this). The 80MP high res mode is much better than hand held high res in terms of resolution and sharpness, but I dont like to work with a tripod, so I dont use that very often - and to be honest, 20MP is more than enough, because with Olympus, you get reach very easily with small lenses.
Thanks for your insights.
Really,.... I looked at the images and apart from the moving car, I thought the OM1 was better.
You know I want to compliment you for doing this. So thank you. I have both of the lenses you used, and as you mentioned the Tamron 28-75mm is a much sharper lens than the 12-40 mark 1. Try using some lenses that are equality sharp. I'd love to see equally sharp lenses with this test...say the Olympus 60mm macro, or 45mm f1.8, even better the 75mm f1.8. I actually think the sharpest Olympus lens I have is the 8mm fisheye f1.8.
Thanks. The Zuiko 12-40mm Pro has been a very sharp lens in many lab tests and as far as I know it's one of the best zooms for MFT. In this kind of a comparison you need a zoom so you can match the angle of view on both cameras. For example there would be no equivalent Sony FF lens for the 75mm F1.8. I also don't have access to every lens so I have to use what I can. I don't think the result in this one would be any different even if I had used some other lens(es).
I not sure we are looking at the same photos - the olympus photos are slightly more exposed which can wash out the details. Also the colors are much more pleasing in the olympus. Agree not a feature usable for moving objects. CAnnot agree the detail is noticibly visable or different. Thanks for the effort to compare -
Actually both photos have almost identical histogram, but the Sony picture is slightly brighter. But anyway, if you see it like you said, then I really can't disagree😀
Today I‘ve done a test with om-5 handheld high-res and a7rv. Out of camera the sony was much better. After using Topaz sharpen ai I must say that the Om picture caught up a lot (it had applied automatically motion blur adjustment). Double computational mode is a cumbersome path to achieve a decent static image.
Thanks for sharing your results.
In italiano.
Due fotocamere molto diverse, una costa tre volte l'altra, una è due volte più compatta (corredata di ottica) dell'altra. La OM1 nasce come evoluzione elettronica del vecchio 135, le FF hanno di fatto sostituito le vecchie 4,5x6 a pellicola. Le prime hanno guadagnato in compattezza e velocità rispetto al 135 le seconde hanno guadagnato ancora di più in compattezza velocità e versatilità rispetto al Medio formato. L'una e l'altra conservano vantaggi e svantaggi rispetto all'altra, nascono per essere flessibili fino ad un certo punto e quel punto è la trasportabilità, quando conta poter mettere nello zaino la maggior flessibilità operativa e partire vince la OM1, quando conta la maggior qualità al costo di portare 2 zaini vince la Sony
Hi Matti. Useful video clip. Whilst my OM-1 covers most aspects of my wildlife photography it hits a wall when trying to shoot birds in the distance when a heavy crop is also required in post processing. All you mention in the clip reflects why my wildlife photography friend uses a Sony A1. Together with the Sony 100-400mm lens and x1.4 TC his resulting distance photos of birds are sharper and a heavy crop is easier. Having said that the Sony camera is £6500 plus lens and TC, although works out the same price as my OM-1 and 150-400mm pro lens. If I could afford it I would have both cameras and lenses 😏😏
Thanks for sharing.
A comparison with the Lumix GH6 would be interesting, as it said that it handles moving objects in the scene better than Olympus.
It would, but no RAW support yet in LR.
@@mattisulanto Oh yes, I see. Having a test with the GH6 alone at some point would be still interesting (or maybe you could again loan either the Sony A1 or the OM-1 alongside the GH6). I see these high-res modes only as a "bonus" for MFT cameras, not as a key feature (I use it only for "scanning" film, or maybe for still life at some point).
I agree with Leo. I find that most comparisons here use lightroom. If you are to truly do a comparison use the best raw editor for each file; especially since OM Workspace is free. I tell you one thing on my uncalibrated M1 MacBook Air display I like the OM-1 colors better. My two cents.
There are many views points. I think the same app should be used for a comparison😀 However, I tried OM Workspace and it does not make a difference in this case. But of course, you can make your own comparison and maybe you'll get the results that you like better.
Interesting comparison both look great I love my Sony 7r111 the a1 will probably be my next purchase in 3 years . Liking the hat Matti 👍
Thanks for watching!
I care more about colors than anything else and Olympus is the clear winner 🥳
This video was not about the color, but color is important of course😀
Yes. Olympus colors. Way better for us jpeg shooters. Beautiful. 💁🏻♀️
probably need to make the exposure time shorter for A1? the excavator looks more exposed for A1. I did something like you - I took pictures with GFX100s and S5 of the same scene from the same location. Afterwards i think i should have lowered the exposure time for the GFX100s.
Both cameras were on Aperture priority and the OM pictures is a little under exposed. The Sony pictures is perfectly exposed. However, that is beside the point of this video.
I am digitising my analogue fotos using a EM5.2 using high resolution and a Leica 100 f4 macro lens on bellows on a copy stand, backlit with LED. I have an EM1x for both hand-held and tripod high resolution: the hand-held is for relatively static scenes, usually with the 12-100; the tripod mode is more for experimentation and landscapes. Sometimes the artifacts can be as interesting as the original photo, but it's largely hit-or-miss.
Thanks for sharing.
I have a 47mp camera in the form of a Leica Q2 and since I do not print large [hardly print at all], the only advantage to me compared to a 20mp camera without using hi-res is the ability to crop. Even so, for me, the difference is of no particular significance or importance. I do not therefore use the hi-res mode with my E-M1, which needs a tripod or solid base to keep it steady enough.
Thanks for sharing.
Matti thanks for taking on a very controversial topic. Even the late David Thorpe--a MFT proponent--would say of course FF has better IQ than crop sensor due to physics, so results are not surprising. When Raw converter is available for GH6, I hope you are able to do similar comparison with the Sony A1 or esp between both MFT cameras.
Thanks. I see what I can do with the GH6 in the future.
The advantages of full frame cameras is highly debatable in most situations. When looking at the big picture, the extra expense and weight of full frame is not worth it. Now, in the “ real world” as you say, where it counts is in the PRINTS. Please do a comparison of prints between the different sensors, including APS-C. Have people pick their favorites. It would be a very interesting video!
Thanks for sharing. Some like FF some think it's totally useless, there are as may opinions as there are photographers. Almost at least😀 That print test would be interesting, but at the moment I can't do it. Maybe later in the future.
But the Olympus has much better color. 💁🏻♀️
The problem with hi res mode is that it is unreliable. Even if photo looks Ok, some minor artifacts could be found. When I need more megapixels I rather use upscaling software based on artificial intelligence.
Nice hat! 🇺🇦😘
Thanks!
Тhere is also one other advantage of the Hi-Res shot and this is better color fidelity. If there are no moving parts every Hi-Res image downsized to the original camera image size will be way better in any aspect. I'm waiting for my OM-1 and will try to make some Hi-Res portraits to see how the camera handles that. Have you tried it for portraits?
I have not tried it for portraits, but if your model is not moving I don't see any reason why it would not work.
@@mattisulanto not moving for sure, but there can be slight blur from micro movements, I need to test it when I receive my camera :)
@@AnastasTarpanov You have to brace your model the way they used to do 150 years ago😀
love your cap.
Thanks.
The oly 17mm 1.2 might provide better result for the OM-1?
I don't think it would be significantly better at F4. Not so much it would change anything.
What the video teaches me is you get what you pay for. If my 20.4 MP OM-1 is knocking the door of a 35MP camera, happy days! I'm laughing all the way to the bank.
At an eye-watering $8500 Cdn vs $2800, I'd expect the A1 to win out! But even still, I thought the differences were quite minor and visible only with side-by-side pixel peeping. I'd say the OM-1 has 90% of the quality at 33% of the price. Pretty good deal in my books!
For studio work (with a tripod) the 80mp hi-res mode on the OM-1 should give better results. It would be interesting to compare the OM-1 and A1 is this situation, and of course were are waiting for an upcoming hi-res comparison between the OM-1 and the GH6, which would probably be favourable for the GH6 with its 100mp mode.
As the handheld hi-res mode depends on 'natural' camera movement (rather than pixel shift in the tripod mode), I would think that consecutive shots of the same scene will yield different (unique) results due the the random nature (and steadiness) of hand movement of the photographer. Could it be possible to train oneself to make more consistently sharp HHHR shots?
I wonder if you took only one photo with the OM-1 for this comparison, or if you took several photos and picked the best result.
Thanks. There would be many ways to test, of course. Let's see what I can do in the future.
OM-1 Hires RAW is very good if you do occassionally product/model photographing in studio. You don't need to invest heavy priced Sony or Hasselblad.
The OM-1 has a very targeted market. The casual photographer is not in that target. It an amazing camera for the right audience who love what it offers.
Of course, every camera is amazing for the right user😀
Basically you used the wrong tool for processing the HHHR image from the Oly. Processing within the free OM system Workspace software makes a world of difference. Yes there are all the limitations in terms of subject movement as you mentioned, but it is a feature that can be used in many other circumstances. It's fantastic for night city photography, and landscapes without much tree motion etc. No it's not a 50/80 mp camera, but can achieve similar in many occasions.
So many have said the same about using the OM Workspace and I tried it, but did not see any difference in detail or resolving power.
Movement - whenever I've used high res, I've got and extra seagull or something. It's probably Sod's Law, the best shot will have something that moved.
It works for tabletop product shots where everything is static.
For the landscape photographers who favour high resolution cameras, they will use a high resolution full frame or even medium format. They still have problems with movement blur at slow shutter speeds.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that most full frame are 24Mp and only half of them are over 30Mp.
Is 20Mp enough? Or too much? The Sony A1 has 50Mp on a sensor four times the area. If we take 1/4 of that, 12.5Mp, the OM1 has a lot more than that. If we crop the Sony in to half its area, that is roughly the native resolution of the OM1.
I do know I can shoot an Olympus walking without breaking stride. Will the Sony do that? If the Oly is given an OIS lens it will use part and part stabilisation, not up to the Dual on the G9 but better than IBIS alone.
Something I've observed by extreme pixel peeping on the G9 and PEN-F 20Mp is that because the pixels (photosites) are so small and tightly packed together, is that light can spill into the adjacent pixel more readily than with the 16Mp sensor. This light spillage is known on astronomical cameras, where only one pixel should have been lit, it has flooded onto the adjacent ones. The 20Mp seems more susceptible to movement blur, the 16Mp a more clearly defined edge. When taken with a faster shutter to cure the problem the 20Mp has a less jagged, better defined, edge. I did have to zoom right in to see this on my best monitor, but it tells me to use a faster shutter with the 20Mp if there is going to any movements blur. I surmise this "movement blur" needing a faster shutter would apply to any high resolution sensor. As a (cof) radiometrologist I can get bogged down in the technical whyfor. I have not quantified this but there does seem to be a correlation between shutter speed and sensor resolution for best results.
Thanks for sharing your extensive comment.
It is interesting to see if the focussing distance has any effect. I'll try it sometimes with my G9 and my 5:1 macro lens. If I'm right, macro photos in high res mode shouldn't be sharp.
I think that depends more on the lens.
I still get great results from my old fuji s3 pro and olympus E1. I have on my wall 30x40 inch taken with my olympus EM 1 mk1. I have fantastic A2 pictures from the 1st two .
I can't see more Details in the Sony image, although it looks sharper. And there is more colour information per pixel, instead of only one colour as in the Sony. With a bit of sharpening the image will come very close to the Sony,
I can't dispute what you can or can't see😀
I suggest comparing the high res file out of OM System Workspace. It renders it better than Lightroom, more detail.
Thanks for the tip! You are about the 21st person to suggest that😀 I have tried it, but did not see much difference compared to LR. I can sharpen and make the photo LOOK sharper, but there is still no more detail.
This is great. Not much point in doing this with the GH6 with its video-focused sensor. I do wonder how would the S5's high res mode compare with the A1 (or better, with S1R!) though. It didn't seem that impressive even when compared with the G90. Maybe it was the lens though...
Thanks. There are so many ways to do these comparisons😀
I use high resolution photos for my cityscapes and landscapes. Personally, I intend to add a ND on my E-M5ii to get high resolution long exposure photos.
I also like to add in, it's really interesting to see the difference in contrast between the Sony A1 and OM-1.
Thanks for sharing.
Very nice comparison. I'm not sure if it was a raw file comparison but I feel I can see a magenta shift in sony A1 colors compared to OM1. At 4:38 and also in that CAT picture it's so pronounced. How do you think about the colors. Which one is closer to the natural scene if you can remember? BTW thank you for wearing this hat again!
Thanks. I said in the video that I shot RAW. I did not fine tune the colors and WB so there might be some shift one way or the other.
@@mattisulanto My bad, thanks for the quick reply!
Sony colors are terrible!
What is impressive to me is, that a camera around 2000 € (OM-1, MFT Sensor) can make shots that are slightly worse in quality compared to a around 7000 € (A1, Fullframe Sensor) camera.
How would you compare the OM-1 to a Sony A7 IV ?
This is not a camera comparison. This compares two different ways to make a 50Mp photo. I think the HHHR would be very close to the A7IV native quality.
I do have to say that the colors and exposure of the OM1 images -- to my eye -- are better than the Sony.
Thanks. I used Neutral photo style for both, but of course some other choice would look different. Both cameras expose really well and the histograms look almost perfect, except the OM1 excavator is actually about a stop under exposed. The blacks clips a lot in that one and the whites are not nearly white.
Hello Matti, I would like you to make the following comparison; shoot the same photograph (same megapixel) with a 4/3 and an FF, to see if the image quality is different and how important the sensor size is, thank you very much, a hug.
Thanks for the idea. That could something for the future.
Yes. Especially at low light this would be nice to see 😂
interesting comparison, any chance to share a raw files, please? thanks
Thanks. I'm not sure about sharing the RAWs.
@@mattisulanto I understand, it would just be very helpful because people can try their postprocessing techniques :)
It would be a surprise to see the OM-1 to be sharper in raw compared to A1. With a little sharpness in post though, I think that OM-1 is really close and the difference is really small. Way smaller than the 4299$ in their price difference
This was not a camera comparison. This was a comparison between two different methods to make a 50Mp photo. Yes, the high res result adds a good amount of resolution to the normal 20Mp and that can be handy.
If you would photograph the om-1 with f8, same as sony, would the pics look sharper? I mean you took kind of landscape shots. Just for fun i would like to know😀 the tripod mode compared to the sony 50mp also very interesting
F8 on MFT would look softer because of diffraction. There are so many ways to do comparisons😀
I wonder if the OM1 at it's native pixel count with the Adobe Lightroom Super Resolution mode would be better than the HHHR mode. I've been using it on some old 5D Mk1 files and it looks great. Yet to try it on my M43 files when that was my main system about 10 years ago.
Fun video. the one thing that you left out is the OM-1 has much better color science. I use my OM-1 and EM-1X for astro photography in HiRes mode.
Thanks. Color is a matter of opinion😀
Interesting comparison! Thanks for the effort. My two cents: High-res full frame sensor in the a1 or a7r4 allows us do crop *after* taking a picture, on the other hand, m43 or aps-c sensor always "crop" when taking the shot. Forget about all those "conversion" between m43, aps-c and full frame, high-res full frame sensor is what makes m43 outdated, as one can always do "m43" crop after taking a picture on a7r4 and get 16.1 mp after the crop.
Sony A1 $10789 NZ, Om-1 $3599 NZ, Sonys have there problems just like any Camera, there is no such thing as the perfect Camera. I have been blown away with the images from my Em1 Mk iii and having just purchased the OM - 1 it has stepped up another level ! and yes I do use high res mode when I think i need the extra resolution and of course it is not for every situation as explained in the Olympus information ! and at the end of the day how many mpx do the average Photographer need ? go OMD !!
Thanks for sharing. This video is only comparing the hight res 50Mp vs normal 50Mp. Not naming perfect cameras😀
Matti I don't know if you know but LightRoom hasn't fully supported Olympus High-res raw files in the past and it still doesn't. I know that most of us use some other software than OM Systems Workspace to process Olympus/OM raw files, but could you make the comparison also with a software that supports OM high-res files OM Workspace? Would be interesting to see if the difference might still be the same.
What do you mean LR does not support HR files? I don't think OM Workspace supports Sony files.
@@mattisulanto I said that it doesn't fully support HR files. That means according to my own comparisons optical corrections and sharpness and resolution. I know that WS works only with OM/Olympus raw files but because it exists it would be interesting to see if you can see the defference. I brought this up because you can't get the best quality out of OM/Oly HR files if you process them with LightRoom and not with OM Workspace. Edit: Forgot to mention that I use LightRoom as well, but highres files seem to be a little different story.
Piece of advice: take your 20mp Olympus camera and shoot in the normal mode. Open your photo on Lightroom Classic, right-click, Enhance, Super Resolution, Done. You have a new 40mp file.
There are many ways to improve photos, but in this video I wanted to find out if there is any difference between these two 50Mp cameras. Does that Enhance work with Sony A1 photos?😀
What do you think shotting aurora borealis in High-Res? Is it possible? thanks
I have never tried but I think it may not work that well because the stars will move (or the earth will move).
but the stars with 8-10 seconds don't move with 7 mm @@mattisulanto
@@enricomaggi2100 Like I said I have never tried that. You have to test and see. If your exposure time is 8 seconds and the camera takes 8 exposures that is 64 seconds in total.
compare the A1 at 200mp mode and the 80mp from om1
It is well known that you need to use om workspace if you want to get the most out of the high res shot.
Om workspace had an edge, but there is no significant difference any more. Another thing is that it would not be fair to use a different app for each camera.
There are 2 things you should have taken into consideration and adjusted: in camera sharpness (micro contrast) and contrast. In the 1st photo it's obvious that the in camera contrast is much higher in the sony camera... Finally you should have also compared a hi-res with a tripod high res and a non-hires shot with the om1 to find out if there is less sharpness. If so, it is a result from the camera sensor shift + ibis. If not, the diferences you are seeing between both cameras may be also related with the lens...
And yes, I use the hi-res mode more and more with my em1 mkii. Not only the finsl image is noise free but also has much higher dynamic range...
The same with the hdr modes...
Thanks for your input. I think I explained in the video that the whole point was to shoot handheld. Anyway, my experience is that no matter how you do a comparison, someone will always think it's all wrong. Please do your own comparison and you'll get the results you want😀
@@mattisulanto What I suggest would be a way of you 1 granting that the testing conditions are similar (you can only compare 2 things if you standardize parameters that may affect your result) and 2 understand if the lesser sharpness is associated with the lens or with ibis+sensor shift for the hi-res... I also thought I was explicit enough too...
The only thing you can conclude in your test is sony+sony in camera processing settings+lens1 seems to produce images that are sharper than om1 hi res+in camera settings+lens2... The question is are you confident of your results? I would not be, especially when it is vlear that sony camera internal contrast setting is way higher that om1 camera. I'm all for tests but people like you must be careful to at least disclose that you did not controll for the variables I have mentioned...
It's called method... Your method is incorrect and your interpretations may be wrong because of it.
@@diogoferreira9039 This is what I suggest. Make you own comparison, publish it and see how many people disagree and tell you how you should have done it. I respect your opinion, of course, but it's only one opinion. Not right or wrong, just like mine. People tend to disagree if the outcome is not what they expected. I'm now going to leave you to it, because I don't think there is point to continue this discussion. Please, enjoy photography and create some awesome photos😀
Interesting Matti. I mainly do bird photos so I haven’t used it yet. Love your Ukrainian hat😁
Thanks! 😃
How about testing HHHR with subjects that are slow moving or trying to be still like people posing. I think that would be intresting, I mean everyone knows it doesn't work with fast subjects like cars.
There would be so many ways to test😀
OM-1 Hires RAW in OM Workspace version 2.3.1 not Lightroom
Price is a big factor for landscape the OM1 is a better alternative. Keep in mind the IBIS and no need for Tripod as a factor
That is one opinion.
@@mattisulanto its a 6500$ vs 2400$ camera.... put the a1 vs gfx100s ... for sharpness :-)
@@tomerweiss4900 This video is not about $6500 camera vs $2400 camera. This video is about two different ways to make roughly a 50Mp photo. Those cameras just happen to cost what they cost, but that's not the main point here. I happened to have an easy access to the A1 at the same time I was reviewing the OM-1.
@@mattisulanto so suggest adding also a GFX50R as a REF to show how bad is the A1/OM43 vs the real thing that do 50MP.
@@tomerweiss4900 I'd love to. Do you have a GFX50R that I could borrow?😀
You have to sharpen the hi res photos. How do you NOT know this. It's been known since my E-M5II in 2014.
Of course I know that. How do you not know that I know? However, it does not change the result. The perceived sharpness increases, but the real detail does not.
Not use with my Olympuscamera. I thank high resolution Only neceserry with big printing.
i disagree with you , 20 mega pixel is already enough to print very big because you will see it from from far place , and for big screens it is 4k and you will view it from far place also ,people
Thanks for sharing.
Glad you pointing out that moving elements. I have olympus gear and many times I feel it is more for static objects/moments in dim light. Longer expourses with IBIS. Cool feature on paper and bigger files on servers/hdds. That hi-res shutterspeed is still slow imo.
Thanks!
Just proves that the higher res sensor will win out. All the AI and software tricks are no substitute.
I have Lumix G9 and newer use this mode, is unusable for landscapes and nightshots. I use on all cameras breaketing for landscapes and combine him in PS.More DR and lover noise. 20-25Mp is enoug for portrets and weddings. But now i use everyday Leica d-lux 5 camera (10mp sensor) and for A4 print or internet is enoug.
I think cameras like m4 / 3 should give photographers what FF cameras can't give and smartphones in other side. I think is very hard ))
But the price is the same $ 2,000, and the camera can do in most situations less than FF. The same camera size, the same price of lenses ( Lumix 50mm 1.8 has the same price of Lumix 25mm 1.4) and even more and worse quality . Hmm.
Thanks for sharing.
If you shoot landscape in HiRes mode and then resize to 20MP you'll add at least 1 stop of dynamic range and enhancement of color rendering.
Thanks for showing support for Ukrane with the hat.👍
Thanks! I try to do something.
Isn't the native resolution of the Olympus camera 24 megapixels?
No, it’s 20mp..
A lot of waffle to plug your workshop? We can all read the OM-1 manual!! Why didn't you compare it with the GH6 HR mode? Good comment from Andreas R - Can the Sony do that?
I'd love to do the same with GH6, but I don't have access to the GH6.
@@mattisulanto Please do if you get the chance Matti. I’m a long time Olympus and now OM enthusiast but just got the GH6 for video but very impressed indeed with the camera for stills too. The 100 mp handheld stills would interest you I think.
@@mikecoleridge8982 I have a video about the GH6, but it can very difficult to borrow it again for a comparison. Let's see if I can do that. ua-cam.com/video/VfnwYdXWr3c/v-deo.html
If you do cigarettte work in the style of Irving Penn.... High Res Mode could help
😁
I do underwater photography and hi-rez mode on the OM1 is totally irrelevant. I wish OMS invested in higher resolution camera, >20MP, than this nonsense "hi rez" mode. Hi-rez mode sounds "nice" in marketing but it is soooo restrictive with lots of conditions that make it very useless and impractical to most types of photography.
Thanks for sharing.
@@mattisulanto And thank you for your efforts and most informative videos. I wish you more success and look forward to watching your videos.
Why didn’t you use a tripod?
Because I used hand held hight res mode, which is meant to be used hand held.
So much talk here about heavy cropping. If your images and lack of good composition need heavy cropping, learn the basics of photography and composition or find another hobby. Great video Sulanto. Always interesting and useful.
Thanks. Yeah, I agree with you about cropping.
I’m sorry but the need for heavy cropping is not because someone doesn’t understand the basics of photography and composition. Sometimes, even with 600 mm telephoto lenses and teleconverter one simply cannot get close enough to the subject to fill the frame. Have you ever tried shooting an eagle in flight 100 yards away? Or a wood duck at the opposite side of a pond?? How about a bird smaller than the size of your fist from 30 yards away??? Of course, we all recognize that it is best to get close to the subject and mildly crop. But in some situations that is simply not possible. It is a choice of either getting the shot and heavily crop it or not take the shot at all. Of course, in the situations I describe the computational high resolution of the OM-1 is unlikely to be useful because the subject is not still. So a natively higher sensor is the only real option. Unless you are willing to use the Nikon Coolpix with a 3,000 mm full frame reach but with tons of downsides.
@@stevenmeisel4288 If most people valued absolute image quality and cropping ability the way you do, the market for medium and larger format cameras/lenses would be vastly larger than it currently is. After all, those formats offer the same advantages and over full frame that full frame offers over M43.
I cannot agree with you. I photograph interiors and objects for advertising. For me, the high resolution mode on the Panasonic J-9 is a great feature.
I knew his conclusion from the intro when he said "compare to a real 50mp" picture. As if high res mode is fake.
Panasonic J-9? Or did you mean the Panasonic LUMIX G9?
Iirc the recently new Panasonic GH6 has not only a new sensor (25,2MP), but a high resolution mode that can produce 100MP composite shots.
@@VGMLucifier g-9.
@@VGMLucifier To be honest, I don't have clients that need 100 megapixel files. Perhaps these files are good for "stocks". But I live in Russia, and now all photographers from the Russian Federation who worked with stocks cannot withdraw money. I think everyone knows the reason. The fight against Nazism is punishable.
@@Marco_Chiappetta To be honest, I don't have clients that need 100 megapixel files. Perhaps these files are good for "stocks". But I live in Russia, and now all photographers from the Russian Federation who worked with stocks cannot withdraw money. I think everyone knows the reason. The fight against Nazism is punishable.
Strange story. You are mixing things up. Contrast is no sharpness and the last picture sharper ? Come on,look again. Not a very well documenten test. It looks like the outcome was clear from the start.
I don't think this is a fair comparison. As far as I know the OM1 has the same type of highres mode as my Lumix G9 and Panasonic at least make it quite clear that you should really take high res mode images on a tripod. Also it is made quite clear that it is not suitable for shots with moving subjects (which is obvious when sensor is being moved around). You seem to have purposely taken the Olympus off the tripod and further, ignored what every owner knows about movement. When people buy a camera they should research these things, they are totally different cameras. Surely the vast majority of Olympus and Panasonic camera owners know this. I am certain that the results would be totally different if you did the same tests whilst adhering to these facts.
Also the colour on the Olympus (construction machine photo) was much better than the Sony and it has many superior features, so I would still opt for the Olympus over the Sony.
Thanks for watching. This is from OM-System website: "Handheld High Res Shot is also included, for creating 50M high-definition shots by compositing 12 images". There are two HR modes, one for tripod and one for handheld. I do my best to adhere to the facts😀 On the other hand, color rendition is not a fact, it is matter of taste and this video is not about that anyway.
@@mattisulanto Then obviously Olympus is exaggerating somewhat. I still say it was an unfair comparison and poorly implemented trial. Comparing 'chalk & cheese'.
@@ckelin13 Would it be fair if OM-1 was better than Sony?😀
@@mattisulanto I'm sure they both have their fans. I am only interested in fair reviews and comparisons.
@@ckelin13 It seems that fair is a very personal concept😀