I can't help but notice that you had the most stable tripod on the Nikon, an average tripod on the OM1 along with the fact that it had a neck strap flailing in the wind, and a crappy tripod on the EM1x., those factors alone invalidate your set-up. Another fact, 1 second delays are not enough to let the vibration settle down before the shot is taken with the OM and EM1x. A minimum of 4 seconds would be the ideal delay. Sensor shift HiRes does micron movements of the sensor(on any camera) so tripod stability is utmost. You need more consistency with your testing. You clearly had the best tripod on the Nikon. The tripod assignments alone, favors the Nikon, which is your baby. This was not a level playing field.
Thanks for your comment. You seem to have missed the point of the test and misinterpreted some of the results. First of all those tripods are not the same I agree (I’m not made of money) but all three are stable professional tripods and I can guarantee that the Nikon would get sharp results on any of them. If the Olympus cameras are this finicky about the type of tripod they are on then I’m not interested in using one for landscapes. Which was the point of the test. And finally, the K&F tripod is brand new, tightens nicely and is very stable. I use it a lot and is wasn’t chosen as it’s a crappy tripod, I think you are looking for excuses. The OM1, which you state had a neck strap flailing in the wind produced sharp results so I don’t really understand your point. And in any case, if you watch closely when the shutter is pressed there is not a breath of wind. The delay is set the same for all three cameras and again, if the Olympus gear requires a delay of 4 seconds (I’m not sure how you know this but I bow to your superior knowledge) then again, it makes it unusable in the real world of landscape photography. I think I’ll stick with Nikon. Thanks for watching
this is a good test with usable outcomes. while the tripods are not the same and the strap >could< introduce shake to the system, there was a sharp photo in the comparison by om1 so we can assume that at least in some cases the comparison here is valid. As a note - I use 3sec delay w my nikon or any camera but that is also down to the tripod sturdiness of course. I did use 3sec for olympus and it's high res in the past. what we can also see is what I commented in the past - it may get impractically challenging to produce a good flawless high-res shot with m43 pixel shift whereas a z7 just does it time after time perfectly. That alone does say something . We don't only need great results, but also repeatedly reproducible results . having watched the video briefly, the one test I focused at - the white distant cottage - the nikon output is more contrasty. the resolution looks about the same on ytb. you mention dynamic range - you are shooting the nikon at iso200 which removes it's huge advantage of iso64. you are also shooting a great but not the sharpest lens and you are at f11 - at this f-stop while the performance is balanced across the frame, gradually towards center you are loosing approximately 30% of the lens's max resolution capability. Which may not be ideal in comparison to sharp pro zoom on the oly shot at f5.6 note - I see people in the comments mentioning selling AI upscaled prints etc - Besides really not enjoying using 3 AI tools to improve low quality files, also I hope I never become one to buy that crappy print somewhere.
Thanks for your input. I agree with your conclusions. Ultimately the Nikon is easier to use and if upscaling is not your thing (it’s not mine long term) then there really is only one solution. Buy a Nikon for seascapes. I’ve got a verdict video coming up soon which will let everyone know what I have ended up doing
@@davepeckphotography and by the way, you could try to recall if the light conditions changed in those 4 minutes between the cottage shot taken by z7 and om-1, because the histograms look kinda the same in terms of brightness /peak brightness, but the exposure is f5.6 1/6 iso200 on the olympus and f11 1/3 iso200 on the nikon - this should obviously yield darker image on the nikon, but it does not. If you can make a controlled test side by side om-1 and z7, you could verify if the same settings lead to brighter exposure on the nikon. If this is true - and I have not seen any such test on ytb - you would confirm the relative difference in 'real iso' measurements done by dxomark for these 2 cameras (albeit for the older em1 mk2) why would this be important? because comparing iso200 vs iso200 would then mean putting olympus into unfair advantage. And it would also give everyone a better idea about noise performance of m43 (meaning if iso200 isn't iso200 but less, the noise handling is worse by that factor of difference)
Yes, the slightest movement in the subject will blur the 80Mp hi-res shots as it combines multiple exposures; we need to use a fast shutter to counter movement blur. Trees blowing about or waves moving will do that. I always seem to get three seagulls from nowhere. The 50Mp "hand held" can yield better results, less frames shot. 80Mp is good for still life, indoors with light stage. The sturdy tripod, "cable" release, and shutter delay. There is a very good case for using FF for landscape as it produces a wider vista. If we use an "equivalent" lens on MFT they "push the mountains away", so to get the same perspective on MFT we need to use much the same focal length. You say you crop FF landscapes, the MFT has already done the crop, we need to frame MFT before we push the shutter. The OM-1 Mark 2 has improved focusing and processor, it is probably better at macro (and everything else) than the E-M1X. Dunno why we get obsessed with pixel count; there's only 8Mp on a UHD screen, and 16Mp can print a 6x4-ft bus stop poster.
A 25mm shot on a Micro-4/3 will give exactly the same perspective as a 50mm shot on a FF. You can see examples of this on the Internet, e.g. comparisons done by Maria Noonan.
@@stevebonn3463 except no it doesn't. Used for landscape it will "push the mountains away" using the "equivalent" lens. That is altered perspective. It is well documented how focal length affects this. Used for portrait a short lens will pinch features and a long one will flatten them. We do get a narrower field/angle of view with the 4/3rd.
I refrained from replying to your previous videos, but this time I want to say a few things. 1 - the 80mp version can’t have any movement. You will never get the best out of that feature if there is any camera movement. I’m surprised that you don’t know that. The moving strap alone, is interfering with getting a sharp result. Plus the wind. Of course the Nikon shot is going to be sharper. 2 - if you want to take a hi res shot in windy conditions on a tripod, switch on HHHR. it works on a tripod. 3 - for sharpening in Lightroom, use these settings: Sharpening - 75 Radius - 2.7 Detail - 3 Masking - 50 The Nikon may still be sharper, but at least give the Olympus a chance by using it properly. You went from driving an automatic transmission to a manual transmission and blamed the car.
Pointed these out the first test, pointed them again the second test. Not sure why Dave is persisting on repeating the same mistakes (flapping strap, manual focus or at least same focus technique on all cameras, improper sharpening), which I find disappointing as I am also curious to see the true potential of HR against 45MPix sensor. Perhaps next time ;-)
With respect to all three of you you are clearly not watching closely, only seeing what you want to see. There is no camera movement, none. The camera strap you have been banging on about is attached to the OM1, when the shutter is pressed (and I did this in close up so you could see) there is absolutely no movement. But even if there was and you have decided in your mind that the tripod isn’t good enough, the neck strap is blowing in the wind the point is: that camera produces sharp results 🤔 So I really don’t understand your argument. Second point. I take offence to the comment ‘I’m surprised that you don’t know that.’ I do know that, I take images and the OM1 produced sharp images I’m surprised you didn’t understand that when it’s there in the video. Second point: Why produce a mode called High Res tripod mode and then expect people to use handheld mode? That makes sense. I also shot one handheld. It’s on the video Point 3: These images are all RAW out of the camera and what you are looking at is motion blur not a lack of sharpening. If the Olympus require sharpening to that specific formula, or not being processed in Lightroom etc etc then I’ll stick to Nikon thanks.
I think a lot of the people commenting are somehow misunderstanding the context of your comparison. Yes the computational (High res shot modes) on the EM1X is far inferior to that of the OM1 - This as a result of the processor being 2 generations older than that of the OM1, sensor being 8 years older and probably the software/firmware in the OM1 just being more refined. What would be interesting to see is if the OM5, which uses the same sensor, BUT never processor and never software is able to cope better than the EM1X. I doubt it will be as good as the OM1 no matter what, but maybe they actually did some improvements in between.
The HighRes mode RAWs require (and love) more sharpening in post. To get the sharpest result, I use the OM Workshop to produce a neutral tiff which I can then edit in C1.
Agreed. I’ve found that RAW conversion in OM Workspace is necessary to get the best results from hi-res files. But that’s all I use it for because it’s so excruciating slow.
Thought - the OM-1 Mark 2 has more processing power than the E-M1X and so is able to shoot the 8 frame sequence and process them more quickly. Each frame might be exposed for the same time as the Nikon, so if the Nikon is set to 1/80 then the sequence takes 8/80 = 1/10 which is like taking a slow-shutter shot on the Nikon. Use an eight time faster shutter speed and let the ISO go up. Even so there is a slight delay between frames and we might want to go to ten times faster. Of course this works in good light but not so well at dawn and dusk, a limitation of the Hi-Res, it needs fast shutter to avoid motion blur.
Thanks for the testing Dave. I'm not sure if the other claims (tripod etc.) have any validity or not. I shoot a number of genres with both Sony (A7r5) and OM (OM1 v1) and I prefer the Oly for most genres I shoot (travel, land+cityscapes, street and model portraiture) except for model shoots / portraits where I may want/require more isolation (BG blur) where I'll usually use the A7r5 and an 85/1.4 (the option is my much loved OM 45/1.2 Pro but the Sony wins in that instance for the bokeh). However when it comes to (selling) prints I'm more than comfortable with upscaling (software nowadays is brilliant in this regard). Whether it's Gigapixel, PS or I most commonly use ON1 Photo Raw, the output is excellent and I have no problems with sharpness in prints up to 1.2m on the long side. It's just ticking one more box on export. I've just upscaled 20 of 24 photos (20 from Oly and 2 from a Sony A7r5, 2 from a 12MP DJI drone) for an exhibition. There is virtually no difference in the 1:1 files after upscaling, so long as you used quality glass in the first place, which would define the finer details far better than average glass. Of course if you pixel peep even deeper then there are differences, you can't beat resolution, however for most people that's not required or necessary. YMMV. It's important to note though that if you don't print large or sell large digital files (and the vast majority of people don’t) but mostly post to social media for family/friends, or have smaller prints made, produce books or sell to stock agencies, even sell for billboards, then you absolutely don't need large files and 20mp (and even 12mp cameras such as the Nikon D700 or D3s or the revered Sony A7s range) are more than you'll ever need. To endorse that I'd suggest anyone to check on a high quality print shop's website for their file requirements. The file vs print sizes may surprise some. For example, outstanding print quality (for 1 to 1 sales) would be : 12mp = 16 x 24” 20mp = 20 x 30” It would be very interesting to see you produce a comparison between systems/cameras using upscaling as an alternative to either of the OM's Hi-res modes (neither of which I ever use, as upscaling works great for me). Liked and subscribed (waiting for that upscaling video) ! Happy Xmas to one and all !
I have Olympus and Sony also, I love the compactness of MFT, had have the 45 1.2/17 1.2...from a really great deal. I'd love to see your portrait work, do you have a flickr/IG? For me then for my Sony A7 III I have a 35 1.8 FE, and 75 1.8 Samyang but the Sony (Full Frame) background separation is really nice, even at 1.8 it still isolates more than the "PRO" Olys. I appreciate the lightness of MFT, but my sony lenses are not heavy as I don't have much pro grade lenses. Have you ever decided to give up one system for the other? I am still juggling both.
I have both, the Z7 ii and the OM-1. I have found using the handheld high res ( 50 mpx ) on the tripod the best. I do not use a center extension tripod, i got rid of them as there can be movement . I always take off my neck strap when placing the camera on the tripod and in your video the strap was moving. I use a heavy duty carbon fibre tripod made by Artcise and it is very rigid. Z7 ii for landscape and the wonderful OM-1 for Birding and Macro and general photography eg swimming sports, athletics etc. Cheers from New Zealand
Nice comparison and test. Like others so I have same thoughts about stability of tripods and straps used under shooting, EM1x its prosessor is much slower than OM1M2 so for sure it will not brings same or close results as well. 1 sec delay its not enough to avoid movements, camera is to big to stay steady after button pressing. I'm not using OM Workspace so often, mostly for HR shots but results for sharpening and DR are a way better than in LR. Trick for LR when editing HR shots is to push up sharpening like someone mentioned and file looks much better IMO. Learning by doing :) Good luck with your M43 journey and wish you to stay with this system because its more powerful both for big prints or professional work etc than we can even imagine. Will always be some disadvantages, but there is no perfect system in any area. BTW - when You're going to Lofoten? I live here so if You need any tips about spots or something just let me know, or maybe some day will be time to meet in the field. Anyways wish you a wonderful trip, this is the most beautiful place I ever lived and never ever moved from here :) Greetings from Leknes/Lofoten. Robert A.
Seems to be a degree of black magic involved in hires mode. I sometimes get stunning results, sometimes terrible. But for me, movement, including water, is not an issue apart from local blurring. I do get much better results from the OM-1 than the E-M1iii, in outdoor context. But honestly, I’d never rely on HiRes. If you actually need more than 20Mpx, use the Nikon.
There is one important thing about getting the sharpest HR files from Olympus/OM System files; you have to process them with OM Workspace as it gives the best interpretation of those RAW files. Workspace isn't the fastest or most intuitive software, but it is the best for ORF files, especially OM's proprietary formats such as High Res. Once processed you can export them to another format such as TIFF for further editing in Photoshop, if you want. NR shouldn't really be necessary as the sensor shift actually reduces any inherent noise.
F5.6 on M43 is equiv to f11 full frame in terms of depth of field. Always difficult to get sharp images with centre column raised as was the case with the 2 oly cameras. Oly high res files can take a lot of sharpening and best to downsize the 80mp file to about 50mp using bicubic sharpener.
Thanks for your comment John, I wasn’t sure what 5.6 was equivalent to f8 or f11 as I’ve seen conflicting advice. I disagree about the centre column causing unsharpness as one is clearly sharp. And all 3 were RAW untouched files, if they take as much specific sharpening as has been suggested in the comments then I think I’ll stick to Nikon. I’m about photography not spending hours tweaking things just to get them as sharp as something I already own that does the job with no fuss. Thanks for watching.
You must use OM workspace to pre-process the Olympus high res raw. Just open it and then save as a tiff to be further processed in your editor of choice. No other Raw processor works well on the HR ORF raw files. Or just shoot HR JPEGs. They are nice and sharp right out of camera.
I have D810, D800 and Canon and Leica digital cameras as well as film. I also have an EM1 MKII, and EM5 MKII. For still life and controlled macro shots the EM1 MKII in High Res Mode does match the D800, but not the D810 in resolution. The difference is small but it is there. I would never use the Olympus for any landscape shots with any moving subjcet or in the wind in the high res mode. I used to do a lot of proper long exposure deep sky imaging using astrographs and peltier cooled CCD imaging devices more than a decade ago, and there was a complicated process called 'Drizzle' which NASA came up with for correcting the undersampling of the Hubble Space Telescope Wide Field and Planetary cameras which we sometimes used. Undesampling in normal human language means that the resolution of the active matrix array mirror of the telescope was higher than the sensors that were used in the cameras. I wrote this to make it clear that I know how Drizzle suppose to work. I am not going into the software and hardware routine of Drizzle, but it is very very similar to this High Res mode that now all the mirrorless cameras seem to employ. This has been made possible by huge advances in the IBIS and the microprocessors inside these cameras where the sensor could be precisely moved by one pixel dimension. When the camera takes 8 shots with one pixel offset, these images will have to be registered to each other by the microprocessor to produce a detailed image. If there is subject movement or the minutest camera shake ( we are talking of the order of microns here not tenths of millimiteres), the process could fail as the images will not be registered correctly to each other and a blur will result. I have heard that the newer Olympus or OM cameras have done away with the requirement of the camera needing the most stable platform. You findings seem to indicate that this is not exactly true. Perhaps the use of AI within the camera could remap the pixels and sort out the blur problem, or perhaps not. Interesting test, though.
A better way to find out what is going on is check the original .ori file. It’s the first raw frame of the sequence which Oly save and for some reason change the extension. Change the .ori to .orf and append the file name so there’s no conflict and you’ll be able to import it as a raw. Check that to see how sharp it is, I’ll bet it isn’t. It’s nothing to do with waves, high res actually works well with water movement when you want to soften the movement. Technique is the problem, tripod isn’t stable enough for the bigger body and using a cable release or longer delay will sort it. Also check firmware is up to date.
Interesting video. I have been an Olympus shooter for many years. I have the OM1 mark II and also now a Z8. I tried and tried to make the OM1-II hi-res mode work well enough to rely on it, but alas there are too many situations where it falls down due to movement in the scene or some other spurious causes. Don't get me wrong, I love the OM1-II but for any Hi-Res work the Z8 just beats it. Also don't forget, if the situation works for the Hi-Res mode on the OM1-II, then the Z8 also has a Hi-Res mode which gives you 180MP files which are stunning. You then also have the option of sharing lenses with the Z7 so while the Z8 is heavier than the OM1-II, you aren't carrying two sets of lenses.
Good points. The only thing stopping me getting a Z8 is if I were to fall in Lofoten or the camera falls, it will be the lens that takes the brunt of it and therefore having a second body and only one broken lens is not going to work. I can get an OM1, 7-14 and a 40-150 for a similar price to a Z8. Problem solved
@@davepeckphotography You could of course take a second Nikon lens instead of the 7-14 & 40-150. The 7-14 is not a light lens (I owned it and sold it - check out the 8-25 which takes filters whereas the 7-14 doesn't) and the 40-150 would need to be the F4 to be considered small and light ( I had the f2.8 version up to getting the Z8). Either way. it's up to you. Sometimes we just need new gear to add something different for inspirational reasons and to challenge us, which I don't criticise in any way at all. If I were to try to sell you on the OM1-II it would be on the computational modes (Live ND, Live GND etc) as well as live time and live bulb for extra fun with long exposures. However, after playing with the Live ND and Live GND for quite a while I eventually went back to using regular filters because there were just enough circumstances where the Live ND/GND didn't quite get me what I know I could get with real filters. In a pinch they work, but you have to be willing to work around their issues.
@@DaveEP I'm in a similar place. I have a Z8 and love it to bits, but with a trinity of zooms it's just too heavy for hiking (for me) so I also use an OM1ii for when I need a smaller kit. Like you, I don't find the hi-res modes an acceptable substitute for real megapixels, but by taking a bit more care with my composition I find it less of a problem than one might think.
Interesting- I also have a Z8 and an OM1-mk2 and agree the hi res mode on the OM MK2 is hit and miss and as such can’t be relied on which is deeply frustrating. But I will add the hi res mode on the Z8 is no guarantee of sharp either. No matter how still the wind and how stable the tripod it isn’t quite as consistent as I’d like. I feel like hi res at the moment is just a brilliant idea but inconsistent. Agree also the Z8 and zoom trinity is a lot of weight. For travel abroad I want to take the z24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200f2.8 for the absolute image quality but its a lot of weight to hump around. The OM 1 MK2 with the 12-100f4 is an awesome travel setup. But f4 and hi res mode fails to often. Can’t win. £12,000 spent but still a bit fed up with this aspect but I do love both systems.
With high-resolution shot on the OM SYSTEM, it is only going to work with a still subject. Anything moving in the frame is going to be out of focus. Your best bet is to stay with your Z7II. If you want a higher resolution than that, there is always medium format.
The OM-1 tripod high res mode does not provide any significant advantage in landscape photography, because whether it's waves or trees or amber waves of grain, stuff is moving and gets blurred. The real test for whether to use OM System cameras for landscape should just be tripod mounted OM-1 vs tripod mounted Nikon, straight up RAW. Then you would find which lenses are best. I have seen several test that show that the OM 12-40 f/2.8 Pro is inferior in sharpness to the OM 12-45 f/4 Pro. Which is why I have the latter. Furthermore, I also have the OM 45mm f/1.2 Pro. I go this lens for shallow depth of field at f/1.2, yet, when it's stopped down to 2.0 or smaller, it is stupid sharp and I doubt that any Nikon zoom lens combined with full frame sensor could best it.
Hi Dave, my thoughts are that if the handheld Olympus was better, was the ibis turned on for the handheld & then off for the tripod shot?. The same theory goes for the OM-1, also I couldn't help but notice the flapping camera strap which could cause the motion blur. I do know that I haven't had any similar issues with my Olympus set-up when changing the ibis & I do not use a camera strap. Merry Xmas to you All the Very Best for 2025.
And one more thing to keep it fair....Nikon's in-camera sharpness is set higher by default than the OM...HR mode "always" benefits from some sharpening/clarity in camera or in post, as its set low by default. I use the handheld mode when there is any slight movement like waterfalls etc. Also you need to use atleast the 2 sec anti shock shutter setting. Lastly the engine in the OM System OM-1M2 is far superior to your older EM1X. The IQ of the OM-1M2 is every bit as capable, over sharpness is not always desirable in landscape photography...btw in my subjective opinion is the color science out of the OM-1M2 is much nicer and the light stars are pretty cool as opposed to the flay lighting from the Nekon. My photo buddies have a Nikon D850 and another has a Z7Mll and my OM images are as good, sometimes better when we shoot the same scenes together, I mostly shoot in JPEG for hobby photography with great results.. With the D850 always seem fall behind in IQ unanimously. That being said, I enjoyed the test.
I've never liked the Nikon colors, and this just confirms it for me, I've used Canon, Pentax and OM1 and to me Pentax and OM are really close. My Pentax K1ii has a different way of implementing pixel shift, the file size remains at 36mp but the color fidelity rivals that of a medium format.
Thanks for the forecast! A bit off-topic, but I wanted to ask: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How can I transfer them to Binance?
The focus assisting red 'edge' highlights on the OM-1 or the other Oly / OM models are not accurate enough if you want precise focusing. You need to focus at a higher magnification and look at the real image. Again, the tools are not the limiting factor.
I have the Nikon Z8, the Nikon D850 and the OM-1 Mkii, and I use all three for different situations. The Z8 and D850 are used for landscape and some wildlife photography, while the OM-1 is my go-to camera for birds. I also use it when I need to pack light as a quick travelling camera when I am not going to take specific landscape photos. Your review has made me see the real difference in these cameras in terms of the sharpness and clarity that you get from them. I never realised this, but it seems that the OM-1 does lose some clarity due to the in-camera computations when combining the images for high-resolution shots, whereas the Nikon's just get the shot in one picture. That is the difference I can think of. I still love the OM-1 due to some other features (live comp), but I primarily use the Nikon's for landscape or anything where I want sharp, detailed images. Thank you for your time and effort in testing this and sharing it with us.
Thanks for reinventing the wheel and demonstrating the obvious and well established fact that pixel shift technology does not work with any amount of movement in the subject. Such is true weather used with Olympus or Nikon. Also, "Good enough" is never good enough for the truly discriminating landscape photographer.
Місяць тому
Hi Dave, you're mixing the different technics, I`m afraid. A high res shot always will give you blur in moving sections. Handheld high res will correct few movements only. A single shot (ORI-file on OMD and NEF raw for NIKON) will show no movements because it's not assembled/stitched together. Hence, if you don't like moving waves being blurred, then don't use high res or pixel shift technology but a high resolution camera like Nikon's Z8 or Canon's R5/R5ii or Sony's A7R5/A1/A1II or even a GFX model of Fuji. Krgds, Frank
Some cameras benefit from sharpening or clarity more than others. I am surprised you have not explored different options in post. I would also say that when I use the OM1 I have a different approach - I travel light, a 12-40 and 40-150 and teleconverter. I never use a tripod. I use the IBIS and Hand Held hi res when I fancy it - but not always. I get pictures I would not have with my Sony FF gear simply because I would not be carrying the same equivalent focal lengths in my bag. If you are committed to carrying " all the gear" with a tripod and the weight of long lenses, stick with Nikon. If you want to be light and nimble and keep moving, spending less time futzing in one location and keep walking, OM1 is better. This is not about pixel peeping, its also about shooting style.
Hello. High res mode can't be used for moving subjects. And in low light conditions with slow shutter speed, it can get worse. When I need more resolution, I'm just processing the image through Gigapixel, and for high iso, through DXO PureRaw.
They've done something whacky with the mk.2, "high ISO" is now around 16000 before needing much DXO attention. With the photosites so close together, the image is very crisp and sharp, edges well defined.
I'm sure I'm not the only one saying this. You can't shoot waves and make a 80 meg file. It can only use 1 image for the waves. Simply put. You are using the wrong tool for the job. Just stick with the Nikon. For static landscape shots the Om systems will be fine. If it real windy...stick with the nikon.
@philnortonphotography1793 I'm sure that's what it supposed to do. But my experience with big ocean waves it does not work. Rivers and streams it works fine.
@@WiFuzzyabsolutely, big waves like you suggest will look a mess. My own experience is movement will blend well if the shutter is reasonably slow to start with, say 1/4. Something like a wave with lots of detail and a fast shutter will look such a mess.
@ i've watched all three of these now, for my sins. Every time people explain that you won't get good results with a camera strap flapping about, but you leave it on. People explain that the sea scene is not suitable because the waves are moving, but you keep shooting the same scene. When you tried a different scene, it worked!
I got perfectly good results with the camera strap on and I expected the waves to be blurred not the pier on the EM1X. The OM1 worked fine. Keep up the good
@ The problem isn't that the waves are blurred because of the motion, it's that the images can't be properly registered for the software to combine them if there is too much movement in the image. If the registration fails then the OM software just uses the first 20 mpx frame.
Which is exactly what I said. It works on the OM1 but not on the EM1X, with or without a strap. The technology has improved which I’ve shown in the test. Let me repeat, the strap is not an issue, completely irrelevant apart from those (and you’re not the only one) who haven’t looked at what’s happening and looked at the results. When I shot the image on the OM1 which you can see me do on the video the strap is perfectly stationary. But in any case, all of the images from the OM1 mk2 of the pier are sharp but the EM1X (without a strap and on a brand new sturdy tripod in hardly any breeze whatsoever) it isn’t. All the theories about what I was doing wrong boil down to the fact that when the camera is shooting the 8 images it is fooled by the waves which make the pier unsharp with apparent motion blur. The OM1 mk2 copes with this, probably because it’s been programmed to more take account of straight edges. I’m not sure but it definitely works. I think, from looking really closely, that a longer exposure would probably cause a bit of motion blur on this as well. I am trying to decide whether or not the OM1 would work at sunrise on the coast with High Res. As another poster has suggested, the best solution would be to shoot as a normal 20mp and then upscale of needed. Or better still use the Nikon.
The .orf files you re comparing are standard (20 Mpx) images, only the .ori files are high resolution. I think you should be comparing prints, not digital images. I think HHHR uses 16 shots, and relies on your unsteady hand.
@@oneeyedphotographer meant as a friendly correction. But the ori is the standard first frame, not the high res. It was originally used in the first iterations of HR algorithm to remove artefacts from the final image which is no longer necessary. One of the early issues was herringbone artefacts in areas of movement, now no longer an issue. It is saved just in case there is an issue with the HR file and the user wants the standard file but did not have the foresight to take a standard image. Ori is unreadable unless the extension is changed. It is essentially a backup file.
Yes, you should stay with Nikon. With the EM1x, the HHHR takes 16 shots. It needs extra, additional sharpening. If you merged 16 Nikon z7 shots, you would need to sharpen it also. The tripod HR shots are extremely finicky as far as movement. So you shouldn’t have the strap hanging. Suggesting HHHR for tripod use is logical, if there is any wind. I’ve had my EM1x for over 3 years. Only a handful of times did I not use HHHR. All of those thousand of photos are tack sharp. But it sounds like that you don’t like to be “helped”. Stick to Nikon, isn’t it a superior system anyway? HR/HHHR isn’t for everybody.
8 images not 16, I often merge 6 Nikon images focus stacking and every RAW file will need sharpening depending on output whatever the brand but it doesn’t work with motion blur. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And, at the risk of repeating myself for the 4th time the EM1X has no strap on it.
@ didn’t the om1 have a strap on it? In any case, as an fyi, the hhhr feature takes 16 shots, while the tripod HR takes 8 shots. Interesting, that you didn’t know that. But you are the expert.
@1tdekany you’ve got it! The OM1 had the strap on and was completely sharp. The EM1X did not have a strap on and wasn’t sharp. Tripod mode uses 8 images, Hand held uses 16 (you are right I stand corrected) and lots of posters have suggested that it gives better results on a tripod, which is strange labelling don’t you think? This is not a ‘which is the better system’ test. It’s about whether the High Res function, which is so easy to implement on the OM1 mk2 by pressing the video record button, can replace my Nikon when I need a bigger file. My conclusion is that it can’t; for landscapes. The Nikon is far better and easier. The main difference being the dynamic range actually although if High Res at the coast produced sharp images without motion blur the OM would be better, the files in Scotland were fine and not much between them. The OM is sooo much better than the Z7ii for wildlife, action, sports, etc it weighs less, costs less and is smaller. It completely destroys the Nikon with macro focus stacking as I’ve shown on another video. I love Live Composite it’s great for nightscapes and star trails although the Nikon is better for shots of the milky-way (video coming up) But for landscapes, I’ve bought a Z8. It’s just better for that genre.
I have done the same test using the same lens at 20 mm and the 1x I compared it to a Sony 20 mm 1.8. On a Sony a74. It is difficult to get rid of the motion. I’ve used long delays faster, shutter speeds, and the 50. Meg to get best results. Sometimes it works very well other times like grasses Blowing in the Wind not very well In those situations, I shoot it in the normal 20 meg mode and upsize it with topaz labs gigapixel and crop. I quite enjoy shooting the Olympus system, and I use it mostly for birds and wildlife the Sony I use for video and most of my landscapes
Just another comment following my previous comment, The image of the house using the OM-1 was a sharper image compared to the image where there were moving waves. Could a faster shutter speed and higher ISO help sharpen the image????? ( I will try this myself, but I am not a UA-cam content provider, so I am not going to be making any video of that.) I still believe the in-camera computations are causing the lack of sharpness due to the moving waves and multi-image stacking. The Nikon does not need this, giving a sharper image as it only takes one image. With perfectly still subjects, the OM-1 could still deliver excellent results. So the learning for me is that I will not use the Om-1 for high res shots where the subject or scenery is moving, then the Nikon Z8 would be a better option.
I can't help but notice that you had the most stable tripod on the Nikon, an average tripod on the OM1 along with the fact that it had a neck strap flailing in the wind, and a crappy tripod on the EM1x., those factors alone invalidate your set-up. Another fact, 1 second delays are not enough to let the vibration settle down before the shot is taken with the OM and EM1x. A minimum of 4 seconds would be the ideal delay. Sensor shift HiRes does micron movements of the sensor(on any camera) so tripod stability is utmost. You need more consistency with your testing. You clearly had the best tripod on the Nikon.
The tripod assignments alone, favors the Nikon, which is your baby. This was not a level playing field.
Thanks for your comment. You seem to have missed the point of the test and misinterpreted some of the results. First of all those tripods are not the same I agree (I’m not made of money) but all three are stable professional tripods and I can guarantee that the Nikon would get sharp results on any of them. If the Olympus cameras are this finicky about the type of tripod they are on then I’m not interested in using one for landscapes. Which was the point of the test. And finally, the K&F tripod is brand new, tightens nicely and is very stable. I use it a lot and is wasn’t chosen as it’s a crappy tripod, I think you are looking for excuses.
The OM1, which you state had a neck strap flailing in the wind produced sharp results so I don’t really understand your point. And in any case, if you watch closely when the shutter is pressed there is not a breath of wind.
The delay is set the same for all three cameras and again, if the Olympus gear requires a delay of 4 seconds (I’m not sure how you know this but I bow to your superior knowledge) then again, it makes it unusable in the real world of landscape photography.
I think I’ll stick with Nikon. Thanks for watching
this is a good test with usable outcomes.
while the tripods are not the same and the strap >could< introduce shake to the system, there was a sharp photo in the comparison by om1 so we can assume that at least in some cases the comparison here is valid. As a note - I use 3sec delay w my nikon or any camera but that is also down to the tripod sturdiness of course. I did use 3sec for olympus and it's high res in the past.
what we can also see is what I commented in the past - it may get impractically challenging to produce a good flawless high-res shot with m43 pixel shift whereas a z7 just does it time after time perfectly. That alone does say something . We don't only need great results, but also repeatedly reproducible results .
having watched the video briefly, the one test I focused at - the white distant cottage - the nikon output is more contrasty. the resolution looks about the same on ytb. you mention dynamic range - you are shooting the nikon at iso200 which removes it's huge advantage of iso64. you are also shooting a great but not the sharpest lens and you are at f11 - at this f-stop while the performance is balanced across the frame, gradually towards center you are loosing approximately 30% of the lens's max resolution capability. Which may not be ideal in comparison to sharp pro zoom on the oly shot at f5.6
note - I see people in the comments mentioning selling AI upscaled prints etc - Besides really not enjoying using 3 AI tools to improve low quality files, also I hope I never become one to buy that crappy print somewhere.
Thanks for your input. I agree with your conclusions. Ultimately the Nikon is easier to use and if upscaling is not your thing (it’s not mine long term) then there really is only one solution. Buy a Nikon for seascapes. I’ve got a verdict video coming up soon which will let everyone know what I have ended up doing
@@davepeckphotography and by the way, you could try to recall if the light conditions changed in those 4 minutes between the cottage shot taken by z7 and om-1, because the histograms look kinda the same in terms of brightness /peak brightness, but the exposure is f5.6 1/6 iso200 on the olympus and f11 1/3 iso200 on the nikon - this should obviously yield darker image on the nikon, but it does not.
If you can make a controlled test side by side om-1 and z7, you could verify if the same settings lead to brighter exposure on the nikon. If this is true - and I have not seen any such test on ytb - you would confirm the relative difference in 'real iso' measurements done by dxomark for these 2 cameras (albeit for the older em1 mk2)
why would this be important? because comparing iso200 vs iso200 would then mean putting olympus into unfair advantage. And it would also give everyone a better idea about noise performance of m43 (meaning if iso200 isn't iso200 but less, the noise handling is worse by that factor of difference)
Yes, the slightest movement in the subject will blur the 80Mp hi-res shots as it combines multiple exposures; we need to use a fast shutter to counter movement blur. Trees blowing about or waves moving will do that. I always seem to get three seagulls from nowhere. The 50Mp "hand held" can yield better results, less frames shot. 80Mp is good for still life, indoors with light stage.
The sturdy tripod, "cable" release, and shutter delay.
There is a very good case for using FF for landscape as it produces a wider vista. If we use an "equivalent" lens on MFT they "push the mountains away", so to get the same perspective on MFT we need to use much the same focal length. You say you crop FF landscapes, the MFT has already done the crop, we need to frame MFT before we push the shutter. The OM-1 Mark 2 has improved focusing and processor, it is probably better at macro (and everything else) than the E-M1X.
Dunno why we get obsessed with pixel count; there's only 8Mp on a UHD screen, and 16Mp can print a 6x4-ft bus stop poster.
A 25mm shot on a Micro-4/3 will give exactly the same perspective as a 50mm shot on a FF. You can see examples of this on the Internet, e.g. comparisons done by Maria Noonan.
@@stevebonn3463 except no it doesn't. Used for landscape it will "push the mountains away" using the "equivalent" lens. That is altered perspective. It is well documented how focal length affects this.
Used for portrait a short lens will pinch features and a long one will flatten them. We do get a narrower field/angle of view with the 4/3rd.
I refrained from replying to your previous videos, but this time I want to say a few things. 1 - the 80mp version can’t have any movement. You will never get the best out of that feature if there is any camera movement. I’m surprised that you don’t know that. The moving strap alone, is interfering with getting a sharp result. Plus the wind. Of course the Nikon shot is going to be sharper. 2 - if you want to take a hi res shot in windy conditions on a tripod, switch on HHHR. it works on a tripod. 3 - for sharpening in Lightroom, use these settings:
Sharpening - 75
Radius - 2.7
Detail - 3
Masking - 50
The Nikon may still be sharper, but at least give the Olympus a chance by using it properly. You went from driving an automatic transmission to a manual transmission and blamed the car.
Pointed these out the first test, pointed them again the second test. Not sure why Dave is persisting on repeating the same mistakes (flapping strap, manual focus or at least same focus technique on all cameras, improper sharpening), which I find disappointing as I am also curious to see the true potential of HR against 45MPix sensor. Perhaps next time ;-)
@@jazzcats1000 Yes, many people pointed out the various errors but lessons not learnt.
With respect to all three of you you are clearly not watching closely, only seeing what you want to see. There is no camera movement, none. The camera strap you have been banging on about is attached to the OM1, when the shutter is pressed (and I did this in close up so you could see) there is absolutely no movement. But even if there was and you have decided in your mind that the tripod isn’t good enough, the neck strap is blowing in the wind the point is: that camera produces sharp results 🤔 So I really don’t understand your argument.
Second point. I take offence to the comment ‘I’m surprised that you don’t know that.’ I do know that, I take images and the OM1 produced sharp images I’m surprised you didn’t understand that when it’s there in the video.
Second point: Why produce a mode called High Res tripod mode and then expect people to use handheld mode? That makes sense. I also shot one handheld. It’s on the video
Point 3: These images are all RAW out of the camera and what you are looking at is motion blur not a lack of sharpening. If the Olympus require sharpening to that specific formula, or not being processed in Lightroom etc etc then I’ll stick to Nikon thanks.
I think a lot of the people commenting are somehow misunderstanding the context of your comparison.
Yes the computational (High res shot modes) on the EM1X is far inferior to that of the OM1 - This as a result of the processor being 2 generations older than that of the OM1, sensor being 8 years older and probably the software/firmware in the OM1 just being more refined.
What would be interesting to see is if the OM5, which uses the same sensor, BUT never processor and never software is able to cope better than the EM1X. I doubt it will be as good as the OM1 no matter what, but maybe they actually did some improvements in between.
Thank you for watching. I totally agree with everything you say.
The HighRes mode RAWs require (and love) more sharpening in post. To get the sharpest result, I use the OM Workshop to produce a neutral tiff which I can then edit in C1.
Agreed. I’ve found that RAW conversion in OM Workspace is necessary to get the best results from hi-res files. But that’s all I use it for because it’s so excruciating slow.
@@bhovis Indeed. I got some better result in C1 by tweaking the sharpness settings.
Thought - the OM-1 Mark 2 has more processing power than the E-M1X and so is able to shoot the 8 frame sequence and process them more quickly. Each frame might be exposed for the same time as the Nikon, so if the Nikon is set to 1/80 then the sequence takes 8/80 = 1/10 which is like taking a slow-shutter shot on the Nikon. Use an eight time faster shutter speed and let the ISO go up. Even so there is a slight delay between frames and we might want to go to ten times faster. Of course this works in good light but not so well at dawn and dusk, a limitation of the Hi-Res, it needs fast shutter to avoid motion blur.
Thanks for the testing Dave. I'm not sure if the other claims (tripod etc.) have any validity or not. I shoot a number of genres with both Sony (A7r5) and OM (OM1 v1) and I prefer the Oly for most genres I shoot (travel, land+cityscapes, street and model portraiture) except for model shoots / portraits where I may want/require more isolation (BG blur) where I'll usually use the A7r5 and an 85/1.4 (the option is my much loved OM 45/1.2 Pro but the Sony wins in that instance for the bokeh).
However when it comes to (selling) prints I'm more than comfortable with upscaling (software nowadays is brilliant in this regard). Whether it's Gigapixel, PS or I most commonly use ON1 Photo Raw, the output is excellent and I have no problems with sharpness in prints up to 1.2m on the long side. It's just ticking one more box on export.
I've just upscaled 20 of 24 photos (20 from Oly and 2 from a Sony A7r5, 2 from a 12MP DJI drone) for an exhibition. There is virtually no difference in the 1:1 files after upscaling, so long as you used quality glass in the first place, which would define the finer details far better than average glass. Of course if you pixel peep even deeper then there are differences, you can't beat resolution, however for most people that's not required or necessary. YMMV.
It's important to note though that if you don't print large or sell large digital files (and the vast majority of people don’t) but mostly post to social media for family/friends, or have smaller prints made, produce books or sell to stock agencies, even sell for billboards, then you absolutely don't need large files and 20mp (and even 12mp cameras such as the Nikon D700 or D3s or the revered Sony A7s range) are more than you'll ever need.
To endorse that I'd suggest anyone to check on a high quality print shop's website for their file requirements. The file vs print sizes may surprise some.
For example, outstanding print quality (for 1 to 1 sales) would be :
12mp = 16 x 24”
20mp = 20 x 30”
It would be very interesting to see you produce a comparison between systems/cameras using upscaling as an alternative to either of the OM's Hi-res modes (neither of which I ever use, as upscaling works great for me). Liked and subscribed (waiting for that upscaling video) !
Happy Xmas to one and all !
Good reply about upscaling rather than HiRes.
I have Olympus and Sony also, I love the compactness of MFT, had have the 45 1.2/17 1.2...from a really great deal. I'd love to see your portrait work, do you have a flickr/IG? For me then for my Sony A7 III I have a 35 1.8 FE, and 75 1.8 Samyang but the Sony (Full Frame) background separation is really nice, even at 1.8 it still isolates more than the "PRO" Olys. I appreciate the lightness of MFT, but my sony lenses are not heavy as I don't have much pro grade lenses. Have you ever decided to give up one system for the other? I am still juggling both.
@normh151 I don’t shoot portraits anymore but my Flickr is Dave Peck. I switched from Fuji a while ago. Videos are on my channel here on UA-cam
I have both, the Z7 ii and the OM-1. I have found using the handheld high res ( 50 mpx ) on the tripod the best. I do not use a center extension tripod, i got rid of them as there can be movement . I always take off my neck strap when placing the camera on the tripod and in your video the strap was moving. I use a heavy duty carbon fibre tripod made by Artcise and it is very rigid. Z7 ii for landscape and the wonderful OM-1 for Birding and Macro and general photography eg swimming sports, athletics etc. Cheers from New Zealand
Nice comparison and test. Like others so I have same thoughts about stability of tripods and straps used under shooting, EM1x its prosessor is much slower than OM1M2 so for sure it will not brings same or close results as well. 1 sec delay its not enough to avoid movements, camera is to big to stay steady after button pressing. I'm not using OM Workspace so often, mostly for HR shots but results for sharpening and DR are a way better than in LR. Trick for LR when editing HR shots is to push up sharpening like someone mentioned and file looks much better IMO. Learning by doing :) Good luck with your M43 journey and wish you to stay with this system because its more powerful both for big prints or professional work etc than we can even imagine. Will always be some disadvantages, but there is no perfect system in any area.
BTW - when You're going to Lofoten? I live here so if You need any tips about spots or something just let me know, or maybe some day will be time to meet in the field. Anyways wish you a wonderful trip, this is the most beautiful place I ever lived and never ever moved from here :)
Greetings from Leknes/Lofoten.
Robert A.
It would be of great help when you set the em1x on a 4 second delay with high res. Then the tripod can stabilize before the sequence begin.
Seems to be a degree of black magic involved in hires mode. I sometimes get stunning results, sometimes terrible. But for me, movement, including water, is not an issue apart from local blurring. I do get much better results from the OM-1 than the E-M1iii, in outdoor context. But honestly, I’d never rely on HiRes. If you actually need more than 20Mpx, use the Nikon.
I agree, thank you for watching
There is one important thing about getting the sharpest HR files from Olympus/OM System files; you have to process them with OM Workspace as it gives the best interpretation of those RAW files. Workspace isn't the fastest or most intuitive software, but it is the best for ORF files, especially OM's proprietary formats such as High Res. Once processed you can export them to another format such as TIFF for further editing in Photoshop, if you want. NR shouldn't really be necessary as the sensor shift actually reduces any inherent noise.
F5.6 on M43 is equiv to f11 full frame in terms of depth of field. Always difficult to get sharp images with centre column raised as was the case with the 2 oly cameras. Oly high res files can take a lot of sharpening and best to downsize the 80mp file to about 50mp using bicubic sharpener.
Thanks for your comment John, I wasn’t sure what 5.6 was equivalent to f8 or f11 as I’ve seen conflicting advice. I disagree about the centre column causing unsharpness as one is clearly sharp. And all 3 were RAW untouched files, if they take as much specific sharpening as has been suggested in the comments then I think I’ll stick to Nikon. I’m about photography not spending hours tweaking things just to get them as sharp as something I already own that does the job with no fuss. Thanks for watching.
You must use OM workspace to pre-process the Olympus high res raw. Just open it and then save as a tiff to be further processed in your editor of choice. No other Raw processor works well on the HR ORF raw files. Or just shoot HR JPEGs. They are nice and sharp right out of camera.
Yes, this is important! Using OM workspace is the way to go. Slow, but best in class for converting Oly HR-files.
I have D810, D800 and Canon and Leica digital cameras as well as film. I also have an EM1 MKII, and EM5 MKII. For still life and controlled macro shots the EM1 MKII in High Res Mode does match the D800, but not the D810 in resolution. The difference is small but it is there. I would never use the Olympus for any landscape shots with any moving subjcet or in the wind in the high res mode. I used to do a lot of proper long exposure deep sky imaging using astrographs and peltier cooled CCD imaging devices more than a decade ago, and there was a complicated process called 'Drizzle' which NASA came up with for correcting the undersampling of the Hubble Space Telescope Wide Field and Planetary cameras which we sometimes used. Undesampling in normal human language means that the resolution of the active matrix array mirror of the telescope was higher than the sensors that were used in the cameras. I wrote this to make it clear that I know how Drizzle suppose to work. I am not going into the software and hardware routine of Drizzle, but it is very very similar to this High Res mode that now all the mirrorless cameras seem to employ. This has been made possible by huge advances in the IBIS and the microprocessors inside these cameras where the sensor could be precisely moved by one pixel dimension. When the camera takes 8 shots with one pixel offset, these images will have to be registered to each other by the microprocessor to produce a detailed image. If there is subject movement or the minutest camera shake ( we are talking of the order of microns here not tenths of millimiteres), the process could fail as the images will not be registered correctly to each other and a blur will result. I have heard that the newer Olympus or OM cameras have done away with the requirement of the camera needing the most stable platform. You findings seem to indicate that this is not exactly true. Perhaps the use of AI within the camera could remap the pixels and sort out the blur problem, or perhaps not. Interesting test, though.
A better way to find out what is going on is check the original .ori file. It’s the first raw frame of the sequence which Oly save and for some reason change the extension. Change the .ori to .orf and append the file name so there’s no conflict and you’ll be able to import it as a raw. Check that to see how sharp it is, I’ll bet it isn’t. It’s nothing to do with waves, high res actually works well with water movement when you want to soften the movement. Technique is the problem, tripod isn’t stable enough for the bigger body and using a cable release or longer delay will sort it. Also check firmware is up to date.
Just a question - why do you say that Nikon f8 is equivalent OM f5.6 - isn't aperture aperture?
No it’s a crop sensor so double the focal length and double the aperture
@@davepeckphotographyplus diffraction changes on smaller sensor
Interesting video. I have been an Olympus shooter for many years. I have the OM1 mark II and also now a Z8. I tried and tried to make the OM1-II hi-res mode work well enough to rely on it, but alas there are too many situations where it falls down due to movement in the scene or some other spurious causes. Don't get me wrong, I love the OM1-II but for any Hi-Res work the Z8 just beats it. Also don't forget, if the situation works for the Hi-Res mode on the OM1-II, then the Z8 also has a Hi-Res mode which gives you 180MP files which are stunning. You then also have the option of sharing lenses with the Z7 so while the Z8 is heavier than the OM1-II, you aren't carrying two sets of lenses.
Good points. The only thing stopping me getting a Z8 is if I were to fall in Lofoten or the camera falls, it will be the lens that takes the brunt of it and therefore having a second body and only one broken lens is not going to work. I can get an OM1, 7-14 and a 40-150 for a similar price to a Z8. Problem solved
@@davepeckphotography You could of course take a second Nikon lens instead of the 7-14 & 40-150. The 7-14 is not a light lens (I owned it and sold it - check out the 8-25 which takes filters whereas the 7-14 doesn't) and the 40-150 would need to be the F4 to be considered small and light ( I had the f2.8 version up to getting the Z8). Either way. it's up to you. Sometimes we just need new gear to add something different for inspirational reasons and to challenge us, which I don't criticise in any way at all. If I were to try to sell you on the OM1-II it would be on the computational modes (Live ND, Live GND etc) as well as live time and live bulb for extra fun with long exposures. However, after playing with the Live ND and Live GND for quite a while I eventually went back to using regular filters because there were just enough circumstances where the Live ND/GND didn't quite get me what I know I could get with real filters. In a pinch they work, but you have to be willing to work around their issues.
@@DaveEP I'm in a similar place. I have a Z8 and love it to bits, but with a trinity of zooms it's just too heavy for hiking (for me) so I also use an OM1ii for when I need a smaller kit. Like you, I don't find the hi-res modes an acceptable substitute for real megapixels, but by taking a bit more care with my composition I find it less of a problem than one might think.
Interesting- I also have a Z8 and an OM1-mk2 and agree the hi res mode on the OM MK2 is hit and miss and as such can’t be relied on which is deeply frustrating. But I will add the hi res mode on the Z8 is no guarantee of sharp either. No matter how still the wind and how stable the tripod it isn’t quite as consistent as I’d like. I feel like hi res at the moment is just a brilliant idea but inconsistent. Agree also the Z8 and zoom trinity is a lot of weight. For travel abroad I want to take the z24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200f2.8 for the absolute image quality but its a lot of weight to hump around. The OM 1 MK2 with the 12-100f4 is an awesome travel setup. But f4 and hi res mode fails to often. Can’t win. £12,000 spent but still a bit fed up with this aspect but I do love both systems.
1) You can't use hi res mode on a moving subject. There are moving waves. 2) the middle camera has a strap flapping in the wind
With high-resolution shot on the OM SYSTEM, it is only going to work with a still subject. Anything moving in the frame is going to be out of focus. Your best bet is to stay with your Z7II. If you want a higher resolution than that, there is always medium format.
Thank you. What about the pier showing motion blur on the E-MX1 and not the OM1?
The OM-1 tripod high res mode does not provide any significant advantage in landscape photography, because whether it's waves or trees or amber waves of grain, stuff is moving and gets blurred. The real test for whether to use OM System cameras for landscape should just be tripod mounted OM-1 vs tripod mounted Nikon, straight up RAW. Then you would find which lenses are best.
I have seen several test that show that the OM 12-40 f/2.8 Pro is inferior in sharpness to the OM 12-45 f/4 Pro. Which is why I have the latter.
Furthermore, I also have the OM 45mm f/1.2 Pro. I go this lens for shallow depth of field at f/1.2, yet, when it's stopped down to 2.0 or smaller, it is stupid sharp and I doubt that any Nikon zoom lens combined with full frame sensor could best it.
Hi Dave, my thoughts are that if the handheld Olympus was better, was the ibis turned on for the handheld & then off for the tripod shot?.
The same theory goes for the OM-1, also I couldn't help but notice the flapping camera strap which could cause the motion blur.
I do know that I haven't had any similar issues with my Olympus set-up when changing the ibis & I do not use a camera strap.
Merry Xmas to you All the Very Best for 2025.
Good luck growing your youtube channel.
Use HHHR if on a tripod in the wind. Plus a 12 second or at least 2 second delay. Equipment is rarely the limiting factor these days.
And one more thing to keep it fair....Nikon's in-camera sharpness is set higher by default than the OM...HR mode "always" benefits from some sharpening/clarity in camera or in post, as its set low by default. I use the handheld mode when there is any slight movement like waterfalls etc. Also you need to use atleast the 2 sec anti shock shutter setting. Lastly the engine in the OM System OM-1M2 is far superior to your older EM1X. The IQ of the OM-1M2 is every bit as capable, over sharpness is not always desirable in landscape photography...btw in my subjective opinion is the color science out of the OM-1M2 is much nicer and the light stars are pretty cool as opposed to the flay lighting from the Nekon. My photo buddies have a Nikon D850 and another has a Z7Mll and my OM images are as good, sometimes better when we shoot the same scenes together, I mostly shoot in JPEG for hobby photography with great results.. With the D850 always seem fall behind in IQ unanimously. That being said, I enjoyed the test.
Wind movement clearly compromised this test.
Interesting.. Have you tried the em1x high res without waves? I have the em1x and I don’t have an issue but I don’t live near the coast
I've never liked the Nikon colors, and this just confirms it for me, I've used Canon, Pentax and OM1 and to me Pentax and OM are really close. My Pentax K1ii has a different way of implementing pixel shift, the file size remains at 36mp but the color fidelity rivals that of a medium format.
Thanks for the forecast! A bit off-topic, but I wanted to ask: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How can I transfer them to Binance?
The focus assisting red 'edge' highlights on the OM-1 or the other Oly / OM models are not accurate enough if you want precise focusing. You need to focus at a higher magnification and look at the real image. Again, the tools are not the limiting factor.
I have the Nikon Z8, the Nikon D850 and the OM-1 Mkii, and I use all three for different situations. The Z8 and D850 are used for landscape and some wildlife photography, while the OM-1 is my go-to camera for birds. I also use it when I need to pack light as a quick travelling camera when I am not going to take specific landscape photos. Your review has made me see the real difference in these cameras in terms of the sharpness and clarity that you get from them. I never realised this, but it seems that the OM-1 does lose some clarity due to the in-camera computations when combining the images for high-resolution shots, whereas the Nikon's just get the shot in one picture. That is the difference I can think of. I still love the OM-1 due to some other features (live comp), but I primarily use the Nikon's for landscape or anything where I want sharp, detailed images. Thank you for your time and effort in testing this and sharing it with us.
Thanks for reinventing the wheel and demonstrating the obvious and well established fact that pixel shift technology does not work with any amount of movement in the subject. Such is true weather used with Olympus or Nikon. Also, "Good enough" is never good enough for the truly discriminating landscape photographer.
Hi Dave, you're mixing the different technics, I`m afraid. A high res shot always will give you blur in moving sections. Handheld high res will correct few movements only. A single shot (ORI-file on OMD and NEF raw for NIKON) will show no movements because it's not assembled/stitched together. Hence, if you don't like moving waves being blurred, then don't use high res or pixel shift technology but a high resolution camera like Nikon's Z8 or Canon's R5/R5ii or Sony's A7R5/A1/A1II or even a GFX model of Fuji. Krgds, Frank
Some cameras benefit from sharpening or clarity more than others. I am surprised you have not explored different options in post.
I would also say that when I use the OM1 I have a different approach - I travel light, a 12-40 and 40-150 and teleconverter. I never use a tripod. I use the IBIS and Hand Held hi res when I fancy it - but not always. I get pictures I would not have with my Sony FF gear simply because I would not be carrying the same equivalent focal lengths in my bag. If you are committed to carrying " all the gear" with a tripod and the weight of long lenses, stick with Nikon. If you want to be light and nimble and keep moving, spending less time futzing in one location and keep walking, OM1 is better. This is not about pixel peeping, its also about shooting style.
Hello. High res mode can't be used for moving subjects. And in low light conditions with slow shutter speed, it can get worse. When I need more resolution, I'm just processing the image through Gigapixel, and for high iso, through DXO PureRaw.
They've done something whacky with the mk.2, "high ISO" is now around 16000 before needing much DXO attention. With the photosites so close together, the image is very crisp and sharp, edges well defined.
I'm sure I'm not the only one saying this. You can't shoot waves and make a 80 meg file. It can only use 1 image for the waves. Simply put. You are using the wrong tool for the job. Just stick with the Nikon. For static landscape shots the Om systems will be fine. If it real windy...stick with the nikon.
It will merge all images even for the waves, which is why shutter speed will appear longer. It doesn’t use just one image.
@philnortonphotography1793 I'm sure that's what it supposed to do. But my experience with big ocean waves it does not work. Rivers and streams it works fine.
@@WiFuzzyabsolutely, big waves like you suggest will look a mess. My own experience is movement will blend well if the shutter is reasonably slow to start with, say 1/4. Something like a wave with lots of detail and a fast shutter will look such a mess.
Can't believe you're using the Lofoten jacket already !!! 🙄
"Not a breath of wind" Then shows the strap moving....
On the camera that produces dead sharp results. Your point is…?
@ i've watched all three of these now, for my sins. Every time people explain that you won't get good results with a camera strap flapping about, but you leave it on. People explain that the sea scene is not suitable because the waves are moving, but you keep shooting the same scene. When you tried a different scene, it worked!
I got perfectly good results with the camera strap on and I expected the waves to be blurred not the pier on the EM1X. The OM1 worked fine. Keep up the good
@ The problem isn't that the waves are blurred because of the motion, it's that the images can't be properly registered for the software to combine them if there is too much movement in the image. If the registration fails then the OM software just uses the first 20 mpx frame.
Which is exactly what I said. It works on the OM1 but not on the EM1X, with or without a strap. The technology has improved which I’ve shown in the test. Let me repeat, the strap is not an issue, completely irrelevant apart from those (and you’re not the only one) who haven’t looked at what’s happening and looked at the results. When I shot the image on the OM1 which you can see me do on the video the strap is perfectly stationary. But in any case, all of the images from the OM1 mk2 of the pier are sharp but the EM1X (without a strap and on a brand new sturdy tripod in hardly any breeze whatsoever) it isn’t. All the theories about what I was doing wrong boil down to the fact that when the camera is shooting the 8 images it is fooled by the waves which make the pier unsharp with apparent motion blur. The OM1 mk2 copes with this, probably because it’s been programmed to more take account of straight edges. I’m not sure but it definitely works. I think, from looking really closely, that a longer exposure would probably cause a bit of motion blur on this as well. I am trying to decide whether or not the OM1 would work at sunrise on the coast with High Res. As another poster has suggested, the best solution would be to shoot as a normal 20mp and then upscale of needed. Or better still use the Nikon.
i think Nikon is way better
The .orf files you re comparing are standard (20 Mpx) images, only the .ori files are high resolution.
I think you should be comparing prints, not digital images.
I think HHHR uses 16 shots, and relies on your unsteady hand.
It’s the other way around. The .ori is the first frame of the sequence saved and is standard res. The orf is high res.
@@philnortonphotography1793 You need to verify your facts. Just look at the file sizes.
@@oneeyedphotographer meant as a friendly correction. But the ori is the standard first frame, not the high res. It was originally used in the first iterations of HR algorithm to remove artefacts from the final image which is no longer necessary. One of the early issues was herringbone artefacts in areas of movement, now no longer an issue. It is saved just in case there is an issue with the HR file and the user wants the standard file but did not have the foresight to take a standard image. Ori is unreadable unless the extension is changed. It is essentially a backup file.
Yes, you should stay with Nikon. With the EM1x, the HHHR takes 16 shots. It needs extra, additional sharpening. If you merged 16 Nikon z7 shots, you would need to sharpen it also. The tripod HR shots are extremely finicky as far as movement. So you shouldn’t have the strap hanging. Suggesting HHHR for tripod use is logical, if there is any wind. I’ve had my EM1x for over 3 years. Only a handful of times did I not use HHHR. All of those thousand of photos are tack sharp. But it sounds like that you don’t like to be “helped”. Stick to Nikon, isn’t it a superior system anyway? HR/HHHR isn’t for everybody.
8 images not 16, I often merge 6 Nikon images focus stacking and every RAW file will need sharpening depending on output whatever the brand but it doesn’t work with motion blur. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And, at the risk of repeating myself for the 4th time the EM1X has no strap on it.
Don’t mind peoples opinion but you’re not helping, just not listening.
@ didn’t the om1 have a strap on it? In any case, as an fyi, the hhhr feature takes 16 shots, while the tripod HR takes 8 shots. Interesting, that you didn’t know that. But you are the expert.
@ when everyone is pointing out your mistakes, it maybe you, who isn’t listening. Anyway, I’m out, good luck.
@1tdekany you’ve got it! The OM1 had the strap on and was completely sharp. The EM1X did not have a strap on and wasn’t sharp. Tripod mode uses 8 images, Hand held uses 16 (you are right I stand corrected) and lots of posters have suggested that it gives better results on a tripod, which is strange labelling don’t you think?
This is not a ‘which is the better system’ test. It’s about whether the High Res function, which is so easy to implement on the OM1 mk2 by pressing the video record button, can replace my Nikon when I need a bigger file. My conclusion is that it can’t; for landscapes. The Nikon is far better and easier. The main difference being the dynamic range actually although if High Res at the coast produced sharp images without motion blur the OM would be better, the files in Scotland were fine and not much between them.
The OM is sooo much better than the Z7ii for wildlife, action, sports, etc it weighs less, costs less and is smaller. It completely destroys the Nikon with macro focus stacking as I’ve shown on another video.
I love Live Composite it’s great for nightscapes and star trails although the Nikon is better for shots of the milky-way (video coming up)
But for landscapes, I’ve bought a Z8. It’s just better for that genre.
I have done the same test using the same lens at 20 mm and the 1x
I compared it to a Sony 20 mm 1.8. On a Sony a74.
It is difficult to get rid of the motion. I’ve used long delays faster, shutter speeds, and the 50. Meg to get best results.
Sometimes it works very well other times like grasses Blowing in the Wind not very well
In those situations, I shoot it in the normal 20 meg mode and upsize it with topaz labs gigapixel and crop.
I quite enjoy shooting the Olympus system, and I use it mostly for birds and wildlife the Sony I use for video and most of my landscapes
Just another comment following my previous comment, The image of the house using the OM-1 was a sharper image compared to the image where there were moving waves. Could a faster shutter speed and higher ISO help sharpen the image????? ( I will try this myself, but I am not a UA-cam content provider, so I am not going to be making any video of that.) I still believe the in-camera computations are causing the lack of sharpness due to the moving waves and multi-image stacking. The Nikon does not need this, giving a sharper image as it only takes one image. With perfectly still subjects, the OM-1 could still deliver excellent results. So the learning for me is that I will not use the Om-1 for high res shots where the subject or scenery is moving, then the Nikon Z8 would be a better option.
You’ve hit the nail on the head. Those are my conclusions exactly