EM1.3 - is it worth the upgrade cost from the EM1.2 ?

11GTCS

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
188
I don’t have a dog in this, I own the E-M1 Mark II and have no intention of upgrading since the camera does what I need and isn’t broken. That said, I don’t know how anyone could expect better performance. It’s the same sensor. Unless they had somehow hamstrung the sensors capabilities before this point, there’s not a ton more that can be squeaked out of it. I remember this made a big splash when I came out with people raging about the lack of improvement. I’d love it as much as anyone if they magically made a better sensor, but that’s just not likely. I’m sure we will get better MFT sensors eventually, but you can’t add resolution without reducing photosite size, and you can’t do that without adding noise. They’ve found small ways around that, but those are only marginal gains. We really just need a paradigm shift in how sensors work before you’re going to see a 40 megapixel 12800 iso MFT camera. And that’s okay. For 99% of the stuff most people do, the current sensor is fine. Some things you just straight up need a bigger sensor for and that’s fine too!
 

Richard_M

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
256
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I don’t have a dog in this, I own the E-M1 Mark II and have no intention of upgrading since the camera does what I need and isn’t broken. That said, I don’t know how anyone could expect better performance. It’s the same sensor. Unless they had somehow hamstrung the sensors capabilities before this point, there’s not a ton more that can be squeaked out of it. I remember this made a big splash when I came out with people raging about the lack of improvement. I’d love it as much as anyone if they magically made a better sensor, but that’s just not likely. I’m sure we will get better MFT sensors eventually, but you can’t add resolution without reducing photosite size, and you can’t do that without adding noise. They’ve found small ways around that, but those are only marginal gains. We really just need a paradigm shift in how sensors work before you’re going to see a 40 megapixel 12800 iso MFT camera. And that’s okay. For 99% of the stuff most people do, the current sensor is fine. Some things you just straight up need a bigger sensor for and that’s fine too!

In my case I was considering one purely for the faster processor, and hopefully better heatsinks, not the sensor. The current sensor is fine for what I use the cameras for.
 

11GTCS

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
188
In my case I was considering one purely for the faster processor, and hopefully better heatsinks, not the sensor. The current sensor is fine for what I use the cameras for.
Yeah that’s a very valid reason, and a good example of what I’d expect to improve, incremental gains in back end performance as processing costs come down and they optimize the chassis. Both the 1.2 and 1.3 are amazing cameras.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
3,740
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
Each of us has our own hot list.

It is also some of the other stuff like improved autofocus, for those that need it.

I like my mk1, and still use it, but the AF and EVF sucked for shooting sports.
The mk2 was a HUGE improvement over the mk1, and was/is a very usable sports camera.
I understand that the mk3 is again a large improvement in the AF over the mk2.

But for me, the big jump was from the mk1 to the mk2.
For sports photography, for me, the mk2 is "good enough," whereas the mk1 was NOT.
It is harder for me to make the next jump, from the "good enough" mk2 to the "better" mk3.

There are other functions, but I have yet to utilize even 50% of the functions of my mk2.

As for the sensor.
I thought going from the 24MP sensor on my D7200 to the 16MP sensor of the EM1-mk1 would be an issue.
But in actual use, I really did not notice it. My 18-140 GP lens on the D7200 was NOT a pro grade lens, so could not deliver the best image to the sensor. I only had ONE pro lens (70-200/4) for the the D7200 that could really make use of that 24MP sensor. So putting a pro lens on the 16MP mk1, and I was essentially at a similar or better IQ level to the D7200 + 18-140.
Even today, for general photography, I use the mk1 and mk2 interchangeably, without much concern between the 16 vs. 20MP sensors.
It is usually another factor that drives which camera I use.
Example, if I am going to shoot with the 12-100 lens, it will be with the mk2. That is because the larger capacity battery of the mk2 will give me a 40% longer run time, than with the mk1.​
 

comment23

mu-43 frequent flyer
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
2,095
Location
Hampshire, UK
Real Name
Simon
I used to have a Mk II and now have a Mk III. The closest thing to a game changer for me is the much improved eye AF. No I don’t need it but it mitigates the major weakness in my setup: the user.

Beyond that there are numerous incremental usability improvements that made it a worthwhile upgrade for me.

Are the (RAW) files themselves any better? No, not as far as I can tell. But I did my due diligence and was pretty clear on what I would be getting before I committed to the purchase, as I would hope anyone does when spending upwards of £/$/€1,400 on a hobby purchase.
 

BushmanOrig

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
533
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried
Siegfried - I really wasn’t trying to be aggressive and I’m wondering why you think I was. Perhaps you can explain?

And you say I spent money on the Mark III just so I can I’m criticise it? Huh? I’m not that stupid! And in any case, as I made plain, I’m not regretting the decision - simply pointing out where there are weaknesses and whether it’s worthwhile to upgrade from the EM1.2. Of course, it’s just my opinion, and I’d hope anyone reading it will form their own views. However, I’ve given my reasons so I’m not just ranting.

If you really believe there is any notable improvement in raw IQ over the EM1.2, then please provide some evidence. I can’t see any, and neither can anyone else who’s reviewed it.

I do not recall Olympus promoting the EM1 III on the basis of improved IQ in both jpeg or raw files, why would you highlight that? You should really go list the top 10 points Olympus wanted to achieve with the EM1 MKIII and evaluate those...

I do not have a problem with an open discussion on the positives and negatives of M43 products. In fact, I think that's a great way to evaluate products and it can be tremendously helpful, why would you suggest I am not?

What I am against is posters spreading fake news and incorrect information.
Examples like:-
- The CFA fake news you spreading - if you do not know what you talking about, stop!
- DR and silly ETTR whatever - again if you have no idea what you talking about, stop!

Now I do realize it feels good and it looks important when people drop names or acronyms but let's look at how silly the claim, "Olympus" tweaked the CFA to increase blues" really is...

If Olympus really considered what you claimed, how would they plan & implement that change?
Well, they would have to:-
- Redesign the "RGB filter" (CFA) - engineering time and R&D cost
- Test the total integration to the camera, Olympus color science (high risk action)
- Find a new "RGB filter" supplier - Possible procurement condition changes
- Test, evaluate & OK of the new "critical" part - R&D time, cost & risk
- Field tests - all the risks associated with field tests

All the above while Olympus could have done all that by applying a basic tweak to the histogram blue channel... 🙃

Then the question - Olympus is known for its great color - do you really think they go change one of their most important brand attributes? - Think...

People love to talk... you just need to step over to the fake news forum DPR to see how they love to entertain silly talk-talk theories... The sad truth about that is all the untruths, misperceptions, incorrect information that is out there on M43 products... (See my What's New page on my blog, I regularly list DPR fake news). Did you know that ALL Olympus info on DPR is irrelevant and totally outdated? See my What's New page...

Now I know you a great guy Paul and you surely will not purposely spreading fake news. If it looked like that, I believe it was only by accident. The proof is your over here and not posting at DPR...

Siegfried
 
Last edited:

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,577
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
I do not recall Olympus promoting the EM1 III on the basis of improved IQ in both jpeg or raw files, why would you highlight that? You should really go list the top 10 points Olympus wanted to achieve with the EM1 MKIII and evaluate those...

I do not have a problem with an open discussion on the positives and negatives of M43 products. In fact, I think that's a great way to evaluate products and it can be tremendously helpful, why would you suggest I am not?

What I am against is posters spreading fake news and incorrect information.
Examples like:-
- The CFA fake news you spreading - if you do not know what you talking about, stop!
- DR and silly ETTR whatever - again if you have no idea what you talking about, stop!

Now I do realize it feels good and it looks important when people drop names or acronyms but let's look at how silly the claim, "Olympus" tweaked the CFA to increase blues" really is...

If Olympus really considered what you claimed, how would they plan & implement that change?
Well, they would have to:-
- Redesign the "RGB filter" (CFA) - engineering time and R&D cost
- Test the total integration to the camera, Olympus color science (high risk action)
- Find a new "RGB filter" supplier - Possible procurement condition changes
- Test, evaluate & OK of the new "critical" part - R&D time, cost & risk
- Field tests - all the risks associated with field tests

All the above while Olympus could have done all that by applying a basic tweak to the histogram blue channel... 🙃

Then the question - Olympus is known for its great color - do you really think they go change one of their most important brand attributes? - Think...

People love to talk... you just need to step over to the fake news forum DPR to see how they love to entertain silly talk-talk theories... The sad truth about that is all the untruths, misperceptions, incorrect information that is out there on M43 products... (See my What's New page on my blog, I regularly list DPR fake news). Did you know that ALL Olympus info on DPR is irrelevant and totally outdated? See my What's New page...

Now I know you a great guy Paul and you surely will not purposely spreading fake news. If it looked like that, I believe it was only by accident. The proof is your over here and not posting at DPR...

Siegfried
Siegfried, I'm SPECULATING that the CFA might have been tweaked - not that it definitely has. What we know (e.g. Peter Forsgard's video) is that there's a bit more blue than on the EM1.2 for the same scene/ lighting. If it's not the CFA, then it must be some additional gain on the blue channel (analogue or digital). Of course I don't KNOW what Olympus have done, but it's clear that there is a change. In fact Olympus have said that there are "new coatings" on the sensor, and what is a CFA if it's not a coating? And yes, they'd have to do all those engineering changes you mentioned - but you know, they're a camera company and that's what they do! It's not "fake news" to discuss it for goodness sake!

We also know that there are slight differences in highlight and shadow handling (e.g. as reported by the Mirrorless Comparison test of the EM1x vs the EM1.2). Calling it an ETTR tweak is reasonable since that's the net result. Again, this isn't "fake news" - it's just discussion. Olympus treat us like dummies and only ever publish vague information on their technical changes, so it's inevitable that this speculation happens.

And all that ranting about DPR - I confess I hardly ever go there, and for sure it can be a cesspit of snarky comments, but there are some excellent posters amongst the junk, so you can't dismiss it all.
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
3,697
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
Siegfried, I'm SPECULATING that the CFA might have been tweaked - not that it definitely has. What we know (e.g. Peter Forsgard's video) is that there's a bit more blue than on the EM1.2 for the same scene/ lighting. If it's not the CFA, then it must be some additional gain on the blue channel (analogue or digital). Of course I don't KNOW what Olympus have done, but it's clear that there is a change. In fact Olympus have said that there are "new coatings" on the sensor, and what is a CFA if it's not a coating? And yes, they'd have to do all those engineering changes you mentioned - but you know, they're a camera company and that's what they do! It's not "fake news" to discuss it for goodness sake!

We also know that there are slight differences in highlight and shadow handling (e.g. as reported by the Mirrorless Comparison test of the EM1x vs the EM1.2). Calling it an ETTR tweak is reasonable since that's the net result. Again, this isn't "fake news" - it's just discussion. Olympus treat us like dummies and only ever publish vague information on their technical changes, so it's inevitable that this speculation happens.

And all that ranting about DPR - I confess I hardly ever go there, and for sure it can be a cesspit of snarky comments, but there are some excellent posters amongst the junk, so you can't dismiss it all.
I mostly agree, Paul.

I can unequivocally state that Olympus definitely changed their colour science with my E-30 - it was quite different from my E-1 and E-510, even though the E-1 has a Kodak sensor and the E-510 has a Panasonic one.

My E-30 is the only one of my 5 bodies which I made a global change to its colour balance to obtain reasonably accurate JPEG colours.
 

JonSnih

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
352
Location
CZE
thanks for the Real Talk, @pdk42. Haven't felt a burning need to upgrade from the mk2 and you've fairly confirmed my suspicions.
It makes sense to skip one generation.
the E-5 > the E-M1ii
the E-M1i > the E-M1iii
the E-M5i > the E-M5iii

We can only guess what the fw update v2 for the E-M1iii will bring. So far according to Olympus the E-M1iii brought some tweaks in AF:
A: As for the performance for bird-in-flight subjects, the E-M1 Mark III is improved with a quick response and accuracy at the start of center priority AF, compared with the E-M1 Mark II. Also, focusing to the background (back-focusing) is less likely to occur at the start of AF. We will continue to improve the AF performance.
source: see the featured comment in discuss thread
 

BushmanOrig

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
533
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried
It makes sense to skip one generation.
the E-5 > the E-M1ii
the E-M1i > the E-M1iii
the E-M5i > the E-M5iii

We can only guess what the fw update v2 for the E-M1iii will bring. So far according to Olympus the E-M1iii brought some tweaks in AF:

source: see the featured comment in discuss thread

It is interesting to follow trends and to also discuss them. Should one skip one generation at a time? (I assume this was only a general suggestion) Its a good observation and worth talking about, why? I think the simple reason is with recent Olympus (or other) cameras, one would not find the answer searching for improved IQ, DR, or even noise. Yes there are the anomalies and they are the A7 III, the EM1 II was one of them at its launch and a few others when we look back at history. I also see a difference from the 12MP Olympus cameras to the 16MP cameras but not so much from the EM5 II to the Pen F or even the EM1 II. So what is changing and why should one think of upgrading?

I feel I have to qualify my A7 III comment. Yes, the popular belief in the media and social media is the A7 III does have a better IQ. I have an A7 III and does have the chance to compare it with Olympus and Panasonic cameras like the GH4 or G9. Even if the A7 III has superior IQ, it is still possible to say, I am happy with the performance and benefits I have with Olympus that I will stay with Olympus. The reason simply is, what Olympus managed to build as a complete offer, is called a winning solution. If you drill down into IQ and you optimize the use of your MFT camera, you will see these IQ differences get smaller. In fact, at some point, you get to a place that the IQ differences that still exist become unimportant.

Then there is something I do not see discussed enough and the question is this, why does Olympus prefer the sensor they currently use? And please do not go to DPR logic, "Olympus bought to much stock". From what I can gather when studying papers, it seems the advantages and disadvantages of BSI versus the sensor used in MFT cameras are not explored in enough detail. As good as the BSI sensor might be, the current MFT sensor technology offers different advantages...

Minute IQ "differences" versus the huge strengths Olympus offers as a package, is the reason I suggested to Paul, go look at the 10 most important things Olympus wanted to achieve with the EM1 MKIII or the EM1X. You will see Olympus is focussing on their strengths (lens offer, size advantages, IBIS, and functionality). I listened to a photographer who recently bought the EM5 III (first time MFT user) and he was explaining why he would get an EM5 when he already has an A7 III. He never mentioned IQ, but he did talk a lot about all these different strengths Olympus focuses on. He was excited to keep his EM5 III and he said it will become that camera that he always keeps with him. See this article I wrote on the EM5 III and how one sees the Olympus future strategy build into these latest cameras they launched.

I have the EM5 II and the EM1 II. Awesome cameras and in both cases I have not come close to utilizing all the capabilities they offer... Should I upgrade? Well if I want better IQ, go to the A7RIV, but if I like handheld high-res images, build in ND filters, awesome IQ, and some other great features... YES upgrade!!

One last thought - I see it with myself and the now older OMD's I still enjoy. In many cases, it takes days and weeks to fully discover and appreciate some of the functions built into these cameras. I think for someone would go out, quickly try the handheld High-Ress mode or the new Starry Sky function and then come back and claim these are not so good...

Siegfried
 
Last edited:

JonSnih

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
352
Location
CZE
I also see a difference from the 12MP Olympus cameras to the 16MP cameras but not so much from the EM5 II to the Pen F or even the EM1 II. So what is changing and why should one think of upgrading?

Technically there is no reason for an upgrade until your camera breaks down. Especially for a hobbyist with a limited budget. Practically... Beside the IQ improvement ppl like more lattitue in cropping capability. I think that more advanced AF (the MFT is still behind current competition in this area) and specialized features are the main reasons for an upgrade. Once the AF will be there only specialized functions will drive you to buy a new stuff. To some extent improved ergonomics and button layout, faster camera operation might play some role in decision making as well. I dont think that better EVF alone would convince ppl to buy a new stuff - you can hear their "great EVF but the same old sensor. I'll pass!" moan.

Then there is something I do not see discussed a lot and the question is, why does Olympus prefer the sensor they currently use? And please do not go to DPR logic, Olympus bought to much stock? From what I can gather when studying papers, it seems the advantages and disadvantages of BSI versus the sensor technology used in MFT cameras are not explored in enough detail. As good as what the BSI sensor seems to be, different advantages will apply for the sensors used in Olympus cameras...

The current sensors are built on the 2011-2012 sensor tech - now with faster data readout and advancenments in image processing. The simple fact might be that the new MFT sensor would exhibit only minor improvement over the 20MP 4/3 sensor we have now in our mft cameras. A demand would be still low and cost too high for camera manufacturer to justify the purchase.
 

BushmanOrig

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
533
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried
Technically there is no reason for an upgrade until your camera breaks down. Especially for a hobbyist with a limited budget. Practically... Beside the IQ improvement ppl like more lattitue in cropping capability. I think that more advanced AF (the MFT is still behind current competition in this area) and specialized features are the main reasons for an upgrade. Once the AF will be there only specialized functions will drive you to buy a new stuff. To some extent improved ergonomics and button layout, faster camera operation might play some role in decision making as well. I dont think that better EVF alone would convince ppl to buy a new stuff - you can hear their "great EVF but the same old sensor. I'll pass!" moan.



The current sensors are built on the 2011-2012 sensor tech - now with faster data readout and advancenments in image processing. The simple fact might be that the new MFT sensor would exhibit only minor improvement over the 20MP 4/3 sensor we have now in our mft cameras. A demand would be still low and cost too high for camera manufacturer to justify the purchase.

Hello Jon, I think its more than that. Yes I agree it takes a lot to build a completely new sensor into a camera. Olympus did reduce their R&D cost keeping the current 20MP sensor. For example, we do not know what is the life expectancy of the new MKIII. Is it only a bridge camera that will be on the market for one or two years? Will the next sensor have more megapixels, a BSI sensor, or will Olympus focus on other things? Take an interesting example, dual ISO. I was lucky to have seen dual ISO in action and its absolutely amazing to see the results one can get from the same sensor that just a moment ago produced loads of noise... I really believe Olympus is close to the point that we will see really interesting options and that will not be a race for more megapixels or BSI sensors... We can only hope these cameras will not become to complex to work with.

Siegfried
 

BrianLa

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
130
I upgraded but kept the mk ii (it will go to my daughter eventually to replace a mk i) and have been happy with the mk iii. I upgraded for the newer processor and the starry sky af principally. I also bought the bs about how wonderful a joystick is. Frankly, in the same vein as tilt versus swivel screens) I'm not impressed. I don't move focus points much, I'm more of a focus and re-compose photographer. Perhaps it's just lack of experience, let's face it all I've got access to is a 25x25foot garden at the moment. I do feel that the mkiii is snappier than the mkii in general operation. I to try oly capture with remote wifi to see if I can get the camera close to my feeders whilst I stay out of the way, this is only possible with the mkiii. I've only started today and then got side-tracked by a kick about football (soccer) game with my Grandson.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
3,740
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
It makes sense to skip one generation.
the E-5 > the E-M1ii
the E-M1i > the E-M1iii
the E-M5i > the E-M5iii

It is interesting to follow trends and to also discuss them. Should one skip one generation at a time? (I assume this was only a general suggestion) Its a good observation and worth talking about, why? . . . . So what is changing and why should one think of upgrading?
. . .

Technically there is no reason for an upgrade until your camera breaks down. Especially for a hobbyist with a limited budget.
. . .


I agree.
Need and function drives the upgrade.
  • If there IS something of enough value in the new version, I see no reason why you should not upgrade, even if it is a current + 1 version.
  • If there is little/nothing of value to you in the new version, why bother upgrading. Wait a version or two or more, until there is enough change that there is value in upgrading. As @JonSnih said, especially if you have a limited budget, like me. This is MY SOP.
I upgraded from the mk1 to the mk2, because the mk1 was frustratingly poor for shooting fast sports.
If I did not shoot sports, the mk2 was not be of enough significant added value to me , and I would NOT have upgraded to the mk2. And I would probably even skip the mk3. The mk1 is "good enough," which is why I still use it.

My car is 15 years old, and I have no intention of getting a new car.
My friend's newer car with the electronic dashboard is neat, but mine does everything I want it to do. And it's paid for, no car payments.
 

barry13

Mu-43.com Editor
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
10,478
Location
Southern California
Real Name
Barry
What I am against is posters spreading fake news and incorrect information.
Examples like:-
- The CFA fake news you spreading - if you do not know what you talking about, stop!
- DR and silly ETTR whatever - again if you have no idea what you talking about, stop!
Hi Siegfried,
1. Please do not accuse others here of spreading fake news.
2. Nor ask people to stop posting.
 

BushmanOrig

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
533
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried
Hi Siegfried,
1. Please do not accuse others here of spreading fake news.
2. Nor ask people to stop posting.
My apologies, Barry, my mistake... thinking about it Paul had it right, the EM1 MKIII color is problematic and the DR is not nearly as effective as the MKII. There is absolutely no reason to let my MKII go and too replace it with an MKIII. Awesome, that saves me a fortune...

Again my apologies Paul, please do not stop, post the good news as often as possible, let's inform Olympus owners before they make the mistake and downgrade to an MKIII...
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,577
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
My apologies, Barry, my mistake... thinking about it Paul had it right, the EM1 MKIII color is problematic and the DR is not nearly as effective as the MKII. There is absolutely no reason to let my MKII go and too replace it with an MKIII. Awesome, that saves me a fortune...

Again my apologies Paul, please do not stop, post the good news as often as possible, let's inform Olympus owners before they make the mistake and downgrade to an MKIII...
Siegfried, I appreciate your honestly and enthusiasm, but you have a habit of misreading people’s intentions on their posts. Maybe it’s a language thing (I’m guessing that English isn’t your mother tongue - which is fine, I applaud anyone who takes the trouble to learn multiple languages), but either way it’s a thing you seem to do frequently. So, for the record:

1) I didn’t say that the EM1.3’s colour is problematic. I simply said its WB is a bit cooler than the EM1.2. I have exactly the same issue between my left and right eye - and I don’t consider either to be right or wrong, and certainly neither to be “problematic”.

2) I did not say that the DR of the EM1.3 is worse than the EM1.2 - just that the raw levels are shifted compared to the EM1.2.

3) I do think the EM1.3 is an improvement on the EM1.2, just not a very big improvement. But if any of the improvements that are there are relevant to any particular photographer, then the upgrade cost is worth it. For the record,I think good reasons to upgrade are Eye AF, HHHR, the more flexible AF target point control, and perhaps the slightly improved IBIS. IQ is not a reason, one way or the other.
 
Last edited:

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,577
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
It is interesting to follow trends and to also discuss them. Should one skip one generation at a time? (I assume this was only a general suggestion) Its a good observation and worth talking about, why? I think the simple reason is with recent Olympus (or other) cameras, one would not find the answer searching for improved IQ, DR, or even noise. Yes there are the anomalies and they are the A7 III, the EM1 II was one of them at its launch and a few others when we look back at history. I also see a difference from the 12MP Olympus cameras to the 16MP cameras but not so much from the EM5 II to the Pen F or even the EM1 II. So what is changing and why should one think of upgrading?

I feel I have to qualify my A7 III comment. Yes, the popular belief in the media and social media is the A7 III does have a better IQ. I have an A7 III and does have the chance to compare it with Olympus and Panasonic cameras like the GH4 or G9. Even if the A7 III has superior IQ, it is still possible to say, I am happy with the performance and benefits I have with Olympus that I will stay with Olympus. The reason simply is, what Olympus managed to build as a complete offer, is called a winning solution. If you drill down into IQ and you optimize the use of your MFT camera, you will see these IQ differences get smaller. In fact, at some point, you get to a place that the IQ differences that still exist become unimportant.

Then there is something I do not see discussed enough and the question is this, why does Olympus prefer the sensor they currently use? And please do not go to DPR logic, "Olympus bought to much stock". From what I can gather when studying papers, it seems the advantages and disadvantages of BSI versus the sensor used in MFT cameras are not explored in enough detail. As good as the BSI sensor might be, the current MFT sensor technology offers different advantages...

Minute IQ "differences" versus the huge strengths Olympus offers as a package, is the reason I suggested to Paul, go look at the 10 most important things Olympus wanted to achieve with the EM1 MKIII or the EM1X. You will see Olympus is focussing on their strengths (lens offer, size advantages, IBIS, and functionality). I listened to a photographer who recently bought the EM5 III (first time MFT user) and he was explaining why he would get an EM5 when he already has an A7 III. He never mentioned IQ, but he did talk a lot about all these different strengths Olympus focuses on. He was excited to keep his EM5 III and he said it will become that camera that he always keeps with him. See this article I wrote on the EM5 III and how one sees the Olympus future strategy build into these latest cameras they launched.

I have the EM5 II and the EM1 II. Awesome cameras and in both cases I have not come close to utilizing all the capabilities they offer... Should I upgrade? Well if I want better IQ, go to the A7RIV, but if I like handheld high-res images, build in ND filters, awesome IQ, and some other great features... YES upgrade!!

One last thought - I see it with myself and the now older OMD's I still enjoy. In many cases, it takes days and weeks to fully discover and appreciate some of the functions built into these cameras. I think for someone would go out, quickly try the handheld High-Ress mode or the new Starry Sky function and then come back and claim these are not so good...

Siegfried
I agree with most of this Siegfried. But let’s be honest, Oly would fit a “better” sensor if they could - but of course there’s not a better m43 sensor available. And since Oly don’t design their own, they are to a large degree in the hands of Sony, Panasonic etc. As a consequence, they are concentrating their efforts on features to compensate for the (slightly) inferior IQ. In the main, I think this is a sensible strategy (that’s why I use Oly cameras!). A camera is more than the sensor, and a camera system is more than the camera !
 

Richard_M

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
256
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I agree with most of this Siegfried. But let’s be honest, Oly would fit a “better” sensor if they could - but of course there’s not a better m43 sensor available. And since Oly don’t design their own, they are to a large degree in the hands of Sony, Panasonic etc. As a consequence, they are concentrating their efforts on features to compensate for the (slightly) inferior IQ. In the main, I think this is a sensible strategy (that’s why I use Oly cameras!). A camera is more than the sensor, and a camera system is more than the camera !

My sentiments also. This is why I use three different systems instead of trying to make one 'a jack of all trades'.
It took me a long time to figure out if I used a system which gave me results I was expecting when photographing various genres it made photography simple and fun. No different from the film days IMO, using film suited to the task at hand.
 

Robstar1963

Mad on Motorsports
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
3,710
Location
Isle of Wight England UK
Real Name
Rob
I haven’t read the whole thread @pdk42 and this might not be particularly relevant to you with the Mk3 but I did perceive a slight but noticeable improvement in image quality in terms of DR and slightly more room for processing when I had the EM1X compared to the EM1 Mk2
I am not too technically minded about processing and facts and figures etc and therefore cannot put my finger on exactly what had improved but I was pleased with the output I was getting from my jpegs and from results when processing them
I’m not sure whether the improvements I saw would translate to the Mk3 but assume that the latest mods would be common to both ?
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom