My God it's huge

[pellicle]

Looks too Canicon to me.

sure, why not ... clearly that "look" is the result of evolution since the early film days. Its not just "designer look" its functional.

. Or is this fake news, Mr. President?

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[994]

Thinking more about this I really hope Oly doesn’t release this. It is going to blow up the value prop of m43.

 

[Phocal]

(FT4) Are these the first leaked image of the new E-M1X??? - 43 Rumors
View attachment 702487
Not for me at all! Completely against the ethos of the system imho. I realise some will like it, but whatever are Olympus thinking of?

And why handheld hi res in a body pitched at sports and wildlife shooters?

It’s really not that big. Slightly larger than a gripped EM1mk2, which honestly is a good thing (always felt it was just a touch to small). Also it’s still significantly smaller than my old 1D.

Sucks that it appears to have that stupid flippy screen.

 

[Phocal]

And why handheld hi res in a body pitched at sports and wildlife shooters?

As a wildlife photographer I will utilize that a lot, especially for gators, snakes, frogs, titles. Even perched birds should be doable.

 

[hoodlum]

As a wildlife photographer I will utilize that a lot, especially for gators, snakes, frogs, titles. Even perched birds should be doable.

Yes, I have shot many small song birds at 1/60s. But I would also really like to know the sensor readout speed as this could help to expand the use of the electronic shutter to many more situations.

 

[pdk42]

I really hope for Oly's sake that this camera doesn't tank - but all my instincts tell me that it will. At a rumoured price of $3k I can hear the reviews now comparing it unfavourably to the A7iii. I know it's a very personal view, but what is the point of u43 if it isn't to offer a compromise of IQ and size/weight? Once the body reaches or exceeds that of an FF body then it's really pushing the envelope. I get that the lenses are still going to be smaller, but once we start doing the equivalence dance we can see that it's not so clear - e.g. the Oly 300 f4 is slightly bigger than the Nikon 300 f4. Compare the G9 with the D500 when both are fitted with a 300mm f4 lens (unfair I know because of the hood):

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Of course you'll need to crop the Nikon image to get the same FoV, but then again it has higher Mp count and better noise handling.

 

[Phocal]

I really hope for Oly's sake that this camera doesn't tank - but all my instincts tell me that it will. At a rumoured price of $3k I can hear the reviews now comparing it unfavourably to the A7iii. I know it's a very personal view, but what is the point of u43 if it isn't to offer a compromise of IQ and size/weight? Once the body reaches or exceeds that of an FF body then it's really pushing the envelope. I get that the lenses are still going to be smaller, but once we start doing the equivalence dance we can see that it's not so clear - e.g. the Oly 300 f4 is slightly bigger than the Nikon 300 f4. Compare the G9 with the D500 when both are fitted with a 300mm f4 lens (unfair I know because of the hood):

View attachment 702580

Of course you'll need to crop the Nikon image to get the same FoV, but then again it has higher Mp count and better noise handling.

First...………….

The IQ from the Nikon lens doesn't even compare to that of the 300/4. The 300/4 is seriously on par with any of 500 or 600 f4 lenses. I know a lot of people on this forum are not sport or wildlife shooters but the feature set of even the EM1mk2 blows away what the D500 can do in everything except tracking. If the EM1x can compete with the D500 in tracking and has all the features of the EM1mk2 (but hopefully even a bit better), the EM1x will be an amazing camera to have.

 

[Magua]

Olympus has said this is targeted at the long neglected wildlife and sports crowd, so I won't bash it for not being "true to m4/3 values" etc. etc. It's only natural that they want to expand their market and hopefully dig into the competition in these lucrative fields. So while it's not for me personally, I'm still rooting for it to succeed...for all our sakes. It's a big risk for sure, but nothing ventured nothing gained right?

 

[Lcrunyon]

People can choose to compare it to another camera with a battery grip, or choose to compare it to another camera without a battery grip. Whichever they choose completely changes the calculus. Yes, the OM-D flagship bodies are about the same size as the latest full frame mirrorless, but that’s because it’s such an advantageous size for ergonomics and control.

So, these flagships use the smaller sensor to create other advantages. More features, better IBIS control, more processing power, better battery life, improved lens characteristics, etc... There are aspects and use cases where the E-M1 cameras are surpassing full frame cameras, justifying the comparable prices (for some people, at least).

This is not just a sports and wildlife camera, no more than the E-M1 MkII is (despite what m4/3 rumors or even what marketing might eventually say). It may end up being a brilliant sports and wildlife camera (we’ll see). If it was just an improved E-M1 MkII, it would already be a camera that can do just about everything really well, like shoot landscapes better than even most full frame cameras.

If that doesn’t appeal to everyone, that’s ok. I believe we will see an E-M5 MkIII in 2019, and it will be designed around the philosophy some people seem to find more appealing.

 

[ralf-11]

a smaller sensor doesn't give you more features, better IBIS control, more processing power, better battery life, improved lens characteristics

it gives you less wt. esp. for long tele lenses

mirrorless does give many of those features

 

[LDO6295]

Time will tell if this monster actually gets produced. As long as Olympus continues to develop great lenses for MFT and keep my EM1.2 firmware updated I'm good.

 

[PakkyT]

Compare the G9 with the D500 when both are fitted with a 300mm f4 lens (unfair I know because of the hood):

No, it is unfair because a 300mm on 4/3rds is a different use than a 300mm on the D500. To be equivalent you put a 400mm on that D500 and then see what you get.

 

[ijm5012]

No, it is unfair because a 300mm on 4/3rds is a different use than a 300mm on the D500. To be equivalent you put a 400mm on that D500 and then see what you get.

True. You would need to add the TC-14E III to the 300/4 PF to get you to 600mm of reach.

 

[Phocal]

True. You would need to add the TC-14E III to the 300/4 PF to get you to 600mm of reach.

Making a larger difference in IQ.

 

[saladin]

This is a highly targetted model. It doesn't need to be small compared to other MFT, it needs to be outstanding at what it's targetting. If it's smaller than its opposition then great, but that's not the priority. If they want the sports and events market, it has to get that done first and foremost.

I suspect that Oly won't be viewing this as a large sales volume product.

 

[Phocal]

I also noticed what looks like two joysticks, one for each orientation...……………….I am in love with this camera more and more

 

[Jay_M]

Some of you guys are too focused on the size and weight of this thing. This camera is a good thing for the MFT ecosystem in general, it is expanding the reach into serious pro territory. By doing that, the rest of the ecosystem is not destroyed, all of those cameras are still going to be there (and should still get updated models). This model is for the people who regularly use the 300/f4, and upcoming 150-400 Pro lens. If it succeeds Olympus will bring new talent into the MFT ecosystem, and hopefully open more eyes about how capable it is.

 

[tkbslc]

Some of you guys are too focused on the size and weight of this thing. This camera is a good thing for the MFT ecosystem in general, it is expanding the reach into serious pro territory. By doing that, the rest of the ecosystem is not destroyed, all of those cameras are still going to be there (and should still get updated models). .

That statement would carry more weight if Olympus showed any signs it still wants to make small cameras. So far all we've had for multiple years now is a string of huge pro gear. The compact and consumer end of the market has just been getting yet another serving of Grandma's leftover casserole.

Panasonic isn't much better, but has thrown us a few bones more recently than Olympus.

I'd much rather see a an E-PM3 or GM7 anyday.

 

[drd1135]

Many of the “action” shooters already bought the EM1 II (which was often presented as aimed at them) and had to wait quite a while for the FW update to make the tracking/CAF work well. Now they are expected to buy another more expensive body? OTOH, maybe they just glued together a camera with some new stuff and the R&D costs will be shared by the EM1X and some later bodies that will share the advances. Still, I really question what remains of this niche market.

 

[Lcrunyon]

a smaller sensor doesn't give you more features, better IBIS control, more processing power, better battery life, improved lens characteristics

it gives you less wt. esp. for long tele lenses

mirrorless does give many of those features

Of course it does, much for the same reason as mirrorless (though mirrorless definitely does not help with battery life). Given the same size body and type/level of technology, it creates more space with which to add larger batteries, more processors, larger magnets for controlling the sensor (which are easier to control when smaller), heat dissipation, etc. Conversly, a larger body with/or better (often meaning more expensive) tech can in many cases do much the same. The best IBIS cameras are all m4/3 sensors on larger bodies. The BLH battery of the E-M1 MkII and E-M1X is larger than the BLN, and larger still than the E-M10’s battery.

As for lenses, there are advantages the smaller m4/3 sensor offers in making it easier to design them over larger sensor systems. It isn’t just size (for which being mirrorless helps as well).