Why shouldn’t I “upgrade” from an E-M1X to a E-M1.3?

[Mountain_Man_79]

So after yet another relatively frustrating outing with my X and bird AF, I’ve come to the following conclusion (which I find applicable to me, not necessarily you), and that is- bird AF is just unreliable enough to make me never want to use it. So given that, why have an X? Why not “upgrade” to a mark 3 and gain starry sky AF? I seemingly loose nothing else, right?
With the price I paid for the X, and what I can get a mark 3 for, I will loose nothing on the X that I’ve owned for a year and a half, and be able to get a mark 3 and have about $500 laying around I could put towards a 7-14 or 75mm. So why wouldn’t or shouldn’t I? I ask seriously, as I want to make sure I’m not overlooking something else I’d loose by ditching the X, but by my count, I only loose one feature that doesn’t work, and gain one I’d actually like to have. Should I be patient for a fine tuned software release? I’m sure the longer I hold onto it, the less I’ll come out ahead, and I worry if the X will ever see another update.
Im not sure how I feel about the front/rear dial situation on the mark 3, but I doubt any concerns about ergonomics are warranted; I’m sure it’s great knowing Olympus. And I imagine they make a battery grip if I find myself missing that.
Thoughts?

 

[Acraftman]

I cannot comment on this but want to keep the post up so hopefully others will as I (think) I have become adept enough with my mk5ll that I could use something that I can be more demanding of, my question would be the m1.2 or 3 but if the opinion is the m3 is competitive with the 1x...

 

[Mike Wingate]

Keep the camera and order a 150-400 lens

 

[Mountain_Man_79]

That’s definitely the least expensive way to not solve the issue. Why hadn’t I thought of that?

 

[Biro]

The size of the E-M1X is enough to put me off. I say, given the value you could still get out of the camera, sell it. If your purpose for buying it isn't working out, why hang onto it? Just make sure the E-M1 III will do everything that you expect of it. And I believe the grip for the E-M1 II will work on the Mark III:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod..._v328180bw000_hld_9_power_battery_holder.html

 

[Mike Wingate]

Buy the new Sony Alpha 1. £6,499 plus a few lleses, never mid the size, look at the pixel count.

 

[doxa750]

So after yet another relatively frustrating outing with my X and bird AF, I’ve come to the following conclusion (which I find applicable to me, not necessarily you), and that is- bird AF is just unreliable enough to make me never want to use it. So given that, why have an X? Why not “upgrade” to a mark 3 and gain starry sky AF? I seemingly loose nothing else, right?
With the price I paid for the X, and what I can get a mark 3 for, I will loose nothing on the X that I’ve owned for a year and a half, and be able to get a mark 3 and have about $500 laying around I could put towards a 7-14 or 75mm. So why wouldn’t or shouldn’t I? I ask seriously, as I want to make sure I’m not overlooking something else I’d loose by ditching the X, but by my count, I only loose one feature that doesn’t work, and gain one I’d actually like to have. Should I be patient for a fine tuned software release? I’m sure the longer I hold onto it, the less I’ll come out ahead, and I worry if the X will ever see another update.
Im not sure how I feel about the front/rear dial situation on the mark 3, but I doubt any concerns about ergonomics are warranted; I’m sure it’s great knowing Olympus. And I imagine they make a battery grip if I find myself missing that.
Thoughts?

Tough dilemma for sure.

My two cents is that AF on EM1 X and EM1 III are very close when comes to tracking fast flying subject like birds. In fact, many sources seem to point to the fact that 1X is slightly better. I know you are disappointed with 1X bird AF AI, but I am not sure if you disappoint with its AF for birds overall or not.
If it is not, then I think you have a very sound approach in switching 1X to the Mark III. I really like its face detect as well as Starry Sky a lot. They comes so handy when I need them.
Beside AI, you would loose access to more programmable buttons that you are used to. Also, you will need to add back up battery. The second SD card slot would be a lot slower. I am sure you have thought of them, but thought I say it
Last but not least, I find the smaller form factor thus less weight are critical for me. Depending on individual, one may find larger size provide better ergonomic. Of course, you could add the grip to solve that issue.
Good Luck .

 

[Stanga]

Maybe you can post an example or two for the rest of us to see what issues you encountered exactly? Was the bird too far away, flying to fast, had feathers colour that blended in with the background in such a way that the camera couldn't get a focus lock? What about the lens as well? Maybe it takes longer to focus than it takes for the bird to be in and out of the frame?

 

[Mountain_Man_79]

Tough dilemma for sure.

My two cents is that AF on EM1 X and EM1 III are very close when comes to tracking fast flying subject like birds. In fact, many sources seem to point to the fact that 1X is slightly better. I know you are disappointed with 1X bird AF AI, but I am not sure if you disappoint with its AF for birds overall or not.
If it is not, then I think you have a very sound approach in switching 1X to the Mark III. I really like its face detect as well as Starry Sky a lot. They comes so handy when I need them.
Beside AI, you would loose access to more programmable buttons that you are used to. Also, you will need to add back up battery. The second SD card slot would be a lot slower. I am sure you have thought of them, but thought I say it
Last but not least, I find the smaller form factor thus less weight are critical for me. Depending on individual, one may find larger size provide better ergonomic. Of course, you could add the grip to solve that issue.
Good Luck .

I had actually not realized the second card slot was not the faster style. Good call out. Probably not a deal breaker, but still a difference I had forgot about. Thanks for the reply.

 

[Mountain_Man_79]

Maybe you can post an example or two for the rest of us to see what issues you encountered exactly? Was the bird too far away, flying to fast, had feathers colour that blended in with the background in such a way that the camera couldn't get a focus lock? What about the lens as well? Maybe it takes longer to focus than it takes for the bird to be in and out of the frame?

Well I didn’t want this to turn into a ‘what’s wrong with my AF or what’s wrong with me’ kinda thread, and really wanted to focus on the difference between the two bodies. Put it this way though, I can have it on a still bird against a plain background in good light, and watch as the green box moves to the eyes, and then watch as the lens essentially focus breathes in and out of focus. This returns a series of shots where some are out of focus, and others not...but knock on wood, it’ll 100% of the time miss the ‘awesome’ moment. So very frustrating, and why I raised the initial question.

 

[Mountain_Man_79]

Also, I’ve changed the focus points to a single one. It’s helped, but still disappointing. What’s the point of 121 AF points of only 1 of them actually works, and only some of the time?

 

[JDS]

I haven't read that much about it yet, but I do get the sense that maybe the BIF AI is a bit under-baked? It seems the motorsports AI is pretty amazing, I wonder if they need an update to the algorithms on birds? I'm way too early into my experience with the E-M1X to share many thoughts, still too locked down to test it that much. But, the normal continuous tracking is definitely in a different class than my E-M1 II- is the E-M1 III equal to the X in "generic" (non-AI) tracking?

 

[11GTCS]

Honestly, while the form factor of MFT is unbeatable for birds, I’ve come to the conclusion that current manufacturers just haven’t devoted enough resources to AF for it to be worth it to me. Sony is so far ahead of the other brand’s mirrorless offerings right now that I’d probably go that way if pure AF in difficult environments like birding is desired, even though that obviously drives up cost and size considerably... the 100-400 zooms for aps-c bodies aren’t that much bigger than the PL and, while they don’t go quite as close, have solid ISO performance enabling use of a TC for comparable total performance. Obviously skilled birders can get great shots with any system and many prioritize light weight and good stabilization over pure AF, but as a beginner I was also frustrated and even found that the Fuji AF, which is notoriously mediocre by APS-C standards, was better than my 1.2 for birding. If I was going straight birding today I’d probably go A-6600 (or even A1 and just use super 35 mode).

 

[Mountain_Man_79]

Honestly, while the form factor of MFT is unbeatable for birds, I’ve come to the conclusion that current manufacturers just haven’t devoted enough resources to AF for it to be worth it to me. Sony is so far ahead of the other brand’s mirrorless offerings right now that I’d probably go that way if pure AF in difficult environments like birding is desired, even though that obviously drives up cost and size considerably... the 100-400 zooms for aps-c bodies aren’t that much bigger than the PL and, while they don’t go quite as close, have solid ISO performance enabling use of a TC for comparable total performance. Obviously skilled birders can get great shots with any system and many prioritize light weight and good stabilization over pure AF, but as a beginner I was also frustrated and even found that the Fuji AF, which is notoriously mediocre by APS-C standards, was better than my 1.2 for birding. If I was going straight birding today I’d probably go A-6600 (or even A1 and just use super 35 mode).

Well it’s not a system I use solely for birding...if it were, I would be having the conversation about selling the X and the 300 pro and taking my 6 grand and going elsewhere. However it’s not that cut and dry for me, and I’ll accept some compromises. Features like HHHR and live ND or live composite have me spoiled, and I’m too invested in the ecosystem to honestly want to leave it. This is why I’m wondering if the mark 3 gets me everything I need and want (and more) and makes a sensible downgrade/upgrade over the X.

So short of the slower second card slot, anything else I’d be loosing?

 

[Mountain_Man_79]

I haven't read that much about it yet, but I do get the sense that maybe the BIF AI is a bit under-baked? It seems the motorsports AI is pretty amazing, I wonder if they need an update to the algorithms on birds? I'm way too early into my experience with the E-M1X to share many thoughts, still too locked down to test it that much. But, the normal continuous tracking is definitely in a different class than my E-M1 II- is the E-M1 III equal to the X in "generic" (non-AI) tracking?

I feel like your dead on with your assumption. And that’s my question as well...is the mark 3‘s focusing at least equal in capability to the X, but only lacking the intelligent subject tracking. If so, I think I can live without it then. But if I get worse CAF, then no thanks, I’ll learn to love what I have.

 

[Stanga]

Forking out on heavier gear just for birding isn't my thing, so I can't say much to inspire anyone to take it up. But if a manufacturer brought out a focusing system to get a better success rate with bees in flight, that would interest me.

 

[11GTCS]

Well it’s not a system I use solely for birding...if it were, I would be having the conversation about selling the X and the 300 pro and taking my 6 grand and going elsewhere. However it’s not that cut and dry for me, and I’ll accept some compromises. Features like HHHR and live ND or live composite have me spoiled, and I’m too invested in the ecosystem to honestly want to leave it. This is why I’m wondering if the mark 3 gets me everything I need and want (and more) and makes a sensible downgrade/upgrade over the X.

So short of the slower second card slot, anything else I’d be loosing?

Im certainly no expert on both cameras aside from that which comes from drooling on websites like DP review, but I think the only features that the 1 loses to the X (besides external/battery cap differences) are to do with the second processor not being in there. Some minor ones physically that aren’t as obvious are the heat dissipation is worse in the 1.3, and the magnification of the otherwise identical viewfinder is lower. So processor/guts wise wise, you’re losing the gps and other sensors to add to exif data, intelligent subject tracking and that seems to be about it. The faster single processor in the 1.3 makes pretty much all the other features compatible.

 

[Mountain_Man_79]

Im certainly no expert on both cameras aside from that which comes from drooling on websites like DP review, but I think the only features that the 1 loses to the X (besides external/battery cap differences) are to do with the second processor not being in there. Some minor ones physically that aren’t as obvious are the heat dissipation is worse in the 1.3, and the magnification of the otherwise identical viewfinder is lower. So processor/guts wise wise, you’re losing the gps and other sensors to add to exif data, intelligent subject tracking and that seems to be about it. The faster single processor in the 1.3 makes pretty much all the other features compatible.

Ahhh, there’s another one I forgot about; the environmental sensors. Nice, but again, probably not a deal breaker even when combined with a slower second card slot. I’m not worried about heat issues, I never do video. Not sure why they’d make an already crappy viewfinder even crappier with lower magnification, but why not.

 

[11GTCS]

Ahhh, there’s another one I forgot about; the environmental sensors. Nice, but again, probably not a deal breaker even when combined with a slower second card slot. I’m not worried about heat issues, I never do video. Not sure why they’d make an already crappy viewfinder even crappier with lower magnification, but why not.

That was the straw that broke the camel’s back for my 1.2.... I wear glasses so their insistence on that abysmal EVF that bands up with polarized lenses makes me nuts. People say to just get non polarized sunglasses, but when your sunglasses are prescription and cost a couple hundred plus a pair, I think I’d rather just nicely ask that they go the route of Sony, that A1 has a 240fps oled with like 4x the resolution

 

[Mountain_Man_79]

That was the straw that broke the camel’s back for my 1.2.... I wear glasses so their insistence on that abysmal EVF that bands up with polarized lenses makes me nuts. People say to just get non polarized sunglasses, but when your sunglasses are prescription and cost a couple hundred plus a pair, I think I’d rather just nicely ask that they go the route of Sony, that A1 has a 240fps oled with like 4x the resolution

I actually wonder sometimes how much of my dislike of the EVF is from the resolution as compared to how the engine renders the image (at least for playback purposes). Same with the back screen for that matter. When I’m trying to figure out if I’m nailing focus, and zoom all the way in on a picture, it looks very undetailed, and fools me into thinking I’m missing focus. I zoom all the way in on my Fuji (which I don’t think has any better an EVF or back screen), yet the image it’s displaying is perfectly clear. Maybe that requires a third processor with Olympus.