The OM System OM-1 sets a new standard for micro four thirds cameras by offering features and capabilities that help it compete or even exceed those of APS-C and full frame options. This excellent video review takes a look at the camera and the kind of performance and image quality you can expect from it in real-world usage.
Coming to you from Jacek Sopotnicki, this helpful video review takes a look at the new OM System OM-1 mirrorless camera. While the current standard for continuous burst rates among full frame cameras is 30 fps (save for the Nikon Z 9's 120 fps when shooting 11-megapixel images), the OM-1 blows past that, offering 50 fps bursts with continuous autofocus or 120 fps using locked autofocus, making it a serious competitor for things like sports or wildlife photography. And beyond that, you get the company's usual array of unique and advanced computational photography features that have endeared the company's cameras to many users, all packed into a highly portable body that pairs with equally light and portable lenses nicely. Check out the video above for Sopotnicki's full thoughts on the camera, and if you would like to read more, take a look at our in-depth review.
5 Comments
The gap between M4/3 and FF is narrowing not only with the improvements in camera tech, but also with the improvements in modern software processing.
It's amazing what we can do today in software with just a few clicks - and I don't mean replacing skies, I mean things like Topaz's DeNoise and Sharpen AI software, new features in Lightroom, DxO RAW, etc.
Hell, a good denoiser basically allows you to shoot 4-6 stops higher with no fear 🤷🏻♂️
Even simply reprocessing old RAW files TODAY gives incredible results!
For a start, I do love DXO. Best post processing software IMO. Yes you can squeese more detail out of stuff.
6 stops? Ehh, no. Unless your idea is completely screwing up with the fine details. But even then not 6 stops. Because software from a few years ago is still very good. Maybe 1 stop better in the past few years.
Second, it doesn't take away the advantage of FF or even 1.6 bodies. Because that same softwares works on all of them. So the differences are still the same. You just squeeze out the best IQ possible with the new software. Which would be a better way to look at it.
And the argument isn't about if M43 is good enough, is does it make sense at it's price point? I would argue no. You can get awesome 1.6 bodies for a reasonable price and FF has came down in price to the point they are down right cheap. Relatively speaking of course.
That's why M43 has died with this body. The format doesn't offer any compelling advantages anymore. Which was mainly cost back in the day. And even then it was regarded as the crapiest of all the systems.
Simple answer is no. You cannot get around physics.
FF is a dramatically better than 1.6 crop bodies even more so compared to m43.
You'd need absurdly fast and sharp lenses to compare. All of which would translate to lenses just as big and bulky as a FF lens. With sensor tech that is actually slightly behind the Canon, Sony, Nikon ect.
So no, it doesn't compete and that's why it has died. It's only relevance was back in the day when even 1.6 bodies costed quite a bit and FF was expensive. And with a lack of cheap long lenses for FF. It made a lot of sense from a cost perspective. And the whole system tended to be cost competitive. Which made it relevant.
But today you have so many great options in 1.6 and FF bodies. M43 has become obsolete and offers no compelling advantages anymore.
While I understand everyone is in their own echo chamber, end results for almost all cameras at this point please 95% of the people that consume images. Knowing how to use your kit and how to edit brings everyone to almost even playing field. Are there exceptions... currently Yes. You can crop in more with a full frame camera or a large format. It may make a difference in fine art???? I know it is possibly a more FOREGIVING file to edit.
All of that said, when it comes to the end published result, I mention again that 95% of the "consumers" can't tell the difference. The other 5%- those are photographers and the only good image is the one THEY make with THEIR camera - and even then, most of them don't like their own images either! ;-)
Everything you said was completely irrelevant.
There are differences that the customer can abesolutely see. This is completely false they can't, if you can see the difference so can anyone else. It be hard to tell what system took what image, but put two system's side by side and you can tell the difference.
The original point is M43 is dead, it was never a serious system in the first place with only those on a budget who really went for it. 1.6 and FF represent a better value anymore. Hell you can buy used FF bodies for cheaps now.
Trying to bring fine art into the picture is ridiculous. The cameras that they use cost in the 10's of thousands and so far removed for the subject it is not even funny. Many use scanning backs for that application. Which Im sure you never even heard of.