Three Months of Using the OM-1 Mirrorless Camera: Am I Still Impressed?

Three Months of  Using the OM-1 Mirrorless Camera: Am I Still Impressed?

Only if you buried your head for the last few months would you have missed the enthusiasm for the OM-1. The new camera from the company previously known as Olympus caused quite a stir. How is it faring in the real world? I've owned the OM-1 for a little over three months. Am I still as enthusiastic about it as I was when I first bought it?

That excitement is firstly due to the doubling of the dynamic range of the OM System OM-1 compared to its predecessor, the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III, and a quadrupling of the noise control. Then there is the AI-driven subject recognition system. Thirdly, the brand-unique computational photography features such as Live Time and Live Composite are astounding. The former feature allows you to watch a long exposure develop on the viewfinder or rear screen. Live Composite, on the other hand, only adds new light to an image, which is great for light painting. Plus, the inbuilt ND filters now go up to ND64. Then, there is the IP-53 weather sealing, the only ILC with that rating.  

The OM-1 and the pro lenses are the only ILCs on the market with an IP53 rating. As I shoot seascapes with salt water spray in the air, this is a boon for me.

On top of that, you have high-resolution shooting that uses sensor-shift technology to produce up to 80 MP images. There's also a host of video improvements, including 24p-60p C4K, time-lapse, and high-speed up to 100 fps. The 7 stops of image stabilization are also worth mentioning, of course. That increases to 8 stops when used with a compatible lens. Oh, and then there are the 120 frames per second, the in-camera HDR mode with raw output, and the diminutive size of its Micro Four Thirds System. Then I nearly forgot to mention Pro Capture, the facility that buffers images before the shutter release button is fully pressed, only permanently recording them when it is, meaning no more missed action shots.

I wrote about those in my initial review of the OM-1 soon after I first bought it. In the three months since then, I've used it for long exposures, wildlife expeditions photographing birds in flight, weddings, business events, and the numerous workshops I run. So, does it make a difference in the real world? You bet it does.

I handle a lot of cameras. From the big and heavy full-frame, top-of-the-range flagship dinosaurs down to cheap mass-produced beginner DSLRs that seem made from the same plastic used in cheap toys, most pass through my hands. The OM-1 feels robust and built to last.

The body is slightly smaller and lighter than most other mirrorless cameras. But the significant size advantage comes when you consider the entire system. Smaller, excellent lenses in the M.Zuiko professional range are tiny compared to the equivalent full-frame behemoths. Furthermore, the OM-1 overcomes the tricky balance between ergonomics and customizable functionality.  

The OM-1 is well balanced, and the system is far lighter than others I have used.

I have often wondered why so many full-frame shooters are committed to staying with a DSLR despite all the advantages brought by mirrorless systems, and maybe some of it is due to balance; you need a big camera to balance a big lens. I've previously tried enormous 300mm to 600mm lenses on Canon, Nikon, and Sony full frame mirrorless cameras, but they feel front-heavy and unwieldy. Some are too big to comfortably handhold. DSLRs do act as a counterweight. For some, the combined weight and cumbersome size of a DSLR/long lens combination doesn't bother them. In that case, I understand why some big-system photographers are not swapping to the mirrorless bodies, despite all the advantages that would bring.

This issue is not there with the OM-1; it always seems well-balanced, whatever lens I use with it. Because of the smaller proportions of equivalent lenses on the Micro Four Thirds system, they are more suited to the slimmer, smaller bodies. The OM-1's body is not much smaller than its full-frame mirrorless contemporaries, but the far more compact comparable lenses make all the difference in balance and ergonomics. 

It's not a cheap camera, the OM-1; it isn't meant to be. But let's compare it with the other stacked sensor cameras released around the same time. Like everything in photography, sensor size has both its advantages and disadvantages. The price is one of the significant advantages of the OM-1 over these larger cameras. The Sony A9 II costs $4,498, more than double the price of the OM-1. Meanwhile, the Nikon z9 is priced at $5,496, and the Canon R3 is a whopping $5,999.

So, at $2199, although it is a top-of-the-range flagship camera, the OM-1 is excellent value compared with other stacked sensor alternatives.

Using the OM-1 in the Field

I have big hands and long fingers. The buttons and dials on the OM-1 are easy for me to manipulate. My son's hands are smaller than mine, and I just asked him to try it. He found it comfortable and easy to use, too. So too did my wife, who is relatively small and has tiny hands. Strangely, the smaller E-M5s also fit my family's range of hand sizes. Consequently, I expect much thought goes into the ergonomics during the design stage.

Cameras are designed for right-eyed and right-handed people. I am fortunate to be both right-handed and right-eye dominant. When shooting action, I like to keep both eyes open to spot subjects outside the frame I might want to capture. This smaller system helps facilitate that.

Spare a thought for left-eyed people. Most cameras are disadvantageous for those that hold the camera to the left eye in that the camera's body and right hand obscure the vision on that side. I tried shooting left-eyed with the OM-1, and although there is less peripheral vision than when using my right, I can still see enough to detect a bird flying my way or a person acting interestingly on the street.

With greater peripheral vision because of the smaller size and its outstanding AI-based subject detection, my success rate of capturing small fast moving birds has increased to nearly 100% of them being in focus.

One criticism I've heard of the OM-1 is about its tracking ability of humans. I disagree with this because it is terrific compared to many cameras I've used. The AI-based tracking of birds, animals, and automobiles is even better. A friend who was in the Navy described the AI-based subject detection as having "military precision." Nevertheless, the human face and eye recognition aren't bad. I used it on all the shots I took at a wedding last weekend, and it didn't miss a beat. However, I anticipate the inclusion of Human AI, perhaps in a future firmware update.

I was always pleased by the quality and sharpness of the photos I shot with my previous Olympus digital cameras going back to the E-510 I owned many years ago and even a bridge camera I had around the same time. But the detail in pictures shot with the OM-1 is astoundingly crisp. That has much to do with the new sensor, the In-Body Image Stabilization (IBIS), and, of course, the superior lenses.

Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw always over-sharpened Olympus raw files (.orf), and many professional Olympus users have felt let down by Adobe's shoddy raw conversions compared to other software. Capture One and ON1 seem to be firm favourites for the system's professional users, plus the proprietary OM Workspace, which best develops the raw files. For high-ISO noise handling, something that is exceptionally well controlled anyway. I'm happily shooting up to ISO 102,400, and ON1 NoNoise and Topaz DeNoise both work well at extra cleaning if desired. However, for the images used in this article, I employed OM Workspace, which has its own AI-based sharpening and noise reduction. It works well.

I turn sharpening off when running the raw files through different third-party processors. When shooting weddings and portraits, I invariably soften the skin so as not to show every irregularity within every skin pore inside every wrinkle. The OM-1's finest detail lifts the photos to a new level for most other of images. That, partly due to the doubled dynamic range, has led me to start reshooting the seascapes I caught with my previous iterations of the Olympus OM-D E-M1s and the E-M5s. Don't get me wrong, there was nothing wrong with the photos from those older cameras. I still happily take an E-M1 on my morning bike ride, but the OM-1 is a massive leap forward.

I don't do as much in some genres of photography as I would like; I am just too busy. However, I see some excellent macro results from Geraint Radford, and Gavin Hoey's studio work is outstanding. They are both using OM-1s.

Battery life is tremendous. I bought three extra batteries for when I am shooting weddings and events. At an all-day wedding shoot, I changed the battery once at a convenient time mid-afternoon when it had discharged to 45%. The following battery still had over 50% life when I finished at 9.00 pm. I didn't have to change the battery on a four-hour wildlife shoot. I bought the optional BCX-1 external battery charger for its flexibility. I thought it would be beneficial when coupled with a power bank, but so far, I haven't needed to use it.

What I Do and Don't Like

I can honestly say that the OM-1 is the best digital camera I've ever owned or used, and I use lots. It lives up to its "Wow Camera" status.

I love its robustness and its 400,000 shutter actuation rating, putting many other similarly priced models to shame. Environmentally, its longevity is important, as the world's resources are limited and we should expect quality products to last. It would be great if OMDS made a big commitment to reducing the environmental impact of its products' manufacturing, but at least they are not greenwashing like some other brands seem to be doing. The good news is that they seem to be recruiting photographers onto their worldwide ambassadorial scheme from diverse backgrounds, helping to democratize photography. That has to be great for our art.

There are a couple of tiny things I would improve. Keyhole screw slots on the bottom of the charger would make it wall mountable. Plus, isn't it about time that all camera manufacturers stopped supplying neck straps and gave us shoulder straps instead?

There have been supply hold-ups for both the camera and its accessories because of the unprecedented demand, but the back orders are being caught up now.

There was also one small software glitch that a few people experienced (I didn't) that was quickly addressed with a firmware update. But there is rarely any complex technology that doesn't get updated for similar reasons. My camera did lose its date and time settings during the firmware update process, but again, it was no big deal.

Developed in OM Workspace, but only using settings also available in the camera.

These are minor things. Overall, this is a fine camera in a league of its own. It's not a jack of all trades but a master of many. It meets the needs of photographers with innovations that I've heard other camera users saying, "Why doesn't my camera have that feature?" In time, they probably will, but by then, it will be a sure bet that OMDS will have brought in a range of new features, as its Olympus heritage did in the past. Like Olympus claimed with the E-M1 Mark II, it is over-engineered. There is a lot of stuff that I will never use, apart from out of curiosity, but they will be features that appeal to others.

An OM-1 black and white conversion. Straight out of camera apart from a slight horizon-leveling adjustment.

Is it a success? Everything I have heard behind the scenes suggests so, a punch on the nose for the naysayers and doom-mongers who incorrectly predicted an ominous future for the brand. Breaking away from the medical side of Olympus, which influenced and restricted the research into the camera systems has been a success for OMDS, enabling it to break away from the restrictions imposed on it. I personally know five people who have swapped their old system with other brands and bought an OM-1. I cannot think of any other camera where that has happened. Even if you are dedicated to another manufacturer, having different brands in the market is a good thing as it pushes advances through competition, especially when one of the brands is as innovative as OMDS. Consequently, I am glad that the heritage of Olympus has been revitalized. Plus, I'm looking forward to the rumoured OM-5 too.
Log in or register to post comments
74 Comments
Stuart C's picture

Nice article Ivor, some serious features available on it.

Ivor Rackham's picture

Thanks Stuart

Malcolm Wright's picture

Forget drilling holes in walls to mount your battery charger, use velcro mounts instead. Then there's not need to fill and redrill holes when the next battery charger has different spacing for the mount holes.

Ivor Rackham's picture

It's a good point. I've used Velcro in the past, but found it would pull off the wall rather than separate the velcro. I live in a Victorian-era sandstone and lime mortar house and so the walls are painted with traditional, breathable paints that doesn't work well with adhesives. I like keyhole slots because it's easy to hook them on and off the screws when I need to take them with me.

I'm now experimenting with my various camera chargers being mounted upside down under my desk. Or, fixing a mounting board to the wall under the desk. That would work with velcro, so thanks for the reminder.

Stephen Strangways's picture

Forget velcro - use 3M Dual Lock. There is no different "hook" and "loop" side: it sticks to itself, so you never have to worry about putting the wrong side on the wrong item. It holds better, yet is easier to separate, and stays cleaner.

Ivor Rackham's picture

Thank you. I'll give it a go.

Timothy Gasper's picture

Olympus has always produced quality and innovative equipment. I loved their lenses years ago because they put the shutter in the lens itself, just like Hasselblad and other quality companies. They keeping abreast with other manufacturers and high-stepping their digital tech output. Keep it up Olympus. Don't want to see them go away.

Ivor Rackham's picture

I think we will see more and more innovations from them, especially now as they are not tied to developing products that must help the medical arm of the business. Thanks for the comment.

Teemu Paukamainen's picture

Glad you're enjoying your OM-1. I prefer the E-M5 lineup (only due to its size) and can't wait for the OM-5 to arrive! It will make a huuuge difference in my pet photography as I can let the camera do the focusing on the subjects' eyes. With the E-M5III I need to either "focus & recompose" or move the focusing point and when shooting ADHD models you don't really have to for that.

Mike Shwarts's picture

Nice article. Makes me want to get rid of all my cameras (including my e-m10) and get the OM-1. My first camera was the original OM-1.

You might want to fix your typo since the extended ISO range only goes to 102,400, and I doubt you meant 125,000.

Ivor Rackham's picture

Thanks. Goodness knows how I managed that. I've asked the editors to correct it.

Ruud van der Nat's picture

A nicely build and very capable compact system, but when I look at the high iso comparison on DPreview I still would prefer a Canon R6 to shoot poorly lit concerts. All the advanced electronics still can’t beat the bigger pixel size it seems

Ivor Rackham's picture

Hi Rudd,

I often have the discussion about a camera being "good enough". I agree with the idea that bigger pixels have better dynamic range but the smaller size MFT cameras do a good enough job. The OM-1 outperforms many of the earlier full-frame cameras and they were good enough for the job back then, and still are now.

Take the Canon 5D Mark III as an example, it was and still is still a great camera and is used by wedding photographers who shoot in similar low light to concerts. It has 11-stops up to ISO 200 and falls to 8-stops at 25.600. If the 5DIII was good enough for concerts, then the OM-1 must be too as it has a better dynamic range than that.

For me, it is about being able to provide quality images to my clients. Ther OM-1 does that at a standard that is more than good enough.

As with everything in photography, there are advantages and disadvantages. The R6, fine camera though it is, would mean me having to lug extra weight with those huge lenses and I would be limited to just 12 frames per second. There's always a compromise. But as sensor technology improves, the compromises made by smaller sensors become less relevant.

Thanks for the comment.

Ruud van der Nat's picture

Thanks for the reply Ivor,
I totally agree that the OM would certainly suffice for low light concert shooting, when you look at older sports or concert photos there’s a lot of noise and they are still wonderful images. I still use my old 6D at concerts regularly but if I was to invest in new gear, I would go for the best I could get for my money and prioritise high iso performance over size and weight ( weight never bothered me and I like a larger camera, put that’s just personal preference) and 12 fps is more than enough for concerts( overkill really) . Shooting landscapes with the OM makes a lot of sense, not a lot of bulk to carry around , great lenses and image quality.
Cheers , Ruud

Stephen Strangways's picture

The high ISO performance of a full frame camera really only applies if you're happy with shallower DOF. If your work calls for deeper DOF, stopping down to smaller aperture on a full frame camera and raising the ISO to maintain the same shutter speed will negate much of the noise advantage, and put the full frame camera at a disadvantage in dynamic range.

Ruud van der Nat's picture

True and if you need shallow dof with a small sensor you will need some very fancy lenses. Every system has it’s ups and downs. But gathering four times more light gives me 2 stops before the playing field levels, and shooting at 2.8 normally gives me enough dof during a concert.

Stephen Strangways's picture

Except... you're not gathering four times more light. A 25mm f/1.2 lens on a Micro Four Thirds camera and a 50mm f/1.2 lens on a full frame camera are giving you the same field of view, the same amount of light. You're getting the same shutter speed at the same ISO... the only difference is your depth of field.

Ruud van der Nat's picture

If we are both using a 1.2 lens , the ff sensor has four times the surface area of a micro 4/3 sensor , so gathering four times as much light. If you are using a 1.2 lens to to keep things equal the FF could use a 2.4 lens. At three meters distance to the subject you would get 49cm dof. An Eos R with 50 at 2.4 would get 51cm dof. Now if I use a 85 1.4 where will you get a 42 0.7 lens?

Stephen Strangways's picture

With the exact same lens, a larger surface area of a bigger sensor means it covers a wider field of view. Sure, that means more light overall, but it's not a solar panel converting that light to one single stream of electricity - it's converting it to a signal at every single photosite individually.

Imagine you're taking a picture of a red balloon against green grass. You take a picture with a full frame camera that shows the balloon in the center, and lots of grass all around it. When you get home to your computer, you crop the photo really tight on the balloon. You've now "lost light." Is the balloon any darker? No, it's not. You're just missing the light from the grass all around the balloon. But it doesnt affect the balloon.

Now, instead of cropping it, put a camera with a smaller sensor on the same lens, and take the photo. You've effectively cropped out the grass the same as if you edited the photo from the full frame camera. The balloon doesnt get any darker.

The full frame camera uncropped, versus the smaller sensor camera or the full frame camera cropped, is recording less light overall, missing the light from the grass, but your subject is the balloon. The light from the balloon is exactly the same on all images if shot with a lens at the same aperture, with a sensor of any size whatsoever. The amount of grass around the balloon doesnt matter at all.

You would never say that a 28mm f/2 lens gather more light than a 50mm f/2 lens, would you?

Stephen Strangways's picture

Or, to put it another way:

18mm f/2 lens on an APS-C camera
25mm f/2 lens on a m43rds camera
27mm f/2 lens on an APS-C camera
28mm f/2 lens on a full frame camera
35mm f/2 lens on an APS-C camera
35mm f/2 lens on a m43rds
35mm f/2 lens on a full frame camera
50mm f/2 lens on a full frame camera
50mm f/2 lens on an APS-C camera
50mm f/2 lens on a m43rds camera
42.5mm f/2 lens on a m43rds camera
50mm f/2 lens on an APS-C camera
85mm f/2 lens on a full frame camera

All gather the exact same amount of light.

Stephen Strangways's picture

Or to put it yet another way... if you take a roll of ISO 400 film and put it in a Hasselblad Xpan that has a 24x65mm image size, does its sensitivity change compared to if it you used it in a camera with a standard 24x36mm image size? Does your exposure change because it's "gathering more light?" What happens in a half-frame film camera?

Is APS film chemically different than 135 film? What magical trick does 110 film use if the smaller image size is gathering less light?

Ruud van der Nat's picture

Again this has to do with sensitivity, the sensitivity doesn’t change. A roll of film is a film of a photosensitive material , with the same iso/asa the size of the particles in the e emulsion determines the sensitivity. The larger the particles the more sensitive to light they are, that’s why high iso film looks grainy because the grains are bigger. On a large format film camera there will be more material (with the same sensitivity) to expose giving more resolution. Also when the image gets printed to get the same size of image the large format negative doesn’t have to be enlarged that much, and enlarging also enlarges the “flaws”
On a digital sensor the size of the photosites does very, with the same resolution the ff sensor will have larger photosites gathering more light and when converting to an actual image doesn’t have to be enlarged 2x

Ivor Rackham's picture

Hi Rudd, that's a slightly different argument. You are right that larger photoreceptors do collect more light, but it doesn't necessarily follow that a larger sensor has larger receptors as there are other variables. For example, it may have a greater pixel count, thus having a greater pixel density, or, in the case of the new stacked sensor in the OM-1, the sensor's construction is such that it has more room for each receptor so they are bigger.

Stephen is right that an f/2 lens on any sensor size or focal length will give the same shutter value, with the caveat that the T-Stop is the same.

The whole sensor size argument is old hat and very much driven by the marketing departments of camera manufacturers. Medium format photographers make much the same argument against full-frame as you are about MFT. Yet, they all have advantages and disadvantages. There are some fabulous photographers that use all sizes of sensors, taking advantage of the benefits of each and working out different ways of shooting to work around their limitations. All contemporary cameras are capable of taking great shots when placed in the right hands. So it is just down to whether the photographer needs the extra unique facilities that come with some cameras, like the OM-1, and whether the ergonomics are good.

Ruud van der Nat's picture

You’re right about the size and pixelcount , and that’s what I sad. And I do agree that the type of sensor also matters. The OM-1 has much better signal to noise than my old 5D mk1. And the stacked sensor on the OM is cutting edge technology, but still the R6 gets better image quality at high ISO’s (6400 and beyond). And yes like I sad , every system has it’s ups and downs, and there are always compromises. The R6 is bigger, heavier and the lenses are much bigger but for concerts it would be my choice. The OM would be great as a walk around camera, and macro shots would benefit from the larger dof. And it’s speed would also fit outdoor sports. And like you sad earlier the most important bit is behind the camera.

Stephen Strangways's picture

"with the same iso/asa the size of the particles in the e emulsion determines the sensitivity. The larger the particles the more sensitive to light they are, that’s why high iso film looks grainy because the grains are bigger."

None of that is true. It is a common misconception, i'm afraid. There is a wealth of information available at your fingertips if you wish to understand how film works, and there are many fascinating things to be learned. For example, the size of the particles in an emulsion are an order of magnitude smaller than the perceived grain in a developed image, and the distribtion of grain clumps, and thus the perceived graininess of the image, can be affected by development temperature. The reality is far more interesting than the oversimplification and misunderstanding.

Ruud van der Nat's picture

okay, but still to doesn't work the same as a digital sensor, regarding size and sensitivity. you don't have a sheet of photo sites where you use a larger of smaller portion off. We were talking about digital sensors with the same amount of megapixels/photosites with different sizes gathering different total amounts of light.
If it rains, a shed will get the same intensity of rain as the roof of a house, but the amount of water captured by the roof is much larger. and if we divide the roofs up in an equal amount of portions, the portions on the roof of the house will be larger and will gather more water.

Stephen Strangways's picture

If you have a large house roof or a small shed roof, they both receive the exact same amount of rain per square meter. It doesnt matter if the roof is divided up into 1 portion of 100 square meters or 100 portions of 1 square meter each, you still get the same rain per square meter.

Take into account the lens: if your small shed roof is getting water through a 12.5 meter diameter pipe, and your 4x larger area house roof is getting water through a 25 meter diameter pipe, is there any difference in the amount of water they get per square meter?

Ruud van der Nat's picture

But the intensity of the rain is the same (the same aperture) So the rain per square meter is the same. But my roof is bigger so I have bigger tiles (the same amount of photosites on a bigger sensor) so my roof tiles gather more water.

Stephen Strangways's picture

Yes, but total water doesn't matter one tiny bit. Remember taking a photo of a red balloon on green grass? If one photo shows a lot more grass than another because it has captured a lot more light from a lot more grass, that doesn't make the tiniest bit of difference to the red balloon.

Let me try again. Imagine a photo of your kitchen, a nice wide-angle shot showing your kitchen table, fridge, stove, and sink. You then place a flashlight on the table, shining directly into the camera lens. The light is not hitting the fridge or stove. They are not any brighter than they were before. But the sensor is getting a lot more total light - it has this really bright spot off to one side. Does this reduce the noise visible on the fridge or stove? Does a really bright light source on the bottom right corner of the image improve the image quality of the top left of the image?

No, of course it doesn't. Gathering more water in total doesn't matter. Water per square meter is all that matters. Light per square millimeter is all that matters.

You've seen videos of how camera sensors work, right? Each row and column of photodiodes gets read off and their values stored separately. They don't all get added together into one single pixel. You don't get a single bright white pixel from a full frame camera and a single darker grey pixel from a m43rds camera.

Stephen Strangways's picture

Or to put it another way... digital camera sensors aren"t rooftops collecting rain and consolidating it into one single barrel. They are fields of grass, and each blade of grass needs water. If you have a giant 10,000 square foot yard, and your next-door neighbour has a tiny 2,500 square foot yard, and it rains for 5 minutes, is your grass healthier because it received more total rain?

If that's still not making sense, you have a front yard of grass and a back yard of grass. Your neighbour has only a back yard of grass. It rains. The total amount of rain received by grass on your entire property is larger than on his property. But does the rain your front yard grass received make your back yard grass healthier?

Ruud van der Nat's picture

Partly true, but still the photosensitive site has 4 times more surface area on the equally pixelated full frame sensor than the m4/3. So the amount of light gathered by pixel is greater and has a better signal to noise ratio.
If this is not true, why does the full frame sensor (with the same technology) have better snr.

Stephen Strangways's picture

I think you're vastly overestimating the noise difference. Compare the A9 to the OM-1 and you're talking about a sensor with 4x the area delivering a 0.14% reduction in photon noise, and the OM-1's read noise is actually lower than the A9.

Ruud van der Nat's picture

The om has a great sensor with the latest technology, clear by the fact that it almost beats a five year old full frame sensor. Technology is moving so fast, who knows in five years medium format is shooting at 20fps.
We are never going to agree on this subject, you’re never going to admit I’m right and I’m not going to admit I’m wrong. If someone gave us the money you would buy the OM-1 and I would be the Canon EOS R6 and we would both be happy.

Stephen Strangways's picture

Well the R6 has more than double the photon noise than the OM-1, more than triple the A9, as well as more read noise, but if you want to believe differently, measurements and facts are not going to stop you.

If you have a lawn that is suffering due to a lack of water and you believe that planting a larger area of grass to collect more total water means all of your grass will be healthier, you can rest assured you are not the only person with this misconception.

I can only hope that others who read these comments will see an opportunity to read and understand.

Ruud van der Nat's picture

My eyes dare to differ

Ruud van der Nat's picture

Both in print setting

Stephen Strangways's picture

What happened to processing the raw files and printing them? This is comparing JPGs straight out of the camera on a screen.

Ruud van der Nat's picture

It is an indication though. Maybe the processed and printed files would be closer but I don’t think the om images will suddenly look better than the images from the R6

Ruud van der Nat's picture

https://youtu.be/F_74R6e3eLc

Nice Video about the OM vs R3, also covers DOF difference and image quality

Ruud van der Nat's picture

Now just imagine. Two squares filled with 20 funnels and bottles underneath the bottles. One square is four times the area, so it has bigger funnels (the amount of funnels is the same) now when it rains for an hour. Which bottles will contain more water?

Stephen Strangways's picture

I'm glad you're still trying to understand this. In this scenario, you're thinking about same number of funnels of a larger size over a larger area. What happens with larger number of funnels of the same size covering a larger area? How about a larger number of smaller funnels of a smaller size covering the same area?

Ruud van der Nat's picture

When you increase the number of funnels, thus the pixel count the funnels will have to be smaller and the amount of water per bottle reduces. But we are comparing two sensors with the same pixel count. And I’m not trying to understand this , I’m trying to make you understand. Your starving grass example doesn’t work because you also increase the number of grass leafs/plants

Stephen Strangways's picture

So what you're saying is that a 20 megapixel full-frame sensor will have less noise than a 20 megapixel m43rds sensor because the photodiodes are bigger on the full-frame camera. So if that were true, it must logically follow that a 20 megapixel full-frame sensor and a 5 megapixel m43rds sensor would have the same noise, because the photodiodes are the same size. Is that the case?

Ruud van der Nat's picture

Indeed. But then there would be the problem of resolution and when you enlarge the image there will be an increase in noise. But looking at it per pixel , the noise would be the same. There are a lot of other factors like read out noise, the quality of the image processors, the type of the sensor (stacked, bsi etc ) It is quite an accomplishment that the OM-1 has this high iso noise performance, but with the same type of sensor and equally good image processor, the full frame will win the high iso “contest “

There’s also an interesting video on DPreview (I know you prefer written articles) where they compare high res and low res images of two Sony full frames with the same type of sensor regarding noise . The results surprised me. It’s worth a look.

Stephen Strangways's picture

And yet you don't think a stacked BSI CMOS sensor made by Sony can be compared to a stacked BSI CMOS sensor made by Sony because of how many years apart they are, despite the fact that the technology behind them hasn't changed at all, and would rather compare sensors made by completely different companies that are closer in age. That will tell you some things, but not the things you are looking for.

The point I've been trying to get across in all of these comments is critical thinking. You have drawn a conclusion, and are searching for things that justify those conclusions. When shown cases where the measurable reality is the exact opposite of your conclusion, and how some of the things you imagine are responsible for the differences in sensors are shown to be logically contradictory, my hope was that you would understand the importance of gathering information, of coming up with a hypothesis and testing, using information that contradicts it to refine and revise it, rather than discarding the inconvenient facts that don't confirm your preconceived notions... but like far too many people these days, your only interest is stubbornly clinging to incorrect beliefs, because you either hold them too dear, or because understanding the real reasons for the differences is too complicated compared to the convenient misconceptions.

Ruud van der Nat's picture

First , the dprview video I quoted is a comparison of two sensors of the same type and age. And the video was an eye opener. But that doesn’t change a thing about our r6 vs OM. (With the OM having the advantage of a much more modern sensor)

I have also been trying to get my message across by making analogies and have listened to your points and analysed them, but most of them just didn’t make sense ( enlarging the field of grass for example)
In my professional life I was an executive lab technician ( clinical chemistry and haematology) part of my job was testing and assessing new analysers and tests. So I have an analytical way of thinking and always doubt claims from manufacturers.
I believe in facts and data.
You come across as someone who loves the m4/3 system ( and you are welcome to it, it has some great things going for it) but doesn’t want to see the shortcomings of the system. And will try to find ways to convince others that it is the best system there is.
It is starting to feel like a discussion with a flat-earther ( and I’ve had quite a few of those)
So let’s end it here and agree to disagree.
I hope you have a lot of fun and create wonderful images with your camera.
Regards
Ruud

Stephen Strangways's picture

I own cameras and love cameras of every sensor size you can imagine, but one thing I don't love is seeing bizarre misconceptions repeated over and over. If you have an analytical way of thinking and believe in facts and data, you have to pause and think for one second that your belief that a digital camera sensor combines all of the electricity from every single photodiode into one single stream, so that more "total light" becomes a factor, so that a roof with a rain barrel or a solar panel generating electricity is a comparable process, is so completely wrong and would not be capable of recording actual images... if you can approach it with an open mind, you might actually learn something. Stating that a certain camera has less noise when it actually has more, because its sensor gathers more total light when that is not a factor, will only mislead those who don't know how imaging works, and will lead those who do to laugh and you and dismiss you. I tried to help, but you obviously don't want it.

Ruud van der Nat's picture

Funnel size, water per bottle…. who’s not wanting to listen and keep an open mind.
The end

Stephen Strangways's picture

I guess you just couldn't follow your own logic from the same number of larger funnels and bottles compared to a larger number of the same size funnels and bottles.

Ruud van der Nat's picture

Now you have fallen in the trap of your own logic or you just don’t get it According to you the total amount of water didn’t count. And the comparison with the bottles was same amount of bottles in both area’s but the larger area has larger funnels , so the larger funnels collect more water per bottle like the photosites on a full frame are larger than those on a M4/3 and thus gather more light if the amount of photosites is the same. Can’t put it any clearer or make it any simpler. Get it now?

More comments