New OM systems (Olympus) OM-1 announced

This will be the thread for discussing the photo features on the new OM-1.  There is separate thread on the Video forum to discuss video features.

As promised the new OM-1 has been announced today and a few "reviews" are up already.  Still 20 MP but now a BSI stacked sensor which should allow an extra two stops on noise performance and one stop of dynamic range as well as facilitating improved frame rates and AF.    It is specced to allow 50 frames per second with full AF and AE.    It has 1053 x type AF points.

Not a lot for UW users but the improved sensor and AF will be welcome.  IT also has a improved resolution OLED EVF up from 2.36 M dots to 5.76 M dots as well as higher resolution brighter rear screen . 

Reviews here:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/om-system-om-1-initial-review/2

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/om-system-om-1/om-system-om-1A.HTM

https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/compactsystemcameras/om-system-olympus-om-1-review

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/au/reviews/olympus-om-1-review

among others.  I don't think I'll be rushing to upgrade - I'll wait as see what the testing sites say about the new sensor.  It's quite tempting for my surface photography, but I'll definitely wait and see what the reviews and tests say before I commit. 

Also released as was a 12-40 mKii, basically with improved weather sealing.  I would have liked to see a 10-40 lens even if it was an f4, that extra angle of view would make a big difference I think. 

An extensive video review: 

Unfortunately It seems the 12-40 ii cannot take round filter.

I am a bit disappointed by the camera: the improvement Is mainly on the sensor, i would have loved some more mp or more DR.

Inviato dal mio CPH2005 utilizzando Tapatalk

The 12-40 II takes 62mm filters you can see the thread in these pics:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/3961065800/om-digital-solutions-unveils-its-new-ed-12-40mm-f2-8-pro-ii-40-150mm-f4-pro-lenses

The sensor is specced to have one stop more dynamic range than the previous sensor.  While a few more MP might have been nice, the pixels are already 3.3 microns, which is smaller than than even the A7RIV pixels which are about 3.8 microns in size.

Uh right. I read a wrong information then.

Inviato dal mio CPH2005 utilizzando Tapatalk

41 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

I would have liked to see a 10-40 lens even if it was an f4, that extra angle of view would make a big difference I think. 

It would be my all purpose dream lens too. My 12-35 is really too narrow and i don't need the extra fov of the 7-14.

Can't you use the 8-25mm? Or is it too wide on the long end?

16 minutes ago, Barmaglot said:

Can't you use the 8-25mm? Or is it too wide on the long end?

It's an odd one - with the lens changing length - it's longest at min zoom or something like that - it's not on any port charts.  Also the magnification is not as good.  The 12-40 gets 0.3x magnification - fills the frame a 60mm long subject, the 8-25 is not so good and in a dome probably can't achieve it's max magnification

I didn't even suspect its existence. 

Panasonic has a 10-25mm but it's big and costs a lot also only 25mm.

As Chris wrote I would settle for a popular 10-35 maybe 40 mm even F4.

Full specification: https://wetpixel.com/articles/om-digital-announces-om-1-camera

The specs. of the new OM1 camera look very promising, but we have to wait how the real world performance is...

In case it turns out to be true that the DR of the new BSI quad pixel sensor is improved by 2 EV (as OM system claims), the OM1 will offer incredible IQ, better than any existing "cropped sensor" camera (the 12-bit digitalization may, however, become a problem with such excellent DR)...

I already found AF of the EM5II o.k. and AF of the EM1II (PDAF) even better. In case AF of OM1 is substantially better compared to EM1II, there is not much left to complain about AF...

=> Together with the superior lens choice of the MFT system, the OM1 may well become the top "cropped sensor" camera for UW use (unless the promises described above become disappointments)...

Wolfgang

This surprises me:

“No external charger comes with the camera but it can be charged or operated over its USB-C socket. If you use a USB-PD power source that's powerful enough, the camera can be powered and charged while being used. An external, two-battery charger is available ($149 or $219 with a battery included).”

i saw a suggestion awhile ago that the batteries would be backward-compatible, but don’t see that now.  

The new sensor looks promising.  If high ISO and fast AF are as good as claimed, plus the OLED finder, then the upgrade will be worthwhile.  I'm looking forward to some detailed test reports. 

The new OM1 is advertised to have significant improvements for both stills and video over EM-1 III including higher readout speeds, better AF tracking in AF-C and weather sealing with several lenses that appears marker leading. This system also has a complete set of excellent lenses well suited for U/W use.

What I don't understand is why Sony seems to be the only manufacture that has taken advantage of the much higher readout speeds of the "stacked" sensors to  increase flash sync speeds using mechanical shutter. It appears that the smaller the stacked sensor area covered the faster the potential speed should be. With the stacked full frame sensor in the Sony A1 you can sync to 1/400th but in APS-C mode with a smaller area covered the sync increases to 1/500th. It seems that with this new M43 stacked sensor sync speeds of 1/500th or greater should have been easy to achieve adding another advertising bullet point. Canon has done the same with the stacked sensor in the new EOS R3 remaining at 1/250th. Why don't camera manufactures want to that advantage of this potential with these much faster sensor readouts. Are they all content to really on HSS flashes?  

42 minutes ago, Phil Rudin said:

What I don't understand is why Sony seems to be the only manufacture that has taken advantage of the much higher readout speeds of the "stacked" sensors to  increase flash sync speeds using mechanical shutter. It appears that the smaller the stacked sensor area covered the faster the potential speed should be. With the stacked full frame sensor in the Sony A1 you can sync to 1/400th but in APS-C mode with a smaller area covered the sync increases to 1/500th. It seems that with this new M43 stacked sensor sync speeds of 1/500th or greater should have been easy to achieve adding another advertising bullet point. Canon has done the same with the stacked sensor in the new EOS R3 remaining at 1/250th. Why don't camera manufactures want to that advantage of this potential with these much faster sensor readouts. Are they all content to really on HSS flashes?

I agree that this is a missed opportunity and I really hoped they would improve on this with the new speed improvements on modern sensors. I guess flash photography in general has become a bit niche as everyone pursues the high ISO low light shots...

11 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

The new OM1 is advertised to have significant improvements for both stills and video over EM-1 III including higher readout speeds, better AF tracking in AF-C and weather sealing with several lenses that appears marker leading. This system also has a complete set of excellent lenses well suited for U/W use.

What I don't understand is why Sony seems to be the only manufacture that has taken advantage of the much higher readout speeds of the "stacked" sensors to  increase flash sync speeds using mechanical shutter. It appears that the smaller the stacked sensor area covered the faster the potential speed should be. With the stacked full frame sensor in the Sony A1 you can sync to 1/400th but in APS-C mode with a smaller area covered the sync increases to 1/500th. It seems that with this new M43 stacked sensor sync speeds of 1/500th or greater should have been easy to achieve adding another advertising bullet point. Canon has done the same with the stacked sensor in the new EOS R3 remaining at 1/250th. Why don't camera manufactures want to that advantage of this potential with these much faster sensor readouts. Are they all content to really on HSS flashes?  

There was some discussion on this on one of the review sites.  Apparently it takes 1/125 second to readout the sensor as each pixel has 4 photo diodes underneath, each of which is read before combining the signals.  It uses this info to assist in the PDAF autofocus.

This review mentions it:  https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/om-system-om-1-initial-review

That may or may not be the reason for the sync speed.  My understanding is it is mostly based around the speed of the mechanical shutter which may not have changed.

As I understand it, the A1 owes its fast sync speed not to the sensor, but to an entirely new shutter mechanism, whereas Nikon Z9 omits mechanical shutter entirely, and thus it can only sync with strobes at 1/200s - a major feat for electronic-only shutter, but still far short of what mechanical can achieve.

Certainly, it looks like from the sample images posted that image quality went up visibly both at base ISO and higher ISOs. This probably makes this camera the best crop camera available right now (including APS-C). Next week it's Panasonic's time to up their game.

Regarding the "low" flash sync speed of 1/250: the OM1 has live ND. Would using ND not have essentially the same effect as reducing shutter speed below 1/250?

Wolfgang

1 hour ago, Architeuthis said:

Regarding the "low" flash sync speed of 1/250: the OM1 has live ND. Would using ND not have essentially the same effect as reducing shutter speed below 1/250?

No. While fast shutter speeds cut out some flash light, they cut out the ambient light more. This was posted by @Pavel Kolpakov a few years ago:

X-axis is time, Y-axis is light intensity. As you can see, it peaks quickly, then gradually loses intensity. As you reduce the exposure time, you're chopping off the right side of the graph, so you're losing a little bit of strobe light, but a lot more natural light, tilting the balance in favor of the flash. This is useful primarily when you have the sun in the frame. An ND filter will affect ambient and strobe light equally, so you don't gain anything from using it - what it does let you do is slow down your exposure without touching ISO and aperture. For example, if you're shooting video in bright sunlight, and you want an open aperture for shallow depth of field, going to faster exposures will make the video look jerky - smooth video needs at least a little bit of blur for moving objects in each frame. With an ND filter, you can shoot ISO 100, f/2.8 and 1/60s without worrying about overexposure. Likewise, if you're doing a long-exposure photo like a landscape with flowing water, where you may want several seconds of exposure in order to smooth out the water movement - even the smallest available aperture might not be enough to let you expose as long as you want without blowing out the image, and an ND filter helps there.

33 minutes ago, Barmaglot said:

No. While fast shutter speeds cut out some flash light, they cut out the ambient light more. This was posted by @Pavel Kolpakov a few years ago:

X-axis is time, Y-axis is light intensity. As you can see, it peaks quickly, then gradually loses intensity. As you reduce the exposure time, you're chopping off the right side of the graph, so you're losing a little bit of strobe light, but a lot more natural light, tilting the balance in favor of the flash. This is useful primarily when you have the sun in the frame. An ND filter will affect ambient and strobe light equally, so you don't gain anything from using it - what it does let you do is slow down your exposure without touching ISO and aperture. For example, if you're shooting video in bright sunlight, and you want an open aperture for shallow depth of field, going to faster exposures will make the video look jerky - smooth video needs at least a little bit of blur for moving objects in each frame. With an ND filter, you can shoot ISO 100, f/2.8 and 1/60s without worrying about overexposure. Likewise, if you're doing a long-exposure photo like a landscape with flowing water, where you may want several seconds of exposure in order to smooth out the water movement - even the smallest available aperture might not be enough to let you expose as long as you want without blowing out the image, and an ND filter helps there.

You are right, but only if the flash is adjusted already to its maximum power and in the case that the flash duration is much shorter as the exposure.

In real life, with flash durations ranging between 3 - 25ms at full power (as described in the post you are citing), the fastest sync. speeds that make sense would be between 1/330 and 1/40. I admit that small improvements, depending on the type of flash used, maybe up to 1/500 ,would make sense, but I believe that in real life a digital ND filter (in case it can be used together with flash?) does not make much difference...

What are the situations were one would desire to have a high sync. speed?

#1.: Darkening of background in Macro: normally the flash is operated at low power in this situation. The effect of ND filter can easily be compensated by turning the flash to more power (the flash normally does not lit the background). I conclude ND filter has essentially same effect as increase in shutter speed...

#2.: Sun in WA photography, flash is used to expose the foreground. High flash speed needed to avoid overexposure of the sun: Only when flash duration is short enough, an increase of shutter speed over 1/250 makes sense. In case a flash is used that requires long shutter speed as 1/40, low ISO and small aperture may not be enough to avoid sun overexposure and digital ND filter will be a benefit. I conclude that flash sync. speed up to 1/400 makes sense with standard flash, e.g. Z330, but that is it. ND filter together with more powerful strobes also does the job...

Wolfgang