New OM systems (Olympus) OM-1 announced

20 hours ago, Rene Weterings said:

Yes, the 8-25mm isn't on the chart. 
That Panasonic 10-25mm is way to expensive indeed. Not my budget... ;-)

There is the "new" Zuiko 8-25mm f 4.0 existing that may be perfect for UW use. Unfortunately Nauticam does not offer a Zoomgear and someone would have to design a 3D print model for UW use...

Wolfgang

1 minute ago, Architeuthis said:

There is the "new" Zuiko10-25mm f 4.0 existing that may be perfect for UW use. Unfortunately Nauticam does not offer a Zoomgear and someone would have to design a 3D print model for UW use...

Wolfgang

You mean 8-25mm?

1 minute ago, Interceptor121 said:

You mean 8-25mm?

Right: 8 - 25mm , this is the optimum for UW use to my opinion (I corrected it above)...

Wolfgang

13 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

Right: 8 - 25mm , this is the optimum for UW use to my opinion (I corrected it above)...

 

Wolfgang

The range between 18-25mm is not something you use a lot underwater

On land for outdoor photography 8-18mm works fine. The range between 18 and 25mm is useful if you want to take a little group portrait but underwater you will not really shoot much at that range

On the wide end side for me 8mm is ideal for photos but not necessarily for video where 10mm is sufficient

As Davide say ideally you need 10-35mm for video which is what the WWL-1 and a zoom lens gives you hence it is so popular with video shooters. the range close to 30-35 is what you need for a single fish

Sensor measurements are available

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Olympus System OM-1

Overall a small step back from the EM1MKII and III

Report that the subject detection is working well for birds

10 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Sensor measurements are available

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Olympus System OM-1

Overall a small step back from the EM1MKII and III

Report that the subject detection is working well for birds

This looks disappointing, after the great announcements about quad-pixel technology bringing 2 EV more of DR and less noise...

Hopefully AF is better, but, in case DR and noise are the same, the OM-1 is not a reason for me to upgrade from EM1II (maybe OM-2)...

Wolfgang

Just now, Architeuthis said:

This is disappointing, after the great announcements about quad-pixel technology...

Hopefully AF is better, but certainly the OM-1 is not a reason for me to upgrade from EM1II (maybe OM-2)...

 

Wolfgang

Not sure about who made those announcements

Quad bayer cells are in mobile phones since a few year the key benefit is to give flexibility to the AF and to enable HDR shots (not used on the OM-1)

Per se they don't offer any advantage of any sort over a normal structure in terms of performance

This sensor is a cheaper way for Sony to offer companies the ability to use autofocus without creating a custom product

20 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

Sensor measurements are available

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Olympus System OM-1

Overall a small step back from the EM1MKII and III

Report that the subject detection is working well for birds

To put it in perspective, have a look at this link where I added the EM-1 MkII and the Nikon D850 to the plot.

The D850 does better at ISO less than 200, but they are incredibly close right on ISO200-400 range.  Or if you follow the directions on the site the OM-1 at ISO200 is equivalent in image quality to the D850 at ISO400.  The basis for this quality comparison is comparing an 8x10 print at arm's length.  I'm sure the D850 could do quite a bit better than the EM-1 mkII and OM-1 in certain things like maybe sunballs with ISO at minimum and printing images large.  

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon D850,Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II,Olympus System OM-1

This test site site seems to put all it's eggs in photographic dynamic range basket, to my mind though an image even full screen at ISO200 and another at ISO400 are not night and day and is a m43 sensor can get this close to a full frame sensor it seems like it doing pretty well to me.  I will be interested to see further tests being posted and to see some full resolution images.

To put it in perspective, have a look at this link where I added the EM-1 MkII and the Nikon D850 to the plot.
The D850 does better at ISO less than 200, but they are incredibly close right on ISO200-400 range.  Or if you follow the directions on the site the OM-1 at ISO200 is equivalent in image quality to the D850 at ISO400.  The basis for this quality comparison is comparing an 8x10 print at arm's length.  I'm sure the D850 could do quite a bit better than the EM-1 mkII and OM-1 in certain things like maybe sunballs with ISO at minimum and printing images large.  
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon D850,Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II,Olympus System OM-1
This test site site seems to put all it's eggs in photographic dynamic range basket, to my mind though an image even full screen at ISO200 and another at ISO400 are not night and day and is a m43 sensor can get this close to a full frame sensor it seems like it doing pretty well to me.  I will be interested to see further tests being posted and to see some full resolution images.
 

Test images for comparison are available at DPreview and they confirm the curves from photonstophotons:

High ISO noise is a tick worse in OM-1, compared to EM1II: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=omsystem_om1&attr13_1=olympus_em1ii&attr13_2=nikon_d500&attr13_3=nikon_d850&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=12800&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.00995536116494327&y=0.7174470445570055

Noise in brightened up shadows is a tick better in OM-1, compared to EM1II: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=omsystem_om1&attr144_1=olympus_em1ii&attr144_2=nikon_d500&attr144_3=nikon_d850&attr146_0=200_5&attr146_1=200_5&attr146_2=100_6&attr146_3=100_6&attr177_0=off&attr177_1=off&attr177_2=off&attr177_3=off&attr404_0=1&attr404_2=1&attr404_3=1&normalization=compare&widget=665&x=0.0761158874101992&y=0.6774380890519981

=> still not in the range of other popular cameras as D500 or D850. A pity that the abilities of the quad pixel sensor are not fully utilized in this model, but maybe the Panasonic GH-6 does.

=> what remains is a possible improvement in AF that may be worth an upgrade (not for me, I find AF of EM1II already pretty good)...

Wolfgang

2 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

Test images for comparison are available at DPreview and they confirm the curves from photonstophotons:

High ISO noise is a tick worse in OM-1, compared to EM1II: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=omsystem_om1&attr13_1=olympus_em1ii&attr13_2=nikon_d500&attr13_3=nikon_d850&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=12800&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.00995536116494327&y=0.7174470445570055

Noise in brightened up shadows is a tick better in OM-1, compared to EM1II: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=omsystem_om1&attr144_1=olympus_em1ii&attr144_2=nikon_d500&attr144_3=nikon_d850&attr146_0=200_5&attr146_1=200_5&attr146_2=100_6&attr146_3=100_6&attr177_0=off&attr177_1=off&attr177_2=off&attr177_3=off&attr404_0=1&attr404_2=1&attr404_3=1&normalization=compare&widget=665&x=0.0761158874101992&y=0.6774380890519981

=> still not in the range of other popular cameras as D500 or D850. A pity that the abilities of the quad pixel sensor are not fully utilized in this model, but maybe the Panasonic GH-6 does.

=> what remains is a possible improvement in AF that may be worth an upgrade (not for me, I find AF of EM1II already pretty good)...

 

Wolfgang

1. The Panasonic GH6 does not use Quadbayer structure but a single pixel CFA structure

2. Autofocus is not a reason on its own for any change in underwater equipment for me but some people feel different. For me image quality is paramount the rest I can fix myself

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

1. The Panasonic GH6 does not use Quadbayer structure but a single pixel CFA structure

=> Right, but as far as I understand the reports, the GH-6 uses a dual gain mode with high and low sensitivity of pixels at the same time and in one photo. The result (in theory) would be increased DR and lower noise in shadows, as one could deliberately overexpose the high sensitivity pixels without saturating the low sensitivity pixels (similar to the quad pixel sensor in the HDR mode). We have still to wait how the performance in real life will be..

2. Autofocus is not a reason on its own for any change in underwater equipment for me but some people feel different. For me image quality is paramount the rest I can fix myself

=> I totally agree, but better AF would not hurt...

Wolfgang

I also agree that the E-M1 mk II and mk III have sufficiently capable AF for most underwater use cases, except tracking fast moving subjects.  Now that I am learning to shoot birds in flight, I am hoping for better continuous AF + tracking, as my E-M1 mk II cannot keep up reliably. 

As for noise, I have quit worrying about it since installing Topaz DeNoise (and Sharpen) as Lightroom plugins. It works like magic and has no downside that I can perceive.

4 minutes ago, troporobo said:

I also agree that the E-M1 mk II and mk III have sufficiently capable AF for most underwater use cases, except tracking fast moving subjects.  Now that I am learning to shoot birds in flight, I am hoping for better continuous AF + tracking, as my E-M1 mk II cannot keep up reliably. 

As for noise, I have quit worrying about it since installing Topaz DeNoise (and Sharpen) as Lightroom plugins. It works like magic and has no downside that I can perceive.

I went diving with the GH5M2 last summer and used CAF for the first time. It worked absolutely fine unless it was pitch black

Tracking on MFT cameras is unreliable (do not confuse detection and tracking they are two different things) so I just used small area CAF and it worked well

I need to check how tracking work on the GH6 as I understand the OM-1 tracking has not been updated

Well, I succumbed and bought an OM-1 - it's primarily a land camera for the foreseeable future, though it'll be interesting to see what housings appear for it in future - Putting in a vote for an EM-1 mkII/III style housing from Nauticam hope they don't decide to make a big expensive video style housing for it!  It's a stills camera that can do some video on the side so need for M24 ports, separate back style housing as used for the GH5 etc.

So how is it???  In no particular order

• AF is a big step up it snapped to focus on subjects where the EM-1 II just hunted in low light
• new high res EVF is excellent and layout of info is good- keeps out of way of image
• ISO3200 is very usable.  The AI based noise reduction in OM Workspace does a nice job
• Noise is subjectively better then EM-1 MkII
• Bigger battery is nice with 25% more capacity
• Subject tracking works pretty well
• The better in body stabilisation  is great.
• Body is very solid in the hand feels very high quality - the sort of feel you had with the Canon 1D - 1Dx series cameras

Some samples - non marine of course but give you an idea:

Common Bronzewing with 300mm f4/1.4x 1/80 @ f8 ISO800 handheld :  Bronzewing

Did have any subjects needing high ISO so in best traditions of DPreview of old I took a photo on my cat in low light indoors.

1/60 @ f8 300mm f4 ISO3200:  Maxxie

on this shot the OM-1/300mm f4 snapped to focus but the EM-1 just hunted and refused to focus.

And here is a 100% crop comparing Capture one Noise reduction (standard) and OM workspace AI based NR :

from image above:  noise compare

To compare noise performance with EM-1 MkII, I took shots of a dry flower arrangement at ISO3200.

this is about 50% of frame: ISO3200_frame

and is here is a EM-1 MkII/OM-1 comparison, 100% crops bothe capture one processed:  Compare EM-1 II and OM-1 noise

Subjectively to me the noise on the OM-1 is better - more even without the clumpy noise from the EM-1 II, using OM workspace should improve it further.

I linked the files rather than paste in so I could show 1600 px on long side files.  All in all seems like a great camera.

Well, I succumbed and bought an OM-1 - it's primarily a land camera for the foreseeable future, though it'll be interesting to see what housings appear for it in future - Putting in a vote for an EM-1 mkII/III style housing from Nauticam hope they don't decide to make a big expensive video style housing for it!  It's a stills camera that can do some video on the side so need for M24 ports, separate back style housing as used for the GH5 etc.
So how is it???  In no particular order

• AF is a big step up it snapped to focus on subjects where the EM-1 II just hunted in low light
• new high res EVF is excellent and layout of info is good- keeps out of way of image
• ISO3200 is very usable.  The AI based noise reduction in OM Workspace does a nice job
• Noise is subjectively better then EM-1 MkII
• Bigger battery is nice with 25% more capacity
• Subject tracking works pretty well
• The better in body stabilisation  is great.
• Body is very solid in the hand feels very high quality - the sort of feel you had with the Canon 1D - 1Dx series cameras

Some samples - non marine of course but give you an idea:
Common Bronzewing with 300mm f4/1.4x 1/80 @ f8 ISO800 handheld :  Bronzewing
Did have any subjects needing high ISO so in best traditions of DPreview of old I took a photo on my cat in low light indoors.
1/60 @ f8 300mm f4 ISO3200:  Maxxie
on this shot the OM-1/300mm f4 snapped to focus but the EM-1 just hunted and refused to focus.
And here is a 100% crop comparing Capture one Noise reduction (standard) and OM workspace AI based NR :
from image above:  noise compare
To compare noise performance with EM-1 MkII, I took shots of a dry flower arrangement at ISO3200.
this is about 50% of frame: ISO3200_frame
and is here is a EM-1 MkII/OM-1 comparison, 100% crops bothe capture one processed:  Compare EM-1 II and OM-1 noise
Subjectively to me the noise on the OM-1 is better - more even without the clumpy noise from the EM-1 II, using OM workspace should improve it further.
I linked the files rather than paste in so I could show 1600 px on long side files.  All in all seems like a great camera.

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

This means when you compare what the camera is telling you they are identical settings they aren’t
On the AF side I saw a video in japanese the speed of aurofocus has increased 3x in some cases and now single AF works correctly
There are also many users reporting different issues that appear quality control problems so check your camera is fully functional


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mine seems good so far, I'll often wait for a while before buying , but had the opportunity to grab one so I did!  The AF is certainly quicker and works in lower light.

Great info, thanks Chris!

7 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

Mine seems good so far, I'll often wait for a while before buying , but had the opportunity to grab one so I did!  The AF is certainly quicker and works in lower light.

I am looking if I should consider one for land use however underwater I see no benefit compared to what I have. The key issue to be addressed for me is to have a better IQ in still than I already have without compromising on video and this camera although is an improvement on the AF is not really on the IQ and video is still a second thought.

I am not sure it will fly as an underwater housing option  considering prices are going to the sky but for certain land situations would definitely be a good weapon

All things being equal the OM-1 appears to be the best M43 camera for underwater photography built to date. For the reasons Chris has listed above and several more including the best lens line the new OM-1 seems to be an excellent upgrade or entry into interchangeable lens mirrorless.

Nauticam has now announced the NA-OM1 housing at what seems an excellent price point of $2786.00US. By comparison the GH6 housing is $4503.00 and both provide a M24 bulkhead for HDMI 2.