Full Version: Full Olympus E-M1X specs leaked
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

competition at its highest all manufacturers  making new extremely capable cameras with features that were even unimaginable just a few years ago


Is this Olympus's last attempt at trying to make a truly pro M3/4rds camera?.........General Custer's last stand?

There's something pretty bizarre about it's conception...........you get a camera that weighs "997 gms" width 144.4 mm × height 146.8mm × depth 75.4mm...

It's bigger/heavier than many FF DSLRs.....in fact it's only 18 gms lighter than the heavy D850.........it's only sporting the M3/4rds sensor.... for the love of God!.....

Size comparison D500 147 x 115 x 81 mm, 860 g... ...D750 .....141 x 113 x 78 mm, 750 g

...... look a little closer and you'll find the EVF is still hanging in with the older 2.36 million dot EVF, where Nikon/ Sony/Canon are using the latest 3.6 million dots......RAW files are only 12 bit.....they've cut back on the IQ ingredients whilst feeding a never ending selection of pointless features.

This camera is for Gizmo-holics who would otherwise "have no other future path" with the M3/4rds system and have money that's burning a hole in their pockets......

.......and that fiery hole is unofficially reported to be $3,000.

Please someone tell me I've misunderstood the point of this big, heavy and expensive Christmas tree?
Even if this one is super-capable - the form factor remains mad.
High end performance for professionals, without the subject separation professionals want/need. Crazy indeed. Or does Olympus have any 150mm f1.4 and 300mm f2 lenses that I don't know about?
Only the 300mm f2.8 makes sense with this camera, but only having a 300mm lens is rather limiting.

20.4mp for MFT, that pushes the sensor quickly into diffraction softening territory. then again, the 50/80mp trick modes are quite smart, as they allow you to circumvent diffraction headaches while allowing high MP output with a pretty small sensor. Of course, these trick modes have limited use cases.
Three posters and all diminuishing a new camera from Olympus, tsk, tsk, tsk...

If that camera isn't for the four of us, it still isn't "General Custer's last stand", "in a mad formfactor", "making sense with only a 300/2.8 lens".

If you need to compare it weightwise, daver, then don't go apples and bananas, dave: It's a µ4/3 D5, the battery grip is unseparable. And then we're talking about a miniaturized D5 - does it make sense? I don't know, for a Olympus owner it probably does, because he or she already accepted the shortcomings of a very small sensor. So stop comparing it to FF types without a grip, it's plain stupid.

Mad form factor, Klaus? BS. Within the Olympus cosmos it will find it's buyers, even if none of us knows a Pro shooting in µ4/3.

And BC, you're old equivalencing babble is for the trash. Shallow DoF will never ever be the main reason to buy µ4/3. How about this lens: https://www.dailycameranews.com/2019/01/olympus-150-400mm-f4-5-pro-lens-with-built-in-1-25x-teleconverter/ Olympus has rather capable, fast lenses, and this kind of ruggedized, highly weather sealed body will deal with more harsh conditions than the majority. The whole package doesn't give a price advantage (as only miniaturisation never does), but compared to a similar FF professional system it will be lighter and smaller.

There are not that many 150ish - 400ish zooms with constant f/4.5. For FF, that is. In reality FF would need a 300-800/4.5 to go along. Again I'm not talking about DoF, I'm talking about fast shutter speeds.
JoJu, professional sports shooters DO care about DOF. They really do. Check some sports photos. As do wildlife photographers, for instance. So yes, equivalence is again not "babble for the trash".
They DON't care about DoF as much as they DO care about fast shutter speeds. It's no point in large DoF if the picture is blurred of full of noise.

So, the shallow DoF is a result of the necessity to shoot wide open whenever possible. It's a nice side effect to isolate the object, but I entirely disagree about DoF as more important than getting a sharp picture. Therefore I'm sticking with "babble for the trash" Wink
I know quite a few professionals that shoot µ4/3, though I'm really not sure they'd want to go to the big "square" bodies again as they're rocking the likes of E-M1 Mark II which, as far as I understand, is a very capable camera in a very reasonable form factor. Some of these people switched from big (mostly Nikon) bricks a la D4, some from mid-sized Canon APS-C and FF bodies (5D/7D series etc). Therefore I'm not entirely sure who this camera is supposed to be for - the stratum is likely very thin. Then again, I guess Olympus gets the most of cash from the entry level stuff and can, or rather needs to, build a "halo" camera emphasizing innovation, some of which will trickle down to the cameras below on the food chain.

Personally, if I had been shooting µ4/3 for a living, I'd probably be tempted but ultimately decided against buying such a camera, opting for an E-M1 Mark II instead. I may yet have the chance to switch sometime down the line. Smile


BC is totally right here.
Of course sports/wildlife shooters care about shallow depth of field.........and it's no coincidence that they care about sharp, no.... super sharp images.....Nikkor 600mm F4 lenses aren't cheap...... blowing out the backgrounds behind subjects "is" what it's all about.

This is a product that is presented as a professional sports camera.........personally as good as it may be and as wonderful it's feature list is......I can't see pro sports shooters being able to make a living with it.....lack of depth of field/noise.....

I hate lens equivalence posts in general but here it's most applicable!.......the camera is best described as high spec flagship sports action M3/4rds MLC.....not pro sports!

IMHO Olympus lost it's reason d'être which was all about the diminutive form factor!
Let's be realistic that's a very capable camera yes, but there are plenty of excellent alternatives out there, a few years ago when APS-H was common for sports in Canon land (1D series) or even APS-C in Nikon before D3 was launched land I didn't read a lot of DOF complaints.
Now who would pick this one over competitors, not many I guess
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5