Olympus E-M1X Hands On Preview | Should Sony, Nikon & Canon Be Worried?

[@billedmunds80]

"Who is this camera for?" Nature photographers love it. Especially those shooting birds. Its portability, amazing weather proofing, and ability to record 35 frames before you even press the shutter, etc. And there are countless sample images of "blown out" backgrounds with small birds at least. So, yes, there is a user in mind.

[@helloianzakharov]

I am nature photographer and don’t take Olympus for free. Low IQ, zero details, no high ISO. I get awesome birds shots with 20 fps and 12000 ISO with my Canon. After all I can crop 45 Mp image. Olympus is a joke if you’re looking for quality

[@jakebloomwood9406]

@@helloianzakharov Mabe youre just not that good?

[@johnnywatson4914]

@@helloianzakharov get better at photography then.

[@FierceSleepingDog]

​@@helloianzakharovI thought I read all the dumb comments in this thread....and then I read yours... Congrats...this is the winner

[@bradsmith3123]

"A photographer went to a socialite party in New York. As he entered the front door, the host said 'I love your pictures - they're wonderful; you must have a fantastic camera.' He said nothing until dinner was finished, then: 'That was a wonderful dinner; you must have a terrific stove.' " Sam Haskins

[@batwork4031]

Good analogy, You must have a terrific computer.

[@thechameleondad5683]

nice one..it was all about how you take the pictures and not the camera, the settings, angle, editing and more! just the way you cook a nice meal with a good recipes and technique..its not all about the stove..#sorry4badgrammar

[@anandhua.b4589]

@@thechameleondad5683 thanks for stating the obvious

[@laurencegr9978]

Totally.

[@__Logan__]

@@thechameleondad5683 r/woosh

[@Kuromankuro]

"this shoots 18 fps, good until you consider the a9 shoots 20 in full frame. Way better." -Jared Polin "I turned it down to 12 fps, because I didn't want to overshoot any more is way too much" - Also Jared Polin Okay maybe putting quotes on it is a bit of a stretch.

[@ryantang8146]

Kuromankuro A Sony A9 only shoots 5 FPS if u use mechanical shutter even the mark ii only shoot 10 FPS mechanically if u really want to compare.

[@bozmundarts2614]

@@ryantang8146 ... yeah EVERYONE knows, you're supposed to use the electronic shutter. Literally the only use for mechanical shutters nowadays are to protect the sensor-

[@bozmundarts2614]

I mean, 18 or 20 fps serves excellently for instant action? Its like saying *you will* be using 10fps to shoot still subjects- its not that hard thinking about it unless you havent used these cameras :|

[@ejacks3]

Sometimes I think people get too caught up on the whole DOF 'blownout" thing. Having this look does not make you a professional. Sorry it does not. Use the tool that works best for your style of shooting. I use everything from m43 cameras to medium format film cameras. I use the best tool for the giving situation. I've seen some photographers who exclusively use m43 systems produce outstanding work with beautifully blurred backgrounds. They do this because they understand their chosen system and know how to work with and around it's limitations. You know what makes you "professional'? It's producing consistent quality work, understanding composition, lighting, telling a story with you images, and having some type of connection with your subject. Anyone can buy a camera regardless of it's capabilities but it does not make you a Pro. Bottomline, use what works best for you, create outstanding images and tell stories.

[@thethirdman225]

And telling stories means context, which is the best argument _against_ shallow depth of field. Backgrounds are important!

[@DigitalNegative]

Plus, the DOF being wider is a boon to shooting long focal lengths and valuing getting the subject in focus above the background out of focus.

[@helloianzakharov]

We already have no shallow DoF cameras. They are smartphones

[@danielnt9733]

And again, you can shoot with a USD 10’000.- 600mm F4 lens weighing 4kg (+ the 2-3 kg tripod that goes with it) to get that picture of a motorcycle with a shallow DOF with FF camera but not everybody wants that..

[@veganpotterthevegan]

I actually don't want too much bokeh. I pick locations for a reason. I don't want to hide them. And I'm a M43s guy. But with FF, you can pick and do either. I don't have that freedom. I don't want it either but I get why others do.

[@laurencegr9978]

"Blown out background" = professional-looking photo 😂

[@FastRCToys]

Totally convinced. I've bought one right now...

[@jammin023]

13:10 If you'd just say "blurred out" instead of "blown out" then you wouldn't have to explain it...

[@malcolmpreston5722]

They have now dropped the price to 2000 dollars 😊 so I purchased and I don’t regret it 👍🏻 The camera is awesome 👏🏻 and the quality is fantastic, portability fantastic, ergonomics fantastic, speed excellent. Someone once said the best camera in the world is the one you have with you and with all things considered the Olympus wins hands down. To end I think it was a great review 😊👍🏻

[@LevAizik]

I saw the new price on Amazon. Still, 2,000 dollars for a dead brand is a lot. You could have bought the Z7 or the EM1 Mark for $1,400 (new price). The EM1 Mark III is basically the EM1-X without the additional grip.

[@dondixon2661]

Id like to say I shot at iso 3200 on my Canon 7dmk2 and I shot iso 6400 on an Olympus omd e m1 mk2 and can you guess which one had more noise in the image? The canon 7dmk2 did at half the iso!!! So I think there is a HUGE biased from Jared and with that does he know photo or is it just opinions and biases? Im looking for a huge reason not to trade in my canon for an olympus but I cant find one. Its lighter, faster, smaller and the image quality is on par if not better in some situations. The depth of field is one stop different but as a wildlife photographer I shoot at f/8 to get the entire subject in focus anyways, again cant find a reason, Each camera will have its strengths and weaknesses and each one will do a job better than the other. For traveling, wildlife and people that are tired of carting around 50+ pounds of camera gear for those just in case situations then the Olympus wins every spot

[@DeepteshLovesTECH]

Why are you comparing with 7dmark2, compare it with a Sony A7iii or heck compare it with a 900usd Sony A6400 and see why spending 3 grand on Micro 4/3 is a waste.

[@philipswan1016]

Thanks for posting I was waiting for the 7diii to come out and never did and as a wildlife sports guy this makes a lot of sense. Your comparison re iso was helpful. Remember this thing is bulletproof and weighs very little.

[@joeysandoval2511]

Bro I totally agree this guy shits on olympus . While at the same time not knowing for every disadvantage it has a advantage in every aspect !

[@patraulea84]

I had the same with a sony friend, he came with A77 FF i think qnd i was with my em10iii, he almost start crying when he saw i was going up with iso like hell, his face wasn t that happy, and my images was clear than his,even he said it and that s hard for a sony fanboy to admit it, later we decide to switch the sistems, after half hour my hand wrist was hurting, i will never switch from olympus.

[@dondixon2661]

@@DeepteshLovesTECH easy because I OWNED a 7dmk2 at the time, I have now switched to Olympus and I havent looked back once. I can throw my entire kit in a backpack and ride my mountain bike with ease. Im getting more shots due to being able to travel easier with it and the quality is still amazing me, and I am a pixel peeper. I could have bought the sony at friends and family cost but Sony just is way to big and heavy, besides Im a wildlife photographer and I get stuck in the rain and snow sometimes, the Sony would have been ruined by now

[@SaschaErni]

Regarding lack of shallow DOF - in my line of work (photojournalism) I'm more or less always required to provide context, i.e. a totally blown-out background isn't the greatest idea ever. I do need subject separation, but the context of when / where the picture was taken is important, too. On full-frame, I usually need to stop down to f/4-5.6 @ 50mm for this reason. But of course - it’s better to have the option between full-blowout and less-shallowness than to be forced to work with less blurry backgrounds in ALL situations. Options are good. It's also why I still use FX in some situations (headshots for interviews and the like), even though I mostly shoot Olympus nowadays.

[@maxfactor4209]

Maybe you are right but you should have the option. This camera doesn't

[@airdailyx]

max factor exactly!

[@TheKelvala]

The advantage I have noticed with this is since my F2.8 DOF is not your "normal?" 2.8 DOF. I can shoot @2.8 and not just get the tip of the nose in focus. I might get the nose and up to the ear in focus, while my counterparts have to shoot in F4.0 or even F5.6 to get the same DOF I get @2.8. In turn, my camera takes in more light, lower ISO, etc...etc...etc... Gear-head friends of mine have tested this against my Oly. You have to remember not to get caught up in the reviews, previews and opinions of others. One of my gear-head buds shoots high-end sports cars and models with a Sony 6000 and is routinely featured in high end magazines. I had budget, I shot Canon, Nikon, Panasonic and Oly (A7III was not out yet) and for me the Oly fit the bill and is making me money. What can I say, its paid itself off already. Win-Win. Get out and shoot.

[@TechnoBabble]

@@TheKelvala But your camera is NOT gathering more light. at f5.6 other people are getting the same DoF and noise on a full frame camera. The difference is they are also getting more dynamic range and colour depth in most cases. On top of that they also have the OPTION of opening up to 2.8 and then getting 1/4 the noise or shoot in 1/4 the light with the same noise, while you can't do that.

[@TheKelvala]

@@TechnoBabble I get it. It does come down to algorithms, sensor size, etc.... Believe me, had I had the option to buy into the Sony, I would have done it in a heartbeat. It all came down to timing and budget. At the time of purchase, Nikon and Canon were floating rumors with nothing substantial. I was choosing in between the 5D, D700, Olympus and the release date of the Sony. i am not brand specific at all. My first DSLR was in 2002 (Nikon D100), from there I had the D2h, Canon 1D, 1Ds and 5D. Each one served their own purpose. The Oly does have its limitations, but in the end, "Is the client happy?" When the time comes to refresh the lot, I'll see whats available at that time and go from there. Until then, happy shooting TechnoBabble!

[@TheNarrowbandChannel]

If you as a professional photographer think that bokeh will sell your photos your heading for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Digitally even cell phones can now do shall depth of field. You can say that it is not as good but the customer cannot tell and it gets better with every firmware update.

[@lethelthurman3684]

Not every photo need to have a blurred background even being a portrait photographer like your self, it all depends on the story your telling with that photo. If I went to the Grand Canyon I don't think a blurred background would be wanted there why even go. All of the brand cameras today are equal matching full frame to full frame, apsc to apsc. Pick a camera learn it stop chasing cameras.

[@arunashamal]

not every photo need to have a shallow dept of field... very true..but when you need to have a shallow depth of field you don't have it with this

[@roswellgrey9771]

@@arunashamal You do have it. He is comparing a 300 mm lens, calls it a 600 mm. They are not the same. If you compare equal mm lenses you can have the DOF you desire and there won't be much of a difference.

[@chrisbaudeg3233]

@@arunashamal Just use the Panny Nocticron, the 75mm 1.8, or any of the 1.2 Zuiko's. Think!!!

[@CarlosBenjamin]

Stop with the whole “small sensors can’t do narrow DOF”..... it’s completely untrue. That’s a function of the optics. Calling a 300 a 600 does not make it one. You have a reduced field of view, sure, and that may mean you change your camera to subject distance to get the composition you want and that will certainly have an effect on DOF..... but adapt a fast “full frame” lens and keep camera to subject distances the same you’ll get similar bokeh to the full frame sensor.... The rest of the info was great.

[@scottiesretro1213]

Jared has never used one of the Olympus 1.8 primes. No DOF issues with them. But Jared does not let facts stand in the way of his opinion

[@MrCochise71]

3 grand? Pretty painful.

[@MikeBrunetti]

They should have priced this the same as Panasonic’s g9 (their professional mft photo camera). Which I personally think preforms better than what I saw from the Olympus.

[@Aksunkuvat]

3 grand for in camera software artificially improved image il pass

[@txemari100]

Pero pagando por otras máquinas de 5 g, parece que no es doloroso.

[@floatingrabbit3556]

@CaptainOmG No it would have been perfect...if it wasn't made.. It's they just woke up 4 years ago and decided to make a camera.

[@marcg3923]

it means you have lots of financial problems

[@vaclavadamek4362]

Now we have to watch some other reviews to see how to shoot with m4/3 with higher ISO with no issue, how Pro-Capture actually works and how great and improved it is and so on. I mean constructive criticism is always good for improvement but here I see Jared did not spend enough time to learn the camera or did not want to do so.

[@fillingthewall9218]

I have never seen any cinematic footage from your KZbin but I know a lot of cinematic footage from black magic cinema 4k that have m43

[@DmitryAKo]

Good af, weather sealed, fast, no bokeh (a lot of details), compact, great ibis for video etc . what pros will use it? One word: photojournalists

[@savageshutter7211]

bokeh= cinematic.. hmmm i geuss thats 1 part but isnt everything could you imagine if every movie had a blown out backround how the hell would you know where their at

[@mcmoose64]

So I'm guessing that was your first and final Olympus trip.

[@kalel33]

If it is then that's disappointing to hear. A camera company shouldn't just bring in the people that only laud your product. Especially with MFT, how many reviewers could you actually get that think MFT is great?

[@lrb05131963]

Hahaha,i think so,lol

[@frijin490]

Olympus trips? More like JIP trips but wait, no more of those.

[@MrRumbleBeee]

As an Olympus fan this video makes me mad because you are 100% right. Sony is looking like a great option right now. 😒

[@tomerweiss4900]

When you combine Sony + Lenses you understand that OMD is a better alternative. IQ may get 10% in Sony while you will pay at least X2

[@cooloox]

@@tomerweiss4900 I'd imagine the IQ difference is a lot more than 10%. The high ISO noise is more like 200+% worse on micro 4/3.

[@tomerweiss4900]

@@cooloox no way I have 5DSR ... 50MP its 10% in the best scenario ... for 90% of my use-cases OMD wins.

[@c.augustin]

Don't. Sony sensors are incredible, dynamic range would blow your mind - but, man, try to find some affordable and *small* lenses for the Sony system. This is the reason why I switched (back) to MFT and no longer consider Sony FF cameras (my A7 collects dust and is used for technical work since then). Low light is an issue with MFT, but much less than Jared makes it look - he even admits that the "grain structure" at high ISO looks quite nice on the Olympus (actually on all models), and this is exactly what makes me comfortable with this system; would not be good enough for a professional sports shooter, though …

[@kikipratama1]

I believe it's a good camera. For the issue with the price, pretty sure it's often because it's new, so wait for a while. Remember 6D mark ii ? The price was the worst for just a simple full framer. But now, it's the most bang for the buck at just around 1K. Well... time will tell. The only thing that I concerned about this camera might be the size. I mean... it looks BIGGER than even many full-frame mirrorless today. And about that depth of field and ISO performance... I believe it's mostly depends on the lens. You know, many Olympus' lenses are offered with apertures larger than f2 . They could've make a lens as open as f1 (wich is unfortunately i didn't find any).

[@apgawrys]

You spoke constantly, "FULL FRAME CAMERAS" ! My film days it was hard to beat my LEICA R 8 with 14 lenses. (late 70s) Try to understand what you're talking about. You are talking about a 4/3rds format not a full frame 35mm formate which is much more expensive. You also mention the background is blown-out! Once again, you mentioned not being sharp in the background no depth as full frame cameras. Maybe the 4/3rds is indeed better in that respect than full-frame 35mm format cameras. Take my LEICA R8 with my 80mm f1.4, shot a portrait 4 feet away at f1.4, the background is soft with no sharpness no depth. It is way blown out, as you mentioned in 4/3rds formate. Maybe it is more pleasing, more attractive to the viewer. Why don't you compare full frame 35mm format to 4x5 format ? You are not doing the correct homework! Try to understand the making of a photograph with the equipment used. AP

[@frenchcoupon3391]

By far one of the most rugged camera ever. That feature alone is gold to me. And I want to shoot 90% short movies with vintage lenses.

[@alfathsayyidina]

Olympus make great camera, but sadly it's too expensive for just a micro 4/3 camera... cause the mid level camera something like EM 5 just did the job very well... but for your statement about the depth of field is must be "blown" im disagree about that.... sport photography it's about moment..

[@kimbrising3627]

The depth-of-field (DOF)-debate is exaggerated. I have not seen many photos by professional portrait-, landscape-, or street-photographers or photojournalists with an extremely shallow DOF (not to mention all the classical photos of photographers like Yousuf Karsh, Ansel Adams, or Henri-Cartier Bresson). DOF is just one of many tools a photographer can use to express what he/she wants to express through his/her art. A skilled photographer knows how to create sufficient DOF also with a micro four thirds (MFT)-system.

[@thethirdman225]

Kim Brising The shallow DOF brigade always talk about separation. The trouble is they are 100% reliant on equipment to do it. The rest of us use lighting.

[@laurencegr9978]

Totally.

[@21upbowls]

Therein lies the answer, jared isnt a skilled photographer!

[@cameraconspiracies]

You went easy on them :) Good vid.

[@doptimist]

Hi Kasey 👋🏻

[@sooovann8908]

And he said good thing about flippy touch screen this time ;)

[@Fitzaey]

Bruh, it has a flippy screen!!!!

[@JPStaats]

Lum well done on coming out.

[@Pinguch]

Bokeh nonsense again

[@speedwolf5212]

A giant body with a tiny m4/3 sensor that costs $3,000? And it has a terrible evf, screen & menu system? 🤨

[@charlesheinzphotography1637]

stupid argument, and wrong. EVF is great, Menu is less terrible then other brands (Sony). and at least you have a real body in hand, not a small one like Sony

[@charlesheinzphotography1637]

@moo why do professionals rank the EVF as great then? Did you ever compare both side to side? If so didn't you see that Sony menus are badly designed?

[@tebitan3780]

@@charlesheinzphotography1637 not so bad like olympus? and evf is from 3 years, the good ones from last year are 3.69 mil oled, not that crap

[@charlesheinzphotography1637]

@@tebitan3780 just becasue it is not a Oled evf doesnt mean it is crap, it does still is a great one, you dont always need the newest tec in the camera. I also did test the A7M3 by Sony once and the EVF was flickering what about that problem? It is way worse then a "older" piece of technology

[@tebitan3780]

@@charlesheinzphotography1637 well, evf on both is same refresh rate, so if you see it flickering on one, you would see it on the other. and the evf on the sony a7m3 nobody said it was good. it is similar with the olympus, only very slightly better probably (or if you are olympus obsessed you would say it is very slightly worse)

[@fernanddurler4709]

YOU HAVE NOT DONE YOUR HOMEWORK DUDE…..THIS IS HJANDS DOWN ONE OF THE BEST CAMRAS EVER MADE AND THE NEW OM1 EVEN BETTER. IN EUROPE EVERYONE IS CROSSING OVER FROM FULL FRAME….SPEND TWO WEEKS WITH IT IN VARIOUS SENARIOS AND NOTHING TOUCHES ITS VERSATILTY. OLYMPUS HAS THE BEST OPTICS PERIOD.

[@raredreamfootage]

"Cinematic" is more about lighting than shallow depth of field. Feature films rarely use F1.4 full frame equivalent.

[@OutlawFarmersRC]

Cinematographers don't use F stops at all LOL

[@PaulMiil]

A lot of scenes in big flicks have super-deep dof. Never seen a movie where every shot is shallow DOF.

[@arthurlamir494]

haha, youre right@@OutlawFarmersRC

[@chansouvannarath3789]

TV movies are great examples of shallow depth of field. Kubrick, Kurusawa for example.

[@shaikyaseen2687]

@@OutlawFarmersRC I am curious. if you dont mind, can you elaborate?

[@rcsor3]

Why don't you spend a little time researching some of the functions of this camera before you criticize that particular feature (i.e., ProCapture)?

[@txemari100]

​@CaptainOmG I see a lot of ignorance to those who criticize Olympus. The procapture is incredible, the photo does not escape

[@ncheltsov]

Somebody mentioned in a clip that all famous photographers in the past never used shallow DOF for their photography and they used primarily full and middle formats. They even considered it to be a bad practice for a composition purposes, because you get away easy by blurring the background and avoiding more complex composition. Just saying...

[@MusikPiratCH]

Take into consideration what bodies and what lenses those famous photographers of the past had! It's like saying nobody listened to DVD 40 years ago! That's a complete useless argument because DVD wasn't invented at that time! :P The same thing goes with those cameras (with films). They ALL were FF using this 35mm film! You could choose beetween films with 36 exposures between several fixed ISOs (most of them were 100, 200 or even 400 - there were some specialized ISO of 25 or even 1200). And you could choose between daylight and some color temperatures! This restriction has completely gone with the digital film and therefore smaller sensors like the MFT were possible! ;)

[@roswellgrey9771]

@@MusikPiratCH 35 mm film was just that, 35 mm film; it wasn't full frame. There were many different sizes, 110, 4 X 5, 6 X 9, etc..

[@MusikPiratCH]

@@roswellgrey9771 Well, if you bought a (nowadays called FF) Canon AE-1 you had a 35mm film camera. Most camera brands like Canon, Nikon and Minolta made cameras for this 35mm film! (Of course there were other sizes but they were less common. As there were films with 24 pictures ....)

[@PMS1950]

Seems like an excellent camera, which is more than can be said for the review.

[@MrBigbadbowen]

I really don't get the issue with the menu! I had the em1 mk i and I just took to it, panasonic and Sony menus, I just got lost, but olympus was great, maybe it's just me!

[@MrBigbadbowen]

@CaptainOmG to an extent I agree, but pana and Sony aren't layed out in the best way imo

[@tomerweiss4900]

I agree with you .... I have 5DSR & OMD-EM1 II - SCP is so great at Olympus.

[@ladislavsvencik]

Yeah, its you. Spot on.

[@Reyfox1]

@@MrBigbadbowen You can have quick access menu with Panasonic. Layout is a personal preference. That's all.... for "me", Pana is fine and can be easily accessed.

[@jaxbrie]

I don't find the menu on the E-M5 anywhere near intuitive - on the contrary, I yell at it all the time. But I love the camera. Sony's menu, as well, is downright bizarre, as was my Nikon's. Oddly enough, my SLRs and range finders don't have that problem :-)

[@FrayAdjacentTX]

Honesty is always good! I'm not a pro shooter, and I really like my OM-D EM-5 MkII, and I'm REALLY hoping Olympus updates it this year. I'll stick with the platform as I have glass for it, and I'm not a pro. I like that the E-M1X has some pretty badass features, but some of those negatives are pretty bad. Oh well, it's not a camera I would have ever bought anyway. I do hope some of the badassness filters down into the EM-5 MkIII, though.

[@BrentODell]

I have Panasonic and Olympus cameras, and I'm also hoping to see some of this tech trickle down to the em5 mk iii, em1 mk iii, etc.

[@Rationalific]

I think the E-M5/10 series is where Olympus shines brightest. (Even the E-M1 is a bit of a stretch.) They are kind of thinking too big here and biting off more than they can chew. Go more towards the cheaper PEN series for beginners, E-M10 for enthusiasts, and E-M5 for those who are serious and want everything that Olympus can throw at them. The E-M1 can remain, but again, I think it's slightly getting out of their sweet spot. This camera is way out there.

[@raksh9]

Since the EM-1X seems to be aimed more at sports and wildlife shooters, maybe the EM-5 Mark III will be aimed at video shooters, retaining much of the weatherproofing etc of the flagship model, losing some of the fps and tracking, but doing even better at video. That is, unless Olympus thinks there's a bigger market for video shooters who would be swayed away from the new flagship, in which case they won't want to cannibalize their own sales.

[@FrayAdjacentTX]

I hope they do position the EM-5 MkIII as a GH5 killer when it comes to video. I'd be so happy with that!!

[@raksh9]

I have an original E-M5, and while the video is was not up to the GH2 or GH3, which was its contemporary, the IBIS is still ahead of most current cameras with IBIS. Olympus really knows how to make IBIS work. If Oly can make a E-m5 Mark III with video quality and specs like the GH5, it could cause a significant shift in buyers of these cameras.

[@timbradbury9734]

At the 16:20 mark the truth comes out; "I hate 4/3". So why the heck review it? A review that starts with bias isn't a review at all.

[@evanmcknight2566]

Good video. I'm an Olympus and Nikon owner. Each camera system has their advantages and disadvantages that we have to accept. I think the video highlighted that well and will allow a consumer to make an informed choice. Cheers

[@pharaoh666666]

The only audience I can think of for this camera is people who already are invested in the Olympus system and want those extra video features. This camera is, unfortunately, Olympus doing the best they can with the tech they already have. As an em1 mk2 owner, i would have loved a second body that could outperform it for wildlife and landscapes so that I could keep it as a backup. For that price point, it just won't cut it since you could compensate for all of the other features with a bit of extra user effort. If it drops to about 2000$, I might consider it down the line. Olympus badly needs new sensor tech though.

[@tobiasmoeckel]

"...since you could compensate for all of the other features with a bit of extra user effort" Exactly my thought. Take Live ND for example. It is so easy to just take a bunch of images ans merge them in Photoshop to "simulate" a long exposure. Yes, it is nice to do that in-camera and skip the extra step in post, but again, this is NOT a selling point. If you look at the core differences compared with the EM-1 II, there really isn't that much, except for some of the video features, which are still better in the GH5!

[@OniMirage]

Update your EM1 MII ... all of the 1X focus algorithms and Low ISO processing features are now available for the MII

[@theodorecoleanderson7850]

I agree a small amount of people have a use for this camera but I can see this being a professionals second camera that they would use for group shots for let’s say a wedding or Mitzvah. It could be a good choice for them because they could get a group more in focus while still being able to be wide open on the aperture for darker situations.

[@Omanjisinkala]

wow, real facts, i am on a $1200 budget and need a camera, i am into photography and videos, i wanted something that does both and am considering buying the Panasonic fz2500. what do you think i need advice before making this purchase

[@_techana]

The first thing came across my mind was: who the heck at Olympus sent Jared a M4/3 camera to review?! Because it's known Jared hates M4/3 and he will be harsh on this camera for sure. So, from the marketing point of view, Olympus harms itself doing this! Maybe they sent him a pre-production camera so that they can claim later on that all drawbacks Jared talked about are fixed., but I think they con nobody by such a claim.

[@c.augustin]

Think this way: Jared says quite clearly what *he* thinks about it, and this does not hurt Olympus - he gives enough context. Ranting about the flaws is actually a good thing, so that Olympus can see were they stand (and I think they need this). I'm actually into MFT (Pen F), and I have a Sony A7 - and I prefer the Pen F for various reasons. But Jared is right about the "professional" aspects (and the price point) of the E-M1X, I have to give him that.

[@naharshah96]

always good to see and hear what a non-fan thinks of it. especially with Jared cause he has experience with FF and other manufacturers so he can tell what the camera needs to be better.

[@DefectoDigital]

​@@c.augustin I agree, im also into M4/3 mainly cause i can carry mi original EM5 + 14-140mm, 17mm-f1.8, and 9mm-f8 on my backpack and be ready for almost anything without much weight , i also recently aquired an A7III + the Tamron 2.8 zoom for when i need that "pro look" and lightning fast AF, but ill never carry that to a casual diner. If Olympus puts the new IBIS + 4K60p + FHD120p + High res mode on the new EM5 ill sure pay top dollar for it, thats the camera most m4/3 people are waiting (also the new PenF).

[@c.augustin]

@@DefectoDigital There are two aspects where I find my Pen F lacking: Missing weather sealing (that's bad at this price point) and not-so-good high-ISO performance. If Olympus would "fix" these two issues, I would gladly buy the next iteration. Or maybe an E-M5 MkIII, if it would come with a sensor on par with the E-M1 MkII (but I really like the Pen F's form factor, so it would be a tough call).

[@fotoGR3at]

techana I was a big fan of the Olympus 4/3 until I met the Sony a7iii. Glad I switched .

[@chrisbaudeg3233]

So, Jared, you find the Z9 menu UI better than the M1X, Z9 less confusing, easier to set up than the M1X? Z9 "i" menu banks faster & better than the "C1-C4" dial and the Super Control Menu? The Z9 3D tracking better than the M1X in sports? (PS I use both) ... Z9 is work and could have been that 'other' body if it existed back then, M1X is fun and always sharp.

[@iaintyourgganbu4715]

Those evf lines must be horizontal guidelines

[@e.m7116]

Hmm, a large, pretty expensive and really well built SUV with an old(ish) 90hp engine.. Probably clever of Olympus to go niche in a crowded marketplace though?

[@abennettphotography8637]

What people forget is that to get a full frame equivalent you have to multiply your APERTURE as well. So, a 200mm f2 on a 4/3 is equivalent to 400mm f4 in full frame. Same goes for APS-C, only you'd multiply by 1.5x.

[@MusikPiratCH]

Except for Canon APS-C; here you'll have to multiply by 1.6x.

[@normanday9550]

Rubbish. A 200mm f2 lens always has an f2 aperture, irrespective of sensor size/camera format. The only thing that changes is depth of field, which increases with decreasing sensor size. Or why else call it an f2 lens?

[@CodHumors]

@@normanday9550 because mathematically it is an f2, but in terms of depth of field comparison f2 is equal to a 35mm f4.

[@Thefuror38500]

@@normanday9550 This. The change of depth of field come from that fact that to have the exact same framing, you'll be farther away, and thus distance between subject and background will be lower en %, and thus, background will be less out of focus. But people can't get that.

[@alexanderhetzel8271]

So I don't know a lot about the world of professional sports or wildlife photographers. What would be the comparable full frame kit at that price point (close to 6k)? 3k for the body is a lot, but I don't see many 600mm telephoto full frame lenses for the price point of the Olympus 300mm. Comparing the body alone seems a bit off, after all this isn't a camera you would use with a kit lens or the nifty fifty where the camera makes up most of the size/weight/price.

[@adventure_photo]

Just downloaded your raw files and I have to say I’m actually quite impressed with the image quality from such a small sensor! I just don’t see many people going this option though but wish Olympus good luck.

[@jay-by1se]

I'm a Nikon full frame guy, and switched. I hate to say this, but Jarred just took terrible images. Everyone else in m4/3 has amazing Bokah. I switched for the size of the lenses. And honestly it's amazing.

[@Raysnature]

I'm shooting wildlife on an E-M1 MkII with a grip these days largely because my back won't let me spend a day in the field with my D500+prime combination. I think the E-M1X has a lot going for it, though I also agree about the EVF and the other issues. Will I be upgrading? No, not at that price point (£2.8k in the UK). If it was sub £2k I might think about it but I'd still be looking for a good trade in deal.

[@JeanV1986]

I am a long term micro43 user and fan, and I completely agree with your review.

[@iggyman83]

It's $4,400 in Australia and yet I just picked up the OMD EM1 Mk2 for $1,699. Even with the grip ($300-ish) I can get something very similar and well-featured and spend the rest on lenses. Made the switch from Canon and no regrets.

[@BernhardHanakam]

Well, my D7100 gets 6 years old in 2019 and it has the same or maybe better noise performance. Of course my old DSLR with that tiny buffer cannot keep up with the speed of this Olympus, but I had to pay only a thousand bucks in 2013. Anyway it's good to hear that Olympus is still there and tries its best.

[@sakadabara]

D7100 rocks ! I've got two !

[@peterlemke3468]

Yep agree with you Bernhard. I wanted a back up Nikon APSC body so bought a new D7200 before Xmas for the equivalent of USD $680. Then after Xmas picked up the battery grip cheaply as well. For an old camera the image quality is great. Yes no FF but makes a great travel camera.

[@naturealbums]

My D7100 is actually better IQ than the Canon 7Dmk2 that I also use for Canon lenses. but as you say the buffer can hold back a bit occasionally in comparison.

[@manilamartin1001]

@@peterlemke3468 I use a 7200 and Sigma lenses and love the background blur. I was looking at the 7500 but it was pretty much the same just better video at almost double the cost.

[@txemari100]

Es sorprendente cómo hay personas que, sin haber visto pruebas bien hechas de una máquina fotográfica, se permiten el lujo de decir que su d7100 rinde mejor en el ruido. El omd em1 markII, anda mejor que tu d7100. 1312 -1256. Imagina estas máquinas más modernas. Antes de hacer comentarios sin sentido, tienes que pensar en lo que se está diciendo. Comparar una máquina de juguetes con una buena máquina no tiene mucho sentido

[@SlideWreckDan]

Is this the 1DX II Great Value version?

[@GreatKeny]

That’s 7D Mark II

[@drewbennett4178]

In Jared’s defense, everything he says about micro four thirds is true. I shoot full frame nikons for photo and micro four thirds for video. MFT can be frustrating because of its very limiting usable ISO range and lots of depth of field. When it comes to hiking, sports, and wildlife, which I shot about 50% of the time, I still find myself using my nikons. I love olympus! They feel amazing in the hand and they look great! Just the pictures don’t. I was hopeful they would figure out how to lower the base ISO and make more innovations in reducing noise. If you are going to use MFT try using Sigma f1.4 glass ... it’s reasonable and fast enough to make MFT a solid middle ground.

[@PaulMiil]

And a speed booster

[@PMS1950]

Quite extraordinary all this modern day obsession with high ISO and pixel peeping. It sort of spoils the enjoyment of simply taking decent picture. "I love my Nighcon 📷 camera - It's so massive and people look at me as if I'm a real professional fauxtoggrapher, which is all that matters in life and gives my boring, artless, super sharp snaps a status they might not otherwise have" 'Oh yes, and having a wacky haircut and super animated presentation style, gives me street cred when I'm spouting a load of Bo***cks. Just take the picture and enjoy the result.

[@justdaman]

Whats the point of having a camera the feels amazing to hold and looks good but doesn't take good photos?

[@PMS1950]

@@justdaman exactly. No camera can take good photographs if the person using it lacks vision and basic ability. You're a very sad individual and photographer if you use such standards to assess what makes a decent image.

[@rtlamb]

As a long time Olympus OM-D shooter I agree with you on several counts. For me as a retired photographer who has found himself driving a powered wheelchair I LOVE the Micro Four Thirds format! It's lightweight, compact and has excellent features. It will never be my beloved Canon 1 Series but I'm not asking it to be. I shoot landscapes and for that Olympus makes me very happy. As always YMMV. Oh, one thing that does make me sit up and take notice is the "personal Menu"! This feature allows one to create a personalized menu with all the commonly used items you use in one menu screen. And that Super Control Panel ROCKS! Olympus has had those for many years and I can't imagine life without it and it keeps me out of the menu system most of the time.

[@fitbmx7744]

The only thing I love about this is that weather sealing, that needs to be in more cameras!

[@adrianlewis7977]

I just watched a video by a well known US training school who claim all thier tutors are professional photographers in their own right. The claim made was that you could not tell the difference between a full frame Canon 5d mk4 and the Olympus micro four thirds MD1 pro offering. They appeared to be asserting that either camera would be suitable for professional use. No mention was made of low light, high iso usage, or of the limitations regarding DOF on the Olympus. There was also no mention of the dubious viewfinder or other inadequacies of the Olympus. Slightly misleading information from them I think. Thankfully, your pre review was a lot more accurate and honest.

[@rhiwderinraytube]

"Great Photography is about Depth of FEELING, not Depth of Field." (Peter Adams)

[@stephenmorgan5100]

Gonna get a T-shirt printed with that on just to wear to the next photo show i goto ;-D

[@khuo0219]

But he is asked to review a camera not a photo. A smartphone is capable of taking pictures with great feeling, so why bother with this camera. Your argument, sir, is classic ad hominem.

[@rhiwderinraytube]

@@khuo0219 Sorry but did Polin not mention depth of field? Your comment proves my case exactly.

[@thethirdman225]

Ray Wilson Agree. Those of us who have done it for a living know that the best way to isolate is with light, not lenses. Ergo, it’s not a camera issue. I used to shoot all my portraits at f:8 or f:11. When you become so reliant on equipment to do the work for you, the only solution is to spend more money. You don’t learn much about photography from that.

[@dalethorn2]

But what about the 7.5 stop IS advantage in lieu of higher ISO?

[@khuo0219]

All those stops will only help you with a stationary subject. If you need high SS for sports which he was shooting then ISO is your only choice.

[@ozturert]

FroDoesntKnowPhoto. Olympus has introduced a new tool for photographers. Now Oly has a full lineup from EPL-9 to EM1 X. And now they are coming with new lenses and smaller bodies as well. This body is a statement from Olympus, and is actually quite good. As soon as you put a FF sensor in, the price will go up to 6000 USD (just like 1DX II and D5). It looks natural to compare with some other FF cameras but it's actually quite stupid. If you combine all properties in EM1 X, you'll see that it is way beyond what others can do (Z6, A7 III, EOS R). Only A9 mirrorless comes close but A9 doesn't have real weather sealing, has horrible LCD, EVF resolution drops significantly at 120hz, has quite bad ergonomy with larger lenses (which you need for EM1 X's target customers), buttons are cramped and tiny, IBIS is nowhere as good as EM1 X, doesn't have in-camera high-res shot etc... So you need to look at the full package, and stop being DxO-headed.

[@petergood2000]

Jared, why can't I find your Olympus Trip video anywhere? I watched it the other day on my mobile, but now can't find it. Thought I'd watch it again on my PC. Have Olympus dumped you?

[@DubsBrown]

Finally an Olympus review. I can see this camera and other Olympus micro43 for people who do underwater and surf photography.

[@midnightsnack1306]

My wife uses a olympus fisheye that opens up to 1.8 and focuses very very close. Fantastic lens.

[@jay-by1se]

I wish I could post photos here from the omd, the bokah is beautiful on them. If not as strong.

[@LunarLightLtd1]

"Cinematic look" you keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means.

[@laurencegr9978]

Totally.

[@TheAsept]

well, in m4/3 you not asking for shallow DOF, in smaller sensor you will have less heavy variable lens you can get in a one bag.

[@PaulMiil]

Meh, you were pretty biased/harsh based on the sensor, which you admitted, but the GH5 crowd might find this a step up? You didn't mention colour science etc. Can it do 4:2:2 10 bit? Stabilization looks killer, better than GH5's. (Not GH5s) Programmable buttons? Log? How many stops of dynamic range?.. maybe you said it and I zoned out.

[@jay-by1se]

Dude. I shoot a Nikon d850 and a Olympus omd, I can't tell the difference in the prints. No one can at lower iso. The omd is just so much easier to carry and use in real life.

[@MarkMcLT]

Brutal. Next up...Panasonic. What will they bring? A case study in diverging strategies.

[@mobilefiscus]

An Other Wolff From the early images it’s looking like a big sensor in the G9 body. And since the G9 has such good ergonomics that has to be good thing...

[@Jasuta123]

Oh panny ? Busy having 3-some with Leica and Sigma

[@leecason9468]

@@Jasuta123 is that a bad thing 😂 leica and sigma art lenses are fantastic

[@davidsworld5837]

may be what about pentax next

[@TeaJayPhotography]

So shallow DoF is the most important thing in photography? Why are you using that tiny small format sensor then?

[@KathyXie]

Follow that logic everyone should switch to medium format

[@cameralabs]

I enjoyed watching that. I thought you were quite fair.

[@MichaelGerrard]

I am looking forward to your review Gordon!

[@cameralabs]

@@MichaelGerrard thanks, I'm working on it!

[@samrobertstheratcliff]

@@cameralabs Same here, love your reviews, although this camera isn't really on my radar - I use m43 for it's size advantage as I take my gear hiking and travelling. I'm waiting for the EM5 iii before deciding if to switch to an XT3 or stay m43 to start getting a bit more serious and printing photos for displaying on my walls (In good light m43 is fine for big prints).

[@cameralabs]

@@samrobertstheratcliff yes, it's a tough sell for Olympus. I know it's a specialist camera, but I wish they'd updated the Em5 first. I've always wanted that with an EM1 II sensor, but the longer they leave it, the more dated it'll look.

[@samrobertstheratcliff]

Gordon Laing yes I agree, can’t see the E-M5 3 being anymore than an E-M5 with an E-M1 sensor, which is fine but really with the gap between the mark 2 and 3, you’d hope for something more. Ideally I’d like to see a BSI/organic/new sensor tech that had a large improvement on low light and give the DR a bump, large prints already fine on mkii and the newer sensors and all, but I’d trade PDAF for improved low light and a bit more IQ, with the best CDAF oly can muster of sacrifice is needed

[@antoniorodriguez8632]

Something about this camera just makes me want to get it. Saving up for it

[@jstaz6]

and you say you need a "blown out background" for a professional photo? is that a joke?

[@DavidLaCivita]

So I guess if I want to be professional and get a shallow depth of field I should go medium format?

[@matteobonan6042]

I simply think that, like all Full Frame photographers you have not switched the brain in 4/3 mode, I mean, you're used to when you take photographs not to fully exploit the optics, a fullframe optics can not be used at full aperture and I'm sure if you took photos with the 300 F4 PRO you worked at least F5.6 the same with the 40-150 F2.8 I tell you because all this difference in depth of field in two stops especially in long fields does not exist . I can tell you that in the Golf walk for 20km a day for 4 days bringing with it 7 kg of equipment or 30kg makes its difference, not to mention the fact, when traveling by plane always having to store the baggage of 40 kg and more in the hold because it is too bulky and heavy to carry it as hand baggage with the risk of losing it or finding it broken or stolen upon arrival.

[@thethirdman225]

Matteo Bonan Amen brother. Anyone who has ever been a photojournalist can attest to that. I have back problems for life from lugging that stuff around.

[@stevebarr8487]

DOF: This is not the end all be all. If I am shooting a group of people I find that having the increased DOF is welcomed and I can shoot wide open and need less flash power. People complain about the smaller sensor which is not as clean as FF. Yeah, that may be true, but for what I do for weddings and portraits, I have no issues. Keep in mind that you should compare the image quality after you post. I have done this compared to the Fuji XT2 and overall all I find little difference even in higher ISO. The Olympus is a fantastic camera. I shoot the EM1 MK3. Love it and don't let anyone talk you out of the Olympus just because it is not FF. Evaluate if you "really" need FF.

[@danielnt9733]

Wow, lots of very negative comments.. but I nevertheless think this is an excellent camera (ok let me just mention that I am no Olympus employee and not sponsored by them either ;-) but am a big fan of the shooting experience offered by the E-M1 Mk II) : best ergonomics, best IBIS and best weather-sealing/built in the mirrorless world, all things that are not really denied in the video. Plus a rather low weight given the fact that the grip is integrated. And otherwise excellent image quality thanks to IBIS for lots of specific situations: light painting, cities with traffic at night, water flowing, fireworks also I guess, etc etc.. without the need to carry an extra tripod and even a ND filter. Superb image quality for still subjects thanks to Hi Res mode and no anti-alias filter... Plus Pro capture mode, live bulb function and so on... So ok, image quality will not be on par with FF but, although it is still really very good (and totally sufficient for me), I find this happens mainly in one situation: color photography of moving subjects in low light. However I find this FF quality comes at a price: regarding this, 2 photos in the video actually intrigued me: the football player at ISO 5000 and the motorcycle with a depth of field described as being not shallow enough. In the 1st case, I guess the lens used is the Olympus 300mm F4. Now if you want equivalent focal length in FF, ok you can use a 600mm F4 lens (10'000 USD lens / 4 kg + 2-3kg tripod) or let's say a 500mm lens F5.6 lens (3.5- 4'000 USD / 1.5 kg) that would need a little cropping but then as it is 1 stop slower you need to shoot at something like 10'000 ISO which is not the same as 5000 ISO. And in the second case (the motorcycle), AFAIK depth of field depends on things like the focal length, distance between you and the subject .. but not really on the size of the sensor. So yes depth of field is bigger on a MFT due to the fact that a wider focal length will be used for the same effect (eg 25mm on MFT is the equivalent of 50mm on FF etc..). But again if you want to shoot at 600mm on FF and have that very shallow DOF (which I agree is pleasant) you would need to use the 600mm F4 I guess To use for example a Nikon 300mm F4 on a Nikon Z7 and then heavily crop would still give you the depth of field of a .. 300mm F4, no? I mean maybe some of my comments (although too long..!) are totally wrong and not appropriate but then I would be happy to read any thoughts about this..

[@moisescugat3948]

I made a VERY similar comment. I think respectfully that Jared view of DOF has so many lacks that I am shocked about it. I mean, it is suposed he is a pro, right?

[@scottiesretro1213]

Jared sees what he wants to see...not what is really there when it comes to M43. If Nikon made M43 he would be a fan.

[@mr_k4tz]

This Olympus shooter approves of your review. The depth of field comments are totally fair, but the menu... c’mon man, you’re a smart cookie. You’d totally get the hang of it within a couple more days.

[@scottiesretro1213]

If this camera had a Nikon logo on it this would be a completely different review.

[@stanislavpokorny2954]

Hm, one would get the impression from all the reviews that photography today is just all about bokeh. Well actually, it's not: it's all about the subject being photographed. I've seen images with perfectly blurred backgrounds and razor-sharp eyes, but the nose and the ears were out of focus. What's the point of a buttery-smooth bokeh then, if the subject is not in focus? OTOH, yeah, indoor sports photography with an MFT sensor is extremely difficult, and using my old D750 always yields better results than my relatively recent MFT camera in those scenarios.

[@billymurphy3]

For ABOUT the same price of this body I got an A7III with 28, 50, and 85mm primes. I don't think they'll convert anyone with this release.

[@starwf07]

Sony mirrorless cameras have great autofocus, and the A7III is no exception. And it's going to get even better with the firmware update, which will include improved subject tracking and eye AF. And the A7III can shoot 10fps, which is all anyone really needs. It's debatable whether anything beyond 10 or so fps is even of any value. So no, those aspects of the Olympus don't make up for the other shortcomings compared to its high price.

[@yoja5on]

Looking at Olympus again and came back to this. The 'blown out background' thing is weird. Looking at the current most popular photographer of professional cycling, I don't see many photos with 'blown out' backgrounds. His eye and composition is amazing. Also just did a fashion-y shoot with intentionally in-focus backgrounds, which I'm seeing a lot of. Wondering if this look is going out of style (except for your basic B portrait/wedding look).

[@mariustoma5656]

For the first time, I have downloaded your RAW files and I understand why you have so much to complain about almost every camera you review. It's the way you shoot, why the hell an eath you are shooting the benches at ISO640 with 1250/s is not like they are going to run somewhere those settings tells me everything. It's a standing subject, iso200 with 300/s to match the focal length would have been perfect taking into consideration this camera has IBIS. Probably shooting P mode is not always a good idea.

[@lawrencekeeney4317]

Thanks for a good honest preview. I shot the high-end Olympus cameras for years until switching to Canon. I learned to like the Olympus menu system and found it was quick to use once you were familiar with it.

[@christofer_4199]

you can stop the video at $3k...I'll get a xt3

[@mirovida66]

You get 2x X-T3s

[@gian3458]

That's fine :shrug:

[@francescopapi5344]

How fast is the glass? With 2 stop faster "equivalent" lenses you could in theory make up for the DOF and keep iso 2 stops lower resulting in simila FF quality? But this would make lenses huge? Would be nice to hear your thoughts

[@TreParker2016]

Why Olympus had a inexperienced Olympus user testing out a camera is beyond me,next time study the camera before you go to use a new camera. The only thing This is good for is learning how much you are a Nikon fanboy. Comparing this to to full frameNikon doesn’t,t make sense.

[@Jabber-ig3iw]

Tre Parker ah you only want fanboys reviewing your camera

[@thethirdman225]

Jabber 1974 An unbiased report would be better.

[@JoseEsquilinPhotography]

what happened to the VLOG of the trip to Olympus?

[@oz5wob3]

Was wondering the same thing

[@jorgehurtado2879]

Dude I understand not liking something and giving it a shit review because of it. But at least get some of your argument point straight, you’re talking about cinematic deficiencies when comparing a m4/3 camera to a full frame, have you ever seen a feature film shot on a Sony A9? Now look up films shot on Super 16 and the Red Dragons and look at the size of that sensor in comparison. Also the Bokeh argument, you realize that there are micro 4/3 lenses that are stopping up to f 0.95? Plus this whole blurred background thing isn’t always what makes a good photo. And “just $1500 more” is actually a shit load of money however you want look at it.

[@KathyXie]

There is many of movies and tv shows filmed with smaller sensor like 1 inch sensors, blurry background isn't necessary cinematic

[@joemalone7385]

F0.95... You aren't taking into account the crop factor are you?

[@jorgehurtado2879]

Joe Malone I have shot several brands with different sensor sizes, and now shoot a m4/3, still haven’t felt the lack of “bokeh”...at all! Yes you can crunch number and talk tech all day but I have made plenty of blurred backgrounds just like I did with other sensors. And again it’s not the only thing that makes a good photo. Not saying that the m4/3 is better or anything, just saying that his argument it’s a bit flawed.

[@joemalone7385]

@@jorgehurtado2879 You started the 'tech talk' Jorge by quoting the F stop number. I ever mentioned not getting Bokeh, but at least quote correctly.

[@Pattteo]

Hello, with the 50Mpx feature, could you really print a 48 foot wide by 14 foot tall or would you need some gimmick not available to the "average" shooter? Thanks.

[@aFLYER1980]

I can't see enough here to upgrade from my em1 ii.

[@prose4ever]

So I have been shooting with Olympus for a good 4 years now, and my biggest question/thoughts on the Shallow Depth of Field is to use an adapter from Metabones, or other manufactures. Of course, I know that Canon AF on an adapter is going to be slower than native glass, but for portrait use, it should theoretically deliver similar results to crop sensor cameras.

[@NatPhoto56]

A review coming from a person with clear bias and not understanding the use of a camera like this in the real world. Too bad these overly biased reviews are even published. Hey Jared..... When was the last time you led a workshop in the field. Guess what the biggest issue for the average workshop participant.... size and weight of the gear to travel with, and carry. You and the rest of the industry pundits continue to push DOF as the biggest issue. Just laughable. It was clear from your review that you didn't take the time to understand the camera. You didn't even get the name of the Super Control Panel right the first time, that's how little you devoted to an honest review. Great, you hate the camera. Fine, but try to be at least half objective. I really tire of reviewers that go into something with preconceived notions and then just work to state all of their preconceived gripes.... Go back to your Nikons and keep shooting.

[@nemezote]

Damn dude, you are salty as fuck, go get laid.

[@MaandRi]

I have to agree on all the points. I'm a Lumix G9 owner and it's great, but it has all the faults you mentioned. Can we get G9 review?

[@cdbibay]

if i had the money, i'd buy it! i can create incredible images with my first gen em10. i wish we could add pictures to comments. Zuiko lenses are some of the best around.

[@michaelradloff565]

Does the Fro really shoot anything anymore ? or just screw around In the Fro cave? Sort of like Batman only more boring and opinionated on everything. Good video....."Fro Meets Angry".....

[@SonnyCrackBeats]

I've bought and sold a LOT of cameras and I'll never get rid of my EM-10 (first version). I love the camera, I love Olympus and this video was depressing (and especially the raw files).

[@CollectedLight1]

That sure makes a lot of sense. Thanks for your insight.

[@bencorwin]

Fair review. I think m43 makes more sense in the videography world rather than the photography world. After all, the standard for sensor size in cinema is super35mm. I think Panasonic makes up the difference by adding ridiculously amazing video specs. Shallow depth of field is just one aspect in a hundred things to consider.

[@muzzadventures]

Did you even bother to read the manual and getting to know the camera? Getting confused by silent shutter “heart” sign altough it’s explained right on the goddamn screen?

[@batwork4031]

Lazyness in its finest form.

[@levan1616]

I guess, it's a cultural thing. Americans thunk in a oarticular way. His thinks of heart stop beating, while I understand it as "so quite that you can hear a heartbeat". Intuitive enough for me.

[@thegreatujo]

I think this is just about as good as it gets for a m4/3. I'm a long-time Nikon user now but started with FourThirds Olympus back in the day. I think this camera would be quite compelling for someone stuck with a lot of oly glass. Not bad at all. Except for the price perhaps.

[@tomerweiss4900]

Your missing the point ... you don't want to carry 10kg lenses when shooting wildlife. and you can get amazin dof ... just need to learn how to use M43.

[@Dan.gibson.photographer]

Tomer Weiss a lot of insane wildlife’s moments occurs in twilight, you better have a good ISO capability so you can maintain a decent shutter speed, that’s my opinion 😉😊

[@midnightsnack1306]

Considering after 1600 iso m43 starts to degrade this is going to be a day time wildlife shooter. Perhaps this one has a new sensor that give better ISO performance similar to the GH5s?

[@tomerweiss4900]

@@midnightsnack1306 I have 5DIV & EM1 II & 5dsr never used ISO > 3200 ... so for me OMD wins

[@Dan.gibson.photographer]

Tomer Weiss but i you feel more comfortable with micro4/3 cause of the weight I understand cause that’s a real point. Do u have instagram so I can enjoy your wildlife pics?

[@tomerweiss4900]

@@Dan.gibson.photographer instagram.com/wtomx/ keep in mind part of the stuff are via 5DSR

[@newjerseywales]

I think it's a slightly narrow overview. It's putting that m43 sensor against things moving very fast. For studio shooting / static photography it will be more than good enough.

[@ABullet520]

So I had an idea how this was going to go before I watched it. FF and DOF are king and if you are not shooting FF you are just getting bad pictures. NO, you didn't say it like that but that is the way it comes off. So like the 600 at the track on FF it would be 300 and the DOF at that distance would be the SAME and you would have to crop the daylights out of the image to get that framing, and on the A73 or Z6 you would loose half the image, so TINY files. It is called a tradeoff and how much does a 600mm or even a 400mm lens cost for FF? You almost make it sound like the bokeh is more important than the content of the photo. I love your work but I can usually guess how your reviews will go on anything not FF. The cost of FF is just TOO much for some people, and yes you can get shallower DOF with FF, but put a 1.2 or 1.4 on an APSC and the VAST majority of people will not care or notice that it isn't FF. Your reviews are great as long as price isn't a consideration and you value bokeh above all else.

[@froknowsphoto]

Im not comparing a 300 which is a 600 on 35 to a 300 on 35, im comparing it to a 600. And yea, you're getting terrible pictures in comparison.

[@thethirdman225]

Jared Polin I disagree entirely. People said the same thing about 35mm film 60 years ago. “Terrible” is a totally subjective judgement without consideration for the subject or the execution. For sports/action stuff and photojournalist work, this is hard to beat. The keeper rate tops any DSLR I’ve ever used and frankly, I’ll trade keeper rate for bokeh every time. Bokeh is like people who eat donuts and rave about the taste of the hole. How did we ever got good pictures before full frame was invented?

[@benstanfill363]

He made clear at this price point he was treating this as a professional camera, and professionals will usually invest what they need in order to get the best photos. Yes hobbyist and such might not have the money for it, but professionals will. B

[@scottiesretro1213]

I shoot Olympus and own a Sony FF A7 the Quality difference is slight. Your anti 4/3 bias is showing through which kills your credibility. Your the only reviewer on You tube blasting this camera. Soooooo they are all wrong and your right. Don't think so.

[@AnttiPaaso]

Got one last week. 247 (sic!) actuations on the shutter. Brand new (demo methinks). 1299€. With the new firmware (that is / with the bird detection AF) this is pretty impressive machine esp for birds and nature (read snow/water coming out of the sky). Have another too , was in a fly show (Pori Air Show 2022) and weather was abysmal. The other togs were hiding in their tents but with these+pro lenses you do not have to worry something as mundane as weather.Snappy AF in those conditions and no visible noise in the images (used 200-640 range) what’s not to like ? FF is nice but is it really needed ? Who shoots starscapes/Milky Way shoots all the time…. Just my 2c ..

[@kevindiossi]

When I read about this camera coming out...I had to really scratch my head. I always try to look at everything from a different perspective, and I know that I am not the target demographic for every single camera that comes out on the market. With that said, this is the first mainstream manufacturer to come out with a camera that - to me - doesn't seem to really have a place at all. I have to ask if there really were people out there looking to buy a $3,000 professional micro 4/3 sensor camera? The limitations of the sensor size have been talked about since its inception. But limitations when a camera costs $500-1200 isn't too much to worry about and to be expected. Add some killer features like the GH5's offerings in video that let it stand out - $2000 doesn't seem unreasonable. But $3,000 for this is a tough one. The reduced weight of glass is a distinct advantage of M43, but you get some pretty trashy image quality. You can use a focal reducer and increase the effective aperture of a full-frame lens...but then you lose the only advantage the camera had. I really hate to call a camera dead on arrival...but this is one of those cameras I have a difficult time understanding who will benefit from it.

[@txemari100]

Tengo un olympus omd em1 mark II y un sony a7. Prefiero disparar con el olympus, anteriormente tenía un canon mark II y me quedaba con el olympus. He estado en la fotografía durante 40 años, lo he tenido todo, si eres de zomm al 100% en tu computadora, compra uno de formato completo, no compres el cuadro completo porque se verá mucho peor.

[@28camwal]

Trashy quality?? you are evidently still learning to take pictures then.

[@gian3458]

But it does have a market though... for those who use the 1DX II and the D5 and the A99 II and are looking for something smaller and cheaper. While it's not competitive against every all-rounder camera out there, it may compete against those cameras I've mentioned before used by the type of people who would use it: action and wildlife shooters. And it is competitive if based on its price point. For instance, the 1DX II is ~6-8k USD, D5 is ~6k USD, Sony A99 II is 3.5k USD. And the features the E-M1X offers for 3k USD is pretty good value. Unfortunately, its low-light performance becomes an instant dealbreaker, yet depending on your use-case as a wildlife/action photog it may still be competitive.

[@kevindiossi]

@@28camwal haha, you're welcome to Google me and evaluate my level of learning. You should always be learning and growing as a photographer. But terms of a $3k camera, this produces a comparatively horrible image beyond 1600 ISO and doesn't offer good control over depth of field without speed boosters and full frame lenses. Trashy quality to me, yes. I personally have no desire to step back to smaller sensors.

[@kevindiossi]

@@gian3458 well the 1DX Mark II isn't $8,000...not sure where you found that price, but buyers of those cameras are not, in my opinion, potential buyers for this camera. A 1DX and D5 are superb cameras for utility in any condition and nearly any kind of light. In addition to that, the lens systems are there to support them. This is a daylight only sports/wildlife camera and that will hurt it. It may potentially thrive as a wildlife and bird camera, but I'm not selling a 1DX for this...hard to see a scenario where anyone else would, either. If Olympus made this their sort of Panasonic GH5S and priced it around that $2300 mark, I could understand. It's an outlier camera and very unique. But pushing it to $3k opens up the potential for someone to buy a brand new D750 and D500 for that kinda money...no seriously - go look.

[@Rocodil]

I get your point regarding the weak high iso performance, however, the DOF, did you shoot with the aperture (e.g. f 1.2) wide open? Because that what you do with M43 lenses and the DOF is fine. The EVF looks very disappointing indeed. Nice review!