OM SYSTEM OM-1 at 6400 ISO vs Olympus E-M1 MkIII at 1600 ISO High ISO Battle

[@berlinerffm]

Thanks for the comparison. The way I see it, ISO6400 on the OM1 is not comparable to ISO1600 on the E-M1 III. The E-M1 III is clearly better to start with. Claiming a two stop improvement would mean, that noise would be equal at those settings before noise reduction in software. That's clearly not the case. HOWEVER, the OM-1 seems to have better latitude when it comes to pushing exposures, at least in terms of color (or not so much false colors). If this is due to better noise performance or an improved dynamic range could be discussed. No miracle happened with the new sensor on the OM-1 in terms of image quality. There are smaller improvements though. But I don't think that's a real issue, since even the quality out of my trusty E-M1II were fine. The OM-1 is much more, than just the new sensor image quality. It is an overall improvement, which brings the system up to date.

[@MattSuessPhoto]

I disagree - you don't compare the quality differences of rolls of film without first processing said rolls of film. Same with digital - you have to process the files to truly see the differences, and when doing the same exposure/shadow adjustments and slightly different NR adjustments between the 2 files, there is clearly a 2 stop improvement in the OM-1 files.

[@JanicevD]

I also would like to see a test using the same ISO on both cameras - at 3200 if I had my druthers. :)

[@RamblingTog]

I'd like to see a comparison at iso200 my understanding there is no difference

[@MattSuessPhoto]

When both are at 3200 noise, color, detail is much better in the OM-1, and there was a bad green cast in the shadows of the E-M1.3

[@MattSuessPhoto]

@Rambing Tong yes, at lower ISO's the difference is obviously less noticeable.

[@markhoffman9655]

Thanks for the detailed walk through and analysis - I'm using an E-M1 MkII so the improvement is quite stunning!

[@MattSuessPhoto]

Yeah, the difference from the mkii is even larger than with the mkiii

[@marklaurendet1861]

An interesting comparison I would like to add another vote for both cameras @ 3200 so I could see what difference to my EM1.3 the upgrade would be

[@MattSuessPhoto]

When both are at 3200 noise, color, detail is much better in the OM-1, and there was a bad green cast in the shadows of the E-M1.3

[@earlteigrob9211]

This comparison is exactly what I wanted to see and I thought it was very well done. I’m not sure if I would consider the OM-1 two stops better but certainly better. Every bit helps and for me high iso performance is a big deal for some types of photography.

[@MattSuessPhoto]

Thanks for watching Earl - and yes, every bit helps!

[@albert_beck]

Thanks for doing this!

[@MattSuessPhoto]

Thanks for watching!

[@narinthip3058]

Much appreciated for the video and l look forward for more as you produce them. I really love what I saw so far in term of how much more you can play with DR and ISO from OM-1 RAW file. It is final JPG that matters!! No one is posting RAW Images on line :-). Also, I have seen lots of AF/AI exceptional results from many posts. The problem is that I am still waiting for my pre-order to ship :-). Hopefully I will get to compare both OM-1 and EM1.3 myself sooner than later. To me EM1.3 is already an excellent camera and I hardly have issue with its image quality. You just need to understand the format limits.

[@MattSuessPhoto]

Hopefully your camera arrives real soon!!

[@HudsonGao]

Great comparison! I really hope to see the OM-1 shooting in low light situation with livetime and see how the noise builds up.

[@CharlesMurphyphotography]

So glad to see this review in C1. Switched to Oly a few years back when I was with Nikon and was not happy with LR treatment of raw files . Dropped Nikon for an Oly E-M1ii, never looked back. Can't wait to receive the new OM-1

[@MattSuessPhoto]

Thanks for watching - hope your camera arrives soon!

[@robertfrank9168]

There was a comparison of the dynamic range E-M1III to OM-D in 43rumors and it showed that there is practically no difference which is kind of disappointing.

[@chrispatmore8944]

My OM-1 is definitely grainier at 1600 than my EM-1iii at 1600, but I was using HP5 pushed two stops. Maybe if I used Delta there would be less grain. However, people actually preferred the OM-1 photos to the EM-1 shots. Just goes to show that most people don’t care about noise/grain and just want to see good photos.

[@MattSuessPhoto]

Only photogs are pixel peepers - the buying public rarely cares or notices.

[@lacsarlacsar3566]

heh you should see my OM-4 with cheap Fuji color.

[@ookiemand]

I'm interested in the OM1 for underwater photo and video. Can you please make a video iso comparison between the EM1-3 and the OM1, iso 100-51.000, using their best codecs and bit depth at 30/25p in C4k? I expect a big improvement because the OM1 can do 10 bit H265 and has a better high iso performance, but I wonder if this is true!?

[@kbruff2010]

Thank you for sharing this information 1) what image format was used 2) did you consider the internal noise control 3) what software was used to measure the noise floor 4) is the noise random

[@MattSuessPhoto]

1) RAW 2) Doesn't effect RAW files 3) watch the video 4) watch the video 😀

[@Yupthereitism]

Does this camera have dual native iso?

[@markshirley01]

Hi how does the OM1 compare for dynamic range compared to a full frame camera.

[@thetechiephotographer]

It is almost the same as E-M1 Mark III. You won't get anywhere close to full-frame. But if you exposed correctly that shouldn't be an issue.

[@MattSuessPhoto]

I've never had an issue with DR on Olympus/OM since I switched from Sony FF a few years ago. Interested in improving DR? Take a look at what you are using in post - Capture One Pro and DxO for example provide you with more DR than LR, being able to bring out more shadow/highlight detail recovery.

[@moisescugat3948]

Remember that if you have static subjets you can use LiveND or HRes shot and then you will have much better dynamic range, so you will overpass the DT some FF and equal the best ones. If you do landscape, its definifive.

[@8bittim]

So 6400 on the OM-1 seems comparable to 1600 on the em1 mk III. That's really awesome. It will be nice to see the final firmware and when software companies have optimized things for the OM-1. Man I want this camera.

[@MattSuessPhoto]

Not sure what you mean by final firmware - it isn't shipping with beta firmware. And yes, can't wait for DxO to offer support.

[@trevorpayne2749]

Bit of an apples and pears comparison as the adjustments made are different for each file. Some interesting observations but that is all.

[@MattSuessPhoto]

Who cares if there is slight differences in slider adjustments if the end results are practically the same...

[@scotimages]

Many thanks for the ORF files. 😀. I take back my comment about OM1 colour noise. Not well handled colour at 6400 ISO. Definitely not a 2 stop improvement over the EM-1 iii. Turn off the default levels of noise suppression in Adobe and it looks grim

[@pentagramyt417]

Well.. OM-1 keep ISO and shadow recovery very well! You added +100 to shadows, and it kept really well even at +25 luminance at base. And that was WITHOUT noise AI reduction yet! Cause then you can go to the AI Noise reduction by Lightroom, and I'd guess it's done great. One thing I calculated very fast - adding 1.5 stops to 1600 iso is not that high, but adding +1.5 stops to 6400 iso for M43 sensor is A LOT. Based on ISO --> 1600 becomes 4000, 6400 becomes 16.000! I'd not go over 12.800 even on my A7IV. Sure you can but it has colours shift. OM-1 is great camera! VERY GREAT.

[@griszon]

In my opinion, the RAW ISO 1600 made EM-1 mk3 looks better

[@lvca.avellino]

Very good. I have a EM1.2 and the in camera jpg for me is not very good like a Fuji. Is better in the new OM1? Thanks

[@arianvangend2536]

Thanks for another comparison! There is definitely improvement there even though the recent photonstophotos graphs partly suggest otherwise. It's so hard to really quantify these differences definitively. Does this difference hold up throughout the iso range you think?

[@MattSuessPhoto]

You are going to see more noticeable differences at higher ISO's. The closer you get to 200 the less difference you'll see, as those ISO's didn't have that much noise to begin with.

[@WMedl]

In low light without a tripod I expose only for the motif and in post production I never try to brighten shadows in non motif areas - rather doing the opposite to reduce noise. By the way the denoise funtionality of DxO is much much better than that of Capture One (C1) so i preprocess very noisy images using DxO before doing the main processing in C1 and as DxO can export images as dng files I can process the denoised images in C1 as raw files - of course no ORF raws and unfortunatly they cannot be exported out of C1 as eip files.

[@d.lacroix7616]

Thank you, Matt. Looks very encouraging. Of course, you had to apply different settings for each, so another important comparison would be between the same ISO values on the mkiii. Can you get the 6400 to look good with similar adjustments?

[@MattSuessPhoto]

You can't get 6400 to look same on both cameras - there is up to a 2-stop improvement in noise with the OM-1 which I showed in this video, where 6400 looks very similar to 1600 on the E-m1.3.

[@earlteigrob9211]

Matt, again, great information. Now I wonder...does better high ISO performance translate into less shadow noise at normal ISO values? With my EM-1 2, bringing up shadows in post exposes the noise in those shadows. I wonder if this shadow noise is less with the new sensor or about the same? Have you noticed any difference?

[@MattSuessPhoto]

I haven't noticed any issues. Note that noise in shadows is going to be relative to the software you are using on that RAW file. Not all programs are created equal in that regard...

[@macmij]

@@MattSuessPhotoso what post software produces the best results for you?

[@MattSuessPhoto]

@@macmij My goto is DxO PhotoLab 6 geni.us/suess-dxo

[@macmij]

@@MattSuessPhoto thanks Matt.

[@RamblingTog]

How many people shoot at high ISO? My understanding is that at base iso and up to 800 there is no difference between the om1 and em1mkiii. So, is there enough advantage in the new camera to warrant me spending another £2,000?

[@anterix1999]

For birds we have to use crazy ISOs. The crazier, the better.

[@50procentnibanan]

I use high ISO if I shoot birds or night sky.

[@MattSuessPhoto]

@Rambing Tog come on, there are tons of people who shoot at ISO's higher than 800 - wildlife, sports, night sky shooters just to name a few. And better high iso noise is just one of a ton of new improvements in the OM-1 that justifies upgrading.

[@paulfallat1664]

Shooting sports in dimmly lit gyms require high ISOs. Sports venues are darker than they appear, especially at the high school level

[@ThePNWRiderWA]

Perhaps I was expecting too much but I hoped to see more difference between the M3 and the OM1. I do wish they had stayed with same battery as well. Most of use carry a spare body and having to carry various size batteries and chargers is a pain I would like to see a comparison of the OM1 vs the new Panasonic . The divide seems to be getting wider between the 2 leading m4/3 makers with the OM more focused on stills and the Panasonic video. It makes me wonder if it makes sense to add a Panasonic body for just video

[@markshirley01]

Why would you need to do that. The OM1 seems to have beautiful looking video to me. Plus it has good AF.

[@niner8275]

There is actually a studio test photo on high ISO in both of the sample image galleries of DPreview.com: (Not yet the one you can load into the comparison-tool, but this already lets you see the difference quite well): The Panasonic at 25600: www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/7519685592/panasonic-gh6-sample-gallery/5964020689 The Olympus at 25600: www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0739659306/om-system-om-1-sample-gallery/7844256296

[@ThePNWRiderWA]

@@markshirley01 The specs of the Panasonic video ability is very impressive that is why I would like to see a comparison of both

[@ThePNWRiderWA]

@@niner8275 This is helpful thank you

[@markshirley01]

@@ThePNWRiderWA I'd still rather have more images and video in focus as a single shooter. AF is invaluable to me as I do fast moving event work. Maybe you don't need that - thats understandable.👍

[@wileec5939]

Interesting results. I have doing my own comparisons between the two cameras, in ambient light - same lens, camera settings, and ambient light/subjects - shooting in the range of ISO 800 up to 3200, about as high as I typically go for my wildlife subjects. So far, I am not seeing the same difference as your studio shots suggest. I downloaded your files and see what you see, based on this pair of files. That said, I don't get studio light in the field - not at dawn or dusk - more testing to be convinced.

[@MattSuessPhoto]

My studio test, while shot in the studio, wasn't under a traditional studio lighting setup and would closely mimic photographing under a dark and cloudy sky. I also tested at 6400 with the OM-1, higher ISO than your tests. The lower the ISO, the less difference you'll probably see. Plus also depends on what software you are using, how much you need to bring up shadows, etc.

[@wileec5939]

@@MattSuessPhoto Thanks for the quick reply. I agree with most of your comments, and could see from the shutter speeds the light intensity was not high. In terms of the lower the ISO, the less difference, certainly true, but if they claim a 2 stop difference, I should be able to see a difference of the two side by side. I was only using ACR in Bridge and with only preset levels of NR - so comparing apples to apples as much as possible. With other cameras, I am used to seeing differences in even a stop of improvement (at the same ISO) with a new camera, with most experience with Nikon. All this said, some have suggested the plus two stops is more in reference to having added the ability to shoot two stops higher - so the wording is a bit ambiguous, as has been hashed over by many people that don't have the camera to shoot for themselves. Perhaps my expectation was unrealistic, but it was based on my previous experience with Nikon pro level cameras - where if an ISO improvement was marketed - it was observable in the files, without exotic software to process the file. If I have to boost the shadows to lift out detail, I consider that a fail on me - poor exposure, even as I do generally ETTR to preserve highlights.

[@MattSuessPhoto]

@@wileec5939 If you are ETTR and have to boost shadows, that certainly isn't a "fail on me - poor exposure" situation. ETTR keeps you from blowing out your highlights by exposing for them - your shadows are relative to the DR of your scene. For example, I shoot into the sun a lot. ETTR leaves me with detail in my highlights (not including sun of course), but dark shadows that then need to be brought up. Bringing up shadows increases noise, and there is less of it with the OM-1. When you need to push files, that is when you are going to see the biggest differences - also software dependent too as I explained in video. There is less visible difference SOOC.

[@wileec5939]

@@MattSuessPhoto Thanks for the quick reply - sorry to make such an overarching statement. In truth, while I find ACR to be great most of the time, DXO PureRAW has been my go to first step for NR/sharpening, then finishing the DNG in ACR, as needed to produce the image I envisioned. Look forward to better understanding what the OM-1 is capable of, and always aiming to grow the photog, too. In the most demanding scenarios, I find myself grabbing the Nikon FF gear, if I have it with me. The Z bodies and f/4 lenses are barely larger/heavier than my Oly gear - and sometimes it just helps to have much bigger pixels if I need to push the ISO levels and still have fine detail to capture.

[@alexonthemountain8343]

Hi Matt, I’ve got a camping channel and film a lot at night. I currently have a FF camera (a7siii) but would like to like to go a bit smaller (the mft lenses are a bit lighter, etc.). How is video quality in low light with this new camera? I shoot a lot at 6400 and sometimes go as high as 12,800. My old Pany g9 topped out at 1600 and above that, it was simply too noisy. Cheers

[@MattSuessPhoto]

Thanks for watching! Can't answer your question though as I don't shoot much low light video.

[@JHuffPhoto]

It is fun to see one of these controlled demonstrations but in actuality in the real world they both look good. I would prefer to spend more time worrying about thinks like my composition and overall exposure intent than any minute differences in noise performance. Personally, I embrace the noise as long as it has a filimic quality to it. There are many reasons to choose the OM-1 over the EM1-3 than any differences in noise performance. To be honest if I had the EM1-3 I would likely not upgrade to the OM-1. Starting from scratch the OM-1 seems like a no brainer to me. Thanks for the video and analysis.

[@MattSuessPhoto]

IMHO there's a huge difference between the E-M1.3 and the OM-1 besides noise. A big enough difference to cause me to get 2 OM-1's to replace my E-M1.3 and X in day to day shooting. YMMV of course.

[@thetechiephotographer]

@@MattSuessPhoto +1. I upgraded from E-M1MkIII. Improved AF/IBIS/EVF/faster processing for focus stacking/HHRRS and Handheld LiveComposite in OM-1 were enough for me to upgrade. Besides, I like the name OM-1 :D

[@JHuffPhoto]

@@MattSuessPhoto that was kinda my point exactly. Both of those cameras (as well as pretty much any other mirrorless camera in that price range) have the capability to deliver great IQ. I have not had the opportunity to spend any time with the OM-1 so I will have to trust your opinion on the differences. I am actually considering selling all of my Fujifilm gear and switching to the OM-1. Not sure if I will do it but I am considering it. I will likely wait for some more real world reviews. Thanks again for the video as it was quite enjoyable.

[@rickkoloian4179]

Thanks for great video & my only wish is you were a Lumix Ambassador too 🙂

[@MattSuessPhoto]

haha thanks Rick! 🙂

[@Red35Photography]

Interesting Matt, just a note, I received an email from OM System that Adobe's support for OM-1 RAW file is not official, this could be in beta form still. I mentioned that in my video as I also work with Adobe beta program and there's no official announcement that they release support for the new OM-1. Things can still be slightly different, but again, with a pinch of salt. Keep up the good work mate.

[@MattSuessPhoto]

Hey Jimmy - yeah I keep hearing different reports. But Adobe does actually show they officially support it, as it is listed as supported here and has been available for a few weeks: helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html There is no mention of that support being beta. What isn't supported yet is Camera Matching Profiles (even though they do actually have them available - maybe just not optimized) which are the camera specific color profiles. So I'm led to believe the main demosaicing algorithms are finished and available to us now which would effect noise & sharpness, while we just wait for the color profiles (which even today how many people actually use them instead of just the default Adobe Color Profile lol).

[@Lesnafi]

Agree , when they are going to ship the back orders? After the third world war or before ?

[@erichramone7812]

Hey Matt, I misunderstood a little. So their are no raw files yet for Lightroom (regarding Om-1) but they are available on Olympus editing tool?

[@MattSuessPhoto]

I'm sorry I don't understand your question, but LR, C1 and OM Workspace are all compatible with the OM-1 RAW files. Those are the only ones right now.

[@erichramone7812]

@@MattSuessPhoto you got it right. Thanks

[@leric4205]

Il serait plus logique de comparer des ISO équivalents 6400 contre 6400, plutôt que 1600 contre 6400. Les résultats seraient plus flagrants ! Bizarre comme test ....

[@MattSuessPhoto]

So you are not impressed that 6400 ISO from one camera looks pretty darn close to 1600 ISO from a different camera and think it is a weird test?

[@scotimages]

Colour noise seems very well handled in the OM1, which is of course a benefit. However it takes a highly biased Olympus ambassador to tell us that noise is desirable 🤣🤣🤣! Let's be honest here the only ways to shoot using low noise with the Olympus is to capture in High Resolution Mode and that works really well for static subjects. Signal to noise ratio in shadows at low ISO in my EM-1 ii at low ISO is so dreadful in comparison to my Nikon Z, that editing an ORF files always feels like a rescue operation, even when exposure settings are good. Despite the fabulous computational functions of the OM system such as pro-capture, fantastic sensor stabilisation, great high res mode, live long exposure modes, and decent in-camera stacking it is difficult to see a future for this sensor format. It is beginning to look like Fuji's bet on APSC was a much wiser long term commercial strategy .

[@birdingbilly]

Biggest take - away from this is how poor Lightroom is. Would like to have seen OM Workspace.

[@MattSuessPhoto]

OM Workspace definitely has its advantages, like the new AI noise reduction in it. But it actually has worse shadow recovery than even LR so I didn't include it in this test.

[@weisserth]

OM1 better than E-M1 III? Yes, arguably. Wow? Meh. Not impressed - at least not enough. Here's the real price of an upgrade from the E-M1 III to the OM1 for me: OM1 body $2199.99 OM1 battery grip $349.99 OM1 charger, and one additional battery 219.99 bottom line: ~$2770 The OM1 batteries are almost twice as expensive as the E-M1 III batteries yet only have 30% more capacity. WTF? The HLD-9 battery grip for the E-M1 II/III is $249, the HLD-10 for the OM1 is 40% more expensive. It's basically the identical grip, offers no new buttons or features over the HLD-9, other than the modified battery bay. WTF? The E-M1 III had in body charging but came with an external battery charger. The only first party battery charger for the new OM1 battery type (neat two battery bay though!) is a whopping $219 with an extra battery included. WTF? Compared to adding a second body to my E-M1 III: E-M1X: $1499 - which can share my existing chargers, batteries and has a grip included. If I buy an E-M1X refurbished, it's half the price of the OM1 while offering 80% or more of what the OM1 offers. Steep proposition. I'll stick with the E-M1 III for a couple of years until the OM1 comes down to reasonable price levels for me. If I need a second OMD body before then, I will pick up an E-M1X.

[@lawrencebeck4777]

I don't know how you can possibly say that ISO 6400 on the OM1 is really competitive with 1600 on the EM1 MK3, Matt. You've just disagreed with everything you said through the most of your video, where 1600 iso on the EM1 mk3 had noticeably less noise than 6400 on the OM1. Now you're sounding like someone paid by OM Systems instead of an objective reviewer. Why didn't you show a few images shot with the EM1 Mk3 at 6400? That way we could have seen the difference between the two cameras. Suggest you watch the first 10 minutes of your video, where in every single case you say the OM1 had more luminance noise .

[@AnastasTarpanov]

Can't wait to receive mine!

[@MattSuessPhoto]

Hope it comes in soon!

[@AnastasTarpanov]

@@MattSuessPhoto me too. I didn't order it on day one, I was waiting for some reviews and just for a couple of days later I missed the first delivery. On the other side I'm a happy there is such interest for that camera and m4/3 in general :)

[@stephenedmunds207]

The ambassador thing simply does not work for and never has for totally obvious reasons.

[@TITAOSTEIN]

But much worse are the Trolls and fanboys! Ambassadors at least have something to lose and as much as they look at it through a manufacturer's point of view, they don't want to and can't lose credibility. I thought the video presentation was great and I can confirm the results with my own field experience!

[@gregfeeler6910]

@@TITAOSTEIN Well said. KZbin is full of people making negative comments without any proof. Ignore them.

[@tim1398]

I hope DxO doesn't drag their feet like they have been doing for MFT these last few years...

[@MattSuessPhoto]

I hope they don't either. I've already been pressuring my contacts there :)

[@tkarlmann]

This is not what I want to see. I want to see the OM-1 compared to the BEST of the FF cameras out there, period.

[@MattSuessPhoto]

If this video isn't what you wanted to see, why are you here??? 😉 I left FF for Olympus a few years ago with zero regrets, period. You will not see any such test from me but if you want to know more about m43 feel free to stick around 🍻

[@TITAOSTEIN]

You would be surprised to see that the difference in IQ is not so big as the difference in price would suggest!

[@tkarlmann]

@@TITAOSTEIN I think this also. Why haven't more reviewers done this OM-1-to- FF comparison? Are they ALL waiting for the Big Bucks from The Canon Marketing Department to make inaccurate claims to their viewers?

[@weisserth]

The best of the FF cameras out there cost $6000. Almost three times as much as the OM1.

[@tkarlmann]

@@weisserth Good! Let's compare them!!!!