OM System Wow Camera


wonglp

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 20, 2007
6,938
122
63
Bukit Batok
Another man's opinion. OM1 Sensor. It's really more capable than the hardware can make use of..wow!

yeah, he's been using multiple olympus cameras over the years for astro.
 

wonglp

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 20, 2007
6,938
122
63
Bukit Batok
Lightning somewhere in Batu Pahat, captured from home.
Olympus OM-1, 40-150mm F2.8 Pro
ISO200, F3.2, 1.6s, 55mm
Live composite
 

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,754
63
48
sing
Another person's opinion. Robin.


I think Nikon (Malaysia) or Canon (Malaysia) or Sony (Malaysia) should consider offering Robin an ambassadorship for their brand.
He has a following within Malaysia and perhaps overseas.

OMDS is basically a sinking ship where the Captain of the Ship (Skipper/CEO) has abandoned ship (Olympus Camera Division) to save himself - and left the sailors (ex-workers of Olympus Camera Division) under his watch to an inescapable terrible fate. This is NOT leadership.
Exemplary skippers go down with their ship.

 

Last edited:

one eye jack

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2011
1,189
83
48
One person's opinion.


I think you are making omds a personal issue by attributing things Robin Wong did not mean with regards to omds imminent failing. Refering to om1 on why he is not getting it is because his em1 MK2 still meets his professional needs but later got the mk3. As for the above video
Camera conspiracies apologised to Robin Wong but you did not see fit to highlight it so I'm doing it here.


 

  • Like
Reactions: wonglp

Pitachu

Active Member
Sep 18, 2019
480
39
28
56
Thank you Ricohflex for being upset that the CEO of Olympus has abandoned ship.
But I do not agree that the CEO should go down with the ship.

Olympus Imaging DIvision was losing money 3 years in a row before he decided to give it up.
And the Imaging division is only contributing 6% of Olympus Revenue!

It does not make sense for the CEO to give up the other 94% and go down with the Imaging DIvision.
Anyway, it is probably NOT his decision, but the board of directors and shareholders decision.
He is definitely needed to steer the other 94% of Olympus business!
And he did turn it around and improve on the other divisions!



Another person's opinion. Robin.


I think Nikon (Malaysia) or Canon (Malaysia) or Sony (Malaysia) should consider offering Robin an ambassadorship for their brand.
He has a following within Malaysia and perhaps overseas.

OMDS is basically a sinking ship where the Captain of the Ship (Skipper/CEO) has abandoned ship (Olympus Camera Division) to save himself - and left the sailors (ex-workers of Olympus Camera Division) under his watch to an inescapable terrible fate. This is NOT leadership.
Exemplary skippers go down with their ship.

f
 

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,754
63
48
sing
Existing pool of users/owners have poured in big amounts of money into MFT bodies, accessories and lenses.

They will be the buyers of new offerings from OMDS.

That is until they change systems or lose interest in the hobby.

What this means is the theory of Sunken Costs will cause existing owners to buy OMDS product offerings.

But this is a stagnant pool.

In the sense that the pool will NOT grow.

As time passes, the pool will reduce in size due to natural attrition, change of systems or simply loss of interest in the hobby.

As for young generation of NEW camera buyers presently and into the distant future. There is nearly zero chance of MFT making inroads into their buying decisions.

Many are aware the closure of Olympus Camera Division. It has a stigma.

Now and in the future, young generation of NEW camera buyers have a wide array of competing products to choose from.

Fuji with its APS-C bodies.

Canon, Leica, Sony, Nikon - now adopt the 1 lens mount concept.
That is their APS-C bodies share the same lens mount as their Full Frame bodies.
Meaning if a NEW camera buyer buys into a (Canon, Leica, Sony, Nikon) system with an entry level body. Later on he may progress to full frame within the same camera manufacturer's system.

In other words, MFT is locked out in the wilderness.
To die a certain business death.
 

Pitachu

Active Member
Sep 18, 2019
480
39
28
56
See my reply below to each of the statement:

Existing pool of users/owners have poured in big amounts of money into MFT bodies, accessories and lenses.
>>> Interestingly, MFT is my 3rd camera system. With my 7 lenses to play around with, they still costs less than my Canon system with 2 lenses.

They will be the buyers of new offerings from OMDS.
That is until they change systems or lose interest in the hobby.
What this means is the theory of Sunken Costs will cause existing owners to buy OMDS product offerings.
>>> Your facts are so distorted. A Sony system with the same 4 primes and 3 soom lenses like my MFT lenses will cost a few times more. The pain is not writing off my MFT system. The pain is paying for the new Sony System. Did you even do the sums before making such a silly statement.


But this is a stagnant pool.
In the sense that the pool will NOT grow.
As time passes, the pool will reduce in size due to natural attrition, change of systems or simply loss of interest in the hobby.
As for young generation of NEW camera buyers presently and into the distant future. There is nearly zero chance of MFT making inroads into their buying decisions.
>>> But this is a problem for cameras in general, as everyone is switching to mobile phones.

Many are aware the closure of Olympus Camera Division. It has a stigma.
Now and in the future, young generation of NEW camera buyers have a wide array of competing products to choose from.
>>> Interestingly, my 21 year son leaves behind his Sony A7R3 and want to bring along my Olympus EM5 Mk3 for our last holiday as we are going for a long hike around Bali. Every camera format has their application!

Fuji with its APS-C bodies.
Canon, Leica, Sony, Nikon - now adopt the 1 lens mount concept.
That is their APS-C bodies share the same lens mount as their Full Frame bodies.
Meaning if a NEW camera buyer buys into a (Canon, Leica, Sony, Nikon) system with an entry level body. Later on he may progress to full frame within the same camera manufacturer's system.
>>> I have many photographers friends. None of them use Sony A7R series with APS lenses and none of them use their Canon R series with older generation lenses. You must be NUTS to pay so much for a high end Full Frame body and pair it with APS lenses to degrade the quality.

In other words, MFT is locked out in the wilderness.
To die a certain business death.
>>> Frankly, I do not know which camera brand will survive and which we die.
As mobile phone photo quality improves, more and more casual photographers are using their phones for most of their photographic needs, including myself.
 

JW73

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2003
1,447
15
38
48
Singapore
www.pbase.com
Using an expensive FF lens on the APS_C body that use 60% of the glasses. It’s good for the business. But not for me as a consumer. This is sunken cost.

Those heavily invested in the old DSLR mount lenses has more sunken costs as these DSLR mount are dead and are progressively replaced by the new mirrorless mount.

Which camera system can appreciate in value? Pls let me know. LOL.
 

Last edited:

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,754
63
48
sing
I have viewed many ambassador/visionary/influencer YouTube videos where they usually insist (with words to the effect):

{ My Clients find nothing wrong and are satisfied with my photos taken using Olympus/Panasonic MFT. Therefore MFT cameras are good and I will not give up MFT or change camera brands/systems. }

Somehow I am not convinced.
When a professional photographer takes money from clients, he should use the best equipment he can afford.

It is a once-off purchase to buy a better brand/system.
No one is expecting professional photographer to change brands/systems every month.

It is also a matter of consumer/client education.
Consumer/client should be educated that they can demand baseline conditions.

For example to specify that for the proposed job, the client will NOT accept professional photographer using MFT equipment to cover the event.

If the professional photographer is not willing to use better equipment (and insist on using MFT), then do not waste his own time and do not waste the client's time by applying/tendering for the job.
 

Pitachu

Active Member
Sep 18, 2019
480
39
28
56
You are not convinced because you are not a professional photographer.

I used to work in a Kodak Professional Lab and I print photos for 2 photographers who make more than $20K a month
shooting wedding photos with an Olympus system. In fact, they still have their Canon / Nikon systems (Sony was not as
established at that time). They told me the system is not important. It is the composition and being able to capture the
moment, that is what the customer is paying for.

I hope you are not imagining that if you go and get the latest Sony A7R4, your shots are much more beautiful than theirs.
(see my point?) It is the skill that matters.

Train consumers do demand a baseline? Of course consumers are aware of top end models! You don't need to educate them?
But what do consumers always ask photographers to show them? Their Portfolio.
Why? Because skill is all that matters.

And don't be too obsessed with higher resolutions, higher dynamic range, top quality glass. Don't be mistaken. I am not saying that they do not offer better image quality. They do. But having work in a lab with sponsored photo paper to do testing, we have done tons of testing, comparing RAW, TIFF, JPG format printouts, prime lenses vs zoom lenses, print with HD or non-HD, same photos with different camera bodies etc etc. From 4R to 12R size to even large format. At the end of the day, it is not easy to tell the difference, without staring at the photos for some time to pick up all the minute differences, which are probably begin to be visible on 8R size and above.

Their clients are certainly not going to do that! Clients are usually delighted by the photographer being able to capture the precise moment, the composition and the story the photo is able to tell, not because a photograph is taken by a high end Sony or a MFT camera. Don't kid yourself. Ricohflex, are you trying to find a short cut to high quality photos by spending money on more expensive gear compared to years of experience?

In fact, consumers should be educated that a lot of features on the latest cameras are usually marketing hype, one brand trying to differentiate from another brand with some innovative features. And when you take a step back and see if you really need those features and whether those features are able to bring your photos to the next level, they usually don't.

I have not upgraded my EM5 Mk3 to a higher end model, be it MFT or other brands as I find that it still meet my needs very well. I instead spend the money on vacations, hiking trips to get more photo opportunities, which made me a more happy photographer :cool:

I have viewed many ambassador/visionary/influencer YouTube videos where they usually insist (with words to the effect):

{ My Clients find nothing wrong and are satisfied with my photos taken using Olympus/Panasonic MFT. Therefore MFT cameras are good and I will not give up MFT or change camera brands/systems. }

Somehow I am not convinced.
When a professional photographer takes money from clients, he should use the best equipment he can afford.

It is a once-off purchase to buy a better brand/system.
No one is expecting professional photographer to change brands/systems every month.

It is also a matter of consumer/client education.
Consumer/client should be educated that they can demand baseline conditions.

For example to specify that for the proposed job, the client will NOT accept professional photographer using MFT equipment to cover the event.

If the professional photographer is not willing to use better equipment (and insist on using MFT), then do not waste his own time and do not waste the client's time by applying/tendering for the job.
 

Last edited:

one eye jack

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2011
1,189
83
48
Ricohflex , you are begining to sound like a vinyl record stuck on playing the same track again and again. The days where people argue about photo formats and resolution are over. It is accepted that various formats have limitations and the technologies and physics determine what is possible in terms relevant to the human eye. The fact is human eye cannot resolve what a typical image sensor can capture. That is right now mobile phone camera's photo quality is the norm of people's perceptions of image quality couple with phone screen technologies. In short even an entry look level digital mirrorless camera photo output far exceeds that of phone camera's and that of people's perception of image quality.

A human , I don't know about you, is a bunch of memories and emotions. What they want are images that capture their moments of lives and being able to revisit them whenever it feels like it. I don't want to sound like a broken record myself but image quality although it does matter does not mean the latest and greatest photo gear means it can capture those precious moments of people's lives. It makes it easier of course but at what cost?
It all boils down to photo enthusiasts having a false perception of what photography is. A photo is not all about sharpness, colour truthfulness or composition but what emotions it evoke from the viewer. I don't want to ramble on. Please think introspectively and neither am I implying that you are wrong. Just that how you see or think about photography. Peace.
 

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,754
63
48
sing
Panasonic has so far insisted that they will NOT make APS-C cameras.
Panasonic has so far insisted that they will continue to make MFT cameras and Full Frame L mount cameras.

Continuing MFT is a terrible mistake by Panasonic.
Many other brands such as Sony, Leica, Canon, Nikon have introduced APS-C bodies with the same mount as their respective Full Frame bodies.
Namely E mount, L mount, RF mount and Z mount.

A Panasonic Lumix APS-C L mount body will help bring their users into the Panasonic L mount Full Frame bodies.

It is 2022 -2008 = 14 years. MFT has outlived its usefulness as a sensor format.
Time to Panasonic to let go of a concept that was good during its time/era of 2008.

In 2022 and beyond MFT will eventually become obsolete.

Nobody's fault. It is simply progress.
That is why we don't use candles to light up out rooms at night. Some one invented something better.
 

blackmondy

Member
Oct 20, 2007
44
2
8
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
Using an expensive FF lens on the APS_C body that use 60% of the glasses. It’s good for the business. But not for me as a consumer. This is sunken cost.

Those heavily invested in the old DSLR mount lenses has more sunken costs as these DSLR mount are dead and are progressively replaced by the new mirrorless mount.

Which camera system can appreciate in value? Pls let me know. LOL.
Your kind of comment only amplifies your ignorance.
 

  • Haha
Reactions: JW73

Pitachu

Active Member
Sep 18, 2019
480
39
28
56
Panasonic has so far insisted that they will NOT make APS-C cameras.
>>> Panasonic make a choice between the 2 and decided that Full Full as their next target market

Panasonic has so far insisted that they will continue to make MFT cameras and Full Frame L mount cameras.
>>> Of course, their GH series are still quite popular with videographers. Why kill it if it is still generating some revenue?

Continuing MFT is a terrible mistake by Panasonic.
Many other brands such as Sony, Leica, Canon, Nikon have introduced APS-C bodies with the same mount as their respective Full Frame bodies.
Namely E mount, L mount, RF mount and Z mount.
>>> I am one of the victims of Canon APS format. I had invested in a Canon 90D in 2019 and several of the APS lenses, and what happened?
without warning, Canon desided to follow Sony and went mirrorless and come up with a new Mirrorless APS format.
Suddenly, no secondhand shop want my previous generation APS format lenses anymore!!!!
And Ricohflex keeping talking about Sunk Cost for MFT users? Don't kid yourself, if you choose Nikon or Canon,
your gear may be obselete too. Just be happy if you can use it for 3 years or more.


A Panasonic Lumix APS-C L mount body will help bring their users into the Panasonic L mount Full Frame bodies.
>>> Even as a MFT and Panasonic supporter, I dont think Panasonic will ever succeed with APS-C! The market is just too small now

It is 2022 -2008 = 14 years. MFT has outlived its usefulness as a sensor format.
Time to Panasonic to let go of a concept that was good during its time/era of 2008.
>>> From all your post, we knew you never understood the use of MFT. So for yourself, just write it off and don't get it since you will never see any benefits.
You can continue to use your big expensive hammer to nail every photo in every situation! LOL
For some of us, we just love to have a 2x factor to have smaller long tele lenses for certain photo opportunities.

In 2022 and beyond MFT will eventually become obsolete.
>>> Maybe, but who cares, seriously. All other formats may become obsolete too.
When the time comes, I will just change to the next most suitable format available.
 

  • Like
Reactions: JW73

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,754
63
48
sing
See this.


The person claims that just because pixel density is about the same (about 15)

apsc camera of 24 MP 23.1 x 15.4 = 355.74 / 24 = 14.8225

MFT of 16 MP 18 x 13.5 = 243 / 16 = 15.1875

Because pixel density is roughly the same, he says --- MFT and APSC should have more or less the same performance (other than resolution) in :
• high iso
• dynamic range
• colour depth

And that they should deliver the same quality of image.

Sorry I don't agree.
The abundance of BS on Internet purported to insist that MFT is "as good" as bigger sensors is ridiculous.

If what the YouTube uploader is saying is true, then consider a fictional 1 MP camera with a 1/3.2inch sensor

1 MP with 15.485952 square mm sensor size

1/3.2" is 4.544 x 3.408 mm = 15.485952 square mm

15.485952 square mm / 1 MP = 15.485952 pixel density (about 15 as above)

Can people seriously expect a 1 MP camera with a 1/3.2inch sensor to match image quality of a 24MP APSC camera?

Of course not.

It is this kind of reckless misleading BS that is spread on Internet - masquerading as FACTS.
Just to prop up a dead/dying sensor format that is MFT.
 

one eye jack

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2011
1,189
83
48
See this.


The person claims that just because pixel density is about the same (about 15)

apsc camera of 24 MP 23.1 x 15.4 = 355.74 / 24 = 14.8225

MFT of 16 MP 18 x 13.5 = 243 / 16 = 15.1875

Because pixel density is roughly the same, he says --- MFT and APSC should have more or less the same performance (other than resolution) in :
• high iso
• dynamic range
• colour depth

And that they should deliver the same quality of image.

Sorry I don't agree.
The abundance of BS on Internet purported to insist that MFT is "as good" as bigger sensors is ridiculous.

If what the YouTube uploader is saying is true, then consider a fictional 1 MP camera with a 1/3.2inch sensor

1 MP with 15.485952 square mm sensor size

1/3.2" is 4.544 x 3.408 mm = 15.485952 square mm

15.485952 square mm / 1 MP = 15.485952 pixel density (about 15 as above)

Can people seriously expect a 1 MP camera with a 1/3.2inch sensor to match image quality of a 24MP APSC camera?

Of course not.

It is this kind of reckless misleading BS that is spread on Internet - masquerading as FACTS.
Just to prop up a dead/dying sensor format that is MFT.

Ricohflex, as they say you are both right and wrong. Further more the wisdom of a little knowledge is dangerous or 3 blind men describing an elephant. Each is talking from his own perspective. Like you , it's about megapixels, pixel peeping and computer technology.

Yes your linked video is correct but instead of considering the analogy of a bucket in gathering light you jump to the conclusion of image size or viewing at 100% which invariably indicate a smaller sensor image or file has more noise but in fact a bigger sensor image needs to be magnified to see the same noise. This is only relevant when you print a photo but then again the human eye perceive differently than an image sensor. It's not all about megapixels or sharpness.
How as a human being view an image is more about feelings and emotion. A detailed and high resolution photo means nothing if it does nothing to a viewer.

Another thing is video which requires different things from an image sensor and camera processor. This video clears the confusion.





Sharpness? Who cares.

 

Pitachu

Active Member
Sep 18, 2019
480
39
28
56
@ricohflex, Did you watch the whole video?
The reviewer already qualify himself.
1. He already said "other than resolution", the rest are quite equivalent
2. He also mentioned that it is based on an older generation of APS-C sensors.
3. He is already comparing a 16Mp sensor with a 24mp APS-C sensor, I do not know why you want to reduce it to the extreme of 1mp ??? That is not what he is saying. He is just saying that based on a comparative pixel density (and of course comparable sensor size) the image quality is almost the same.

Like I say in my earlier post, I have been with photographers who have done such comparisons before and some of them actually failed the blind AB test, meaning they cannot tell the difference on a printed photo, with no loupe (powerful magnifying glass used to examine prints).



See this.


The person claims that just because pixel density is about the same (about 15)

apsc camera of 24 MP 23.1 x 15.4 = 355.74 / 24 = 14.8225

MFT of 16 MP 18 x 13.5 = 243 / 16 = 15.1875

Because pixel density is roughly the same, he says --- MFT and APSC should have more or less the same performance (other than resolution) in :
• high iso
• dynamic range
• colour depth

And that they should deliver the same quality of image.

Sorry I don't agree.
The abundance of BS on Internet purported to insist that MFT is "as good" as bigger sensors is ridiculous.

If what the YouTube uploader is saying is true, then consider a fictional 1 MP camera with a 1/3.2inch sensor

1 MP with 15.485952 square mm sensor size

1/3.2" is 4.544 x 3.408 mm = 15.485952 square mm

15.485952 square mm / 1 MP = 15.485952 pixel density (about 15 as above)

Can people seriously expect a 1 MP camera with a 1/3.2inch sensor to match image quality of a 24MP APSC camera?

Of course not.

It is this kind of reckless misleading BS that is spread on Internet - masquerading as FACTS.
Just to prop up a dead/dying sensor format that is MFT.
 

Pitachu

Active Member
Sep 18, 2019
480
39
28
56
Meanwhile, you guys may want to check out this DPreview video on the best 5 hybrid cameras (photo + video).
OM-1, GH-6 are mentioned in the video (no, they are not promoting these 2 cameras) just mention their strengths and weakness.
Also a good overview of other cameras too for those who shoot both photos and videos.
 

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,754
63
48
sing
Leica has discontinued its APSC line of camera and lenses.
To concentrate on Full Frame. And medium format.
The high price of Leica means they are in a special segment of the camera market.
Their target customers are different. Usually money is no object.

Panasonic will take note for their L mount full frame products.
Will Panasonic follow suit and drop their MFT cameras and lenses?

If Panasonic gives up MFT then what does it mean for OMDS with only 1 new camera OM1 mirrorless so far?
OMDS will be alone in a dying sensor format system.

Fuji first made APSC cameras long ago when cost of full frame sensors was prohibitive.
Now that Fuji has a medium format line.
Will Fuji decide to go Full Frame and drop APSC?