The upcoming Olympus E-M1X - did Olympus get it right?

Here are photographs of a prototype of the Olympus E-M1X which is supposed to be released early next year:

 

Link: (FT5) All full Olympus E-M1X pictures - 43 Rumors

 

It looks like a big camera, but it isn't anywhere near as big as something like a D5. Still, I have to wonder if it makes sense to make such a large camera around such a small sensor. Yes, the lenses are smaller, and I don't think the overall size itself is the problem. The problem is that the vertical battery grip is integrated and cannot be removed. That's what makes me wonder if this camera will make sense.

 

In a lot of ways it does, based on reported specs. It's great that high res mode can work at down to 1/60 sec. That's pretty short, and for the subjects that would benefit from high res mode, it's quite generous. But could you not achieve this resolution with an A7rIII? Keep in mind that the Sony camera effectively has a high res mode of its own (the file size is the same but the resolution is increased). And how many lenses can resolve that level of detail?

 

Perhaps this camera will have some specs that haven't been leaked yet. Perhaps you can shoot RAW at over 24fps. That would be quite attractive to film productions.

 

Micro 4/3 is a terrific format. There are several really, really good cameras in that system. Some are smaller and some are larger. And there are a lot of native lenses which are terrific performers. We will see if this new camera makes the system stronger. I'd like to think so.

I thought this camera was suppose to have a Full Frame sensor.

This is a question that is impossible to answer until the camera is actually available. If we assume that this is a camera that is meant to bring m43 up to professional action shooting specs then clearly it is not for everyone. If you don't shoot sports etc., then you will not need it. Although I do shoot some sports, I use the Canon 5dIV for that and no m43 is currently up to that capability at present, and I don't even have a 1DX. In my opinion, the high res mode is nice to have, but if you have already decided to go m43 then you have decided (correctly) in my view that "more pixels does not a better picture make", so I probably would not spend up to $3000 for the privilege. If you already have decided m43 is for you (and these are great systems), then I can see that the EM1X will potentially allow someone to totally switch for all types of photography to the format, which currently you cannot do if you are faced with demanding, fast-moving action. For sports such as basketball or some dance, low light capability can be more challenging with m43 over larger formats, so I anticipate that there will be continued drive to improve low light performance. The Canon 5DIV can go up to 12800 and produce good results (25600 is not good but usable), whereas this is not the case with m43 yet. Another route to the solution is that m43 can go for faster lenses (100 f1.4 etc) which, given the smaller size of the lenses, could help compensate for the smaller sensor in these scenarios.

I thought this camera was suppose to have a Full Frame sensor.

 

Not sure where you read that, but no. Olympus has recently confirmed that they will not be producing a FF cam.

Here are photographs of a prototype of the Olympus E-M1X which is supposed to be released early next year:

 

Link: (FT5) All full Olympus E-M1X pictures - 43 Rumors

 

It looks like a big camera, but it isn't anywhere near as big as something like a D5. Still, I have to wonder if it makes sense to make such a large camera around such a small sensor. Yes, the lenses are smaller, and I don't think the overall size itself is the problem. The problem is that the vertical battery grip is integrated and cannot be removed. That's what makes me wonder if this camera will make sense.

 

In a lot of ways it does, based on reported specs. It's great that high res mode can work at down to 1/60 sec. That's pretty short, and for the subjects that would benefit from high res mode, it's quite generous. But could you not achieve this resolution with an A7rIII? Keep in mind that the Sony camera effectively has a high res mode of its own (the file size is the same but the resolution is increased). And how many lenses can resolve that level of detail?

 

Perhaps this camera will have some specs that haven't been leaked yet. Perhaps you can shoot RAW at over 24fps. That would be quite attractive to film productions.

 

Micro 4/3 is a terrific format. There are several really, really good cameras in that system. Some are smaller and some are larger. And there are a lot of native lenses which are terrific performers. We will see if this new camera makes the system stronger. I'd like to think so.

 

We know nothing about this cam, save for what we can see in the pics.

The camera has not yet been announced, but if the rumors are reasonably accurate, it is too big, too heavy, and too expensive for me. I need better C-AF, subject tracking, & IBIS, and of course better high ISO and DR performance, but I need it in something around the size of a EM-5. I need a better medium telezoom (better than my 40-150 f5.6), but I am not carrying around a lens that is around the size of my Canon 70-200 F4L IS or costs as much as the Panasonic 50-200 f2.8-f4.

Presumably the next EM1 mkIII will have much of the good stuff as the EM1X, but without the size. The obvious upgrade choice for the 40-150 f4-5.6 is the 35-100mm Panasonic f2.8 which is c. $600 cheaper than the Panasonic 50-200mm.

Seems like every time Olympus delivers a new camera, the weight of the succeeding model creeps up a few ounces. I like my 15oz EM-5 and ponder how much the EM-1 Mk III will gain in weight over the 20.5oz Mk II and 17.5oz Mk I. With my bad back (and other assorted bad body parts), I carry the Oly system because I can't deal with the weight of my FF Canon. The Pany 35-100 f2.8 is the right size/weight, but I just don't want to loose 50mm of reach. A 40-150 f4 lens that's compatible with the 1.4x converter would be a nice option. It's all got to fit in my Domke F803 satchel or no sale.

Looks like the camera fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.

Hate to seem negative...but.

 

Big camera with a small sensor .Big money.

 

Wake up Olympus the clock is ticking....soon it will be good "Goodnight Vienna".

Ken. Some wants are just impossible to meet as you have found out. Most pros have a 70-200mm f2.8 equivalent and then have another lens for >200mm. That's just the way it is, if they want f2.8 for the most useful focal lengths. With m4/3 you get the 80-300 f2.8 at about the weight of a FF 70-200 f4, so there really is nothing to complain about. It is the laws of physics. If you want an even smaller lens then you need much slower one or less reach. They already have a small 40-150, except it is not a constant f4. I just cannot see them doing what you ask. Panasonic have the f2.8-4 50-200mm which is smaller than the Oly 40-140 f2.8, but it is more expensive. Some things are just not sensible or possible to do. I'd like a 40-100mm f2 myself, but I doubt any m43 maker will produce one.

 

Personally I think the OMD EM-1 mkIII is a good size. About the same size as the original Olympus OM1 from 1973 (but with a nice grip), but now apparently this has become "too big".

 

Re the Em1-X. Once you build in an integrated grip then you are clearly stuck with the size increase, so this is a camera only if you are doing a lot of portrait shooting and need the high performance. So it is not for everyone: it is not in the same arena as the regular mkII or the Fuji cams. It will be much cheaper than the rival sports cams from Nikon, Canon and Sony. Whether it will succeed we cannot tell yet obviously.

 

As to being ugly: well it seems to me no more ugly than any other of its ilk. Is the Nikon D5 considered beautiful?. To me, the Fuji XH1 is the ugliest camera I've seen for some time.

There are also reports of a major firmware update coming for the E-M1 Mark II, which would not be unlike what Olympus did with the original E-M1 shortly before they unveiled the Mark II.

 

There are so many rumor floating around/being discussed on the Micro Four-Thirds forum at DPReview it's time to just wait for the camera and see what it is we actually get.

 

As far as new products, I will be interested in January hearing about the rumored new lenses that will be announced about the same time as the E-M1X.

Hate to seem negative...but.

 

Big camera with a small sensor .Big money.

 

Wake up Olympus the clock is ticking....soon it will be good "Goodnight Vienna".

 

But is it any different than the big DSLRs like the Nikon D5 or Canon 1Dx? Those are proportionally large in relation to their sensor, as well. Also, keep in mind that lenses are part of the package and m4/3 lenses are smaller and lighter than similar FF lenses, are they not?

"lenses are part of the package and m4/3 lenses are smaller and lighter than similar FF lenses, are they not?" dmanthree.

 

But the world is moving to FF, the way it is. APC sensors just about get there but smaller sensors....Hmm. If folks are going to spend serious money on a camera system they will want FF.

 

Saving a few coins on the camera and lenses is just not going to cut it. The way it is. Sorry.

 

King Canute tried to turn the tide back. Tried.

Edited December 18, 2018 by Allen Herbert

But is it any different than the big DSLRs like the Nikon D5 or Canon 1Dx? Those are proportionally large in relation to their sensor, as well. Also, keep in mind that lenses are part of the package and m4/3 lenses are smaller and lighter than similar FF lenses, are they not?

I like what Olympus do with their super - tiny cameras like E-M10 series (and their pricing) they are sleek, stylish, speedy, old-school-looking and cheap. But I do not like their approach to upper tier class. Consider this: top smartphones have 2/3'' sensor and super-duper big pro Olympus has 4/3'' - it is close, go figure. :confused:

And despite all their efforts, did we see any on Olympic games or soccer chamionship on the grandstands with pros? :confused: Among wedding crowds? :confused:

"APC sensors just about get there". Fuji/Sony/Nikon APSC sensors have about 370 sq mm in surface area while FF is about 864 sq mm (Canon APSC is a measly 329 sq mm). So if an APSC sensor was just 2.3x larger (2.6x for Canon), it would be just like an FF sensor. According to DP Review the actual active area of latest Iphone XS main (wide angle) camera sensor is about 24 sq mm while the m43 sensor is about 225 sq mm. The world may be moving to FF, but even with a slightly lighter mirrorless body, my Canon system is simply too heavy for me to carry around, so I need a high quality compact system that does not cost a fortune. I do scratch my head at the current Olympus strategy of bigger and better. While it may be a killer sports or wildlife combo, I have no need for the rumored E-M1X or 150-400mm F4 zoom.

You don't see Fuji, Pentax, Hasselblad, or Phase One at the Olympic Games or soccer championships either. Should they give up too? I don't really buy this argument, if indeed cell phones are becoming better and better that means that smaller sensors are increasing in popularity and that therefore larger sensors are becoming superfluous for most people. Why would someone really want a larger format camera if they can achieve what they want with a smaller sensor? To compare an m43 system (ultra-wide to super tele lenses, wireless flash, macro etc) with a phone is not a fair comparison. A Kodak instamatic took roughly the same film as a Nikon F, but that didn't stop people buying a Nikon. There are plenty of professionals shooting m43, but probably not many taking sports, as the cameras are not quite there yet. People used to think 35mm was a "miniature format": only medium format or 4 x 5 was for "professionals". Look what happened to that idea.

I have no need of a 150-400mm either, but clearly the idea is that they are providing a full system much as Canon and Nikon produce a 200 f2 or an 800mm f5.6. Not many people actually buy or need these things, but if you do need it it is there and it attracts people to the ecosystem as a whole.

Robin, while I agree with you with respect to the build out of the m43 ecosystem, in the last few years, Olympus has almost exclusively introduced pro oriented lenses, like the f1.2 primes, f2.8 zooms, and a 300mm f4. Excluding the 12-100 f4 (a really sharp superzoom!) there is little I can use. I own the Oly 40-150 F5.6 and while its unexpectedly sharp for something that cheap and lightweight, I believe there is a market for a lens that is sized and priced in between the 7oz / $100 40-150 f5.6 and the 27oz / $1,400 40-150 f2.8.

Ken, the option is the Panasonic pro lens 35-100/2.8. It is lighter than the corresponding Olympus 40-150/2.8 lens, at half the weight of the Olympus 40-150/2.8.

Gary, as I mentioned above, I really do not want to give up 50mm of reach (difference between my cheapo 40-150mm and the Pany 35-100mm). My posts on this subject are sounding a bit like whining, so perhaps I will end with this one.

Perhaps a different perspective is in order:

 

(6:05)

Gary, as I mentioned above, I really do not want to give up 50mm of reach (difference between my cheapo 40-150mm and the Pany 35-100mm). My posts on this subject are sounding a bit like whining, so perhaps I will end with this one.

 

If you really want the extra reach then going down to the 35-100 is not an option.

 

I also would like the extra reach to 150, but the weight difference between the 35-100/2.8 and 40-150/2.8 is making me think real hard about that extra 50mm.

I tried shooting a soccer game with my D7200 + 70-200 off a monopod, and I lost so many shots because of the monopod not letting me track the players quickly, that I would be willing to sacrifice the reach for a lighter lens+camera that I can handhold.

You don't see Fuji, Pentax, Hasselblad, or Phase One at the Olympic Games or soccer championships either. Should they give up too? I don't really buy this argument, if indeed cell phones are becoming better and better that means that smaller sensors are increasing in popularity and that therefore larger sensors are becoming superfluous for most people. Why would someone really want a larger format camera if they can achieve what they want with a smaller sensor? To compare an m43 system (ultra-wide to super tele lenses, wireless flash, macro etc) with a phone is not a fair comparison. A Kodak instamatic took roughly the same film as a Nikon F, but that didn't stop people buying a Nikon. There are plenty of professionals shooting m43, but probably not many taking sports, as the cameras are not quite there yet. People used to think 35mm was a "miniature format": only medium format or 4 x 5 was for "professionals". Look what happened to that idea.

Somtimes soccer is played in evening condition in artificial lighting, then maybe the frame will need a strong cropping. So Olympus won't do well in this.

I have to correct myself though - 1/3'' is the size of smartphone's sensor. E-M1 is used by some travellers (some pro or semi-pro). Despite Olympus was used by some wedding photographers (when it was SLR, circa 2009), and I was an intensive Olympus user, now it is less popular brand among them. I don 't know a single now. Their top tier cameras are niche product, though first E-M1 sold at very affordable/cheap prices when version 2 was launched. There are also pros who shoot for blogs and online representation of their resized works. But if printed A1 or A0 sizes and examined close-up there might be problems.

They already made a crucial mistake with their E-5 which was not popular, as the world queued in a line hungry for D700s and EOS 5D mk2. Just observations. Because of some factors I will never buy Olympus again. Sigma and Panasonic are making new FF system FYI.