Oh oh, the ranting full-framers are back.
Oh boy, here we go again. Olympus comes out with a new micro 4/3 camera, the OMD EM1X, and the rabid full-framers come scrabblinging out of the woodwork.
Their main beefs seem to be three things; its too expensive, its viewfinder is inferior and its video is below par.
The price. To be clear, the full-framers aren’t complaining about the price, they’re complaining about the price for a non-full frame camera. Because of course if it isn’t full frame it must be inferior. Right. The OMD EM1X lists for C$3900. The Canon EOS 1DX Mark 11 with the same resolution and no stabilization at all lists for C$7300.
The viewfinder. I’ve just finished looking at the same scene with my OMD EM 1 electronic viewfinder (almost the same as is on the OMD EM1X) and my Pentax K1 full frame optical pentaprism viewfinder. I couldn’t tell the one from the other. The irony here is that an optical viewfinder was the touchstone full-framers harped on for years. Nothing else could ever be as good. Remember? Now the full-framers say that the Olympus isn’t the best electronic viewfinder out there anymore. Right. I find it quite wonderful to look through, showing me everything I could want to see. I don’t care that it’s the best - it’s really, really good and should in no way be used as a negative for the camera.
Video - I don’t use it and can’t comment. The main thing seems to be lack of 60 frame 4K mode and something way more technical about how it stores files.
Maybe the fourth issue is autofocus tracking, which it seems to do brilliantly on some things (cars etc.) but not others (people and birds etc.). To me, the thing of interest is that it is tracking with AI, a first in anything but a cell phone. And firmware upgrades with AI tracking for the other things will surely come along. Artificial Intelligence tracking is the opposite of an issue; it is a big plus.
And to address image quality/depth of field/low light once and for all (of course it won’t);
Image quality - professional photographers and printers in blind testing have been unable to distinguish 36” wide pictures taken on full frame cameras and micro 4/3 cameras. On my 15” x 12” glossy, hi-res picture calendars (shot in both full frame and micro 4/3), I could offer $1,000,000. and you couldn’t tell which was which. I can’t.
Depth of field in my experience is often too shallow with full frame cameras particularly with f1.8 and faster lenses; the additional depth of field available with 4/3 at f1.8 can be a real benefit. It’s at least 50/50. In the world of video, where there is also much back and forth re sensor size and its effect on depth of field, here is a quote from a very thorough article: - For many people, a chief benefit of a larger sensor is the ability to achieve shallower depth of field. Frame a shot with a lens at f/2.8 with a full-frame camera and it will appear shallower than a shot with the same lens, framing, and aperture on a Super 35 sensor. Being able to separate your subject from the background using shallow depth of field is a definite component to achieving a cinematic look. So bigger is better then, right? Well, not necessarily. You can still achieve cinematic shallow depth of field on Super 35, Micro Four Thirds, and even Super 16 formats. Also, the shallower the depth of field is, the harder it is to keep a subject in focus during the shot, even for an experienced focus puller. Workable depth of field might mean stopping down to f/4 or even f/5.6 on full frame and losing some stops of light, while a Super 35 camera might be fine at f/2.8 -
Low light - about ISO 6400 the 4/3 gets noticeably noisier. OK true. It's actually somewhat noticeable from ISO 800 and up. I don’t care because I shoot at a max of ISO 1600 unless I’m absolutely desperate. And as Petr Bambousek notes on his site, the 4/3 files clean up noise quite nicely without affecting detail. Fast lenses to me are far more useful and important than high ISO in the camera.
What this camera does well though is astounding. The image stabilization of 7.5 stops is unmatched and stunning and allows handheld shots of 5+ seconds. It allows 50mp hi-res shots, handheld, 80mp with a tripod (larger files than you get with a medium format camera). Some reviewers say, well just buy a Sony full frame A9 and all your shots will be 50mp. True (other issues we’ll get to below). But wasn’t their big complaint about micro 4/3 that it couldn’t match the resolution of full frame? So it matches the resolution and now they say why bother? Right. The Olympus allows sports and wildlife photographers to shoot at 1000 magnification, handheld, unheard of stuff. It has a built-in ND effect (for that cool moving water effect) that you can see before you shoot it. It shoots 60 frames/second with the electronic shutter, 18 with changing focus points. In Pro mode it pre and post records the picture so you can get exactly the expression or framing you want. It does brilliant, automatic focus-stacked shots. It is water and dust and freeze-proof to the highest professional standards.
And it has the big bonus of size, even with a relatively large camera like this one - the plus is in the lenses. This comparison applies to all full frame cameras, including mirrorless ones like the Sony A9. A basic example is a 17-30(ish) f 2.8 landscape lens, one of the holy trinity for photographers; on my Pentax, the pro-level lens is 2.2 lb. The Olympus equivalent (7-14mm) is 1.1 lb. I use an Olympus lens that weighs 1.1 lb. and it is hefty but workable, even over a long day. 2.2 pounds is a load - the difference is quite remarkable. Move on up to the telephoto lenses and the differences are far more pronounced. Certainly the Panasonic 100-400 lens is heavy and expensive in the world of 4/3 lenses; $3000 and 2.1 lb. but remember this is shooting 800mm in full frame format. The Nikon 800mm (there are no full frame zooms that go that high) is over 10 lb. and costs $20,000. Five times the weight and 6.5 times the price. Why use it? The answer it seems is for a 36” wide print that you can’t tell apart from the 4/3 shot. Right. You guys go that way; me, I’ll go over here.
Medium format offers about 2 to 2.5 times the sensor size as full format. Why aren’t people racing to it? Because the quality difference isn’t worth the extra cost for many and the lenses, camera size, and focus/usability issues often limit it to studio work. If you want your camera to be readily portable but take high-quality pictures then micro 4/3 is a terrific compromise between those two things. Honestly, what may be dead is full frame; micro 4/3 for the field and video and medium format for the studio is possibly going to become a keen solution for many pros.
P.S. Cinematic movies, i.e. shows you see at movie theatres, are often shot on 4/3 size sensors. In the 2019 list for cameras that were best for video, the top three had 4/3 sensors.