« Art and Fear (the Ceramics Lesson) | Main | Is $3,000 Too Much For a Camera? »

Friday, 25 January 2019

Comments

I understand the camera, and the expected user type, and the advantages m4/3 may have in that niche. What I cannot understand is a 2.36 mpx EVF in a top-of-the-toppest-range camera in 2019!

I'm a lifelong Olympus user. I got my start in photography when I was eight years old, when my father taught me how to use his Olympus OM-G, an entry level 35mm SLR. He later bought one for me, and later still I ended up with a couple of OM-4T bodies and a large collection of Olympus lenses.

Today, 90% of my work is done with the digital Pen-F and a collection of Olympus and Panasonic Micro 4/3 lenses. I love Micro 4/3. The image quality is good, the camera and lenses I have are small and light and affordable compared to those made for APS-C and Fullframe.

That said, there is no way in Hell I'd pay Olympus $3000 for that camera. Still only 20mp, really offers nothing the Pen-F doesn't have, except weather sealing, and I can buy the OMD-EM1 mkII for half the price that has that. If I could afford a $3000 camera, I'd get the new 40-something megapixel Nikon mirrorless.

You're absolutely right. There have been extensive discussions of the specs on other forums, and the basic question is, why? A Nikon Z6 is full-frame, quite a bit smaller, and with a small adapter, has access to the entire Nikon lens system -- and it only cost 2/3 as much. To my mind, the whole idea of m4/3 is that it provides excellent quality (but not quite up to FF standards) in a small package. This Olympus is actually larger and heavier than a Nikon D850, which many people consider the best FF camera ever made, with a 45mp sensor -- and it costs about the same as the Olympus. I don't know. The whole thing doesn't make sense to me. Somebody on another forum suggested that Olympus MUST have done some consumer research and figures that the camera will sell; another guy suggested that Olympus is simply nailing down the top of the line to make the point that m4/3 is a pro system; a third guy thought the M1X is a testbed for some interesting new technology. Maybe, but I won't buy it, and I have a *lot* of m4/3 glass. The M1X does have some interesting tech, including new computational tech (built-in neutral density effects, the best IBIS in the world) and while I won't buy the camera, I'm hoping that the tech will be exported to cameras like the GX8/9 -- small, but really excellent ILC cameras.

It defies any sort of logic I can come up with. Do they really think they can grab some of the professional sports market from Canikony? Wildlife, maybe, smaller lenses are welcome for those trudging through swamps and jungle and over mountains, but is there really an m43 bonus over A9 sized FF competition? I remain sceptical. Why, oh why did they not make the base grip separable so that it can also serve its owners when they want a walkaround?

It's a sad world we live in when you need to put such an all encompassing disclaimer before voicing your opinion.

My mother, rest her dear soul, had a great way of dealing with someone whose opinion she didn't like or felt was total road apples. She would simply say "well dear, that just sounds fantastic". This of course was said with a smile.

I wouldn't buy it. The E-M1X looks like a specialized tool for "tele" photography. To me, in its niche, makes much more sense than the f:1.2 primes from Olympus. If as promised it will allow hand-held shooting with a 500 mm objective (1000 mm equivalent) and very good focus tracking then it will be the best tool available for birds in-flight and similar situations. Personally, I want a more versatile camera. I am still very happy with my E-M1 ("Mk 1"), and image quality seems to me to depend a lot on the raw converter used (Capture One 12 seems to convert the ORF files from my E-M1 much better than any other raw converter I have tried). My E-M1 can be a small camera with the f:1.8 primes, and perform as a bigger camera with the battery handle and my old 4/3 50-200 mm zoom.

So sorry to create more comment overload for you, but I must.
This camera is everything I want and everything I don't want. Its a photographic kitchen sink. They didn't design this, they just made a list of ever function that some idiot internet video maker/reviewer has said and tasked the engineers with including it all. Can they think of anything else? Sure guys, throw it in, the water's fine.
For the record I want the handheld hi-res shot. And U want more of the ergonomics that Olympus can do well, but I don't need a camera that big, I've got a D3, for those situations where the smaller sensor isn't making it.
And I'm perfectly OK with just putting an extra battery in my pocket. Done it a lot, will do it again. And all that wireless and GPS crap? Who needs it?
Oh and the menus? Please, Olympus, I beg of you , please have some native English speakers do them next time.

Market Research:

Group 1: The group of likely camera purchasers who prefer M4/3 cameras is large.

Group 2: the group of likely camera purchasers who prefer a camera that includes an integrated vertical grip and dual batteries is also large.

Market research failed to notice that Group 1 and Group 2 do not overlap.

I'm fully with you on this. I shoot m43, like m43 but this camera is silly. I have an EM-1 mkii, which is more than big enough for me. Actually, I like the size and shape of the EM-5 even better, even though I'm definitely on the large size.

The strange thing is that for the most part, the EM-1 mkii has many of the speed features that the emix has; same top frame rates and everything. I can afford the new camera but I just don't want it. And on top of that they also announced the new 150-400/4.5 that looks like it will weigh 3kg + and won't really be hand holdable.

I think I'll go out with my Panasonic GM5, 12-32 and 35-100 lenses today. Same size sensor and weighing probably less than half in total of what the emix weighs.

Holding the first E-M1 at the NYC Photo Expo, I decided it was too small for my hands, and bought a Lumix GX7 instead. The M1X looks like an answer to that issue. (But then, there's the insane Olympus menu.)

I have a Lampredi engine under my Lancia Delta's hood, so the fact that you mention his engines here does flatter me.
Who doesn't flatter me is Olympus. I jumped the micro 4/3 bandwagon in 2011 and bought an E-P1, and I have an OM-2n film camera, but I'm no fanboy. I've seen images taken with the E-M1X (not "Mix", I think) at DPR and I can't see much of an evolution from the E-P1 to this so-called professional camera. Same blown highlights, same poor noise performance. Pictures at low to moderate high ISO values look waxy and noisy, and night photos at high ISO are unusable. (And getting ISO lower limit to 200 in an already very noisy sensor is just nonsensical: I'll never understand what was in their minds.)
The camera is cumbersome and presumably very expensive, thus negating the announced pluses of the micro 4/3 system. Why they believe pros will drop their D5 and 1D in favour of this camera is something that completely eludes me. I'm sure Olympus' lenses are great, but they can do nothing to address the sensor limitations.
Olympus has probably missed its last chance by not joining the Leica-Panasonic-Sigma consortium. Which is a shame.

Just wondering what you're thinking of Olympus's thinking here.

Not only that, but some reports say it still uses the EM-1 II's sensor and AF systems.

A camera this expensive should have top-notch video capabilities, too.

So yeah. I had an original EM-5, which seemed like the hottest thing in its class when it was released. Today, Olympus seems to have been lapped by Panasonic in video and Sony in just about every way, including price.

A camera like this makes sense for photographers who need to shoot with long telephoto lenses; for example, sports, wildlife, and bird-in-flight photographers. The Micro 4/3 format allows them to use much smaller, lighter, and less expensive lenses than they would if they were shooting "full format," all without significant compromise in image quality (at least in decent light). The E-M1X's IBIS won't do much for freezing action with rapidly moving subjects, but it will help stabilize monopod shots and reduce the need for a tripod. I have no interest or need for such a camera. If someone else does, that's fine with me.

I always considered the turbocharged Lotus Esprit a "four cylinder Ferarri". I loved the brutally angular shape from the 70s; the mid-80s refresh softened the edges, much to my chagrin.

Olympus looks a little painted into a corner here, where do you go from a $3000 m4/3 body?

Smaller sensor cameras were designed around the notion that because the sensor was more than adequate for most photographic tasks and preferences, the cameras could be made more compact, lighter in weight, with smaller lighter lenses, and could be made more economically than larger sensor cameras of similar quality.
They ave now given up their price advantage.
They are positioning themselves as the Leica of Japan from a pricing standpoint, but Leica was quick to realize that limiting the company to one sensor size would have been a mistake.
Olympus makes fine cameras, I wish them well

What I noticed is it’s actually heavier than my old E5. Plus I noticed that DPR is already reporting slight trouble focusing on kids. Plus it has weird specialized plane, train and automobile focus modes. Olympus should know that the two main modes that will matter to many users, even on a camera like this, is running kids and flying birds. Anyone can cake a sharp train shot, right?

I agree -- it's ridiculous. And three grand? They must be joking. (Disclaimer: I'm still shooting an E-M5, original version, so maybe I'm not the guy to ask.) For that money, I'd buy a Nikon 750 and have money left for lenses.

I LIKE and have USED m4/3 cameras.

Having said that, the Emix looks like a sheep in wolf's clothing.

Now I will go into hiding for a while.

Cheers

You've skipped what looks to me to be the news here -- they're asking 50% more for this than they asked for the already-expensive EM-1 MkII.

I can't tell if they've improved the AF. The AF in the EM-1 MkII is inadequate for anything like sports, disappointing compared to the 5-generations-old Nikon D700 for example. They talk a lot about the AF but there aren't accepted test standards. Improving the low-light performance is good; I benefited from the higher ISO capabilities of the D700 back when I had it.

It looks like they're trying to make a mirrorless that's competitive with DSLRs, finally (possibly after Nikon made one; I don't know how the Nikon models stack up in these areas). Different kinds of photography challenge different parts of the performance envelope of a camera.

If the E-mix had lame specs I would agree with you, but I just read the details of this camera's capabilities and it seems as though instead of a 4-cylinder Ferrari, it might more accurately be compared to an SUV running a Bugatti engine. It looks like everything in this camera is designed for shooting action and sports (and fashion?), and the specs are pretty impressive. That having been said, it does surprise me that the sample photos they provided with the article were all landscapes. I guess we should consider it lucky that the marketing department didn't design the camera.

I really liked the straight 6 in my '68 Camaro. I think you could stand next to the engine *inside* the engine compartment!

It's amazing that they can take what used to be such a cute small camera system and turn it into an F5 ... I was OK with the camera being the size of (or slightly larger than) an FM2 or OM-1 but this is pretty silly.

As an owner of both a 4 cylinder (Honda) and a 12 cylinder (Jaguar) car, I can appreciate the new Olympus MIXmaster camera. The Internet is by far the dominant mode of publication for pro sports and wildlife photogs these days publish at very low resolutions. The sensor size and high ISO performance are probably just fine for web publishing and the reach would be truly amazing. I always feel sorry for the pros when I see them lugging their humongous lenses around a race track, football game or golf course. I would imagine a scaled down kit would be very appealing.

Oh Mike how could the 1957 Ferrari 500 TRC be anything other than a Ferrari?

That Scaglietti could sure bend metal eh?

Where is that spare three million dollars for the really nice toys?

Aside from the handheld hi-res ability I don't see anything really appealing here for the kinds of photography I do, especially considering the increased size and weight. What I'm hoping as a happy Olympus user is that lots of people need to sell off their E-M1 Mark II's so they can buy this new model. Then I can pick up an additional body or two without breaking the bank.

"Is it just me, or does this product (behind all the hoopla) maybe make less than perfect sense?"

It's not just you. It makes no sense to me, either. But "photography" for a great many people is more about role-playing than images. Witness, for example, all of the "rangefinder-like" body styling on cameras that have absolutely no relationship to a real rangefinder camera. So here we have a "1Dx II-like" costume packaging a little four-thirds sensor. Vroom, vroom! Take me to the game! If that's what floats someone's boat, fine with me. But I remain amused and bewildered.

I think this camera would have made perfect sense for those who almost exclusively shoot in harsh conditions and with long glass. I say “would” because the fast that it’s full of older hardware and that its CAF isn’t top notch means it doesn’t actually deliver those goods.

I think the E-M1X was designed exactly the way it should be to do the job it was designed to do. As a very long-time Canon 1D-series user, that is very clear.

The E-M5 MkII, Pen E or G9 camera frames and lens mounts are not torsionally stiff and strong enough for the types of long (and relatiively heavy) lenses that would need to be mounted on this camera and maintain critical optical tolerances, let alone providing the requisite durability and reliability. Pros don't care a whole lot about all the newest "specs", they care about toughness and durability. And shutter life.

No, I think the E-M1X looks great, and if I weren't so happy with my Fuji X-H1 being built in the same regard, I'd be giving it a long, hard look for my racing photography. I might rent one and the fab 300mm f/4 just to give it a good workout in some real-world demanding motorsports events, so, hell yeah, I'm down with that.

As for a 4-cylinder Ferrari: with all due respect, you've got this one all wrong, Mike. The E-M1X is not 4-cylinder Ferrari; its a Honda CBR600RR. And having owned a CBR600RR & ridden one several times at full "race pace" at track days, I can speak to the fact that riding the 600RR with its "little" four cylinder motor is like...being strapped to a Hellfire missile. And, hell yeah, I'm down with that, too! 😎

'So, whether it be micro, or in-line, don't be knockin' small fours...you'd might just encounter some guy on a Hellfire missile....just sayin'! 😜

I think your title is too generous. "Whale-Tail on a Honda Civic" would've been a more accurate metaphor.

It's probably a smart move for Olympus, but primarily for marketing purposes. It's good to have a "dream machine" that's generally unattainable but gets public attention and sparks the imagination. That way the next model down (E-M1.2) seems like a much better value, particularly when it gives the buyer 90% of what the dream machine offers at a price that now seems like a comparative bargain. In the end, I bet Olympus is hoping to sell a lot more E-M1.2s than it would without the E-M1X.

Reading your disclaimer and adding my own - I use m4/3rds. So...

I can't see the purpose of the new Olympus. Surely it's make 'em smaller not bigger.

I would love a very compact Pen-f body. I mean small. Make a monochrome one as well. Thanks.

This is bigger than my GH5 and costs way more.

Andy

While I'm quite impressed by some of the tech in this beast, until I read Kirk Tuck's thoughts I really wondered who the heck this was for. Things make a bit more sense to me now, but I still can't help thinking there's a bit of "mine is bigger than yours" bragging going on here. I wish Oly had spent their energy updating the E-M5 II or Pen-F. Although there isn't a E-M1X is my future, I hope they have great success with this.

Niche marketing at it's purest? All I need from Olympus is an updated EM1-2 with a higher resolution viewfinder and native 64 ISO, expandable to 32.

The Olympus E-M1X is only for professionals who shoot editorial action and sports, for a magazine or news service. The main EM1X selling point is its 7.5 stop IBIS. A light-weight Olympus 300mm f/4 PRO lens plus the new MC-20 2x extender gives a sports pro a handholdable 1200mm full-frame equivalent.

Ferrari developed the light inline four to replace a heavy blown V12. Olympus wants sports shooters to replace Canon's heavy 1DX2/Big White lenses, with light Olympus E-M1X/PRO lenses. Whats not to like?

This looks like a nice enough camera but it also feels like a "me too" product. It does not feel like something Yoshihisha Maitani would have penned.

I hope you explain why you got a g9 while the Pen-F, E-M5 Mark II, or GX9 are better housed.

Jay

I'm more perplexed by the hundredth anniversary model - an Em1 mk2 in silver. Mind not exactly blown - I thought a monochrome sensor Pen-f would make more sense and more sales.

That said, I can see the sense of the emix - for wildlife photography the new gubbins coupled with the crop factor on long lenses would make a much more wieldy setup than a full frame equivalent. But I can't see many new users opting for it instead of FF - the internet has spoken and it doesn't like m4/3.

The Pen-fm would have been a better bet methinks.

(Ferrari may not have made 4cyl cars, but Porsche did - although, 356 aside, they're not the most revered of their cars.)

I had the same kind of reaction, first trying to compete head on with the Canon 1Dx and the Nikon D5 (and Sony A9) seems like a bad idea at first for Olympus - they thrive in niches and Canon and Nikon have that one filled to the point that pros that buy those cameras won't even consider other models from the same brand.

Secondly, why is it so big? the whole point of 4/3 is to have smaller/lighter cameras

I use m4/3s and I guess I agree with you, sort of. The M1X is not an all-round m4/3s body, it is pretty specifically targeted to sports/action photography, imo. So for people who don't want/need/like it, they can still buy one of those other m4/3s bodies.

I find it interesting that it is only now that mirrorless fast auto-focus high-FPS cameras are attaining the capabilities of the Nikon 1 V2 and V3 who showed that you could do that with mirrorless bodies, as if it was anything other than a CPU/chipset issue. If Nikon had not orphaned the 1 series after not delivering good fast zooms for it, I would have never bought the E-M1 for sports/action. My E-M1 with grip is probably not far off the size of the M1X, so one day maybe I'll pick one up second-hand.

I believe they are thinking of giving something to everyone in the system, not just the most common users.
I imagine there are only are small markets for the Olympus 300mm, Panasonic 200mm, Olympus 75mm, Panasonic 12mm, etc. They make niche lenses, but when they make a niche body the internet melts. I don’t get it.

Kirk Tuck has a good take on it, I do think. Not for me of course.

Indeed this new Olympus looks like a hell of a lot of camera for not much sensor. I can't see it being successful in either pro or amateur markets.

Agree with you completely. I use an E-M1 Mark 1 and passed on the Mark 2 as it was all about “speed”. The EMiX is even more so and doesn’t interest me at all. I was hoping for a focus on better image quality but it looks like Olympus has given up on that. I’m now considering a Sony FF mirrorless as image quality seems to be a priority for them. Cheers Kevin

For me just love that retro Nikon film camera with motor drive look....

LOL Olympus is an innovator and I applaud them and buy their products. This camera though is a departure from their core sensibility - high quality in a small package. Great tech which if packaged in a Em1 or II format would be what I would buy. I'm interested in the accessories and lens announced which should get some love from the marketplace.

Maybe there are some folks out there who will love that big new camera.
But I wish Olympus would also do something like the Panasonic GM5, extremely lightweight and small, but with a good EVF, with the great 20MP sensor, and with IBIS, of course! Now that would be a camera! (No, the Pen F is too big.)
Almost like a Miata with a Ferrari engine ;-)

It makes sense with an L-Mount. Just sayin'

I'm a EM1 Mk2 owner. It's my versatile do-nearly-anything camera, for when my rangefinders are not the tool to use. However the E-mix (that was my reading as well!) is not on my buy list as it doesn't solve my problems. If Olympus care to sell me another camera, and I hope they do, they could start by creating a DIY interface design app for my Mac, so that I can customize a basic 'my needs only' user interface on my computer and download to the camera. Then they would be well on the way.

If they put that interface app and some of this new e-mix technology into a PenF package, I would be sold. As it is, if I haven't used my EM1.2 for a few days in favour of the rangefinders I have, I need to give myself a brief refresher course before putting it to use. I would LOVE to do away with that and just have a simple menu that meets all my needs and doesn't have all the irrelevant junk I don't want to see, and all the settings I only set up once. Vertical grip? No thanks.

I don’t see why a pro camera should not have an MFT sensor, In fact as you’ve often pointed out, the deeper DoF is usually an upside, as is the reach.

My only issue is how big and heavy it is. But of course to many folk, it would not be “professional” if it wasn’t.

It's as though the design team were briefed to create a homage to the Olympus E-5. To my eyes, the two are eerily similar.

It's not too unkind to call the Olympus E-5 a sales failure. Methinks the M1X will go the same way, which is as sad as it is so seemingly obvious.

PS I would dearly love to be wrong.

I'll take a 2.65 litre 750 HP 4 cylinder Offenhauser for a VW/Porche 914 any day of the week. Even the older 450 hp version from before WWII would be a gem.

But Olympus? Still remember them leaving film photographers high and dry, so no sale here.

To quote a very funny movie, "aside from that, what have the Romans done for us?"

To set aside the target market then ask who it is for seems odd. Olympus obviously believes they have developed a large enough market for this camera (possibly by looking at 300mm f4 sales).

Will it be successful? Maybe.

It certainly won't get anyone ditching their iPhones any time soon.

I kind of 'get it' in the context of the 'new zeitgeist'. This is a camera that takes the last major human factor out of airshow and motorsport photography - keeping track of the object.

Is photography really more fun when everything is automated?

A correction to my earlier post, when I apparently wrote that the Nikon Z6 cost 4/3 of what the Olympus does, which would be more. I meant to write that the Z6 costs 2/3 as much (about $2,000, as opposed to the Olympus' about $3,000.)

[I fixed the original comment --MJ]

Another point, maybe not related, but maybe somewhat related, is that big battery compartment on the M1X, in a fixed grip. There may be uses for it, but not for me, and I really can't think of who, given the weight of it. I've never actually run a battery down on my GX8s. Reports on the web suggest anywhere from something in the 300s to something in the 800s in terms of shots, on the GX8, depending on how much chimping you do, and how much you keep the view screen on. If you need more than that, the batteries are about the size of the first knuckle of my thumb. So is it not possible (gasp!) to carry a spare battery, or even two? I know, I know, it takes five seconds to change batteries, which could cost you the shot of your life...

As Kirk argues, this is a niche product. Okay. But I believe that niche is vanishingly small. I know nothing about video, and maybe that's where the big battery use will be. On the other hand, some guy on DP Review was complaining that he only got an hour of video out of his GX8 battery. (He apparently couldn't afford a spare.) But I gotta say, an hour is one hell of a tracking shot...

I guess my bottom line is, if you need a bigger, tougher, more inflexible, weather-sealed camera for the hardest pro use, maybe m4/3 isn't the system you should be looking at. M4/3 is a great system; my favorite system. But it's not for everything.

I want to hear of an updated Pen F. I want one with a nice 25/2.8 Tessar formula normal lens that I can pretend is my late lamented Contax II.

This? Not so much. "not target market" indeed!

Seems to me that this is part of the larger trend of the camera companies cranking out top end cameras, Olympus is no different. The technology these days is all so excellent, all the cameras and sensors are high quality, as are the modern lenses being made for them.

I think the trend toward top of the line cameras and lenses is because the camera companies know the smartphones are going to devour their consumer products, it's already happening and seems inevitable.

That said, it's a positive feature here for Olympus that they are including computational photography stuff in their camera. That's a reflection too on the impact of smartphone cameras.

When it comes to just plain looks- hard to beat one of these...
https://www.google.com/search?q=dino+ferrari&tbm=isch&source=univ&client=firefox-b-1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHm-TY0YrgAhUBLK0KHWw1A50QsAR6BAgDEAE&biw=1920&bih=1086#imgrc=ylswOCjJMorhIM:

It certainly is pricey, but I like it.

I use 2 EM-1 mki bodies, both with the grip, and I can see the appeal of a solid all in one. Been thinking about a mkii, but I wanted it with a built in grip as I never use without, and its a pain to access both batteries.

Bingo.

I love the image quality, the Zuiko lenses, and the size of all the kit. Much more manageable and friendly to use (for me) than equivalent canikony.

Side note: I also appreciate the reliability of Olympus bodies and lenses (excluding the exploding lens hood on the 40-150 2.8), something I cannot say of Sony and Cannon, which have both let me down at critical moments on jobs.

Once this comes down in price a bit, I'm looking forward to getting one. Happy days :-)

E-mix was also the first thing i thought.

The only thing that bothers me is for a "halo" product they didn't have top of the line viewfinder or screen and they should have done that.

About the form factor, when I bought my first SLR it was the canon 450d. A relatively small camera but with the camera grip it was quite fantastic to handle. I upgraded to 1d at some point but it was just to bulky and heavy.. that is why I turned to micro four thirds with the gf1. But I think with its size and weight the E-mix will be more akin to the 450d than the brick that the 1d is. I could see myself buying it.. not now for 3000usd but after a few years. Not like I need the latest and greatest, I still use the gf1 along with the original OM-D.

Alfa Romeo currently makes a 4 cylinder Ferrari. It has been very successful as a halo product.

Sales of Nikon D5 units are an order of magnitude lower than sales of D750 units. The same goes for 1Dx compared to 5D Mark IV units. Yet the D5 and 1Dx are very successful and respected products.

Consider that the E-M1X is the only interchangeable lens camera in the world:
- with 7 stop IBIS;
- that is mirrorless with an integrated grip;
- with a 4:3 aspect ratio and integrated grip;
- that is mirrorless with a CIPA rating over 800 shots per charge;
- that is waterproof.

(Then again, maybe there is a reason why it is the only one in the world).

So, when Panasonic comes out with a dual grip sports type camera based on the Leica full frame mount to compete with the 5D and 1Dx, will sports photographers buy that with a lens roadmap full of heavy Canikon style lenses? Or will they prefer the E-M1X instead?

It's only natural that the market is confused about this camera announcement, especially considering all the leaks and rumors. But don't make the mistake of thinking that Olympus is confused - this product is a very deliberate play. Success however, is far from guaranteed.

Mike, I don't remember if it was your blog or somewhere else, but I've read some time ago that top of the line cameras are never profitable.

Here is an analogy for you. A person wants to buy a new camera. Maybe they're entering the world of photography, maybe not. They want to choose a system.

Ok, they say, which one will it be? Oh, look, Canon - they offer me 50 MPx and some say the best color science on the market. Hey, Nikon, they provide me with incredible dynamic range and with some great flash system and out of this world autofocus. Panasonic - wow, their video capabilities are unmatched. Olympus - look ma, they've got this impossible 7.5 stops of IBIS with 18 frames per second and buffer that grows as you keep shooting... Exaggerating here on purpose.

Ok, let's see the prices... Well, keeps that person their thinking process, let's see what's next in line. And then after a series of - "this camera is just like that camera, but a bit cheaper and a bit weaker on spec", they arrive at their run of the mill Canon double digit or whatever they can really buy on their real budget.

Very few people will buy this new camera but they will know exactly how they are going to put it to use. It truly will be select few.

The rest will boast to their social circuits that their camera has the same logo as that one, that has this many stops of IBIS or that many frames per second of sub-machine gun frame rate.

I am still shooting with my EM-1. I find it surpassing my Pentax K-5 in all aspects, given that meanwhile I hope I kept developing as an amateur photographer.

Certainly, I won't be buying this camera because EM-1 is the biggest I would be willing to use. I will be very much interested in Pen-F or whatever comes after it once my EM-1 is up for replacement.

Again, Olympus has its market share, its user base, its market research, its (unique) technology and presently this new camera (I really like it - E-MIX) just adds to the mix (slight irony intended).

I've read somewhere a person has proclaimed that they were going to switch brands off Olympus having seen this camera. This is silly to my eyes. Camera is a tool. Tools are made and acquired for specific purposes.

I honestly don't get the people for whom their photographic gear is a status/fashion statement.

I'm seeing some wonderful pictures made with EM1.2 posted on 500px where I post my photographs. I'll be looking forward to seeing pictures from EMIX.

@Mike - the real issue I see here is, m43rds unique value proposition has always been around the tech it has at a smaller size than the other systems.

Take that away, and it doesn't make much sense. History shows what happens there with the old 4/3rds system, where Olympus produced the E-3/E-5 and big fast zoom lenses, trying to compete with Canikon on their terms. Bad idea.

So now we have a camera aimed at pros that are used to FF, better ISO for sports freezing of movement, better company support. from Canon and Nikon and you can add to an extent Sony now.

And now for the real question- is it really the best of priorities for expanding the marketshare of m43rds to focus on an extreme niche product that doesn't show the system at its best (size + excellent perf.) at a time where Olympus market share has shrunk a bit, competitors in FF are going to drive those prices down and there's even Fuji around with some rather great stuff?

Shouldn't the priority be to pack the best tech as much as possible in PenF, OMD EM5 MKIII's, kill that old outdated 16 MP sensor in models, etc.?

I think this is a big mistake. I hope Olympus follows up quickly with new updated near top tech models at the other tiers (even if price goes up) because it keeps the unique differentiator of m43rds alive.

Panasonic has made clear they are putting more resources in the L-mount. I think they will keep a foot in m43rds but they are going to make it very easy for them to leave m43rds if they are not making profit.

Olympus is doubling down in m43rds... they really need to play their cards right. The EM1X ain't it.

It looks to me as if the 'battery grip' is part of the camera. That makes it essentially unuseable for left-eyed people, which is nice.

(If you are left-eyed, cameras are a pain to use in landscape because the right-hand end of the camera, with all the controls, is in front of your face. But you can hold a camera in portrait, 'upside down' with your right hand on the shutter release and this works well (especially rangefinderoid cameras). Almost all my pictures are portrait for this reason. Except battery grips with controls for using in portrait on them all have the controls in the wrong place so they're useless. I hate to think how heavily left-handed people cope: if your a guitarist you can at least buy a left-handed instrument.)

"I guess my bottom line is, if you need a bigger, tougher, more inflexible, weather-sealed camera for the hardest pro use, maybe m4/3 isn't the system you should be looking at. M4/3 is a great system; my favorite system. But it's not for everything."

This. This is especially true because after buying the Giant Body with the Smaller Sensor all you will find (I predict) is that the sensor and focus performance will not be up to what you wanted from a Giant Body for Shooting Fast Action and Sports. If you want that sort of Giant Body in the first place you already know what to buy and the products are mature and well-developed. Just go get that.

It's not really clear to me that the performance of this camera will be much above the current E-M1 Mark 2 ... at a huge size and weight penalty.

So I remain confused.

I am so much amazed to see people talking as if they are in the Board of Directors of Olympus Imaging. I am reading all over the forums so many non logical arguments regarding Olympus decision on bringing us this camera. Is there an egoism leverage when someone is pretending that participates in Olympus strategy and product development? But don't pretend what we all do not know this phenomenon. Same as in politics. I'm wondering how this camera launch is opposed to the smallness of m43? So many small m43 cameras out there. Is there an unwritten rule that m43 with smaller than FF sensor, cannot get much bigger (same amount bigger as in the DSLRs smaller and bigger cams) so as to gain some characteristics that would not be possible with this size? So experienced photographers in here and are comparing apples with oranges. There is an infinite appetite for criticism, based on unrealistic expectations and non logical assumptions and conclusions. My personal opinion is that this cam is serving different needs than people's that express criticism. I see this cam as the strongest point in Olympus dedication on the format, opening a door for the first time during the past 10 yrs.

PS Ferrari are expensive, its more of a Lotus Esprit

["Same as in politics"? I can't believe you said that. In a democracy, citizens are expected to be informed about government (too few are) and are expected to cast their vote (too few do). When companies offer products, something similar is true for consumers. Their opinions are not impertinent. If the "Board of Directors" is so omniscient and omnipotent, as you imply, then why are Minolta, Contax, Samsung's camera division, and Kodak no longer players? I can't agree with you that there is something wrong with interested potential purchasers discussing their opinions of products. --Mike]

The E MIX is a specialist camera, just like a Nikon D5 or Canon 1D xyz (or whatever it is these days) are. It's for sports, action, or anything that needs a high frame rate and a robust build for attaching longer and heavier lenses.

It's not for me. I shoot MFT full time, make my living with them day in and day out. Love the small form factor. BUT if I shot a lot of sports I'd be all over this. Paired with their 50-150 or 300, and whatever their new long zoom will be, it would be a killer app for just that thing.

The hand held hi-res is pretty cool, but will probably trickle down to a smaller body in the near future. The video stuff guts on the MIX just brings them up to spec with the GH5.

If the adaptive AF is as good as they claim, and maybe even 90% as good as a Nikon D5 or D500, then they are in a good place.

All I can say is that if you don't need it, just yawn and move on. For the few who do, I'm sure they are doing a happy dance right now. For the sports shooters who are old and have bad backs like me, maybe they'll consider switching to something lighter like the E MIX so they can shoot for a few more years instead of limping off into an early retirement. Besides a pair of E MIX cameras along with a 50-150 and a 300 f4 would cost less than a FF 600 f4, and probably weigh less too.

Horses for courses as they say.

I run a battery down in my EM-1 MkII most days of roller derby. With a little anticipation you can change batteries at a break in the action, but I know people who don't want to think that far ahead. And I wouldn't be surprised if somebody shooting 4x the photos I do wouldn't run the battery down sooner, maybe multiple times per bout. (I'm already using the 40-150, so focusing big glass, and using CAF, so I can't increase my power draw too much.)

This certainly isn't the body for the dedicated landscape photographer, and probably not for the street shooter (I don't do enough of that for my opinion to be more than a guess though). But it does seem to be designed for fast continuous action, sports and wildlife.

Huh. So it's about that grip? But once you put one on the G9 the difference seems negligible. Or is it that you don't accept the idea of vertical grip on a small sensor camera? Meself, as a simple portratist, I love the idea of vertical grip for handheld cameras - great relief for the spine, especially during longer shoots.

I worry a bit about the analogy in that, for me, the small sensor isn't what makes this release a V4. It's the *outdated* small sensor. I think that the small-sized sensor can be great for lots of things, and not just camera body size. (DoF, stabilization, lens size, offhand).

So I disagree with the principle built into your words that you can't sell a pro-style body with pro-quality lenses for a sensor this size.

I bought into the micro-4/3rds system knowing that things like resolution, dynamic range, etc would be, say, 2-3 years behind the leading FF systems. And I was okay with that. I believed that Olympus would keep up, with this lag built-in, in producing new sensor tech. I thought that that technology lag would always lead to imaging that was good enough for me.

But with this EM1X I'm truly bummed that they aren't providing, as far as I can tell, the latest 2019-level micro-4/3rds sensor tech. Instead the sensor seems to be effectively the same one from many years ago.

It's too bad, too. I was ready with this release to invest in two pro primes and this pro-body, albeit probably a year from now. I was even ready for a roomier body to fiddle with. My digital photography has grown up with micro-4/3rds and I love the OM-D line, and I was ready for this style of body and ready for the larger lenses.

The E-M1x appears to be designed for those pros shooting sports and wildlife. As already stated by Kirk, not intended as a walk around tool. It certainly could be used that way if desired, but was not the intent of the designers. Time will tell if we see it on the sidelines of sporting events and in use by wildlife photographers.

Olympus is staking claim to a niche market: maybe that’s dumb or maybe it will keep them afloat. It will be interesting to see how committed to Micro Four Thirds Panasonic will be as they build for the L mount.

I’m also curious to see how Olympus may have improved hi-res mode in the E-M1X, i.e. handheld hi-res mode (50mp). When I tested my EM5ii hi-res mode against my Nikon D810 I thought it looked at least as good and maybe better. But it is often not practical ( i.e. outdoors). If Olympus addressed this it could erase some of the sticker shock, which is the main complaint people are voicing. But even here, if you look at frame-rates, the only competitor is the Sony A9 at $4500. My guess is that the Olympus will track over time to any reductions in A9 pricing. The camera wars may get as gruesome as Game of Thrones.

Eh. For the money, I'd prefer a D850 with stabilized lenses - in camera IBIS is great, but with the long glass the lenses will have stabilization built in, so it's not such a factor. I don't see Olympus having enough lenses for this beast, but for specialized applications, it has appeal enough to keep m43 users from getting another system -but are there enough m43 users that want something like this?

So, Ferrari built his cars for a specific purpose, racing. Olympus has done the same with this camera, built it for a specific purpose. Ferrari built race cars, Olympus has built what could become a preferred camera for photographing race cars actually racing.

I see this camera as all about photographing action at a distance, often hand held. Smaller sensor means smaller lenses means less weight and easier manipulation. More advanced image stabilization (both body and lens) means ditching the tripod. Larger body means better support and more leverage while doing that. And more battery capacity since action photography usually means more "continuous" shooting.

And Ferrari knew that a bigger engine wasn't always better. He didn't built Lister Jaguars. He knew that smaller engines could contribute to better overall balance and handling. Likewise this camera. The smaller sensor allows for a lighter overall kit, especially when that kit will be focused on fast long reach lenses.

It's an odd time for cameras and, as it has often done, Olympus pursues a different path. Most traditional camera manufacturers seem to be focused on the latest fad, full frame sensors, I think as a way to combat the phone camera, further distancing themselves from that threat.

Yet phone cameras are showing what can be done with very small sensors and computational photography. Olympus seems to be in the middle of this, saying larger sensors may not be necessary for most image capture and demonstrating the advantages of limited sensor size for certain photography. Yet recognizing that certain photography is still beyond the capabilities of the phone (distant action, for example).

This camera is not for me, as my interests lie in landscape and travel photography. But if my focus was action or wildlife photography I would buy one. For the same reason I like my E-M5ii, smaller lenses and thus a smaller overall kit. I wish Olympus well.

Hi Mike
I'm with you on the straight 6. I'm a fan of the old Chrysler slant 6 myself.

Regarding the new Oly, it ain't for me, but 600 mm lenses ain't for me either. I shoot candids of people, old hardware stores, and your occasional mountain. Gigantic heavy m4/3 is the opposite of why I like m4/3. But, that's the beauty of capitalism and a free market. Olympus will soon know if this is a a good idea or not as people vote with their credit cards. Digital cameras have short product cycles. Darwinism at its finest. I'm OK with that.

Just to keep the record straight, the Ferrari 500 TRC's engine is not a V4, it is four-cylinders in line. The 500 Mondial, 625 TF, 735 S, 500 F2 and 553 F2 Ferraris are also four-cylinders in line.

This is all from the book Ferrari A Complete Guide to all Models.
A wonderful book which I just spent half an hour re-reading- thanks!

Oh Mike, you went to that page at Ferrari.com didn't you? The one with the stylized V4 engine at the top of the spec panel, where the first line says "Type front, longitudinal in-line four"

Typical Ferrari quality control.

The real problem here isn’t the size, it’s that Olympus seems starved of development resources. The fact that Olympus couldn’t develop a new Truepic chip and implement technologies leveraging it - H265 video, for example - shows a company, or at least a division, in dire financial and engineering straits. Doubling up the previous processor and running some very limited deep learning algorithms on them falls well short of the kind of actual advancement I’d expect on a $3,000 halo product coming 2 plus years after their last.

Yes, the physical engineering and perhaps some of the autofocus coding seem impressive, but there’s very little else new here. If this is all they could deliver after a two a two plus year gap from the E-M1 II, what, exactly, does Olympus have to deliver for the next Pen-F or E-M1 or E-M5. This seems more driven by the goal of extending previous compnentns’ lifespan and defending Olympus’ margins than ushering in their next generation of technologies. It seems a deeply defensive play. And that worries me about Olympus’ future.

But the size arguments seem misplaced. It’s not for everyone, sure, but neither is a D5 or 1DX. They’re niche almost by definition. The role of these type of cameras isn’t to find a broad audience but to complete a system. You need a body with the best autofocus we can deliver, that will stand up to serious abuse, and deliver regardless of the conditions? Here you go. As a plus, the people who buy these bodies buy the biggest, best, and most lucrative lenses. They’re nice customers to have.

And regarding sensor size, have people looked at the performance of modern m4/3 ones versus 24x36 of just a few generations past? Here, for example, is the G9 versus the D3S: http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D3S,Panasonic%20Lumix%20DC-G9. The Panasonic easily bests it below ISO 800 and only starts giving up half a stop above 1600.

I’ve never quite understood the obsession with sensors based on the old 35mm film size. Digital means the bar for “good enough” is always moving down, toward smaller sensors. Yet 24x36 camera systems will always be relatively, bigger, heavier, and more costly, even while their image quality advantages become ever more imperceptible. Smaller formats also seem more advantageous for computational photography, generally having quicker sensor readouts and less data to process.

All the latest (and even not that latest) mirrorless cameras, the Fuji X-T3, X-H1, GFX 50R, Panasonic G9, GH series, Nikon Zs, Canon R......, have one thing in common, the 3.6+M dots EVF. That makes these cameras so much more desirable!! Olympus cannot be excused for not having this in a $3000 camera released in 2019!!

apples and pumpkins?
https://camerasize.com/compare/#713,812

Big discussion in our shop over this. Half want to go head first in as it is a realistic option for pro (we do not stock F5/1DX level cameras as we are big locally, but small in the larger scale).
On paper it is (or is better than) the F5/1DX series, with the mirrirless advantage, but WITH THE LITTLE SENSOR! Longer, faster lenses and great stabilisers may increase it's appeal to some or even many, and the pro spec at half the price may also swing it, but to most pro's ISO performance is all and explaining the trade off benefits can be fruitless.
I shoot M43 and usually fly the flag, but this camera to me is the tipping point of the argument "is M43 at the point where we have enough now, or do we need more?".

Having read the comments, just a coupla points to add upon reflection

Executive Summary
Much like the article on camera bag manufacturers, Kirk Tuck has nailed it and hit a home run.

Nitty-gritty
1) Unless folks here have done the kind of work I've done for the last 15 years, its very unlikely you're gonna "get" who and what this camera is for. I'll go out on a limb and predict that pro photojournalism is like kind of combat, if only in the sense that if you've never experienced it, you are simply not going to "get" what it's about. You have to go through it to to get it.

But, if you have, and I suspect Kirk has, you'll immediately understand what its about. The Canon 1Dx, Nikon D5, Fujfilm X-H1 with grip, and the E-M1X are the exactly size they need to be do the job they were designed to do, which is why they are all almost exactly the same size. Personally, I shudder at the thought of trying to effectively wield a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 for tracking subjects rapidly accelerating to speeds well over 125 mph on a camera the size of a bar of soap (here's lookin' at you, Sony).

2) Professional sports photography has got virtually NOTHING to do with high-frame rates, e.g. 20 or 30 FPS. Here's a fun fact for the TOP gang: 8 FPS is plenty. While we shoot a lot of frames over the course of an event, all good sports shooters shoot like a Navy Seal or Delta Operator, using a "double-tap" of a coupla three frames at a time. All "spray and pray" does is make your technique sloppy and unpredictable and results in a lot more frames you have to cull from your "take" down to your "selects". It also uses up valuable shutter life. My PR Director doesn't need 20 frames of Simon Pagenaud in a corner, she only needs one. Good pro sports photography, like all professional commercial photography, is all about effectiveness and efficiency.

3) You can't go by what you read from anyone from DPR for assessing a camera intended for professional applications, and particularly for sports or photojournalism. DPR "lost the plot" years ago and their photographers are amateurs, not professionally accredited and working professional photojournalists who have been published in major news media. Better to see what Scott Bourne will come up with using the E-M1X. And the image quality from the 20 megapixel M4/3 Sony sensor is more than good enough for publication, not only in online media, but for print as well (a LOT of Sports Illustrated double-truck spreads were printed from a 4-megapixel Canon 1D; just look up the article "Big Stick" published on TOP a number of years ago).

No, this camera is not for everyone, anymore than a Canon 1Dx MKII or Nikon D5 are. Those two cameras likely represent 1% of Canikon's overall sales, but as some folks have alluded to here, these halo products represent a very important market segment for any camera manufacturer. They also serve as engineering test beds for features and functionality that will be implemented downwards into future prosumer and consumers models.

I don't think M43 sole or even primary purpose is smaller cameras. The fact that much smaller cameras can be made is great - many really want smaller, lighter cameras. However, smaller lenses are a primary purpose of M43 and are lovely to have for everyone.

As others have said, my hands didn't get smaller with the announcement of M43. So I didn't get into M43 system until comfortable sized cameras, for me, were available. The smaller cameras felt cramped and irritating for taking more than a few pictures for my average sized hands.

The discussion around the size of the sensor always reminds me of Michael Reichman demonstrating the quality of 6MP on large prints on Luminous Landscape not so many years ago. Now compare that with hand held hi-res with the M1X! Crop away and still have stunning wall art and way more than we need for digital display.

Like our hands not changing size because M43 was introduced, the resolutions needed for satisfactory viewing have not changed because more pixels are available.

We keep reminding ourselves not to pixel peep but peeping seems to stealthily creep into any camera conversation anyway and then kind of takes over.

7+ stops IS? Extensive depth of field in ambient low light? Without a tri/monopod? - theater, weddings, location portraits, much art photography in dim light. If you think a bigger camera body is cumbersome compare that to any camera body along with lugging a tripod.

And not all street shooting is secret shooting. Even discreet picture taking, like in a church or theater or a quiet meeting, usually only needs to be discreet in the sense of being quiet, not invisible.

There are many effective ways to get candid pictures without being surreptitious about it. (I've always thought there are ethical questions about treating street photography like surveillance photography anyway.)

The weight is a basic issue. I'd like the M1X to weigh less. But for the shooters who would be using an extended grip anyway, perhaps using big lenses for action/sports or birds or just for extended reach, that extra weight is just part of the admission fee.

So I think this new 4-banger, if it performs close to as advertised, would leave most every other camera we've ever heard of or used before in the pixelated dust for almost all practical purposes.

That said, I'm not experiencing a GAS attack for this camera, my M1s and G9 are safe, but I just don't resonate with the negative feelings about it.

I guess maybe we're swimming in such an embarrassment of riches now that we must take our magnifying glasses out to pick through fine distinguishing features between the pearls at hand. Or perhaps our own idiosyncratic differences can become even more important.

Sounds like it’s a test bed camera for a new level of more durability and computational processing power... and maybe something in the works with enhancing the sensor along these lines? And... my old Alfa Gulia GT 1300’s 1.6 L Twin Cam was certainly the beauty in pep and handling for a four cylinder!

I was invited to test drive a Ferrari. This car is burstin' with power. The price tag is S$1 million (the equivalent of US$740,000) and largely goes to taxes.

No, I did not buy it, and neither will I buy the Olympus which also looks like it's burstin' with power.

Automobile Magazine reports that a four cylinder 1956 Ferrari 290MM recently sold at auction for $22,005,000. Well, it was a 3.5 liter four cylinder when it finished second at the 1956 Mille Miglia before being fitted with a series of V-12 engines.

The 860 Monza brought the era of the four-cylinder engine to a close and marked the channelling of the company’s engineering efforts back into the V12.
https://auto.ferrari.com/en_US/sports-cars-models/past-models/860-monza/

Thought I'd just throw this pic up for giggles as well as context: a shot comparing my Fujifilm X-H1 & grip to my 'ole Canon 1D.

Why are these cameras, for intents and purposes, the same size?

'Cause they were designed and built to do the same job.

Photo taken with my back-up body, a Graphite Silver X-T2 & a rental of the spectacular new Fujinon XF8-16mm f/2.8. ('wot a lens, holy smokes! )😲


What Mr. Tuck said. It is aimed at the sports photographer, and from what I've read elsewhere, it isn't meant to replace the E-M1.

I'm not sure about the tracking system. It is based on what Olympus has programmed into it and not designed to learn by being used in the field. In airplane tracking mode, will it recognize a biplane? Will in recognize a canard (quack, quack) design? In motorsport mode will it recognize something that doesn't look like the typical car, truck or bike? Maybe a trike or Can-Am? A Ural seen from the sidecar side of the bike? Maybe the tracking in the new Sony a6400 and firmware upgrade for the a9 is the way to go.

And I like Olympus. Still own some old OM bodies and use a E-M10. I hope the tracking works as well as they proclaim.

The Ferrari 500 TRC was indeed a four cylinder car. It was actually an inline four not a V-4. Maybe the cam boxes for the dual overhead cams fool some people. I remember a neighbor looking at the Lampredi four in my Fiat and exclaiming "that's the cutest four cylinder V8 I have ever seen!"

You can see that engine and that car in "On the Beach"

I think there were a couple of large four cylinder engines and a couple of straight sixes in the 1950s.

Some of us still feel the sting of K-01 reviews given this comparison.. perhaps Pentax still hasn't recovered either? Criticisms of its size were deafening but clearly it was ahead of its time!

OK it was a bit ..odd for style, many will grant you that :√)

I think it’s too early to pass judgement on this camera. Very few truly objective figures have actually held one. Nobody knows what firmware upgrades will bring (and on the AI CAF side, the potential is high). Also, it strikes me as strange that a massive, full frame camera, in this form factor, is normal while, for smaller formats, the same same form factor is taken as absurd. I want to hold a 1X and 12-100!

BAGS!
(commenting here, so's it won't get lost in old stuff)

Lowepro Event Messenger 100.

When my wife got her Lumix G85, before shopping for a suitable bag, we went through my "collection" of unused ones, and the khaki colored one fit the bill. Your G9 is just a scosh bigger. It has room enough for the G85, with 12-60mm lens attached, user-side towards you, ready to pull out and use, and configurable enough to fit one additional small lens, or spare batteries or charger. Not a lot of fiddly pockets. The Velcro closures can be silenced with pull-over tabs.
(Amazon has one, black only, for $50)

Four cylinder Ferrari? Nah, the M-one-X is like a four cylinder Offenhauser. In 1952 there were five 375 F1 4.5 liter Ferraris entered in the Indianapolis 500. Only one qualified for the Indy 500, and none finished. The first twenty-four finishers had four cylinder Offy engines. A Novi V8 finished twenty-fifth.

Mike,
Here’s a review that provides a fairly deep hands on opinion of the E-M1X:

https://youtu.be/hLrzooFyqsI

I like the m43 format too, especially with the 20mp sensors. ... The Pen F is a terrific camera, I've been shooting with one for a few years.

Although the E-M1X is a technological tour de force, it's irrelevant as far as my needs are concerned.

I hope some of this new technology ends up in an E-M5 III. Olympus fans have been clamoring for one for years.

I posted a short report of a UK hands-on day with some pricing info and some photos here:
http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showpost.php?p=469708&postcount=4
You'll see that it balances a small lens quite well!

I get the idea of this camera, even though it is not for me. Some of the features that trickle down to the smaller cameras may be for me though.

It really all boils down to whether the camera can focus reliably enough to shoot sports and action, including sports other than motorsports, bike racing, extreme sports, etc., to attract the sports photogs. If it can, then the smaller lenses, smaller body, and IS will be a great advantage for a pro shooter. Olympus should be able to pull that off if Sony could do it with the A-9. It will be interesting to see this play out.

Looking at from the perspective of "every camera takes a good enough picture, but some get the shot more often" perspective, this camera fills a place where nothing else does. If the D5/1D series are the "get that shot at any cost" cameras, then the EM is a shift in priorities for that user (just like M43 is at every level). Need smaller, faster, longer, better stabilised than the other two offer? This is the alternative. Need ISO 12800 semi clean? Then D5 etc.
Possibly this is more relevant than most, because it has found an unfilled niche in a niche market. Tough to accomplish. It may even end up as some shooters first/second body in a multi brand pro kit because it is that different.
Talking to a few pro field shooters (news, documentary, extreme sport, travel, wildlife), most mention the size/weight issue at some point and usually attribute this to lenses, not cameras. Reduce their lens kit weight by half or more? Yes please! Realistically, what can't M43 do these days with the right glass?

The dissonance of this seems straightforward to me.

MFT's primary virtue is its small size, for both bodies and lenses. It isn't its image quality, beyond the truth that it is good enough (and then some) for most of the uses to which folks will apply smaller cameras.

Here, Olympus gives up that primary virtue, providing a camera that is about as large as many with larger formats, but which provides no more functionality and less IQ than those larger cameras.

I like Olympus and I like their MFT cameras, but this one seems odd. (I feel somewhat the same way about the Fujifilm XH1. As an enthusiastic Fujifilm user I keep wondering why most people would want the cameras to be bigger.)

I was wondering where you got that Ferrari V4 thins and I discovered that it was on the web-site where you got the photo.
https://auto.ferrari.com/en_US/sports-cars-models/past-models/500-trc/

However they do state that it is an
ENGINE
Type: front, longitudinal in-line four

I don't know why they list V4, perhaps it was their fourth version of the inline four.

You can see the engine on this site,
http://en.wheelsage.org/ferrari/500/trc/pictures/wo0wn0/

The red painted head and valve covers gave it the name Testa Rossa.

History on this series is on Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_Lampredi_engine

Not much to add but I can safely say that I'm usually a fan of Olympus but that I find perfectly sane to critize your own brand or accept critics from other at any times. Never understood the fanboyism thing.

That said, the EM1X really is sending an awful message to many people and I'm hoping for a fairly quick press release for another product, say a pen-f mk II or e-m5 mkIII and some ideal lenses like a 20mm f1.4 pancake with a fast motor. crossing fingers

The comments to this entry are closed.