[RonHendriks1966]

I know one photographer that probably is going to order this camera........

So Olympus can ship one copy to The Netherlands. .......

Anyone else taking it?

It is without doubt a great camera, but boy is it big for that tiny sensor.

[biz-engineer]

I know one photographer that probably is going to order this camera........So Olympus can ship one copy to The Netherlands. .......Anyone else taking it?It is without doubt a great camera, but boy is it big for that tiny sensor.

The E-MX1 is a bold evidence that DP Review are totally biased in their reviews. The E-MX1 is as expensive as a full frame system. Performance wise, 60 frames per seconds is ridiculously useless as you'll get to throw away so many redundant frames. The E-MX1 is a camera that is aimed at amateurs who like to think of themselves as being professionals , but who are actually not professional at all. No professional would buy an E-MX1 system, there are simply too many better systems options. That said, the E-MX1 shows what efforts can be put into camera design itself. I would like to see such camera design effort from other brands , with using a larger sensor.

The problem of shooting sports is it requires fast shutter speeds; fast shutter speeds means higher ISO or faster lenses. So a camera system that has a great AF tracking system and small sensor is in the wrong corner of the camera system design triangle. Cameras such as 1Dx are in the correct corner of camera design tradeoffs: high AF tracking, lower count of bigger pixels and faster glass , is the right design mix for shooting sports; the E-MX1 is not.

[repaap]

The E-MX1 is a bold evidence that DP Review are totally biased in their reviews. The E-MX1 is as expensive as a full frame system. Performance wise, 60 frames per seconds is ridiculously useless as you'll get to throw away so many redundant frames. The E-MX1 is a camera that is aimed at amateurs who like to think of themselves as being professionals , but who are actually not professional at all. No professional would buy an E-MX1 system, there are simply too many better systems options. That said, the E-MX1 shows what efforts can be put into camera design itself. I would like to see such camera design effort from other brands , with using a larger sensor.

The problem of shooting sports is it requires fast shutter speeds; fast shutter speeds means higher ISO or faster lenses. So a camera system that has a great AF tracking system and small sensor is in the wrong corner of the camera system design triangle. Cameras such as 1Dx are in the correct corner of camera design tradeoffs: high AF tracking, lower count of bigger pixels and faster glass , is the right design mix for shooting sports; the E-MX1 is not.

I actually think that it is for people who have M4/3 OM 1 mk I/II already and are using it with grip and would like to have something absolutelly amazing specs. There must be some already. IF I would be fine with slightly less of image quality of my FF camera and would be in to the action photography, this could be the thing. Prize seems okay too, because you get 2 cameras in one.

But this is not for me.

[Rondec]

It does feel like an extremely niche camera. I'm sure there are sports togs out there that would like something like this, but even there, I think most of them would settle for slightly slower frame rate in the mid teens to get the high iso performance you get with a larger sensor like the ones in the A9 or D5.

[biz-engineer]

IF I would be fine with slightly less of image quality of my FF camera and would be in to the action photography, this could be the thing. Prize seems okay too, because you get 2 cameras in one.

The experience that I have with full frame on shooting sports indoors such as ice skating, hockey, ballet, gym, martial sports, is that ISO setting is minimum 1600, most of the time 3200 and 6400, downsized FF images give about 12 good megapixels, and I'm guessing pretty close in the same conditions images from the E-MX1 will be good enough for posting on the web and A4 prints.

Actually, my current understanding of camera formats is that apsc is good enough for everything that goes into the web, paper magazines, and books. Full frame low res. is good for sport photography for web, magazines. And medium format is good for commercial printing. These are mainstream usages that fit together in the real world. Micro 4/3 works well at low ISO but using it for high shutter speed / high ISO shooting will be too much of a stretch especially given the price that Oly are asking for.

[repaap]

The experience that I have with full frame on shooting sports indoors such as ice skating, hockey, ballet, gym, martial sports, is that ISO setting is minimum 1600, most of the time 3200 and 6400, downsized FF images give about 12 good megapixels, and I'm guessing pretty close in the same conditions images from the E-MX1 will be good enough for posting on the web and A4 prints.

Actually, my current understanding of camera formats is that apsc is good enough for everything that goes into the web, paper magazines, and books. Full frame low res. is good for sport photography for web, magazines. And medium format is good for commercial printing. These are mainstream usages that fit together in the real world. Micro 4/3 works well at low ISO but using it for high shutter speed / high ISO shooting will be too much of a stretch especially given the price that Oly are asking for.

Yes. There are still lot of guys happy with image quality what m4/3 offers. So for them it should be great -prizey- upgrade, what it is. Not 'that' much more than Oly OM-D 1 MKII with batterygrip + second battery. Suppose that prize will come down and there will be combo offers with lenses. Not for me, but someguys/girls might be super happy. It will be interesting to see what follows from here. It sure is interesting times for all fields of photography.

---------- Post added 01-25-19 at 14:03 ----------

It does feel like an extremely niche camera. I'm sure there are sports togs out there that would like something like this, but even there, I think most of them would settle for slightly slower frame rate in the mid teens to get the high iso performance you get with a larger sensor like the ones in the A9 or D5.

Well, some one thinks that nothing is fast enough. Nieche product. Yes, so is the prize. This one is for dedicated pro's already having fun with m4/3, perhaps ones being already sponsored by Oly

[biz-engineer]

This one is for dedicated pro's already having fun with m4/3, perhaps ones being already sponsored by Oly

I've seen a number of tourists using micro 4/3 cameras when sight seeing. I have never seen a single pro using a 4/3 for sports, it's much more rare than even Pentax. And I've been a workshops, even met some other Pentax user guys but zero micro 4/3. So I guess fast AF+frame/s u4/3 would cover a new demand out of the existing 4/3 user base, but will never bring in new customer already using better systems.

[Rondec]

I've seen a number of tourists using micro 4/3 cameras when sight seeing. I have never seen a single pro using a 4/3 for sports, it's much more rare than even Pentax. And I've been a workshops, even met some other Pentax user guys but zero micro 4/3. So I guess fast AF+frame/s u4/3 would cover a new demand out of the existing 4/3 user base, but will never bring in new customer already using better systems.

I've always thought that pros might use micro four thirds as a second, more portable system to shoot on vacation or such when they don't want to cart a full frame system around, but I haven't ever seen a wedding photographer or sports photographer using Olympus.

Panasonic seems to have a strong following for their video performance.

[niblue]

I have a micro 4/3rds system (a couple of bodies and half a dozen lenses) that I've been happy with as smaller, more portable system for holidays and days out. In particular the little Olympus PL will fit in a jacket pocket with a pancake lens on and I do like that. I really don't like the viewfinder on it (it's a clip on EVF), although the one on the Panasonic I also have is a lot better. They're capable of good results however at low light, despite being a lot newer than it, neither performed as well as my ancient K10D. Compared to my K1 they're not even playing in the same league and I do find I miss it's low-light performance and viewfinder when I'm using my M4/3 stuff now.

For me the m4/3 stuff is an alternative to using a point and shoot and it's great for that.

[northcoastgreg]

For me the m4/3 stuff is an alternative to using a point and shoot and it's great for that.

I agree with that. It's fills the role that used to be occupied by cameras like the Canon G9 --- high end compact for serious shooters.

I'm sure there are sports togs out there that would like something like this

Perhaps, but, assuming that Tony Northrup can be trusted, the tracking AF on this camera is inferior to what can be found with Fuji, Sony, Canon, and Nikon cameras. And then of course the smaller four-thirds sensor doesn't really provide the ISO performance needed for many types of sports photography.

Having watched several videos about the camera, I would contend that the EMX1 is being mis-marketed as a sports camera. Where it excels is (1) in hand-held shooting --- the best camera for hand-hold shooting that we've yet seen; and (2) as a compact wild-life camera. It also may feature the most robust weather-sealing on the market and may be the best designed mirrorless camera to have emerged. If I were wealthy, I would buy one and use it for hand-held photography and wildlife and maybe video too (although the Panasonic GH5 is better in that respect).

It's size and weight limit it's practical appeal. This thing weighs nearly as much as the K-1, yet sports a sensor nearly four times smaller. You'll get three stops of usable dynamic range out of the camera, and not everyone is thrilled with what these devices produce at ISOs higher than 800.

[RonHendriks1966]

Probably Roel Ubels will buy this camera. He works with Olympus camera's and does a lot of sports photography. Great nice guy.

Roel Ubels?s albums | Flickr

[c.a.m]

The camera seems to be a showcase of several impressive features, which might be more important than the relatively small sensor. Time will tell.

I was intrigued enough that I browsed the Canadian Olympus site. The MSRP is CAD $3,900, or $4,400 including my province's sales tax. That's Four thousand, four hundred dollars, body only. The K-1 II is selling for $2,500. Yes, I'll concede that the E-M1X integrates improved technology, which in several areas would be superior to the K-1's.

I also looked at some of the sample images posted at the Olympus site, taken by their 'Olympus Visionaries'. I must say, I'm not impressed by the bird pictures -- the feather detail appears to be mushy. I am more impressed by several high-ISO sample images at the DPR review-in-progress.

Four thousand, four hundred dollars...

- Craig

[The Squirrel Mafia]

^ Yes. It's a very pricey camera, but with lots of tech. The AF seems to be a bit better than what the OMD E-M1 Mark II can already do. I guess we'll see how it stacks up in the next few months. I think this will be an extremely durable all-purpose outdoor camera with some excellent AF. The kind that takes a licking & keeps on ticking no matter what.

I wonder if Panasonic will do something similar above the G9. I kind of doubt it, but it would be interesting, especially if it came with a newer implementation of their DFD technology. They're taking CDAF to a whole new level of amazement. One never has to calibrate the lenses, but then again, CDAF & DFD has its share of quirks.

[mecrox]

I agree with that. It's fills the role that used to be occupied by cameras like the Canon G9 --- high end compact for serious shooters.

Perhaps, but, assuming that Tony Northrup can be trusted, the tracking AF on this camera is inferior to what can be found with Fuji, Sony, Canon, and Nikon cameras. And then of course the smaller four-thirds sensor doesn't really provide the ISO performance needed for many types of sports photography.

Having watched several videos about the camera, I would contend that the EMX1 is being mis-marketed as a sports camera. Where it excels is (1) in hand-held shooting --- the best camera for hand-hold shooting that we've yet seen; and (2) as a compact wild-life camera. It also may feature the most robust weather-sealing on the market and may be the best designed mirrorless camera to have emerged. If I were wealthy, I would buy one and use it for hand-held photography and wildlife and maybe video too (although the Panasonic GH5 is better in that respect).

It's size and weight limit it's practical appeal. This thing weighs nearly as much as the K-1, yet sports a sensor nearly four times smaller. You'll get three stops of usable dynamic range out of the camera, and not everyone is thrilled with what these devices produce at ISOs higher than 800.

I agree. Possibly mixed marketing messages here. One can understand the nod to sports in Japan because they could pull in some folks who want a good camera for the upcoming Olympics. But elsewhere, wildlife and rugged outdoorsy stuff rule, one would think. For top sports stuff I'd have though one would look for clean, quality files at 6400 or more with a fast enough shutter to freeze movement and wide enough aperture both to enable that and to enable good subject isolation. Doesn't sound as if this camera would find that easy at all, both because of sensor limits and because Oly don't have (yet, anyway) an array of fast long telephoto lenses.

It's clear this camera has some real quality features to it, though, and in some respects it is very, very capable. But my guess would be that the market just won't take to anything M43 at around the $3K mark. There's too much competition these days from the big boys and some of their wares are no more or even less costly. I hope Oly didn't sink too much money into this because it's quite hard to see them making it back.

[repaap]

I was looking also the prize of this thing in Finland. It is expensive. But IF one really needs all of that and is happy about image quality. Why not. Video seems to be on great level too. Image quality and stabilisitation is on the level where higher ISO won’t be needed. Some one would appriciate that.

---------- Post added 01-25-19 at 19:43 ----------

I agree. Possibly mixed marketing messages here. One can understand the nod to sports in Japan because they could pull in some folks who want a good camera for the upcoming Olympics. But elsewhere, wildlife and rugged outdoorsy stuff rule, one would think. For top sports stuff I'd have though one would look for clean, quality files at 6400 or more with a fast enough shutter to freeze movement and wide enough aperture both to enable that and to enable good subject isolation. Doesn't sound as if this camera would find that easy at all, both because of sensor limits and because Oly don't have (yet, anyway) an array of fast long telephoto lenses.

It's clear this camera has some real quality features to it, though, and in some respects it is very, very capable. But my guess would be that the market just won't take to anything M43 at around the $3K mark. There's too much competition these days from the big boys and some of their wares are no more or even less costly. I hope Oly didn't sink too much money into this because it's quite hard to see them making it back.

Yup, are you looking hight quality pictures. @3000 there is lot to choose from. Looking for great video, same thing. Other thing is if you are having a bunch of Oly glass PRO or not pro lyng around. Then it might be the thing to put your money in.