The new OM-5 signals the end of an era...

 Last Update: 20th November 2022

While watching the OM-5 launch videos, my first reaction was too little information or storytelling. My experience and perception of the launch changed when I realized the OM-5 is only a scaled-down version of the EM1 III. Clearly, the E-P7 and the OM-1 were the last R&D projects for Olympus, and the illustration below is an example of OM-SYSTEM "designing" the new OM-5. I couldn't help to picture the EM10 IV (OM-10) in this illustration.

MyOlympusOMD is a small photography blog with less than 200K views. My articles are a window into the information photographers want most. For example, more people read my color and Pen F series than any other subject. Another trend is the high interest in the E-P7 with its 4K video. Photographers like good image quality from the right technology and camera features.

See this link for more about the OM-SYSTEM strategy and THE OM-SYSTEM WAY...

Is the new OM-5 a good camera?

The answer is YES because we know the 2 cameras OM-System used to "design" the OM-5. If you like to learn more about the OM-5, study the EM5 III and the EM1 III. 

It's always good to also consider these 4 points:

1. The image sensor (study the type and specification of the sensor, not size)
2. The camera/lens combination (standard lenses, premium lenses, pro lenses)
3. The Image Processor (version and anything special about the Processor...)
4. Camera Firmware and Editing Software (critical aspects for any solution)

The OM-5 has the same Truepic IX processor as the EM1 III. The difference is a scaled-down version of the EM1 III firmware in the OM-5. Study this article for more on the 20MP sensors from Olympus.

Handheld High-Res image with the EM1 III and the 12-40mm f2.8 lens - ISO200, f6.3, 1/400 - Enhanced Raw File converted in WS.

Let's review a few questions from the YouTube launch videos.

1. Will we have better image quality with the OM-5?

The answer is NO. The OM-5 is based on the already good IQ from the EM5 III and EM1 III. The OM-5 might be the first camera with a unique OM-System color "science" or image look...

2. Will we have less noise from the OM-5?

There is no quick answer to this question. The OM-5, EM5 III, EM1 II, EM1 III, and EM1X all use the same image sensor. Improvements like the Truepic IX Processor increased the image processing power of the OM-5. Manufacturers use this processing power to replace some of the camera's hardwired features with new software solutions. This is how Olympus improved the EM1 II (V3) noise with a 1/3 stop. The EM1 III sensor also received an anti-reflective coating. 

Is it safe to say the OM-5 received all these improvements? This is important because we cannot say the same sensor is the reason they have the same image quality. One needs to review all the variables discussed in my articles between two cameras.

For example, DxO said the EM1 II sensor is the best M43 sensor they tested. Olympus said the Truepic IX processor has the same processing power as the 2 Truepic VIII processors in the EM1X. This enabled them to refine the EM1 III image quality and the high ISO + shadow noise control. Sensor sensitivity and the noise floor stayed similar for the EM1 II & III, EM5 III, EM1X, and OM-5.

We also know the default noise floor of the original EM1 20MP Live MOS sensor was relatively small. Sadly, only some photographers learned how to control image noise. For example, visible noise is a function of the camera's Exposure Mix and how well we Saturated the Image Sensor.

This example shows how little reflected light reached the sensor at ISO6400 - link.

In summary, manufacturers use the 7 steps below to improve IQ, and informed photographers use these steps to evaluate cameras. Only uninformed photographers follow "experts" and rely on the size of the sensor. The OM-5's image quality improvements are summarized in steps 4, 7, and maybe step 2. Did the EM5 III receive any additional anti-reflection sensor coatings..?

Study this article for more on the Exposure Mix and this article for more on SNR...

3. Is the OM-5 a good camera?

As discussed, the OM-5 is based on the older EM-5 III platform and the "new" EM1 III Truepic IX image processor. They are from the same factory as the EM5 III and probably the same manufacturing line. This is why it's safe to assume the OM-5 is a good "Olympus" camera.

4. Should we buy the OM-5?

The OM-5 will be a safe and inexpensive purchase. You should also consider the EM5 III, the EM1 II, or the EM1 III. The EM1 III is the most exciting Olympus camera I owned in years. It has all the upgrades one could wish for, from a 2016 camera. Olympus also "fine-tuned" the EM1 III image quality to a level I have never seen from any Olympus camera.

Olympus EM1 III with 12-200mm lens - ISO640, f6.3, 1/80 - Enhanced Raw converted in WS

Conclusion

OM-System took a few unique risks with the OM-5. Peter Forsgard mentioned a new OM-5 customer. Watching the launch videos, I recall thinking OM-System was targeting vloggers with the OM-5. It's easy to picture corporate marketers presenting smiling vloggers leaving their mobile phones behind to tell their stories with the new OM-5 in a vertical red box...

Timing is also a risk with the current low consumer confidence, supply chain problems, health crises, and events questioning global leadership. Is the Olympus brand robust enough to survive another crisis? What would happen if existing customers think they were neglected by OM-System?

My EM1 III and iMovie on my iMac. See my Instagram

Relaunching a 2016 platform is a considerable risk. This is why I decided to introduce Fuji as an alternative to Olympus. Fuji is the closest brand to match Olympus's color and IQ philosophy, and Fuji shares many of the unique benefits we appreciate with Olympus and the M43 format. Please watch this excellent video from the RED35 YouTube channel about Micro Four Thirds.

See this link for more about the OM-5 and the "corporate" slide below...

An interesting "corporate" slide with the new corporate triangle and "making the OM-5 look advanced" strategy. - Source

One final thought. The competition moved on while OM-System repurposed and printed its logo on the EM-5 III. The result is a fascinating selection of technologies and innovations from the Sony A7R5, Sony FX30, Fuji X-H2S, Fuji X-H2, Fuji X-T5, Canon R6 II, and the Leica M6.

It's also possible to determine if manufacturers value customer feedback. Counter-marketers like to partner with camera reviewers and large photography forums. It's easy to list the priorities they are pushing on social media. Examples are camera menus, fully articulated displays, pro video features, and headphone outputs on "photography" cameras.

I respect Fuji for launching the new X-T5 as a photography camera. A clear separation between photo, hybrid, and video is long overdue. Olympus was good at having just enough video features while focusing on photography. A clear separation between photography and video will prevent camera reviewers from scoring headphone outputs on photography cameras or "grassroots" (staged) forum discussions pushing for fully articulated displays on all cameras. This excludes the absolute confusion on autofocus and what photographers and videographers prefer...

It looks like OM-System will keep the focus on photography with just enough video.

For more about marketing and social media, see this link.

Fuji X-T4 with XF18mm F3 R lens - ISO320, f5.6, 1/25 - The jpeg was prepared in Photoshop.

The Pen F is an example of two marketing realities. One is a popular creative camera with a large following, and the other is a counter-marketing campaign bashing the Olympus Imaging Business. Countermarketers used undisclosed promoters to target Olympus and spread rumors on photography forums. The Pen F became one of many arguments to discredit Olympus. 

Studying this review, the thought crossed my mind, who does more damage, and which of the above realities influenced the OMDS marketing team most as they created the OM-System product strategy? Taking Fuji.., does OMDS have the right D&A to be a genuine camera manufacturer?

Which one will be more popular in 2023, the OM-5, Fuji S10, or the new X-T5?

See this interesting report on the new X-T5.

Take care & God's Bless

Siegfried

This is an exciting camera for photographers, and the X-T5 description explains the SNR stayed the same. What does that tell us?

Say NO to Marketers and enjoy your M43 camera

 Last Updated:- 29th July 2022

Two cameras might have different-looking jpegs while producing the same image quality. These same cameras will deliver completely different results when presented by YouTubers, reviewers, and forum experts. Are social media personalities dishonest or simply sponsored and paid promoters?

The X-T4 pixel area is 25% larger than the EM1 III, and the Sony A1 has a 22% advantage over the X-T4. Considering pixel area, could one expect 25% or 22% more IQ from the X-T4 or the Sony A1? Fuji and OM-System said that the sensor sensitivity and noise floor of APC, Live MOS, and Full-Frame sensors are very similar in modern cameras. I tested 15 cameras and came to a similar conclusion.

The Olympus OM-1

Old-style product marketing - this is what one can expect from the Olympus OM-1.

As high as 99% of global crisis events over the past 5 years could have been prevented if countries had a truly independent news media. It's easy to question the mainstream media's (television and press) role in the high levels of ignorance about modern counter-marketing techniques? Most people choose to ignore what is happening on television and social media. For example, marketing programs like astroturfing or short statements like "This one has better autofocus" or "That one has better image quality" determine the success of new cameras.

I was surprised at how little time it took counter-marketers to target the OM-1 with new counter-marketing "fact" statements like the "the autofocus and tracking of the OM-1 are not reliable" or "OMD-System is dishonest and can't be trusted". Like the mainstream media, marketers use a network of "trusted experts" to repeat, validate, and cement strategic "fact statements" into the minds of trusting consumers. One of the trademarks of modern counter-marketing is accuracy is not critical because the combination of ignorance and repetition is enough to let consumers accept almost anything.

The same thing happened to the Fuji XT-5. For example, what are the 3 main problem areas of the XT-5, and how were they "programmed" into the minds of consumers and forum "experts?"

Olympus EP-7 with the 17mm f1.8 lens - ISO200, f5.0, 1/2000 - Enhanced Raw File converted in WS.

Photographers are facing 2 critical issues today. One is the commercial "size and capture" strategy to sell more FF cameras, and the other is a counter-marketing program. They are linked and explain why one should know more about the technical aspects of digital cameras and marketing.

The difference between old-school and modern marketing is huge. Old-school marketing was regulated, and modern marketers have ways to sidestep these regulations. Repetition is critical for cementing trigger words or moving people to trust "expert" opinions. For example, count the times you see typical "size and capture" statements on forums, YouTube videos, and camera reviews.

Olympus EM1 III and 12-200mm lens - ISO800, f7.1, 1/800 - No ETTR - Enhanced Raw converted in WS with PC-RAW.

My wife and I recently returned from a visit to South Africa. I will review 2 of the images I took in South Africa to show the effect of counter-marketing and social media. We will also see why photographers benefit when turning away from promoters dressed up as reviewers or a small group of social media experts who stage up to 80% of all forum "product complaints/problems" or "this camera is not good enough" discussions on social media.

We will review 3 aspects of modern marketing:-

1. The process of creating fact statements or phrases and why repetition is key
2. Promoting "higher value" products while canceling others in product reviews
3. Active promotions/counter-marketing, ie social media, forums, and YouTube

Olympus EM5 II with 12-200mm - ISO200, f7.1, 1/500 - Enhanced Raw file converted with WS.  (MacBook Pro M1)

Each topic has two parts. The 1st part consists of modern marketing phrases and actions, and the 2nd is the correct information about the camera, Workspace, or technique.

1. We are reviewing the following topics in this article

1. I will review the ISO, ETTR, and DR of two photos from South Africa.
1. Image 1 - Is misinformation the reason for poor camera performance?
2. Are repetition and fact statements the reason for social media posts?
3. Do marketers have a unique technical support service for promoters?
4. Image 2 - A better way of photographing with ANY Digital Camera
5. Dishonesty and why FF sensors offered more image quality initially?
6. It's clear that speculation only causes bad habits and confusion..?
7. Do you think it is acceptable for reviewers to insult manufacturers?
2. How do we control shadow noise with the "AUTO" Gradation function?
3. Older PCs, newer versions of Workspace V2, and editing in PC-RAW Mode
4. ETTR is all about saturating the sensor and improving shadow details.
5. My experience with Auto Focus and cameras like the Olympus EM1 III
6. Why would I hesitate to get a secondhand OM-1 when having a chance..? 
7. Why do we see shadow noise with the Olympus EM1 III and the Sony A1?

PS - The images in this article are best viewed on a large display - see the descriptions below each image.

Olympus EM1 III with 12-200mm lens - ISO800, f6.3, 1/1600 - No ETTR - Enhanced Raw file converted in WS with PC-RAW.

1. South Africa, two images, ISO, ETTR, DR, and Marketing

1.1 Image 1 - Is misinformation the reason for having image noise?

The challenge with this image was the midday sun, highlights, and shadows. Shadow noise is typical in these conditions because M43 photographers do not know their cameras or over-compensate for the M43 camera's "low dynamic range" problem. For example, M43 photographers will underexpose to "protect" the highlights. The alternative is to select a better time of the day, use polarizer or ND filters, a fill-in flash, ETTR, reflectors, or simply let the camera's DR do its thing...

This is an excellent example of embracing ignorance or ignoring expert opinions. Counter-marketers trick M43 photographers into focusing on the DR problem they created.

Image 1 - EM1 III - OOC jpeg (insert), ISO200, f5.6, 1/200, -0.7EV - See the shadow noise (raw file right) - I upped the brightness in PS.

What is a typical solution for the above image? Try a Polarizer filter and ETTR. Polarizer filters control the bright areas or reflective surfaces, and ETTR helps us to improve the sensor's Saturation and SNR, the recorded tonal data, and visible image noise. See this example.

1.2 Are repetition or fact statements the reason for having social media posts?

This example is one of many discussions promoting the so-called ISO limitations of M43 cameras. Sadly, we see how many M43 photographers adjust their photography skills to accommodate these forum-created "weaknesses" while others know it's all about exposing the sensor correctly. In fact, these "grassroots" discussions look more like an excuse to repeat "fact statements."

Looking at the date of this particular forum discussion, we see it took place weeks after the EM1 III was launched or during the then active counter-marketing campaign on the EM1 III. You will recall these exact same counter-marketing campaigns when the E-M1X and the Pen F were launched?

Olympus EM1 III with 12-45mm f4 - ISO200, f5.6, 1/800 - Enhanced Raw File converted in Workspace.

1.3 Do marketers have a unique technical support service for promoters?

Promoters use ISO and DR illustrations (graphs) to support their lines (fact statements). These services look like counter-marketing tech support experts (Photons to Photos).

To name a few, here are my main concerns with these expert services:-

• They fail to show how pixel area (sensor size) is only one sub-category of Optical Efficiency
• They accept ISO Invariance, which suggests noise-free sensors. Think of superconductors
• They criticize any DXO data that do not support or promote the "size and capture" theory
• Chart data comes from user images & calc. It's speculative, with NO manufacturer support
• The information is NOT informative but presented in support of the "size & capture" theory

You will also find good information on the Photons to Photo website. The challenge is the complex nature of modern marketing and your own state of mind. Did you buy into the size and capture theory, or are you in the process of improving your own technical awareness and camera skills..?

Olympus EM1 III with 12-200mm lens (Awesome lens) - No ETTR - ISO100, f6.3, 1/250 - Enhanced RAW converted in PC-RAW.

1.4 Image 2 - A better way of photographing with ANY digital camera:-

Is it possible to "manage" shadow noise with the camera's available DR. For example, one could up the exposure (ETTR) to increase the camera's dynamic range and the sensor's SNR in the shadows. That means using the sensor's Dynamic Range to increase its saturation in the shadows. The more we learn, the better control we have over the ISO (image brightness) and visible noise.

How do we correct our ETTR adjustments? By applying a "negative" ETTR in Workspace. This will rebalance the exposure to 18% gray. Is it OK to use the Brightness slider in WS? No, the Brightness slider does not apply a balanced adjustment on the RGB colors. Use Exposure Compensation or Curves (both Workspace options) to correct the brightness of your image.

Take care when upping the sensor's exposure level (shutter/aperture). For example, determine which parts of the image are more critical and select your expose accordingly. As you know, it's possible to double the reflected light to the sensor with each exposure increase of 1-stop (1EV).

One can also use the camera's Shift Exposure function to have a default ETTR value. We have enough Dynamic Range headroom to correct an Exposure Shift of 2/6 (1/3EV). This means monitoring the histogram more regularly and doing any corrections in WS. I use this option in ESP mode.

For more on managing or saturating the image sensor, see this article.

Image 2 - Olympus EM1 III OOC jpeg, ISO200 (fixed), f5.6, 1/160 with +1EV (ETTR).

Olympus EM1 III w 12-45mm f4, ISO200 (fixed), f5.6, 1/160 - Converted in PCRAW with Auto Gradation - Noise-free shadow details.

1.5 Dishonesty about why Full-Frame sensors have more IQ

Marketers will say almost anything to push their strategy. For example, they will redefine science (size and capture theory) to support a campaign. This is one of the main reasons for getting poor information. Another is repetition and the high level of "digital" ignorance among digital photographers.

When you see commentary claiming the OM-1 Stacked BSI Sensor does nothing to improve the OM-1's image quality, question everything that person claims. For example, DPReview uses random statements like Sony's A7R II BSI sensor is better than Standard CMOS sensors, or the BSI sensor did nothing to improve other camera models. The "size and capture" theory is more important.

PS. See this article for a detailed but basic explanation of why BSI sensors improve IQ...

Olympus E-P7 with 17mm f1.8 lens - ISO200, f1.8, 1/1000 - Enhanced Raw converted in WS - Color Creator 8:2 (An airport window).

The above video explained why older FF sensors were better. Older DSLR cameras use Standard CMOS sensors. The pixel control wiring of Standard CMOS sensors obstructs the image signal more than Live MOS or BSI sensors (Optical Efficiency). Older FF sensors had large pixel areas (12MP). This changed with more pixels and efficient sensor types like the Live MOS or newer BSI sensors.

The reason Fuji and OMDS claimed their Stacked BSI Sensors compete with FF sensors is more Optical and Quantum efficiency. The pixel area benefit of older FF sensors disappears with more megapixels. For example, if you compare the A7 IV, the X-T4, and the OM-1, then you will find the A7 IV's benefit is less than 1EV. The reason is sensor size (pixel area) is only one of MANY variables impacting the Optical Efficiency. It takes more than SIZE to design GREAT image sensors...

See this article article about ETTR. 

Olympus EM1 III with 17mm f1.2 lens - ISO200, f2.2, 1/80 - Raw file edited in Photoshop.

1.6 Does speculation cause bad habits and confusion?

There are many examples of bad marketing, misinformation, and the confusion it causes amongst M43 photographers. The OM-1 launch can fill pages of case studies on counter-marketing.

I was searching for info on the Panasonic LX100 II. Going through the review at DPReview.com, I saw the paragraph below. Do people really trust these "size and capture" repetitions? Mine is bigger than yours and that's why... They even applied the size and capture theory to the cropped section of the LX100 II sensor in video mode. Folks, the pixel areas stayed 100% the same in the crop section, the sensor's sensitivity did NOT change, and the noise floor was the same. No wonder the LX100 II is not having the success it should have. I own an LX100 II, and it's simply a great camera...

                                                                                                                                     Source: DPReview.com

Sadly, the level of speculation we see from "expert" reviewers is madness. I love to see Panasonic's mail saying, "Mr. expert reviewer, we did use the GX9 sensor in the LX100 II." Imagine the level of misinformation spreading from only one review. Study the example below...

I see so many inaccuracies in the following forum post that it's hard to ignore. It's clear the premise for all the sensor data is speculation. In fact, almost everything this poster claims is speculating about data NOT coming from the manufacturer. No manufacturer gives details about their sensors. 

                                                                      Source: DPReview.com

For example, OM-System quoted a standard Dynamic Range increase of 2EV when they launched the new BSI sensor. The forum poster's dispute is based on speculative sensor data, an ISO test from DPR, and counter-marketing keywords. Judging by the feedback from OM-1 photographers, it's clear that the noise floor is smaller in the new BSI sensor. Like other BSI sensors, the temporal noise also decreased. A more sensitive sensor with a smaller noise floor means more Dynamic Range.

Since the OM-1 launch, there has been a flood of misinformation about image sensors. We especially see this with the different types of sensors in digital cameras. This is an example of a controlled forum discussion to confuse M43 readers about the new 40MP Fuji sensor. Many photography websites are spreading this misinformation. The question is, is the OM-1 pixel area smaller than the 40MP sensor of the XT-5. The pixel areas in these 2 cameras are:-

• Fuji X-T5 (40MP) is 9.17µm2
• Olympus OM-1 (20MP) is 11.3µm2

What is more effective in programming people's opinions, subliminal advertising, undisclosed promotions, or repetition? The more one learns about modern marketing, the more one realizes repetition is used to make people believe things they would never do in the past. I prefer old-style marketing...

1.7 Is it acceptable for reviewers to insult manufacturers?

See how this "grassroots" discussion questions the honesty and integrity of OM-System. We saw this sad behavior with the first ISO test from DPReview and again with the OM-1 review. Sadly, it looks like a deliberate strategy to discredit OM-System and question the OM-1 specification. This has been an ongoing strategy (theme) from this current OM-1 counter-marketing campaign.

Also, see this OM-System presentation about the new OM-1 sensor - link.

EM1 III w 17mm f1.2 - ISO200, f4.0, 1/250 - No ETTR - Converted in WS with PCRAW - What role does the lens have with shadow details?

2. Olympus Auto Gradation and controlling Shadow Noise

Only some M43 photographers know how much the Olympus Gradation function improved and why we get better shadow information with a more saturated sensor. The reason is AUTO Gradation is similar to a flat profile protecting the highlights and shadows. It's possible to manage shadow noise with the sensor's saturation level. This is similar to what Panasonic does with the GH6...

M43 photographers would have known all this if camera reviewers were honest and if they had discussed the updated features on newer cameras. Instead, they opted to discredit OM-System because they did the right thing to quote the standard BSI +2EV noise and +1EV DR improvements.

Olympus EM1 III with lots of detail from the 12-200mm lens - ISO100, f5.6, 1/500 - No ETTR - Converted in WS with PCRAW.

3. The new Workspace (V2) and PC-RAW mode

Marketers are working hard to discredit the most recent versions of Workspace, the OM-1, and the new AI noise option. I reported that Workspace V2 is slower than previous versions. The exciting part is the PC-RAW mode is quick on older PCs. For example, the EM1 III Truepix IX Processor is a joy to edit my Enhanced RAW Files in PC-RAW mode.

Tip:- Keep your EM1 II when you upgrade to the MKIII or the OM-1. It's impossible to edit EM1 II raw files in PCRAW mode with the MKIII or the OM-1...

Olympus E-P7 with 17mm f1.8 lens - ISO250, f6.3, 1/60 - Enhanced Raw file converted in WS plus 1020 color profile.

4. ETTR is all about saturating the sensor in the shadows

It's sad to see how the general skill level dwindled to the point that many photographers never had the opportunity to experience the benefits of ETTR. See this discussion and the questions photographers ask. To further complicate things, we learn that promoters use irrelevant information to confuse photographers about the benefits of having more reflected light reaching the sensor (ETTR).

How to apply ETTR in terms of the ISO, shutter speed, and aperture

For example, they will distract photographers by saying the ISO amplifier is placed on the sensor. My reaction is always the same, how can we use this to improve our photography? 

They will also say things like the DR are smaller at higher ISOs or ETTR only works at the base ISO. Like so many arguments they have, it's a misrepresentation of ETTR. It is possible to increase the SNR and saturation of image sensors at higher ISOs, and the reason we for ETTR!!

EM1 III with 17mm f1.2 Pro lens - ISO200, f4, 1/250, -0.7EV Exp. Com. - Raw edited in WS, Color Creator (1:0), 16-bit Tiff prepped in PS.

The most basic information you should have about the ISO function is that it amplifies the image signal from the sensor. This means amplifying both good (high SNR data) and poor (low SNR) image data. The quality of the recorded image data is NOT determined by the size of the sensor BUT by the sensitivity and how well we saturate or expose the image sensor. In other words, it's all about the type of CMOS sensor used in the camera and the reflected light reaching the sensor.

See this exciting example I posted a while back...

Did some photographers incorrectly apply ETTR? Yes, it happens when one uses the ISO to "Expose To The Right" (ETTR) or when promoters use the ISO to "prove" that ETTR has no benefits. Why is this so important to promoters? Marketers reject any alternatives to the "size and capture" theory.

Olympus EP-7 with 17mm f1.8 lens - ISO200, f1.8, 1/50 - Enhanced Raw file edited in WS, Color Creator (2:1).

Why does the ISO shift the histogram to the right, and how do we monitor sensor saturation? ISO is a variable in the formula calculating exposure, and exposure is linked to the histogram. Yes, it is possible to use the histogram to monitor the sensor's saturation or exposure level. 

The solution is to use your ISO manually in challenging situations. Adjust and fix the ISO for more difficult photos and use the Shutter Speed and Aperture to control the Reflected Light. This will change the ISO from a variable (auto ISO) to a constant number and the histogram to a function of reflected light or the saturation level of the sensor. This is not an absolute, but it is possible to more accurately determine challenging exposures.

Don't let promoters discourage you when claiming the Olympus histogram is linked to JPEG data. They really want you to think the Live View histogram shows jpeg info. Consider this, they are talking about data that's not captured, processed, or saved on the camera's SD card.

EM1 III with 17mm f1.2 lens - ISO200, f4, 1/125 - Edited in WS, AUTO Gradation, Color Creator (3:1), 16-bit Tiff prepped in PS.

It's all about reflected light and exposing the sensor. This also supports the theory about managing the performance of the image sensor. Size and capture theorists agree it's about light but then ignore the fact that pixels capture photons and NOT the size of the baseplate housing the pixels. Why do they always pivot to the size of the sensor? Think about what happens when you have more pixels...

Olympus EM1 III with Lumix 35-100mm f2.8 lens - ISO200, f7.1, 1/1600 - No ETTR - Enhanced Raw edited in WS.

5. My experience with Auto Focus and the Olympus EM1 III

I knew I would face various Auto-Focussing challenges like wildlife, a wedding, portrait, sports, camping, birding, video, and commercial photography while in South Africa. I prepared myself as well as I could before leaving. I studied the user's manual, watched YouTube videos, and experimented with the Auto Focus options of the EM1 III.

Sony A1 with 70-200mm f2.8 lens - ISO200, f2.8, 1/2000 - Raw file edited with Photoshop 2022.

I was a little anxious before arriving in South Africa, especially after seeing some of the reviews and forum comments complaining about the tracking ability of Olympus cameras and the OM-1 randomly losing autofocus. Would this be a problem for the EM1 III? Except for my mistakes, the long and the short of my Autofocus experience with the EM1 III is a clean sheet of paper. 

The one aspect I regret is not trying the AF shift function. I do need to practice with some of the more advanced AF features of Olympus. Apart from that, I never had to adjust my EM1 III AF parameters, and I couldn't find ANY problem "images" from my nearly 300GB captured image data.

Good performance of the EM1 III Auto Focus in ProCapture H with the 12-200mm lens - Noise w no ETTR.

The EM1 III Auto Focus is so effective that it enabled me to ignore that part of my photography. It might be necessary to tweak my Auto-focus settings in extreme cases.

Do reviewers only discuss extreme cases?

In summary, instead of "focussing" on the AF problems promoters discuss on social media or changing my autofocus settings, I plan to use my EM1 III more effectively. 

Olympus EM1 III with the 12-200mm lens - ISO200, f6.3, 1/100 - No ETTR - Enhanced Raw file edited in WS in PCRAW mode

6. Why say NO to a secondhand OM-1 when having a chance?

Why would anyone say no to a new OM-1? The answer is the OM-1 is too expensive secondhand, plus I am happy with my EM1 III. We also know the differences in IQ between the newer cameras are smaller because the underlying CMOS structure has reached its maximum efficiency capacity.

It can also mean I am enjoying excellent results with my EM1 III. I bought my EM1 III in Dec 2021 after using my MKII for 4 years. From my experience, the EM1 III is a significant upgrade, and I am more than happy to keep it until the secondhand OM-1 prices are more reasonable.

The role of the camera's image processor should be discussed more. The focus is so much on the "same sensor" and the 20MP of the EM1 III that photographers automatically assume the EM1 II is the same. What if the new Truepic IX processor has more detailed image processing and power? We should focus on image processing, functionality, speed, and the capacity of the new TruePic IX.

Folks, I cannot repeat this enough, we cannot trust camera reviews or forum experts!! Deception is NEVER a bad experience when it comes from a trusted or friendly promoter...

Sony A1 with 70-200mm f2.8 G-Lens - ISO160, f2.8, 1/200 - No ETTR - Exposure set for shadows, I couldn't pull back all the highs.

I think it's possible to equalize the Image Quality differences between cameras when you master the fundamentals of sensor efficiency. What is the main benefit of using a FF sensor? Depending on the sensor's age, they have a little better Optical Efficiency. We can get similar results when managing the reflected light to the image sensor. Marketers want you to believe the only way to improve sensor efficiency is when buying FF cameras.

6.1 Why do the EM1 III and the Sony A1 both have shadow noise?

I studied most of the Sony A1 images from South Africa, and apart from any resolution differences, most of the IQ differences came down to user mistakes. In fact, the shadow noise from both the EM1 III and the A1 is quite pleasing because they seem to have a lower temporal noise level. 

All image sensors have a native noise floor. This is why all cameras have shadow noise. The "size" of this noise floor is influenced by the sensor's design and NOT the size of the sensor. We can control the visibility of the noise floor by how well we expose the sensor (SNR). Most of my articles are about "managing" the efficiency (saturation and SNR) of the sensor. This is one piece of information that promoters refuse to discuss.

Sony A1 with 24mm f1.4 G lens - ISO1000, f1.4, 1/125 - The raw file was prepared in PS (See the shadow noise in the insert).

We used the Sony time-lapse function to record our family pictures. It was fun and we had lots of natural-looking images from the A1, a tripod, and one-second intervals. Unfortunately, the A1 depth of field was a little tight at f1.4, plus the A1 pictures had more than expected shadow noise.

The challenge was to load the A1 images in the memory of my PC to sort 600 plus raw files at 58MB per image. The question is, would my 20MP Olympus EM1 III with the 17mm f1.2 lens be the better choice with its wider DOF and apertures? For example, I could up my sensor saturation with a full stop by using f1.2, ISO1250, and 1/100th shutter speed. A flash would also do wonders...

My intention with the above example was not to discredit the Sony A1 but to demonstrate that image noise is NOT simply a function of sensor size. Image Noise is directly linked to the type of sensor, the saturation level, and the SNR of the sensor. Each photographer would know this if marketers were honest and not pushing fake "size and capture" theories to sell more full-frame cameras... 

Sony A1 w 70-200mm f2.8 - ISO600, f2.8, 1/320 - Raw edited in PS - Insert is the original with visible noise in the "unsaturated" shadows.

I am not ignoring any visual or optical differences between sensor formats. They are all important and something photographers should study and evaluate when looking for a new camera. But to make photographers think a bigger sensor will improve IQ is dishonest...

Keep in mind the main IQ benefits from any higher sensitivity sensor like the BSI sensor in the X-T4, the OM-1, or the A1 are lower shadow noise, less temporal noise, more shadow details, and higher DR. It's possible to get similar results with something like the EM1 III using ETTR (more reflected light on the sensor). Most of the computational features in Olympus cameras also control image noise. Also, remember that the Olympus Live MOS sensor is already more sensitive than most of the standard CMOS (APC Canon) sensors and in many cases full-frame standard CMOS sensors.

Sony A1 with 70-200mm f2.8 lens - ISO320, f2.8, 1/500 - Raw file edited with Photoshop 2022.

Conclusion

It is possible to radically improve your digital camera knowledge if you let yourself see through the "grassroots" forum discussions or promoters dressed up as camera reviewers. 

It is also critical to know that not everyone complaining is a promoter. Promoters are often small groups of well-trained social media experts. As with any brand loyalty, it's nothing strange to have more vocal supporters of any product, brand, or specific initiative...

Great ProCapture action opportunities with the EM1 III and the 12-200mm - No ETTR - Edited w WS in PC-RAW mode. The EM1 III's Auto Focus is good...

Most important in this article is the clear difference between theory and modern marketing. One can be explained and the other is all talk. Each aspect of shadow noise, sensor saturation, and SNR can be explained. On the other hand, those who talk and talk "size and capture" theories have nothing other than modern marketing, fact statements, graphs, and repetition...

Some say I should review different photography sites and not only DPR. The challenge is the available time readers have to study these articles plus DPR is the leader in this space. The examples in this article apply to all photography websites. The "size and capture" theory is a great example of which websites are repeating "size and capture" fact statements...

Olympus EM1 III with the 12-200mm lens - ISO100, f6.3, 1/250 - No ETTR - Enhanced Raw edited with WS in PC_RAW Mode.

If this is the first time you have seen something like this discussion on photography, counter-marketing, or saturating the image sensor, then I like to invite you to follow my journey. One of the biggest negatives of modern counter-marketing is the programming effect it has on people. 

It makes any transformation back to normal a timeous experience from arguing the virtues of sensor size to managing the performance of your image sensor. My advice is to always be open-minded and question the obvious a little more...

Take care & God's Bless 

Siegfried

PS. The DPReview ISO test has NO transparency or built-in mechanism to prevent incorrect results. For example, using a piece of white paper for your ISO tests is meaningless and it only opens the door to dishonesty. We really want to see how the sensor performs in the shadows. Why the shadows? A better way is to study everyday images (with Exif data) and to see how the sensor performs in the shadows, mid-tones, and highs. 

Study this article.

The final image was taken with the Olympus XZ-2.

Olympus XZ-2 - ISO200, f2.0, 1/100 - Enhanced Raw File edited in WS and 16-bit Tiff exported to PS

I did everything we discussed in the above image. The sun was below the skyline, and the blue hour just started. The shadows were dark and I applied an exposure shift of +1/3EV. Back home, I selected AUTO Gradation in WS. I only found small amounts of noise when studying the image a little closer. The sensor was obviously more saturated. It was possible to up the reflected light more, but the result showed it was enough for this example. The basic principles I discussed worked well...