The new OM-1 looks to be a genuine improvement in a few areas that trouble MFT cameras.
Advancements across the board, especially in ISO performance, the “big” one for MFT, will see this camera and its Panasonic and Fuji equivalents continue the trend of annoying the big three. I still strongly believe that there is a place for all formats and that Olympus’s ability to offer all the advantages of MFT, with technological options to aleviate the formats short comings is near ideal. Who wants to shoot 46+ mp images for news based sport, when speeed and performance are more important and conversely, who needs to carry around a super speed machne for high res landscapes?
You can approach this from two ways.
A high res camera with large lenses and expensive sensor/processor combos for good performance, or a smaller, lighter camera with a sensor shift high res option, that does not need super lenses, massive sensors and processors. If Olympus and Panasonic can give us hand held high res, in camera depth control and noise performance that allows “A” grade low light sports capture (nearly there in all respects), then why full frame?Sure full frame can then match all of these with a bigger sensor, but do you need the F1 race car to adopt all the popular sports cars features? I.e, an expensive super car that you can drive sedately, or a motorcycle with high torque “haulage” and weather protected “luxury” modes.
The GH6 is also lifting MFT in video, at a time when all the competition are stretching, so playing catch-up is not an option. Panasonic need to stay in the front pack, but offering a serious MFT and full frame option validates both.
This makes me happy.
There will be something new to get later and a downward push on prices of the older cameras, all capable and really enough for me. It also means that the market has more players, therefore more ideas and stronger competiton in the mix.
I do also like the slight slowing of the industry, with new cameras every few years, sometimes after several upgrades of the last one, not seemingly constantly.
We have reached a point of unprecedented sufficiency. In some areas we are been over-catered to, if measured against our actual needs, so a slow down makes sense and allows great cameras to have a decent life span. The Canon RP and R, the G9 and G7, EM1/5/10 mk2’s and various Sony 6000 series and many Fuji’s are examples of cameras that won’t go away or that have not fallen dismally behind after years of service. They do their job, especially in image performance at an ever reducing price on balance with their newer comrades. Some advancements even come with un-needed stresses, like 6k video needed thousands of dollars of high speed storage to cover a days shoot, when high quality 1080 is all that is needed for most applications.
I doubt I will need much more to see me out photographically, but I also doubt that will stop me buying more.
About a 2mp crop from a 16mp 1Ds Mk2 file taken with a 1990’s era 400mm lens (the original shot had most of 2 full monkeys in it). Advancements are welcome, but it is handy to remember when enough is enough.
What would happen if the little guys folded and had to move on?
I like the look of Nikon at the moment. Probably the weaker of the three giants right now (Z9 excepted), I feel their new mount will see them through to the future with an advantage and the lens range is now as good as I need. Of course there would be a heap of cheap MFT around as well.
The reality is, if I lost my kit and needed to replace it right now, I would buy;
2x EM1x for general shooting ($2000 ea)
2x G9 for video and backup ($1000 ea)
12-100 f4 IS Pro
Pana 200 f2.8 with TC
8-25 f4 Pro
17/25/45/75 f1.8 primes.
Much as I have now.