It's an improvement over the E-M1, X-T1 and 7D II. The X-T2 is a recent release and I have no idea if there is any significant change/improvement in the DR compared to the X-T1. Anyway, a 1-stop improvement in DR is definitely not a game changer, but you have to look at the other improvements in totality, the biggest of which is the C-AF speed and accuracy.
savingspaces wrote:
If the em1II is being compared to a 3 year old sensor, that is not a "game changer" camera.
bobbytan wrote:
It's an improvement over the E-M1, X-T1 and 7D II. The X-T2 is a recent release and I have no idea if there is any significant change/improvement in the DR compared to the X-T1. Anyway, a 1-stop improvement in DR is definitely not a game changer, but you have to look at the other improvements in totality, the biggest of which is the C-AF speed and accuracy.
Either way I'll be getting one. I was looking forward to hand held hi res but I can leave without it. Tracking and such was never important to me.
Overall the camera itself looks much speedier, much like the 2nd generation of bodies this year (X-T2, etc). Image review is instant, looks like scrolling through the images via touch screen and pinch to zoom look much more responsive. Makes me hope that the AF trackpad option is more viable than the one in the Pen-F (which suffered from lag). Also hoping the new processor improves the overlays, such as peaking on the older Olympus models would bring the screen to a laggy mess.
I'm just wondering if the handgrip is now too deep. Great for those with large hands, but for those with smaller hands, just hoping it's not too much. I know I bought the external handgrip for the X-T2 and it felt great initially but after use it was just a tad too thick and I ended up returning it.
garyvot wrote:
Regarding the noise performance, Olympus says:
"There’s a new processing engine, the TruePic VIII – giving higher image quality, there is a 1 stop noise performance improvement over the E-M1."
This suggests an improvement in JPEG processing, which will be welcome to many, but I wonder about RAW performance... Any thoughts?
There is really almost no room for noise improvement in these sensors right now. There is very little left to gain in efficiency as far as midtone noise that comes from shot noise is concerned. We are taking small fractions of a stop at best without dramatically different (read stacked pixel) designs.
As to read noise, which can be a significant factor in perceived noise at higher ISOs in the shadows, there is in theory more room for improvement. However, in general faster sensor read out increases read noise and based on the specs I'd guess that they are really driving towards faster read out rather than lower read noise. I think it won't be until we see stacked sensors (not stacked pixels, but rather a Bayer sensor stacked on top of a read out chip) that we see significant improvement.
So to me I expect almost all their claimed improvement is in JPEG and that while there could very well be RAW improvement it will be significantly less than a stop.
kwalsh wrote:
There is really almost no room for noise improvement in these sensors right now. There is very little left to gain in efficiency as far as midtone noise that comes from shot noise is concerned. We are taking small fractions of a stop at best without dramatically different (read stacked pixel) designs.
As to read noise, which can be a significant factor in perceived noise at higher ISOs in the shadows, there is in theory more room for improvement. However, in general faster sensor read out increases read noise and based on the specs I'd guess that they are really driving towards faster read out rather than lower read noise. I think it won't be until we see stacked sensors (not stacked pixels, but rather a Bayer sensor stacked on top of a read out chip) that we see significant improvement.
So to me I expect almost all their claimed improvement is in JPEG and that while there could very well be RAW improvement it will be significantly less than a stop. ...Show more →
Thanks. What I expected and that's been my experience with other brands. Still, given that this is a new design, we'll have to see what the initial test results look like. I'm hoping for a bit of an improvement at least.
Even if there is no advancement of ISO performance or DR I'm still going to add the M1ii.
I also agree that with current sensor tech the mFT Oly sensor is probably topped out but as Bobby mentioned there is much to the camera experience than how much I can push in post (my words not his). Besides everywhere I turn video video video. I've got video on a 1DXii and never used it, on A7Rii and never used it, etc. Great Oly is putting 4k in the M1ii for those who just have to have it but it is still the stills oriented camera I want.
I just hope Oly doesn't beat me out of $300 for a battery grip!
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Even if there is no advancement of ISO performance or DR I'm still going to add the M1ii.
I also agree that with current sensor tech the mFT Oly sensor is probably topped out but as Bobby mentioned there is much to the camera experience than how much I can push in post (my words not his). Besides everywhere I turn video video video. I've got video on a 1DXii and never used it, on A7Rii and never used it, etc. Great Oly is putting 4k in the M1ii for those who just have to have it but it is still the stills oriented camera I want.
I just hope Oly doesn't beat me out of $300 for a battery grip!...Show more →
Interesting to see that you're adding this to your ki, MM. I'm intrigued as well, if only because I prefer the E-M1 body for dealing with zooms since I have kids and arguably the 12-40 and 40-150 are two of the better ones on the market for Mirrorless. I know my wife will appreciate using this more than my current Fuji which confuses her.
MAubrey wrote:
Like with laptops, phones, etc., the power use of camera processors continues to go down even as processing power goes up. I'm sure we'll see a better CIPA rating.
This is more or less true as a trend overall, but do consider that cameras have been generally deficient when it comes to processing technology- they use older designs (processing nodes) to keep costs down, and they contain far less technology and far less capability that isn't fixed-function than say your average cellphone.
Assuming that capability in processing is increased less than the task efficiency of the processing pipeline is increased, we should see increases in battery life (rated and realized), but at the same time we don't know how high Olympus is aiming in terms of processing capability, so we can't really say.
We can certainly hope that effective battery life isn't going down, though!
I think this is one of the very best sites for mirrorless comment and review. Indeed, if I was restricted to one site only this would be it. Mathieu is extremely articulate.
bobbytan wrote:
Lots more accurate info/specs/features here:
johnctharp wrote:
This is more or less true as a trend overall, but do consider that cameras have been generally deficient when it comes to processing technology- they use older designs (processing nodes) to keep costs down, and they contain far less technology and far less capability that isn't fixed-function than say your average cellphone.
Assuming that capability in processing is increased less than the task efficiency of the processing pipeline is increased, we should see increases in battery life (rated and realized), but at the same time we don't know how high Olympus is aiming in terms of processing capability, so we can't really say.
We can certainly hope that effective battery life isn't going down, though!...Show more →
Agreed. Still, we know from Chipworks that the original D800 was on a 180nm node.
That was 2012. It's likely we've moved at least one node smaller since then--the 16MP chip from Sony the original E-M1 used would likely have been from the same generation--or the previous at 250nm. 130nm seems probable; 90nm might even be possible!.
To be fair, you are talking about the sensors themselves, and their process node doesn't matter as much (I'm sure there are some gains to be had of course).
The processors though- that's what'll really make the difference in battery life.
In battery life yes but I believe the processors may very well have an effect on the image quality as well.
I wouldn't write off the "1 stop dynamic range/iso improvement" in RAW files just yet. Image processing, software and CPU's all contribute to this as well.
Maybe this has been discussed previously in the 7 or 8 pages, but does anyone think the E-M1 MKII would be able to AF 4/3 lenses (particularly the 150/2 Oly) any faster than the MKI? My E-M1 did pretty well, but any significant speed increase would be welcome.
Or, is it the motor in the lens that's the limiting thing?
