The fact that Dpreview even put the OM-1 against one of the best full frame cameras out there in the market in terms of sports photography is already very high praise to the OM-1

After watching this, I'd take the OM-1 over the R3 every time. The differences in so called "image quality" are essentially negligible. They are visible in some situations when both cameras are being used in the same way despite being different tools, and when compared closely side-by-side. A good photographer, knowing their camera's strengths and weaknesses, will use different lens combinations, and different settings to get the best out of their kit. Then there is the matter of making images that people will enjoy. I'd argue that both cameras will do that just fine. There's no way I'd pay an extra 5 grand for the Canon solution, especially since that is just the start. You're going to be paying more for additional lenses, accessories, etc. It is going to add up to something significant! Plus, there is always the weight, and size penalty. It really shouldn't be understated. I currently own a Canon system (EOS R based), and an Olympus system (original E-M1 based). Using my skills as an experienced photographer, I can produce equally good images with my seven year old Olympus kit, and in day to day use, it's just more enjoyable. Anyway, my two-bits. Thanks for the video.

I hope more people buy the OM1 so OMSystems has more support to improve the product. I think 4/3rd is a great system that many people misunderstood that.

The OM is used by many professionals! With the Canon, you gain a full pound in weight, much larger and more expensive lenses, and almost 3 times the price in the body. I wish Evelyn would do some print tests, and she would see, in prints, you can’t tell the difference.

Love the video! The fact you’re even comparing the OM-1 to the Canon R3 actually says more about the OM1 then it does the R3. Also, having shot Canon for the last 13 years, now that I’ve switched to the EM1 Mark III, the OM-1 colors (EM1-3) are so much more accurate. It even shows in these photos.

We always love seeing Jordan's wife Evelyn. A couple of years ago, my local camera store here in Indianapolis set up a class in which students could shoot our ECHL team (Indy Fuel) in action. I shot the game with an original OM-D E-M1 and that 40-150mm f2.8 PRO lens. (I have since upgraded to the E-M1 Mark II, but that lens will have to be pried from my cold, dead hand.) I was really pleased with what I got out of that camera, and the OM-1 could stomp it, I'm sure. Is the OM-1 equal to the R3 for this work? No, of course not. But, is it good enough? Yes, I think it is. Back in 2002, I worked for a small newspaper and shot high school sports using a Nikon D1. The important takeaway is that pro sports shooters really just need to get a couple of decent shots out of the whole night. Hitting on hundreds or even thousands of shots is an incredible luxury. Having f2.8 glass is crucial on Micro Four Thirds. Before I got that lens, I tried shooting outdoor soccer at night with the 40-150mm f4-5.6 lens, and it was essentially pointless. I went back to that same soccer field with even my old E-PL5 and that f2.8 lens, and I was able to get some great stuff.

Nice comparison. The Canon R3 is phenomenal. But I would have no problem whatsoever using that OM-1 for professional sports photography. The noise reduction and sharpening software available today is over-the-top fantastic. And that pro capture mode is awesome. Software will never be able to capture those pre-shot frames.

Using olympus mirrorless for 12 years. And my om-1 om system is a killer even in high iso with electronic shutter, damn it's my best camera ever! No regrets even already have e-m1 III !

I agree with the others that even mentioning the OM-1 against the high end, purpose-built for sports photography like the R3 is a great compliment. Side by side, the R3 images are better no doubt. But after factoring size, cost, and "nearly as good" image quality, the OM-1 is a slam dunk for 95% of the photographers out there.

Evelyn must be invited back for the best gear of the year and drinking game. 😀

So Jordan put the subscribe button on Chris's face :D

Jordan didn't disappoint with the subscribe button 😂

What an incredibe camera that GH6 is! Such splendid footage!

I've shot the E-M1 II and 1DX side by side at a U19 soccer game in the middle of the day. Trust me - the pictures were indistinguishable. But the weaker the light gets, the bigger the difference will be, no doubt about that.

"... still focusing in that more classic way." LOL when I was a newspaper photographer, I focused manually. That's right, kids, I had to turn the focus ring with MY FINGERS! That's the classic way!

Great work, Jordan. I literally LOLd with that closing.

Well done Jordan, the end logo placement made this video for me!

Really interesting discussion and great video! Nice job everyone! 👏🏻

Oh yeah! I love these dpreview / TCSTV crossover specials! Woohoo!

Nice colab, guys, and nice, fair and candid comparison. Thanks for including the Olympus ≠ OM Digital Solutions outtakes - always makes me laugh.

I think the real winner here is the GH6… the footage is stunning!

Great format. Pitting two options for purpose. I'm not a sports shooter, but I'd like to see a shoot out comparison for other genres like street, travel, event, etc.

The most honest comparison i have seen.

Excellent and entertaining comparison

Chris, when using the CAF + TR, what sensitivity setting were you using? I use either +2 or -2, depending on whether I want really sticky on an isolated subject, or if I know there will be other subjects, set it so it ignores anything popping up between me and the targetted subject.

Interesting and thoroughly enjoyable !

I've have the OM-1 and other MFT cameras with loads of lenses and still have a big Canon outfit with 1Dx's and big lenses. They both have their strengths. I use Olympus stuff 80% of the time. I shoot a lot of running photography. Chris, your diction is perfect. I understand every word.

Great video Chris & Evelyn 😊👍

OM System OM-1 seems like really great camera.

Thanks for the video. Which green was closest to the real uniform color?

1600 ISO is nothing on modern MFT cameras. If you denoise them with DXO Photolab's Deep Prime noise reduction, you will see no noise at all and no noticeable loss of sharpness. I don't know if they have a profile for the OM-1 yet, but I don't even hesitate to shoot my E-M1 Mark II at 6400 ISO and the results have no noise at all, although if I start adding any clarity in Lightroom or anything like that, it will reintroduce noise. But 1600 is nothing. I remember photographing river otters in Portland, Maine last December. Carl Walsh was also there with his Sony A1 and a 200-600. I was using a 40-150 f/2.8 with a 2x teleconverter. After a while, it started getting dark and he switched to an adapted Canon 300mm f/2.8. I just swapped out the 2x teleconverter for the 1.4x and got one of my best shots ever using ProCapture. I could have taken the teleconverter off and shot at f/2.8 too, although I would have had to wait for the otter to come in pretty close. It's worth mentioning that the Canon 70-200 doesn't allow for the use of teleconverters, so you not only don't get as much reach, but you can't extend it with teleconverters either. For this test, it would have been interesting to see you take some shots with the 75mm f/1.8, which is tiny, super sharp, and relatively inexpensive. It's too short for most wildlife photography, but it's a great lens for indoor sports and the depth of field would have been pretty close to what you would get with the Canon 70-200, as would the noise, since you could use lower ISO values with the brighter lens. The tracking on my E-M1 Mark II leaves a lot to be desired, especially with running dogs, but it does a pretty good job with something like a horse trotting around a pasture, so I wouldn't say it's unusable. It just depends on the situation. And even with running dogs, you will get a number of shots in focus. It's just a bit of a roll of the dice sometimes and I have little doubt that Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Fujifilm will get you a better keeper rate. I think the bottom line is that OM System cameras are designed for wildlife, landscape, and macro photography, and while they can shoot sports, portraits, and other things, there are better (and more expensive) options for most indoor applications with the notable exceptions of real estate photography and studio portraits.

I do like that Jordan put the in-video links over Chris vs Evelyn ;) great video!

Good review. I’ve been shooting minor hockey games in Alberta for several years (80D with 70-200 2.8v3 and 135F2) and I can’t imagine using tracking. Single point, and try hard to time the shots. Lighting has drastically improved the last few years as a lot of community arenas have switched to LEDs…but I never had a problem with flicker (with anti flicker turned on). It used to be a lot of these arenas had different colour temperatures depending on the area of the ice. Also, 1/2000 sounds way to fast. I usually am shooting 1/1000, and can’t imagine needing to go faster than 1/1600 (tho I haven’t shot NHL lol). Also, I personally think that new RF70-200 would drive me nuts as I like being real close to the glass, and would likely be banging it every time I zoomed out. My best images have come from the 135F2, albeit you miss some shots without being able to zoom - but for a photographer just getting into shooting hockey, I’d recommend 80D or 7DII and either then 135F2, or 70-200 V2 or 3. If you want a real challenge now for that OM1 try shooting a local basketball game ;-)

Really enjoyed that video. Great dynamic and warmth. Nice to see the Olymp.... .....mother.....

Where the Olympus/OM System camera would excel is for extreme sports, such as surfing, snowboarding, BMX/MBT, skateboarding etc. Places where the weathersealing are vital. I shot surfing on an OM-1 back in the 1970s and 80s, and the humidity, salt air and sand eventually killed it. And the 800mm f/8 lens I was using was a massive beast. What I would have given for the new OM-1 with the 150-400, or even the more affordable 100-400.

Great job 👍

Always love the Noct comparison weight system.

No mention of the tracking on the OM1 and its sensitivity setting. Did he use high sensitivity to make it very sticky so the tracking stuck with the player without jumping to another or not?

I like how Noct has become a unit of measurement. It's like when talking about distances in space. What is 764'430'000 miles? Can you give me that in AU?

You guys ROCK! great video 👍

LOL at the subscribe box, good one Jordan

The price point is big, especially for someone who is still learning photography. Being able to buy as much as two lenses for the price of one means you can get to know more, different lenses. That is, with the assumption big makers won't be able to drive the price down.

I think oridinary C-AF with face detection ON is the best combination for OM-1 in your guys situation. Apparently works better than either C-AF+Tr or C-AF w/ manual focus area selecting.

What a nice videos shots!! Gh6 but what Lens? Bravo Jordan.

Well done, Thank you.

Good solid comparison. It's not about what the best camera is, all round. It's about what fits your own style and type of shooting, and understanding which system offers which benefits and downsides. If money wasn't an issue, I'd shoot both mFT and FF. And pick what I would need depending on what I was doing. But not many of us can invest in two full systems.

IMOHO, the OM-1 pictures did not have the ice overexposed, the R3 did in an unpleasant way. The contrast on the OM-1 pictures was also spot on, not so much on pictures from the R3. The white balance was yellow on the R3, perfect on the OM-1. I know this can be corrected in post, or you can tweak the picture style parametersI to get jpegs properly exposed, but I just found the OM-1 pictures more pleasing, specially when viewed on an iPhone. And it is a bonus in time saving if you can get it out perfect straight out of the camera. Were those pictures retouched, or were they jpeg straight out of the camera?

I know this is an older video, but I watched it again out of boredom. I realized after seeing the costs comparison that the canon set up is as much or slightly more than the cost of my entire Olympus kit. I own the OM-1, the E-m1 mark III , 7-14 2.8 pro, 12-40 2.8 pro, 45 1.2 pro 40-150 2.8 pro and just bought the 300f4 pro. Bought both bodies new, mark III on sale. I'm at around $8300, maybe a tad more for taxes and if I paid any interest. The canon IQ was better, but was it really $5,000 better? Not in my opinion.

Interesting video! I've seen some youtube channels, event top ones, bashing the OM-1 because "it's too expensive for a micro 4/3". How about putting the OM-1 against something more in it's price range like, say, the Canon R6?

I have been shooting for a couple decades now and been through every system. The last few years I’ve been addicted to micro four thirds and I can’t articulate why. It’s so fun. There’s something about how the glass mixes with the smaller sensor that is magical. A cheap kit Olympus or Panasonic lens can render intensely sharp, interesting images. I do astro, wildlife, portraits, landscape and my micro four thirds cameras come with me. My one full frame camera I have left sits around most of the time. Carrying around a little 300mm kit Olympus lens and being able to do a landscape shot at 80mp in high res mode and cropping to get a 40mp, detailed 1200mm equivalent photo is insanity. That’s just one of the fun perks. I could go on and on.

OM-1 rules the camera world - ONCE MORE! 👍😉

@ 4:33 the hockeyracket is bending, is that rollingshutter of the r3?

This comparison is great. It's something I've been wondering about... Whether or not the OM-1 was a viable alternative for sports/wildlife photography. In the past I've often recommended APS-C instead of full frame for many people shooting action, for the savings in size, weight and money. Might have been even better to also consider M4/3, but none of those cameras had the AF system to handle the job. It appears with the OM-1 this has finally changed and you gotta give the new owners props for working hard to improve the camera's action photography capabilities. Of course there are still some limitations such as the differences in depth of field rendering and high ISO capabilities. But there are always trade offs. So while I'm still a Canon shooter myself, when asked I will very likely be adding the OM-1 as one of the viable options for people looking to shoot sports and wildlife.

I mean 5K USD is a lot, and 4/3s usually packs lighter, both in kilos and volume. And It’s good for all Digital media platforms, but as you said depth of field ,lowlight, 20mp are not at the top end, but that is reflected in the price point. I’ll assume that most would have nice time with Chris kit, as the extended range of 100 mm is nice.

I wish you would do a comparison with the R6, which has similar resolution and price.

Finally an honest review over the OM-1 .... great in outdoors .... and wildlife without having a heavy load.

$5,000 US difference... Great results! Excellent video.

The OM-1 would be better for birding with greater depth of field and high pixel density vs full frame, which was never mentioned. I'd say it a win for OM-1 over the R3!

5:55 The OM-1 got a still with a stick flying thru the air with ProCapture - the R3 didn't but at the same time somebody else got a slow motion video with the same stick flying thru the same air perfectly from start to finish. I want that camera.

How would you compare the OM digital colors compared to previous Olympus cameras?

Really interesting video, but it would be super interesting to see the OM-1 vs Canon R6 that is much closer in price.

Great vid. Glad I’d already finished my breakfast by the end. Just about lost it with the subscribe button. 😂🤣😂

“Managing expectations…” definitely! Nice comparisons! Hockey arenas are always a challenge, but that was well lit! Nice colors & action shots! Imo, the m43 pix & feature compromises were not THAT bad. Then kit prices were compared and I’m glad I was in the chair! Wow! That Canon kit cost a few hockey camps! Oh my! Good video; nice job!

Thank you

Thank you. If you have the light then all good with both systems. So all the good news was good in both cameras with $5000 compensation for a few disappointments. You saves your money and makes your choice, as the rich said to the competent. Thanks again for your video they are very helpful.

Thanks for inviting us to dinner. I feel like you finally broke that fourth wall, so to speak.

Absolutely love your content!!! Specially the delivery, its extremely witty and entertaining. Just a small request, could you please review the Canon Rf 100-400 5.6 to 8, and if possible tell me if it will work on Canon Rp and its average autofocus for wildlife photography. Thank you!!! Cheers!!!

Ha!!! Too funny about that box at the end! :D Great video and comparison. Both cameras are truly impressive, and yes the price points are very relevant. If I won the lottery, I would have these cameras and some lenses to go with them (not in any particular order): 1. Sony A7R IV (already have it) 2. OM Systems OM-1 (dying to try those hi-res modes!) 3. Canon R5C (could I go to the dark side and make videos, finally?) 4. Nikon Z 9 (just plain sweet) 5. Panasonic model yet to be decided Cheers!

Try the zone cluster focus system on the OM-1

the quad pixel array of the om-1 means the full speed potential of the stacked sensor isn't used for readout, instead using some of the increased performance for IQ and AF apparently. So the Om-1 ends up with only a 2-times sensor readout speed increase, not enough to rule out all banding and rolling shutter.

Loved the “disrespectful” subscribe buttons at the end 😆

Is there "cluster AF" available on the OM-1, like past Olympus cameras- it works way better than "tracking".

Thank you for the video. Most reviews out there come to the conclusion that the R3/Z9 is better than the OM-1 .... I certainly hope that they are at more than double the price! But for us mere mortals that cannot take a second mortgage to buy a camera, the OM-1 sounds like a more realistic solution that still offers many (sometimes even more) of the capabilities.

Some of the best interior shots of abandoned architecture I've seen were taken with an E-PL7, the "entry level" MFT camera from years ago. Some of the best portraits I've seen were taken with an E-M1, E-M5.II (baby E-M1 more or less), and an E-M1.II all using the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 and 75mm f/1.8. I've seen and taken amazing shots with the f/1.2 25mm along with my Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 (and to be fair the APS-C Sigma f/1.4 lenses are great for portrait, both the 30mm and 56mm f/1.4's are sharp and affordable 60 and 112mm equivalents, but they're great options as native APS-C lenses everyone knows about), but the shots I've seen a few photographers I follow take with the much more affordable 45mm and 75mm f/1.8's with bodies you can get for stupidly low prices these days in the E-M1, E-M5.II, and E-M1.II I can't really justify spending thousands to replace my MFT collection. If we're pixel peeping at 100% you're going to find differences, if you nitpick obvious losses like depth of field you find differences, but in effective use (depending on said use to be fair) if you as a photographer have the skill, you're fine with most anything that's come out in the last 8 or so years. I had a GFX kit with a 50R, sold it because I was taking my Pentax K-1.II out more often for work (journalism gigs in areas I wasn't really wanting to bring a kit that expensive to), and even then I ended up selling my K-1.II because I used my KP more often than it. My clients love the images I capture with my Pentax KP (an APS-C that rivals a lot of full frame cameras still for pure image quality... mediocre autofocus, but honestly I use manual focus with focus trapping a lot or single point af that's good enough) and with my MFT kit of an E-M5.II, E-M1.II (had an E-M1.III, sold it for enough profit to almost buy the solid used E-M1.II with the difference alone), and E-P5/E-PL8. Cameras like the recently announced G9.II are perfect for me, a person with a large collection of MFT lenses I love that also wants the features in the S5.II. I get to effectively have an S5.II while also keeping my native glass and having benefits I would never use due to the smaller sensor (primarily video, but I do like e-shutter even for stills if possible). Why would I spend thousands to replace my MFT kit I assembled used that I love the look of if I have options like the G9.II and OM-1?

What intrigues me most about the micro four thirds format is the increased pixel density. Not only can you put more pixels onto tiny subjects, you can also cram more pixels into the focal plane, which is critical for macro. A 20MP MFT camera has the same pixel density as an 80MP full frame camera, while being more portable. Plus, the OM-1's crazy fast burst modes would be perfect for capturing subjects that can't be tracked with autofocus and are moving in and out of focus rapidly, such as flying insects. Every system has its pros and cons, but IMO MFT seems ideal for macro.

Whether you need the bigger, heavier, way more expensive and undoubtedly better quality or you just appreciate and love it, it doesn’t matter. I used to own a full frame DSLR set with an f2.8 80-200 mm zoom. Loved it. But I am not in that phase of life anymore that I feel I need to proof something anymore and the OM System is just so appealing to me as an enthusiast photographer. I really appreciate it ways less, costs less, compact and remains state of the art features and build quality.

Chris you are saying that the CAF+tracking is the same as the old em1mk3? and that they recommending not to use it? Have I missed something isn't the new AF tracking the big thing with the OM-1?

What do you mean by "electronic shutter" in some of the images? Does it OM-1 not have an electronic shutter per se?

Good review overall but almost seems like it was paid for by Canon. The Om-1 is camera that costs 1/4 (or less) of the price of the r3 and will definitely loose in a comparison against any full frame camera in the price range. For $5k you can have a complete OM-1 professional kit with a couple of pro zooms and a good portrait lens. How much would the r3 system be?🤔

Of course on the OM-1, you can retrieve some image quality by shooting at 1/1000 instead of 1/2000 (right?)

I shot a softball game with my e-m1 and that 40-150mm f/2.8 and at the end of the day my arm still hurt. I can't even imagine doing it with a full frame camera. I think ergonomics of m4/3 is a lot bigger factor than anything else for me.

Evelyn is a star.

I am curious if the Eye Tracking Autofocus only works if you have brown eyes? Both Evelyn and Jordan have blue eyes, and it does not work for them. Other people I have talked to with blue eyes, also said they could not get the Eye Tracking Autofocus to work either, and I know 2 local photographers with brown eyes who use R3 Eye Tracking and it works for them.

Apsc is a happy middle ground?

Understanding what the various focus modes are supposed to do on a given brand is important. C-AF is a form of follow-focus especially in movie modes, which includes fast bursts. It will follow a player but not refocus on another if you pan across a stage, then it will get confused if its line of sight is crossed. It will actually try to stay on the first subject and need a touch on a focus button to make it refocus where you want it. Your GH6 movie continuous focus is a different thing to its AF-C, it works well for following the subject bobbing about on a vlog but not if you want it to swap to a product and back, it's a movie follow-focus. For that switch to AF-S with movie continuous focus on. Eye/body/animal detect is not a focus, merely detection. MFT tracking will lose the plot if the subject goes out of the focus box area. Holding the subject within a small focus box can be tricky with a long lens. Try S-AF, eye/animal/body detect and tracking with a full focus box. With every frame of a burst refocused S-AF works. Does the OM-1 have eye sensor pre-focus like the G6? It's not a full focus but ball park. It readies the camera for quick focussing. No two camera brands do stuff the same way. Lumix have had pre-burst (Olympus Pro Capture) since 2014 but in 4K mode by shooting movie. The G9 pushes that up to 6K but it's still not the full 4/3 frame. Shooting at full tilt it will buffer-out, slower is better for machine gun.

I find the argument of depth of field and this bluring background argument interesting. It has only been of importance since digital cameras came on the scene. There was a time when no one cared about it. Quite frankly I prefer to keep background in focus. Additionally putting OM1 against the new full frame highlights the fact that MFT is still in the fight.

I know that a lot of people think this doesn't matter that much, and in many ways I agree, but I would still like to see a 43 megapixel om systems camera. I am very happy with my 20 megapixel E-M1 iii, but if an OM-1X (E-M1X ii) came out with 40+ megapixel, I would be willing to spend $3000+ for it. That being said, I think this is where OM needs to go. If they want to become one of the most sought after nature wildlife cameras, they will do 3 things to compete with Sony/Canon/Nikon: 1) Keep the similar performance to OM-1 (maybe 24 frames per second would suffice), 2) bump the megapixels to compete with the R5, and 3) keep putting an emphasis on improving video features. Look, I am extremely happy with what I have, but I want my investment to keep winning financially, and imagine how many people would prefer the lightweight portability of micro 4/3, but the detail and flexibility of having larger files for cropping, and higher res video and/or more video fidelity: i think this is the winning formula for OM, and micro 4/3 as a whole

If I am working alone (almost always) I prefer being low in the stands, near the middle of the ice and not behind plexi-glass. A 300mm equivalent at the long end of the zoom is good enough for a small arena, though lighting is going to be the issue. I recorded some of the Commonwealth Games from the top aisle (behind the seats) using a consumer Full-HD camcorder on a monopod. Even then, the results were too shaky for public consumption, but actually, I liked what I got "just for me".

DPR can you do a test to show which RAW software delivers the best IQ (all brands, free and paid (even ones included when you buy the camera))? Thanks!

Give me the song in sample photos part

Funny. In the video about the Old Canon Eye-Tracking AF, it doesn't work on Chris, but worked great with Jordan.

With the OM-1 which zone did you end up using? Centre dot, centre box, cross, something bigger? Also do you think the 12-100 f/4 would be OK for hockey? I’m planning to test out my OM-1 and 12-100 f/4 this weekend at some rinks in Australia.

People always get in such a muddle when comparing cameras with different sensor sizes… If we are trying to take the same picture with both cameras - with the same shutter speed and depth of field - them the m43 camera will be operating at two stops lower iso than the full frame camera. The image noise will usually be comparable for a sensors of comparable vintage irrespective of their size.

Like the guy who is still using the DSLR, every choice is a compromise, so you work with what solves most of your requirements. And sometimes it takes more work, but honestly, isn't that where the jazz is? I mean, you don't want the system working against you, but if you can't plan your shots and just rely on pray-and-spray to hit the jackpot, is that really very satisfying? Where's the skill? Pretty happy with my EM1-iii, still on the fence as to whether this OM1 is worth the upgrade for anything but birds.

great .. but if there is any disadvantage to OM1, its not due to sensor format 4/3 vs FF but the r&d that canon can afford vs olympus (or om-system) imho 4/3 or any smaller sensor format should be better than any larger format for AF or computational photography department .. period DR and resolution can be an advantage to larger formats, but we know how much we need it!

This is why I love your channel. Was waiting for a comparison like this. My Om-1 is waiting on preorder and should arrive in a week or two, maybe sooner. I’m gonna watch the video. Hopefully I won’t feel like I should cancel the order. Fingers crossed

I just came from basketball shooting with my OM-1 and 40-150mm F2.8 and Im extremelly happy with the results. around 1200pics, C-AF, ISO MAX 3200 few times, mostly around 2000, "only" 25 FPS, I have like 20 non-focused pictures so I can pick from the rest the right picture. So I can NOT confirm what Chris is saying...

I like that he puts up "poor richard's" iso 6400 shot at 14:18 while negging the performance, but viewing on my zfold 2, which should be the biggest phone screen on the market other than the oppo folding phone that nobody bought, it looks great. Pulled it up on a 12.9 inch ipad pro and it still looks great. If that is the definition of bad iso performance nowadays then I'm more than happy with it.

With my Olympus gear Topaz DeNoise a very handy piece of software. Noise is the price you pay for the smaller more affordable system. I do hope OM really goes after the AF tracking in future products. Until then keeping my EM1X.

Make the same experiment with a Canon R6, would be interesting!