I use the 80MP high resolution feature on the G9 all the time. It's nice for the occasional still life or landscape. However, where it's really good is for film scanning. This is real 80MP scans coming back from a $1500 rig - camera, macro lens, miscellaneous. I've been using a Nikon CS5000 and CS9000 scanners for years now; the G9 scan results can be better. More generally, I find the high res mode does a number of things better simultaneously. 1. The eight frame averaging reduces effective sensor noise significantly. 2. Spatial resolution is obviously higher. However, I think color resolution increases as well. The process probably effectively backs out interpolation necessary for the Bayer filter, i.e., with high res mode, the hue of each pixel position is explicitly sampled by R, B, G photo sites (rather than interpolated from its neighbor.)

I find myself using the high res modes on my E-M1 Mk III more and more. I'm a landscape and nature photographer based in southern Germany and I use it a lot for the landscapes, whether for stock photos, to improve the dynamic range or, as recently on a trip to Norway, reduce high iso noise in an astro image, which turned out surprisingly well. The camera was mounted on a tripod and I engaged HHHR mode. The camera was more than capable of keeping up with the movement of the stars. Thanks for doing the test though. Interesting to hear your thoughts.

Matti, you should process the OM-1 Hires RAW in OM Workspace and apply *extra* sharpening compared to regular shots. It is well documented that OM HiRes raw files need different post-processing than regular raws to get the most out of them. Lightroom is not optimized for OM Hires raw files, especially default settings like you did in this test. Also, there are other benefits for HiRes besides more resolution: decreased noise, decreased aliasing, and better color. I have compared Olympus E-M5 III Hires with Sony A7RII shots and in my testing they are almost identical, but I did use OM Workspace for pp. I imagine handheld Hires on the new OM-1 should give similar results.

I thought the sony colors looked like crap. For $4300 less I'll be happy with my OM-1 when I get it. I have never felt limited with the mp in any of my Olympus camera's.

On my E-M1 II I found the tripod hr mode more useable than with the Pen-F, but still very limited. The handheld option which I’m using occasionally on the E-M1 III is more suitable and works good for me. But for really sharp results, I not only have to use only the best lenses, I also have to process the file in OM Workspace, which is a bi annoying. With PhotoLab the the details are too soft, I guess it’s similar with Lightroom. Moving objects can be fixed in post by using the additional standard resolution file as an overlay and copy affected parts from that. If there are only some moving elements, that isn’t too much work. Because of the caveats of this mode I once year consider buying a real high resolution camera, but with lenses that quickly adds up to a 5-digits figure and I haven’t yet found a reason why I need that…

I use the high res mode on my E-M1 iii when I encounter something beautiful, usually on a hike in nature, sometimes a work of art in the city. Otherwise I don't use it because of the limitations you mention. So for me it's very occasional use, but I keep it on one of the programmable settings on the mode dial for those uses.

Hi... Lightroom, Capture one, nor ANY software except OM Worspace is really capable to treat Olympus Hres shots ! Try to open the same Hres picture in LR and OM Workspace, you would be surprised by the HUGE difference !

I never use hi-res mode on my OM-D E-m1 mkII. I find 20mp is more than enough for my requirements - which is mostly bird photography with the 100-400mm Pan Leica lens. I document the birds for science not for pixel peepers.

“It’s a great feature in paper,” is a good summary. I thought I would use it all the time on my G9, but I often found at least one of three issues: 1) more pixels really didn’t buy me anything, 2) some element somewhere in the frame almost always moved, and 3) when doing “super-pixel-peeping” at 200% I could always see pattern artifacts that probably accounted for a “sub-pixel” softness. However, I know the OM1 may have improved on the last point, but if I could detect a slight softness on KZfaq, your estimate of an effective resolution of 30 mp is probably generous. But here’s the thing: the greatest value having a high resolution sensor for me is that I can crop aggressively, getting essentially digital zoom, and that softness becomes more apparent. (It is worth noting that Topaz Sharpen AI can often fix that softness convincingly, but that is another topic.) Regardless, having this feature as an option is a bonus, even if you don’t use it all the time.

I use the high res modes )primarily the tripod version) quite extensively for landscape photography as works very well for longer exposures with moving water where it will work similarly (but not identically) to LiveND. The speed of the moving water will dictate what minimum shutter speed is needed for natural looking results. For fast moving water or a waterfall, I tend to go with a minimum of 1/2s (which will then be multiplied by the 8 pixel shifted sub exposures). It works the best for “uniformly moving” water as erratic splashing tends to get a messy look. This also greatly increases the dynamic range. The handheld version can be used as a pseudo star tracker and “auto stacker” for Milky Way shots. You need to make sure that the stars fill the majority of the frame to force the camera to align the sub frames rather than any earthbound elements.

Thanks for the interesting comparison, and you are right about noise suppression, it's an especially useful feature for small sensors that suffer in low light. In many cases having a clean image is more important than extra sharpness. High res is great for architecture and documenting art exhibitions (I am an art curator), I've also used it successfully for portraits. I did try FF frame for a while (A7R2) but I am not fond of heavy FF zoom lenses, so I went back to M43. I just love those tiny, sharp M43 primes that I can easily carry in a small bag

Sony is sharper but I think the OM-1's blacks, are very nice. Yes movement is an issue but when you weigh the price and size of the OM-1 it's a lot closer.

HiRes Mode is great for product pictures or similar. Also when doing Macros it works just fine and gives you that ability to crop the image if needed.

I commented earlier about the lens, but now I want to comment that I have a GH6 now, and I have found that the high res mode in the GH6 is much, much better than the Olympus Em1 mark iii (I don't have an OM1). While there are tons of advantages of the Sony a1, as you get 50 MP without motion causing an issue...but the GH6 100 MP with the Olympus 17mm f1.2, wow, so crisp and clear!

What i've noticed using the EM1 mark 3 HHHR is the pictures are slightly soft at the default lightroom settings. Increasing sharpness a bit fixes this issue. Also i would have tested the 80MP mode using tripod, just for comparison.

I care more about colors than anything else and Olympus is the clear winner 🥳

I think for professional work, the high res shot for OM1 might not be as useful but for instagram or social media use, it is good enough. I have used it side by side with my Nikon Z9 and I don’t use much of a difference in terms of details but definitely more limited to still objects and landscape shots without wind but for occasional use, it js brilliant considering the price point.😊

Really,.... I looked at the images and apart from the moving car, I thought the OM1 was better.

i disagree with you , 20 mega pixel is already enough to print very big because you will see it from from far place , and for big screens it is 4k and you will view it from far place also ,people

Let me say i am a A1 owner and i see what you want to compare here, What i like about the OM1 is that they at least more than sony try to use some internal processing to make things happen. My 2 high res sony (A1 and R4) both have highres mode up to 200MP but i have never used it once since its 100% too much work. For the rest you can only take this compare sofar as you pointed out the A1 is all about being able to get 50MP images at 30 fps without rolling shutter issues and solid AF. It really is a jack of all trades and a master of most of it and you pay for that. Its a pity that most of the really interesting computational stuff is done on either mobile phones or smaller sensor cameras since well they are more forced todo it i guess.

Thanks Matti! One comment on your test. Olympus 12-40 lens has maximum resolution at f/2.8 and (as most of Olympus/OMDS PRO grade lenses) it has a bit remaining spherical aberration for artistic purpose aimed for portraits. If you would try Lumix 12-35 f/2.8 at f/4 you'll find it considerably sharper.

compare the A1 at 200mp mode and the 80mp from om1

To my knowledge, Olympus does not claim that a 20MP camera with high res shot mode generally provides the same or better resolution than a 40MP FF camera. It is generally understood that high res shot mode can deliver excellent results in some circumstances. That said, I suspect most people would find it difficult to tell whether an Olympus or Sony captured a specific image on most media where images are viewed. After a little post processing this becomes even more difficult.

As a multiple system user own both Em1X and Many other Sony and Ninon FF systems, i can't agree more about your honest assessment regarding the high res mode vs a real High res FF sensor. Actually i don't see that many direct comparison, normally what you will see is the MFT fan talking about how great that High Res mode is and never bother to compare it to other sensor. You are the very few i ran into and did the comparison, and not only that and you offer very honest opinion, not like some of the Olympus ambassadors, always claiming the low res mft sensor in high res mode creating better than competitor . There is no free lunch guys, if you want a high quality 50 MP file, get a 50MP sensor camera. The gap will always be there, and don't forget you can shoot " high res mode" with those 50 -60MP sensor camera to create even high resolution image too.

Correct me if I m wrong, but when you compare MFT to APSC or full frame with the same resolution, I always see more details on the bigger sensor when comparing it while pixelpeeping (you shouldnt do it, but it is pretty clear, that a high res mode with the same output resolution couldnt come over this). The 80MP high res mode is much better than hand held high res in terms of resolution and sharpness, but I dont like to work with a tripod, so I dont use that very often - and to be honest, 20MP is more than enough, because with Olympus, you get reach very easily with small lenses.

I had an E-m1 Mark II and only used the high res mode once, just to see what it looked like. In everyday shooting I never used it. There was too much of a chance for movement that I may not have detected, so the photo would not be acceptable. I agree with everything you said.

A comparison with the Lumix GH6 would be interesting, as it said that it handles moving objects in the scene better than Olympus.

Nice hat! 🇺🇦😘

probably need to make the exposure time shorter for A1? the excavator looks more exposed for A1. I did something like you - I took pictures with GFX100s and S5 of the same scene from the same location. Afterwards i think i should have lowered the exposure time for the GFX100s.

Interesting review. Thank you, Matti ! I use tripod high-res mode for waterfalls, sea landscapes, studio objects shoots and sometimes mountains-landscape. In the picture where there is water, the tripod high-res mode will handle it very well and will give the feeling of 1-2 stops ND filter. The tripod high-res mode generates 80 Mp raw files which looks decent even at 100%. I got fine results even from some kit lenses. And... the tripod high-res mode from my E-M1 MK II handles well moving elements.

Today I‘ve done a test with om-5 handheld high-res and a7rv. Out of camera the sony was much better. After using Topaz sharpen ai I must say that the Om picture caught up a lot (it had applied automatically motion blur adjustment). Double computational mode is a cumbersome path to achieve a decent static image.

I wonder if the OM1 at it's native pixel count with the Adobe Lightroom Super Resolution mode would be better than the HHHR mode. I've been using it on some old 5D Mk1 files and it looks great. Yet to try it on my M43 files when that was my main system about 10 years ago.

If you already own an Olympus camera for shooting other things such as wildlife or sports and need to do an occasional high-res studio still life, then the high-res mode is great. However, if you regularly need to shoot hi-res photos, which probably means you’re a pro, then buying a dedicated camera makes sense, and possibly means going to medium format such as the affordable Fujifilm GFX range. It’s always about the right tool for the job. If you only bought the Olympus for the high-res mode, then that is a dumb idea, just like buying one only to shoot video when buying a dedicated video camera would be the smart thing to do.

You know I want to compliment you for doing this. So thank you. I have both of the lenses you used, and as you mentioned the Tamron 28-75mm is a much sharper lens than the 12-40 mark 1. Try using some lenses that are equality sharp. I'd love to see equally sharp lenses with this test...say the Olympus 60mm macro, or 45mm f1.8, even better the 75mm f1.8. I actually think the sharpest Olympus lens I have is the 8mm fisheye f1.8.

Thanks for this video. Of course handheld high res (HHHR) shots have the limitations you mentioned speaking of moving parts. Also, they are not very sharp regarding to the resolution. But this often can be fixed in post production. For moving parts, you need to open both the ORI and ORF files in Photoshop, upscale the ORI to match the resolution of the ORF file, and then copy it as a new layer of the ORF file and apply a fusion mask. Nower you just need to unmask with a brush the moving parts. Of course, these moving parts will appear with a lower resolution, but with no artifacts. Now, you can also sharpen the high resolution layer, I found that the Topaz Denoise AI plugin, which also has a sharpening slider, works very well for that. But you need some processing power, especially GPU. An other point is the good question you mentioned : what shots deserve HHHR ? Architecture in general is a good candidate for it. Speaking of landscape, it's interesting only if there are significant detailed parts which are far away like rocks, forest, etc. So HHHR may often give good results, but it demands some time and power for post processing. This is, as usual with M43, the price to pay for the smaller M43 sensor. It's like reducing noise from RAW, which sometimes demands a specialized software like DxO PL or Topaz Denoide AI, where full frame shots are OK straight out of the body.

The problem with hi res mode is that it is unreliable. Even if photo looks Ok, some minor artifacts could be found. When I need more megapixels I rather use upscaling software based on artificial intelligence.

Тhere is also one other advantage of the Hi-Res shot and this is better color fidelity. If there are no moving parts every Hi-Res image downsized to the original camera image size will be way better in any aspect. I'm waiting for my OM-1 and will try to make some Hi-Res portraits to see how the camera handles that. Have you tried it for portraits?

I have a 47mp camera in the form of a Leica Q2 and since I do not print large [hardly print at all], the only advantage to me compared to a 20mp camera without using hi-res is the ability to crop. Even so, for me, the difference is of no particular significance or importance. I do not therefore use the hi-res mode with my E-M1, which needs a tripod or solid base to keep it steady enough.

It is interesting to see if the focussing distance has any effect. I'll try it sometimes with my G9 and my 5:1 macro lens. If I'm right, macro photos in high res mode shouldn't be sharp.

I can't see more Details in the Sony image, although it looks sharper. And there is more colour information per pixel, instead of only one colour as in the Sony. With a bit of sharpening the image will come very close to the Sony,

For studio work (with a tripod) the 80mp hi-res mode on the OM-1 should give better results. It would be interesting to compare the OM-1 and A1 is this situation, and of course were are waiting for an upcoming hi-res comparison between the OM-1 and the GH6, which would probably be favourable for the GH6 with its 100mp mode. As the handheld hi-res mode depends on 'natural' camera movement (rather than pixel shift in the tripod mode), I would think that consecutive shots of the same scene will yield different (unique) results due the the random nature (and steadiness) of hand movement of the photographer. Could it be possible to train oneself to make more consistently sharp HHHR shots? I wonder if you took only one photo with the OM-1 for this comparison, or if you took several photos and picked the best result.

I’ve used HH a few times but as an amateur photographer I tend to regard it as a pleasant gimmick. I don’t pixel peek and I don’t print enormous images. To me the selection of the image is the most important aspect. Call me gestalt.

Movement - whenever I've used high res, I've got and extra seagull or something. It's probably Sod's Law, the best shot will have something that moved. It works for tabletop product shots where everything is static. For the landscape photographers who favour high resolution cameras, they will use a high resolution full frame or even medium format. They still have problems with movement blur at slow shutter speeds. Let us not lose sight of the fact that most full frame are 24Mp and only half of them are over 30Mp. Is 20Mp enough? Or too much? The Sony A1 has 50Mp on a sensor four times the area. If we take 1/4 of that, 12.5Mp, the OM1 has a lot more than that. If we crop the Sony in to half its area, that is roughly the native resolution of the OM1. I do know I can shoot an Olympus walking without breaking stride. Will the Sony do that? If the Oly is given an OIS lens it will use part and part stabilisation, not up to the Dual on the G9 but better than IBIS alone. Something I've observed by extreme pixel peeping on the G9 and PEN-F 20Mp is that because the pixels (photosites) are so small and tightly packed together, is that light can spill into the adjacent pixel more readily than with the 16Mp sensor. This light spillage is known on astronomical cameras, where only one pixel should have been lit, it has flooded onto the adjacent ones. The 20Mp seems more susceptible to movement blur, the 16Mp a more clearly defined edge. When taken with a faster shutter to cure the problem the 20Mp has a less jagged, better defined, edge. I did have to zoom right in to see this on my best monitor, but it tells me to use a faster shutter with the 20Mp if there is going to any movements blur. I surmise this "movement blur" needing a faster shutter would apply to any high resolution sensor. As a (cof) radiometrologist I can get bogged down in the technical whyfor. I have not quantified this but there does seem to be a correlation between shutter speed and sensor resolution for best results.

Very honest review regarding real world use of the hi res mode on the OM1. It does look good on paper but can really only be used in very limited conditions which really makes it not very practical for most purposes. It is fun when it works though and for general photography 20mp is plenty.

love your cap.

Matti I don't know if you know but LightRoom hasn't fully supported Olympus High-res raw files in the past and it still doesn't. I know that most of us use some other software than OM Systems Workspace to process Olympus/OM raw files, but could you make the comparison also with a software that supports OM high-res files OM Workspace? Would be interesting to see if the difference might still be the same.

I not sure we are looking at the same photos - the olympus photos are slightly more exposed which can wash out the details. Also the colors are much more pleasing in the olympus. Agree not a feature usable for moving objects. CAnnot agree the detail is noticibly visable or different. Thanks for the effort to compare -

I agree with Leo. I find that most comparisons here use lightroom. If you are to truly do a comparison use the best raw editor for each file; especially since OM Workspace is free. I tell you one thing on my uncalibrated M1 MacBook Air display I like the OM-1 colors better. My two cents.

Matti thanks for taking on a very controversial topic. Even the late David Thorpe--a MFT proponent--would say of course FF has better IQ than crop sensor due to physics, so results are not surprising. When Raw converter is available for GH6, I hope you are able to do similar comparison with the Sony A1 or esp between both MFT cameras.

I am digitising my analogue fotos using a EM5.2 using high resolution and a Leica 100 f4 macro lens on bellows on a copy stand, backlit with LED. I have an EM1x for both hand-held and tripod high resolution: the hand-held is for relatively static scenes, usually with the 12-100; the tripod mode is more for experimentation and landscapes. Sometimes the artifacts can be as interesting as the original photo, but it's largely hit-or-miss.

If you would photograph the om-1 with f8, same as sony, would the pics look sharper? I mean you took kind of landscape shots. Just for fun i would like to know😀 the tripod mode compared to the sony 50mp also very interesting

The oly 17mm 1.2 might provide better result for the OM-1?

I do have to say that the colors and exposure of the OM1 images -- to my eye -- are better than the Sony.

What is impressive to me is, that a camera around 2000 € (OM-1, MFT Sensor) can make shots that are slightly worse in quality compared to a around 7000 € (A1, Fullframe Sensor) camera. How would you compare the OM-1 to a Sony A7 IV ?

Interesting comparison both look great I love my Sony 7r111 the a1 will probably be my next purchase in 3 years . Liking the hat Matti 👍

Hi Matti. Useful video clip. Whilst my OM-1 covers most aspects of my wildlife photography it hits a wall when trying to shoot birds in the distance when a heavy crop is also required in post processing. All you mention in the clip reflects why my wildlife photography friend uses a Sony A1. Together with the Sony 100-400mm lens and x1.4 TC his resulting distance photos of birds are sharper and a heavy crop is easier. Having said that the Sony camera is £6500 plus lens and TC, although works out the same price as my OM-1 and 150-400mm pro lens. If I could afford it I would have both cameras and lenses 😏😏

What do you think shotting aurora borealis in High-Res? Is it possible? thanks

Hello Matti, I would like you to make the following comparison; shoot the same photograph (same megapixel) with a 4/3 and an FF, to see if the image quality is different and how important the sensor size is, thank you very much, a hug.

interesting comparison, any chance to share a raw files, please? thanks

Basically you used the wrong tool for processing the HHHR image from the Oly. Processing within the free OM system Workspace software makes a world of difference. Yes there are all the limitations in terms of subject movement as you mentioned, but it is a feature that can be used in many other circumstances. It's fantastic for night city photography, and landscapes without much tree motion etc. No it's not a 50/80 mp camera, but can achieve similar in many occasions.

Its worth pointing out that there have been a good few tests done to see what size of print is obtainable from Micro 4/3 and a few feet long, which most folk will never ever do, is well within its capability, and that's not hi res mode! Huge prints side by side with full frame are practically indistinguishable. so maybe all this is nit picking and in the real world practically useless.

You have to sharpen the hi res photos. How do you NOT know this. It's been known since my E-M5II in 2014.

Very nice comparison. I'm not sure if it was a raw file comparison but I feel I can see a magenta shift in sony A1 colors compared to OM1. At 4:38 and also in that CAT picture it's so pronounced. How do you think about the colors. Which one is closer to the natural scene if you can remember? BTW thank you for wearing this hat again!

The advantages of full frame cameras is highly debatable in most situations. When looking at the big picture, the extra expense and weight of full frame is not worth it. Now, in the “ real world” as you say, where it counts is in the PRINTS. Please do a comparison of prints between the different sensors, including APS-C. Have people pick their favorites. It would be a very interesting video!

With every system there are those photographers who will see only the advantages of the system, and there are those who will focus largely on its limitations. Then in the middle there are most of the rest of us. It's not the gear that takes a breathtaking image; it's the photographer. This video helped to remind me of that truth, so thanks.

I suggest comparing the high res file out of OM System Workspace. It renders it better than Lightroom, more detail.

What the video teaches me is you get what you pay for. If my 20.4 MP OM-1 is knocking the door of a 35MP camera, happy days! I'm laughing all the way to the bank.

How about testing HHHR with subjects that are slow moving or trying to be still like people posing. I think that would be intresting, I mean everyone knows it doesn't work with fast subjects like cars.

OM-1 Hires RAW is very good if you do occassionally product/model photographing in studio. You don't need to invest heavy priced Sony or Hasselblad.

It would be a surprise to see the OM-1 to be sharper in raw compared to A1. With a little sharpness in post though, I think that OM-1 is really close and the difference is really small. Way smaller than the 4299$ in their price difference

I still get great results from my old fuji s3 pro and olympus E1. I have on my wall 30x40 inch taken with my olympus EM 1 mk1. I have fantastic A2 pictures from the 1st two .

Isn't the native resolution of the Olympus camera 24 megapixels?

It is well known that you need to use om workspace if you want to get the most out of the high res shot.

I use high resolution photos for my cityscapes and landscapes. Personally, I intend to add a ND on my E-M5ii to get high resolution long exposure photos.

Wouldn't you be better off comparing the tripod High Res mode . It can handle movement better.

In italiano. Due fotocamere molto diverse, una costa tre volte l'altra, una è due volte più compatta (corredata di ottica) dell'altra. La OM1 nasce come evoluzione elettronica del vecchio 135, le FF hanno di fatto sostituito le vecchie 4,5x6 a pellicola. Le prime hanno guadagnato in compattezza e velocità rispetto al 135 le seconde hanno guadagnato ancora di più in compattezza velocità e versatilità rispetto al Medio formato. L'una e l'altra conservano vantaggi e svantaggi rispetto all'altra, nascono per essere flessibili fino ad un certo punto e quel punto è la trasportabilità, quando conta poter mettere nello zaino la maggior flessibilità operativa e partire vince la OM1, quando conta la maggior qualità al costo di portare 2 zaini vince la Sony

A lot of waffle to plug your workshop? We can all read the OM-1 manual!! Why didn't you compare it with the GH6 HR mode? Good comment from Andreas R - Can the Sony do that?

I cannot agree with you. I photograph interiors and objects for advertising. For me, the high resolution mode on the Panasonic J-9 is a great feature.

There are 2 things you should have taken into consideration and adjusted: in camera sharpness (micro contrast) and contrast. In the 1st photo it's obvious that the in camera contrast is much higher in the sony camera... Finally you should have also compared a hi-res with a tripod high res and a non-hires shot with the om1 to find out if there is less sharpness. If so, it is a result from the camera sensor shift + ibis. If not, the diferences you are seeing between both cameras may be also related with the lens...

But the Olympus has much better color. 💁🏻‍♀️

Fun video. the one thing that you left out is the OM-1 has much better color science. I use my OM-1 and EM-1X for astro photography in HiRes mode.

Price is a big factor for landscape the OM1 is a better alternative. Keep in mind the IBIS and no need for Tripod as a factor

Sony A1 $10789 NZ, Om-1 $3599 NZ, Sonys have there problems just like any Camera, there is no such thing as the perfect Camera. I have been blown away with the images from my Em1 Mk iii and having just purchased the OM - 1 it has stepped up another level ! and yes I do use high res mode when I think i need the extra resolution and of course it is not for every situation as explained in the Olympus information ! and at the end of the day how many mpx do the average Photographer need ? go OMD !!

Not use with my Olympuscamera. I thank high resolution Only neceserry with big printing.

Piece of advice: take your 20mp Olympus camera and shoot in the normal mode. Open your photo on Lightroom Classic, right-click, Enhance, Super Resolution, Done. You have a new 40mp file.

The OM-1 has a very targeted market. The casual photographer is not in that target. It an amazing camera for the right audience who love what it offers.

Why didn’t you use a tripod?

Strange story. You are mixing things up. Contrast is no sharpness and the last picture sharper ? Come on,look again. Not a very well documenten test. It looks like the outcome was clear from the start.

No real advantage for non-professionals to regularly use hi-res mode. It takes up more computer space for little advantage especially with modern software such as Sharpen Ai. If you are making very large prints then hi-res is useful. I would say as a travel and wildlife photographer that I would use hi-res sparingly, maybe less than a half dozen times per year.

I do underwater photography and hi-rez mode on the OM1 is totally irrelevant. I wish OMS invested in higher resolution camera, >20MP, than this nonsense "hi rez" mode. Hi-rez mode sounds "nice" in marketing but it is soooo restrictive with lots of conditions that make it very useless and impractical to most types of photography.

Why compare £2000 camera to a£6500 camera ? I could get a pro 40-150 f 2.8 a pro 300mm f4 and a 100-400mm set of lenses for the difference!!

Interesting Matti. I mainly do bird photos so I haven’t used it yet. Love your Ukrainian hat😁

Glad you pointing out that moving elements. I have olympus gear and many times I feel it is more for static objects/moments in dim light. Longer expourses with IBIS. Cool feature on paper and bigger files on servers/hdds. That hi-res shutterspeed is still slow imo.

I have Lumix G9 and newer use this mode, is unusable for landscapes and nightshots. I use on all cameras breaketing for landscapes and combine him in PS.More DR and lover noise. 20-25Mp is enoug for portrets and weddings. But now i use everyday Leica d-lux 5 camera (10mp sensor) and for A4 print or internet is enoug. I think cameras like m4 / 3 should give photographers what FF cameras can't give and smartphones in other side. I think is very hard )) But the price is the same $ 2,000, and the camera can do in most situations less than FF. The same camera size, the same price of lenses ( Lumix 50mm 1.8 has the same price of Lumix 25mm 1.4) and even more and worse quality . Hmm.

If you do cigarettte work in the style of Irving Penn.... High Res Mode could help 😁

So what about diffraction? MFT+50Mpix = diffraction limit near F2.8 (umm.. F2.4 ??) This means that ALL your zoom lenses will loose resolution even wide open. Incredible stupid step by Olympus.

Interesting comparison! Thanks for the effort. My two cents: High-res full frame sensor in the a1 or a7r4 allows us do crop *after* taking a picture, on the other hand, m43 or aps-c sensor always "crop" when taking the shot. Forget about all those "conversion" between m43, aps-c and full frame, high-res full frame sensor is what makes m43 outdated, as one can always do "m43" crop after taking a picture on a7r4 and get 16.1 mp after the crop.

I don't think this is a fair comparison. As far as I know the OM1 has the same type of highres mode as my Lumix G9 and Panasonic at least make it quite clear that you should really take high res mode images on a tripod. Also it is made quite clear that it is not suitable for shots with moving subjects (which is obvious when sensor is being moved around). You seem to have purposely taken the Olympus off the tripod and further, ignored what every owner knows about movement. When people buy a camera they should research these things, they are totally different cameras. Surely the vast majority of Olympus and Panasonic camera owners know this. I am certain that the results would be totally different if you did the same tests whilst adhering to these facts. Also the colour on the Olympus (construction machine photo) was much better than the Sony and it has many superior features, so I would still opt for the Olympus over the Sony.

Just proves that the higher res sensor will win out. All the AI and software tricks are no substitute.

This was one useless comparison. How did you not know that the high res shots must be sharpened? While I am not claiming that the OM1 is going to produce better files, you should have known about that feature. And since you asked, I shoot HHHR only, unless I take BIF photos. I mostly shoot landscape. Sharpen the files from the OM1 and compare them again.