NEW "OM System OM-1 – Autofocus Expert Guide" (24th March 2023)

[Ross the fiddler]

Thomas Eisl has produced a new comprehensive guide to using AF in the OM-1 (superseding his earlier one that some have criticised) with its various forms & applications in this new (24th March 2023) video (dispelling some wild claims from some that should know better, not using the OM-1 as it was designed but using it "the way I've always done it" being hardly fair).
Thomas is not an OM Ambassador with any limits or biases with his comments but a professional photographer keen on using the camera to the best of its capability & not assuming one mode fits all circumstances.
Anyhow, I encourage a view of his latest video as he explains the different forms & options & also little details not commonly known & play it at 1.5 times speed if you like too.

I feel he has covered most of it very well in his advice & descriptions (I say most, because there will be those that may have their own little methods in some situations).

EDIT: In my case I like to continue to use my cameras with the 4 way buttons set to Direct Function. At the moment for the OM-1 I have the right set to MF & the down to WB.
BTW, the quickest check for what button is programmed for what Function is to click on (or double tap) * in the SCP.

I also have AF-ON set to Subject Detection to toggle ON & OFF (the last Subject being used comes up).

To trigger the use of Magnify Function for the Focus frame (which can also be activated from the Touch Screen) I have the Exp Comp button programmed to MultiFunction similar to E-M1 II with the Fn 2 button & I generally leave it on Magnify, although it is easy to select other Functions within the list of Functions available (press & hold Ex Comp button & rotate rear wheel) which can be tailored in Menu 5.Grid/Other Displays, Multi Function Settings.

ADDITIONIONAL VIDEO.

It would be good if users give some feedback here on how Thomas's suggestions perform for your situations.
Thanking you.

[mikero]

I watched this the other day. Well worth the effort.

Mike

[Ross the fiddler]

Yes, thanks. I knew he was compiling this & he also took on some small detail that I had realised & passed on so he picked up on it & expanded on it to include too.

[pdk42]

I'm not denying that Thomas has put a lot of effort into this, and probably is three steps ahead of most owners, but I still bristle at the contrast between his authoritative style (he's the "expert") and the lack of any substance to things he says. For example:

1) It's clear that the entirety of the video is based on his observations of AF behaviour and then fitting these observations into a plausible model of how it's working. He may be right about some things, but I can be fairly sure that he won't be right about everything. He tries to come across as an authority, but only OM could really provide authoritative data on the AF system.

2) He has a habit of making very bold claims but never backs them up - for example, he states the the lens is an important part of having "peak performance" of the AF (which is fair enough); but he then goes on to say that ANY Olympus Pro or Panasonic "Leica"-branded lens will GUARANTEE this peak performance. That's a bold claim. Has he tested them all? And for that matter, will non-Pro/Leica lenses fail to deliver peak performance? (which is what his claim implies). It's sloppy and that's bad when you're setting yourself up as an authority. He then goes on to (rightly) point out that a slow lens will impact AF performance - but there are Pro lenses that are f4 yet non-pro lenses that are f1.8. So what should we expect from that?

3) He says that SAF "predominantly" uses CDAF. But he never explains what "predominantly" means. It's a vacuous statement that just shows he doesn't really know.

4) He says of CAF that it uses PDAF which can "follow the subjects' movements". That doesn't make sense. All PDAF does is use a split image (rangefinder style) phase difference to determine how far off the focus is. It cannot at all detect subject movement. Now, if I understand correctly, the camera's AF algorithms will indeed use the data coming from the AF sensors to predict subject movement, but that's an entirely different matter and has nothing to do with the AF technology. You can do subject movement prediction with CDAF - Panasonic's "DFD" has been doing it for years.

5) In a similar vein, he claims that CAF is "predominantly" PDAF, but doesn't explain what that means. In fact, he continues his lecturing on the basis that CAF is ENTIRELY PDAF.

6) To elaborate on this last point, he (rightly) says that PDAF isn't as accurate as CDAF but then goes on to say that if you want accuracy you should switch from CAF to SAF. But this claim is based on the assumption that the OM1 doesn't use a combination of PDAF + CDAF in CAF mode. Does he know for sure it doesn't? It's been a common trick for CAF to use PDAF to do the heavily lifting but to use a little CDAF shimmy at the end to improve accuracy. Maybe the OM1 doesn't do this, maybe it does - but it would need a much more scientific set of tests to prove it (or get OM to tell us).

7) He claims that the OM1 uses an area smaller than the green square for CDAF in SAF mode. How does he know? Does this apply to ALL sizes of the green box? It would seem to me that the most sensible thing for the CDAF algorithm to do would be to find some "local maximum" of contrast, but precisely how the camera does this and where it might look within the area defined by the green box will only be known by OM. I can 100% guarantee that the actual details of what's happening are way more complex than he thinks - and yet he wants to lecture us that the OM1 can "achieve precision that was not possible with cameras in the past". He says it can focus on a human hair or the edge of a piece of paper - so what? With a macro lens fitted that's hardly a challenge; and I'm sure those of us who have been using Olympus cameras for years will tell him that pretty well ANY Olympus m43 camera has excellent CDAF.

8) He implies that CAF is capable of focusing on featureless surfaces because it has a "different detection threshold". I'm not convinced by that explanation since PDAF still needs some tone variance to figure out the phase difference. I suspect it's more likely that the AF algorithm is expanding the size of the point until it finds an area with some tone variance. Now, I might be wrong too - but as I've said again and again above, only OM can answer this question. Now the practical result might be the same - i.e. that CAF manages better if you point a small AF point onto a featureless area. But in that case, he should say "my observation is ...", and not try to build some fuzzy explanation that he can't justify.

I'm only 6 minutes in and I've spotted all this already, so I'll stop there. I'm sure he's a nice guy with the best intentions (and I don't mean raising his profile and increasing his YT channel hits), but his videos are just him expounding his own theories of how the AF works. For sure some of the things he says are useful in the practical sense, but they will lead to misunderstandings and false assumptions about how it's working. I really wish OM would get one of their engineers to write a proper "layman's" guide to how the AF is working - but it seems they think we're all too dumb to understand it!

[Geo]

Your last para, I much prefer the the written word, I never watch this type of video (having worked in the industry for 20 years I hate this modern trend of using video just for the sake of it when it is the wrong medium for the subject), and totally agree that Olympus should write a definitive and explanatory guide to their AF systems. This is the style we we need more of https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/gui...ettings-birds/

[tmp]

Thomas Eisl has produced a new comprehensive guide to using AF in the OM-1 (superseding his earlier one that some have criticised) with its various forms & applications in this new (24th March 2023) video (dispelling some wild claims from some that should know better, not using the OM-1 as it was designed but using it "the way I've always done it" being hardly fair).
Thomas is not an OM Ambassador with any limits or biases with his comments but a professional photographer keen on using the camera to the best of its capability & not assuming one mode fits all circumstances.
Anyhow, I encourage a view of his latest video as he explains the different forms & options & also little details not commonly known & play it at 1.5 times speed if you like too.

I feel he has covered most of it very well in his advice & descriptions (I say most, because there will be those that may have their own little methods in some situations).

This is a great video. I've not seen better which suit my level of understanding and requirements of the OM-1.
Even with the volume muted most any OM-1 users watching this video ought to come away with some useful information on how better to use their OM-1's AF.

[Ross the fiddler]

I agree, disregarding any nit-picking by others on how accurate his technical descriptions are, his methods are what counts.

[tmp]

I'm not denying that Thomas has put a lot of effort into this, and probably is three steps ahead of most owners, but I still bristle at the contrast between his authoritative style (he's the "expert") and the lack of any substance to things he says. For example:

1) It's clear that the entirety of the video is based on his observations of AF behaviour and then fitting these observations into a plausible model of how it's working. He may be right about some things, but I can be fairly sure that he won't be right about everything. He tries to come across as an authority, but only OM could really provide authoritative data on the AF system.

2) He has a habit of making very bold claims but never backs them up - for example, he states the the lens is an important part of having "peak performance" of the AF; he then goes on to say that ANY Olympus Pro or Panasonic "Leica"-branded lens will GUARANTEE this peak performance. That's a bold claim. Has he tested them all? And for that matter, will non-Pro/Leica lenses fail to deliver peak performance? (which is what his claim implies). It's sloppy and that's bad when you're setting yourself up as an authority. He then goes on to (rightly) point out that a slow lens will impact AF performance - but there are Pro lenses that are f4 yet non-pro lenses that are f1.8. So what should we expect from that?

3) He says that SAF "predominantly" uses CDAF. But he never explains what "predominantly" means. It's a vacuous statement that just shows he doesn't really know.

4) He says of CAF that it uses PDAF which can "follow the subjects' movements". That doesn't make sense. All PDAF does is use a split image (rangefinder style) phase difference to determine how far off the focus is. It cannot at all detect subject movement. Now, if I understand correctly, the camera's AF algorithms will indeed use the data coming from the AF sensors to predict subject movement, but that's an entirely different matter and has nothing to do with the AF technology. You can do subject movement prediction with CDAF - Panasonic's "DFD" has been doing it for years.

5) In a similar vein, he claims that CAF is "predominantly" PDAF, but doesn't explain what that means. In fact, he continues his lecturing on the basis that CAF is ENTIRELY PDAF.

6) To elaborate on this last point, he (rightly) says that PDAF isn't as accurate as CDAF but then goes on to say that if you want accuracy you should switch from CAF to SAF. But this claim is based on the assumption that the OM1 doesn't use a combination of PDAF + CDAF in CAF mode. Does he know for sure it doesn't? It's been a common trick for CAF to use PDAF to do the heavily lifting but to use a little CDAF shimmy at the end to improve accuracy. Maybe the OM1 doesn't do this, maybe it does - but it would need a much more scientific set of tests to prove it (or get OM to tell us).

7) He claims that the OM1 uses an area smaller than the green square for CDAF in SAF mode. How does he know? Does this apply to ALL sizes of the green box? It would seem to me that the most sensible thing for the CDAF algorithm to do would be to find some "local maximum" of contrast, but precisely how the camera does this and where it might look within the area defined by the green box will only be known by OM. I can 100% guarantee that the actual details of what's happening are way more complex than he thinks - and yet he wants to lecture us that the OM1 can "achieve precision that was not possible with cameras in the past". He says it can focus on a human hair or the edge of a piece of paper - so what? With a macro lens fitted that's hardly a challenge; and I'm sure those of us who have been using Olympus cameras for years will tell him that pretty well ANY Olympus m43 camera has excellent CDAF.

8) He implies that CAF is capable of focusing on featureless surfaces because it has a "different detection threshold". I'm not convinced by that explanation since PDAF still needs some tone variance to figure out the phase difference. I suspect it's more likely that the AF algorithm is expanding the size of the point until it finds an area with some tone variance. Now, I might be wrong too - but as I've said again and again above, only OM can answer this question. Now the practical result might be the same - i.e. that CAF manages better if you point a small AF point onto a featureless area. But in that case, he should say "my observation is ...", and not try to build some fuzzy explanation that he can't justify.

I'm only 6 minutes in and I've spotted all this already, so I'll stop there. I'm sure he's a nice guy with the best intentions (and I don't mean raising his profile and increasing his YT channel hits), but his videos are just him expounding his own theories of how the AF works. For sure some of the things he says are useful in the practical sense, but they will lead to misunderstandings and false assumptions about how it's working. I really wish OM would get one of their engineers to write a proper "layman's" guide to how the AF is working - but it seems they think we're all too dumb to understand it!

I'm not going to debate any of your grievances against Thomas. If you don't like him you don't like him and that's perfectly fine by me.
It's the same as there is only one person on this planet earth whom I concern myself with regards to what photography gear they use to capture images...me. I prefer all of my friends and colleagues use whatever gear they like best and are the most proficient with. If they swap to OMDS on account that I use OMDS then that simply means we may have more things in common to discuss while out capturing images. You like who you like, I like who I like.

What I like about Thomas is, of all the Olympus/OMDS; Visionaries, Ambassadors, forums, and YT experts I've 'visited and engaged with throughout the years', his YT's have been the most helpful to me in gaining peak performance from my Olympus/OMDS products.
I don't concern myself with where and how he comes by his information...the proof simply is in the pudding. I listen to him and I then have aquired knowledge to squeeze more performance from my Olympus/OMDS equipment.
You state that Thomas claims to know things that only Olympus/OMDS will know. I should and will absolutley agree with that.
Therfore my reasoning is simply this...support Thomas in becoming an OMDS ambassador so that he may then have full access to all the required information to which you believe he is only currently guessing at.
Considering what he has accomplised as an outsider...I strongly assume his advice/opinions and assistance will only become better as an OMDS employee.

Regarding all the years I spent with my EM1X (as I did with the EM1mkII before it) continually trying to increase my keeper rate with it; I was constantly and thoroughly scouring the web/social media, sent emails, etc., and, always failing to find useful (to me at my level) information. With no other options I, again, resorted to corresponding directly with Olympus and, again, they were NEVER of any assistance. A LOT of emails were sent and ultimately most of that time was wasted. Olympus continually and simply directed to me keep on trucking with what I had been doing and failing with. Olympus went so far as to send me links to specific 'people' to ask questions that Olympus would't or could't be bothered to answer. It was constantly this from Olympus...they'd direct me to 'so and so' to address my concerns to. I'd send an email reply including the reply/information that I had already discussed with 'so and so' and sometimes detailed how 'so and so's' information was actually false and therefor looked bad for Olympus. Time after time.
All of the times I attempted to change strategies and ask very simply worded and specifc questions I recieved...'We do not give out that information'...when asked why...'trade secrets'.
I had to give up for sanity sake which is why I bought a brand new A9 and 200-600 (with grip and extra batteries and the 1.4x TC etc.). I spent a lot of time figuring out the A9's AF intricies in order to give myself 'a fair shake with it' and it turned out, on a whole, I was no better off with the A9 kit than with the EM1X and 4/300. I was then going to try a Z9 when the OM-1 was released. I decided to try the OM-1 first and so far I'm glad I did.
Had Thomas Eisl been available to offer his style of advice on the EM1X as he does with the OM-1...who knows...maybe I'd be still using the EM1X.

[Ross the fiddler]

Thomas has been learning the ins & out of the OM-1 & was & is willing to take on board any other information someone else may have discovered, like me discovering that the Touch to Focus & Magnify AF box responded according to the S-AF or C-AF setting. Thomas took it further & shared it in this later video.

[pdk42]

I'm not going to debate any of your grievances against Thomas. If you don't like him you don't like him and that's perfectly fine by me.

My critique of Thomas's video isn't a "grievance" against him; and I certainly am not saying that I don't like him! I'm sure we could have a good conversation over a few beers. My beef is simply that his arguments are not based on evidence and sound reasoning - but his style is authoritative which will mislead people. If he simply said "this is what I've figured out by using the camera" then I'd be happy!

It's the same as there is only one person on this planet earth whom I concern myself with regards to what photography gear they use to capture images...me. I prefer all of my friends and colleagues use whatever gear they like best and are the most proficient with. If they swap to OMDS on account that I use OMDS then that simply means we may have more things in common to discuss while out capturing images. You like who you like, I like who I like.

I totally agree, and nothing I said was critical of the OM1, or OM. If I were doing wildlife photography, the OM1 + 150-400 would be right on top of my wishlist.

What I like about Thomas is, of all the Olympus/OMDS; Visionaries, Ambassadors, forums, and YT experts I've 'visited and engaged with throughout the years', his YT's have been the most helpful to me in gaining peak performance from my Olympus/OMDS products.
I don't concern myself with where and how he comes by his information...the proof simply is in the pudding. I listen to him and I then have aquired knowledge to squeeze more performance from my Olympus/OMDS equipment.

Well, if it works for you that's fine. In fact, I'd be very happy to accept and use many of his recommendations. My beef is the reasons he proposes for the camera's behaviour, and the fact that some of his claims are not justified (e.g. the one about needing a Pro or Leica lens to get peak AF performance.

You state that Thomas claims to know things that only Olympus/OMDS will know. I should and will absolutley agree with that.
Therfore my reasoning is simply this...support Thomas in becoming an OMDS ambassador so that he may then have full access to all the required information to which you believe he is only currently guessing at.
Considering what he has accomplised as an outsider...I strongly assume his advice/opinions and assistance will only become better as an OMDS employee.

I think we're in agreement here. But his becoming an "ambassador" wouldn't change anything. I've spent time with a couple of ambassadors over the years (Damian McGillicuddy and Tesni Ward) and neither gets any privy technical information. About all they'll get that we don't is what the marketing people get - i.e. early info on new releases.

Regarding all the years I spent with my EM1X (as I did with the EM1mkII before it) continually trying to increase my keeper rate with it; I was constantly and thoroughly scouring the web/social media, sent emails, etc., and, always failing to find useful (to me at my level) information. With no other options I, again, resorted to corresponding directly with Olympus and, again, they were NEVER of any assistance. A LOT of emails were sent and ultimately most of that time was wasted. Olympus continually and simply directed to me keep on trucking with what I had been doing and failing with. Olympus went so far as to send me links to specific 'people' to ask questions that Olympus would't or could't be bothered to answer. It was constantly this from Olympus...they'd direct me to 'so and so' to address my concerns to. I'd send an email reply including the reply/information that I had already discussed with 'so and so' and sometimes detailed how 'so and so's' information was actually false and therefor looked bad for Olympus. Time after time.
All of the times I attempted to change strategies and ask very simply worded and specifc questions I recieved...'We do not give out that information'...when asked why...'trade secrets'.

I think we're in violent agreement here. I think the problem is that the engineering and marketing departments are completely different beasts and the information transfer between them is almost as limited as what reaches the customer. I've met a few of the OM UK local "experts" (I won't name names), and they are just as ignorant as most users (in fact, they know less than many).

I don't accept that a layman's description of the AF system would disclose any trade secrets (esp since pretty much all the other manufacturers have AF systems that are as good or better as OM). It's laziness and contempt for the end user. They think that in order for anyone to understand AF, it needs to be boiled down to "how to" guides - "if the subject does this, then set the camera up like that". But that usually poses more questions than it answers. Give us the system's operational principles and we can figure it out ourselves (or someone will and then post it on a forum!). The Open Source community is a massive force for excellence and is a model of how to get wide collaboration.

I had to give up for sanity sake which is why I bought a brand new A9 and 200-600 (with grip and extra batteries and the 1.4x TC etc.). I spent a lot of time figuring out the A9's AF intricies in order to give myself 'a fair shake with it' and it turned out, on a whole, I was no better off with the A9 kit than with the EM1X and 4/300. I was then going to try a Z9 when the OM-1 was released. I decided to try the OM-1 first and so far I'm glad I did.
Had Thomas Eisl been available to offer his style of advice on the EM1X as he does with the OM-1...who knows...maybe I'd be still using the EM1X.

As above - I'm sure the OM1 is a great camera for wildlife. I was disappointed with its SAF performance, esp in low light, but I think the biggest disappointment for me was the complete lies about it delivering "2 stops better noise and DR". It's clearly about the same raw-file IQ as the camera it replaces (the EM1.3). That's pretty unforgivable in my view - and probably a classic example of marketing out of sync with engineering.

[tmp]

My critique of Thomas's video isn't a "grievance" against him; and I certainly am not saying that I don't like him! I'm sure we could have a good conversation over a few beers. My beef is simply that his arguments are not based on evidence and sound reasoning - but his style is authoritative which will mislead people. If he simply said "this is what I've figured out by using the camera" then I'd be happy!
---ok, but again...after listening to what he says and putting what he says into practise...I have a camera that clearly performs better for me. I can't see how most others would not simply see, implement, and benefit from the practicality of his information however so eloquently, or not, it is presented---

I totally agree, and nothing I said was critical of the OM1, or OM. If I were doing wildlife photography, the OM1 + 150-400 would be right on top of my wishlist.


Well, if it works for you that's fine. In fact, I'd be very happy to accept and use many of his recommendations. My beef is the reasons he proposes for the camera's behaviour, and the fact that some of his claims are not justified (e.g. the one about needing a Pro or Leica lens to get peak AF performance.



I think we're in agreement here. But his becoming an "ambassador" wouldn't change anything. I've spent time with a couple of ambassadors over the years (Damian McGillicuddy and Tesni Ward) and neither gets any privy technical information. About all they'll get that we don't is what the marketing people get - i.e. early info on new releases.

---well that's a very depressing and disappointing thougth but also begs the question did they ask?---
---if they(anyone) is perfectly happy and satisifed with the perforamce of their equipment...why would they concern themselves with asking questions about it?---

I think we're in violent agreement here. I think the problem is that the engineering and marketing departments are completely different beasts and the information transfer between them is almost as limited as what reaches the customer. I've met a few of the OM UK local "experts" (I won't name names), and they are just as ignorant as most users (in fact, they know less than many).
---I certainly wouldn't presume to disagree on this point---

I don't accept that a layman's description of the AF system would disclose any trade secrets (esp since pretty much all the other manufacturers have AF systems that are as good or better as OM). It's laziness and contempt for the end user. They think that in order for anyone to understand AF, it needs to be boiled down to "how to" guides - "if the subject does this, then set the camera up like that". But that usually poses more questions than it answers. Give us the system's operational principles and we can figure it out ourselves (or someone will and then post it on a forum!). The Open Source community is a massive force for excellence and is a model of how to get wide collaboration.
---yep and same as above---

As above - I'm sure the OM1 is a great camera for wildlife. I was disappointed with its SAF performance, esp in low light, but I think the biggest disappointment for me was the complete lies about it delivering "2 stops better noise and DR". It's clearly about the same raw-file IQ as the camera it replaces (the EM1.3). That's pretty unforgivable in my view - and probably a classic example of marketing out of sync with engineering.

---i've read your details regarding your S-F issue(s) and truthfully could not wrap my head around the issue your were suffering with. I am not attempting to dismiss your issue. On that note I am curious to know if the discovery and information put forth by Thomas would have pertained to your S-AF issue.---
---as far as the two stops better ISO and dynamic range...that is something I don't concern myself with. some say it's BS and some don't. I have no opinion. I am happy with my files after PPing is all that matters.---

[Ross the fiddler]

The main thing with the 'two stops better ISO and dynamic range' is that SOOC JPEGs are cleaner in the higher ISO & the camera goes up two stops in ISO range than previous models. That's all that matters to me. It can go higher than my E-M1 II.

[pdk42]

---i've read your details regarding your S-F issue(s) and truthfully could not wrap my head around the issue your were suffering with. I am not attempting to dismiss your issue. On that note I am curious to know if the discovery and information put forth by Thomas would have pertained to your S-AF issue.---

It's a moot point since I no longer have the camera. But I've been using Oly gear (and in fact other systems) for a long time, so I'm not easily flummoxed by this sort of thing. I have a few guesses, but they're just guesses based on way too little data. What we can say for sure is that the AF system of the OM1 is quite different to previous cameras - it has to be given that the sensor uses a quad-pixel arrangement (there are in fact 80m photo diodes on the sensor) - and this clearly has had an impact on the AF operation. It seems that CAF is better, but that (at least in some circumstances), SAF is worse. OM probably had to do a lot of rework to the AF software and despite lots of people shouting "nothing to see here", I think there are enough experienced users out there who have discovered problems. In typical Japanese fashion, there will be some update at some point with a change that "improves focus performance in SAF mode" and the problem will be gone. They'll never tell us what it is.

One of the members here (TakaPyon - a member who is Japanese) has had dialogue with OM about SAF problems and they posted up a translation of a response they had received:

The OM-1 can specify a narrower range than the previous model with a single target, but in dark places or subjects with low contrast, the single target S-AF lacks contrast and cannot be focused. A so-called false focus phenomenon is likely to occur, in which it is determined that the subject is out of focus, or an in-focus display is performed when it is determined that the subject is out of focus. This is the characteristic of OM-1's S-AF.

Currently, depending on the shooting environment, I would like you to either increase the target or use C-AF.

At this time, we cannot promise how much S-AF will improve, but we will do our best to meet your expectations through updates.

So OM admit that "false focus" can occur and they currently have no fix. They suggest a workaround is to use CAF or a larger target size. Note BTW, that Thomas Eisl said that the area used for SAF focus is tiny (much smaller than the green box) and independent of the size of the focus box. This is contradictory to the above.

You can find the post here =>. https://www.e-group.uk.net/forum/for...614#post917614

---as far as the two stops better ISO and dynamic range...that is something I don't concern myself with. some say it's BS and some don't. I have no opinion. I am happy with my files after PPing is all that matters.---

Well, I guess that's all that matters.

But I shoot landscapes and I'd eat my left arm to get another 2 stops of DR out of an m43 camera, so the claims by OM at launch were potentially massive improvements. People like me have been hoping for a significant improvement in m43 sensor performance for years - in truth the latest sensors are only slightly ahead of the 16Mp Sony sensor used in the EM5 back in 2013. Maybe it's just that we've hit the technological limit and further improvements without going to a bigger sensor are impossible. I just wish they'd not have said the opposite.

[tmp]

- in truth the latest sensors are only slightly ahead of the 16Mp Sony sensor used in the EM5 back in 2013. Maybe it's just that we've hit the technological limit and further improvements without going to a bigger sensor are impossible. I just wish they'd not have said the opposite.

while recently researching Nikon's Z 800 PF 6.3 i stumbled upon one 'caveat emptor' YT video and was able to wrap my head around it's topic of diffraction limitations.
*there were easy to understand charts and explanations which also included m4/3 by chance. this was a very recent YT and there was an interesting reference to 12 Mpx sensors.
in a nutshell i was immediately brought right back to Olympus' stating, waaaaay back when, that there was no need nor plans to make a sensor with more than 12 Mpx.
i'm not sure if it was due to Olympus's developing improved optics and/or marketing pressure that eventually pushed them to today's 20Mpx.
I sure liked reading that OMDS is going to concentrate on making cameras that make less mistakes rather than making higher Mpx sensors.

[pdk42]

Yeah, I remember the days of 10Mp or so. I recall the Canon 5dii being launched with the obscene figure of 21Mp on its surface! The problem with Mp arguments is that there are pros and cons all over the place as to whether more or less is better. I personally think something in the 25-35Mp range is ideal for most uses. Go under that and you'll reduce cropping ability and on big prints you'll lose some detail. Go over that and you're into diminishing returns and a very full HDD. But everyone will have their own view on this. For sure I've seen some jaw-dropping prints from 10Mp cameras, and some complete dross from 100Mp cameras. As always, the eye and skill of the photographer matters the most. Knowing your gear and working around its strengths and weaknesses is a huge part of that.

[Ross the fiddler]

Meanwhile ........

Thomas Eisl has bothered to try to understand the OM-1 (even though he did not have any issues with it himself in his professional work) & how to use it without producing 'click bait' videos on 'what's wrong (Wong)' with the OM-1 or writing a treatise on the irrelevance of someone deducing the intricate functions, coming to conclusions through trial & error & producing helpful videos that may help users of the OM-1. Sorry if he adopted a calm & authoritative manner in his presentation not appreciated some, but I find him helpful all the same (even if I prefer to play his videos at a faster speed).

[Ross the fiddler]

When you say "I'm not denying that Thomas has put a lot of effort into this, and probably is three steps ahead of most owners, but I still bristle at the contrast between his authoritative style (he's the "expert") and the lack of any substance to things he says.", I don't care that he calls himself an expert or doesn't have the correct technical descriptions, but what he does offer are methods for people to take on board to try & report back if there are issues with his advice.
If you have issues with him, tell him!
I'm certainly not going to apologize to you for your criticisms because all I can see is you pouring cold water on his attempt to communicate to others that this is not the same as previous camera models & that he has tried to determine how to explain those differences to other users. So far I can only find positive comments & one or two queries (as I did in an earlier one of his videos) in reply to his video (563 likes) & on facebook (80 likes so far) & most users elsewhere, except the rumour sites, but I don't expect reasonable responses there anyhow & those following Wong (he had the 'wong' approach).
Unless critics actually use the OM-1 as he suggests & find fault in them, then any criticisms are just noise.
Yes, I would like to see FW updates that can improve on what we have already, but this is a camera that does require some expertise in using it, learning to use it with all its customisable options & understanding how to use small or rather single AF points on that sensor. It's not a point & shoot camera with Auto on the Mode dial.
That's it mate. I'm not interested in replying further.

[pdk42]

OK Ross, let's let it drop.

[Ross the fiddler]

Good idea.

[Dave in Wales]

Thanks Ross.

WOW, something that doesn't go right over my head.....HE LIKES THE BEEP

I've been doing something right all these years

[Ross the fiddler]

Thanks Ross.

WOW, something that doesn't go right over my head.....HE LIKES THE BEEP

I've been doing something right all these years

Yeah, I like the beep too, but sometimes I just stab the shutter button & expect it to focus too. Most times it will anyhow.
Most of us have our own methods & one doesn't need to take his methods as 'gospel' but worth considering anyhow. I will edit the OP to add mine.

[Tordan58]

I think Thomas Eisl had produced some excellent videos discussing the advantages (and disadvantages) of m4/3 over 35mm format, and rectifying some widespread misconceptions and busting myths about the system.

[Ross the fiddler]

Yes, & that seems to be the sentiment of most viewers of his videos.

[Ross the fiddler]

In addition, Thomas has done a following video on C-AF +Tracking (added in original post too).