This is exactly the issue we have found on all samples now tested of the M1.2 (M1.3 does not exhibit the same issue) . The footfalls are now easily noticeable whereas before they were not so easily seen. As most of our function work involves handheld work and following of action on foot - and at rural weddings over uneven ground - this was a problem for us. We are now running all M1.2s on the FW3.3 to mitigate the issue. Panning movement is, however, devoid of the previous settling motion when lateral movement is stopped. so that is a win. However, as we do not use panning much, that is less of an issue in our use.
Strange ... did a similar Test right now with my E-M1X (FW 2.0 and Pana 10-25 at 17mm) and E-M1 Mark II (FW 3.4 and Oly 12-40 at 17mm), IBIS set to M-IS 2 and everything was fine, no wobbling etc. My test included Filming across a scenery and around an object. Did also a Test with M-IS 1. What Video / IBIS settings did you use ?
On video we used Sensor shift and digital (M IS-1) with excellent results until FW 3.4. Further tests have now been done and a new video will be posted soon. We have, however, reverted all our M1.2s to FW3.3. We also have now tested the M1.3 body with the FW update but it seems fine as does the M1X. However, they have (I understand) a different stabiliser mechanism.
Is there any further information about this yet? This video has caused me not to update my E-M1X and E-M1iii yet because I’d prefer to wait until the problem has been fixed. But having said that, (a) I haven’t seen anyone else talking about this problem, (b) I’m primarily a stills photographer, so a video issue wouldn’t be a great problem in general for me, and (c) I’d like the new firmware features, especially on the E-M1X. It’s been six months since this video was posted. There are promises of further tests soon in the comments but nothing to see, and I haven’t even read about this problem elsewhere, let alone heard that Olympus has addressed the issue in any way. So I’d greatly appreciate an update.
We did not have the issue on our M1X or M1.3 as mentioned elsewhere so you can happily update those. However, OMDS have just released a firmware update for the M1.2. We will be looking at the new firmware released for the M1.2 in the next few days and will update our test video and publish it. We have, luckily, been very busy the past months so apologise for the delay - our revenue comes from assignments so we tend to focus on that. ;-)
Indeed. Not what we have come to expect. Possibly a few glitches in the rush to get it all done before the handover? It was coded under Olympus' auspices but will likely now be up to JIP to resolve. If they do, a few developers are not getting year-end holidays...
@@southernshutterbug1436 better not to bring out a firmware update than a flawed one. This is a little bit disheartening - let's hope they fix it quickly
I suspect this indicates that they already reached optimum performance with stabilization, and any changes from here are going to involve trade-offs. If the camera strongly holds a steady frame, it will be great for walking but poor for panning. Make that hold of a steady frame less strong and you improve planning, but worsen walking. The best way to handle it could be to to make it a mode that the user could switch between, selecting the ideal setting for each situation.
@@StephenStrangways Thank you for the input. Exactly what I suspected when seeing the effect - you cannot fiddle with one aspect of stabiliser behaviour now without a trade-off on another. I agree it should be made an option - after all, what is one more bit of fine tuning among all we have to date anyway?
Hello. The link to download the BIN files and for step by step instructions is at the bottom of the video description. Click on "show more". I have found that comments with links seem to disappear after they get posted so I placed it up there. I have now performed the process twice. One thing I would suggest is to first back-up your settings/MySets using the Olympus camera updater software. Then, once you have re-flashed the older FW you simply connect to the updater software again and re-load the MySet/Custom Settings again by picking the last backup from the list the software will display when asking which backup you wish to re-load. As I have had various reports and feedback from different users (some are happy and others have found the same thing) you may only want to do this if you are not happy with the "improvements". If they are not a problem on your particular example of the camera,, then you may wish leave it with t he latest firmware?
Thank you, this is very helpful - greatly appreciate your comment and detailed description of the procedure. By the way, have you also encountered this issue in your EM1 MK3s? Or has it been only in your MK2s?
@@omidnoroozian I am not upgrading my E-M1 Mark III - and certainly not the the M1 X (the only one where the BIN files are not available to re-flash the FW) until I am satisfied that this is not something that affects all three models so cannot say, in our case, if those exhibit a similar issue. At the moment, on the older firmware, they are working as we are used to having them operate. I will keep that as is for now until we have the time to spare.
Hi. I suggest you find the developer's e-mail (it is on the "about me" link on the blog section of the update site) and send him an e-mail to assist with this.
Cannot say as yet. Apologies for not getting to this immediately but we need our production tools for work daily so are loathe to try and evaluate something within a few minutes that may impact our output. We have a national holiday in our country tomorrow and I will load the 3.5 on one camera body to see what the effect is (if any).
Here is a site that contains a link to a platform built by a German student that allows you to download older firmware versions using an SD card, similar to Lumix's firmware update process. Use the "forward" button to proceed through each step. www.mu-43.com/threads/firmware-update-without-a-cable-success-achieved.96390/ actual site: lightsnowdev.com/Olympus/update.html
This is concerning. Did you do a before and after comparison, ie are you sure the mk ii has not developed a stabiliser fault that you only noticed when you did the side by side comparison?
Hi. Thanks for your comment. We did not have any issues prior to the upgrade. Our cameras are in daily use. We noticed immediately. In the interim, we have reverted to the older firmware using the SD card flash technique and normal service has been restored on that camera. I will shortly post a video on how that is done. In the interim I will "upgrade" the other M1.2 body and see if it has the same issue (Now that I know how to re-grade the upgrade.)
@@wildcat1065 I have copied most of the folk I know at various Olympus branches worldwide (I have never had any sort of official contact point/priority with the company) but no replies yet - it was a weekend after all . That said, more and more e-mails are going without reply these days and its hard to know if the folk I had on record are on holiday leave or no longer part of the family.
Video was the immediate issue that affected our day to day usage of that camera. I will be doing a full range of tests shortly to check video and stills after re-"updating" one of the M1.2 bodies - as I cannot re-set the M1.3 or M1X to earlier firmware I am unwilling to try it on those. Subjectively it appears that even the still image modes are affected but only when moving the camera around. It seems to take slightly longer to "settle" after it has been moved.
I do see some wobble at the edge of the old E-M1, second clip. Is that perhaps what they were trying to improve? It's a well-known artifact of walking with IBIS with shorter lenses. The new one is so strangely twitchy, but other reviewers haven't seen this.
Thank you for the interaction. From the patchy information released about the improvement I and other users believe they were trying to improve panning performance. If you panned then stopped on older FW and models there was a slight move back against the direction of the pan once you stopped the pan in some cases before the update. The wobble at the edges is, as you say, something we know of on IBIS systems. We found a way to mitigate that so were not too bothered by that. I have had a chance to do some more comparisons on our M1.2 cameras and the M1.3. I have arranged to loan a few more copies from folk in our city to compare against our cameras and the various FW versions. I hope this may give a more representative result and eliminate any issues our particular examples may have given us in the initial results we see here. I hope to do the comparison check in the first week of the new year, all being well.
No need to panic. You may be happy with the results - test and see. We are not. I have now had mixed reports from other users - it seems not to affect every camera (and not everyone uses the video facility) but would appear to be something that well-used examples (above 40 K shutter cycles) are seeing. I have two colleagues in different parts of the world that have seen a similar issue on their cameras as well - all the cameras involved are beyond 40K cycles. Two nearby local users with lightly used examples (less than 20 K and 12 K) say they think it is better but cannot be sure as they seldom use video. It would be good to have some comment from Olympus/JIP - hence me asking for their input. I am going to loan and test three different age cameras from other local users against my two examples in a side by side test as soon as possible. to try and confirm one way or the other.
Not very scientific and kind of reckless to assume there is a problem across the board! Neither my E-M1 MkII or E-M1X show any problems they seem fine to me. I think further testing is needed to make a statement like you are.
We have now conducted further tests with four other samples (Two loaned for the purpose from amateur users). A new video is underway with the results. As stated in the description to the video, we use the equipment daily. This is what we noted and we are reporting on our experience under our working conditions, Other use cases may not be the same, which I accept.
@@southernshutterbug1436 Like I said, I haven't seen any problems with my two cameras and know others that have no issues either. So I don't understand the problem? You are the only one that I've seen on dozens of Olympus and Micro 4/3 forums and websites to bring up this issue?
@@gregs4163 The issue for us, in our conditions (now tested on six E-M1.2 samples-4 of which we loaned in to test)) is that footfalls are now more easily noticeable whereas before they were not so easily detectable by a casual viewer. I have now had e-mails from other users in the past 24 hours who have also noted the same aspect. As most of our wedding work at rural homesteads is most often on uneven ground, this was an immediate problem for us. On carpeted floors in developed conference venues it is not too much of a problem. Nevertheless, we are now running both M1.2s on the FW3.3 to mitigate the issue for our application. Other users may not face our conditions so may not need to do the same. . I have noted in the follow up tests that panning movement is, however, devoid of the previous settling motion when lateral movement is stopped. so that is a win if one pans a great deal. We have now seen that we do not have the same footfall issue on our M1.3 and M1X on video. Still imaging stabiliser performance on all models is, as usual, top-notch. Thank you yet again for your engagement.
