Interesting comparison. Thanks. In the overall scheme, the improvements are marginal at best. Better high ISO performance is a "nice to have" but certainly would've liked to have seen better performance at lower ISOs.
Great test Peter! Thanks for doing this I didn't take into consideration what OM stated about performance regarding ISO! You're right though ISO performance is not the same as NOISE performance! Also, the colors definitely look like they hold up better for those that shoot higher ISO. But honestly, I don't shoot high enough ISO for added performance to make a difference for my type of shooting. But an improvement is an improvement!
Thank you Peter for this video. I have the OM-1 since a week and it was also to me surprising that there is hardly a difference in noise. But I noticed as in your images that there are more details and some more dynamic range at high ISO that still can be recovered after clearing the noise with software such as Topaz DeNoise AI.
Thanks for the test, the dynamic range of the OM System OM-1 is amazing, hope i could get one in the near future, hoping to become more financially stable.
Nice to see some real improvement over the old sensor: nothing game changing, but certainly useful. Now I hope this new sensor finds it's way on smaller and more discreet cameras of the line that I much prefer.
Probably the best comparison I’ve seen. I haven’t really had a chance to test my OM1 properly since receiving it the other day, but the few shots I have managed have definitely showed promise.
Thank you very much for this excellent video. This video really showed the differences about all the high-Iso discussion for me. I can understand now better, why one person describes it like "no change at all" and somebody else describes it as "much better".
From a practical point of view the images produced by my OM1's outperform those of my EM1X and EM1.3. I now process nearly all my images in LR at 200%; I seldom went that high with my 1X and 1.3 due to noise. As far as I'm concerned, and speak only for myself, the OM1 is a brilliant camera for wildlife photography.
Interesting test with good observations. Someone noted better OM1 jpeg performance comparatively in the comments. I am curious, given RAW file and workflow postproduction, will the OM1 enhancements be significant or incremental? It looks like imaging expectations are moving a bit higher along with better camera & lens construction.
Hi Peter and thank you for this video. About the shutter how did you make your test. Did you use the mechanic one or the electronic one. Damien Bernal in France said that the iso performance is not the same with the different shutters, the electronic one being giving better performance. This surprise me (and surprised him too ) because difficult to understand the link between the type of shutter and on the iso performance… ). Can you check and give us feedback ? Thx.
I'd love to see a comparison of jpg's at higher iso levels straight out of these two camera bodies. I suspect there is a more noticeable difference after the in camera wizardry is applied by the OM-1.
Yes you can see the difference. Noise level isn't so much decisive for me. More important is the color difference (magenta/yellow...) Is it worth the money of buying the new OM1? Individual decision. I say yes if you look at the total package of better features. So will I sell my Mark III? Perhaps if we were living in other times than nowadays.
I have been thinking of upgrading from my EM1ii, but when I look at the DP review side-by-side comparison of the raw files vs the EM1 raw files, I can't see any difference at all, at any iso. I downloaded the raw files for iso 6400 and iso 200, and opened them in LR, and I still can't see any difference. What do you make of that? Have you looked at this review? Am I missing something? True they are lab tests, but why doesn't this lab test show any difference?
OM-1 files holds together better when editing. There is a huge difference when photographing highISO. It can be clearly seen in the video. With E-M1 Mark II ISO 6400 was the maximum I used. Now with OM-1 I can use ISO25600.
hello, thanks for the test. I have a question whether, in your opinion, if you have a mk3, it is worth switching to OM-1, or whether these differences are marginal.
It is very hard to say if it is worth it. It has a new sensor and a lot better AF. It works a bit differently, but it is more precise. EVF is also improved. OM-1 can be used with higher ISO than E-M1 Mark III. There are things that are better.
Hi Peter, thanks for this review. From what I have seen from your videos and Robs videos, is that I do not feel there is a big enough improvement on the OM1 over the Mark III to justify the purchase and cost of the OM1. I am hoping the OM1 mkII has a bigger/better improvements. thanks again. cheers from Australia
Thank you - totally agree on your point that real world images says more than lab tests. The color casts on high ISO reminds me of the Nikon D800 performance, compared to D700 or the newer D810 and D850. The magenta blobs in the D800 shadows made the images almost unusable. I suspect the same will be true for OM-1 vs the predecessors.
out of curiosity, since well, once you have the m3, who cares about the mk2 right? But How big of a difference step by step is from mk2, mk3 and om1? in ISO handling?
What do you think of this Olympus OM-D E-M camera model 2012 , I already have some knowledge of cameras but I am changing from Canon to Olympus and I want not to spend money to make the change and not spend on things that I do not use, do you think it is a good decision????
@@ForsgardPeter Hi Peter, thanks for your videos. I just wanted to know if the pictures we see are the RAW from the camera or are the JPEG directly coming out of the camera. Sorry for my english, I am Frensh :-)
May I be answered - in video mode which is the maximum iso possible is it possible 102.400 iso in video as w have in photo mode - if someone knows let me know. I love Olympus colors and I have Lumix GH6 and I have tons of lenses that will be suitable with OM1 too so what I need to know it is if in video mode I can have 102.400 iso.
I am somewhat disapointed concerning the small differences in no7se behavior. As far as dark sky is concerned at least in Capture One the correction is simple, the worse color noise of the EM1 is more obvious and yes difficult to overcome neatlessly. But I do not shoot at such high ISO levels, 1600 is the (almost insane) upper limit. But I admit that compared to my EM1 M2 on my Nikon Z5 the noise behavior is not that better as FF evangelists are claiming. And both sensors are neither BSI nor stacked. In dark light and when not on a tripod for long exposure I try to expose stricktly on the motif - which has to be in the yet existing light - accepting much noise elsewhere in the image and I even darken that parts to remove some noise. And preprocessing it with DXO is always a good thing before starting C1 raw processing. Thank you for the comparison!
It seems the added detail on the OM-1, (I'm betting anyway) will result in far more impressive noise reduction with better detail. I'm using DXO photolab with DeepPrime noise reduction (already incredible) I'm thinking these better detailed RAW files may give that "2 stops" (or close to it) better ISO performance after noise reduction is applied. I'm really curios if the video files also benefit from this better ISO detail and dynamic range
Not really that closely. There is not much difference. E-M1 Mark III seems to be slightly better at least in noise. But over all performance is quite equal.
@@ForsgardPeter yes that my take from looking at examples. What I mean though is that if I can shoot at 2 stops higher ISO on the OM-1 and get almost the same result as 6400 on the MII that is extremely useful.
@@ForsgardPeter It would be great if you could make this comparison with color noise reduction set to 0. You cant really make a legit comparison with lightroom cutting off most of the noise
@@undergreenthunder8037 I had the same problem. Luckily Dpreview added OM-1 to their image comparison tool so now we can pixel-peep against every camera on the market :)
From these examples and other tests I watched, I can confidently say, the statement of "two stops better" is simply absurd. Regardless of how one bends the criteria.
Thanks Peter. This is a thoughtful and well demonstrated comparison. What interests me is that I can see a definite improvement in the OM-1's ability to capture finer detail at ISO 25600 -- it doesn't just jump out, but it's definitely there, and that is a very good improvement.
I did not know that there are two different cameras, OM-1 and E-M1. I bought the EM-1. What are the differences? There are two separate cameras? The OM1 and the EM1? This is confusing.
I'm a wildlife shooters and blown away by the high ISO performance of my OM-1. I wasn't happy highering the ISO over 2000 on my E-M1 III. With the OM-1 I'm comfortably shooting images with ISO 16000 or 12800 which are usuable (off course with DeNoise software). For me the new sensor is a huge step up.
Here is the important point : Who cares about so high isos ? Not everybody. I allways thinked that in each brand, the bodies have more or less the same quality. If I upgrade to a more modern body it's because I get better performance, or a specific feature that is important for me. The biggest difference in this test, seams to me to be about colors. Well... this is important. Just an amateur's point of view... Nice video, as usually. I've been learning a lot with you Peter , and I thank you for that.
I totally agree that not everybody. Some will and I think it is an interesting thing to do when a new camera arrives. Especially when OMDS made claims about better ISO performance.
First of all, thanks for the video (and not just this one)! Yes, there is perhaps a very slight advantage to the images of OM1, but it is so small, and nothing that couldn't be fixed in post, if you shoot raw. To call it a two stops advantage is a big overstatement, to say the least. To my eye, it is a 1/3 of a stop improvement, at most.
@@ForsgardPeter Possible, but at really high ISO, that no one uses with m4/3 sized sensors anyway. With the absolute best sensor stabilization these cameras offer, and the fast lenses, I don't have to go over ISO 1600. In the (very rare) cases that I know that I'll be photographing fast moving objects in low light, I'd use a FF camera, but these occasions are indeed rare. In any case, I have a very hard time do distinguish between the two sensors up to ISO 3200. Above that, I'd use a larger sensor camera anyway.
Hi Peter Forsgård, I am your fan and your videos are great! My personal opinion: Appropriate noise is to maintain the clarity and sharpness of the original image, while excessive noise reduction will reduce the clarity and sharpness of the image, as well as the true and natural color levels! Noise reduction and sharpness are always contradictory and opposite! I still really like my 2 EM1X and 3 EM13 bodies, I don't care if there is a decent amount of noise, I just need to keep the photo natural, clear and sharp! Most of my shooting scenes are in daytime and well-lit everyday environments. I often don't care about a small amount of noise in order to maintain sufficient clarity and sharpness! I now own 12-100f4, 8-25f4, 40-150f4, (17,25,45/Pro1.2), Leica12F1.4. Tiffen GND, ND, CPL and other filters. I'm an amateur gamer, not a professional photographer. OM-1 has no appeal to me!
I know that E-M1 Mark III and Mark II are still great cameras. I still use both of them. I totally agree that little noise is no problem. It is still interesting to test and see how different cameras perform.
On my OM-1 with jpeg I have more than 2 stops !! It KILLS older cameras like my em1 III, em5 III or em5 original i have.... but I still love them all !
Thanks for showing that in side-by-side pixel peeping the OM-1 has the edge when it comes to high ISO. That said, I doubt the ISO differences between EM1 Mark III and OM-1 would make much of a difference in my photography. I tend to appreciate images when viewed as a whole and spend little time pixel peeping. I also doubt that most people, when presented with an image, could tell which camera took the image.
Hi Peter. Thanks very much for this very thorough review. I have had my OM-1 for about two weeks now, and my comparison camera is the E-M5 Mk III. My results are the same as yours - the new camera does have better high ISO performance and better dynamic range. Comparing hundreds of real world images, there can be no doubt that this is true. The exact measurement of how much "better" it is, is it 1.5 stops, or 2, or 2.5, I think becomes more difficult, more subjective, and also changes with the environmental variables of the image itself. I have to disagree with your concluding comments, in which you say that mostly these differences don't matter. I think that's quite incorrect, for a couple of reasons. First, the expectations of consumers, people viewing our images, have become quite high. Images that you see published, in all forms of electronic or print media, have become universally extremely sharp and virtually noise free. This is the result of multiple technologies, hardware and software. But these are the results that people expect. At the price point of the OM-1, it is competing with full frame sensors that have four times the square mm compared to the MFT sensor, and have a much easier time generating clean high ISO images, with larger pixels, less pixel density on the sensor, and less signal amplification, resulting in inherently less noise. These are the expectations that photographers and consumers have, and for myself, the improvement with the OM-1 is very appreciated and very important. I also disagree with your advice about ETTR as the best technique for clean images. Your analysis of this is too simplistic. Basically you say, make the image brighter, then lower the luminosity levels to reduce the noise. You've neglected something important - you're asking the camera to give you one or two stops more light, and frequently that has to come from jumping up the ISO. This is particularly true with moving subjects, when you can't get away with slow shutter speeds. Wildlife photographers have a quite stiff challenge, with long focal lengths, rapidly moving subjects, and often marginal ambient light levels. In these situations, high ISO shooting is mandatory, not optional. Overexposing images as you suggest only makes a difficult situation even worse. The OM-1 is in fact giving better dynamic range and better high ISO performance. The manufacturer has backed up every claim they've made about the camera so far, I don't think this is any different. So in the end, for me, the improved sensor performance is not a small thing; it's a really important thing, totally necessary, and much appreciated.
Hi. You mentioned that iso performance on OM-1 is 1.5 - 2.5 stops better than on EM-5 III. Can you confirm that images taken with ISO 1600 on OM-1 look just as good as pictures taken with EM-5 III on ISO 400?
The performance metric being referred to is High ISO performance. Your question, comparing ISO 400 to ISO 1600, is not a High ISO performance question, but I will answer it. I can tell you that, when viewed at 100% magnification on a 4K calibrated monitor, my test images from the E-M5 Mk III at ISO 1600 are essentially identical in sensor noise and dynamic range to test images from the OM-1 at ISO 6400, which is two stops. This is with no noise reduction in camera or post processing. With noise reduction software, I think the useful difference could be 3 stops or more. Since the images from the OM-1 taken at ISO 400 and ISO 1600 are essentially identical, I think this answers your question. Yes, the images taken with ISO 1600 on OM-1 look as good (actually better) as pictures taken with EM-5 Mk III on ISO 400.
Generally people have already decided what the answer to a question will be and then troll social media looking for the "right" answer to agree with and the "wrong" answer to ridicule. My experience with the OM-1, which I own (do you?) is that it performs within the specifications that OM System have supplied with the camera. It seems extremely unlikely that they would misrepresent the first camera from a new company. I have also found that pixel peepers love to view images at ridiculous print sizes (on my screen a 5184 x 3888 image at 50% magnification produces a print size of 25 inches by 19 inches) while these images are being viewed by consumers on laptops and phones. Nevertheless, I can view your two hypothetical images side by side, physical size 19 inches tall and 25 inches wide, and they are in fact identical. That's a direct comparison, and it's correct, and it's in agreement with the manufacturer. Internet trolls are not a reliable source of information.
As ambassador of OMDS, can you please find out and clarify what they mean by 2 stops better noise performance? No matter how I compare it, different ISO levels, I don't see a 2 stop noise improvement. You said so yourself, the noise is more or less the same. This conflicts with OMDS' claim. I just want to know, what exactly they are referring to by 2 stops noise performance. Are they talking about the noise reduction from jpg files? Are they comparing a high resolution shot on the OM-1 with a non high resolution shot on the EM1-iii? I think it is pretty clear that, given fair testing, there is no such 2 stop noise improvement - that a OM-1 at 6400 ISO does not have as little noise as an EM1-iii at 1600 ISO.
To be exact they did not claim that the noise improvement was 2 stops. They used the words two stops better ISO performance. That is a bit different. It is about the whole IQ including the color sift etc. It is hard to say how many stops because the noise looks different.
@@ForsgardPeter watch the OM-1 announcement RU-vid video. It clearly says "+2 stop better noise performance". Right underneath, "20MP stacked BSI Live MOS". Let me know if you are unable to find it, I will provide the RU-vid link, as well as the time stamp.
@@ForsgardPeter ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ptm04Fogkf0.html 1:30 I can't believe you've never watched their product announcement video. It's on their product page too - you're an ambassador 😂
I was getting noise from my iPhone 6S yesterday taking a sunset shot. It could be that the battery and electronics are worn down, because when it was new all my images looked nice and sharp. That might explain the differences between your OM-1 and E-M1.
Granted, observing and stating the degree of improvement can be subjective. But your thoughtful review convinces me that there is a significant improvement achieved in the design of the OM-1.
Please look at the dpreview of the OM1 and mkiii - these are independent lab tests. The results speak for themselves. The new sensor clearly gives m43 a step up in terms of speed (hence auto focus) and I would expect to see an improvement in IQ but its not the 2 stops ISO that I would have loved for wildlife and BIF where in dull old UK you need high noise free(ish) ISO to get the speed. Thank you for your summary - quite right OM Systems never specified two stops ISO - or did they hint at it under very limited conditions? Not so the Ambasadors and Educators who did claim 2 stops ISO - one even measured 2 stops but he was caught out as he compared mkiii extended range against OM 1 in range. I have to credit OM Systems with a fantastic launch. The publicity was great but I like to make informed decisions based on evidence not sales pitch. I will wait for some more independant reviews. PS I am very much a supporter of the M43 format but do not like being missinformed.
If ISO improvement is the key factor for your decision to buy the OM-1, you really should consider FF. Most people are ordering the OM-1 because of the massive improvement in focus tracking. If you haven't looked at it, you need to see Richard Butler's DPR article shooting night time Rugby with the OM-1 -- it speaks volumes about the improvement of the OM-1, both in AF performance and ISO performance -- it sure looks like close to a 2 stop improvement to me. Richard says it compares very favorably with his $5,500 Nikon Z9 -- and as one commenter put it, "Who would have ever thought you would see an m4/3's camera compared favorably with the Z9 without laughing." If you look carefully at Peter's comparisons between the OM-1 and E-M1 Mklll at ISO 25600, you can see a definite improvement in detail capture, color fidelity, and noise grain pattern -- and that is just looking at his monitor on my NEC monitor. So there is obvious improvement in high ISO performance. If it is not enough for you, you have other choices.
@@narinthip3058 Yes. DPR has traditionally been highly critical of m4/3's, often pointing out pretty nit picky things as negatives. So, I am impressed that Richard had such positive things to say about his experience with the OM-1 in such difficult shooting conditions. As for me, I got a great price on an E-M1X about 5 months ago (a refurb with extra 20% off from Olympus that looked brand new and had only 236 shutter clicks on it), so I am loving it and plan to camp here for a while. If I had not gotten it, I would definitely be $2,200 dollars poorer right now as an OM-1 owner. :-)
I made the choice to go m43 with the mk 1 Ex Nikon ff. Travelling with and carrying a 600 mm ff lens is no joke so I accepted the limits of m43 and got on with making the best of it. Tracking on the mkiii and earlier is not good so how did m43 users ever manage to take sharp images of things that move and do equally well with other formats in print competitions? By developing good technique with single spot five spot and custom modes so I have no real focus issues with mkiii or the larger dof or IQ. As an m43 user I except its limitation compared to ff Realistically the pixel density of a m43 sensor will not compete with one four times the area using the same techology. The only question to ask is it good enough for my photography. For me better AF tracking is not such a big issue and since no judge has ever picked out an m43 print as having poor IQ at my club I will stick to my mkiii for now. A plea __ PLEASE stop trying to claim that this sensor is equal to a equivalent tech ff sensor the physics and scientific tests demo that it is not. But in many circumstances it can take images that are equal in every way to even the best ff (so can the mkiii) But in the limit ff will cover more circumstances. To repeat there is no ISO improvement that would allow me to do wildlife at 2 stops higher ISO with the same noise as my mkiii. As Peter pointed out OM systems never claimed this and as usual gave us a realistic conclusion all credit to Peter which is more than can be said for some Ambassadors . Is the OM1 a step forwards for M43 YES but I will not retire my mkiii at least until I see independent reviews that show the how effective the new tracking modes are in pushing me beyond what I can achieve with the mkiii.
I am currently having a huge service problem with my less than 1 year old Olympus EM5. The bottom (plastic) has cracked. I need a replacement part. Cannot get one in Thailand. Service a problem. Will go with Canon or Fuji in the future. At least they have decent service in Asia.
@@ForsgardPeter it has turned me off of oms. I will be changing to Fuji going forward unless they can offer me a solution. I bought the Olympus as an ‘adventure’ camera. The images were great but the plastic body cracked where it attached to my peak design bracket. Thought it would be simple to replace the bottom panel. Apparently not. Going for a magnesium body going forward, but not OM Systems as the repair is being quoted as more than the camera is worth. Crazy bad service. I love my Olympus camera but the OM Systems service is terrible. Would appreciate if you would pass this feedback on to people who care….
Here is the test I was referring too, but it s in French : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-AQZ-pmuA6KA.html. Damien is also saying that the video performance is poor for autofocus (worse than om1 mk3…).
It's interesting that the thing that gets all the hype on the OM-1 is the "2 stop noise improvement" when there are so many other improvements that will make more differences in your photography. Like most of us, we've all seen folks like yourself analyzing the difference, and consistently, the difference is so small that it takes a pro working with a good display, to even notice. For 99.9% percent of us, 99.9% of the time the difference will be un noticeable. I certainly can't see it on my laptop, but what I definitely can see is the magenta cast in the shadows. That is a big deal to me. Thanks for doing this Peter. You are absolutely right about real photos being better than lab photos.
I know that these types of tests area bit silly. On the other hand IQ is one part and because that claim was made it had to be tested. I agree that OM-1 is a good upgrade even if there was no difference in IQ.
@@ForsgardPeter I agree these kind of tests are necessary to make people comfortable that they are making the right decision. Honestly, cameras have gotten so good, that the differences are sort of on the "fringes" if you know what I mean. I shoot an E-M1 III and a Sony A7 IV and generally, I don't see much if any difference on a 27" screen without going to 100%. Of course if I'm expecting low light I'll take the Sony, but with software like Topaz Denoise, even that isn't a huge deal.
Another test using iso values i never shoot at. Starting to believe from 200 base up to 3200 there is no improvement. Otherwise we would be seeing test showing it.
Hi Peter, maybe this comment reaches you even after a year... First of all, thank you for the good comparison and great video, as always! However, there is one thing that is a bit annoying when it comes to topics like this: You seem to only upload the videos in 1080p, not higher resolution. Problem is that with that resolution, I cannot see any difference in noise on my (professional) screen in your comparisons. Even when you say it's clearly visible, I barely see anything. So please in the future, when you test things like that, maybe it is possible to upload at least 1440p versions of the video. In my own experience with other youtube videos, at that resolution you start to see real, clear differences in the quality of pictures. Thank you!
I have all recent Olympus Pro camera bodies, including OM-1 and I do not see on 2 32 in professional 10 bit monitors any difference in the noise performance of these sensors based and RAW files. Similarly I do not see any difference in the dynamic range of the sensors, which is consistent with recently posted lab results demonstrating identical dynamic range of the OMD-M1 III and Om-1 sensors. The main difference is in the improved focusing system, and better EVF and battery life. I was a bit dissapointed, probably keeping my expectations too high, but still love this camera and will keep it for travel and wild life. But realistically 2 stops difference in the noise is the difference between my sony A7III and Om-1/M1-X/III, which is huge. In fact the more advanced Sony A9 stacked sensor has worst dynamic range and noise performance than the A7III sensor. So by itself that they managed to keep the same dynamic range and noise performance with a stacked sensor is a great achievement, which was also mentioned by DPReviews. I love your reviews, please keep up with great work and thanks.
@@ForsgardPeter less banding , because of the faster sensor/processor may explain that; it would be very interesting to see if there is improvement in the thermal efficiency of the sensor in very long exposures
I'm looking at the comparison shots via RU-vid on a cellphone. I cant see much difference. That's modern photography for 95% of us. Small screens showing downsampled pictures.
I just ordered the EM1 Mark iii, The difference is not worth the extra 700 dollars to me. I personally don't use very high ISO's if I shoot out in the dark, I adjust the shutter speed. It is not enough for me to want the OM-1.
When you take a look at the comparison images then the color grading is off which gives a wrong impression about the ISO performances of both cameras, because now you are comparing different things. I’m kind of disappointed, but don’t know what I should’ve expected from an official Olympus marketing channel.
What do you mean by colors are off? What makes the impression wrong. The results I got are similar to what others have gotten. Colors are also a very subjective thing. What am I comparing in your opinion? What official marketing channel? I am an OM SYSTEM Ambassador, but the channel content is not controlled by OM SYSTEM.
I sold my EM1III to buy the new OM1 so I can not compare them directly, side to side. But from my still fresh memory, the EM1III still has a few advantages over the OM1: - Slightly better built and feel, especially the top plate - mechanical shutter can shoot faster (15fps) than the one on the OM1 (10fps) - While the OM1 can shoot a lot of faster, buffer capacity did not improve in parallel to accommodate faster speeds. - EM1 is cheaper... For everything else, the OM1 is either equal or much better.
E-M1 Mark III is totally usable camera and if one does not need the features of OM-1 then why switch. OM-1 is a better camera, especially the AF is much more precise. It works slightly different than E-M1 Mark III.
2 года назад
Sorry Peter, but i disagree. Your samples tells me that there are so small changes, almost insignificant, or barely visible, that there is no need for EM1III owner to even consider buying OM1 for "better hi ISO". There might be some other reasons, but unless OMDS use much newer sensor, there will be no space for improvement in hi ISO area. OM1 is great M43 camera, EM1III too. You can have (in Czech republic) EM1III + 12-40 shipping right now for about same price as pre-order of OM1 body. Is it OM1 really that much better? Is it really WOW camera? I dont think so, but hats off to all engineer in OMDS for pushing limits of this sensor technology to its outer limits.
There is a huge difference in shadows. On lower ISO the difference is a lot smaller if there is any. OM-1 has a lot of advantages over E-M1 Mark III. A question is then if you need all those better features?
I have both and can not really see much difference in high ISO or in dynamic range of these cameras. Stay with EM1III unless you want faster focusing system and better viewfinder
iPhone is a good tool for many. It is not about IQ that much, but the ergonomics. I would use iPhone for photography a lot more if the ergonomics was better. Adding some grips and such makes it otherwise hard to use. And yes, a good storyteller can make better images with an iPhone than a IQ obsest "photographer" with the best camera in the world.
Sorry but until olympus get into bigger sensors they can't compete with FF . i don't think i've ever seen so many shilling reviews over a camera like this one present company excepted. The lack of exceptance that a sensor half the size will not perform as well is staggering, generally speaking.
Spoiler alert: You can't cheat physics. Noise performance of every MFT sensor is crap and will always be crap, because the format is too small and can't gather enough light to compete with professional alternatives. That's why MFT is dead. End of story.
