- Location
- Seattle
- Name
- Andrew
I thought it might be interesting to separate out a discussion on the merits of the sensors in the OM-1 and GH6, since anytime Micro Four Thirds introduces a step up in sensor resolution or IQ, it's a momentous occasion. As time goes on hopefully we'll have several firsthand accounts to add to the discussion, but as it stands, for the moment, I am mainly looking at samples from different websites. The GH6 uses some wizardry to combine a lower-gain and a higher-gain amplification at ISO 800 and above to reduce noise, and obviously a bump in resolution (past the typical past/current gen 24mp sensors in many APS-C cameras, but just behind the newest 26mp ones - not a bad place for M4/3 resolution to be, at all). The OM-1 retains a 20mp output, but combines data from 80mp of photodiodes and aims for better high-ISO performance via its stacked BSI design. Different approaches, actually the most different that flagship M4/3 sensors have been, and the first time since the introduction of PDAF in Olympus cameras that they've really branched apart from each other.
I've seen some good initial samples from both. Interestingly, DPR's static test shots for the GH6 look considerably worse than the OM-1, but they appear to have different exposure levels given the information they provide, and I feel the GH6 samples are underexposed. Certainly there are better examples of what it can do in the low-light real-world shots they've included.
Anyway, what do you think of these two companies' interpretations of the way to move forward with their sensors? It's an interesting time, if nothing else, after another substantial drought.
I've seen some good initial samples from both. Interestingly, DPR's static test shots for the GH6 look considerably worse than the OM-1, but they appear to have different exposure levels given the information they provide, and I feel the GH6 samples are underexposed. Certainly there are better examples of what it can do in the low-light real-world shots they've included.
Anyway, what do you think of these two companies' interpretations of the way to move forward with their sensors? It's an interesting time, if nothing else, after another substantial drought.