I am writing this post for two reasons. The first is that I get this question often. Several of my friends have come over to my condo in Bellevue to see the new camera asking about a comparison.
The second reason has to do with the online reaction to the OM-D E-M1X. I am amazed at the amount of misinformation and disinformation spread on the Internet about this camera. Whether it comes from the full-frame mafia or from fans of other brands just trolling, I do not know. But I have never seen anything like it. I am starting to think that the Russians have troll farms that populate the camera forums in addition to the political forums. (THAT WAS A JOKE – hold your fire!)
I can’t and won’t argue with trolls because my history aptly demonstrates that I am not good at it. The only thing I can do is offer actual facts, from a guy who actually owns and uses both cameras, in the hope that somewhere in the world, calmer heads will prevail!
I am going to do a series of blog posts (and podcasts) about the OM-D E-M1X with an eye toward informing those who have sincere interest in this new, flagship body from Olympus.
The first in that series is this simple comparison between the old and new camera. I will just state actual facts here, no opinions. By offering just the facts, I hope to minimize the chance that bias could be inferred or implied.
(NOTE: This isn’t each and every difference between the two cameras, but most of those I personally consider to be significant or noteworthy.)
Let’s start with size.
The Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II (Hereinafter “II”) weights 753 grams (including the battery grip – which is the way I shoot it.) The Olympus OM-D E-M1X (Hereinafter “X”) weighs 849 grams. The II is 146.4mm high and the X is 146.8mm high. The II is 134.1mm wide and the X is 144.4mm wide.
Grip
The II has an add on battery grip and the X has an integrated grip.
Controls
There are some differences in the controls. On the X, the control dials are embattled in the body, not sitting on TOP of the body like they are on the II.
The II does not have joystick for AF point control, but the X does.
The II does not have a bulb setting on the shutter dial, but the X does.
Shutter
The lifetime of the shutter is 200,000 actuations on the II and 400,000 on the X.
Card Slots
The II has one UHS-1 and one USH-II card slots. The X has two USH-II card slots.
Charging
The X can be charged with a USB cable, the II cannot.
The II has one battery slot in the body and one in the add on grip. The X has dual battery slots.
EVF
EVF magnification on the II is 0.74. On the X it is 0.83. (highest magnification of any camera)
Hi-Res Mode
The II has a tripod-only hi-res mode good for 80MP. The X has both a handheld hi-res mode good for 50MP and a tripod hi-res mode good for 80MP.
ND Filter
The II doesn’t have in-body ND filter but the X does.
Autofocus
The AF sensitivity on the II is -2EV with an f/2.8 lens. The x has -6EV with an f/1.2 lens.
The II has no intelligent subject AF-system. The X has an intelligent subject detection mode.
The X acquires autofocus more quickly. (I don’t have sophisticated test equipment to prove this but I am intimately aware of how quickly the II autofocuses and the X is quicker. This is borne out by my own personal shooting tests.)
Buffer Size
The II can store 148 images at 10 fps in its buffer. The X can store 287 RAW at 10 fps in its buffer.
IBIS
The II offers 6.5 stops of stabilization and the X offers 7.5 stops of stabilization (Sync IS.)
Video
The II has flat mode while the X has flat mode plus LOG mode.
The II has no slow motion HD function while the X has slow motion full hd 120 fps.
Processor
There is one True Pic VIII processor in the II. There are two processors in the X.
CONCLUSION
Spec sheets are more important to some people than others. As for me, I compiled this list as a public service. I am the kind of person who rarely decides on a camera based on the spec sheets. I like a camera based on how it feels in my hand, how it works with my lenses, and what kind of photos I can coax out of it. If my camera makes images that make me happy, then I am a fan. For more than two years, I have been using the OM-D E-M1 Mark II exclusively and I love it. It is truly an amazing camera and will remain so for quite some time. For those of you who are lucky enough to own one, only you can decide if the X is something you want to step up into. The good news (and here I will opine with an opinion) you can’t go wrong either way.
Since the X was designed with pros in mind, and has a decidedly clear target market of sports, wildlife and bird shooters, the step up makes sense for me personally. I haven’t had enough time shooting with it to get the kind of feel for the camera that I have with the MK II, but I am working on fixing that problem with major shoots scheduled for each of the next three months.
I will continue to share my thoughts and experiences here and hopefully that will offer some of you the chance to make an informed decision.
NOTE: By way of disclosure, I am an Olympus Visionary.
Check B&H Photo & Video for latest pricing and availability. Check for the best camera deals on all brands here.
17 Responses
Thank you Scott. Always enjoy your posts. Could you speak a little to the real world impact of the AF sensitivity differences between the II and the X and its low light focusing? Also, I looked for a podcast to subscribe to, but couldn’t find it. Has it launched yet? Thanks, Mike.
Hi Mike – Thanks – the podcast will go live next week. As for the real world sensitivity difference it completely depends on how often you shoot with AF in lowlight. 1/2 stop is noticeable but not dramatic. I don’t think we’ll get dramatic changes on a M43 sensor for a while. As for the quickness of the AF – same thing – noticeable but not dramatic. Hope this helps.
Just curious. I’ve heard rumors that the image quality is better. Is that true? I’ve heard people say it’s better than the xt3. I’ve heard others say it’s 1/3, or 2/3rds better than the em1ii in high iso and dr. Have you done any tests on this?
That depends on what you consider to be better image quality – if you are one who only cares what sort of low-light image quality it has – then yes – it’s a half stop better – if you are talking about detail – not sure how they could improve there. I don’t use haven’t used an XT3 so I have no comment on that. Dynamic range is absolutely improved.
Scott,
Thanks for your clear and concise comparison of the 2 cameras.
I learned a lot from your classroom and field classes at Bosque del Apache.
Good to read a review from someone who actually uses the 2 cameras instead of a review going on and on about full frame.
Chris B
Thanks for your thoughts.
Personally, I like the weight of the II and the option of not using a battery grip. If one compares the regular II (without adding the optional battery grip), the X is almost 75% heavier. I like the option of being able to carry a somewhat lighter camera for long periods of time. That’s one of the main reasons I switched from my DSLR Canon to the II.
To each his own John. I always shot the MK II with the grip so it’s not a big deal for me and in my work I need the extra speed. Not everyone will. This camera isn’t designed for people who want the lightest camera available – but matched to a lens with 600 mm EFL it’s still about half the size and weight of a flagship DSLR w/ 600 lens. If you have the MK II and like it no reason to switch. It remains a fantastic camera.
Thanks for the straight-up comparison Scott, this is really useful. How does the mechanical shutter noise compare on the X to the II – is it louder being uprated for longevity or about the same? I photograph in public wildlife hides and many people comment how quiet the shutter on the II is (I often use silent shutter as well). I have the II and I really like it – to me the X seems like a II with more great features on it to add to what I like already. I like going light-weight with the II and a small lens like the small 17mm f1.8 so if I got the X I would keep both cameras, but as an amateur obviously have to consider whether I want to spend the money on an X or some more great lenses!
You’re welcome and I never noticed the shutter noise on either camera.
Thanks for the information and looking forward to further installations! I’ve been surprise by the reaction to the EM1-X by some people. If Olympus had removed the option of choosing any other Olympus camera I could understand, however Olympus have just given further choice, it wouldn’t be the final camera they will release and I’m sure some of the technology will be seen in other models. No one camera will be right for everyone, it just good that Olympus are investing in to the m43 system!
I sure appreciate all of your OM-D comments. I’m seriously considering moving from Canon to OM-D for sports.
Great article Scott. Now, where to find £2,800??? 🙂
Scott always enjoy you insight into Olympus cameras.
How do the compare now that they updated the II autofocus algorithm to match that of the X? Any other updates to your comparison sincere release of the 3.0 firmware update and using the X longer would be appreciated. I’m hoping you do a comparison of the new E-M5 III in the future as well. Thanks for your insight.
The MK II is slightly closer to the X after the upgrade but the primary difference is the second processor. No software or firmware fix can duplicate the raw speed and power of the X. Hands down it’s the better camera but the MK II is still a very capable choice. I will not be comparing the E-M5 against either of the bodies you discuss because it’s just not aimed at the same market. You can read my post about the E-M5 and you will see it does offer some of the same AF but it’s not a replacement for either the OM-D E-M1 MK II or X. Best wishes.