Yes, I can confirm that @Arturi is correct. It appears that PhotoLab version 5.2.1 build 4737 Elite on Windows supports images from this camera. I downloaded several OM-1 raw files from OM System OM-1 Sample Images | Photography Blog and had no problem opening them for editing. Perhaps support was unintentionally included.
Mark
Thank-you Mark, Arturi. Looks like it might be, as you speculate, unintended.
I wonder how much difference there is between the raw files produced by the former Olympus EM-1 series and the OM-1 or whether those differences might be offset in the raw files themselves e.g. by included ‘hints’.
You may recall that Adobe, whose products opened the files almost from the first day of issue in Feb 2022, explained that this was some sort of ‘accident’, suggesting that handling the new (?) format needed small changes if any to their established processes. Capture One quickly followed suit. Also the developer of FastRawViewer (and maintainer of DCRAW), Alex Tubalin, was able to include processing for OM-1 raws back in March or April, as was the developer of the Iridient Digital products.
DXO takes a different approach based on camera/lens combinations & development modules that apparently require individual preparation. So be it.
P
Just received my OM-1. Waiting for support…
That’s exactly right, Peter. The strength of the PL5 is camera-lens combination. I have a strange feeling that the ability to read OM-1 raw files in Windows was introduced due to user requests and complaints. The only surprise is that MAC version does not read it. On March 23, in this thread, DXO announced that the OM-1 will be supported before the summer. The calendar summer begins on June 22. I just hope they mean this year summer.
My guess is that the incomplete OM-1 support in the Windows version was added by accident because, well it wasn’t fully done and therefore of rather limited use for most users. DxO (@Marie, if I remember correctly) have stated June (this year) as the time frame for “the thing” we covet and although things happen and that might slip a couple of weeks, I’d be extremely surprised (and disappointed!) if it didn’t arrive until next year.
If I thought that ‘complaining’ would do any good, I’d probably try it! 
I’ve had very little value out of my DXO (Elite) license in the past 4 months.
OTOH my Lightroom license has proved to be pretty good value… and the value has improved in that time with the new masking tools, in particular.
I also confirm mac v 5.2.3 build 66 does not open OM-1 files. Waiting…
It dont have full support yet… 
That is very disappointing.
Just to add my comments to the trail, LR and PS are the industry standards which almost all professionals use and which almost all available training, education, hints and tips, whether online or at events and seminars, are based. It takes a really good reason to not default to LR and PS.
In my case, the initial “reason” was that I didn’t like the subscription based aspect of LR and PS and preferred the “one-off” model of DxO.
I quickly found out that was superficial, since annual DxO updates require new purchases.
Now, what is keeping me at DxO is deep prime (which is particularly valuable as a M43 user) and raw rendering. Plus my investment in time in learning about DxO and Nik (the latter being transferrable to LR/PS). But I still have to make a new decision every year based on the facts as they are then.
Because the pull towards LR/PS is so strong, DxO needs to be careful with its users to compete. IMO, getting key updates out quicker could and should be part of that. But that is just my opinion. At some point, I will try LR and PS which support the OM1 and at that point can judge for myself whether to make the move more permanent. In my case, as well as routine photos locally I have just had a trip to Zambia and another to Skomer and want to process a large number of raw photos without having to flit between Olympus software to Topaz to DxO/Nik.
If I were a professional working against deadlines for clients, I would definitely have already made the move, I am sad to say. As it is, I am already sitting on a very large backlog of photos waiting to process properly with the software I know. Having put a huge investment of time into learning DXO, I find this very frustrating and a little sad. My strong suspicion is that, when I retire (quite shortly) and have lots of time to learn LR/PS, that is where I will now go. I say this with sadness but the wait has now been both too long and too painful and I do not want to repeat it.
i have no sympathy with the “why buy a new unsupported camera” argument. The camera is game changing in terms of both its EVF quality and it’s focus abilities, my regret is not with the camera I own it is entirely with the software I have learned.
Rant over. Sometimes in life you learn a lesson and move on.
the balance has clearly shifted.
I don’t think the difference is superficial at all. If you have PhotoLab 5 and decide not to upgrade to PhotoLab 6 in October, version 5 will continue to work just fine. With a LR/PS subscription if you stop paying for the subscription it stops working. There is an absolutely nothing superficial about that.
I am not against the Adobe subscription plan concept. For users of both Lightroom and Photoshop who want the current versions of both available to them all the time, it is very inexpensive when you consider what a standalone version of LR and PS used to cost. However, by its nature it is a forever deal. If you want to continue processing your files with that software you must pay for it… forever.
There are still many users of earlier versions of PhotoLab and its predecessor, OpticsPro, who are satisfied with their current version and have not updated their software or paid an additional penny in years. They’re continue to get the same functionality they paid for.
The subscription plan was not the only reason I switched to PhotoLab 1 in 2017. Back then, for my photography, Lightroom met just about all my requirements and I did not use, nor did I want to pay for Photoshop. As a result the subscription for me was not cost effective at $120 a year just for Lightroom.
Another reason, almost as important, wss my objection to the Lightroom requirement to import files before being able to edit them. I absolutely hated that requirement.
When I searched for alternatives, I found PhotoLab 1 and immediately fell in love with it. I was able to process my raw files faster and with better results than I ever could with Lightroom, and I didn’t have to deal with that obnoxious requirement to have to import files before I could edit them. I have never minded waiting a while for my equipment to be supported in PhotoLab. It has always been worth the wait.
Mark
[deleted: repeating myself 
]
Same with me. I returned to Lightroom.
DxO doesn’t seem to understand that for example Topazlabs is not sitting on their hands. The quality of their software is getting better and better while we are waiting OM-1 module which might just be obsolete after waiting long enough. Photolab is good but the others are getting better and they support OM-1 all ready.
I agree for the big difference between license and subscription, because you need to update only if there is a big difference : support of new body / lens.
But with a delay which is at least of three months to take into account the new body (for mac user), you have to change your priority order :
And now i’am afraid of the time it will take to support the next Maxosx version… and in the same Photolab version ?
For some people the wait for support of new lenses or new cameras is more significant than for others. Obviously, if software, any software, does not support someone’s new hardware for extended periods of time, a reevaluation of whether that’s software is still the right choice for them must be considered, assuming there are no acceptable workarounds.
Mark
Out of frustration and a backlog of pics I have downloaded a trial version of ON1, if the OM1 module is not in DXO before the trial runs out guess I will buy ON1 and that will be the end of DXO for me, shame really great software but not good support, I bet I am not the only person trying out alternatives.
There are nearly 200 posts on this topic and pretty much radio silence from DxO themselves. If DXO have not yet got the message that this is highly important to a large number of their users, then, quite honestly, there is very little hope for the future.
While you are right in theory - and that is what I thought when I started with photography - for me the difference in practice IS superficial because I have upgraded in practice. I’ve spent as much on DXO as I would have done on LR/PS. Other users might not have done. Really this delay - and DXO’s cavalier disregard for the nearly 200 posts here and presumably many more who have not bothered to post - means DxO is dead to me.
