Bobby V wrote:
In my experience the OM-1 is a capable body but doesn’t match any of the pro bodies from the big 3 which I think is acceptable at 1/3rd of the price point. It’s not to say the OM-1 isn’t capable it’s just not the same especially if you’ve had experience with the others like you and I have.
So it’s a conundrum of choosing an excellent walkabout lens on a decent body that’s a good value vs. amazing body and nothing really comparable lens-wise.
I would find it hard moving from an A1 to the OM-1 however I personally loathe the 200-600 FE even though I can get decent results with it and it makes me miss my 150-400 that I sold to fund my underwater rig.
I hope OM steps up the game with a more competitive body in 2024. It might convince me to pick up another 150-400. I think the lens is as about as perfect for my needs as I could ask for but the OM-1 left me wanting after using the other bodies, in some areas but not all. ...Show more →
What would you want out of an updated body? IQ out of a m43 sensor is never going to catch up to FF, it’s just physics. The only thing it really lags behind I can think of is the tracking AF but I find the subject detection is good enough I really don’t need to use tracking (I do use it in my A1 a lot).
Colin F wrote:
Ya, but the thing is I didn't really have any keepers at all, I had to buy these off of Geoff ( just kidding).
I'm finding that there's so little latitude with not only the dynamic range and pushing the file around, but also for cropping. The OM-1 AF can be infuriating at times, and the fact that the rear screen only flips out to the left side really sucks. They need to design it so that it also flips straight out like the A1/a9. When holding it low near the ground by the inverted lens foot, my left arm is in the way of the screen, making it very difficult to properly see what I'm shooting.
palmor wrote:
What would you want out of an updated body? IQ out of a m43 sensor is never going to catch up to FF, it’s just physics. The only thing it really lags behind I can think of is the tracking AF but I find the subject detection is good enough I really don’t need to use tracking (I do use it in my A1 a lot).
I’m not really here to rehash old arguments and opinions for the umpteenth time. I’m pro m43 and still own an OM-1. I use it for macro which it excels
Colin F wrote:
Only a handful of keepers from this morning. ~1500 files deleted.
The 150-400 is a great little lens, but the OM-1 sure could use some improvements. I’m so sad to have needed to sell my Sony A1.
Bobby V wrote:
I’m not really here to rehash old arguments and opinions for the umpteenth time. I’m pro m43 and still own an OM-1. I use it for macro which it excels
palmor wrote:
What has been the biggest problem with the AF? Maybe it’s something we can help dial in (fingers crossed).
Thanks.
Scenario: Camera held low at the ground, pointed at a single contrasty (B&W) OOF bird in the middle of the frame. -2 exposure comp as required so as not to blow out the highlights, and the damn thing refuses to focus on the blurry subject.
I’m using the whole zone as my AF area, and C-AF without tracking, and “bird” detect on.
It’s as though it will only identify a bird if it is painfully clear that it’s a bird, but if it’s a little vague, it won’t even try to focus on the one object in the frame. There I am stabbing the BBAF (AF-ON) button and missing shots.
Colin i find that I need to make the af area smaller. Also SH2 mode will find focus faster that electronic shutter.
As long as there is a bird shape it will stay locked on. When the bird turns or head goes in the water it looses lock. Sometimes I turn off subject detection to hold focus.
If you are not aware.... using SH2 mode taking images if you zoom while capturing images it will not record images until the zooming stops. I have missed more images fiddling with the zoom trying to crop in camera.
Patrick
Colin F wrote:
Only a handful of keepers from this morning. ~1500 files deleted.
The 150-400 is a great little lens, but the OM-1 sure could use some improvements. I’m so sad to have needed to sell my Sony A1.
I'm with mitesh on this...
I've seen your A1 images long before you came over here. they are very pleasing in both image quality and aesthetic appeal.
I was very pleasantly surprised to learn you were coming here and I was looking forward to seeing those same great images here using m4/3.
the images you've posted so far from your m4/3 kit are no less appealing than your Sony images.
the best post-processing skills can have a positive effect on a file but there is a limit of what can be done to a file.
garbage in is still garbage out and vice versa.
it appears to me that you have captured 'some' good OM-1 files to start with and you are not exactly salvaging garbage OM-1 files.
~1500 files deleted files.
on a good day I'll come home with over 4000 images and I'll whittle those down to less than a hundred.
~3900 files deleted. no issues other than I dont want my HDD's full up in a month.
of course I am not suggesting that your 1500 deleted files are all great keepers.
I'm guessing (as are other's) that you still have some camera settings to explore and when done so you will vastly imrove your keeper rate.
ie. I would guess/believe that most OM-1 birders use ALL AF Target for BIF and would use a much smaller AF Target group for most other situations.
Paul_100A wrote:
I'm with Mitesh on this.
I've seen your A1 images long before you came over here. They are very pleasing in both image quality and aesthetic appeal.
I was very pleasantly surprised to learn you were coming here and I was looking forward to seeing those same great images here using m4/3. The images you've posted so far from your m4/3 kit are no less appealing than your Sony images.
Thanks for the kind words, but I would suggest that the reason(s) they look similar is the ultra low perspective from which they were taken, providing for that intimate "engagement" with the subject, and also what magic that does to the background. That could be achieved using a 10 year old Bridge camera. When I'm going through or working on the files, I'm deflated. Like these two mushy ones from yesterday:
There's no substitute for resolution. I don't know what the limit is for cramming in more MP onto a m4/3 sensor, but I think the OM-1 could use some more. I'm also confident that I'll be happier with the camera once we get some better light happening.
Colin F wrote:
There's no substitute for resolution. I don't know what the limit is for cramming in more MP onto a m4/3 sensor, but I think the OM-1 could use some more. I'm also confident that I'll be happier with the camera once we get some better light happening.
If cropping is the priority, then I agree it's hard to substitute a high-res body. With the lower res body and this includes FF (I've also used the R3, Z6, etc) it's simply not as forgiving to cropping. I think part of it is you are still figuring out the limitations.
That being said I would also favor resolution in a newer body at this point because noise is really not a huge deal these days with NR and I'd rather seek out good light or drop the shutter speed then take ISO 12800 photos. I actually found the DR better in the OM-1 than the R7 for example and so I am not particularly bothered by that.
I was considering the G9II for its 23% bump in resolution but losing dual-IS would be painful. I found that to be one of the best advantages of the OM-1+150-400 combination and it helps to deal with the drop in DR and inc in noise that occurs with bumping ISO, I doubt there is a better OIS system currently in play but have not tried them all.
I snapped these off the deck this afternoon. Given the considerable distance to the trees, and the tininess of the birds, I put the 2X on the 150-400 (OM-1), and then still needed to crop a small amount. And get this, for the Nuthatch shot, which was much further out, I also flipped the 1.25 TC switch on the lens, giving me 2000mm, hand-held too, at 1/200 sec. Crazy.
Colin F wrote:
Thanks for the kind words, but I would suggest that the reason(s) they look similar is the ultra low perspective from which they were taken, providing for that intimate "engagement" with the subject, and also what magic that does to the background. That could be achieved using a 10 year old Bridge camera. When I'm going through or working on the files, I'm deflated. Like these two mushy ones from yesterday:
There's no substitute for resolution. I don't know what the limit is for cramming in more MP onto a m4/3 sensor, but I think the OM-1 could use some more. I'm also confident that I'll be happier with the camera once we get some better light happening.
...Show more →
That's fine Colin.
I'm happy to see your images however they come.
Found this Northern Harrier sitting in the marsh the other day (I very rarely see them sitting this long) and waited it out to take off. I was shooting with my Sony setup but had my OM-1 and 150-400 in the car so I got both and took some back-to-back shots.
The 140-500 was with the TC engaged, I cropped both to 2x3 ratio to as close as the same crop as I could get. This image ended up cropping down to 7MP on the Sony and 8.3MP on the OM (1000mm EQ vs 900mm EQ).
palmor wrote:
Found this Northern Harrier sitting in the marsh the other day (I very rarely see them sitting this long) and waited it out to take off. I was shooting with my Sony setup but had my OM-1 and 150-400 in the car so I got both and took some back-to-back shots.
The 140-500 was with the TC engaged, I cropped both to 2x3 ratio to as close as the same crop as I could get. This image ended up cropping down to 7MP on the Sony and 8.3MP on the OM (1000mm EQ vs 900mm EQ).
thanks for taking the time to post this Palmor.
very much appreciated and interesting.
at the time I had the EM1X w/4/300 I also used an A9 and FE200-600 (I had the Sony 1.4X but hardly used it as I found I often did not have enough light to give the A9 combo a fair chance).
I used the A9 in APS-C mode often enough for the extra reach. once I thought about it...I was shooting the FF in APS-C mode at 11Mp (iirc).
I had the EM1X 2X crop mode at 20 Mp.
I ditched the A9 kit (kept all my other Sony FF milc wedding/portrait stuff).
of course the story is different with an A1, Z9 etc., etc..
I opened each image into it's own tab and clicked them larger. i can see the Sony image is sharper (nicer) but I also see the Sony was shot at 1/1000 vs the Oly 1/500. I also see there is an ISO advantage 500 vs 800 to the Olympus.
very close and both very good images. I'd think (i'm in no ways saying you must or should have) that the Oly file would have handled a little more sharpening (and prolly the same for the Sony file too...point being PP could easily close that little gap)
Paul
cool compare and it's rare to see side-by-side "in-situ" shots with gear. Not an unexpected result as the A1 has the slight FL advantage but the OM has higher pixel density so the "pixels per duck" or shall we say "pixels per hawk" between the two rigs is probably not far off. Nonetheless it shows how MFT can pack a punch as long as wider FOV, noise floor and DR, and DOF control that a FF can offer aren't as high a priority for the given shot
Paul_100A wrote:
thanks for taking the time to post this Palmor.
very much appreciated and interesting.
at the time I had the EM1X w/4/300 I also used an A9 and FE200-600 (I had the Sony 1.4X but hardly used it as I found I often did not have enough light to give the A9 combo a fair chance).
I used the A9 in APS-C mode often enough for the extra reach. once I thought about it...I was shooting the FF in APS-C mode at 11Mp (iirc).
I had the EM1X 2X crop mode at 20 Mp.
I ditched the A9 kit (kept all my other Sony FF milc wedding/portrait stuff).
of course the story is different with an A1, Z9 etc., etc..
I opened each image into it's own tab and clicked them larger. i can see the Sony image is sharper (nicer) but I also see the Sony was shot at 1/1000 vs the Oly 1/500. I also see there is an ISO advantage 500 vs 800 to the Olympus.
very close and both very good images. I'd think (i'm in no ways saying you must or should have) that the Oly file would have handled a little more sharpening (and prolly the same for the Sony file too...point being PP could easily close that little gap)
Paul...Show more →
When I was taking the photos I thought about trying to match all the settings but quickly dismissed the idea since I wanted to use each camera as I normally would. The Oly has much superior IS so used it, of course once the Harrier took flight it wouldn't be much good .
I should have also mentioned that both files were processed the same way. I process in LR (basic processing on these) then bring over to Topaz denoise for noise reduction and sharpening. I probably spent less than 2 min processing each photo so I agree, with more time spent I may be able to get them even closer, but I thought they were interesting enough as is.
I have a couple of other similar comparisons with the 300F4 when I first got that if anyone is interested but since it's the 300F4 didn't think it appropriate for this thread.
just kidding).
. 
