p.2 #1 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
I can well appreciate how the newer tech cameras today do as well as they do. I do indeed feel strongly that the glass used can in so many cases influence the end result more then the sensor itself. Having used a Sony RX10MkIV in the past as well with it's meager 1" sensor, I found in so many cases the end results could rival any other simply due to it's exceptional glass used. I had an OM-1 when it came out for a year with some top glass. I was enamored with its diminutive size and weight for running around. In the end however it's tracking left me wanting. My Z9 with it's top glass is a great setup but indeed a boat anchor to carry. I added a Sony A6700 along with some nice glass for quick jaunts only to find it's superior focus capabilities on birds and with the right primes can even do some amazing portraits. Today's cameras can do some amazing things beyond one's imagination. But in the end the glass rules to me.
p.2 #2 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Douglas L wrote:
Thank you for the effort! Last year I was intrigued by the OM system and looked at their high end prime with the built-in TC. In the end, I decided not to add another system. I recall at equivalent effective FL and aperture, my A1 will give me 51MP, vs the 20MP from OM. It's a lot more compact for sure.
Thank you! Yes, I can imagine that decisions of this nature are often intuitive and personal. It is said that we "marry" our lenses (well, divorces do happen).
50MP (or more) can be important for those who exhibit their work as very large prints.
I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the importance of the megapixels when viewing photos on a modern largish 4K or 6K display. I suspect that 50MP and 20MP photos may look indistinguishable (at least they look indistinguishable to me, when I view equivalent 20 and 50MP images on a 27-inch 4K BenQ monitor).
I admit I have said this to myself a number of times, I wish my OM-1 II had more than 20 MP. But, I also ask myself, how having more pixels should make me like my photos better? How often do we really need 50MP?
This reminds me an interesting comment from a recent thread by @jhapemen, quote
"...I thought I would have to force myself to use my A9III because I really, really like the pixels of the A1. I'm a pixel-whore, I'll admit. Surprisingly, I found myself forcing myself to use the A1. I won't dwell on ergonomics as I mentioned it in one of my earlier posts on the A9III, but I will reiterate here that its just a more comfortable camera to use than any of the other Sonys I've had before it." https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1852879/0#16515098
On a related note, I like hiking and OM-1 II with the M.Zuiko 300mm F4 lens (to me) is a "more comfortable camera to use" than the A1 with the 200-600mm lens.
p.2 #3 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
j4nu wrote:
Thanks, these are really interesting!
I was expecting some noise penalty at higher ISO on OM-1, but it seems it's somewhat mitigated by the exposure (difference in ISO) I guess...
Thank you!
Efficient denoising is essential when processing high-ISO raw files. Steve Perry teaches how to "Make ISO 12,800 Look Like ISO 400" in LR. I use the highly efficient auto- DeepPRIME XD denoising in DxO PL7. This leaves practically no visible noise even at ISO 12800.
Something that cannot be helped, unfortunately, is the loss of some image information, at the pixel level. This is usually about minute, microscopic details; thus, when not magnified, denoised high-ISO photos may look deceptively good. One exception, however, is people. Human perception seems to be highly trained to recognize differences in the faces of others. On the other hand, photos of the furry and hairy pets and wild life can be efficiently denoised to make them look believable even at high ISO (when properly focussed and exposed), as we don't have a pre-defined high-quality perception of what these should look in minute detail.
p.2 #6 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Unfortunately for many applications the OM's 20 MP will no longer be sufficient, wildlife photography being a common example due to the cropping often required for adequate image size and/or composition.
For output to the web or other computer monitor applications, it's usually not a problem however for stock photos the agencies have minimum un-interpolated pixel dimensions. Crop a 20MP sensor's output too much and the photo is unusable for stock agencies, meaning lost sales. The photographer can compensate by using a longer lens on the m43 camera, but then the size/weight advantage of m43 is lost. YMMV.
p.2 #7 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
phidippusaudax wrote:
And here I am looking at selling my A1 and 200-600 and getting the OM-1 II and 300mm for the weight and dimension reduction!
I did not need this thread right now!
I did it.
From Canon R5 System to OM-1/MZ system. Currently have both systems. Seriously considering not buying a R5 MkII and selling the existing Canon Stuff. I originally bought the OM-1 and 300 f/4 in lieu of buying the RF 600 f/4. So impressed with the 300 I bought the M.Zuiko 150-400 f/4.5 TC and it's nom de plume (Gandalf, the Great White Wizard) is right on.
I have been at Conowingo shooting Eagles and Cormorants with both systems. In my experience, the OM-1 has better AF than the R5 (the OM-1 MkII is even better), and the M.Zuiko Pro lenses are equal to or better than the Canon stuff. And no rolling shutter with the OM-1 BSI stacked sensor.
Compared: MZ 300 f/4 vs RF 100-500. MZ 40-150 f/2.8 vs RF 70-200 f/2.8, and MZ 12-40 f/2.8 vs RF 24-70 f/2.8. I have no RF to compare with the MZ 150-400, and I find Gandalf as sharp as the MZ 300 f/4.
I never print larger than 13x19 and most of my stuff is just in Flickr. I will miss the Canon Forum here on FM.
ps: To phidippusaudax and any others. I am willing to meet at Conowingo and let you try the OMS stuff for yourself. Just bring your own SD card.
p.2 #8 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Thanks for publishing your tests.
My only comment is that, at over four years old, the 200-600mm is starting to show its age. Of course, it was never a GM lens. I have found mine (been through 3 copies) to be excellent, but not outstanding. When I tested against my new Sigma 500mm f5.6, I was rather startled by noticeable sharpness improvement of the Sigma prime lens. The difference is so significant, I may sell my 200-600mm and just use my Tamron 50-400mm when I need shorter FL's, at it seems to be equally sharp as the 200-600mm under 400mm (I can live with 15 fps for what I shoot).
Another metric where the 200-600mm is starting to show its age is its lackluster OS... and of course, focusing was never its strong suit, although adequate for most shooting situations.
p.2 #9 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
telyt wrote:
Unfortunately for many applications the OM's 20 MP will no longer be sufficient, wildlife photography being a common example due to the cropping often required for adequate image size and/or composition.
For output to the web or other computer monitor applications, it's usually not a problem however for stock photos the agencies have minimum un-interpolated pixel dimensions. Crop a 20MP sensor's output too much and the photo is unusable for stock agencies, meaning lost sales. The photographer can compensate by using a longer lens on the m43 camera, but then the size/weight advantage of m43 is lost. YMMV.
I find it much easier to fill the frame with M43 and carry less weight. I had no trouble selling stock images with 20MP mFT or previously 1DXIII. That said stock image sales are not worth the effort frankly. One afternoon session shooting sports pays better than a whole year shooting wildlife, as the audience is extremely limited. I have yet to meet a bird that will pay for his own portrait
Jun 11, 2024 at 11:03 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
ruthenium wrote:
Thank you! Yes, I can imagine that decisions of this nature are often intuitive and personal. It is said that we "marry" our lenses (well, divorces do happen).
50MP (or more) can be important for those who exhibit their work as very large prints.
I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the importance of the megapixels when viewing photos on a modern largish 4K or 6K display. I suspect that 50MP and 20MP photos may look indistinguishable (at least they look indistinguishable to me, when I view equivalent 20 and 50MP images on a 27-inch 4K BenQ monitor).
I admit I have said this to myself a number of times, I wish my OM-1 II had more than 20 MP. But, I also ask myself, how having more pixels should make me like my photos better? How often do we really need 50MP?
This reminds me an interesting comment from a recent thread by @jhapemen, quote
"...I thought I would have to force myself to use my A9III because I really, really like the pixels of the A1. I'm a pixel-whore, I'll admit. Surprisingly, I found myself forcing myself to use the A1. I won't dwell on ergonomics as I mentioned it in one of my earlier posts on the A9III, but I will reiterate here that its just a more comfortable camera to use than any of the other Sonys I've had before it." https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1852879/0#16515098
On a related note, I like hiking and OM-1 II with the M.Zuiko 300mm F4 lens (to me) is a "more comfortable camera to use" than the A1 with the 200-600mm lens. ...Show more →
I have had both lower MP cameras (Sony A9, Leica M10, Sony A7S, Canon 5D, Canon 5D II, Oly OM-1) and higher MP cameras (Sony A7r II, Nikon Z7, Fuji GFX 50, Sony A1, Sony A7r V) and to me the biggest advantage of the higher MPs is the ability to downsize and improve the files. Noise, color, and sharpness all improve noticeably when downsizing and it is a simple and effective way to improve image quality and starting with more MPs means more ability to downsize. A simple and in my experience notable advantage of higher MPs.
p.2 #11 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
MEDISN wrote:
I find it much easier to fill the frame with M43 and carry less weight. I had no trouble selling stock images with 20MP mFT or previously 1DXIII. That said stock image sales are not worth the effort frankly. One afternoon session shooting sports pays better than a whole year shooting wildlife, as the audience is extremely limited. I have yet to meet a bird that will pay for his own portrait
This is why YMMV. I have several wildlife portraits that have sold quite well. Wildlife photography isn't something you do on the side.
There's also aliasing and color moire in feather detail: it's something I encountered frequently with a 10MP camera, often with a 24MP camera, and never in the last 3+ years with a 50MP camera.
p.2 #12 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
I have the both the A-1 & 200-600 and OM-1 & 150-400 combos. Just added the OM-1 II but haven't had an opportunity to try it out yet.
Fully kitted out with Lenscoats and straps, the OM combo is a pound lighter and much better balanced. And the OM IS is much better. That said I really do miss using the back wheel ISO control with zebras and working with the A1 files. DXO PureRaw definitely helps the OM files.
Of course the 300/2.8 with 2x is piquing my interest as would an A1 with imagined AF improvements.
With a limit of 15fps and no teleconverters the Sigma 500 is a no go.
p.2 #13 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
telyt wrote:
Unfortunately for many applications the OM's 20 MP will no longer be sufficient, wildlife photography being a common example due to the cropping often required for adequate image size and/or composition.
For output to the web or other computer monitor applications, it's usually not a problem however for stock photos the agencies have minimum un-interpolated pixel dimensions. Crop a 20MP sensor's output too much and the photo is unusable for stock agencies, meaning lost sales. The photographer can compensate by using a longer lens on the m43 camera, but then the size/weight advantage of m43 is lost. YMMV.
Wildlife pros Petr Bambousek, Lee Hoy and Espen Helland seem to do ok with their OM kits.
p.2 #14 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
For Bird photography:
The OM-1/300f4 is best compared with a Nikon Z-8/600pf. The OM rig is slightly lighter and considerably less expensive than the Nikon rig and has some cool computational features such as Pre-capture in Raw that the Nikon doesn't have but the 45MP sensor has a faster readout. Both lenses are incredibly sharp. However, If I could afford it, I would get the Nikon. That being said I am happy with my OM-1 m2/300f4.
Comparing the Sony a1/200-600 or the Nikon Z-8/180-600, we have two OM rigs. An OM-1/100-400 is incredibly light, quite inexpensive and takes fine pictures if you fill the frame. The 800mm effective reach does it. Switch to the OM 150-400f/4.5 and you don't have a money advantage and your weigh advantage is significantly less but the OM lens is significantly superior. I would not consider either the Nikon nor Sony rig and would choose an OM rig based on how much I value less weight in the rig versus less weight in the wallet.
p.2 #15 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
birderbill1 wrote:
Wildlife pros Petr Bambousek, Luke Hoy and Espen Helland seem to do ok with their OM kits.
That's nice, they can use what they prefer. Did you read my YMMV comment?
The a1's 50MP is an extremely popular choice among numerous well-known professional wildlife photographers including Brian Small, Arthur Morris, Marie Read, Melissa Groo, and in my local area the vast majority of wildlife photographers are using the a1 with a smattering of Nikon Z9 and Canon R5. None of the local wildlife photographers I know of and none of the various wildlife photographers I meet in the field uses an m43 system. I suspect Petr Bambousek, Luke Hoy and Espen Helland are the outliers at one end of the distribution curve.
We all make compromises when we choose our equipment: weight, cost, legacy lenses and other factors can be considered. One of the compromises is marketability of the images. The OM system is fine for many situations, not so for some others. It may be that the photographers you've mentioned either don't encounter those situations where the OM system is less suitable, or they're willing to sacrifice some degree of marketability for the convenience of the smaller system.
p.2 #16 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Some of my best stills of songbirds ever were taken with the Olympus 300mm and sometimes the 1.4x attached. If you are looking for compact the Oly 300 f4 is hard to beat
p.2 #17 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
telyt wrote:
That's nice, they can use what they prefer. Did you read my YMMV comment?
The a1's 50MP is an extremely popular choice among numerous well-known professional wildlife photographers including Brian Small, Arthur Morris, Marie Read, Melissa Groo, and in my local area the vast majority of wildlife photographers are using the a1 with a smattering of Nikon Z9 and Canon R5. None of the local wildlife photographers I know of and none of the various wildlife photographers I meet in the field uses an m43 system. I suspect Petr Bambousek, Luke Hoy and Espen Helland are the outliers at one end of the distribution curve.
We all make compromises when we choose our equipment: weight, cost, legacy lenses and other factors can be considered. One of the compromises is marketability of the images. The OM system is fine for many situations, not so for some others. It may be that the photographers you've mentioned either don't encounter those situations where the OM system is less suitable, or they're willing to sacrifice some degree of marketability for the convenience of the smaller system. ...Show more →
Well then we agree that there many applications the OM's 20 MP has been and will be sufficient for wildlife photography. Just as the A9III's 24 MP is.
p.2 #18 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Steve Perry (backcountrygallery.com) has a youtube video where he discusses the new 24MP Sony a9 III including its limitations compared with the a1's 50MP
&t=912s
Most of us are skilled enough to make excellent photos with whatever equipment is at hand, but some equipment will be more suitable in a wider variety of situations than others. As always, YMMV. We all choose our own compromises.
p.2 #19 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
Here's another discussion of m43 and full-frame cameras including the advantages & disadvantages of each, and the compromises involved in choosing one system over another.
p.2 #20 · Sony A1 & 200-600mm against OM-1 II M.Zuiko & 300mm
birderbill1 wrote:
I have the both the A-1 & 200-600 and OM-1 & 150-400 combos. Just added the OM-1 II but haven't had an opportunity to try it out yet.
Fully kitted out with Lenscoats and straps, the OM combo is a pound lighter and much better balanced. And the OM IS is much better. That said I really do miss using the back wheel ISO control with zebras and working with the A1 files. DXO PureRaw definitely helps the OM files.
Of course the 300/2.8 with 2x is piquing my interest as would an A1 with imagined AF improvements.
With a limit of 15fps and no teleconverters the Sigma 500 is a no go....Show more →
Re "I really do miss using the back wheel ISO control with zebras", I use both on my OM-1 II. The back wheel can be programmed to change the ISO. The front wheel can be used for exposure compensation. Maybe we are talking about different things?
