p.1 #1 · I'm a photographic mu43 Rip Van Winkle,how different are moderns mu43 cams?
The OG E-M5 brought my into the mu43 world. I've since had quite a few bodies from the E-PM1, E-P5, G6/7. I still have my E-M1 Mk1 collecting dust not having used it in 3-4 years and a E-M10 Mk II that I take out on occasion when I need a fashion accessory. My E-M1 MK2 was the camera that finally broke my cycle of needing the new next best thing. It pretty much does everything I need and I've been quite happy with it. So much I stopped looking at the new release cycles and stopped following new camera gear. I just sort of *gasp* used the camera I was happy with without constantly shopping for the next thing. I didn't even know "OM" was a thing until last week. So many camera models I don't recognize at all I have no idea what's what.
Surely camera technology has advanced quite a bit the last 10 years since the EM1 II came out. If I were to handle some of the newest flagship mu43 bodies what are the things and features I would most instantly notice as different either positive or negative. Whether it be handling, performance, function, etc. Can I just plug a camera into a USB-C port to charge it yet?
p.1 #2 · I'm a photographic mu43 Rip Van Winkle,how different are moderns mu43 cams?
There's a lot that's changed. First of all, yes, you can charge by USB-C.
Everything has gotten better, but for me the most important step was with the OM-1 which finally delivered continuous AF on par with the best FF cameras. That's when I started using my MFT kit for bird photography and ditched my big white Canon lenses.
I'm sure others can point out what mattered most to them with the newer cameras.
p.1 #3 · I'm a photographic mu43 Rip Van Winkle,how different are moderns mu43 cams?
USB-C charging is on all the new M43 higher end models (I don't think the EM10 IV has it yet). Yes the AF is MUCH closer to the recent FF cameras. I would say the OM-1ii is similar in performance to the Nikon Zf/Z5II, Sony A7III/A7RIII.
I went from Nikon FF (Z8 and Z6III) to a OM-1ii and GH7. AF is much closer overall and like all AF systems better in some areas and a little less in others, I can use both the OM1.2 and GH7 professionally without missing a beat. IBIS is night and day better than any FF other than Lumix L-Mounts. I have no problem hand holding a half second exposure.
On the OM-1.2, Live ND, Hand Held High Res, HDR and Live GND are all computational features that are integrated very well. This means in a casual setting, I can get a better shot than my old FF's because I don't need a tripod, ND filters and post processing exposure blending.
GH7 (Identical to G9II for photography) - Great color science, much better than any m43 camera I have ever used previously and I like it better than Nikon and Sony (no experience with recent Canon's). Finally has phase detect AF and I recently just shot a talking head training video and not once in almost 15 minutes of footage did it pulse or lose the eye/face. The Panny's have way more flexibility with button customization than the OM's, so I do like how I can set up more common features to toggle on and off, like Leica Mono B&W color profile, e-stab settings, IBIS boost, etc.
p.1 #4 · I'm a photographic mu43 Rip Van Winkle,how different are moderns mu43 cams?
The only thing I would disagree on is your statement; " I would say the OM-1 ll is similar in performance to the Nikon ZF/Z5ll. "
I shot a Z9 for over three years and I would say that the OM-1 is closer to the Z9/Z8 than the ZF or Z5ll. I have no experience with Sony. That's the biggest reason I went all in on OM Systems. I found I was giving up very little in regards to AF ability. No comparison with the sensors obviously but I've found there are actually situations where the OM-1 performs better than the Z9 in some AF scenarios.
Gary
p.1 #5 · I'm a photographic mu43 Rip Van Winkle,how different are moderns mu43 cams?
sum1sgrampa wrote:
The only thing I would disagree on is your statement; " I would say the OM-1 ll is similar in performance to the Nikon ZF/Z5ll. "
I shot a Z9 for over three years and I would say that the OM-1 is closer to the Z9/Z8 than the ZF or Z5ll. I have no experience with Sony. That's the biggest reason I went all in on OM Systems. I found I was giving up very little in regards to AF ability. No comparison with the sensors obviously but I've found there are actually situations where the OM-1 performs better than the Z9 in some AF scenarios.
Gary...Show more →
I'm sure we are using the AF systems in different ways and on different subjects which is why we have different experiences.
I also have used the Z9 and Z8 extensively, professionally (Motorsports/Portraits) and personally (Portraits, Birds/Wildlife, Landscape). I have also used the Z6/II/III and Zf (Zf and Z5II are equal) in those same settings. In most instances the OM1.2 and Z9 are equal, along with the Z6III and Zf. In good lighting and most conditions where you would expect good results, you get them from the OM and Z. The Z6 and Z6II are pretty bad in all but single shot AFS.
I have a few rooms/windows in my house that can cause backlighting and I have consistently used the Sony's, Nikons, and OM/Lumix cameras in these situations. The biggest difference where I found the OM-1.2 to be not as good is in that backlit situation. The OM-1.2 will more often show a subject in focus but miss in subject tracking or regular tracking jump to the background, than the Z9/Z6III does. The Zf was similar to the OM in that backlighting can cause some AF misses. If I switch to AFS the OM-1.2's accuracy goes way up, but in AFC is where the gap between it and the Z9/Z6III is for me. I do notice some lens dependency to this, the PL 12 1.4 was very bad, OM 17 1.2 was decent, OM 20 1.4 was average, OM 12-40 2.8 below average and the OM 25 1.2 was surprisingly good. The Lumix GH7 is probably the best in that it almost never jumps to the background. Using the Nikon Z 26 2.8, 35 1.4, 40 2.0, 24-70 2.8 and Tamron 28-75 2.8, all were very consistent in performance on the Z9/6III.
The second area which is less important to me because I don't shoot in it as often is extremely low light. The OM-1.2 in AFS is great, but looses accuracy faster than the Nikon Z9 when the light falls to 1/60, F2, ISO 6400 and up. At my son's wedding in the dance floor, the Z6III hardly missed a shot at that light level in AFS, Eye Detect or 3D tracking. The OM-1.2 is great in AFS but gives up faster in AFC.
One area the OM is significantly better is when it's snowing. Nikon's lose the subject detection quickly with snow, rain or in some cases for me when drivers were spraying champagne on the podium. The OM doesn't seem to have that issue as bad.
Now your experience might be different than mine, and that's ok. In general I'm very happy switching to the OM-1.2 and my main criticisms are more with its limited button customization than it is with the overall performance. If I was to start shooting professionally again, I would happily shoot with the OM-1.2 as long as it's photography only. When I did motorsports, I had to also shoot some video and that's where a camera like the Z9 or Z6III would be better. Now I would just carry the OM-1.2 and GH7 instead of the Z9/Z6III or 2 Z6III's like I often did.
