I shoot both OM1 and A7RV. The OM is much more fun to use. It’s faster, smaller, and better designed. The only real advantage of the Sony is the high resolution. For some, the possibility of razor thin depth of field is important, but for m43 users we like the greater depth of field available at wider apertures. Faster lenses are available for m43 if needed. The greater depth of field allows us to largely compensate for the more noisy images at higher ISOs since we can shoot at two stops faster to obtain the same depth of field as with the Sony. IBIS with the OM is also superior at the 20MP resolution than the Sony is at 61Mp, but perhaps this is to be expected. I don’t use the graduated filter, as I generally find the dynamic range sufficient and post processing allows me to do it better. The built in ND filters are great, however. I enjoy using the Sony, but I use that when I want to use something different to make for variety.
If you truly shoot at ISO6400 a lot and wide open at f2.8 or wider for fast moving subjects then there is, of course, less noise with FF, but I no longer do this. In my case I shoot at 800 at f1.2-f2.0 and rely on IBIS. Of course noise reduction works the same way as it does for FF for slower lenses when the light levels are very low. Check out the excellent wildlife images in the m43 forum: most are shot at very high ISOs. People get way too exercised about high resolution and thin depth of field in my opinion, after all there a plenty of FF cameras with 20-25 MP available. You need to be truthful in whether your purported need for high resolution is real.
Aug 03, 2025 at 06:02 PM
Previous versions of Robin Smith's message #16863875 « Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II? »
