I would love an optical option, but as I use the compact and lightweight PL 100-400 there is no TC available. So my only option is more pixels with my current lens, and my current main desire has to be 25 to 30 useable MP’s.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
New OM-1 (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Steve Babbs
- Start date
WildPhotographer
Well-known member
I have the same lens on my GH5. Tricky! The Olympus version frustratingly works with the teleconverters.
WildPhotographer
Well-known member
Bearing in mind I'm a recent convert, I would say that the OM system covers all the bases at very sensible prices. It is one of the attractions IMO. The 40-150 f/2.8 + TC covers a very broad range, ditto the new 100-400 (200-800mm equivalent). Both those lenses are in the £1000 bracket and very light. A colleague was moaning about the Nikon prices only this week. The 150-400 f/4.5 'beast' + 2x teleconverter covers the range 300-2000mm for under £7,000 and weighs less than 2Kg. Expensive, but not by comparison with the competition + no other brand can offer that range in a single lens (with converter).
I noticed that one of the Nikon lenses is an 800 f/6.3 - the beast actually gives you 800mm at f/5.6, for half the price
Last edited:
opticoholic
Well-known member
You throw out the phrase "under £7,000" as if that is an option; for most of us it is not. But I concede that maybe it is "sensible" considering what you get, and in comparison to comparable full frame lenses in other platforms.
The built-in teleconverter and the zoom design both drive up the complexity and cost of the 150-400, unnecessarily for me. I think OM System could if they wanted introduce a super telephoto prime lens longer than 300mm, without any built-in teleconverter, for way less than the price of the 150-400. I for one would like to see that someday.
The Oly or Panasonic 100-400 are good lenses I'm sure, but they offer little benefit to me over my current 300 f/4 Pro with the 1.4X TC. The zoom capability is nice, sure, but not a priority to me. So that leaves no other options without jumping up to the 150-400 "beast."
I don't need 2000mm equivalent focal length, but IMO claiming that the 150-400 can reach that is sort of a weak point. Using both the built-in 1.25X TC stacked together with a second 2X teleconverter resulting in a maximum aperture of what ~f/11 (?) -- sure it may be possible but strikes me as a bit of a non-starter (how many total glass elements is that ?).
OM System and Olympus before them seem to be a little biased toward zoom lenses in general, especially looking at available telephoto or super-telephoto options. I try to keep an open mind. Zoom capability is not a high priority for me personally but I still appreciate others might really want it and it does add benefit/value. And I know zoom lenses today can be designed with little or no compromise compared to a prime, but again, it comes with added cost & complexity.
Getting back on the subject of this thread, the new OM-1 looks like a significant upgrade over my current E-M1 II (and the E-M1 III). And the new GH6 also looks really impressive, but it is very different. It's so nice to see major improvements in micro-4/3 and I hope both new flagship models are successful. I thought this article lays out nicely how different the 2 new cameras are:
mirrorlesscomparison.com
Dave
The built-in teleconverter and the zoom design both drive up the complexity and cost of the 150-400, unnecessarily for me. I think OM System could if they wanted introduce a super telephoto prime lens longer than 300mm, without any built-in teleconverter, for way less than the price of the 150-400. I for one would like to see that someday.
The Oly or Panasonic 100-400 are good lenses I'm sure, but they offer little benefit to me over my current 300 f/4 Pro with the 1.4X TC. The zoom capability is nice, sure, but not a priority to me. So that leaves no other options without jumping up to the 150-400 "beast."
I don't need 2000mm equivalent focal length, but IMO claiming that the 150-400 can reach that is sort of a weak point. Using both the built-in 1.25X TC stacked together with a second 2X teleconverter resulting in a maximum aperture of what ~f/11 (?) -- sure it may be possible but strikes me as a bit of a non-starter (how many total glass elements is that ?).
OM System and Olympus before them seem to be a little biased toward zoom lenses in general, especially looking at available telephoto or super-telephoto options. I try to keep an open mind. Zoom capability is not a high priority for me personally but I still appreciate others might really want it and it does add benefit/value. And I know zoom lenses today can be designed with little or no compromise compared to a prime, but again, it comes with added cost & complexity.
Getting back on the subject of this thread, the new OM-1 looks like a significant upgrade over my current E-M1 II (and the E-M1 III). And the new GH6 also looks really impressive, but it is very different. It's so nice to see major improvements in micro-4/3 and I hope both new flagship models are successful. I thought this article lays out nicely how different the 2 new cameras are:
Panasonic GH6 vs OM System OM-1 - The 10 Main Differences - Mirrorless Comparison
Only a few years ago, micro four thirds seemed to be headed in a predictable and unexciting direction, so much so that many started to doubt it would survive for long. Surely, we’re far from the years when there was a new OM-D, Pen or Lumix camera every few months, ... Read more
mirrorlesscomparison.com
Dave
Last edited:
Well, there is the 2x tc which can be used on the 300 mm f4 to give an equivalent reach of 1200 mm; maximum aperture drops to f8. I just got the 2x and am starting to experiment with it. I think with the 300mm plus two teleconverters, I'm not sure what other prime lens would be attractive or needed in m4/3. Anything much longer is going to be either much slower or much heavier.
WildPhotographer
Well-known member
Dave, I make no judgement on people's ability to afford camera kit. As a professional of 30 years, times are not easy here. What I now can now charge per day is back to the level of 1995, thanks to large numbers of people with pensions who retire at 45 or 50 and describe themselves as 'Photographers' (and don't know how to charge properly). Regardless of my gripes, 'Under £7,000' is a comparative bargain, when Canon have just announced 2 new prime lenses at $17,000 and I think the second was $20,000? These prices will probably be duplicated in £You throw out the phrase "under £7,000" as if that is an option; for most of us it is not. But I concede that maybe it is "sensible" considering what you get, and in comparison to comparable full frame lenses in other platforms.
The built-in teleconverter and the zoom design both drive up the complexity and cost of the 150-400, unnecessarily for me. I think OM System could if they wanted introduce a super telephoto prime lens longer than 300mm, without any built-in teleconverter, for way less than the price of the 150-400. I for one would like to see that someday.
The Oly or Panasonic 100-400 are good lenses I'm sure, but they offer little benefit to me over my current 300 f/4 Pro with the 1.4X TC. The zoom capability is nice, sure, but not a priority to me. So that leaves no other options without jumping up to the 150-400 "beast."
I don't need 2000mm equivalent focal length, but IMO claiming that the 150-400 can reach that is sort of a weak point. Using both the built-in 1.25X TC stacked together with a second 2X teleconverter resulting in a maximum aperture of what ~f/11 (?) -- sure it may be possible but strikes me as a bit of a non-starter (how many total glass elements is that ?).
OM System and Olympus before them seem to be a little biased toward zoom lenses in general, especially looking at available telephoto or super-telephoto options. I try to keep an open mind. Zoom capability is not a high priority for me personally but I still appreciate others might really want it and it does add benefit/value. And I know zoom lenses today can be designed with little or no compromise compared to a prime, but again, it comes with added cost & complexity.
Getting back on the subject of this thread, the new OM-1 looks like a significant upgrade over my current E-M1 II (and the E-M1 III). And the new GH6 also looks really impressive, but it is very different. It's so nice to see major improvements in micro-4/3 and I hope both new flagship models are successful. I thought this article lays out nicely how different the 2 new cameras are:
Panasonic GH6 vs OM System OM-1 - The 10 Main Differences - Mirrorless Comparison
Only a few years ago, micro four thirds seemed to be headed in a predictable and unexciting direction, so much so that many started to doubt it would survive for long. Surely, we’re far from the years when there was a new OM-D, Pen or Lumix camera every few months, ... Read more
Dave
If you are happy with you kit, stick with it. The new body will enhance your results with the existing glass. Personally, I change glass every 10 years or so and cameras every 5 or 6 years. I'm very happy with my cameras, but the expected options on lenses have not materialised, so I am looking for a more flexible / affordable option
Apertures of F11 are not an issue with mirrorless cameras. My 'standard lens' on the Canon for the last year has been f11 in winter and summer and 4000 iso is relatively normal and 'clean' for publishing. We are in a very different world now and software is increasingly important to fine tune results.
Finally, yes the OM-1 looks superb, as does the GH6 - both are capable of being multi-role capture devices, but each optimised in a different direction and I celebrate that!
WildPhotographer, thanks for sharing your experiences. When I compare what you write to what my situation is, it is quite different. I am an amateur who have not received money for any of my images yet. For that reason, I am always hoping that there will be a camera body with half price of the flagship that functions about equally well for stills - I have not become hooked on video as of now. So for Panasonic (where my current investment is) will there be a G9-ii to reap the benefits of the new sensor without the video overhead? And for OM systems, what will they do regarding cameras of less than flagship status? or will I simply have to wait until I can score an OM1 at reduced price?
Apart from that, I have for a few years been in agreement with what you stated above: if your camera is half way good and your postprocessing software is somewhat up to speed, then F2.8 is not necessary. I am happy with the F6.3 at the long end of my panaleica 100-400 because the F-number does not slow down focusing and even in bad light I have been able to get photos that meet my needs. Canon has just started on that revolution in the R style lenses, coming a few years after the lesser known brands such as pana and OM.
Niels
Apart from that, I have for a few years been in agreement with what you stated above: if your camera is half way good and your postprocessing software is somewhat up to speed, then F2.8 is not necessary. I am happy with the F6.3 at the long end of my panaleica 100-400 because the F-number does not slow down focusing and even in bad light I have been able to get photos that meet my needs. Canon has just started on that revolution in the R style lenses, coming a few years after the lesser known brands such as pana and OM.
Niels
C B Allen
Chris Allen
Given that Olympus/OM systems have clearly been aiming for the adventure/wildlife market I'd also be hoping they could be looking at building more long tele lenses.
For me, the half-way house to the current 150-400 zoom would be a 400mm f4.5 with in-built 1.25x TC - like the top-end of the zoom and still able to take the teleconverters. Given that most bird toggers end up mostly using the max end of the zoom range anyway, if this came in at around £3k and image quality matched the current zoom it would be a mighty tempting buy.
In the mean time I can dream about winning the lottery (which I don't play!) & being able to afford the 150-400 while continue to enjoy the excellent 300mm PRO and both the 1.4x & 2x TC's (both of which I find flawless even when using the 300mm wide open).
Chris
WildPhotographer
Well-known member
I wish I could read crystal balls, it would have saved me a fortune
It is very encouraging that Panasonic have clearly invested so much in M43 and the new GH6. I am quite sure that we will see a new G9 II or similar, but after 2 launches in 6 months, my bet would be on next year? Perhaps September this year?
I am also sure that Olympus will continue to build the OM-System of cameras, as they clearly intend to be competitive. Again the question is 'when?'
One thing that is important to point out - Panasonic and Olympus formerly shared a sensor, now Olympus are using a stacked 20Mp Sony sensor, Panasonic are using a 25Mp sensor of unknown origin. How the latter works with stills remains to be seen.
opticoholic
Well-known member
Yes, I had a similar thought. For us "cheapskates," they might re-use the R&D that went into the 150-400mm and basically put out a fixed focal length long lens with much of the same optical design. For me personally, I'd prefer to forego the convenience of the built-in TC and just see a plain jane 400 f4.5 or 500 f5.6 (these would of course still be quite expensive, but maybe not quite so high in the stratosphere as the 150-400).
But as you say, the 300mm Pro is excellent so it's not like I'm not suffering without adequate gear. The 300mm + 1.4X already gets me to 420 f5.6, so the above possible new primes wouldn't be that much better/more effective... I should probably try the 2X TC on my 300mm someday. I assumed I would see a much more noticeable hit to image quality using a 2X TC compared to 1.4X, but maybe I'm wrong on that. I'll look into it. Maybe I'll rent one first. It's only $30 for 7 days.
I've always said the biggest thing limiting me from getting more great pictures is not my gear but simply getting out more often, practicing/learning to use the gear I have, and being present for opportunities. You can't get good photos unless you're out there.
Dave
Last edited:
rka
ttbirds
I’m hoping for a G9 Mark ii later this year.
The cheapest lens to pair with the OM1 supporting Sync IS is the Oly 300mm f/4 and add the 1.4TC to that results in a lens cost of around US$3,200 or more.
The PL100-400mm which supports Dual IS is plenty cheaper at US$1,750.
Based on lens cost alone for Dual IS/Sync IS, that eliminates the OM1 for me.
Aside - Recent reports on the OM1 AF are very good indeed so if someone already has an Olympus setup then AF alone may be reason to upgrade. It seems the improved dynamic range and ISO performance was significantly over-hyped and the improvements are minor.
For OM shooters, there is also their own 100-400: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...315070bu000_m_zuiko_digital_ed_100_400mm.html
This one might not give 8 stops of IS - but I think it does give sufficient because birds do tend to move so you also do need high shutter speed regardless.
Niels
WildPhotographer
Well-known member
With respect "minor improvement in ISO for jpegs only." suggests the poster does not understand cameras - if a jpeg is improved, so will the RAW file. Anyone can download RAW test files from DP review and see the image quality for themselves. There is a very significant improvement in both noise and file detail when compared to the E-M1X. You will need the latest version of Adobe Camera RAW or equivalent.
Colleagues of mine who have the OM-1 tell me the AF improvement is very significant. However, while I am a huge fan of Olympus kit, the likelihood of the OM-1 exceeding Sony's flagship A1 is very, very unlikely; they are a totally different class of camera and to me, only confirms the poster's inexperience or wish to draw attention to themselves? (I used to man a support forum for camera products and there is always someone who will make an outrageous statement to boost their likes or views....)
WildPhotographer
Well-known member
Niels, the 100-400 from Olympus is a great lens and very sharp, I was using one before Christmas. I'm 99% sure it gives the full 8 stops.
The Oly lens doesn’t support Sync IS, I think lens and body IS can work simultaneously, but not in unison as in Sync/Dual IS, so I suspect less than 8 stops, and was another reason I stuck with the PL when the Oly 100-400 came out - love the idea of a TC, but no Sync IS was a weird move, and something I’d want to use with a TC. I believe I read reports at the time that body and lens IS worked against eachother on occasion.
rka
ttbirds
Fair point.
Just fyi, here are the threads.
AF comparison with A1 - Olympus OM-1 vs Sony Alpha 1: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Initial image comparisons - OM-1 Lab samples from Imaging Resource: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
The threaded responses and followup answers are more useful than the initial posts.
rka
ttbirds
I looked at most of the reviews for the Oly 100-400mm lens. The stabilisation performance is somewhere between Lens IS and Sync IS. Good enough for sharp handheld photos but will be very challenging for handheld videos. So for hybrid handheld shooters like myself (photos and short somewhat stable videos @ 400mm with crop options that can extend the effective focal length beyond 2000mm - 1080p crop mode + enable TCON on G9), proper Dual/Sync IS is a necessity (otherwise will need a tripod).
rka
ttbirds
DP Review just published their Studio tests with the OM1. Worth a read.
www.dpreview.com
OM System OM-1 studio tests published
Some ambitious claims have been made about the OM System OM-1's image quality. We've shot our studio scene and dynamic range tests to see how it performs.
www.dpreview.com
opticoholic
Well-known member
First impressions of the OM-1 from OM ambassador Roger Hance:
