Jeepit
Forum Enthusiast
That is a great comment, everyone has their own definition of what IQ means to them.
Nope RAW...
I appreciate your take on the OM1...especially your final sentence.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Do you believe that the OM1 sensor is really worth what OMDS is asking for the price of the camera
- Thread starter Jeepit
- Start date
Rupert the bear
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 315
- Reaction score
- 1,021
Good explanations. I don't have any 4/3 lenses, maybe I should get some? I'm not sure how well they would fit ergonomically with the OM1. The 300f4 is great on the OM1, but if I'm honest I prefer the 150-400 on the X for handling. But, the OM1 has incredible AF and low light perfomance (not better IQ but faster focus in low light, it keeps going in low light long after the X would be unable to get a focus). For me, the recoverability of raw files with modern software at high iso makes the OM1 an absolute must if you are into wildlife. That plus the AF in low light puts you into FF realms of performance. And because the lenses are light and manoevrable, you don't need a tripod, you can get into composition positions out of reach for lots of other systems.Well since you asked...I also purchased the X for its ability to handle the superb 4/3 lenses. As in the little and big tuna, 70-200SWD and so on.
Good point but...I have much invested in m4/3 & 4/3 glass. If $ is no object I would run right out and purchase the R5...no wait it would be the Fuji GFX 100S. If your going to go for maximum IQ do it right and go for MF in a smaller size.
That's why I have the m4/3 300f4.But for me the priority is that I don't want to wander round the mountains with a wheelbarrow and a 600mm prime
Have I answered your question?
Thank you for your input it has value.
It might be an unpopular opinion, but I really want an OM1X.
finnan haddie
Leading Member
- Messages
- 666
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 680
The vertical grip HLD-10 for the OM1 is better than that for the EM1 (HLD-9). Though not as ergonomically good as the EM1X.
BTW: I never owned a 4/3 cam. But soon after I got the EM1.1 I bought several 4/3 SHG lenses new (7-14/4, 14-35/2, 35-100/2, 150/2, 300/2.8).
Maybe unpopular with some rather vocal posters here.
I'll buy an OM1X in a heartbeat.
Regor250
Veteran Member
I would think if $2200USD worth of better IQ is your prime intent, then move to FF. If I may ask, what do you do with your images that would require that much of an IQ improvement?
For me coming from the EM1III and G9 to the OM1 it was a resounding yes, absolutely worth it.
As I have become increasingly focused on bird and wildlife photography (I chose MFT for the compact size of overall kit and had never really been so into birds and wildlife previously due to lens size and weight and cost in other systems) I found myself getting frustrated with the missed shot.
Can the EM1III (and from what I gather the EM1X is only a little better with CAF and faster action) and G9 do birds and wildlife, yes, of course, I did get many great shots with both cameras and an assortment of different lenses. Yet so often I would have everything in camera set up, ready, track the birds coming in, press the shutter for a burst as they passed and while some, even most would hit, very often THE moment, would be OOF. Or missed opportunities as birds and animals would break from cover and be gone in a brief moment. The camera not able to achieve focus in time even if I had the subject lined up in the frame in time.
The OM1 is very quick to acquire focus, and while it still can miss a frame here and there, it is much quicker to reacquire focus when lost, does not get confused by busy backgrounds like previous models and will track from one edge of the frame to the other while shooting more frames per second if desired. The OM1 is also more accurate and confident with CAF and HHHR modes than in the EM1III and most likely the EM1X as well.
So while the overall IQ is pretty much identical at lower ISO's (I find anything above 1600 ISO though is easier to achieve better results with the OM1) the number of missed shots is far more infrequent.
This is the beauty of the OM1 and why it is worth it to me as I am more of an opportunist and want to take images as I wander. I am confident in the camera to be able to get the shot and many more than ever before. It inspires me to go out more often, and I don't come home excited only to then be disappointed as I realise the shots I thought I nailed were missed because the previous bodies couldn't quite keep up.
Image quality means nothing if you do't get the shot in the first place.
As I have become increasingly focused on bird and wildlife photography (I chose MFT for the compact size of overall kit and had never really been so into birds and wildlife previously due to lens size and weight and cost in other systems) I found myself getting frustrated with the missed shot.
Can the EM1III (and from what I gather the EM1X is only a little better with CAF and faster action) and G9 do birds and wildlife, yes, of course, I did get many great shots with both cameras and an assortment of different lenses. Yet so often I would have everything in camera set up, ready, track the birds coming in, press the shutter for a burst as they passed and while some, even most would hit, very often THE moment, would be OOF. Or missed opportunities as birds and animals would break from cover and be gone in a brief moment. The camera not able to achieve focus in time even if I had the subject lined up in the frame in time.
The OM1 is very quick to acquire focus, and while it still can miss a frame here and there, it is much quicker to reacquire focus when lost, does not get confused by busy backgrounds like previous models and will track from one edge of the frame to the other while shooting more frames per second if desired. The OM1 is also more accurate and confident with CAF and HHHR modes than in the EM1III and most likely the EM1X as well.
So while the overall IQ is pretty much identical at lower ISO's (I find anything above 1600 ISO though is easier to achieve better results with the OM1) the number of missed shots is far more infrequent.
This is the beauty of the OM1 and why it is worth it to me as I am more of an opportunist and want to take images as I wander. I am confident in the camera to be able to get the shot and many more than ever before. It inspires me to go out more often, and I don't come home excited only to then be disappointed as I realise the shots I thought I nailed were missed because the previous bodies couldn't quite keep up.
Image quality means nothing if you do't get the shot in the first place.
Jeepit
Forum Enthusiast
Your not the only one…if it comes fruition I’m going to have to figure out a way to pay for it.Good explanations. I don't have any 4/3 lenses, maybe I should get some? I'm not sure how well they would fit ergonomically with the OM1. The 300f4 is great on the OM1, but if I'm honest I prefer the 150-400 on the X for handling. But, the OM1 has incredible AF and low light perfomance (not better IQ but faster focus in low light, it keeps going in low light long after the X would be unable to get a focus). For me, the recoverability of raw files with modern software at high iso makes the OM1 an absolute must if you are into wildlife. That plus the AF in low light puts you into FF realms of performance. And because the lenses are light and manoevrable, you don't need a tripod, you can get into composition positions out of reach for lots of other systems.Well since you asked...I also purchased the X for its ability to handle the superb 4/3 lenses. As in the little and big tuna, 70-200SWD and so on.
Good point but...I have much invested in m4/3 & 4/3 glass. If $ is no object I would run right out and purchase the R5...no wait it would be the Fuji GFX 100S. If your going to go for maximum IQ do it right and go for MF in a smaller size.
That's why I have the m4/3 300f4.But for me the priority is that I don't want to wander round the mountains with a wheelbarrow and a 600mm prime
Have I answered your question?
Thank you for your input it has value.
It might be an unpopular opinion, but I really want an OM1X.
Thanks for the additional info…extremely helpful.
erichK
Veteran Member
There's and interesting test of the OM-1 sensor in one of the most demanding uses of such a sensor at
I gues that says it all…
Thanks for posting.
The fact that the OM-1 deals with 80 million photosites instead of 20 like the previous M4/3 sensors is pretty amazing.
Shout out to the BSI design and tweaks for making that possible without raising noise that much.
--
I just like trying all sorts of cameras
, but my soft spot is Micro Four Thirds.
lokatz
Veteran Member
No, stating the obvious: if IQ is most important and other factors don't matter much to you, you should be able to make a decision right away. Which would save you $2,200.
The OM-1 is a GREAT body, but I am puzzled by you apparently looking for more IQ gains than it has to offer. As I and others have stated, its merits mostly lie elsewhere. IQ-wise, it is only half a notch better than the already very good one of the M-1X or EM-1iii.
All of the above has already been stated in this thread, so, in your opinion, what made my statement sound sarcastic to you?
Last edited:
Girish vaze
Well-known member
I echo your thoughts. image quality only comes into play if you get the shot in the first place. OM-1 helps you get the shot. Its significantly more responsive in AF. the bird AI is magic. at least to me, the Noise profile is much better. I had the em1x. I sold that to get the om-1. there are many many shots I got with the om-1 which I wouldn't have gotten with the em1x. in terms of noise, I used the em1x only till iso 2500-3200, going to 6400 in rare or special situations. with the om1 I am quite comfortable till ISO 8000-10000 and have many good shots at ISO 20000.
if you are in wildlife photography and specifically bird photography, its a no-brainer. go for it.
if you are in wildlife photography and specifically bird photography, its a no-brainer. go for it.
I own both the EM1.M3 & OM-1 and use them side-by-side.
Primary I am a sports photographer, mostly ice hockey but also shoot other sports. Recently I have been shooting high school night-time outdoor American football games.
The OM-1 just absolutely crushes the EM1.m3 on ISO performance (in post-processing as I shoot RAW with jpg only as backup file). Other benefits, slightly faster AF and writing to SD cards after a long continuous burst. I have noticed a lower 'throw away' rate with the OM-1.
Please visit the Sports forum for images as I have posted there the comparison results.
- I was a long time Canon photographer with some time in Fuji and early Sony days before converting to Olympus/OMS.
As a sports photographer, Olympus/OMS AF is right up there with the best of Canon.
"Personally I haven't been able to see any significant improvement in noise, but others have reported some."
- Photograph a low-light action event and you will see a noticeable improvement.
Photographing static subjects, not so much (minimal).
In terms of cropping - it is a 20mb sensor vs 20 mb sensor so that is a wash.
In terms of ISO performance, the OM-1 provides significant noticeable better image quality due to ISO noise when compared to my EM1.m3 during low-light sporting events.
If I am shooting portraits (static subjects) in good light, I don't see as much change/benefits.
As others have said, it depends on what you are looking for.
In a nutshell:
So, yes, it is worth it and no, it is not
- If you are looking for world-class AF for moving objects, the OM-1 is the only M43 body that can perform in that league. So, to answer your question, if that's what you need, then yes, it is worth it.
- If you are looking for large-sensor high ISO/low noise performance, than no, it is not worth it. You would be better served by using a FF if lower light environments are where you shoot frequently.
The OM-1 sensor does do better than prior M43 sensors in the high ISO department, but it's not going to give you the equivalent low light performance of a current generation FF sensored body.
I didn't buy one as I already run both M43 and FF, and only very rarely do subject tracking, and I am not a big fan of the Oly UI (although it is supposed to have been improved for the OM-1). So, for me, it would not have been worth it. On the other hand, if I did BIF, I would have seriously considered it.
Horses for courses, you know?
-J
Regarding #2, the new OM-1 does quite well at high ISO in RAW. I am able to clean it up.
Albert Valentino
Forum Pro
this is a good point when put in context. The OM1 has a better processor so it can do a bit more to clean things up. However, these differences would be accentuated only in the more challenging conditions of using high ISO. Since I shoot almost exclusively at ISO 200, my shots are clean and have the most DR potential the sensor can offer. As a matter of fact I use DxO PL4 which has Deep Prime noise reduction but have never needed to use anything other than the standard noise reduction for sharp, clean results. So for those that shoot at very high ISO the newer sensor/processor might offer an edge in challenging light conditions, (but resolution and DR seem the same). The flip side is DxO PL 6 has been just released with even better noise reduction, that alone might be enough to compensate - but for my shooting it offers no tangible improvement as my results are already excellent.
When upgrading it helps to identify the limitation of ones current gear with regard to what you shoot, and see if a new camera or lens will compensate. As a low ISO, still subject shooter, with great glass, I am all set until my gear dies
--
Truth never fears scrutiny.
Last edited:
Can't speak about sports, but this reviewer on BIF (Bird In Fight) tests does have the OM-1 up there with the best of Sony and Canon. So yes, the OM-1's AF is a huge leap forward and your intuition is right.- I was a long time Canon photographer with some time in Fuji and early Sony days before converting to Olympus/OMS.
As a sports photographer, Olympus/OMS AF is right up there with the best of Canon.
The Best Mirrorless Cameras for Birds in Flight Ranked - Mirrorless Comparison
A few years ago, our reader Alfredo suggested an idea for an article. Since we test the autofocus performance of many cameras at the same red kite feeding stations, why not publish a list of all the cameras we use with their keeper rate for birds in flight? I liked ... Read more
mirrorlesscomparison.com
--
I just like trying all sorts of cameras
, but my soft spot is Micro Four Thirds.Jeepit
Forum Enthusiast
Yeah, this has been commented on.
I’ll check them out…
Thank you for your input.
Rick
joeletx
Veteran Member
For a new sensor that markedly improved in the IQ department. This is m43 sensor and we all know that it has very much hits the ceiling of what you can do on IQ.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum