Panasonic 10-25 f/1.7 on OM-1?

Wanted to add ... "aperture does not work" means that the camera ignores the aperture ring entirely. So the aperture ring could be set to any value, and the camera will ignore that and use in-body settings as with any other lens.

cc99 said:

faunagraphy said:

Cons:

• The lens is shortest at 13mm, not 10mm. Annoying.

Click to expand...

By shortest, do you mean minimum focusing distance?

Click to expand...

No, I mean physically shortest. The lens is slightly extended (a couple of millimetres) at 10 mm, gets shorter as it's zoomed out to 13mm, then starts extending again, and fully extends by about an inch at 25mm.

So this will be a bit annoying if you're packing your bag tightly.

If I'm not mistaken, the MFD remains constant throughout the zoom range (unsure though).

faunagraphy said:

cc99 said:

faunagraphy said:

Cons:

• The lens is shortest at 13mm, not 10mm. Annoying.

Click to expand...

By shortest, do you mean minimum focusing distance?

Click to expand...

No, I mean physically shortest. The lens is slightly extended (a couple of millimetres) at 10 mm, gets shorter as it's zoomed out to 13mm, then starts extending again, and fully extends by about an inch at 25mm.

So this will be a bit annoying if you're packing your bag tightly.

If I'm not mistaken, the MFD remains constant throughout the zoom range (unsure though).

Click to expand...

Apologies for replying to you while using Christophers name . The focal length of the 10-25mm really does tempt as it covers an awful lot of what I shoot. Though I don't have much use for F/1.7 and perhaps the 8-25mm F/4 would be more useful for me. Though temptation is a terrible thing

James Stirling said:

faunagraphy said:

cc99 said:

faunagraphy said:

Cons:

• The lens is shortest at 13mm, not 10mm. Annoying.

Click to expand...

By shortest, do you mean minimum focusing distance?

Click to expand...

No, I mean physically shortest. The lens is slightly extended (a couple of millimetres) at 10 mm, gets shorter as it's zoomed out to 13mm, then starts extending again, and fully extends by about an inch at 25mm.

So this will be a bit annoying if you're packing your bag tightly.

If I'm not mistaken, the MFD remains constant throughout the zoom range (unsure though).

Click to expand...

Apologies for replying to you while using Christophers name . The focal length of the 10-25mm really does tempt as it covers an awful lot of what I shoot. Though I don't have much use for F/1.7 and perhaps the 8-25mm F/4 would be more useful for me. Though temptation is a terrible thing

Click to expand...

No worries! There's very little to fault the 8-18mm (smaller and 100gm lighter than the 8-25mm) if one does not need 25mm.

Christopher Leach Photography said:

NZ Scott said:

Christopher Leach Photography said:

Hi all, has anybody used the Panasonic 10-25 f/1.7 on the OM-1? If so:

• Does the aperture ring work?
• Is this combo weathersealed?
• What is the summary of your experience with this combo?

With this I could effectively combine the 7-14 pro and 12-40 pro that I currently use, 1.5 stops faster for low light and in covers the focal range I typically use the other two lenses at.

Click to expand...

To me, super-fast lenses don’t make a lot of sense on m43 because they are heavier and more expensive than their full frame equivalents.

For example the full-frame Sony 20-70 f/4 is significantly cheaper and lighter than the Panasonic 10-25 f/1.7, with more reach at the long end.

Panny: 690g, $1500

Sony: 488g, $1100

Of course, the fly in the ointment is the cost of a full frame body - but if you’re going to buy more than a couple of super fast lenses for m43 then it probably makes sense to change systems.

cheers,

Scott

Click to expand...

Suitable investment in other glass and the bodies means I will not be leaving MFT for FF.

The speed of the E-M1 line and now the OM-1 are too important to give up for a larger sensor. Crop factor works in my favour and lens performance and weight most of the time is a benefit too. Weather sealing is paramount and Oly were the winners here without going for an aging Pentax system.

The Panny is an interesting option for me as it combines two lenses I currently own and use, into one package. I rarely if ever use the wide end of the 7-14pro and the Tele end of the 12-40pro. 1 heavier lens *could* be better than 2 lighter lenses that are over a stop darker... That's the reason for my questioning.

I appreciate that FF works for some but not for me. I also have kit across the MFT system that I wouldn't want to have to reinvest in to make an arbitrary switch to FF.

Click to expand...

I do have Sony gear as well as an OM1 and have been interested in the 20-70/4. This is one of those cases where the MFT lens has a bigger aperture, better IQ and less design compromises. For example the PL zoom is parfocal. As a result, it is heavier and more expensive. Sony European pricing means it isn’t that much more expensive, but the Sony is definitely over priced.

For me, the 10-25mm and 25-50mm are distinctive positives for MFT, although not what I need. The Tamron 17-50/4 is looking good so far.

You don’t buy a fast zoom to shoot landscape, so the base DR and resolution benefits of my FF body are not relevant. For what they are, these PL zooms are well priced and a reasonable weight. Compare them to the 24-70/2.8 GM ii for example.

I happen to have a 40-150/2.8 and a 100-400 GM. At 150mm/300mm they have similar physical apertures and the IQ is indistinguishable until you zoom in so much that sensor resolution matters. If you only need 150mm or can accept rubbish edges (with the MC14), the 40-150mm Pro is smaller, lighter and cheaper, especially discounted to discounted in my case.

Andrew

faunagraphy said:

Wanted to add ... "aperture does not work" means that the camera ignores the aperture ring entirely. So the aperture ring could be set to any value, and the camera will ignore that and use in-body settings as with any other lens.

Click to expand...

Some reviewers noticed that, because the aperture ring is click-less, it is easy to bump accidentally when focusing, so I would actually prefer it on an Olympus body.

My 12-40/2.8 is shortest at 17mm, but I don't pack my bag tightly enough to care.

cc99 said:

faunagraphy said:

Wanted to add ... "aperture does not work" means that the camera ignores the aperture ring entirely. So the aperture ring could be set to any value, and the camera will ignore that and use in-body settings as with any other lens.

Click to expand...

Some reviewers noticed that, because the aperture ring is click-less, it is easy to bump accidentally when focusing, so I would actually prefer it on an Olympus body.

Click to expand...

I think that is because the lens is very much aimed at the video guys who prefer it

cc99 said:

My 12-40/2.8 is shortest at 17mm, but I don't pack my bag tightly enough to care.

Click to expand...

--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

James Stirling said:

TTphotos said:

James Stirling said:

TTphotos said:

NZ Scott said:

Christopher Leach Photography said:

Hi all, has anybody used the Panasonic 10-25 f/1.7 on the OM-1? If so:

• Does the aperture ring work?
• Is this combo weathersealed?
• What is the summary of your experience with this combo?

With this I could effectively combine the 7-14 pro and 12-40 pro that I currently use, 1.5 stops faster for low light and in covers the focal range I typically use the other two lenses at.

Click to expand...

To me, super-fast lenses don’t make a lot of sense on m43 because they are heavier and more expensive than their full frame equivalents.

For example the full-frame Sony 20-70 f/4 is significantly cheaper and lighter than the Panasonic 10-25 f/1.7, with more reach at the long end.

Panny: 690g, $1500

Sony: 488g, $1100

Of course, the fly in the ointment is the cost of a full frame body - but if you’re going to buy more than a couple of super fast lenses for m43 then it probably makes sense to change systems.

cheers,

Scott

Click to expand...

2 stops "equivalence" is a good theory but not always true in reality. The best Sony FF bodies have about 1.5 stops better DR than the G9. The f/4 lens is 2.5 stops slower so you'd get 1 stop worse at the same light level and exposure time.

Click to expand...

No one was talking about "DR" when it comes to noise in low light the 2 stop difference is easily proven by comparing controlled raw samples from our hosts. Despite reality denying claims from some.

3200 ISO OM-1 low light vs Z6II 12800 ISO low light no additional processing other than what the cameras bake in



Photonstophotos is not measuring DR in a sense that most people think of when the term is related to photography. Take a look at some of the discussions over on the PST forum . Where there a number of very well informed posters

Photographic Science and Technology Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Nice to see you still posting These days you can make great imagery with any camera on the market none of them are perfect just pick what you enjoy using most , as I think this is the most important factor. The latest NR software while obviously not closing the gap as it can be used on every format raises the bar to a level for many where it is plenty good enough. Do I care that 12800 ISO on FF with NR will be as good as m43 at 3200 ISO no because what I shoot I will never need 12800 ISO

Click to expand...

No additional processing is the same as additional processing - it's just a function of raw conversion and image processing software. Incredibly naive in this old age of digital imaging to bring out "no additional processing" as gospel

Click to expand...

The difference is unlike your "great results at 25600 ISO " the Dpreview raw files are freely available to everyone . If you shoot at very high ISO in decent light to obtain high shutter speeds you can get much better results than shooting in very poor light



This is the OM-1 low light 25600 ISO raw with NO ADDITIONAL PROCESSING from me other than what the camera bakes in . I would love to see how you make this result great



You can get the raw file here

OM System OM-1 review: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

James Stirling said:

It doesn't matter what noise appearance or noise floor is, if the signal to noise ratio is high, whether based on measurements like pDR or engineering DR on P2P, or the Screen Dynamic Range on DXO Marks, then the image quality is high. All of these measurements and calculations indicate the best FF sensors provide 1.5 stops better DR than the best m4/3. Full stop. It doesn't matter either whether latest or oldest NR software is used, as long as the signal above the noise floor of m4/3 sensor is 1.5 stop lower than FF, then 1.5 stop better is all that the best FF sensors can get. Just exercise a simple thought experiment (or mental gymnastic if you like): If you remove all the noise in an image, what do you have left, if not signal?

Maybe you need to read the PST forum more, and read some materials on signal processing, to better your understanding, whether you're one of "the most people" or not.

It also doesn't matter if you use ISO 12800 on FF or not. I get great results at ISO 25600 on m4/3 on daily basis.

Click to expand...

Blah , blah no need for silliness anyone with eyes can see the actual results from actual controlled raw files. Great results is very much a matter of opinion. Keep up the good work, looking forward to seeing your great results.

s a happy OM-1 user I would be genuinely grateful for your tips and suggestions how to get great results at 25600 ISO . In low light situations that matter to me I cannot get decent results at 25600 ISO. The action shooters shooting at high ISO in normal light for fast shutter speeds can achieve better results but it is irrelevant to me.

Very poor light with movement is the bugbear of high ISO, you cannot take a longer exposure because of movement, you cannot use pixel shift because of movement IBIS is of little benefit and so on. Thank the gods I have little need for such shooting these days

Click to expand...

Here's one example of ISO 25600 and another one at ISO 32000 (handheld only). Let's see results from any of your FF with the same exposure index.

Maybe learn to use the tools to good effect instead and stop dissing something you have neither knowledge or skills to make proper use of.

TTphotos said:

James Stirling said:

TTphotos said:

James Stirling said:

TTphotos said:

NZ Scott said:

Christopher Leach Photography said:

Hi all, has anybody used the Panasonic 10-25 f/1.7 on the OM-1? If so:

• Does the aperture ring work?
• Is this combo weathersealed?
• What is the summary of your experience with this combo?

With this I could effectively combine the 7-14 pro and 12-40 pro that I currently use, 1.5 stops faster for low light and in covers the focal range I typically use the other two lenses at.

Click to expand...

To me, super-fast lenses don’t make a lot of sense on m43 because they are heavier and more expensive than their full frame equivalents.

For example the full-frame Sony 20-70 f/4 is significantly cheaper and lighter than the Panasonic 10-25 f/1.7, with more reach at the long end.

Panny: 690g, $1500

Sony: 488g, $1100

Of course, the fly in the ointment is the cost of a full frame body - but if you’re going to buy more than a couple of super fast lenses for m43 then it probably makes sense to change systems.

cheers,

Scott

Click to expand...

2 stops "equivalence" is a good theory but not always true in reality. The best Sony FF bodies have about 1.5 stops better DR than the G9. The f/4 lens is 2.5 stops slower so you'd get 1 stop worse at the same light level and exposure time.

Click to expand...

No one was talking about "DR" when it comes to noise in low light the 2 stop difference is easily proven by comparing controlled raw samples from our hosts. Despite reality denying claims from some.

3200 ISO OM-1 low light vs Z6II 12800 ISO low light no additional processing other than what the cameras bake in



Photonstophotos is not measuring DR in a sense that most people think of when the term is related to photography. Take a look at some of the discussions over on the PST forum . Where there a number of very well informed posters

Photographic Science and Technology Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Nice to see you still posting These days you can make great imagery with any camera on the market none of them are perfect just pick what you enjoy using most , as I think this is the most important factor. The latest NR software while obviously not closing the gap as it can be used on every format raises the bar to a level for many where it is plenty good enough. Do I care that 12800 ISO on FF with NR will be as good as m43 at 3200 ISO no because what I shoot I will never need 12800 ISO

Click to expand...

No additional processing is the same as additional processing - it's just a function of raw conversion and image processing software. Incredibly naive in this old age of digital imaging to bring out "no additional processing" as gospel

Click to expand...

The difference is unlike your "great results at 25600 ISO " the Dpreview raw files are freely available to everyone . If you shoot at very high ISO in decent light to obtain high shutter speeds you can get much better results than shooting in very poor light



This is the OM-1 low light 25600 ISO raw with NO ADDITIONAL PROCESSING from me other than what the camera bakes in . I would love to see how you make this result great



You can get the raw file here

OM System OM-1 review: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

TTphotos said:

It doesn't matter what noise appearance or noise floor is, if the signal to noise ratio is high, whether based on measurements like pDR or engineering DR on P2P, or the Screen Dynamic Range on DXO Marks, then the image quality is high. All of these measurements and calculations indicate the best FF sensors provide 1.5 stops better DR than the best m4/3. Full stop. It doesn't matter either whether latest or oldest NR software is used, as long as the signal above the noise floor of m4/3 sensor is 1.5 stop lower than FF, then 1.5 stop better is all that the best FF sensors can get. Just exercise a simple thought experiment (or mental gymnastic if you like): If you remove all the noise in an image, what do you have left, if not signal?

Maybe you need to read the PST forum more, and read some materials on signal processing, to better your understanding, whether you're one of "the most people" or not.

It also doesn't matter if you use ISO 12800 on FF or not. I get great results at ISO 25600 on m4/3 on daily basis.

Click to expand...

Blah , blah no need for silliness anyone with eyes can see the actual results from actual controlled raw files. Great results is very much a matter of opinion. Keep up the good work, looking forward to seeing your great results.

s a happy OM-1 user I would be genuinely grateful for your tips and suggestions how to get great results at 25600 ISO . In low light situations that matter to me I cannot get decent results at 25600 ISO. The action shooters shooting at high ISO in normal light for fast shutter speeds can achieve better results but it is irrelevant to me.

Very poor light with movement is the bugbear of high ISO, you cannot take a longer exposure because of movement, you cannot use pixel shift because of movement IBIS is of little benefit and so on. Thank the gods I have little need for such shooting these days

Click to expand...

Here's one example of ISO 25600 and another one at ISO 32000 (handheld only). Let's see results from any of your FF with the same exposure index.

Click to expand...

I have the OM-1 and have been using m43 since 2009 alongside FF I am fully aware how they perform

TTphotos said:

Maybe learn to use the tools to good effect instead and stop dissing something you have neither knowledge or skills to make proper use of.

Click to expand...

Yep you are clearly a master of your craft those static owls might as well be stuffed , incredible skill is needed

TTphotos said:

Click to expand...

Any chance of raw files who knows what can be done with random jpegs especially ones that have had significant EV adjustments , who knows what post processing or whatever has been done. With low res samples at 3mp which would just about make a 300ppi 7x5" print

Hence why I linked to the low light raw files provided by DPreview perhaps you can work your magic with them . They are freely available you should not need a week to dig something up though I appreciate you are kept busy I am disinclined to accept your post any post in fact at face value . Provide raw results or use the DPreview low light samples otherwise forget it . Thanks for the comedy I have decided that is the best way to respond to your gang

OM System OM-1 review: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

James Stirling said:

TTphotos said:

James Stirling said:

TTphotos said:

James Stirling said:

TTphotos said:

NZ Scott said:

Christopher Leach Photography said:

Hi all, has anybody used the Panasonic 10-25 f/1.7 on the OM-1? If so:

• Does the aperture ring work?
• Is this combo weathersealed?
• What is the summary of your experience with this combo?

With this I could effectively combine the 7-14 pro and 12-40 pro that I currently use, 1.5 stops faster for low light and in covers the focal range I typically use the other two lenses at.

Click to expand...

To me, super-fast lenses don’t make a lot of sense on m43 because they are heavier and more expensive than their full frame equivalents.

For example the full-frame Sony 20-70 f/4 is significantly cheaper and lighter than the Panasonic 10-25 f/1.7, with more reach at the long end.

Panny: 690g, $1500

Sony: 488g, $1100

Of course, the fly in the ointment is the cost of a full frame body - but if you’re going to buy more than a couple of super fast lenses for m43 then it probably makes sense to change systems.

cheers,

Scott

Click to expand...

2 stops "equivalence" is a good theory but not always true in reality. The best Sony FF bodies have about 1.5 stops better DR than the G9. The f/4 lens is 2.5 stops slower so you'd get 1 stop worse at the same light level and exposure time.

Click to expand...

No one was talking about "DR" when it comes to noise in low light the 2 stop difference is easily proven by comparing controlled raw samples from our hosts. Despite reality denying claims from some.

3200 ISO OM-1 low light vs Z6II 12800 ISO low light no additional processing other than what the cameras bake in



Photonstophotos is not measuring DR in a sense that most people think of when the term is related to photography. Take a look at some of the discussions over on the PST forum . Where there a number of very well informed posters

Photographic Science and Technology Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Nice to see you still posting These days you can make great imagery with any camera on the market none of them are perfect just pick what you enjoy using most , as I think this is the most important factor. The latest NR software while obviously not closing the gap as it can be used on every format raises the bar to a level for many where it is plenty good enough. Do I care that 12800 ISO on FF with NR will be as good as m43 at 3200 ISO no because what I shoot I will never need 12800 ISO

Click to expand...

No additional processing is the same as additional processing - it's just a function of raw conversion and image processing software. Incredibly naive in this old age of digital imaging to bring out "no additional processing" as gospel

Click to expand...

The difference is unlike your "great results at 25600 ISO " the Dpreview raw files are freely available to everyone . If you shoot at very high ISO in decent light to obtain high shutter speeds you can get much better results than shooting in very poor light



This is the OM-1 low light 25600 ISO raw with NO ADDITIONAL PROCESSING from me other than what the camera bakes in . I would love to see how you make this result great



You can get the raw file here

OM System OM-1 review: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

James Stirling said:

It doesn't matter what noise appearance or noise floor is, if the signal to noise ratio is high, whether based on measurements like pDR or engineering DR on P2P, or the Screen Dynamic Range on DXO Marks, then the image quality is high. All of these measurements and calculations indicate the best FF sensors provide 1.5 stops better DR than the best m4/3. Full stop. It doesn't matter either whether latest or oldest NR software is used, as long as the signal above the noise floor of m4/3 sensor is 1.5 stop lower than FF, then 1.5 stop better is all that the best FF sensors can get. Just exercise a simple thought experiment (or mental gymnastic if you like): If you remove all the noise in an image, what do you have left, if not signal?

Maybe you need to read the PST forum more, and read some materials on signal processing, to better your understanding, whether you're one of "the most people" or not.

It also doesn't matter if you use ISO 12800 on FF or not. I get great results at ISO 25600 on m4/3 on daily basis.

Click to expand...

Blah , blah no need for silliness anyone with eyes can see the actual results from actual controlled raw files. Great results is very much a matter of opinion. Keep up the good work, looking forward to seeing your great results.

s a happy OM-1 user I would be genuinely grateful for your tips and suggestions how to get great results at 25600 ISO . In low light situations that matter to me I cannot get decent results at 25600 ISO. The action shooters shooting at high ISO in normal light for fast shutter speeds can achieve better results but it is irrelevant to me.

Very poor light with movement is the bugbear of high ISO, you cannot take a longer exposure because of movement, you cannot use pixel shift because of movement IBIS is of little benefit and so on. Thank the gods I have little need for such shooting these days

Click to expand...

Here's one example of ISO 25600 and another one at ISO 32000 (handheld only). Let's see results from any of your FF with the same exposure index.

Click to expand...

I have the OM-1 and have been using m43 since 2009 alongside FF I am fully aware how they perform

James Stirling said:

Maybe learn to use the tools to good effect instead and stop dissing something you have neither knowledge or skills to make proper use of.

Click to expand...

Yep you are clearly a master of your craft those static owls might as well be stuffed , incredible skill is needed

James Stirling said:

Click to expand...

Any chance of raw files who knows what can be done with random jpegs especially ones that have had significant EV adjustments , who knows what post processing or whatever has been done. With low res samples at 3mp which would just about make a 300ppi 7x5" print

Hence why I linked to the low light raw files provided by DPreview perhaps you can work your magic with them . They are freely available you should not need a week to dig something up though I appreciate you are kept busy I am disinclined to accept your post any post in fact at face value . Provide raw results or use the DPreview low light samples otherwise forget it . Thanks for the comedy I have decided that is the best way to respond to your gang

OM System OM-1 review: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Click to expand...

These were previously posted to social media and 3MP is all you're gonna need as nobody wants to see all your 45MP of rubbish pictures. Let's see your 3MP pictures taken with your FF at same exposure settings. Do NR however you want, the end results is what matters.

These are serious photos so no raw files for you. What you want the raw for anyways? Maybe a raw file of a blank paper is all you're gonna get.

FIY, I had previously checked out the DPR's raw file of the OM-1 at ISO 51200 before started using higher than ISO 25600 (which was used from the beginning).

TTphotos said:

James Stirling said:

TTphotos said:

James Stirling said:

TTphotos said:

James Stirling said:

TTphotos said:

NZ Scott said:

Christopher Leach Photography said:

Hi all, has anybody used the Panasonic 10-25 f/1.7 on the OM-1? If so:

• Does the aperture ring work?
• Is this combo weathersealed?
• What is the summary of your experience with this combo?

With this I could effectively combine the 7-14 pro and 12-40 pro that I currently use, 1.5 stops faster for low light and in covers the focal range I typically use the other two lenses at.

Click to expand...

To me, super-fast lenses don’t make a lot of sense on m43 because they are heavier and more expensive than their full frame equivalents.

For example the full-frame Sony 20-70 f/4 is significantly cheaper and lighter than the Panasonic 10-25 f/1.7, with more reach at the long end.

Panny: 690g, $1500

Sony: 488g, $1100

Of course, the fly in the ointment is the cost of a full frame body - but if you’re going to buy more than a couple of super fast lenses for m43 then it probably makes sense to change systems.

cheers,

Scott

Click to expand...

2 stops "equivalence" is a good theory but not always true in reality. The best Sony FF bodies have about 1.5 stops better DR than the G9. The f/4 lens is 2.5 stops slower so you'd get 1 stop worse at the same light level and exposure time.

Click to expand...

No one was talking about "DR" when it comes to noise in low light the 2 stop difference is easily proven by comparing controlled raw samples from our hosts. Despite reality denying claims from some.

3200 ISO OM-1 low light vs Z6II 12800 ISO low light no additional processing other than what the cameras bake in



Photonstophotos is not measuring DR in a sense that most people think of when the term is related to photography. Take a look at some of the discussions over on the PST forum . Where there a number of very well informed posters

Photographic Science and Technology Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Nice to see you still posting These days you can make great imagery with any camera on the market none of them are perfect just pick what you enjoy using most , as I think this is the most important factor. The latest NR software while obviously not closing the gap as it can be used on every format raises the bar to a level for many where it is plenty good enough. Do I care that 12800 ISO on FF with NR will be as good as m43 at 3200 ISO no because what I shoot I will never need 12800 ISO

Click to expand...

No additional processing is the same as additional processing - it's just a function of raw conversion and image processing software. Incredibly naive in this old age of digital imaging to bring out "no additional processing" as gospel

Click to expand...

The difference is unlike your "great results at 25600 ISO " the Dpreview raw files are freely available to everyone . If you shoot at very high ISO in decent light to obtain high shutter speeds you can get much better results than shooting in very poor light



This is the OM-1 low light 25600 ISO raw with NO ADDITIONAL PROCESSING from me other than what the camera bakes in . I would love to see how you make this result great



You can get the raw file here

OM System OM-1 review: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

TTphotos said:

It doesn't matter what noise appearance or noise floor is, if the signal to noise ratio is high, whether based on measurements like pDR or engineering DR on P2P, or the Screen Dynamic Range on DXO Marks, then the image quality is high. All of these measurements and calculations indicate the best FF sensors provide 1.5 stops better DR than the best m4/3. Full stop. It doesn't matter either whether latest or oldest NR software is used, as long as the signal above the noise floor of m4/3 sensor is 1.5 stop lower than FF, then 1.5 stop better is all that the best FF sensors can get. Just exercise a simple thought experiment (or mental gymnastic if you like): If you remove all the noise in an image, what do you have left, if not signal?

Maybe you need to read the PST forum more, and read some materials on signal processing, to better your understanding, whether you're one of "the most people" or not.

It also doesn't matter if you use ISO 12800 on FF or not. I get great results at ISO 25600 on m4/3 on daily basis.

Click to expand...

Blah , blah no need for silliness anyone with eyes can see the actual results from actual controlled raw files. Great results is very much a matter of opinion. Keep up the good work, looking forward to seeing your great results.

s a happy OM-1 user I would be genuinely grateful for your tips and suggestions how to get great results at 25600 ISO . In low light situations that matter to me I cannot get decent results at 25600 ISO. The action shooters shooting at high ISO in normal light for fast shutter speeds can achieve better results but it is irrelevant to me.

Very poor light with movement is the bugbear of high ISO, you cannot take a longer exposure because of movement, you cannot use pixel shift because of movement IBIS is of little benefit and so on. Thank the gods I have little need for such shooting these days

Click to expand...

Here's one example of ISO 25600 and another one at ISO 32000 (handheld only). Let's see results from any of your FF with the same exposure index.

Click to expand...

I have the OM-1 and have been using m43 since 2009 alongside FF I am fully aware how they perform

TTphotos said:

Maybe learn to use the tools to good effect instead and stop dissing something you have neither knowledge or skills to make proper use of.

Click to expand...

Yep you are clearly a master of your craft those static owls might as well be stuffed , incredible skill is needed

TTphotos said:

Click to expand...

Any chance of raw files who knows what can be done with random jpegs especially ones that have had significant EV adjustments , who knows what post processing or whatever has been done. With low res samples at 3mp which would just about make a 300ppi 7x5" print

Hence why I linked to the low light raw files provided by DPreview perhaps you can work your magic with them . They are freely available you should not need a week to dig something up though I appreciate you are kept busy I am disinclined to accept your post any post in fact at face value . Provide raw results or use the DPreview low light samples otherwise forget it . Thanks for the comedy I have decided that is the best way to respond to your gang

OM System OM-1 review: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Click to expand...

These were previously posted to social media and 3MP is all you're gonna need as nobody wants to see all your 45MP of rubbish pictures. Let's see your 3MP pictures taken with your FF at same exposure settings. Do NR however you want, the end results is what matters.

These are serious photos so no raw files for you. What you want the raw for anyways? Maybe a raw file of a blank paper is all you're gonna get.

FIY, I had previously checked out the DPR's raw file of the OM-1 at ISO 51200 before started using higher than ISO 25600 (which was used from the beginning).

Click to expand...

I am not interested in your "stuffed" owl shots . DPreview provides fully controlled low light raw samples so that everyone can have access to the original and appreciate the magic you will no doubt deliver 3MP low res mediocre images which you have "adjusted" are a very unreliable way to decide anything especially as I don't believe a thing you say


blah blah blah



--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

James Stirling said:

I have the OM-1 and have been using m43 since 2009 alongside FF I am fully aware how they perform

James Stirling said:

Maybe learn to use the tools to good effect instead and stop dissing something you have neither knowledge or skills to make proper use of.

Click to expand...

Yep you are clearly a master of your craft those static owls might as well be stuffed , incredible skill is needed

Click to expand...

So long with using so many camera systems that still don't understand light and exposure. At the light levels of these exposure indices you won't even be able to easily see the subjects with your naked eyes, so static is all you get. What bleeping blob did you expect to get of a non-static bird at those shutter speeds?

As for stuffed owls, better learn how stuffed owls look first.

James Stirling said:

NZ Scott said:

Christopher Leach Photography said:

Hi all, has anybody used the Panasonic 10-25 f/1.7 on the OM-1? If so:

• Does the aperture ring work?
• Is this combo weathersealed?
• What is the summary of your experience with this combo?

With this I could effectively combine the 7-14 pro and 12-40 pro that I currently use, 1.5 stops faster for low light and in covers the focal range I typically use the other two lenses at.

Click to expand...

To me, super-fast lenses don’t make a lot of sense on m43 because they are heavier and more expensive than their full frame equivalents.

For example the full-frame Sony 20-70 f/4 is significantly cheaper and lighter than the Panasonic 10-25 f/1.7, with more reach at the long end.

Panny: 690g, $1500

Sony: 488g, $1100

Of course, the fly in the ointment is the cost of a full frame body - but if you’re going to buy more than a couple of super fast lenses for m43 then it probably makes sense to change systems.

cheers,

Scott

Click to expand...

Looking at new prices here in the UK the difference between the A7iv + 20-70mm and G9II + 10-25mm . The difference is around £60, You can of course find cheaper bodies from both makers, though I would assume that anyone buying the 10-25mm would be using higher end bodies

Camera Price Buster - Compare UK Stock Prices

Click to expand...

Spoken to the thread.

Ok, let's say that camera kit in any mount system is just one camera body and one lens?

Most of us have a few to many lenses in any system and M4/3 positively encourages us to own and use multiple systems bodies of different sizes and types.

Immediately the comparison of any particular camera body/lens from one system with a particular camera body/lens in another system loses a lot of its relevance - especially when we might be heavily invested in one system and the other system makes almost all its bodies in variations of much the same thing.

This sort of comparison is more about one camera one lens comparisons or at best one camera and just a few lenses.

I don't have the 10-25/1.7 but I do have the 25-50/1.7 and it sits prettily and comfortably on any of my camera bodies from GM5 to G100 to G9. It might be reasonably large but it does not feel heavy at all. Physical size is only part of the equation.

I also have a considerable investment in M4/3 lenses and to even consider leaving a system that I find quite good enough for my purposes and effectively have to replace this investment in excellent lens kit would surely require an investigation into my sanity.

That threads like this can be so passionate about whether one combination (only) is better than one combination only in another mount system must be a more a question of the collective insanity of my dog could eat your dog if only it were interested in doing so.

--
Tom Caldwell

Tom Caldwell said:

James Stirling said:

NZ Scott said:

Christopher Leach Photography said:

Hi all, has anybody used the Panasonic 10-25 f/1.7 on the OM-1? If so:

• Does the aperture ring work?
• Is this combo weathersealed?
• What is the summary of your experience with this combo?

With this I could effectively combine the 7-14 pro and 12-40 pro that I currently use, 1.5 stops faster for low light and in covers the focal range I typically use the other two lenses at.

Click to expand...

To me, super-fast lenses don’t make a lot of sense on m43 because they are heavier and more expensive than their full frame equivalents.

For example the full-frame Sony 20-70 f/4 is significantly cheaper and lighter than the Panasonic 10-25 f/1.7, with more reach at the long end.

Panny: 690g, $1500

Sony: 488g, $1100

Of course, the fly in the ointment is the cost of a full frame body - but if you’re going to buy more than a couple of super fast lenses for m43 then it probably makes sense to change systems.

cheers,

Scott

Click to expand...

Looking at new prices here in the UK the difference between the A7iv + 20-70mm and G9II + 10-25mm . The difference is around £60, You can of course find cheaper bodies from both makers, though I would assume that anyone buying the 10-25mm would be using higher end bodies

Camera Price Buster - Compare UK Stock Prices

Click to expand...

Spoken to the thread.

Ok, let's say that camera kit in any mount system is just one camera body and one lens?

Most of us have a few to many lenses in any system and M4/3 positively encourages us to own and use multiple systems bodies of different sizes and types.

Immediately the comparison of any particular camera body/lens from one system with a particular camera body/lens in another system loses a lot of its relevance - especially when we might be heavily invested in one system and the other system makes almost all its bodies in variations of much the same thing.

This sort of comparison is more about one camera one lens comparisons or at best one camera and just a few lenses.

I don't have the 10-25/1.7 but I do have the 25-50/1.7 and it sits prettily and comfortably on any of my camera bodies from GM5 to G100 to G9. It might be reasonably large but it does not feel heavy at all. Physical size is only part of the equation.

I also have a considerable investment in M4/3 lenses and to even consider leaving a system that I find quite good enough for my purposes and effectively have to replace this investment in excellent lens kit would surely require an investigation into my sanity.

That threads like this can be so passionate about whether one combination (only) is better than one combination only in another mount system must be a more a question of the collective insanity of my dog could eat your dog if only it were interested in doing so.

Click to expand...

I was replying to Scott's comment:

"Of course, the fly in the ointment is the cost of a full frame body "

I made no comment about one being better , I don't use Sony now and did not particularly enjoy it when I did . Despite the smaller lighter cheaper mantra oft quoted in the forum .When you can find lenses that actually do at least close to the same job it seldom stands up.

I do like the focal length and would consider such a lens for my Z system I have the E-Z adapter. Though the Sony 20-70mm relies on epic levels of software correction, and the lack of an in built profile means, I would need to correct every shot I took with it



--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

I heard that lens has a problem with the rear lens cover coming loose. Not sure if they fixed it with later revisions. I saw a used on pop up locally and went to check it out. It had that problem. Watch out.

HicHic said:

I heard that lens has a problem with the rear lens cover coming loose. Not sure if they fixed it with later revisions. I saw a used on pop up locally and went to check it out. It had that problem. Watch out.

Click to expand...

Do you mean rear lens cap which is not much of an issue or do you mean part of the actual lens coming loose ? Obviously all manufactured items can have potential issues. If you scour the web looking for faults on any lens , camera, luxury car you name it. You will find them and there are no shortage of anti Panasonic posters in the forum. Whose sole purpose is to do exactly that



--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

James Stirling said:

HicHic said:

I heard that lens has a problem with the rear lens cover coming loose. Not sure if they fixed it with later revisions. I saw a used on pop up locally and went to check it out. It had that problem. Watch out.

Click to expand...

Do you mean rear lens cap which is not much of an issue or do you mean part of the actual lens coming loose ? Obviously all manufactured items can have potential issues. If you scour the web looking for faults on any lens , camera, luxury car you name it. You will find them and there are no shortage of anti Panasonic posters in the forum. Whose sole purpose is to do exactly that

Click to expand...

Part of the lens.

My 300mm F4 had the same issue, as have others with the 300mm F4. For the 300mm F4, I think it's more of a lens handling issue than a manufacturing one. I pick up the lens by the rear cap (not lens cap, but the rear part of the barrel) often. Eventually, it just came loose, since it's just glued on (like most lenses, including the 10-25). It's just that the 300mm F4 is a much heavier lens, so picking it up by that part of the lens body will pull it apart with more force than a lighter lens. As for the 10-25, the gluing job just looks very sloppy. You can see it at 2:18. Compared to my 300mm F4 which had a perfect and consistent bead across.

This is a fairly well known issue of the 10-25, and I've seen it myself in person too. There's bias nitpicking, and there's also actual documentation of manufacturing issues. Just because a lens has a reported problem doesn't mean "it's normal because you can find a fault with anything". You can read the comments in the video too and see just how prominent this issue is. I think it's helpful to inquire and discuss genuine issues. I think it's not helpful to the community to have a knee jerk response and dismiss any criticism and assume that they are "anti Panasonic posters" or faulting things for the sake of it. Stuff like that will confuse people about what are genuine issues. We should encourage asking questions and sourcing our findings, not shutting people down or labeling them, or assuming that their source is from a specific anti-whatever group.

HicHic said:

James Stirling said:

HicHic said:

I heard that lens has a problem with the rear lens cover coming loose. Not sure if they fixed it with later revisions. I saw a used on pop up locally and went to check it out. It had that problem. Watch out.

Click to expand...

Do you mean rear lens cap which is not much of an issue or do you mean part of the actual lens coming loose ? Obviously all manufactured items can have potential issues. If you scour the web looking for faults on any lens , camera, luxury car you name it. You will find them and there are no shortage of anti Panasonic posters in the forum. Whose sole purpose is to do exactly that

Click to expand...

Part of the lens.

Click to expand...

HicHic said:

Click to expand...

Yes that was the only "source " I found as well . As I say you can hunt down faults with any equipment and push it as if it is endemic . Several ids in the forum have a history of doing just that in relation to Panasonic .

There is nothing manufactured that does not have some faulty one's including items vastly more expensive than a lens.

James Stirling said:

HicHic said:

James Stirling said:

HicHic said:

I heard that lens has a problem with the rear lens cover coming loose. Not sure if they fixed it with later revisions. I saw a used on pop up locally and went to check it out. It had that problem. Watch out.

Click to expand...

Do you mean rear lens cap which is not much of an issue or do you mean part of the actual lens coming loose ? Obviously all manufactured items can have potential issues. If you scour the web looking for faults on any lens , camera, luxury car you name it. You will find them and there are no shortage of anti Panasonic posters in the forum. Whose sole purpose is to do exactly that

Click to expand...

Part of the lens.

Click to expand...

Yes that was the only "source " I found as well . As I say you can hunt down faults with any equipment and push it as if it is endemic . Several ids in the forum have a history of doing just that in relation to Panasonic .

There is nothing manufactured that does not have some faulty one's including items vastly more expensive than a lens.

Click to expand...

Did you read the comments? It's not just "one" source.