Reading mode: Light Dark

G9.m2 vs OM-1 : Ice Hockey (initial comparison)

Go to last post
I

ikolbyi

Senior Member
Messages
2,431
Solutions
3
Reaction score
1,956
Location
US
Simply showcasing what I have achieved so far with the G9.m2 with ice hockey. I'm posting this because I continue to get questioned at the rink by other photographers with statements similar to 'MFT can't be used....' I am illustrating what can be accomplished.

Same ice rink, same game, images photographed through rink glass. Panasonic G9.m2 with Lumix Leica 25-50mm F1.7 vs OM-1 with Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 Pro Lens. Wanted to keep the systems complete and not mix body/lens brands.

RAW files processed through DxO.

One thing I did noticed was I can use a lower ISO setting on the OM-1 compared to G9.m2 when using the same exact lens at same F-stop (if I place the Olympus 40-150mm 2.8 PRO on the Panasonic G9.m2 I need to use a higher ISO to properly expose compared to OM-1). The photo samples below are comparing like-system combinations to avoid mixing lens on bodies.

As my experience with the G9.m2 gains, image quality is improving (PEBKAC) . This is my result so far. The the black-colors are now more closer aligned than previous test images since using WB: AWBc.

G9.m2 w/ Lumix Leica 25-50mm F1.7
G9.m2 w/ Lumix Leica 25-50mm F1.7



OM-1 w/ Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 PRO
OM-1 w/ Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 PRO
 
Indeed, these both look fine.

So, what are the usual reasons cited for the alleged unsuitability of M43 in this venue?
 
ikolbyi said:
Simply showcasing what I have achieved so far with the G9.m2 with ice hockey. I'm posting this because I continue to get questioned at the rink by other photographers with statements similar to 'MFT can't be used....' I am illustrating what can be accomplished.

Same ice rink, same game, images photographed through rink glass. Panasonic G9.m2 with Lumix Leica 25-50mm F1.7 vs OM-1 with Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 Pro Lens. Wanted to keep the systems complete and not mix body/lens brands.

RAW files processed through DxO.

One thing I did noticed was I can use a lower ISO setting on the OM-1 compared to G9.m2 when using the same exact lens at same F-stop (if I place the Olympus 40-150mm 2.8 PRO on the Panasonic G9.m2 I need to use a higher ISO to properly expose compared to OM-1). The photo samples below are comparing like-system combinations to avoid mixing lens on bodies.

As my experience with the G9.m2 gains, image quality is improving (PEBKAC) . This is my result so far. The the black-colors are now more closer aligned than previous test images since using WB: AWBc.
Click to expand...
They're just jealous because you get better DOF
 
evetsf said:
Indeed, these both look fine.

So, what are the usual reasons cited for the alleged unsuitability of M43 in this venue?
Click to expand...
 
ikolbyi said:
evetsf said:
Indeed, these both look fine.

So, what are the usual reasons cited for the alleged unsuitability of M43 in this venue?
Click to expand...
The usual nay says: sensor too small, too much noise, not a real camera…. Etc. occasionally I get the genuine surprise and interest because it breaks misconceptions.
Click to expand...
I hear you. While I've not gotten direct comments, when I'm out shooting a motorsports event M43 bodies are nowhere near as common as those with larger size sensors and the requisite bazooka-size lenses.

What does surprise me are the lack of questions re: using Lumix bodies at a "sports" venue. I mean, CDAF/DfD can't possibly track fast-moving objects, right? Well, it can and it does; I've got the photos to back that up (in my galleries listed below). Any blurred images are mostly due to my less-than-perfect tracking in a panning shot.
 
Even though the content is not identical, the pictures are quite comparable. Focus is good on both.
 
Nice to see the PL 25-50 being used for indoor sports. Not a lot of examples of that lens and the PL 10-25 on DPR. They are expensive but worth the cost. Two of the best lenses in the MFT system.
 
evetsf said:
ikolbyi said:
evetsf said:
Indeed, these both look fine.

So, what are the usual reasons cited for the alleged unsuitability of M43 in this venue?
Click to expand...
The usual nay says: sensor too small, too much noise, not a real camera…. Etc. occasionally I get the genuine surprise and interest because it breaks misconceptions.
Click to expand...
I hear you. While I've not gotten direct comments, when I'm out shooting a motorsports event M43 bodies are nowhere near as common as those with larger size sensors and the requisite bazooka-size lenses.

What does surprise me are the lack of questions re: using Lumix bodies at a "sports" venue. I mean, CDAF/DfD can't possibly track fast-moving objects, right? Well, it can and it does; I've got the photos to back that up (in my galleries listed below). Any blurred images are mostly due to my less-than-perfect tracking in a panning shot.
Click to expand...
I think it's probably a question of what is best for the venue. i..e Able to do it doesn't equate necessarily to the best tool to do it.

Obviously what works for one photographer is what works and good enough.

- Ricardo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top