Upgrade Oly EM1iii to OM-1ii or Panasonic G9ii

Maybe this is GAS. I have a 2 year old EM1iii and am tempted by the OM and Pana's new offerings. A club standard generalist amateur, I have owned several Oly and Pana cameras. Over the years I've had several other brands - but am now wedded to M4/3 because of weight and size - the lenses are important here.

Currently I have the EM1iii and a EM5iii. The 5iii is a really useful backup/second/small camera and has a Pana 14-140 glued to it.

Lenses I have a Panasonic Leica 12-60, OLy 12-45 f4 (will probably sell soon), Oly 45 f4, Oly 40-150 f4, Pana100-300 as well as the 14-140 on my EM5iii.

I enjoy low light, often shoot at ISO 6400 on the EM1iii. I always shoot RAW and use a mix of Lightroom and DXO for processing. I'm generalist - 'scapes, street, events, gigs (low light), family, people and (ocasionally) wildlife.

I'm looking at the new OM1ii and the Panasonic G9ii.

The main appeal of the OM1ii is the new GND feature, size and the general upgrade compared to my EM1iii (eg viewfinder). The negative is price.

The main appeal of the G9ii is the extra pixels, better dynamic range (??), dual stabilisation with my pana lenses, and much lower price than the OM1ii. The negative is battery life (I had a G9 some years ago).

I have ckeared an upgrade with The Boss. Any advice welcome (which can include get over my GAS!).

VinceC said:

Maybe this is GAS. I have a 2 year old EM1iii and am tempted by the OM and Pana's new offerings. A club standard generalist amateur, I have owned several Oly and Pana cameras. Over the years I've had several other brands - but am now wedded to M4/3 because of weight and size - the lenses are important here.

Currently I have the EM1iii and a EM5iii. The 5iii is a really useful backup/second/small camera and has a Pana 14-140 glued to it.

Lenses I have a Panasonic Leica 12-60, OLy 12-45 f4 (will probably sell soon), Oly 45 f4, Oly 40-150 f4, Pana100-300 as well as the 14-140 on my EM5iii.

Click to expand...

Which 45? (Not important, just curious.)

VinceC said:

I enjoy low light, often shoot at ISO 6400 on the EM1iii. I always shoot RAW and use a mix of Lightroom and DXO for processing. I'm generalist - 'scapes, street, events, gigs (low light), family, people and (ocasionally) wildlife.

Click to expand...

OM-1s will allow success up to ISO 25600, so two added stops beyond the M1iii. Can't comment on G9ii.

VinceC said:

I'm looking at the new OM1ii and the Panasonic G9ii.

The main appeal of the OM1ii is the new GND feature, size and the general upgrade compared to my EM1iii (eg viewfinder). The negative is price.

The main appeal of the G9ii is the extra pixels, better dynamic range (??), dual stabilisation with my pana lenses, and much lower price than the OM1ii. The negative is battery life (I had a G9 some years ago).

Click to expand...

OM-1 can perhaps be had now for a few hundred lens than mkii, but you'd miss Graduated Live ND.

Since you don't have a wildlife lens you can select a tele that has dual-IS with either brand body, so keep your favorite super-tele choices in mind while making a choice. And for low light, you can add fast primes to your kit from the large selection we have.

Good luck,

Rick

With those uses, I’d look at human subject detection on the G9ii vs OM1ii and consider a 12-40/2.8 to use at f2.8 or maybe your 45mm isn’t really f4!

A

This is a really easy question to answer, The OM-1 Mark 2

Skeeterbytes said:

VinceC said:

Maybe this is GAS. I have a 2 year old EM1iii and am tempted by the OM and Pana's new offerings. A club standard generalist amateur, I have owned several Oly and Pana cameras. Over the years I've had several other brands - but am now wedded to M4/3 because of weight and size - the lenses are important here.

Currently I have the EM1iii and a EM5iii. The 5iii is a really useful backup/second/small camera and has a Pana 14-140 glued to it.

Lenses I have a Panasonic Leica 12-60, OLy 12-45 f4 (will probably sell soon), Oly 45 f4, Oly 40-150 f4, Pana100-300 as well as the 14-140 on my EM5iii.

Click to expand...

Which 45? (Not important, just curious.)

Skeeterbytes said:

I enjoy low light, often shoot at ISO 6400 on the EM1iii. I always shoot RAW and use a mix of Lightroom and DXO for processing. I'm generalist - 'scapes, street, events, gigs (low light), family, people and (ocasionally) wildlife.

Click to expand...

OM-1s will allow success up to ISO 25600, so two added stops beyond the M1iii. Can't comment on G9ii.

Click to expand...

That statement is abject nonsense, no cheating controlled low light raw files. Same subject same lighting, same exposure settings same lens

E-M1III 6400 ISO VS OM-1 25600 2 stops better not even close



Surely 1 stop better 12800 vs 25600 ISO nope



At the same ISO, now we are talking the OM-1 must be a good 1/3rd of a stop better



Amusingly I was getting a row from Gary for joking about folk still claiming two stops better

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67649039

--
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:

Skeeterbytes said:

VinceC said:

Maybe this is GAS. I have a 2 year old EM1iii and am tempted by the OM and Pana's new offerings. A club standard generalist amateur, I have owned several Oly and Pana cameras. Over the years I've had several other brands - but am now wedded to M4/3 because of weight and size - the lenses are important here.

Currently I have the EM1iii and a EM5iii. The 5iii is a really useful backup/second/small camera and has a Pana 14-140 glued to it.

Lenses I have a Panasonic Leica 12-60, OLy 12-45 f4 (will probably sell soon), Oly 45 f4, Oly 40-150 f4, Pana100-300 as well as the 14-140 on my EM5iii.

Click to expand...

Which 45? (Not important, just curious.)

James Stirling said:

I enjoy low light, often shoot at ISO 6400 on the EM1iii. I always shoot RAW and use a mix of Lightroom and DXO for processing. I'm generalist - 'scapes, street, events, gigs (low light), family, people and (ocasionally) wildlife.

Click to expand...

OM-1s will allow success up to ISO 25600, so two added stops beyond the M1iii. Can't comment on G9ii.

Click to expand...

That statement is abject nonsense, no cheating controlled low light raw files. Same subject same lighting, same exposure settings same lens

E-M1III 6400 ISO VS OM-1 25600 2 stops better not even close



Surely 1 stop better 12800 vs 25600 ISO nope



At the same ISO, now we are talking the OM-1 must be a good 1/3rd of a stop better



Amusingly I was getting a row from Gary for joking about folk still claiming two stops better

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67649039

Click to expand...

Do not overlook focus. I can shoot sports successfully up to 25600, a fact I leverage to my considerable advantage. Because OP has the M1iii, a camera I use at the same events, it's a reasonable expectation for a low-light fan.

At which point modern NR tools enter the conversation.

the bluesman said:

This is a really easy question to answer, The OM-1 Mark 2

Click to expand...

The OM-1 II is approx £700 more than the OM-1 with for most scenarios insignificant "upgrades " . You can get the OM-1 plus 12-40mm pro II for approx £400 less than the OM-1 II body alone

Skeeterbytes said:

James Stirling said:

Skeeterbytes said:

VinceC said:

Maybe this is GAS. I have a 2 year old EM1iii and am tempted by the OM and Pana's new offerings. A club standard generalist amateur, I have owned several Oly and Pana cameras. Over the years I've had several other brands - but am now wedded to M4/3 because of weight and size - the lenses are important here.

Currently I have the EM1iii and a EM5iii. The 5iii is a really useful backup/second/small camera and has a Pana 14-140 glued to it.

Lenses I have a Panasonic Leica 12-60, OLy 12-45 f4 (will probably sell soon), Oly 45 f4, Oly 40-150 f4, Pana100-300 as well as the 14-140 on my EM5iii.

Click to expand...

Which 45? (Not important, just curious.)

Skeeterbytes said:

I enjoy low light, often shoot at ISO 6400 on the EM1iii. I always shoot RAW and use a mix of Lightroom and DXO for processing. I'm generalist - 'scapes, street, events, gigs (low light), family, people and (ocasionally) wildlife.

Click to expand...

OM-1s will allow success up to ISO 25600, so two added stops beyond the M1iii. Can't comment on G9ii.

Click to expand...

That statement is abject nonsense, no cheating controlled low light raw files. Same subject same lighting, same exposure settings same lens

E-M1III 6400 ISO VS OM-1 25600 2 stops better not even close



Surely 1 stop better 12800 vs 25600 ISO nope



At the same ISO, now we are talking the OM-1 must be a good 1/3rd of a stop better



Amusingly I was getting a row from Gary for joking about folk still claiming two stops better

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67649039

Click to expand...

Do not overlook focus. I can shoot sports successfully up to 25600, a fact I leverage to my considerable advantage. Because OP has the M1iii, a camera I use at the same events, it's a reasonable expectation for a low-light fan.

Click to expand...

Rick claiming the OM-1 s two stops better than the E-M1III at high ISO is simply nonsense. The OP who you responded to made zero reference to AF nor did you

Skeeterbytes said:

At which point modern NR tools enter the conversation.

Click to expand...

The NR software works on every digital camera from every maker so it offers no advantage to a given model. To be clear I use the OM-1 and it is an excellent bit of kit the new menu compared to the old one in my E-M5 III is a big step up and the pixel shift , focus stacking features are excellent

While NR software the OP also mentions he uses DXO. Can give some very good results it is not really magic and in the low light events/gigs the OP also mentions there is no possible way to make 25600 look like 6400

OM-1 25600 ISO with DXO Pureraw deep prime XD VS 6400 ISO . It is easy to get rid of noise but it is not a free lunch though it is getting better every generation









--
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

[…]

VinceC said:

I have ckeared an upgrade with The Boss. Any advice welcome (which can include get over my GAS!).

Click to expand...

I too am using the E-M1III and when she saw I was looking at the OM-1 my wife cleared an upgrade to any camera I want :-D

But I can’t find tangible benefits for my everyday shooting so I ‘banked’ the upgrade clearance and put the money towards the kitchen renovation she wants.

jj

James Stirling said:

the bluesman said:

This is a really easy question to answer, The OM-1 Mark 2

Click to expand...

The OM-1 II is approx £700 more than the OM-1 with for most scenarios insignificant "upgrades " . You can get the OM-1 plus 12-40mm pro II for approx £400 less than the OM-1 II body alone

https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Olympus/Olympus-Micro-43-System-Cameras

Click to expand...

Well that solves that then, just delete the Mark 2 off my original post, the OM-1 Mark1 is a great camera, I have both the Mark 1 and 2, while I prefer the Mark 2 at the end of the day they are the same, I do like the rubbery wheels of the Mark 2 though

the bluesman said:

James Stirling said:

the bluesman said:

This is a really easy question to answer, The OM-1 Mark 2

Click to expand...

The OM-1 II is approx £700 more than the OM-1 with for most scenarios insignificant "upgrades " . You can get the OM-1 plus 12-40mm pro II for approx £400 less than the OM-1 II body alone

https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Olympus/Olympus-Micro-43-System-Cameras

Click to expand...

Well that solves that then, just delete the Mark 2 off my original post, the OM-1 Mark1 is a great camera, I have both the Mark 1 and 2, while I prefer the Mark 2 at the end of the day they are the same, I do like the rubbery wheels of the Mark 2 though

Click to expand...

It does not solve it just gives another option

James Stirling said:

the bluesman said:

James Stirling said:

the bluesman said:

This is a really easy question to answer, The OM-1 Mark 2

Click to expand...

The OM-1 II is approx £700 more than the OM-1 with for most scenarios insignificant "upgrades " . You can get the OM-1 plus 12-40mm pro II for approx £400 less than the OM-1 II body alone

https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Olympus/Olympus-Micro-43-System-Cameras

Click to expand...

Well that solves that then, just delete the Mark 2 off my original post, the OM-1 Mark1 is a great camera, I have both the Mark 1 and 2, while I prefer the Mark 2 at the end of the day they are the same, I do like the rubbery wheels of the Mark 2 though

Click to expand...

It does not solve it just gives another option

Click to expand...

If that's the case then it could get very very expensive for the OP as I ended up with both the Mark 1&2, in all seriousness though both systems are fantastic and you can't go wrong with either, I mean between the Pana/OM, best of luck to him and I'm sure we are helping :-D

the bluesman said:

James Stirling said:

the bluesman said:

James Stirling said:

the bluesman said:

This is a really easy question to answer, The OM-1 Mark 2

Click to expand...

The OM-1 II is approx £700 more than the OM-1 with for most scenarios insignificant "upgrades " . You can get the OM-1 plus 12-40mm pro II for approx £400 less than the OM-1 II body alone

https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Olympus/Olympus-Micro-43-System-Cameras

Click to expand...

Well that solves that then, just delete the Mark 2 off my original post, the OM-1 Mark1 is a great camera, I have both the Mark 1 and 2, while I prefer the Mark 2 at the end of the day they are the same, I do like the rubbery wheels of the Mark 2 though

Click to expand...

It does not solve it just gives another option

Click to expand...

If that's the case then it could get very very expensive for the OP as I ended up with both the Mark 1&2, in all seriousness though both systems are fantastic and you can't go wrong with either, I mean between the Pana/OM, best of luck to him and I'm sure we are helping :-D

Click to expand...

Unless you are shooting in a very particular niche where you need a certain feature that is only offered by one of them . You really cannot go wrong with just about any camera which is not helping ether

Hi Vince,

Don't think image-wise you would go wrong with either camera. There's negligible difference IQ-wise between the cameras, even if folks will go out of their way to tout this minute difference or that one.

Here's why I went for the G9II:

1. Much better financial value- use the money you save for a great lens- or anything else you need/want

2. Panasonic has a much higher likelihood of surviving and innovating in the M43 space. They have much deeper pockets and are invested in the photography/electronics space with far more expertise than the private equity firm JIP.

3. Panasonic is much more likely to invest in R&D to move the platform and the camera forward. Just look at the very different approaches between Panasonic and OMDS/JIP at post-purchase support, especially in firmware updates. OMDS/JIP has to be beaten down with negative posts on this forum and a petition to get a firmware update to fix existing issues, while Panasonic has in the past added extensive new functionality to cameras years down the road.

4. There are significant benefits to the G9II being based on the S5II, from a long-term viability/continued support perspective. Updates from one platform are routinely translated to the other platform- just look at the recent S5II update that included functionality from the G9II (it's subject detection and precapture functions). I expect that the real time web image transfer introduced on the S5II will make it to the G9II shortly. Makes that already larger R&D investment go that much further for Panasonic.

5. The benefits to sharing the same body also apply if you want to have a FF kit as well. I absolutely love having essentially the same camera- configured the same way, with the same menus, dials, etc- for MFT and FF. I'm getting the Sigma 50mm f/1.2 when it comes out, and I can leverage the benefits of each platform using what is essentially the same camera.

These are huge advantages to me, and I think advantages that OMDS/JIP has no intention or ability to match. I don't expect that OMDS/JIP will be a major player in the photography market for long. It's a brutal market.

James Stirling said:

Skeeterbytes said:

Do not overlook focus. I can shoot sports successfully up to 25600, a fact I leverage to my considerable advantage. Because OP has the M1iii, a camera I use at the same events, it's a reasonable expectation for a low-light fan.

Click to expand...

Rick claiming the OM-1 s two stops better than the E-M1III at high ISO is simply nonsense. The OP who you responded to made zero reference to AF nor did you

James Stirling said:

At which point modern NR tools enter the conversation.

Click to expand...

The NR software works on every digital camera from every maker so it offers no advantage to a given model. To be clear I use the OM-1 and it is an excellent bit of kit the new menu compared to the old one in my E-M5 III is a big step up and the pixel shift , focus stacking features are excellent

While NR software the OP also mentions he uses DXO. Can give some very good results it is not really magic and in the low light events/gigs the OP also mentions there is no possible way to make 25600 look like 6400

OM-1 25600 ISO with DXO Pureraw deep prime XD VS 6400 ISO . It is easy to get rid of noise but it is not a free lunch though it is getting better every generation

Click to expand...

As long as by "nonsense" you mean "observable performance improvements in the field" then we have agreement.

And as to the OP, do not overlook "I enjoy low light, often shoot at ISO 6400 on the EM1iii."

Rick

Skeeterbytes said:

James Stirling said:

Skeeterbytes said:

Do not overlook focus. I can shoot sports successfully up to 25600, a fact I leverage to my considerable advantage. Because OP has the M1iii, a camera I use at the same events, it's a reasonable expectation for a low-light fan.

Click to expand...

Rick claiming the OM-1 s two stops better than the E-M1III at high ISO is simply nonsense. The OP who you responded to made zero reference to AF nor did you

Skeeterbytes said:

At which point modern NR tools enter the conversation.

Click to expand...

The NR software works on every digital camera from every maker so it offers no advantage to a given model. To be clear I use the OM-1 and it is an excellent bit of kit the new menu compared to the old one in my E-M5 III is a big step up and the pixel shift , focus stacking features are excellent

While NR software the OP also mentions he uses DXO. Can give some very good results it is not really magic and in the low light events/gigs the OP also mentions there is no possible way to make 25600 look like 6400

OM-1 25600 ISO with DXO Pureraw deep prime XD VS 6400 ISO . It is easy to get rid of noise but it is not a free lunch though it is getting better every generation

Click to expand...

As long as by "nonsense" you mean "observable performance improvements in the field" then we have agreement.

Click to expand...

You claiming that the OM-1 at 25600 ISO is totally wrong as can be seen with controlled raw samples the real difference is a fraction of a stop that requires pixel peeping to observe

Skeeterbytes said:

And as to the OP, do not overlook "I enjoy low light, often shoot at ISO 6400 on the EM1iii

Click to expand...

The raw samples I posted 100% crops from above are using DPreview's low light test shots

For example the OM-1 25600 shot is at 1/80 F/5.6

Skeeterbytes said:

Rick

Click to expand...

Perhaps Guy or some of the 45 folk who liked his post to me after joking about two stops claims will point out that everyone knows that is not true. Or perhaps not No one with eyes can claim that the OM-1 is two stops better than the E-M1 III . It is no doubt better in a number of areas and they may very well make a difference for what you shoot

I apologise if my replies came across as rude it was not my intention

--
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

Whatever else, I'm one of evidently very few who routinely shoot the two cameras as a pair, sometimes in dire light. This is where that mythical two stops becomes very real as I can keep shooting a 2.8 zoom on one while swapping in a 1.2 or 1.8 prime on the other. Wouldn't do so if the files were not usable.

Truly game-changing.

That's my story.

Rick

Skeeterbytes said:

Whatever else, I'm one of evidently very few who routinely shoot the two cameras as a pair, sometimes in dire light. This is where that mythical two stops becomes very real as I can keep shooting a 2.8 zoom on one while swapping in a 1.2 or 1.8 prime on the other. Wouldn't do so if the files were not usable.

Truly game-changing.

Click to expand...

sure everyone else is wrong including OM systems who eventually explained that the two stops thing was only possible with multi shot pixel shift shooting

Skeeterbytes said:

That's my story.

Click to expand...

As long as you are happy and not to bothered by facts and controlled raw samples enjoy

Skeeterbytes said:

Rick

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:

Skeeterbytes said:

Whatever else, I'm one of evidently very few who routinely shoot the two cameras as a pair, sometimes in dire light. This is where that mythical two stops becomes very real as I can keep shooting a 2.8 zoom on one while swapping in a 1.2 or 1.8 prime on the other. Wouldn't do so if the files were not usable.

Truly game-changing.

Click to expand...

sure everyone else is wrong including OM systems who eventually explained that the two stops thing was only possible with multi shot pixel shift shooting

James Stirling said:

That's my story.

Click to expand...

As long as you are happy and not to bothered by facts and controlled raw samples enjoy

James Stirling said:

Rick

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

My fear, such as it is, is folks get gaslit out of even trying something "because reasons."

A camera either performs or fails to perform. Results don't merely matter, they are the only thing that matters.

Skeeterbytes said:

James Stirling said:

Skeeterbytes said:

Whatever else, I'm one of evidently very few who routinely shoot the two cameras as a pair, sometimes in dire light. This is where that mythical two stops becomes very real as I can keep shooting a 2.8 zoom on one while swapping in a 1.2 or 1.8 prime on the other. Wouldn't do so if the files were not usable.

Truly game-changing.

Click to expand...

sure everyone else is wrong including OM systems who eventually explained that the two stops thing was only possible with multi shot pixel shift shooting

Skeeterbytes said:

That's my story.

Click to expand...

As long as you are happy and not to bothered by facts and controlled raw samples enjoy

Skeeterbytes said:

Rick

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

My fear, such as it is, is folks get gaslit out of even trying something "because reasons."

Click to expand...

My annoyance is that folk get misled by erroneous claims , a sadly common posting occurrence in this forum :-(

Skeeterbytes said:

A camera either performs or fails to perform. Results don't merely matter, they are the only thing that matters.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you would be kind enough to take a controlled low light photo with both cameras and upload the raw files that show the two stops difference. Good luck with that , I have the OM-1 and E-M5 III { which I believe share the same sensor as the E-M1 III } and the difference is marginal just as shown in the DPreview low light raw samples.

--
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