I think your apparent bias in favor of gripped cameras (or maybe against vintage-looking cameras) is coloring things here.
I said the OM1 is for the MORE serious I believe.
I actually love vintage-looking cameras!
It's nice to have free choice I think!
Can't really comment on that since I never owned one, but the OM-3 to me seems incredibly sturdy. I've already dropped the thing on concrete without really damaging it.
Do you mean dedicated ISO, SS and Aperture dials? Sounds like you're in the wrong system then - I doubt we'll ever see that out of OM System. I'd be tempted to say Lumix might go there to play in the X100 market since they at least have a handful of lenses with aperture rings, but they seem to be pretty focused on the hybrid shooter crowd.
The "entry-level" EVF used to be the top-of-the-line EVF.
I certainly prefer the OM-1's, but realistically it doesn't really impact my photography very much. The only time it really annoys me is when I'm doing detailed (macro-ish) work. Most of the rest of the time I'm just using it for composition where the resolution doesn't really matter.For sure! I feel very fortunate to have both, but I have fallen in love with my OM-3 in a way I never quite did with the OM-1 Mark II. The OM-1 is a fantastic tool and I'm super happy with it for what I bought it for, but the OM-3 has my heart.
Congratulations! All of that is a great choice including the flash. I still have the 12-40/2.8 and 40-150/2.8 but I mainly now use the f4 versions. The 40-150/2.8 is a very nice lens and it takes TC’s to add a little more utility. The OM-3 is a wonderful camera, EnjoyI'm going with my heart on this one. I've just ordered the OM3 with the 12-45 f4 pro, the 17mm f1.8 and 25mm f1.8. I found the small Olympus flash on MPB too so got that. I'll see how I get on with the 12-45 f4 to determine whether the 40-150 f4 would work. It'll be a while before I'm able to buy that longer zoom as I'll need to save up for it which will give me a good bit of time to evaluate. Thanks for your help everyone! I'm looking forward to trying it all out and travelling with a little less equipment. Now....on to bags!!!
If you’re going to be using it indoors, I would avoid the f/4. Even f/2.8 can be challenging at tunes in those conditions, which is why I still bring f/1.2 and f/1.8 primes for doing event work.
I think that’s a great idea. One of the things I love about the Pro lenses is that they hold up really well and I’ve had great luck buying used - in fact, most of my lenses were bought used. The 40-150/2.8 is my “workhorse” lens and I really can’t imagine life without it.
I don’t unfortunately. I’ve stuck mostly to native MFT glass.
The first two lenses I would buy for a small camera are the Panasonic 12-32 pancake and the 20mm F1.7.Thinking of switching from full frame to Micro Four Thirds. My FF gear is great, but I’m not using it enough—and it’s heavy and expensive.
Goal: small, high-quality kit.
Current plan:
- OM-3 + 12–45mm f/4 PRO
- Add 17mm and 25mm f/1.8 (both weather-sealed)
- Eventually add 40–150mm f/2.8 for wildlife + intimate landscapes
I know the 40–150 is big on this body, but I’m fine with that. I’ll use a grip or support it by hand.
Anyone using this setup?
Would love to hear how it handles overall—and if you’d suggest any changes.
Agree the 40-150/2.8 probably hits the sweet spot among lenses being considered. Mine has tons of use across a decade now, and I rely on it still. So sharp zoomed ling, plus f:2.8 becomes important when shooting indoors.
Well said Rick, I've had my 40-150 f2.8 for just as long and still love it, when I got my new 50-200mm I felt a bit guilty when I opened the box next to my old faithful 40-150mm, I didn't have the best of experiences with my new 50-200mm as mine wasn't a good copy so it has gone back, I feel relieved that they are scarce ATM so that gave me time to re consider do I really need it while waiting for a replacement, the shop was really good and gave me a full refund and I'm sticking with my much loved 40-150mm, having Great White really helped with that decision in a big way. WOW the new 50-200mm felt beautiful in my hands though and that was one of the hardest decisions I have made in a while
For intimate landscapes I would go with the 40-150mm f4.0. I like the image rendering better. For low light and shallow depth of field I like the 40-150mm f4.0. Plus the f2.8 version can take the two telecomvertors. The f2.8 version can have a little nervous Bokeh. I own both and love each. For my everyday carry kit the f4.0 is on it. When I need f2.8 for low light or sibject isolation the f2.8 verson is used. Both are very good lenses.
