GH6 vs OM1 for Stills Only - Also, Synergy of Panasonic with Own Lenses

Two questions:

1) If you are virtually only a stills shooter, does the GH6 make sense over an OM1?

2) Is there a synergy between Panasonic cameras (such as GH6) and older Panasonic lenses, like the 100-400?

Thanks.

abe4652 wrote:

Two questions:

1) If you are virtually only a stills shooter, does the GH6 make sense over an OM1?

From a purely "bang-for-your-buck" perspective, I would have to say it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You are paying for a lot of high-end video features in the GH6 that you won't use and also end up with a heavier and bulkier camera body with a fan.

However, if you already have some stabilised Panasonic G lenses then that might sway your decision. See point 2 below.

2) Is there a synergy between Panasonic cameras (such as GH6) and older Panasonic lenses, like the 100-400?

Yes, Panasonic OIS lenses will support Dual-IS2 on the GH6, so I think that's worth consideration in the decision-making process. Unless you often put your camera on a tripod.

thinkinginimages wrote:

The OM1 and GH6 bodies are the same list price.

Yes, right. So my view is that if you're spending the same amount of money, you want to get the best bang for your buck, i.e. to get the features that you will use (e.g. in this case primarily for stills) and not pay for a lot of features you won't use (e.g. video).

abe4652 wrote:

Two questions:

1) If you are virtually only a stills shooter, does the GH6 make sense over an OM1?

2) Is there a synergy between Panasonic cameras (such as GH6) and older Panasonic lenses, like the 100-400?

Thanks.

Here's my take after testing the GH6 for a brief period of time and having the OM-1 now for several months. The GH6 is just too large. The added fan mechanism that is strictly for the benefit of video makes the camera HUGE in the world of MFT. It would not be an issue for anyone sticking with tripod work but carrying the GH6 all day would be painful compared to the OM-1.

Olympus OM-1 with Leica 100-400mm zoom. !/2500th of a second. F/4.6 ISO 2000

Secondly, I'm using several Pana/Leica lenses with the new OM-1. In particular the Leica 100-400mm zoom. This lens was always problematic with my Lumix gear but the OM-1 has resurrected this lens like I would have never believed. The Leica 100-400mm is like a totally new lens on the OM-1. Above is a sample of a Harris Hawk coming straight at the camera I recently shot. It's just one of a series of many that were all perfectly in focus. Something this lens was never capable of on any Lumix camera I owned. And I've owned them all. I was astonished at how good this lens works with the OM-1. I no longer plan on selling it since I'll use it for travel when my Olympus 150-400mm is not needed.

victorav wrote:

tammons wrote:

abe4652 wrote:

Two questions:

1) If you are virtually only a stills shooter, does the GH6 make sense over an OM1?

2) Is there a synergy between Panasonic cameras (such as GH6) and older Panasonic lenses, like the 100-400?

Thanks.

Doesnt the Om1 have cleaner high iso files?

Not really. In camera noise reduction is good for jpegs, raw performance is about the same as previous 20mp sensors.

There has been some debate on high iso of the GH6 but GH6 seems pretty good to me.

Why would you get the GH6 instead of the GH5.2, if you are not interested in its advanced video capability?

DPR's initial evaluation for stills on the GH6 compared to the OM1 (the full review is not completed so there may be changes)

Our Exposure Latitude test delves into the deep shadows of base ISO images to test the degree to which you can underexpose to protect highlights, then exploit the camera's full dynamic range. The GH6 is showing significantly more noise when given the same exposure as the OM-1. In principle this represents deeper shadows because of the difference in their respective base ISOs, but the difference is pronounced enough that you can comfortably conclude that the GH6 has less usable dynamic range than the OM-1.

The ISO invariance tells a similar story: above ISO 800, where the GH6's Dual Output Gain system kicks in, the two camera look very similar, but push the lower ISOs and the Panasonic shows increasing noise levels in the very deep shadows.

tammons wrote:

abe4652 wrote:

Two questions:

1) If you are virtually only a stills shooter, does the GH6 make sense over an OM1?

2) Is there a synergy between Panasonic cameras (such as GH6) and older Panasonic lenses, like the 100-400?

Thanks.

Doesnt the Om1 have cleaner high iso files?

It's the opposite, OM1 has significantly better low iso files, but past ISO 800, the dual output gain in the GH6 kicks in and they wind up around the same.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Olympus%20System%20OM-1,Panasonic%20Lumix%20DC-GH6

Why not buy a G9 for now, save yourself lots of cash and get the dual is with lenses like the 100-400.

Never know you might see a G9 ii in the time it would take to find an OM1 given the current supply issues

If you are wondering about image quality and general purpose use (landscape, portraits, close up) perhaps none of those cameras is the best choice in the format

if instead you are looking at certain features birds in flight for example or video then those may be the right choice

at present my favourite MFT camera is the GH5M2 strong performance in all general photography user case as well as video lacks the fast burst rate but for me 9fps is adequate most times. i do quite a bit of night photography and the ergonomics and quality are great considering at the end is a small sensor

thinkinginimages wrote:

Pete_W wrote:

thinkinginimages wrote:

The OM1 and GH6 bodies are the same list price.

Yes, right. So my view is that if you're spending the same amount of money, you want to get the best bang for your buck, i.e. to get the features that you will use (e.g. in this case primarily for stills) and not pay for a lot of features you won't use (e.g. video).

My money is still on the GH6. Yes, its video-centric but why would that take away from its still capabilities?

Well, I am basing my comments on a number of threads posted here in the forums, such as this one:

Panasonic DC-GH6 Sensor Measurements at PhotonsToPhotos: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

...and this DPR article:

Panasonic GH6 looks good for most shooting, but low ISO DR falls behind: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

"Bang for the buck" in terms of stills is subjective.

The OM1 is still riding a huge wave of hype. As an investment in equipment? I'm not sure about that.

Yes, it is subjective. For me, the GH6 didn't represent a valuable upgrade because I didn't need all of the on-board video technology which contributed to its bulky size.

And the OM-1 didn't represent a valuable upgrade for me because I didn't need fast C-AF and bird detect/tracking features.

In both cases, I'd be paying for features I don't need or want.

I can't answer the question about lens synergy. They work as well as they were designed to when they were released. Future proof? Maybe not. For instance, I had the venerable 14-45. Great lens but not quiet, not ideal for video. But the 14-42PZ and II are.

Recent firmware updates for some Panasonic lenses have introduced enhancements in lens operation specifically for the GH6 and GH5M2.

abe4652 wrote:

Two questions:

1) If you are virtually only a stills shooter, does the GH6 make sense over an OM1?

No, because it bigger and heavier.

2) Is there a synergy between Panasonic cameras (such as GH6) and older Panasonic lenses, like the 100-400?

Not sure what you mean, but some Panasonic lens features (like aperture ring and Dual IS) only work on Panasonic cameras.

Astrotripper wrote:

abe4652 wrote:

Two questions:

1) If you are virtually only a stills shooter, does the GH6 make sense over an OM1?

No, because it bigger and heavier.

2) Is there a synergy between Panasonic cameras (such as GH6) and older Panasonic lenses, like the 100-400?

Not sure what you mean, but some Panasonic lens features (like aperture ring and Dual IS) only work on Panasonic cameras.

Many people don’t care about few hundred grams unless they can’t even hold the camera So that is not a criteria for the op

thinkinginimages wrote:

All valid points, Pete. I see it this way: different cameras have different palettes. I like Panasonic's palette for much of my work. It's like preferring a film.

I just never see the point in comparing Panasonic to Olympus and vice verse. As I've said, they only share a mount. Is a similar sensor size the only other reason for comparison? It's more complicated than that.

Yes, I feel the same. I prefer Panasonic for a number of reasons and have just bought into the L-mount system, but will continue to use my M4/3 gear.