Upgrade to OM-1 or stick with E-M1.2 for allround-use?

[Perturabo]

With the OM-1 available for some time now (well, more or less) I'm wondering how it does fare as an allround do-it-all camera, especially when compared to its older sibling, the E-M1.2.

Use case:

Main use case is outdoor photography, i.e. hiking, mountainbiking, camping, etc. This may include everything from nice landscapes and milkyway to wildlife as well as the occasional bird. Which is the main reason why I do enjoy my m43 alongside my FF stuff: weight, size, ruggedness and handy computational modes.

The one thing that always, always gets me annoyed sooner or later is AF performance with moving subjects, though. With the OM-1, i don't get better dynamic range or noise than what my E-M1.2 provides, but AF improved big time. Or so tjey say. However, as I don't do birding (or trains, or cars, etc) it got me wondering how much improvement can be expected outside the subject detection modes?

Say, I'm shooting a mountainbiker in a mixed forest. Or an otter playing in a creek. That kind of stuff. Does it perform good enough to warrant the upgrade? Or is there no real-world difference outside of subject detection modes to the E-M1.2 or the E-M1.3?

Which brings me to the question whether an E-M1.3 would offer more or less the same (starry sky, computational ND-filters, improved AF routines albeit with less AF points) for less money? E-M1X is too large.

 

[Dave in Wales]

Stick with your Mk2 the OM1 only worth it for birds IMVHO.

I have an OM1 and have just ordered a Mk3 at a discount of 30%+ to compliment it for normal stuff.

 

[Miron09]

yesterday I saw an OM1 on an auction platform - CHF 1800. My solution: I stick with EM1 Mk1 and have a Canon FF with 1.4 35mm dangling round my neck. Will not carry more FF equipment. The Olympus 100-400 most frequently used

 

[Ianm]

Hi,

I faced a similar decision. After 5 years with my EM1 mk2 I am looking for an upgrade. However, I came to the conclusion that the OM1 probably wouldn’t give me any meaningful image quality improvement over my EM1 mk2 and I don’t really need the improved AF most of the time. So I eventually cancelled my pre-order.

I was also tempted by the improved EVF of the OM1, but after trying it during an Olympus day at a local camera shop I found it a little underwhelming.

It’s very easy to get caught up in the hype of a new camera. But I concluded at this moment in time my £2k+ would be better spent on a Nikon Z FF (still tbd) and I’ll keep the EM1 mk2 for general use.

Ian

 

[Miron09]

correct. I bought a Pen F with the 20Mpx sensor and noticed NO improvement over the 16 Mpx. I keep using the EM1 Mk1, in combination with a Canon FF. And people usually do not notice difference between pictures from the latter two

 

[glassoholic]

Hi,

I faced a similar decision. After 5 years with my EM1 mk2 I am looking for an upgrade. However, I came to the conclusion that the OM1 probably wouldn’t give me any meaningful image quality improvement over my EM1 mk2 and I don’t really need the improved AF most of the time. So I eventually cancelled my pre-order.

I was also tempted by the improved EVF of the OM1, but after trying it during an Olympus day at a local camera shop I found it a little underwhelming.

It’s very easy to get caught up in the hype of a new camera. But I concluded at this moment in time my £2k+ would be better spent on a Nikon Z FF (still tbd) and I’ll keep the EM1 mk2 for general use.

Ian

Funny you should mention the EVF... its lovely but not the day and night difference I was expecting. In fact, my EM1X EVF, is very nice too, even seems sharper and easier to see the whole field too.

As a whole, the OM-1 is the best Oly camera yet. But if you divorce emotions and excitement from the new camera romance, it's not noticably better in every department you could break it down into. But I am comparing to my previous newest camera, the EM1X. I have an EM1 2 as well, and I would say that if someone's newest existing camera was an EM1.2, I would recommend the OM-1. If someone had an EM1.3, and didn't need the AI Subject Modes, or didn't shoot birds, motorsports etc, maybe not worth the upgrade cost. If someone had the EM1X, and wanted the next level of BIF performance, then yes, a worthy upgrade.

If OMDS can continue the firmware upgrade tradition of the EM1.2 with some real improvements and new features, then one day the OM-1 at a used/ second hand price, would be much more attractive to an EM1.3 owner.

I was going to wait for (hopefully) firmware upgrades to my EM1X, but then a used OM-1, like new and 600 dollars less, came along and I couldn't stop myself.

 

[Doxa750]

If you have EM1.3, per your uses, I wouldn't upgrade. I would spend money on a nice vacation.

I however would definitely upgrade from EM1.2 to OM-1. OM-1, IBIS, EVF, much better battery capacity, and computational photography shall make all around-uses more fun.

 

[john isaacs]

With the OM-1 available for some time now (well, more or less) I'm wondering how it does fare as an allround do-it-all camera, especially when compared to its older sibling, the E-M1.2.

Use case:

Main use case is outdoor photography, i.e. hiking, mountainbiking, camping, etc. This may include everything from nice landscapes and milkyway to wildlife as well as the occasional bird. Which is the main reason why I do enjoy my m43 alongside my FF stuff: weight, size, ruggedness and handy computational modes.

The one thing that always, always gets me annoyed sooner or later is AF performance with moving subjects, though. With the OM-1, i don't get better dynamic range or noise than what my E-M1.2 provides, but AF improved big time. Or so tjey say. However, as I don't do birding (or trains, or cars, etc) it got me wondering how much improvement can be expected outside the subject detection modes?

Say, I'm shooting a mountainbiker in a mixed forest. Or an otter playing in a creek. That kind of stuff. Does it perform good enough to warrant the upgrade? Or is there no real-world difference outside of subject detection modes to the E-M1.2 or the E-M1.3?

Which brings me to the question whether an E-M1.3 would offer more or less the same (starry sky, computational ND-filters, improved AF routines albeit with less AF points) for less money? E-M1X is too large.

I have had an E-M1.2, E-M1.3, E-M1X, and OM-1. I have since sold the E-M1X (it really was too large).

The E-M1.3 was actually quite a step up from the E-M1.2. In addition to the features you mentioned, it added some usability options that I use a lot: a fourth custom mode, "Hold" option on the custom settings, and "My Menu". The one thing I don't like: they moved the menu button to the left side.

The OM-1 has subject tracking (started with the E-M1X), which is really good. It has faster sensor readout, so there is less rolling shutter and more usable flash with e-shutter. They automatically set drive mode to burst with bracketing (I wish that could be user selectable). HHHR is much faster (5 sec vs 13 sec). Live ND goes to ND64. But they dropped AF Mode from the Home Position settings, so I lost that third set of AF settings with the Set Home function. The alternative is they added back the MF function when the switching AF settings with the function lever is enabled. And they completely changed the menu system, so it's a whole bunch of learning again.

I notice that the E-M1.3 AF is not nearly as responsive as the OM-1. It always takes me a bit of time to get used to it when I switch from the OM-1 to the E-M1.3. I frequently shoot with two cameras, especially events (with the 12-40f2.8 and 40-150f2.8, for example). I used to also use two cameras for wildlife (100-400 and 300/1.4x). Since I got the 150-400f4.5, I just use the one. So I'm thinking of just keeping what I have for a while; E-M1.2/E-M1.3 for events, OM-1 for landscape/wildlife. But I'll likely move to just two OM-1's once they are more available. I'm still waiting for my "free" battery from the pre-order.

My advice: if you aren't really into wildlife, I would pick up an E-M1.3 for the exceptional features. Starry Sky AF is really convenient if you do any astro. I use LiveND all of the time for motion blur (still need ND filters if shooting video). I use the "Hold" feature on custom modes to make one custom mode a second shooting bank. But, if those don't interest you, the improved AF is still a reason to upgrade.

I always have a backup camera that will do the job, so I would keep the E-M1.2 for that.

 

[Skeeterbytes]

With the OM-1 available for some time now (well, more or less) I'm wondering how it does fare as an allround do-it-all camera, especially when compared to its older sibling, the E-M1.2.

Use case:

Main use case is outdoor photography, i.e. hiking, mountainbiking, camping, etc. This may include everything from nice landscapes and milkyway to wildlife as well as the occasional bird. Which is the main reason why I do enjoy my m43 alongside my FF stuff: weight, size, ruggedness and handy computational modes.

The one thing that always, always gets me annoyed sooner or later is AF performance with moving subjects, though. With the OM-1, i don't get better dynamic range or noise than what my E-M1.2 provides, but AF improved big time. Or so tjey say. However, as I don't do birding (or trains, or cars, etc) it got me wondering how much improvement can be expected outside the subject detection modes?

Do not listen to they. You do get better dynamic range, better noise characteristics, higher ISO ceiling. Standard C-AF is improved and if it applies to your shooting, the custom focus patterns are a nice tool. The new EVF and back display are distinctly better. The revised menu system is welcome, because the old one sagged under the weight of so many settings (it was just fine with simple cameras like the E-series, but these are much more complicated). Usable ISO 25600.

Certain other new features are already on the E-M1iii.

Say, I'm shooting a mountainbiker in a mixed forest. Or an otter playing in a creek. That kind of stuff. Does it perform good enough to warrant the upgrade? Or is there no real-world difference outside of subject detection modes to the E-M1.2 or the E-M1.3?

Which brings me to the question whether an E-M1.3 would offer more or less the same (starry sky, computational ND-filters, improved AF routines albeit with less AF points) for less money? E-M1X is too large.

The E-M1iii presents a nice half step in several regards. You get HHHR, Live ND, the new eye detection (finally it's dependable), Starry Sky, My Menu, custom AF patterns. AF is subtly better, nothing like the jump to OM1 but I find the keeper rate a bit higher with fast moving things. ISO 6400 is a little cleaner and more usable. Same battery, HLD9 grip works with both. It's a very fast process to adapt to the new model because they're so similar.

You do not get the revised menu which, now that I'm accustomed to it is a welcome addition. You don't get the great new EVF and improved back display.

That's what comes to mind. Even never touching subject detection, EM-1ii to OM1 is a large jump, then a pretty big hill to climb in becoming accustomed to a very different camera.

Cheers,

Rick

 

[tammons]

With the OM-1 available for some time now (well, more or less) I'm wondering how it does fare as an allround do-it-all camera, especially when compared to its older sibling, the E-M1.2.

Use case:

Main use case is outdoor photography, i.e. hiking, mountainbiking, camping, etc. This may include everything from nice landscapes and milkyway to wildlife as well as the occasional bird. Which is the main reason why I do enjoy my m43 alongside my FF stuff: weight, size, ruggedness and handy computational modes.

The one thing that always, always gets me annoyed sooner or later is AF performance with moving subjects, though. With the OM-1, i don't get better dynamic range or noise than what my E-M1.2 provides, but AF improved big time. Or so tjey say. However, as I don't do birding (or trains, or cars, etc) it got me wondering how much improvement can be expected outside the subject detection modes?

Say, I'm shooting a mountainbiker in a mixed forest. Or an otter playing in a creek. That kind of stuff. Does it perform good enough to warrant the upgrade? Or is there no real-world difference outside of subject detection modes to the E-M1.2 or the E-M1.3?

Which brings me to the question whether an E-M1.3 would offer more or less the same (starry sky, computational ND-filters, improved AF routines albeit with less AF points) for less money? E-M1X is too large.

Although there is nothing wrong with the Em1 II, I would say Om1 for a number of reasons. Better EVF, better AF, simpler menu, better controlled high iso noise, bird AF, HHHR, more shots per charge, etc.

 

[Gary from Seattle]

correct. I bought a Pen F with the 20Mpx sensor and noticed NO improvement over the 16 Mpx. I keep using the EM1 Mk1, in combination with a Canon FF. And people usually do not notice difference between pictures from the latter two

I see a lot of difference between the 16MP EM-1 I and the 20MP EM-1 II and EM-1 X. Not so much resolution, but colors are better, no need for saturation, and far better handling of difficult dynamic range issues such as shooting a scene with a snowy peak and closer-in vegetation. The EM-1 I sensor could not handle that situation if it was sunny.

That said, the 20MP EM-1 II produces excellent images; I would doubt I would find significant differences with the OM-1 or with FF. At least not differences worth getting excited about.

 

[Gary from Seattle]

With the OM-1 available for some time now (well, more or less) I'm wondering how it does fare as an allround do-it-all camera, especially when compared to its older sibling, the E-M1.2.

Use case:

Main use case is outdoor photography, i.e. hiking, mountainbiking, camping, etc. This may include everything from nice landscapes and milkyway to wildlife as well as the occasional bird.

It depends which of these envelopes is more important to you, and which is most likely. For hiking and into evening, the EM-1 II works just fine and is quite compact. However, once you start shooting stars or MW, I am sure the OM-1 would do a better job at reducing noise in the images; and would even enable handholding in some instances.

The occasional bird is occasional, and in hiking it is very rare that the bird would be close enough to make an image better than mediocre. And you would have to hike/backpack with very long lenses....

Smaller mammals like Marmots and Pika are typically easy to shoot, although Pika often take a lens longer than 100mm.

It is an entirely different scenario if the goal is birding, itself.

Which is the main reason why I do enjoy my m43 alongside my FF stuff: weight, size, ruggedness and handy computational modes.

The one thing that always, always gets me annoyed sooner or later is AF performance with moving subjects, though. With the OM-1, i don't get better dynamic range or noise than what my E-M1.2 provides, but AF improved big time. Or so tjey say. However, as I don't do birding (or trains, or cars, etc) it got me wondering how much improvement can be expected outside the subject detection modes?

Again, I see that as a different pursuit. I often go out to shoot birds locally or bees in some mountain meadows. Then I carry my EM-1X and 300 F4. But, that is not something I would do on a really long hike or backpack. I did recently purchase the Panasonic 50-200 for certain mountain hikes. But that lens for me is not all that large and offers just a two lens mountain hiking package paired with the 12-45.

Say, I'm shooting a mountainbiker in a mixed forest. Or an otter playing in a creek. That kind of stuff. Does it perform good enough to warrant the upgrade? Or is there no real-world difference outside of subject detection modes to the E-M1.2 or the E-M1.3?

Which brings me to the question whether an E-M1.3 would offer more or less the same (starry sky, computational ND-filters, improved AF routines albeit with less AF points) for less money? E-M1X is too large.

 

[Photongraphy]

With the OM-1 available for some time now (well, more or less) I'm wondering how it does fare as an allround do-it-all camera, especially when compared to its older sibling, the E-M1.2.

Use case:

Main use case is outdoor photography, i.e. hiking, mountainbiking, camping, etc. This may include everything from nice landscapes and milkyway to wildlife as well as the occasional bird. Which is the main reason why I do enjoy my m43 alongside my FF stuff: weight, size, ruggedness and handy computational modes.

The one thing that always, always gets me annoyed sooner or later is AF performance with moving subjects, though. With the OM-1, i don't get better dynamic range or noise than what my E-M1.2 provides, but AF improved big time. Or so tjey say. However, as I don't do birding (or trains, or cars, etc) it got me wondering how much improvement can be expected outside the subject detection modes?

Say, I'm shooting a mountainbiker in a mixed forest. Or an otter playing in a creek. That kind of stuff. Does it perform good enough to warrant the upgrade? Or is there no real-world difference outside of subject detection modes to the E-M1.2 or the E-M1.3?

Which brings me to the question whether an E-M1.3 would offer more or less the same (starry sky, computational ND-filters, improved AF routines albeit with less AF points) for less money? E-M1X is too large.

In short, yes, the EM1.3 offers almost the same features, but the OM1 does them faster.
The EM1.3 brings a little better AF, OM1 a big step.
And the OM1 has nicer EVF and menus.

If you want a next step, OM1 always is the logical answer.
In any other case you should ask yourself: what are you missing now?

 

[Trevor Carpenter]

no one has mentioned it and probably not of interest to many, the in camera focus stacking has taken a huge leap forward on the OM-1

 

[DavZell]

Buy the OM-1 for engaging in fun arguments and keep the M1.2 for shooting. ;-) /s

I have both. The M1.2 is a great camera, and if you haven't felt held back, stick with it and upgrade when you do or when some used OM-1's start cropping up.

I have mild disabilities, and some features on the OM-1 made it worth it for me (e.g the display of how steady you are, which helps me know if I'm actually moving around or if it's phantom).

I have confidence, however blind, that OM will improve the AF areas that people have had some complaints with. Personally, I've been fine as is anyway.

 

[Rupert the bear]

With the OM-1 available for some time now (well, more or less) I'm wondering how it does fare as an allround do-it-all camera, especially when compared to its older sibling, the E-M1.2.

Use case:

Main use case is outdoor photography, i.e. hiking, mountainbiking, camping, etc. This may include everything from nice landscapes and milkyway to wildlife as well as the occasional bird. Which is the main reason why I do enjoy my m43 alongside my FF stuff: weight, size, ruggedness and handy computational modes.

The one thing that always, always gets me annoyed sooner or later is AF performance with moving subjects, though. With the OM-1, i don't get better dynamic range or noise than what my E-M1.2 provides, but AF improved big time. Or so tjey say. However, as I don't do birding (or trains, or cars, etc) it got me wondering how much improvement can be expected outside the subject detection modes?

Say, I'm shooting a mountainbiker in a mixed forest. Or an otter playing in a creek. That kind of stuff. Does it perform good enough to warrant the upgrade? Or is there no real-world difference outside of subject detection modes to the E-M1.2 or the E-M1.3?

Which brings me to the question whether an E-M1.3 would offer more or less the same (starry sky, computational ND-filters, improved AF routines albeit with less AF points) for less money? E-M1X is too large.

I've just spent the weekend properly using my OM1 for the first time, the AF is much much better than the EM1 ii even after it got the greatest firmware update. I went to a particular river spot I've been to many times to photograph birds, where I've never really got good results before, and to a friends house at dusk to take photos of their dog jumping hurdles in the shady garden. The results are superb and I would have got nothing from my EM1 ii in either case.

You mention otters in the creek...presumably shady conditions and a rapidly moving dark mammal...this is where you notice a game changing level of improvement.

 

[Skeeterbytes]

no one has mentioned it and probably not of interest to many, the in camera focus stacking has taken a huge leap forward on the OM-1

Putting on my to-do list.

Tried HHHR for the first time yesterday--so much faster than the E-M1iii, think I'll use it more often as a result. Nice to have the dedicated button.

Cheers,

Rick

 

[Trevor Carpenter]

no one has mentioned it and probably not of interest to many, the in camera focus stacking has taken a huge leap forward on the OM-1

Putting on my to-do list.

Tried HHHR for the first time yesterday--so much faster than the E-M1iii, think I'll use it more often as a result. Nice to have the dedicated button.

Cheers,

Rick

I've tried HHHR but i can' see any benefit on what I shoot. I think it probably is most beneficial on landscapes and architecture. if anybody has any HHHR wildlife shots where they think it makes a significant difference I love to see examples.

 

[glassoholic]

no one has mentioned it and probably not of interest to many, the in camera focus stacking has taken a huge leap forward on the OM-1

 

[Skeeterbytes]

no one has mentioned it and probably not of interest to many, the in camera focus stacking has taken a huge leap forward on the OM-1

Putting on my to-do list.

Tried HHHR for the first time yesterday--so much faster than the E-M1iii, think I'll use it more often as a result. Nice to have the dedicated button.

Cheers,

Rick

I've tried HHHR but i can' see any benefit on what I shoot. I think it probably is most beneficial on landscapes and architecture. if anybody has any HHHR wildlife shots where they think it makes a significant difference I love to see examples.

For starters: instruct your bird to not wag its tail.







--
Equivalence and diffraction-free since 2009.
You can be too; ask about our 12-step program.