Tempted to enter MFT system for sports and action photography

I don't agree at all. It finds locks and tracks much better than the EM1.2 I traded in for it. It's early days in firmware. The camera hasn't been out that long and it takes a lot of manhours of testing and code tweaking to improve it. I remember the EM1.2 was not much better than the EM1.1 until firmware 3.0. I was very disappointed before then. 3.0 turned it into a different camera.

Depends. If you are shooting a telephoto you have 2X the range for the same size/weight lens. Once you crop the higher-resolution image to match you have pretty much the same image and unless you are really strong, it's a lot easier to hand-hold the M43 kit. If you are on a tripod you can't be as opportunistic. Show me your fish jumping or bird leaving the perch sequence, the sequence of the heron snatching a fish. The OM-1 can capture shots that are impossible with other systems. You don't any IQ if you don't have the photo. Pick one up as your second system and pretty soon you will leave what you use now at home.

I think the R5 is a great camera but I shoot with a friend who has one. He shoots Canon glass at 700mm on a tripod, I shoot handheld at 840mm. After he crops, he still has more resolution but he misses shots because of the tripod and he can't capture birds leaving the perch or fish jumping. He's too late. I can swing around and be optimistic, he has to pick up his other camera, the one he can handhold. For whatever reason, I can shoot in as low or lower light than he can. He packs up before me. I'm shooting much lower shutter speed with dual IS. Sharp images at 1/5, maybe slower if I try. I'm hand-holding. He can't do that. I have a small, light pack. I'm much more mobile. I can pick up my pack and walk off to another area with the camera in my hand. The IQ is great and the experience of lightness is so much better. He says the only reason he doesn't change over is he has so much money invested in the glass.

He says he has a 75% keeper rate with the R5 but he's shooting stationary birds. He said he only has a 25% keeper rate with the camera the R5 replaced.

We shot this bird together until we lost the light. His image isn't any better than my image is. No post-processing applied. Just converted from RAW. If it's a trade of IQ for other things, this is good enough for me. He couldn't make a better one with his R5. Maybe if we printed bigger than 24X36, maybe not. Could you really tell if they weren't sided by side and close to the print? I don't print anything that big so it doesn't matter to me.

Lane is lying? The other people who test tracking and find the OM-1 gives them a few sharp shots less out of 100 than the best they tested so it makes no difference as far as they are concerned. If you have 91 out of 100 vs 98 out of 100 did you get one you like?

With the expensive glass he has he could buy two OM-1 kits. they weigh less than his R5, the bazooka and the tripod and he will be able to capture shots he can't capture now. He knows it. It's hard to give up something you are familiar with and happy with. He may not but he may always wish he had an OM-1 as he does now. I'd like to have an R5, but not the tripod and the big lenses.

It doesn't do that with FW 1.2 in my experience.

tedolf wrote:

ProDude wrote:

Tommy S wrote:

I have been following news and reviews of the newest OM-1 recently, and I am more and more tempted to enter this system. Previously I used Sony APS-C and FF and 2 years ago I switched to Canon R6 with great satisfaction in terms of focus acquisition and IQ. I rejected Sony A9II due to its form factor and ergonomics, but must admit, that Sony's Tamron 35-150 is also very tempting combo for my type of photography, as I find this range of FL very usable.

Speaking of the FL range and having R6 I was waiting for R7 to come to the market to complement my gear. I have 24-70 and 70-200F2.8 EF lenses. I rarely use FL above 200 mm.

I have never played with R7 but after reading and viewing what the Internet gives about R7 I think I can give OM-1 (with 40-150 F2.8) a solid try. One of R7 blocking points (maybe not deal breakers) is shutter noise. I would also consider second R6 II body as money is not a big object. This is just hobby, but I never frustrate myself on purpose looking for a imposed balance of my budget and gear. In my hobby I always plan what I want to shoot in terms of topic and when I feel I have explored it I try to look for a new one to explore. This way I want to explore rodeo, stunt bikes and race cars.

To the point ... sorry for this wordy foreplay.

What I like about OM-1 (from what I read and viewed) is

• Form factor (size and ergonomics) as having two bodies of OM-1 with 12-40 and 40-150 is nice considering outdoor shooting and my age
• Both Zuiko lenses weigh twice less than EF 24-70 / 70-200
• Sensor readout speed and silent shutter (7.8 ms)

I would like to hear from you, what is your experience as far as sports / action photography, using OM-1.

PS. I read The Best Mirrorless Cameras for Birds in Flight Ranked and OM-1 handles very well.

I have a friend that shoots sports almost exclusively and he tried a Z9 and A1 sending them back. I encouraged him (almost as a joke) to try the OM-1 with a 40-150 f2.8 Pro lens just to see what it could do for him. Back in June when we were discussing this they were not typically available. On a lark B&H got the kits into stock. I called him to let him know and he ordered that setup along with that 40-150 f2.8 Pro to try it out.

He goaded me to also get one to check it out. I had a Canon R5 along with most of the top RF L glass so wasn't really strongly interested, but I figured what the heck I could play with it and send it back just to see what it was all about. And he wanted me to be able to set his up with me along for the ride. Well the short story is I did. Compared it right next to my R5's output at ISO12,800 and at HHHR mode. The OM-1 stood it's ground, and was such a joy to no longer have the bulk, after 2 more weeks or wringing it out in all regards I ended up selling off all my Canon gear and building up the Pro lens lineup for the OM-1 with a grip. So I would encourage you to try the setup for sure. I suspect you'll be very surprised.

I hate it when people "buy" things just to try them out and then send them back if they don't like them. This drives up the cost of everything for everybody.

If you want to try something, rent it or borrow it from a friend.

Tedolph

In my area, there exists no option of renting a piece of gear before making a decision to purchase it or not. For some, the limits of their sight are the limits of the world.

I had doubts it was that much better than the EM1.2 I traded it for. I skipped the EM1.3. I tried a 2-week test. After a few days, no way the OM-1 was going back.

I don't shoot enough in low light to buy the 25 f/1.2 so for now I use the 25 f/1.8. I miss the bokeh of the 17 f1.2 but it was a once-a-year use. If that changes I'll buy the 25 f/1.2.

F/.18 is shallow enough and I can use so much higher ISO low light is not an issue.

I bet most people try gear they expect to keep and usually do keep it. We have a pretty good idea what will work, but we are sometimes reading spec sheets and reviews that can be misleading. Here are in an argument over which is better R5 or OM-1. Amazing considering how the two brands compared 5 and 10 years ago. The argument would have been mute. The gap has closed or at least much smaller. Different issue.

I bought one lens in 20 years I wasn't sure I wanted. I found I couldn't use it and returned it but it was a used lens. It didn't drive up the cost of anything.  I bet most people haven't.

For that FL I think you are right. And also right if you can get close. If I shot under 200mm all the time I'd have more system options.

Some of DOF is taste/style. Not all the public prefers shallow DOF or even recognizes it.

For motorsports, I take two bodies, 12-45 and 40-150, both f/4. A 25 f/1.8 because I like shooting with a prime when I can use one. 12-45 in the pit and paddock. 40-150 trackside. The 40-150 is a one-lens solution trackside at most tracks. That camera/lens is 2lbs and $3,000. A blessing.

Sometimes I need something longer but most of the time it doesn't come out of the car. I could get away with a FF kit if I limited myself to 200mm but I need 300mm a lot of the time. I don't need anything faster than f/4, even in the rain and it rains a lot where I live.

I get some shots with good subject separation and some not but a lot of people like to see the background in focus. Motorsports is not all art. It's action. I often stop down to f/5.6.

I take 4 assignments a month.

But I also bird and I need 840mm for that. Since I can get by with f/4 for motorsports I can live with one system.  A blessing because I don't want to carry a tripod or a kit heavy enough to require one. I like being mobile and I don't think I'm trading any IQ that is preventing me from getting work. I'm overbooked.

For me too. F/4 is an MFT sweetsport. It's DOF f/8 in FF and lots of FF PROs use that because it makes the sharpest images with their lenses. Fast glass is not the only way to separate the subject. There is positioning from camera to subject, subject to background.

It can be too thin. I shoot hood ornaments in f/5.6 because people like to see what's in the background. They like that better than a blob and so do I.

Good example. I prefer the OM-1 image because it presents the player as well and I can see the seats on the other side of the rink. They are blurry and that's enough for separation for this image. For an art shot at a wedding, for some still-life photos, I'd say something different.

For sports, you can take DOF to an extreme and I feel this is a good example of it. Max thin DOF is not always a good thing.

I bet if you show this to the average sports fan that knows nothing about photography they will say the OM-1 image is better. Most people want to see the background. They don't want to try to squint to see it.

Nice image and the building is blurred but not a blob. I like that I can see it. I think it would still work with deeper DOF. Now I can see from the sports you are shooting why you are shooting less than 200mm. Makes sense. Use the system you like. They will all work for this.

Yeap but I like it the way it is and it can be deeper. It would not look much different with the 12-40 f/2.8 even though the lens is two stops deeper because you are right, you need a longer lens to put the building far out of the DOF, and Panny makes an f/1.7 MFT normal zoom so you can go a stop shallower in MFT if you want to.

What for? It's a good image as it is. I like looking at it. What else matters?

Not many sports images look good with a background that is a blob of color. Small birds perched do. Action isn't action without context. I like a smooth background, blurry but not a blob of color.- Bokeh. Some MFT lenses are not very good at this at some times and some are. I sometimes get a harsh, busy background with the 40-150 f/2.8. Annoying. I still love the lens and it's great to have TCs for it. The f/4 version, never seen a bokeh problem. Use it as my primary sports lens because it's so compact, light, and sharp, as sharp as the 40-150 f/2.8 but 2/3 the size and weight. It's the bigger lens on a diet with more consistent bokeh. The f/2.8 needs an update to improve the bokeh.

20MP is enough. Sometimes I pick up an old 16MP body, use it and wonder why I need 20MP when I get there with the lenses and don't need to crop much. Even when I do crop 100% and more it is not a problem. I'd rather work with a smaller file. I often reduce the resolution to reduce the file size when I adjust and save it.

When M43 went to 16MP I never thought I needed more resolution. If I had 45+ MP I'd dial the camera back to 20MP and if I did that I might choose 16MP. Online magazines like 2000 lines on the wide side. You can't see much more detail than that with the naked eye on most displays. Prints of course need more resolution. I save the original RAW for large format. I tried a ~25MP ASPC sensor from Fuji and couldn't make a better image of a static subject. After adjusting camera settings to match exposure. I could not tell which image came out of which camera without inspecting the EXIF files.

You haven't experienced a high ISO RAW on the OM-1. You might say something different. I did. Way better than my EM5.3. The 40-150 f/2.8 might work with the MC14 but it isn't ideal.

You will have no light problem at all. I shoot f/5.6 in the rain. Plenty of shadow lifting even in the jpeg. You can underexpose if you want to but if you shoot RAW the OM-1 seems to bring back the highlights better so you can actually overexpose, unlike earlier MFT sensors. You can shoot to the right of the histogram. You won't have to lift the shadows as much. I'm exposing brighter than I did with the EM1.2 and getting good images.

The Nikon 70-200 is a great lens. It weighs more than 3 lbs and is 8.66" long. It's heavier than the 300 f/4 and almost as long. The 40-150f/2.8 is 2/3 the weight, 75% of the length, and has 50% more reach. It's hard to beat the 40-150PRO if you can use the reach. The OM-1 and the 40-150 f/2.8 weigh about the same as the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 alone.

A 12-100 f/2.8 MFT sounds like it would be perfect for a one-lens, one-body solution. A one-lens solution. Or a 40-100 f/2.8 for two lenses.

I bet for outdoors the 12-100 f/4 will work if you only need 200mm. It has dual IS and is lighter and smaller still. 1.24lbs, 4.56".  I don't need/use f/2.8 for sports in daylight, even in rain. DOF will be deeper of course but you can still use the f/1.7 zooms when you want to. The 12-100 f/4 is a much-loved lens. Especially on the long end, the DOF may be shallow enough.

EZGritz wrote:

Not many sports images look good with a background that is a blob of color. Small birds perched do. Action isn't action without context. I like a smooth background, blurry but not a blob of color.- Bokeh. Some MFT lenses are not very good at this at some times and some are. I sometimes get a harsh, busy background with the 40-150 f/2.8. Annoying. I still love the lens and it's great to have TCs for it. The f/4 version, never seen a bokeh problem. Use it as my primary sports lens because it's so compact, light, and sharp, as sharp as the 40-150 f/2.8 but 2/3 the size and weight. It's the bigger lens on a diet with more consistent bokeh. The f/2.8 needs an update to improve the bokeh.

Blurry background and decent separation is a matter of personal taste. I agree, that in street photography BB kills context of the picture, generally speaking. In sports? I would argue opposite. Here is the example of my shot:

The crowd line is getting a kind of separation but the skater blends in too much and makes the viewer strain their eyes. As I said, it is a matter of personal taste. Ofc, I am aware that a couple of feet deeper the bowl, the skater would also make my eyes strain due to the graffiti. That is not what I mean.

The debate of the background blur might be endless.

MEDISN wrote:

Tommy S wrote:

I would like to hear from you, what is your experience as far as sports / action photography, using OM-1.

Hi Tommy,

Sounds like we are a lot alike in what we use/have used. Nearly all of my sports and action work is on Olympus now. I came from 1DX II to A9 and eventually R5, all of which I liked, but several key features make Olympus better to work with.

• Packing / portability / bulk
• Weather resistance and durability (Sony failed me)
• Crazy fast burst rates + ProCapture
• Ergonomics and handling are top notch
• Performance does not decline with battery % (R5)
• No overheating!
• Stabilization so good I leave the gimbal home
• JPEG engine is among the best I have ever used
• OM-1 JPG up to ISO 25600 are usable
• Wireless connectivity at events is strong and reliable
• Overall cost is half of what I had invested with Canon/Sony

There is something to be said for peace of mind when I'm shooting on location. Olympus is compact, portable, inexpensive, if something gets lost or stolen it's easy to replace.

For lenses, I find myself using the 40-150/2.8 the most. Internal zoom and built to last. Wash it off between shoots. Manual focus clutch is awesome too.

Some examples of what/where I shoot:

https://www.mitropoulos.photography/Athletics/

https://www.mitropoulos.photography/1-FOX-RACEWAY-PALA-1/

https://www.mitropoulos.photography/Orange-County/

Let us know what you choose and how you like it. Plenty of good options out there.

Wonderful photo gallery.