Tempted to enter MFT system for sports and action photography

Tommy--  The Panny 10-25/1.7 and Oly 40-150/2.8 on OM-1's seem like a great combination to me, if I were shooting what you shoot.

I have an A1 and the 35-150 Tamron and it is nice system, my first FF setup, after years with MFT.  I don't have any Sony zooms for comparison, but the Tamron autofocus seems instantaneous to me when chasing the grand kids around.  The lens and camera are heavy, great on a tripod or from a static position, but not as pleasant to shoot with as an OM-1 with 40-150, that's for sure, if I'm moving around a lot.

So I still use the MFT system almost as much as before.   Getting to spend some time with both systems over the last year has shown me how good the MFT system really is and reinforced the idea that light and small and fun to operate wins out much of the time, with very little compromise in the images for lots of use cases.

I am not a pro, I am a hobbyist, a retired engineer that likes technology a little too much at times.  If I had go live with only one system, it would still be MFT.

Joe Lynch wrote:

Tommy-- The Panny 10-25/1.7 and Oly 40-150/2.8 on OM-1's seem like a great combination to me, if I were shooting what you shoot.

I have an A1 and the 35-150 Tamron and it is nice system, my first FF setup, after years with MFT. I don't have any Sony zooms for comparison, but the Tamron autofocus seems instantaneous to me when chasing the grand kids around. The lens and camera are heavy, great on a tripod or from a static position, but not as pleasant to shoot with as an OM-1 with 40-150, that's for sure, if I'm moving around a lot.

I need to organize A9II with Tammy 35-150 F2-2.8 to see it for myself if AF-C works the way I can accept it. I know it already it will not be an ease endeavor here in Poland. There are so many various opinions I am more than confused.

So I still use the MFT system almost as much as before. Getting to spend some time with both systems over the last year has shown me how good the MFT system really is and reinforced the idea that light and small and fun to operate wins out much of the time, with very little compromise in the images for lots of use cases.

Unfortunately, I can't find OM-1 for rent. That would answer many of my questions before entering the new system.

AxelF wrote:

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Tommy S wrote:

david31 wrote:

I thought dpreview did a comparison of mft vs ff for sports. They didn't like mft due to it having too much depth of field so players separation from background really suffers.

Yes - I am aware MFT kills DoF.

A player taken with the 300/4 Pro does not look the same as taken with a 600/4 to be sure, but that does not mean there will be a ton of fore and background clutter in 300 Pro shots.

Apart from the glamour / portrait area, in most cases the dof of the mft is imho rather an advantage:

https://flic.kr/p/2kAYYce

https://flic.kr/p/2mh7KHE

https://flic.kr/p/2nyERLy

I disagree with this.  When shooting 35mm portraits, the preferred focal lengths were 85-105mm and those lenses in the 1960's were f/2.8 lenses.  On medium format we were using equivalents.  In the 4/3 format, a 45mm f/1.8 gives a very similar DOF profile when you consider that we were cropping the 35mm 3:2 aspect ratio shots to match 4:3 aspect print paper.

I find the 4/3 format ideal for portraits and boudoir photography.

Tedolph

JKdad wrote:

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

It’s a big problem, especially for the small shops trying to survive.

There’s a small (5 store) chain in my area and returns have been such a problem that they had to shorten their return period to 7 days. Problem now is people by elsewhere now.

The little chain will probably not survive.

If you really have to return gear, then fair enough. But abusing a return policy is hurting the industry.

Us camera nerds are a picky bunch and like to try the latest and greatest gear to cure the itch.
Then we get a new camera and realize there’s no appreciable difference from our old gear.
That’s when the return policies get abused.

I cringe when I read a product review that says something like: “When I bought X gear, I really didn’t think I would keep it “

Exactly.

If you want to kill off brick and mortar stores, this is how to do it.

Tedolph

Blur is nothing to debate. I'm not arguing with you. I agree it's personal taste and varies from photo to photo. At a car show, I like relatively deep DOF. For a backyard bird on a branch when the bird fills the frame I like shallow DOF. If it doesn't fill the frame I like deep DOF.

I shot a car show at f/5.6 with an M43 camera last year. One of the other photogs used a FF f/1.8 lens on a Canon. Shallow DOF, no contest. I was assigned by a magazine and asked the show owner if I could use some of the other guy's images because I thought most were better than what I had. That thin DOF, thing. On the show owner's own site and in his printed magazine he chose my photos and only a few of the other photog who was hired by the show. I was a freelancer assigned by a magazine. My photos were free to the show owner because someone else paid me and because the show owner let me in for free to take them - he received publicity in return. The article went to 650,000 subscribers. The show ticket was $150. The show owner didn't use the shallow DOF photos he paid for. He used the free ones, the deep DOF images because whoever selected them liked the deeper DOF images better. Surprised the heck out of me. I thought the other guy was more of an artist but the show owner said his customer base doesn't want to look at a lot of blur. They want the background in focus because they want to see the cars on the field, not a blob. It was like a blind test of wine. He picked what he liked no matter who made the images or if he paid for them or they were free. Doesn't make me a better photographer. I think the other guy is. The editor didn't agree. My gear was half the cost. I used an EM5.3 the 14-150 f/4-5.6, the 12-45 f/4, and I shot everything at f/5.6 M43 because my experience for this type of event, it works best for me. The reason is, in spite of the perception that shallow DOF is more artistic, the public doesn't care about that. They want to see the cars on the field. If you show them shallow DOF images of this type of event a lot of them will complain they are out of focus because they want the entire composition in focus. All of it. Taste or not. It's what they want. Is it sports? Not really but it applies there too.

I agree with the issues with the photo you posted but not the reasons. The background crowd is not appealing, not because it isn't blurry enough but because it's harsh. Not pleasing bokeh. As another poster said, there are two issues. Blur and bokeh. This photo has unappealing bokeh. Thinner DOF will not fix that The bigger problem is not the separation between the skater and the wall behind. It's the clash of the clothing and the color on the wall. It's a bad background for this image of a skater in this clothing. If the wall was a solid color it would remove this problem. Use PS, make the wall a solid concrete grey, and see what happens. It will improve the image. A lot. If the wall was more blurry it would not help. It would look harsh like the people in the background do. You can;t make it blurry enough if you can't blur the people enough and they are many times further away than the wall is.

The second problem with this composition is you can't blur the wall enough to achieve what you want. You are too far from the skater and the wall is too close to the skater. I doubt you could make the photo you want in this composition with an f/.95 lens on a FF sensor. Nikon makes one. It won't work. It's a studio AF lens but you could prove this right or wrong with it or with a pre-focused MF lens and they are easier to get hold of. The problem is the composition you had to work with, not the DOF. No DOF is going to fix this. If you have a skater with a busy shirt you are going to have to find a wall behind the skater that does not clash with the shirt. If you want a blurry wall you are going to have the shoot the skater further ahead of the wall. You need more physical distance between the skater and the wall, shallower DOF will not do it for this composition. Sometimes you can't get yourself into the position you need. Nothing you can do about it but move somewhere else where the background and the distances between the camera and the subject are closer and the subject and the background are further away. You can't fix a bad background with tech unless you photoshop it.

With the background crowd, if you were a foot away from the skater the background crowd would be very blurry. When you are 20 feet away from the skater you have the same problem with the crowd in this photo that you have with the brick building you had in the other photo. No lens is going to blur it enough to satisfy you. But you can have nice bokeh that still makes a slightly blurry background pleasing.

I hope I haven't irritated you too much. I'm trying to be constructive by pointing out there is more going on here than system DOF. Positioning, distance between the camera and the subject and the background, and which background is more important. That's why you will sometimes see a FF image with a big open aperture that doesn't look thin DOF, and an f/5.6 aperture on an M43 system image that does. You can't fix everything with hardware. You can fix more with technique. Simply buying a FF camera and fast glass won't do it all for you. You can make good subject separation, nice bokeh and blurry backgrounds with an f/5.6 lens. If you look at the same composition shot at f/2.8 and f/4  and sometimes f/5.6 the separation does not look that different. Nobody does that. They look at the image and decide if they like it or not and stop there. It's like comparing detail on a 33MP image to a 20MP image. The difference is there, but if you don't print them side by side in a large enough size it doesn't matter. The composition is what makes a good image. Pushing DOF to the wall doesn't improve the composition.

F5.6, 840mm handheld, low light shot at 1/5. I can shoot in lower light than my friend with the R5 can at 700mm. He doesn't use 1/5, even on a tripod.

Sports is different where I need 10X more shutter speed for sharp moving subjects even if you are good at panning. For static images I can't beat M43 in low light. I can shoot wide-angle M43 lenses with a 10-second shutter speed, not that I have a need for it other than a test.

I posted this to illustrate DOF. This is shot at f/5.6 and at 840mm I'm not close to the bird. I'm further away than you can be from a skateboarder in a park. The bird is in reasonable focus and the water background is blurred. The bokeh is pleasing. The background detail and color do not clash with the bird.

Long FL lenses help with this. They render DOF differently than short FL lenses. At car shows, I make better images of hood ornaments with the f/5.6 14-150 at 150mm - because this lens will focus close like a macro lens - than I did with the 17 f/1.2 or the 25 f/1.8. That's another appealing thing about OLY/OMS lenses. They focus closer than other lens brands and they are sharper wide open. You can use their long telephoto and primes as semi-macro lenses.

You would think the shorter FL lens would be the choice for close-ups of hood ornaments and blurry backgrounds. I did. I got lazy and didn't want to change lenses when I needed the range of the 14-150 so I thought, "Heck with this, I'll take the photo". To my surprise in this case, it made a better photo than either of the prime lenses did - because it can focus close at 150 (300mm) the subject was tack sharp and the background pleasingly blurry.

A lot of DOF is physical positioning of the camera, subject, and background and which background. That's all technique, not hardware. Hardware is a part of it.

I do the same thing with little birds in the park. I use long FL lenses and I get in close as they let me to fill the frame with the bird and blur the background. It works because the background is close to the camera and the background is far away. If the background is right behind the bird no DOF is shallow enough to blur it but it is more blurry with a long FL lens than a short one. The shorter lenses I use make deeper DOF at the same aperture. Go long when you can. It's as good or better than more resolution, shorter lenses, and cropping. And when the subject fills the frame you can see when to fire the shutter. You are not guessing and don't need to shoot 50 images at a high FPS. You don't have as many images to sort through with the OM-1 because a high percentage of images are in focus. You can take the shot and move on. Less work when you get home. that's the reason I upgraded from the EM1.2 to the OM-1. It worked.

EZGritz wrote:

I hope I haven't irritated you too much. I'm trying to be constructive by pointing out there is more going on here than system DOF.

You are far from it. Thank you for your time and input. Quite contrary, your write-up enticed me to look for the best sports photos of all time  to look for some inspiration.

EZGritz wrote:

Blur is nothing to debate. I'm not arguing with you. I agree it's personal taste and varies from photo to photo. At a car show, I like relatively deep DOF. For a backyard bird on a branch when the bird fills the frame I like shallow DOF. If it doesn't fill the frame I like deep DOF.

I shot a car show at f/5.6 with an M43 camera last year. One of the other photogs used a FF f/1.8 lens on a Canon.

I don't see how this is possible. A 50mm lens on a full frame camera at ten feet, F/1.8 has a depth of field of about 14".  No way you are going to get the whole car in focus. Even with a 35mm lens you are only getting a little over two feet of DOF.

If they are only taking close ups of grills and hood ornaments what do you need super shallow DOF for anyway?

Shallow DOF, no contest. I was assigned by a magazine and asked the show owner if I could use some of the other guy's images because I thought most were better than what I had. That thin DOF, thing. On the show owner's own site and in his printed magazine he chose my photos and only a few of the other photog who was hired by the show. I was a freelancer assigned by a magazine. My photos were free to the show owner because someone else paid me and because the show owner let me in for free to take them - he received publicity in return. The article went to 650,000 subscribers. The show ticket was $150. The show owner didn't use the shallow DOF photos he paid for. He used the free ones, the deep DOF images because whoever selected them liked the deeper DOF images better. Surprised the heck out of me. I thought the other guy was more of an artist but the show owner said his customer base doesn't want to look at a lot of blur. They want the background in focus because they want to see the cars on the field, not a blob. It was like a blind test of wine. He picked what he liked no matter who made the images or if he paid for them or they were free. Doesn't make me a better photographer. I think the other guy is. The editor didn't agree. My gear was half the cost. I used an EM5.3 the 14-150 f/4-5.6, the 12-45 f/4, and I shot everything at f/5.6 M43 because my experience for this type of event, it works best for me. The reason is, in spite of the perception that shallow DOF is more artistic, the public doesn't care about that. They want to see the cars on the field. If you show them shallow DOF images of this type of event a lot of them will complain they are out of focus because they want the entire composition in focus. All of it. Taste or not. It's what they want. Is it sports? Not really but it applies there too.

I agree with the issues with the photo you posted but not the reasons. The background crowd is not appealing, not because it isn't blurry enough but because it's harsh. Not pleasing bokeh. As another poster said, there are two issues. Blur and bokeh. This photo has unappealing bokeh. Thinner DOF will not fix that The bigger problem is not the separation between the skater and the wall behind. It's the clash of the clothing and the color on the wall. It's a bad background for this image of a skater in this clothing. If the wall was a solid color it would remove this problem. Use PS, make the wall a solid concrete grey, and see what happens. It will improve the image. A lot. If the wall was more blurry it would not help. It would look harsh like the people in the background do. You can;t make it blurry enough if you can't blur the people enough and they are many times further away than the wall is.

The second problem with this composition is you can't blur the wall enough to achieve what you want. You are too far from the skater and the wall is too close to the skater. I doubt you could make the photo you want in this composition with an f/.95 lens on a FF sensor. Nikon makes one. It won't work. It's a studio AF lens but you could prove this right or wrong with it or with a pre-focused MF lens and they are easier to get hold of. The problem is the composition you had to work with, not the DOF. No DOF is going to fix this. If you have a skater with a busy shirt you are going to have to find a wall behind the skater that does not clash with the shirt. If you want a blurry wall you are going to have the shoot the skater further ahead of the wall. You need more physical distance between the skater and the wall, shallower DOF will not do it for this composition. Sometimes you can't get yourself into the position you need. Nothing you can do about it but move somewhere else where the background and the distances between the camera and the subject are closer and the subject and the background are further away. You can't fix a bad background with tech unless you photoshop it.

With the background crowd, if you were a foot away from the skater the background crowd would be very blurry. When you are 20 feet away from the skater you have the same problem with the crowd in this photo that you have with the brick building you had in the other photo. No lens is going to blur it enough to satisfy you. But you can have nice bokeh that still makes a slightly blurry background pleasing.

I hope I haven't irritated you too much. I'm trying to be constructive by pointing out there is more going on here than system DOF. Positioning, distance between the camera and the subject and the background, and which background is more important. That's why you will sometimes see a FF image with a big open aperture that doesn't look thin DOF, and an f/5.6 aperture on an M43 system image that does. You can't fix everything with hardware. You can fix more with technique. Simply buying a FF camera and fast glass won't do it all for you. You can make good subject separation, nice bokeh and blurry backgrounds with an f/5.6 lens. If you look at the same composition shot at f/2.8 and f/4 and sometimes f/5.6 the separation does not look that different. Nobody does that. They look at the image and decide if they like it or not and stop there. It's like comparing detail on a 33MP image to a 20MP image. The difference is there, but if you don't print them side by side in a large enough size it doesn't matter. The composition is what makes a good image. Pushing DOF to the wall doesn't improve the composition.

Tedolph

You are right on all points. You can't do this with the crowd. I get into the show at least an hour before the public is allowed in, usually, while the cars are rolling in so I can stand back far enough to do this. If you try it with the public wandering around there is always someone in front of you if you stand back far enough to shoot the entire car profile at 50mm.

After I take all the shots I need, often with the OLY 14-150 - because the long end is handy for some shots, the range is convenient - no lens swapping, and 28mm is wide enough, I'll get close to the hood ornaments and position myself with the backgrounds I want, and take those with the same lens.

The 14-150 is as sharp as a PRO lens at the short end, not at the long end but for a car show I don't need feather detail or shallow DoF. People want everything in focus or close to it. They want to see what's on the show floor. It's what the event organizers want. - The show, not art. Take one art shot for the poster if they didn't pay someone to paint one. The trick to this is the 14-150 will focus on a hood ornament a few inches away and a car 100 feet away. It's an incredibly useful zoom range when you don't need the sharpest, fastest lens.

Now with the show covered with a single lens, I'll pull out the 25/f/1.8 and look for interesting thiner DoF opportunities. Then if the show field is wide and I want to try for a shot of all or most of it I'll pull out a 7.5mm f/2.8 MF fisheye, put the center on the horizon, set it on infinity, crop the top and bottom and it looks like a 7.5mm wide-angle image. Or if I don't feel like bringing that lens I always have the silly OLY f/8 fixed aperture 140-degree fisheye - 9mm and use that. A body cap lens no other professional would use, it makes me smile. Cost me $50 and makes good images. The center is decent and with a wide-angle lens and IBIS, f/8 works great. For what ends up to a be a wide-angle landscape you want deep DoF. Sometimes I'll use one to photograph auto interiors. I usually don't need to defish it. Some look cool as a fisheye.

This is not a maximum sharpness or artist use case. Light is almost always good. If it's an outdoor show it's canceled in the rain and if not there is still enough light and it's fun shooting cars with raindrops falling on them. Indoor car show lighting is usually very good.

This use case isn't about max IQ or shallow DoF. It's about entertainment. You can use a cellphone but it doesn't have the reach. I can do this with an EM-5 1.0 or an EM-10 1.0. 16MP is enough. 10MP is enough if you don't have to crop much and with 14-150 range you don't. The 25 f/1.8 and a fisheye spice it up a bit. I don't use them to shoot an entire car or an entire show. Even when I use the 25 a lot I usually pick many more 14-150 images for an article. They show more of the event and put more of it in focus. Deep DoF is GOOD.

I get close with the 25 so once the public enters the show floor it's OK to have people around. Thin DoF is useless when the subject is far away.  The result doesn't look thin. You could shoot on infinity.

A show floor is more interesting with people on it when I'm using the fisheye for a wide-angle shot. Sometimes I remount the 14-150 to take candids of people. That's at the very end when I have everything else.

I can do this with a 2.1MP OLY C2100 compact camera on "P" that I used ~ the year 2,000. I need to do it for grins. The camera still works though most of the memory cards have failed and ISO800 is worthless. Even with a range out to 280mm it's a small camera. The sensor probably fits on the head of a pin. The optics are excellent.  Internet magazines are happy with 2000 lines horizontal. They will take down to 1500 lines and less if they have to if they like the composition. Their customers look and move on. They don't; think about image quality or detail. If it looks good, to them it is. They are busy looking at the cool ornament or the impressive Packard. If it's clear that's all that matters. Its what you shoot, not so much how good the IQ is. Many of them don't have a big monitor. This resolution totally satisfies them.

The guys with the high-end Canons, Sonys, and Nikons they take to these shows look at me and might think I'm using a second-rate system. Maybe they are laughing but I've had nearly 30 paid assignments in the last two years. I'm overbooked going into 2023.

To summarize this whole thread and things I learnt about MFT system, here are my thoughts about a possible switch from Canon R6 with 24-70 / 70-200 both F2.8 USM II to MFT OM-1s (2 bodies).

I am looking forward to your comments

1 setup:

• lose weight significantly (50%)
• keep the same FL range
• get worse shallow DoF abilities

2 setup:

• the whole flagship setup is heavier than the 1st
• longer FL gains

3 setup

• shallow DoF abilities for 20-100 FF eqv
• heavy and bulky 2 lenses
• 3 lenses to keep longer FL gains

4 setup

• Still some shallow DoF abilities (20-50 FF eqv)
• A compromise to keep longer FL 
• Zoom in legs to cover for missing 30 mm in FL (FF eqv) 

Today, after a more than a year of keeping my gear in the bag I reached for R6 with 70-200F2.8. It renders beautiful pics but I found it very heavy (surprisingly). Maybe I am getting older?

tedolf wrote:

Seems like you already have a lot of cameras.

Do you really need another one?

Most of us get along fine with just one.

Tedolph

I'd bet most people here have more than one camera, but if you have data to support your assertion that "most" people only have one, I'd be happy to see it. FWIW, I could never make do with just one camera--I need a second one for backup and to use in tandem with the other for multiple angles for video. Every photographer I know in person, including those at the camera club, have more than one camera body.

NikonBiologist wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Seems like you already have a lot of cameras.

Do you really need another one?

Most of us get along fine with just one.

Tedolph

I'd bet most people here have more than one camera, but if you have data to support your assertion that "most" people only have one, I'd be happy to see it.

I think that you would agree that most people have a cell phone.  Perhaps a few billion.

The number of people who have a dedicated camera is probably a few million.

Q.E.D.

FWIW, I could never make do with just one camera--I need a second one for backup and to use in tandem with the other for multiple angles for video. Every photographer I know in person, including those at the camera club, have more than one camera body.

Tedolphus Maximus

tedolf wrote:

NikonBiologist wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Seems like you already have a lot of cameras.

Do you really need another one?

Most of us get along fine with just one.

Tedolph

I'd bet most people here have more than one camera, but if you have data to support your assertion that "most" people only have one, I'd be happy to see it.

I think that you would agree that most people have a cell phone. Perhaps a few billion.

The number of people who have a dedicated camera is probably a few million.

Q.E.D.

FWIW, I could never make do with just one camera--I need a second one for backup and to use in tandem with the other for multiple angles for video. Every photographer I know in person, including those at the camera club, have more than one camera body.

Tedolphus Maximus

Not QED when the premise is assumed to refer to multiple ILC camera bodies and people on the forum--not phones that happen to have a camera with them. If you want to clarify your argument and speak for everyone on earth, feel free to, but then your argument changes drastically in its premise and logical statements.

I can't say that the OM1 will definitively beat the R6..

But I will tell you I shot a lot of swimming over the past 8 years with an EM1 m1/2 and pro lenses ( I'm not even sure if there are any shots in my gallery- I haven't looked at it in ages). There are always challenges with changing lighting conditions based off scoreboards reflecting off the water, and ambient and artificial light and shadows. And very rarely are naratoriums well lit. One of the huge advantages the olympus had was its fast speed- a single water droplet in front of an eye can ruin a photo. Iso 3200 was very usable, It seems like the newer models can go quite a bit farther.

For what it's worth I have recently gotten into full frame, both the nikon and Canon systems, But I'm finding that except in very limited circumstances, I'm still a better photographer with the olympus system. Maybe it's familiarity, maybe it's the style of shooting I do outside of swimming. I'll probably keep the cannon system because the rf70-200f2.8/4s are relatively compact, but for future sports photography, I'm probably going with an OM1. There are just so many incredible unique features it has. And I shoot the pro 40-150F2.8 hand held and regularly get perfectly sharp shots at > 0.5 sec, And I'm not a particularly steady hand. And I can pack every lens I will need, in half the space I would for a full frame system. Although the 70-200rfs are pretty compact to transport.