Tempted to enter MFT system for sports and action photography

JKdad wrote:

EZGritz wrote:

I bet the OM-1 DR is much better. You haven't tried it. The 40-150 PRO is ~ 2lbs with a 2X TC but also f/5.6 is much brighter with better IBIS and a bigger sensor that captures more light. It will work better in lower light and enable you to shoot a higher shutter speed. The kit will be 1lb+ heavier than your SONY bridge camera.

I almost never need 600mm though. 80-90% of my sports photography is 300mm or shorter. The 1.4XTc takes it to 420mm which gets me to 98% of the needed reach and is f/4, brighter still.

The OP says he needs 200mm or less. The 40-150 f/4 beats that by 50%, weighs less than a pound, and satisfies his need for reach. This kit is lighter and much more compact than your SONY. When he uses the 12-45 f/4 it's half the weight and much smaller than your SONY. You can crop M43 images 100%-200%. 10MP is way more than enough for big, high-resolution monitors. The websites I shoot for publish 2MP. It's all you need unless you print large format. If you do, 16MP is more than enough for a 12X18 print. Bigger prints take up a lot of wall space. Few images are printed bigger.

If he needs 14-150 range f/4-5.6, that kit weighs less than your SONY and takes as good or better image.

The OLY 12-200 (24-400mm) weighs one pound. The kit weighs less than your SONY and in either case, the OMS kit enables you to mount a shorter lens and configure a 1.5lb or less zoom kit when he doesn't need the range. Why do you want to carry around a 2.5lb bridge camera to shoot 24-90 when you can do it with a brighter lens with a 1.5 lb kit?

When I used bridge cameras I thought a 28-280 was long enough. Panasonic make an excellent 100-400 bridge camera I'd consider but same issue. When I want to shoot 12-90 what do I need to lug that thing around for when I can make a better image with any M43 camera and a 12-45 f/4 and carry a compact kit that weighs 1.5lbs?

The SONY bridge camera is good only if you need the entire range out to 600mm in the same shoot. FF Sony kits are much heavier than the M43 solution. Using a lens that isn't long enough and cropping the resolution in half is a handicap, not a benefit. It's using a shotgun to spray and prey rather than using a sniper rifle to take one photo and know you have it. Much less work.

BTW, the sensor in OLY/OMS bodies are Sony sensors. The OMS/OLY bodies have a long list of things they can do that aren't in the SONY bodies. IBIS is much better in the OMS/OLY bodies. Sonys are better for high-resolution landscape images.

With the A7R V Sony is now using their new IBIS (7 stops).

They can claim 100 stops.  It works out to 3-stops reliably.  Use it back to back with the OM-1 and you realize one of these things is not like the other.  The R5 is the better implementation of IBIS on FF.  Almost as good as the EM1mkII.

I was just reading about the OM-1 having great IBIS, but some are complaining about the auto-ISO minimum SS setting only going as low as 1/50th? Did that get fixed in a FW update? Seems like that would be a waste of great IBIS

1/50s was never a limitation.  Mine says 1s with the 45mm (90mm eq) in Auto ISO.  That's somewhere around 6-stops with the camera deciding.  Better yet, set the ISO at 200 and go as long as you desire.

JKdad wrote:

1. KevinDe wrote:

JKdad wrote:

KevinDe wrote:

JKdad wrote:

ProDude wrote:

JKdad wrote:

I’ve been looking for reasons to buy a MFT kit, but it doesn’t make sense for me.

For sports I can’t imagine anything better than a RX10 IV.

IQ wise, I can’t tell a difference between it and my APSC gear. High ISO doesn’t bother me as I use PL6.

It focuses/shoots like an A9 and is very small/light considering it reaches to 600.

I can’t imagine a MFT kit doing any better.

Surely you must be kidding? I owned a RX10MkIV for over 2 years. Loved it. BUT that said now having an OM-1 is like going from a Toyota to a BMW in all aspects. It's faster (hard to believe I know), better built, lower noise at higher ISO's, tremendously customizable with greater dynamic range etc.

I’m not joking. Can’t speak to the OM-1 since I’ve never used it.

I was certain you were joking. Have you used an RX10IV for sports?

But how big and heavy would that camera be with a 600mm lens on it?

OM1 + 75-300 = 1022g

RX10IV = 1095g

Id bet the DR between the two is minimal and the noice isn’t much of an issue with the DXO magic.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Olympus%20System%20OM-1,Sony%20DSC-RX10M4,Sony%20ILCE-9M2

Then I suppose the DR between the OM-1 and the A9II is minimal and the noise isn't much of an issue with DxO magic.

Again, I’m talking about using it for sports, which is what this post is about.

Have you used it for sports?

If I can’t tell a difference between it and my Fuji, Canon and Sony APSC systems, then I seriously doubt the MFT sensor will matter, long as the files are DXO’d

If the OP wants speed, reach and ultimate IQ, I’d go with a A7R IV or V,

Those cameras are not particularly fast...which is why the A9 and A1 exist.

use a shorter zoom and just use it in crop mode.

How many AF points does that leave me tracking a small target?

That way the OP can have it all and still have a pretty light and compact system, with a real IQ difference.

There is nothing compact about the RX10IV. At least ILC disassemble for easier transport.

Hell, they could use a 200 lens on the camera, crop out half and still have a 16 MP image, but with the rich tones and DR of that amazing Sony sensor.

If less detail and less DR is what you are after, then by all means.

I don’t get MFT at all.

You don't get a lot of things. Has nothing to do with the format.

You MFT guys can be so insecure. I don’t have to itemize replies but here:

I've got over $100k tied up in professional Canon gear but okay.

You're comparing weight with a MFT lens that starts at 150 equivalent I’d imagine most sports shooters would like to go shorter than 150 from time to time. So, for a fair comparison, pick a 24-600 equivalent MFT lens that doesn’t suck.

How do I go wider than 24mm and longer than 600mm on the RX? That seems very limiting. Can I weld on a TC or something?

Far as composing MFT-1” vs MFT-FF is silly. A FF sensor is almost 4 times larger in area. The MFT sensor isn’t quite twice the size of a 1”. Comparing a 1” to MFT and then MFT to FF is a big leap.

And yet, here we are: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Olympus%20System%20OM-1,Sony%20DSC-RX10M4,Sony%20ILCE-9M2

I just tried out a A7R V and the AF is sublime.

For the money I would sure hope so! I can buy 2 OM-1's for the price of one A7RV.

The sensor is tremendous and the camera is a bit smaller than the OM-1. That’s pretty ridiculous

Um no. Sorry.

A7RV 723g

OM-1 599g

The OM does have more AF phase points, but try the new Sony AI AF and tell me what you think

I sold two A1's after I started using the OM-1.

Lastly… cropping an image affects DR?

Most certainly.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Sony%20ILCE-7RM5,Sony%20ILCE-7RM5(APS-C)

According to the link, there is quite a high ISO and refinance difference between 1” and MFT (particularly the OM-1)

But the OM-1 high ISO isn’t impressive at all compared to FF and most APSC bodies, yet the OM-1 is comparable in size.

How much light are you giving them at "high ISO"?  Give them same light, get same look.

So, I’ll ask again, what’s the point of the OM-1?

Fully featured, compact, WR, stacked sensor camera with robust lens options that is smaller, lighter and less expensive than anything else on the market.

"I’m not joking. Can’t speak to the OM-1 since I’ve never used it."

Wow, yet you made a pretty strong statement from a perfect vacuum of experience.

JKdad wrote:

ProDude wrote:

JKdad wrote:

I’ve been looking for reasons to buy a MFT kit, but it doesn’t make sense for me.

For sports I can’t imagine anything better than a RX10 IV.

IQ wise, I can’t tell a difference between it and my APSC gear. High ISO doesn’t bother me as I use PL6.

It focuses/shoots like an A9 and is very small/light considering it reaches to 600.

I can’t imagine a MFT kit doing any better.

Surely you must be kidding? I owned a RX10MkIV for over 2 years. Loved it. BUT that said now having an OM-1 is like going from a Toyota to a BMW in all aspects. It's faster (hard to believe I know), better built, lower noise at higher ISO's, tremendously customizable with greater dynamic range etc.

I’m not joking. Can’t speak to the OM-1 since I’ve never used it.

But how big and heavy would that camera be with a 600mm lens on it?

Who is shooting sports with a 1200mm equivalent focal length lens?

I would like to see a Sports Illustrated photographer using a 1200mm lens on a full frame camera.

Id bet the DR between the two is minimal and the noice isn’t much of an issue with the DXO magic.

Again, I’m talking about using it for sports, which is what this post is about.

If I can’t tell a difference between it and my Fuji, Canon and Sony APSC systems, then I seriously doubt the MFT sensor will matter, long as the files are DXO’d

If the OP wants speed, reach and ultimate IQ, I’d go with a A7R IV or V, use a shorter zoom and just use it in crop mode. That way the OP can have it all and still have a pretty light and compact system, with a real IQ difference.

Hell, they could use a 200 lens on the camera, crop out half and still have a 16 MP image, but with the rich tones and DR of that amazing Sony sensor.

I don’t get MFT at all.

Really, the absurd things people say to disqualify the 4/3 format amaze me.

Tedolph

I shot the OM-1 in very low light at 10 seconds handheld. The ISO automatically went to 20,000. The photo was usable. It had no problem finding focus. I'd share it but it was only a test to see if I could hand hold that long. I deleted it after that.

I can't imagine needing a low-light camera any more capable than this one.

"So, I’ll ask again, what’s the point of the OM-1?"

Short answer is the lenses, long answer is most of what these other folks have been telling you.  In the same way that cel phones can rival compact cameras by using computational photography, MFT can rival bigger formats.  As these more knowledgeable folks have been saying, the image stabilization itself places OM on another level.  50 mpx handheld!  80mpx on a tripod!

One key reason the OM is similar in size to larger format cameras is the superb weather sealing and construction of the bodies.  May not matter to you, but does to me and is a reasonable tradeoff for those who do lots of outdoor shooting in crap weather, as I do.

As a test, I took a photo in very low light hand held for 10 seconds at 50mm. The camera locked focus instantly. ISO went to 20,000. The photo was usable. Only a test, I deleted it.

Since it was all almost totally dark in the room it was darker than anywhere and anytime I would ever take a photo except for the test. The high ISO OM-1 RAWs converted well and looked nice.

You can come up with a camera that will take a 1 million ISO photo but it doesn't matter at all because there is no use for it. If you can shoot ISO 12,000, it's high enough for any sport and you can do that with the OM-1.

I have the camera and I'm using it. I'm reporting actual personal experience. You are writing hearsay and speculation. Do you know the difference between speculation and evidence? Guess not.

I tried 10 seconds handheld as a test of something silly with the 25 f/1.8. The room was so dark, I would never take a photo in a room with so little light. I couldn't have seen what was in the room without boosted LCD or EVF. It locked focus instantly and the ISO shot to 20,000. It shocked me that the image was usable. I'll never need a better low-light camera or better IBIS. I can't imagine needing a 10-second shutter speed. I tried 20 seconds handheld where I began to see a little blur. I might have been breathing. I don't think I can hold still long enough but the camera might be able to do it if I could. 15 seconds might be my limit. I'm more interested in the ability to shoot a landscape or a stationary bird at 1/5 and I can. I tried it. High ISO and IBIS is as good as anything I'll ever need. Its actually way better.

Sports at 1200mm hand held with FF?