Nice review! I am an OM-1 shooter (former Canon shooter) who bought, and returned, the OM1ii after 2 weeks. I took many thousands of images during that time. I liked most of the minor changes like the increased buffer and the stickier AF. Also there are a few settings that have a bit more range like the available shutter speeds in SH-2. I found that the upgrades didn’t necessarily make much of a difference for me. The thing that caused me to return it was I had good shots on 3 different birds that I have never photographed before near the end of Spring migration here in central Texas. For whatever reason the camera couldn’t “see” the birds. All 3 landed within 10-15 feet of me looked around for 2 or 3 seconds and left. Small, fast moving birds who don’t sit still very long. I was quickly losing the light but it should have worked. It was almost as if the AF Scanner setting was not tuned on. The body focused on nothing. I was punching the BBF button repeatedly but got no results. It reminded me of my Canon days where the cameras with dual pixel AF will sometimes get confused with horizontal lines. In my experience the OM-1 does not have this issue and I have always given credit to the quad pixel AF. In all 3 cases the body was not able to focus on the bird before it departed the area. I know from hundreds of thousands of images taken with my OM-1 that it likely would have gotten images of all 3 birds. I was already having doubts about the value of the upgrades before it missed the 3 birds. I have been back to the same spot with my OM-1 using the same lens (300mm F4 Pro) and I have gotten numerous tries of small birds in very similar situations with no issues at all. FWIW my OM-1 has not crashed at all in 2 years. It will possibly act weird if I change a lens and forget to turn the body off. Can’t blame the body for that. So I sent it back. There are people in forums having similar issues. My findings were that the AF is generally better but sometimes slower and sometimes it just seems to stop trying. The OM-1ii is a nice upgrade but I suspect that it may take some additional firmware updates to really refine the AF. I will likely buy it again at some point.
My theory is that the OM-1ii is stickier and has better tracking because the algorithm is not constantly searching for a bird to focus on. On the OM-1, even when the camera has found a bird and focused on it, it is still looking for a bird to focus on. It is 2 very different approaches in animal eye AF. Generally, an AF system that is stickier will have the weakness of not being able to find the subject, or that it will be slower to find the subject. I find the OM-1ii and Lumix G9ii to be like this. On the other hand, there are AF systems that have very fast focus acquisition speeds, and will often find the subject, but they are not very sticky. The focus will pulse a bit back and forth, even after finding the subject, because the algorithm is searching for a bird in every frame, just incase it has locked onto the wrong target. The OM-1 and Canon R7 are like this. OM System announced that the OM-1 will be getting a firmware update in fall for improved autofocus. I feel that the OM-1ii's autofocus is not actually "better". It just works differently. It trades off focus stickiness for acquisition. I suspect that OM System launched the OM-1ii with this new autofocus algorithm to test the crowd response of its performance. Since the autofocus is not actually better (it's very situational - better for sticking to the subject, but worse for acquisition, or knowing when it should stop/continue to search for a bird in the frame). Remember, the camera NEVER really "knows" if it has successfully acquired a bird in its detection. It can only make an educated guess. Sometimes, patterns in twigs or rocks could be mistaken for a bird. An autofocus system that is programmed to be very sticky will risk sticking to the incorrect subject. An autofocus system that is programmed to constantly second guess itself will experience more pulsing and slightly missed frames (since it is constantly reanalyzing each frame to find a bird - there is less time for focus confirmation and to precisely dial in focus distance), but it will be less likely to focus on the wrong thing, or be stuck in a state where it just refuses to focus or find the right subject. I think that's the reason why OM System is withholding the firmware update for the OM-1 until fall this year. They want to see what the consumer reaction is to the OM-1ii's new algorithm first. Are people generally happier, or less happy with the less reactive, but stickier algorithm? When that firmware update arrives in fall, I do not recommend upgrading your camera until seeing thorough tests. Just incase OM System does decide to tradeoff subject acquisition for stickiness in that update, it might not be a change that is suitable for all birders. Depending on the subjects you shoot and what you prefer in an AF system, the current implementation may very well serve you better.
I had very positive experience with the AF so far.. had the Mk2 since launch. Only once it refused to lock, not sure what it was about. I just removed the battery and it never happened again.
I bought an OM-1 Mk.II when it was on a special deal and paid the same amount I had to lift out of the wallet half a year before when I bought the OM-1 Mk.I, it was on a sale at that time as the Mk.II was introduced. I traded in 2 Olympus OM-D E-M10 bodies and bought just one OM-1 Mk.I. To learn quite quickly that having two bodies is very convenient. My wife was with me on 2 trips and witnessed me missing shots because I was changing lenses. After spending hours on RUclips and DP Review, I had decided initially that the OM-1 Mk.I was good enough for me, so when I good approval of the Mrs. to purchase a second body, I was inclined to search for another OM-1 Mk.I deal. But than I stumbled over this incredible deal and got a Mk.II for exactly €34,16 more than what I had paid for the OM-1 Outlet Sale deal. I’ve had the OM-1 Mk.II for about 10 weeks now. My impression is similar to the latest comment: noticeably better AF Bird recognition performance. It finds birds very quickly and “jumps” quite easily from one bird to another, leading me to believe it doesn’t “stick” to a found bird, but keeps on searching for birds. The one stop extra IS that the Mk.II offers seems to help me as well. But it is true: there is no real shocking difference between the two cameras if one is not pushing either body to the limits. Completing a HHHR or focus stacking shot or a HDR shot on the Mk.II seems to be a little bit faster than on the Mk.I. Because of the one stop better IS, I mostly go out on wildlife photography trips with the 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro on the Mk.1 and the MC-14 plus the 300mm f/4.0 (effectively shooting at 420mm f/5.6, that is 840 mm FF equivalent) on the OM-1 Mk.II One additional comment about your statement regarding the f/4.5 of the 150-400mm IS Pro: if you translate Depth of Field to FF equivalent, you are correct, that would be something like f/9.0 in the FF Universe. However, the brightness of the lens or “light sensitivity” if you like, is still comparable to f/4.5, allowing shorter shutter speeds at a given ISO. To one person a “deeper” DoF (hence less creamier background) is a clear disadvantage, to the other a deeper DoF allowing shots of animals to be sharp “from nose to tail” without cranking up the aperture (and ISO or lowering shutter speed) is an advantage. Because of that, I don’t believe a comparison with a FF 300-800mm f/9.0 is fully correct, yes it is true in a depth of field sense, but not true in a ISO or shutter speed setting sense. Looking at these two parameters, one would have to compare with something like 300-800mm f/5.6-ish (as the sensor is larger in a FF, it can collect more light, but as soon as the pixel size approaches that of the pixel size of a MFT sensor, that advantage is traded in for more post production cropping capability). Now, searching for those types of lenses will present a very different financial comparison, and weight/size as well, those FF lenses will be more expensive and heavier than the Olympus Big White Lens. Than we get to another advantage of the MFT system you reviewed: as the sensor is smaller and the lens more compact, you can get those 8.5 stops Body and Optics Sync Image Stabilisation, allowing hand held shots even at slower shutter speeds. Doing that with a 300-800mm f/5.6 or 375-1000mm f/6.3 (BWL built in 1.25TC engaged) FF equivalent either requires Body Builder Training or the use of a monopod or tripod. Either weight support device will reduce the liberty of movement of the camera.
Learn how to use single point focus, aquire the target then use the cameras tracking features. It's always the same with people like you, expecting the camera to do so the work for you. At the end of the day, it's not the camera, but the person behind the viewfinder.
I always look forward to seeing your reviews. Very thorough, very honest and your videos are logically arranged and extremely easy to follow. And beautiful images are always a part of the package, whatever you review. Please keep up the excellent work!
I've been a m43 shooter for around 8 years now and it's my belief that's it's the most complete system for wildlife photography right now if you can live with the decrease in low light image quality. I would really love to see a complete APSC camera and system as that would be my perfect mid ground but sadly it doesn't look like any manufacturer is interested.
@FabianFoppNaturephotography Well practically every Panasonic lens has image stabilisation built in which works well with the already industry leading in body stabilisation, OM are one of the only manufacturers with IP ratings, you have one of the largest catalogues of lenses to be found on any mirrorless line up and let's not forget you can adapt almost any lens that's in existence to the M43 mount. Let us also consider that if you are travelling you can fit your entire setup in hand luggage. Good luck doing that with full frame. Good luck walking and hand holding 800mm lenses all day. Tripods, gimbals, backpacks and other accessories are cheaper because they don't need to hold such big items or weight. You are also going to find it hard finding an APSC or Full Frame that can achieve 60fps in photo and 120fps at 4k, have raw pre burst for anything less than £2.5k. All it gives up is a couple of stops in low light (in the worst case scenario) but considering most people can only afford F5.6 lenses you can easily achieve that with F2.8 M43 lenses which are smaller and lighter. For Macro you have no disadvantage against full frame at all - they are the same except you have smaller lenses that weigh less. Trust me I have looked at Canon, Nikon and Sony for a setup that can rival a G9ii or OM1 and there isn't anything to be found like I say all you give up is some low light performance, depth of field I don't consider a disadvantage because most environmental images benefit from an increased depth of field and portraits we often have control over our subject and the background anyway. Besides no one ever made an award winning image solely because it had a shallow depth of field. Lens options for cost is incomparable. You have 40-150 pro F.28, 300mm F4, Leica 200 2.8, Leica 100-400, Lumix 100-300, Oly 100-400, Oly 150-600, Oly 150-400 and many more affordable telephoto as well. In fact my first telephoto was a 90-350 equivalent which cost me pennies on Ebay and was as sharp as anything I've seen! Canon you have 100-500 - not enough reach 200-800 well you may as well use M43 at this point at F9! Sony 200-600 or 100-400 great options but not enough reach and their APSC cameras are all flawed. Nikon I will admit to not knowing enough about but from what I've seen you'll have to sell the cars on your driveway to buy from them. Fuji I don't know enough about to comment. I was having a discussion with someone the other day (he was shooting full frame Sony A9 and me sadly I only have the original Lumix G9) and we agreed that a decent APSC camera would be the perfect common ground. You can then have your cake and eat it in all regards. Shame no-one seems too interested in that! If Sony made an APSC camera that matched the best M43 cameras I would buy it in an instant! The ideal situation would be to have a decent APSC lens line up and also the option to use full frame lenses just in case you ever wanted to move up to it one day and the APSC lenses for if you didn't.
You are correct about how complete the system is. I hear so many complain about the lack of shallow depth of field as if that is what makes a good photograph or the dynamic range is not up to 15 stops as in some FF cameras. Photography is all about trade offs, the greater depth of field in m43 can be used to excellent effect. I can shoot with my f1.2 or f1.8 lenses wide open in poor lighting conditions and have everyone in a small group in focus, try that with a full frame at the same aperture. If anybody needs 15 stops of dynamic range to photograph a scene he or she probably needs to learn how to expose properly. Did I forget to mention the IBIS in m43 cameras no system comes close, I can handhold a 2 seconds exposure at 200mm equivalent focal length. Which FF system can do that?
@@uyims56 I agree with you, the one you mentioned is right. But in wildlife a great depth of field even at a very wide aperture is not something sought after. The 2 seconds of exposure thanks to IBIS does not seem very attractive in wildlife either, except for some frozen animal. The M43 is still a great system, especially when it comes to going light. But in wildlife the ability to raise the ISO and stop movement and have a lot of resolution to have control and cropping capacity can also be decisive factors.
@@mistergiovanni7183 I obviously was not referring to wildlife and if you read my comment it is clearly the scenarios when the benefits of the OM-1 are beneficial. I recently visited Glacier national park , my OM-1 was the perfect camera for such a place. Considering that someday so would hiking about 13 miles with over 2500 feet elevation gain, I needed a system that was not too heavy, great for landscapes, great IBIS, great AF for wildlife etc. No other system can offer that. I did not take a tripod but could still take 2 second handheld shots of waterfalls using IBIS and built live ND. I have owned multiple Sony FF, now I have a Nikon and also 2 40mp APSC Fuji bodies. If I am given the option to take only one camera on my adventure, it is the OM-1 every time.
Background blur much like long exposure waterfalls is not what the human eye naturally sees and is often overdone, to each their own. I switched from Canon and 500 f/4 prime, to me I value portability over blur any day of the week! Thanks for your honest views and fantastic video!
So glad to see that you made this review Fabian! I remember commenting about this lens on your channel a year ago. Although, I was interested in hearing more about your thoughts on the lens. Considering there are near-equivalents for Nikon, Sony, Canon, I read that one of the biggest benefits of this 150-400mm was the handling, weight distribution, and build quality. Was hoping to hear detailed insights. Cheers!
Yes, sony lenses are usually front heavy. Same for the Canon 100-500 when you zoom in. Also, the 100-500 has a ridiculous design where you cannot zoom out if you use an extender. If you are like me, a wildlife photographer that also likes to move, I don't think there is a better combo than the OM1 MK2 + 150-400. As he said in the review, I only wish we had a third dial. Noise is a non issue anymore with topaz and dxo.
Thanks for the review. I am stuck in deciding if to upgrade an mft body (already have the g9 and panasonic 100-400) or if to get the Canon r8 with the rf100-400. I think for now at least the upgrade path I’ll limit to the g9ii, I don’t really shoot at anything fast enough to need the om-1.
@@JoeMaranophotography I'm looking at sensor readout speed for rolling shutter effect, I get it in the em5iii and g9 while doing panning shots of cars and bikes. Have seen tests in the dpreview forum where people calculate it by shooting at led lights and g9ii it is 1/75 without DR boost, while om-1 is 1/120. Sensor readout also improves the time for high res shots, I use that for macro.
Excellent review, really appreciate your honest observations. I own an OM1, and have rented the 150-400 lens for two birding trips, the most recent being two weeks in Ecuador in June. After another two weeks with this lens I have decided to trade the camera and my current 100-400mm lens in on a new Canon R5 II when it's available. The 150-400 lens is extraordinary, the best MFT lens available, but it is a huge $7500 step up for the extra optical quality over my 100-400, and after two weeks of shooting next to people with an R5 and an R6 MII, both with the 100-500 Canon lens, it is clear to me that the money for the new lens would be better spent on a new Canon setup. Your comment about the OM1 and its focus issues with birds in flight are my main concern, and buying both the new OM1 II and the lens is a $10,000 purchase! What surprised me was that in low light, the Canon delivered better image quality than the OM1, despite the constant F4.5 lens. I expected the 100-500 Canon, with its F7.1 at full extension, would suffer, but that was not the case, and I expect (hope?) the new R5 II will be even better. Thank you,
Excellent review! The OM-1 II (with the OM System macro lenses) is an AMAZING macro camera. Unfortunately, as you noted, full frame beats it on most other genres where dynamic range and ISO become issues. Even though the price is reasonable, a separate camera body and kit for macro alone is a bit of an extravagance. But the OM-1 II is so very good with macro, I'm tempted to buy it, anyway . . . just for that.
I am a Canon shooter. The adaptation of EF glass to MFT bodies is of interest. I don’t know how well this works, but it is of interest for macro or additional reach perhaps
Good review, but if you're going to compare it to the Canon R8 with the 600mm f4 - I suggest also showing the size and weight difference so it will be a fair comparison. Personally I think that there is no better combo for wildlife photographers on the market (in any system). There is just nothing that can compete with the 150-400 lens. It's an engineering marvel. Thanks for the honest opinion!
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography True. BTW, if you still have the 150-400, can you check if your Bayonet mount is scratched? Apparently there is an issue where they used material way too soft for this lens.
I have both OM-1's, and the 150-400/4.5/1.25TC. I also have a Panasonic G9II. While I have some issues with using the G9ii for wildlife stills, I have to say that Panasonic has done a brilliant implementation of focus limiting with the G9ii. It is amazingly easy to set a limit, and I use the focus limit for macro shots because it applies to focus bracketing. They only have one range, compared to three for Olympus ( a change for Panasonic becuase the G9ii has 12 custom settings). Panasonic loses points for using two function buttons for that (as well as subject tracking), but I can access all of the focus limiting settings and activation through the AF mode button so I don't actually need to add any QMenu or Fn button settings for this (or do a menu dive). I really wish Olympus would steal as much of the Panasonic UI as they can; for the most part the G9ii is brilliant.
hi Fabian thank you for your honest and good review. every camera brand and system has its weaknesses. it's good to name it. but if you are aware of the weaknesses and can deal with them, every camera system is a nice system, including the M 4/3 from Om-system.
Given that Mike Lane FRPS and Roger Hance channels seems to do well with the OM-1 Mark ii even in bad light, I think you need to review your technique. In south west Norway, it is often ISO 25 600 with my EOS R6 with a EF 600mm F/4 with the 1.4 TC in bad light during the winter. E.g. setting standard ISO to 1600. I did this on my EOS R6 and are very pleased with the result. It kept the shutter speed up. Mike replaced his Sony A1 with a 200-600mm with the OM-1 with the 150-400mm and claims that he gets more keepers despite som being out of focus. He does not use the OM-1 for video.
I don’t think my technique is the problem here. It could be that other photographers habe other requirements, but there are simply shots you can’t take with MFT. It’s just physics
Can you perhaps do a OM-1 Mii + 300mm F4 review/comparison with the OM-1 Mi? Or maybe a comparison with 300mm F4 vs 150-400mm F4.5? Would be awesome. Cheers, Levi.
The Canon 200-800 lens does in fact have similar background blur to that 150-400 OM f4.5 pro lens but one of the most important things people often forget about is that with the OM-1, you are looking at focusing speed at f4.5 which is so much faster than that Canon lens at f9 while the background blur is similar but the performance is not comparable.
Hmm, I disagree on focussing speed. The R5 & RF200-800 was focussing better in dark forests than the OM-1 II & 150-400. Did you experience something else?
@@FabianFoppNaturephotographyI used to own a Canon R5 with the 100-500 lens which has a f7.1 aperture at the long end. I struggle to focus in dark forest with that lens even at f7.1. Even though at that time, the R5 has pretty good eye tracking for bird, for that reason I switched to OM system’s 300 f4 and later I got the 150-400 f4.5 which gave me much better initial focus in similar situations paired with the OM-1 and OM-1 mark ii now. To be fair, I never use the 200-800 from Canon but just having used a brighter lens at 7.1 I struggled before so. But I trusted that you have use both systems quite extensively so maybe even the newer R5 mark ii, it will do better.
Preburst is a Nikon /Canon attempt at catching up to ProCapture of Olympus which has been on their cameras since the E-M1 Mk II, Mark III before the OM line
Nice, honest and clear review I am quite happy with the OM-1 but I am tempted by the improvement, even if minor, of the AF system. I hopes that improved also in low light but looks like it is not the case. In my experience also low contrast scenes can give some trouble to the AF even if light is not loo low. Ste
one of my worries about using Panasonic lenses on OMs is the OIS and IBIS. how do you see the differences? when you use your Panasonic 200mm f2.8 on OM1-II do you find it less stable on G9II or vs Olympus 300mm f4?
Have they come to terms (on the mark II) with the earlier problems acording to be able to change, in a split of a second, between single point AF and subject detection in the whole frame? For example with the ability to program two AF buttons (with different setups) or a one touch button that changes the settings? This is crucial for me and if so i would be thinking of swap my mark 1 to a mark II? (Otherwise i`ll probably will sell of my Olympus tele lenses and only use my Canon setups for distance wildlife.
@tonysvensson8314. I am not entirely sure I understand the issue you are describing but if my understanding is correct the problem you are referring to does not impact the MK1, which I own and use. By way of an example. With the camera in Aperture mode I set the AEL button as my subject detection button and simply press it to toggle the mode on or off. With the subject detection toggled to on one then goes into the super control panel and with the lever switch which surrounds the AEL button set to position 1 I set the Target mode on the screen to small or to my preferred custom mode focus point which is a much smaller and accurate single point which I created immediately I bought the camera. I then toggle the lever to position 2 and change the Target mode to all and switch the camera off. Thereafter, when I switch the camera back on I have subject detection and single focus point or subject detection and all focus points available at the flick of the lever. I understand that in the mark two body most professional users state that the previously somewhat complicated focusing modes have been simplified by virtue of the fact that the detection modes are now so reliable that all they do is enable the subject they require and then use all focus points or a grid sufficient large for the circumstance they are working in and the auto detection and the cameras ability to stay on the subject ax it moves through the frame does the rest. If I have interpreted your question correctly, I hope the above helps. In closing I would recommend that users coming to the brand for the first time immediately turn the noise filter down to low or off and set the noise reduction to auto. Also to maximise the available dynamic range, expose to the right and take full advantage of the fact that the Olympus Pro Lenses are optically superb and can be used at their lowest aperture without fear. The lens used in this review and the 300mm f4 are perfectly fine opened up to their maximum aperture of f4.5 and f4 and for most depth of field requirements don’t need to be closed down beyond say f5.6. I find adding the optional battery grip improves the balance of the camera significantly when using these longer lenses and helps considerably In getting sharper images. (Viewer often mistakenly identify the effect of slightly out of focus images as noise and it’s certainly the case that this will exaggerate any noise present) Finally I would recommend the raw files are either processed via Capture One or if you prefer then initially through the free OM Workspace Raw Processing Application before being exported into your de-noise application of choice and then into Capture One for final editing If you do use Workspace, you may find it’s free built in de-noise program sufficient?
@@sbom12920 That doesn´t help me. If I would program the camera that way i woukd have to lift up the tumb and toogle then put my tumb back to thr af-on button. It would take too much time and the AF-tracking would be interrupted while i changed the settings (toogled the lever to pos. 2). On my Canon bodys i can program to AF-buttons so I just have to move my tumb a centimeter or program so I have, for eample, AF-C with just one focus point on the index finger and Bird AF on the whole area on the AF-on button - this is the fastest way because i never have to move my fingers sideways while switching during tracking. I think the only way to do somethimg similar with OM--camera is to have focus on the shutterbutton and the tumb ready on the lever and I find that fingerpsosition very uncomfortable.
@@tonysvensson8314 Are you left handed by any chance? If so, I suspect nothing I suggest may help. With regards to your comment suspecting the only way to get near to a solution to your ergonomic issues with the OM -1 is to use the shutter button to focus I don’t think this need be the case? The camera comes with a dedicated back button focus button in the form of the AF-ON button which if you own the camera you will know us located immediately to the right of the AEL Button and it’s outer toggle switch and so if you set up the camera correctly it’s perfectly possible to acquire focus without relying on the shutter button. It’s also possible to dedicate practically every function to any of the buttons and in this vein, and using my suggestion for use of the toggle switch have you tried assigning back button focus to the AEL button and subject detection to the AF-ON? If this still doesn’t help and you have exhausted the many other alternatives button programming options, I think one must conclude that the camera is not for you, but in closing and wishing you well with whatever you decide two final points come to mind. 1. Did you come to Olympus having previously been a Canon user? If so do you really prefer a bigger camera body with more room for button placement and if so have you really spent enough time with the OM camera to acquire the kind of muscle memory you will have when using the Canon Camera, which I believe are some of the most comfortable cameras to use. 2. Are you really saying that you require a camera which incorporates programmable function buttons on the right hand side of the camera body which are partially arranged in a vertical fashion and not, as they exclusively are on the OM -1 in a horizontal manner. If so, unless the forthcoming software update planned for the autumn allows the joystick to become a programmable button and by chance this helps provide you with the functionality you deem critical, I don’t think any current Olympus / OM Cameras will ever deliver what you are looking for and I would have thought this would have been obvious before you bought into the system? If so, move on and be happy with a system that meets your particular ergonomic requirements.
@@sbom12920 It seems as you are trolling? If I use the back buton focus and want to change th AF-option by use my thumb and switch the lever i loose the af-tracking for about 0.2-0,5 seconds! That doesn´t work if you are photographing fast subjects with iregular movement directions!
Hello Fabian ! Great honest review. OM system stuff is good but doesn’t justify the price and weight. I currently use Nikon D500, Nikon 300mm f4 and 1.4 TC the entire set cost me $1500 USD I am amazed to see the results of Canon R8 but RF zoom lenses are slow at tele end. I heard Nikon ZF is capable for bird photography and it too has pro capture (limited though) Both Canon and Nikon set up costs around $US 3500 Nikon ZF + Nikon 180-600 Canon R8 + Canon 100-500 And OM system cost even more though it’s MFT 😮 I did some ground work and found a used Pro 300 f4 So if I buy OM1 new and used Pro 300 f/4 the cost is again $3500 US So this way OM, Nikon and Canon all costs me same everyone has its advantages Being Nikon user I can continue using Nikon 300 f4 on Nikon ZF and cut down the cost but I might loose advantage of using native Z line 180-600 One thing I noted the smaller MFT is good for Macro though Let me know your thoughts/views. Should I jump to OM system? Others are also welcome to comment Thank you 🙏🏾 - Rahul Deshpande
I'm glad he answered that he stays at Nikon. I think the price of this OM combo is ridiculously expensive and also a rather large and heavy lens for what the M43 is supposed to be. If you can handle the weight, the advantage of the larger sensor, for ISO capacity and for cropping capacity, I think they have no rival.
Stick to Nikon, unless……you need focal length and wish to have that in rainy weather as well, without worrying about your gear. Due to the crop factor, the Olympus Big White Lens with 1.25 TC engaged, translates to a FF focal length of 1000mm, so that’s the focal length bit, and the weather sealing of both the OM-1 as well as the Big White Lens, are pretty darn good, thats that nasty-weather-proof bit (but don’t use it under water). Set wide open at f/5.6 with the 1.25TC engaged, this MFT set-up would have a rather deep DoF, comparable to f/11.2 FF, the “speed” (or “brightness”) of the BWL does however still compare to f/5.6 FF. Something that is often overlooked by people. Than again, one could do with less focal length on a FF that has more pixels and crop images in post production, do a digital “zoom-in” if you like. And than “again - again”, with the current AI photo editing software on the market, creating a post production “creamy bokeh”, reducing noise and blowing up scale can even work miracles for images shot with ordinary smartphones… One could even argue that current image creation capabilities of AI based on textual description alone, would render cameras of any sort redundant.
Beautiful images with good and fair reviews. A few comments. Stabilization, I don't think you will see any different shooting at 1/30 between R5 and OM1. Try 1/10 SS and/or lower and see what you can get from both systems! Secondly, on AF interesting that you have found R8 to be better, this means R5 would be better as well. But my friend who have been using R5 for years, got different results on AF when he adopted OM1.2 moths ago with this 150-400mm F4.5 lens. One AF aspect bothering him is the BBF implementation of OM1. Lastly, yes, I would have liked a third wheel on any camera bodies. Don't think it will happen anytime soon with OM System. Cheers.
I saw a significant drop when going from a 1/80 Sec or so to 1/30, in both systems. So I think it should be quite comparable but next time I push it more 😊 The AF of the R8 is much better than the R5 😉
If you shoot in very low-light, switch to S-AF. You will gain 1-2 stops more AF sensitivity compared to C-AF. So the focus is much better with S-AF in very low light. Nice video, was interesting to find out your opinion&experience with OM-1 MK II.
@@MorkusReX I don't know the technical reason, I just noticed that when is very low light and C-AF fails or is hunting, S-AF can focus. Some people said S-AF uses only CDAF while C-AF uses PDAF+CDAF. Maybe this makes C-AF less sensible.
I think you have a very good channel and you do honest (sometimes fair) reviews, however if you’re going to continue to do these reviews, you really need to be more open minded and not be so defensive when people comment about liking a system that you don’t prefer. I have gone through many of your videos and I always see you comments, stating something along the lines of “well I still prefer FF or I prefer the canon”…yes we get it, you like FF. People talk wayyy too much about gear. It’s the person behind the camera who makes the images; yes gear helps but it’s not everything. I came from owning top of the line Sony gear and switched to OM system and I can say the system is every bit as capable as any FF system. Sure it has its disadvantages but so does FF. Every brand/camera format has pros and cons. I HATE when young people, such as yourself, talk down on Olympus/OM system because they’re doing such a good thing and they’re working hard to make a name for themselves. Did you ever stop and think about this; many of the older/geriatric population, whom can’t carry FF gear anymore, still want to partake in their passion of photography so what do you think they do? They switch to OM system and those individuals are extremely thankful that they have a system they can turn to in their old age. One day when I’m older and have terrible joints, I still hope OM system is around so I too can use their cameras. So rather than tear a brand down, maybe you should take a step back and look at the bigger picture rather than always state “well FF is better because…”. I now shoot exclusively OM system and I can undoubtedly say it’s the best system I’ve ever used. Weather sealing is unmatched, portability and size is unmatched, phenomenal IG, unmatched computational features, unmatched ruggedness(yes, even over Nikon), and the price for camera and lens are relatively cheap compared to its FF counterparts. When people see my images, they’re often shocked saying “you did that with a micro 4/3 camera?”. Yes, yes I did. I will happily put my micro 4/3 images up against any FF images. If you want to see my gallery so you don’t think I’m blowing smoke, you can find me on IG; forrest_hogue_photography Thanks and take care
Thanks for your feedback, I will consider this. I never talked down MFT though, just stated the benefits and drawbacks. FF also has some very lightweight options (Nikon 400/4.5 for example)
As you say, with lenses like 300 mm f4 / 150-400 f4.5, and so excellent IBIS, YOU CAN GO WITH SHUTTER SPEED from1/15th to 1/8000 of a second (!) People forget how much light gathering those leneses have. There is no lens even close to these. I am fullframe user, I will be honest at the f6.3 on my tele lens, I am ONE STOP higher than M43 camera could do at F4.5, that means if you reached ISO 12.800 at F4.5 are equal to ISO 25.600 on the F6.3 ! In addition you can lower shutterspeed in M43 system where in Fullframe, you need tripod or go home, because you will have blurry images! In darker scenarios, M43 sensor shines. I really wish to have two systems. I can't imagine my 200-600 f6.3 Sony which is ridiculously big gun, to go slower than 1/80 with less than 15% hit ratio on A7-IV. It just can not be. While OM-1 + 150-400 is really EASY to handhold 1/40th at f4.5 with focus accuracy like what? 60% or so? that's 2 stops of ISO difference! So if you hit ISO 12.800 on Sony 200-600 with 1/80, and pray for at least one image sharp, you have just only ISO 3.200 on 150-400 with 1/40th of shutterspeed. That's amazing system to wildlife.
I agree and I brought up to the Fabian that he needs to try to compare both system at extreme slow SS like 1/15 or below to see the differences. He is as if he didn't want to commit to this aspect as I brought it up when he did OM1.1 review.
Well, I still prefer a 600/4 or 400/2.8 on fullframe. And from what I seen, I can go to quite comparable shutter speeds than MFT but I have much more light do to the larger sensor on FF. Until 1/60 Sec almost all of them are sharp and at 1/20 still a „reasonable amount“. + my Canon FF at 12‘800 looks similar than the OM-1 at 4000 ISO.
There is no need to try to be defensive about your FF Canon. There is no debate FF will always provide better IQ and when light is really dim, it will last longer. However, not everyone will be able to afford those big lens of handle it forever. This is why my friend who is 70s had to change from R5 and 600mm F4 to something much lighter. There are pros and cons for each system and it is the best thing we all have choices. I still insist thought anyway, MFT will have better stabilization than than FF 600mm or over. Try to see if you can shoot 1/5 SS at ISO 40,000 +1.7 EC at 600mm FOV with your setup Fabian handholding it! How much sharp image you can get.
@@MorkusReX If I can handhold 3,150 kg with A7IV and 200-600 at 1/80 with decent results, like 1-2/10 images are at least acceptable, then I think holding om-1 mark II with 3-4 more stabilizations tops, could give me at least 1/5 of a second easily on 300 mm f4 with the same results, only increasing results from 1/10.
You can get this camera with this lens, extra batteries and still be left with money in your bank account, instead of buying one Canon or Nikon 600mm prime lens. Plus it's much lighter for everyday carry and for travel. By the way I shoot the D850 and the Z9.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
You can buy the software here (affiliate links):
DXO PureRAW 4: tidd.ly/3VmJyNR
Nice review! I am an OM-1 shooter (former Canon shooter) who bought, and returned, the OM1ii after 2 weeks. I took many thousands of images during that time. I liked most of the minor changes like the increased buffer and the stickier AF. Also there are a few settings that have a bit more range like the available shutter speeds in SH-2. I found that the upgrades didn’t necessarily make much of a difference for me. The thing that caused me to return it was I had good shots on 3 different birds that I have never photographed before near the end of Spring migration here in central Texas. For whatever reason the camera couldn’t “see” the birds. All 3 landed within 10-15 feet of me looked around for 2 or 3 seconds and left. Small, fast moving birds who don’t sit still very long. I was quickly losing the light but it should have worked. It was almost as if the AF Scanner setting was not tuned on. The body focused on nothing. I was punching the BBF button repeatedly but got no results. It reminded me of my Canon days where the cameras with dual pixel AF will sometimes get confused with horizontal lines. In my experience the OM-1 does not have this issue and I have always given credit to the quad pixel AF. In all 3 cases the body was not able to focus on the bird before it departed the area. I know from hundreds of thousands of images taken with my OM-1 that it likely would have gotten images of all 3 birds. I was already having doubts about the value of the upgrades before it missed the 3 birds. I have been back to the same spot with my OM-1 using the same lens (300mm F4 Pro) and I have gotten numerous tries of small birds in very similar situations with no issues at all. FWIW my OM-1 has not crashed at all in 2 years. It will possibly act weird if I change a lens and forget to turn the body off. Can’t blame the body for that. So I sent it back. There are people in forums having similar issues. My findings were that the AF is generally better but sometimes slower and sometimes it just seems to stop trying. The OM-1ii is a nice upgrade but I suspect that it may take some additional firmware updates to really refine the AF. I will likely buy it again at some point.
Interesting, thanks for sharing!
My theory is that the OM-1ii is stickier and has better tracking because the algorithm is not constantly searching for a bird to focus on. On the OM-1, even when the camera has found a bird and focused on it, it is still looking for a bird to focus on. It is 2 very different approaches in animal eye AF. Generally, an AF system that is stickier will have the weakness of not being able to find the subject, or that it will be slower to find the subject. I find the OM-1ii and Lumix G9ii to be like this. On the other hand, there are AF systems that have very fast focus acquisition speeds, and will often find the subject, but they are not very sticky. The focus will pulse a bit back and forth, even after finding the subject, because the algorithm is searching for a bird in every frame, just incase it has locked onto the wrong target. The OM-1 and Canon R7 are like this.
OM System announced that the OM-1 will be getting a firmware update in fall for improved autofocus. I feel that the OM-1ii's autofocus is not actually "better". It just works differently. It trades off focus stickiness for acquisition. I suspect that OM System launched the OM-1ii with this new autofocus algorithm to test the crowd response of its performance. Since the autofocus is not actually better (it's very situational - better for sticking to the subject, but worse for acquisition, or knowing when it should stop/continue to search for a bird in the frame). Remember, the camera NEVER really "knows" if it has successfully acquired a bird in its detection. It can only make an educated guess. Sometimes, patterns in twigs or rocks could be mistaken for a bird. An autofocus system that is programmed to be very sticky will risk sticking to the incorrect subject. An autofocus system that is programmed to constantly second guess itself will experience more pulsing and slightly missed frames (since it is constantly reanalyzing each frame to find a bird - there is less time for focus confirmation and to precisely dial in focus distance), but it will be less likely to focus on the wrong thing, or be stuck in a state where it just refuses to focus or find the right subject.
I think that's the reason why OM System is withholding the firmware update for the OM-1 until fall this year. They want to see what the consumer reaction is to the OM-1ii's new algorithm first. Are people generally happier, or less happy with the less reactive, but stickier algorithm?
When that firmware update arrives in fall, I do not recommend upgrading your camera until seeing thorough tests. Just incase OM System does decide to tradeoff subject acquisition for stickiness in that update, it might not be a change that is suitable for all birders. Depending on the subjects you shoot and what you prefer in an AF system, the current implementation may very well serve you better.
I had very positive experience with the AF so far.. had the Mk2 since launch. Only once it refused to lock, not sure what it was about. I just removed the battery and it never happened again.
I bought an OM-1 Mk.II when it was on a special deal and paid the same amount I had to lift out of the wallet half a year before when I bought the OM-1 Mk.I, it was on a sale at that time as the Mk.II was introduced. I traded in 2 Olympus OM-D E-M10 bodies and bought just one OM-1 Mk.I. To learn quite quickly that having two bodies is very convenient. My wife was with me on 2 trips and witnessed me missing shots because I was changing lenses. After spending hours on RUclips and DP Review, I had decided initially that the OM-1 Mk.I was good enough for me, so when I good approval of the Mrs. to purchase a second body, I was inclined to search for another OM-1 Mk.I deal. But than I stumbled over this incredible deal and got a Mk.II for exactly €34,16 more than what I had paid for the OM-1 Outlet Sale deal. I’ve had the OM-1 Mk.II for about 10 weeks now. My impression is similar to the latest comment: noticeably better AF Bird recognition performance. It finds birds very quickly and “jumps” quite easily from one bird to another, leading me to believe it doesn’t “stick” to a found bird, but keeps on searching for birds. The one stop extra IS that the Mk.II offers seems to help me as well. But it is true: there is no real shocking difference between the two cameras if one is not pushing either body to the limits. Completing a HHHR or focus stacking shot or a HDR shot on the Mk.II seems to be a little bit faster than on the Mk.I. Because of the one stop better IS, I mostly go out on wildlife photography trips with the 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro on the Mk.1 and the MC-14 plus the 300mm f/4.0 (effectively shooting at 420mm f/5.6, that is 840 mm FF equivalent) on the OM-1 Mk.II
One additional comment about your statement regarding the f/4.5 of the 150-400mm IS Pro: if you translate Depth of Field to FF equivalent, you are correct, that would be something like f/9.0 in the FF Universe. However, the brightness of the lens or “light sensitivity” if you like, is still comparable to f/4.5, allowing shorter shutter speeds at a given ISO. To one person a “deeper” DoF (hence less creamier background) is a clear disadvantage, to the other a deeper DoF allowing shots of animals to be sharp “from nose to tail” without cranking up the aperture (and ISO or lowering shutter speed) is an advantage. Because of that, I don’t believe a comparison with a FF 300-800mm f/9.0 is fully correct, yes it is true in a depth of field sense, but not true in a ISO or shutter speed setting sense. Looking at these two parameters, one would have to compare with something like 300-800mm f/5.6-ish (as the sensor is larger in a FF, it can collect more light, but as soon as the pixel size approaches that of the pixel size of a MFT sensor, that advantage is traded in for more post production cropping capability). Now, searching for those types of lenses will present a very different financial comparison, and weight/size as well, those FF lenses will be more expensive and heavier than the Olympus Big White Lens. Than we get to another advantage of the MFT system you reviewed: as the sensor is smaller and the lens more compact, you can get those 8.5 stops Body and Optics Sync Image Stabilisation, allowing hand held shots even at slower shutter speeds. Doing that with a 300-800mm f/5.6 or 375-1000mm f/6.3 (BWL built in 1.25TC engaged) FF equivalent either requires Body Builder Training or the use of a monopod or tripod. Either weight support device will reduce the liberty of movement of the camera.
Learn how to use single point focus, aquire the target then use the cameras tracking features. It's always the same with people like you, expecting the camera to do so the work for you.
At the end of the day, it's not the camera, but the person behind the viewfinder.
I always look forward to seeing your reviews. Very thorough, very honest and your videos are logically arranged and extremely easy to follow. And beautiful images are always a part of the package, whatever you review. Please keep up the excellent work!
Thanks a lot!
I've been a m43 shooter for around 8 years now and it's my belief that's it's the most complete system for wildlife photography right now if you can live with the decrease in low light image quality.
I would really love to see a complete APSC camera and system as that would be my perfect mid ground but sadly it doesn't look like any manufacturer is interested.
Why would you say it’s more complete? It certainly has some nice lenses, but I think Nikon or Canon offers way more options
@FabianFoppNaturephotography Well practically every Panasonic lens has image stabilisation built in which works well with the already industry leading in body stabilisation, OM are one of the only manufacturers with IP ratings, you have one of the largest catalogues of lenses to be found on any mirrorless line up and let's not forget you can adapt almost any lens that's in existence to the M43 mount.
Let us also consider that if you are travelling you can fit your entire setup in hand luggage. Good luck doing that with full frame. Good luck walking and hand holding 800mm lenses all day. Tripods, gimbals, backpacks and other accessories are cheaper because they don't need to hold such big items or weight.
You are also going to find it hard finding an APSC or Full Frame that can achieve 60fps in photo and 120fps at 4k, have raw pre burst for anything less than £2.5k.
All it gives up is a couple of stops in low light (in the worst case scenario) but considering most people can only afford F5.6 lenses you can easily achieve that with F2.8 M43 lenses which are smaller and lighter.
For Macro you have no disadvantage against full frame at all - they are the same except you have smaller lenses that weigh less.
Trust me I have looked at Canon, Nikon and Sony for a setup that can rival a G9ii or OM1 and there isn't anything to be found like I say all you give up is some low light performance, depth of field I don't consider a disadvantage because most environmental images benefit from an increased depth of field and portraits we often have control over our subject and the background anyway. Besides no one ever made an award winning image solely because it had a shallow depth of field.
Lens options for cost is incomparable. You have 40-150 pro F.28, 300mm F4, Leica 200 2.8, Leica 100-400, Lumix 100-300, Oly 100-400, Oly 150-600, Oly 150-400 and many more affordable telephoto as well. In fact my first telephoto was a 90-350 equivalent which cost me pennies on Ebay and was as sharp as anything I've seen!
Canon you have 100-500 - not enough reach 200-800 well you may as well use M43 at this point at F9!
Sony 200-600 or 100-400 great options but not enough reach and their APSC cameras are all flawed. Nikon I will admit to not knowing enough about but from what I've seen you'll have to sell the cars on your driveway to buy from them. Fuji I don't know enough about to comment.
I was having a discussion with someone the other day (he was shooting full frame Sony A9 and me sadly I only have the original Lumix G9) and we agreed that a decent APSC camera would be the perfect common ground. You can then have your cake and eat it in all regards. Shame no-one seems too interested in that! If Sony made an APSC camera that matched the best M43 cameras I would buy it in an instant! The ideal situation would be to have a decent APSC lens line up and also the option to use full frame lenses just in case you ever wanted to move up to it one day and the APSC lenses for if you didn't.
You are correct about how complete the system is. I hear so many complain about the lack of shallow depth of field as if that is what makes a good photograph or the dynamic range is not up to 15 stops as in some FF cameras. Photography is all about trade offs, the greater depth of field in m43 can be used to excellent effect. I can shoot with my f1.2 or f1.8 lenses wide open in poor lighting conditions and have everyone in a small group in focus, try that with a full frame at the same aperture. If anybody needs 15 stops of dynamic range to photograph a scene he or she probably needs to learn how to expose properly. Did I forget to mention the IBIS in m43 cameras no system comes close, I can handhold a 2 seconds exposure at 200mm equivalent focal length. Which FF system can do that?
@@uyims56
I agree with you, the one you mentioned is right. But in wildlife a great depth of field even at a very wide aperture is not something sought after. The 2 seconds of exposure thanks to IBIS does not seem very attractive in wildlife either, except for some frozen animal. The M43 is still a great system, especially when it comes to going light. But in wildlife the ability to raise the ISO and stop movement and have a lot of resolution to have control and cropping capacity can also be decisive factors.
@@mistergiovanni7183 I obviously was not referring to wildlife and if you read my comment it is clearly the scenarios when the benefits of the OM-1 are beneficial. I recently visited Glacier national park , my OM-1 was the perfect camera for such a place. Considering that someday so would hiking about 13 miles with over 2500 feet elevation gain, I needed a system that was not too heavy, great for landscapes, great IBIS, great AF for wildlife etc. No other system can offer that. I did not take a tripod but could still take 2 second handheld shots of waterfalls using IBIS and built live ND. I have owned multiple Sony FF, now I have a Nikon and also 2 40mp APSC Fuji bodies. If I am given the option to take only one camera on my adventure, it is the OM-1 every time.
Background blur much like long exposure waterfalls is not what the human eye naturally sees and is often overdone, to each their own. I switched from Canon and 500 f/4 prime, to me I value portability over blur any day of the week! Thanks for your honest views and fantastic video!
Sure, it’s a matter of personal preference
So glad to see that you made this review Fabian! I remember commenting about this lens on your channel a year ago. Although, I was interested in hearing more about your thoughts on the lens. Considering there are near-equivalents for Nikon, Sony, Canon, I read that one of the biggest benefits of this 150-400mm was the handling, weight distribution, and build quality. Was hoping to hear detailed insights.
Cheers!
Thanks for the feedback, I will keep it in mind
Yes, sony lenses are usually front heavy. Same for the Canon 100-500 when you zoom in. Also, the 100-500 has a ridiculous design where you cannot zoom out if you use an extender.
If you are like me, a wildlife photographer that also likes to move, I don't think there is a better combo than the OM1 MK2 + 150-400.
As he said in the review, I only wish we had a third dial.
Noise is a non issue anymore with topaz and dxo.
Thanks for the review. I am stuck in deciding if to upgrade an mft body (already have the g9 and panasonic 100-400) or if to get the Canon r8 with the rf100-400. I think for now at least the upgrade path I’ll limit to the g9ii, I don’t really shoot at anything fast enough to need the om-1.
Though decision! If you need reach, I would go for MFT. Otherwise Canon
You know the G9ii shoots faster than the OM1ii right? 60fps with AFC and 75fps with AFS also 4k 120fps for video.
@@JoeMaranophotography I'm looking at sensor readout speed for rolling shutter effect, I get it in the em5iii and g9 while doing panning shots of cars and bikes. Have seen tests in the dpreview forum where people calculate it by shooting at led lights and g9ii it is 1/75 without DR boost, while om-1 is 1/120. Sensor readout also improves the time for high res shots, I use that for macro.
Excellent review, really appreciate your honest observations. I own an OM1, and have rented the 150-400 lens for two birding trips, the most recent being two weeks in Ecuador in June. After another two weeks with this lens I have decided to trade the camera and my current 100-400mm lens in on a new Canon R5 II when it's available. The 150-400 lens is extraordinary, the best MFT lens available, but it is a huge $7500 step up for the extra optical quality over my 100-400, and after two weeks of shooting next to people with an R5 and an R6 MII, both with the 100-500 Canon lens, it is clear to me that the money for the new lens would be better spent on a new Canon setup. Your comment about the OM1 and its focus issues with birds in flight are my main concern, and buying both the new OM1 II and the lens is a $10,000 purchase! What surprised me was that in low light, the Canon delivered better image quality than the OM1, despite the constant F4.5 lens. I expected the 100-500 Canon, with its F7.1 at full extension, would suffer, but that was not the case, and I expect (hope?) the new R5 II will be even better. Thank you,
Thanks for sharing your experiences
Stunning images Fabian, especially the Swallows in flight, not easy to do!
Thanks
I would be interested in the in-camera focus stacking for macro work.
Thanks for the feedback
Fantastic, honest review. Very helpful.
Happy to hear that
Excellent review! The OM-1 II (with the OM System macro lenses) is an AMAZING macro camera. Unfortunately, as you noted, full frame beats it on most other genres where dynamic range and ISO become issues. Even though the price is reasonable, a separate camera body and kit for macro alone is a bit of an extravagance. But the OM-1 II is so very good with macro, I'm tempted to buy it, anyway . . . just for that.
I wish I had enough time to test it with the 90mm macro - but I was too busy
Is the best combo for 4/3❤
I am a Canon shooter. The adaptation of EF glass to MFT bodies is of interest. I don’t know how well this works, but it is of interest for macro or additional reach perhaps
I never tried that
Good review, but if you're going to compare it to the Canon R8 with the 600mm f4 - I suggest also showing the size and weight difference so it will be a fair comparison.
Personally I think that there is no better combo for wildlife photographers on the market (in any system). There is just nothing that can compete with the 150-400 lens. It's an engineering marvel.
Thanks for the honest opinion!
400 tc 2.8 nikon, 800 6.3 nikon… 600 6.3 nikon, 600 f4 tc nikon….
Well, in terms of background blur the RF200-800 is actually identical
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography True. BTW, if you still have the 150-400, can you check if your Bayonet mount is scratched? Apparently there is an issue where they used material way too soft for this lens.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography ...aber nicht (was wichtiger ist) in Bezug auf die Blende und daraus resultierende kurze Verschlusszeiten!
I have both OM-1's, and the 150-400/4.5/1.25TC. I also have a Panasonic G9II. While I have some issues with using the G9ii for wildlife stills, I have to say that Panasonic has done a brilliant implementation of focus limiting with the G9ii. It is amazingly easy to set a limit, and I use the focus limit for macro shots because it applies to focus bracketing. They only have one range, compared to three for Olympus ( a change for Panasonic becuase the G9ii has 12 custom settings). Panasonic loses points for using two function buttons for that (as well as subject tracking), but I can access all of the focus limiting settings and activation through the AF mode button so I don't actually need to add any QMenu or Fn button settings for this (or do a menu dive).
I really wish Olympus would steal as much of the Panasonic UI as they can; for the most part the G9ii is brilliant.
Thanks for sharing!
hi Fabian
thank you for your honest and good review. every camera brand and system has its weaknesses. it's good to name it. but if you are aware of the weaknesses and can deal with them, every camera system is a nice system, including the M 4/3 from Om-system.
Thanks
Given that Mike Lane FRPS and Roger Hance channels seems to do well with the OM-1 Mark ii even in bad light, I think you need to review your technique.
In south west Norway, it is often ISO 25 600 with my EOS R6 with a EF 600mm F/4 with the 1.4 TC in bad light during the winter.
E.g. setting standard ISO to 1600. I did this on my EOS R6 and are very pleased with the result. It kept the shutter speed up.
Mike replaced his Sony A1 with a 200-600mm with the OM-1 with the 150-400mm and claims that he gets more keepers despite som being out of focus.
He does not use the OM-1 for video.
I don’t think my technique is the problem here. It could be that other photographers habe other requirements, but there are simply shots you can’t take with MFT. It’s just physics
Can you perhaps do a OM-1 Mii + 300mm F4 review/comparison with the OM-1 Mi? Or maybe a comparison with 300mm F4 vs 150-400mm F4.5?
Would be awesome.
Cheers,
Levi.
I will see if that’s possible
I have both lenses. What do you want to know?
The Canon 200-800 lens does in fact have similar background blur to that 150-400 OM f4.5 pro lens but one of the most important things people often forget about is that with the OM-1, you are looking at focusing speed at f4.5 which is so much faster than that Canon lens at f9 while the background blur is similar but the performance is not comparable.
Hmm, I disagree on focussing speed. The R5 & RF200-800 was focussing better in dark forests than the OM-1 II & 150-400. Did you experience something else?
@@FabianFoppNaturephotographyI used to own a Canon R5 with the 100-500 lens which has a f7.1 aperture at the long end. I struggle to focus in dark forest with that lens even at f7.1. Even though at that time, the R5 has pretty good eye tracking for bird, for that reason I switched to OM system’s 300 f4 and later I got the 150-400 f4.5 which gave me much better initial focus in similar situations paired with the OM-1 and OM-1 mark ii now. To be fair, I never use the 200-800 from Canon but just having used a brighter lens at 7.1 I struggled before so. But I trusted that you have use both systems quite extensively so maybe even the newer R5 mark ii, it will do better.
Preburst is a Nikon /Canon attempt at catching up to ProCapture of Olympus which has been on their cameras since the E-M1 Mk II, Mark III before the OM line
Yes, but they are all micro four thirds, not full frame
Nice, honest and clear review
I am quite happy with the OM-1 but I am tempted by the improvement, even if minor, of the AF system. I hopes that improved also in low light but looks like it is not the case. In my experience also low contrast scenes can give some trouble to the AF even if light is not loo low.
Ste
Thanks!
one of my worries about using Panasonic lenses on OMs is the OIS and IBIS. how do you see the differences?
when you use your Panasonic 200mm f2.8 on OM1-II do you find it less stable on G9II or vs Olympus 300mm f4?
The OM-1 & Panasonic 200/2.8 was indeed more stable than the G9 II & Olympus 300/4
Have they come to terms (on the mark II) with the earlier problems acording to be able to change, in a split of a second, between single point AF and subject detection in the whole frame? For example with the ability to program two AF buttons (with different setups) or a one touch button that changes the settings? This is crucial for me and if so i would be thinking of swap my mark 1 to a mark II? (Otherwise i`ll probably will sell of my Olympus tele lenses and only use my Canon setups for distance wildlife.
If I remember correctly, they did not change the implementation compared to the original OM-1
@tonysvensson8314. I am not entirely sure I understand the issue you are describing but if my understanding is correct the problem you are referring to does not impact the MK1, which I own and use.
By way of an example.
With the camera in Aperture mode I set the AEL button as my subject detection button and simply press it to toggle the mode on or off. With the subject detection toggled to on one then goes into the super control panel and with the lever switch which surrounds the AEL button set to position 1 I set the Target mode on the screen to small or to my preferred custom mode focus point which is a much smaller and accurate single point which I created immediately I bought the camera.
I then toggle the lever to position 2 and change the Target mode to all and switch the camera off.
Thereafter, when I switch the camera back on I have subject detection and single focus point or subject detection and all focus points available at the flick of the lever.
I understand that in the mark two body most professional users state that the previously somewhat complicated focusing modes have been simplified by virtue of the fact that the detection modes are now so reliable that all they do is enable the subject they require and then use all focus points or a grid sufficient large for the circumstance they are working in and the auto detection and the cameras ability to stay on the subject ax it moves through the frame does the rest.
If I have interpreted your question correctly, I hope the above helps.
In closing I would recommend that users coming to the brand for the first time immediately turn the noise filter down to low or off and set the noise reduction to auto. Also to maximise the available dynamic range, expose to the right and take full advantage of the fact that the Olympus Pro Lenses are optically superb and can be used at their lowest aperture without fear. The lens used in this review and the 300mm f4 are perfectly fine opened up to their maximum aperture of f4.5 and f4 and for most depth of field requirements don’t need to be closed down beyond say f5.6.
I find adding the optional battery grip improves the balance of the camera significantly when using these longer lenses and helps considerably In getting sharper images. (Viewer often mistakenly identify the effect of slightly out of focus images as noise and it’s certainly the case that this will exaggerate any noise present)
Finally I would recommend the raw files are either processed via Capture One or if you prefer then initially through the free OM Workspace Raw Processing Application before being exported into your de-noise application of choice and then into Capture One for final editing
If you do use Workspace, you may find it’s free built in de-noise program sufficient?
@@sbom12920 That doesn´t help me. If I would program the camera that way i woukd have to lift up the tumb and toogle then put my tumb back to thr af-on button. It would take too much time and the AF-tracking would be interrupted while i changed the settings (toogled the lever to pos. 2). On my Canon bodys i can program to AF-buttons so I just have to move my tumb a centimeter or program so I have, for eample, AF-C with just one focus point on the index finger and Bird AF on the whole area on the AF-on button - this is the fastest way because i never have to move my fingers sideways while switching during tracking. I think the only way to do somethimg similar with OM--camera is to have focus on the shutterbutton and the tumb ready on the lever and I find that fingerpsosition very uncomfortable.
@@tonysvensson8314 Are you left handed by any chance? If so, I suspect nothing I suggest may help.
With regards to your comment suspecting the only way to get near to a solution to your ergonomic issues with the OM -1 is to use the shutter button to focus I don’t think this need be the case?
The camera comes with a dedicated back button focus button in the form of the AF-ON button which if you own the camera you will know us located immediately to the right of the AEL Button and it’s outer toggle switch and so if you set up the camera correctly it’s perfectly possible to acquire focus without relying on the shutter button.
It’s also possible to dedicate practically every function to any of the buttons and in this vein, and using my suggestion for use of the toggle switch have you tried assigning back button focus to the AEL button and subject detection to the AF-ON?
If this still doesn’t help and you have exhausted the many other alternatives button programming options, I think one must conclude that the camera is not for you, but in closing and wishing you well with whatever you decide two final points come to mind.
1. Did you come to Olympus having previously been a Canon user? If so do you really prefer a bigger camera body with more room for button placement and if so have you really spent enough time with the OM camera to acquire the kind of muscle memory you will have when using the Canon Camera, which I believe are some of the most comfortable cameras to use.
2. Are you really saying that you require a camera which incorporates programmable function buttons on the right hand side of the camera body which are partially arranged in a vertical fashion and not, as they exclusively are on the OM -1 in a horizontal manner. If so, unless the forthcoming software update planned for the autumn allows the joystick to become a programmable button and by chance this helps provide you with the functionality you deem critical, I don’t think any current Olympus / OM Cameras will ever deliver what you are looking for and I would have thought this would have been obvious before you bought into the system? If so, move on and be happy with a system that meets your particular ergonomic requirements.
@@sbom12920 It seems as you are trolling? If I use the back buton focus and want to change th AF-option by use my thumb and switch the lever i loose the af-tracking for about 0.2-0,5 seconds! That doesn´t work if you are photographing fast subjects with iregular movement directions!
How is the wireless microphone you got to review a year ago?
Still using it for 90% of my videos 😊
Hello Fabian ! Great honest review. OM system stuff is good but doesn’t justify the price and weight. I currently use Nikon D500, Nikon 300mm f4 and 1.4 TC the entire set cost me $1500 USD
I am amazed to see the results of Canon R8 but RF zoom lenses are slow at tele end.
I heard Nikon ZF is capable for bird photography and it too has pro capture (limited though)
Both Canon and Nikon set up costs around $US 3500
Nikon ZF + Nikon 180-600
Canon R8 + Canon 100-500
And OM system cost even more though it’s MFT 😮
I did some ground work and found a used Pro 300 f4
So if I buy OM1 new and used Pro 300 f/4 the cost is again $3500 US
So this way OM, Nikon and Canon all costs me same everyone has its advantages
Being Nikon user I can continue using Nikon 300 f4 on Nikon ZF and cut down the cost but I might loose advantage of using native Z line 180-600
One thing I noted the smaller MFT is good for Macro though
Let me know your thoughts/views.
Should I jump to OM system?
Others are also welcome to comment
Thank you 🙏🏾
- Rahul Deshpande
Personally, I would stick with Nikon 😊 Maybe have a look at the Z6 III instead of the ZF?
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Thank you my friend for responding. Yes I will stick to Full frame Nikon
I'm glad he answered that he stays at Nikon. I think the price of this OM combo is ridiculously expensive and also a rather large and heavy lens for what the M43 is supposed to be. If you can handle the weight, the advantage of the larger sensor, for ISO capacity and for cropping capacity, I think they have no rival.
Stick to Nikon, unless……you need focal length and wish to have that in rainy weather as well, without worrying about your gear. Due to the crop factor, the Olympus Big White Lens with 1.25 TC engaged, translates to a FF focal length of 1000mm, so that’s the focal length bit, and the weather sealing of both the OM-1 as well as the Big White Lens, are pretty darn good, thats that nasty-weather-proof bit (but don’t use it under water).
Set wide open at f/5.6 with the 1.25TC engaged, this MFT set-up would have a rather deep DoF, comparable to f/11.2 FF, the “speed” (or “brightness”) of the BWL does however still compare to f/5.6 FF. Something that is often overlooked by people.
Than again, one could do with less focal length on a FF that has more pixels and crop images in post production, do a digital “zoom-in” if you like.
And than “again - again”, with the current AI photo editing software on the market, creating a post production “creamy bokeh”, reducing noise and blowing up scale can even work miracles for images shot with ordinary smartphones… One could even argue that current image creation capabilities of AI based on textual description alone, would render cameras of any sort redundant.
Beautiful images with good and fair reviews. A few comments. Stabilization, I don't think you will see any different shooting at 1/30 between R5 and OM1. Try 1/10 SS and/or lower and see what you can get from both systems! Secondly, on AF interesting that you have found R8 to be better, this means R5 would be better as well. But my friend who have been using R5 for years, got different results on AF when he adopted OM1.2 moths ago with this 150-400mm F4.5 lens. One AF aspect bothering him is the BBF implementation of OM1. Lastly, yes, I would have liked a third wheel on any camera bodies. Don't think it will happen anytime soon with OM System. Cheers.
I saw a significant drop when going from a 1/80 Sec or so to 1/30, in both systems. So I think it should be quite comparable but next time I push it more 😊 The AF of the R8 is much better than the R5 😉
If you shoot in very low-light, switch to S-AF. You will gain 1-2 stops more AF sensitivity compared to C-AF. So the focus is much better with S-AF in very low light.
Nice video, was interesting to find out your opinion&experience with OM-1 MK II.
Thanks! In many situations the bird was still moving a bit, so AF-S would not have been an option
True. It's just an emergency solution. In some scenarios will work fine or perhaps combined with PRE-CAPTURE.
Why S-AF get more stops of light..?
@@MorkusReX I don't know the technical reason, I just noticed that when is very low light and C-AF fails or is hunting, S-AF can focus. Some people said S-AF uses only CDAF while C-AF uses PDAF+CDAF. Maybe this makes C-AF less sensible.
@@tonigenes5816
Interesting.. I'll test it out
I think you have a very good channel and you do honest (sometimes fair) reviews, however if you’re going to continue to do these reviews, you really need to be more open minded and not be so defensive when people comment about liking a system that you don’t prefer. I have gone through many of your videos and I always see you comments, stating something along the lines of “well I still prefer FF or I prefer the canon”…yes we get it, you like FF. People talk wayyy too much about gear. It’s the person behind the camera who makes the images; yes gear helps but it’s not everything. I came from owning top of the line Sony gear and switched to OM system and I can say the system is every bit as capable as any FF system. Sure it has its disadvantages but so does FF. Every brand/camera format has pros and cons. I HATE when young people, such as yourself, talk down on Olympus/OM system because they’re doing such a good thing and they’re working hard to make a name for themselves. Did you ever stop and think about this; many of the older/geriatric population, whom can’t carry FF gear anymore, still want to partake in their passion of photography so what do you think they do? They switch to OM system and those individuals are extremely thankful that they have a system they can turn to in their old age. One day when I’m older and have terrible joints, I still hope OM system is around so I too can use their cameras. So rather than tear a brand down, maybe you should take a step back and look at the bigger picture rather than always state “well FF is better because…”. I now shoot exclusively OM system and I can undoubtedly say it’s the best system I’ve ever used. Weather sealing is unmatched, portability and size is unmatched, phenomenal IG, unmatched computational features, unmatched ruggedness(yes, even over Nikon), and the price for camera and lens are relatively cheap compared to its FF counterparts. When people see my images, they’re often shocked saying “you did that with a micro 4/3 camera?”. Yes, yes I did. I will happily put my micro 4/3 images up against any FF images. If you want to see my gallery so you don’t think I’m blowing smoke, you can find me on IG; forrest_hogue_photography
Thanks and take care
Thanks for your feedback, I will consider this. I never talked down MFT though, just stated the benefits and drawbacks. FF also has some very lightweight options (Nikon 400/4.5 for example)
As you say, with lenses like 300 mm f4 / 150-400 f4.5, and so excellent IBIS, YOU CAN GO WITH SHUTTER SPEED from1/15th to 1/8000 of a second (!) People forget how much light gathering those leneses have. There is no lens even close to these. I am fullframe user, I will be honest at the f6.3 on my tele lens, I am ONE STOP higher than M43 camera could do at F4.5, that means if you reached ISO 12.800 at F4.5 are equal to ISO 25.600 on the F6.3 ! In addition you can lower shutterspeed in M43 system where in Fullframe, you need tripod or go home, because you will have blurry images! In darker scenarios, M43 sensor shines. I really wish to have two systems. I can't imagine my 200-600 f6.3 Sony which is ridiculously big gun, to go slower than 1/80 with less than 15% hit ratio on A7-IV. It just can not be. While OM-1 + 150-400 is really EASY to handhold 1/40th at f4.5 with focus accuracy like what? 60% or so? that's 2 stops of ISO difference! So if you hit ISO 12.800 on Sony 200-600 with 1/80, and pray for at least one image sharp, you have just only ISO 3.200 on 150-400 with 1/40th of shutterspeed. That's amazing system to wildlife.
I agree and I brought up to the Fabian that he needs to try to compare both system at extreme slow SS like 1/15 or below to see the differences. He is as if he didn't want to commit to this aspect as I brought it up when he did OM1.1 review.
Well, I still prefer a 600/4 or 400/2.8 on fullframe. And from what I seen, I can go to quite comparable shutter speeds than MFT but I have much more light do to the larger sensor on FF. Until 1/60 Sec almost all of them are sharp and at 1/20 still a „reasonable amount“. + my Canon FF at 12‘800 looks similar than the OM-1 at 4000 ISO.
There is no need to try to be defensive about your FF Canon. There is no debate FF will always provide better IQ and when light is really dim, it will last longer. However, not everyone will be able to afford those big lens of handle it forever. This is why my friend who is 70s had to change from R5 and 600mm F4 to something much lighter. There are pros and cons for each system and it is the best thing we all have choices. I still insist thought anyway, MFT will have better stabilization than than FF 600mm or over. Try to see if you can shoot 1/5 SS at ISO 40,000 +1.7 EC at 600mm FOV with your setup Fabian handholding it! How much sharp image you can get.
True. OM1 MK2 user. I forgot what a tripod is.
@@MorkusReX If I can handhold 3,150 kg with A7IV and 200-600 at 1/80 with decent results, like 1-2/10 images are at least acceptable, then I think holding om-1 mark II with 3-4 more stabilizations tops, could give me at least 1/5 of a second easily on 300 mm f4 with the same results, only increasing results from 1/10.
You can get this camera with this lens, extra batteries and still be left with money in your bank account, instead of buying one Canon or Nikon 600mm prime lens. Plus it's much lighter for everyday carry and for travel.
By the way I shoot the D850 and the Z9.
Like your content,
Thanks