OM-1 for wildlife photographers - My experiences (Review)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- Is this camera the perfect choice for starting out in wildlife photography? I tested the OM-1 for more than a month and took over 20,000 photos with it. In this video I talk about my experiences with the handling, autofocus, image quality, image stabilizer, continuous shooting, buffer and much more.
You can buy the equipment presented here (affiliate links):
OM-1: bhpho.to/42NJOXC
OM-1 II (successor): bhpho.to/3I8kr9r
Olympus Zuiko 300mm f/4 Pro: bhpho.to/48mDUhf
Leica 200mm f/2.8: bhpho.to/48p1drb
Fast SD card: bhpho.to/3UNv6xO
Patona USB-C Battery: tidd.ly/3Uzm5bK
Peak Design Strap: bhpho.to/3Vff9kg
I have been using OM-1 mark 2 for close to 2 months. Since that I have spent several days at Conowingo Dam photographing bald eagles in flight and also at Cape May photographing Osprays. I used OM-150-400 at 20 fps using C-AF with Bird AI, shutter priority at 1/2000 or higher with auto ISO. Focus box was set 1 down from Max or Max size in most cases. During this period, I took over 30,000 pictures of various birds from very small ones to bald eagles both stationary or in flight or fishing. Previously I used 2 OM-1s with the same setup for around 2 years, exclusively for birds and wildlife photography with over 200,000 pictures taken. I was hesitant to upgrade to OM-1 mark 2 but finally did it exclusively because of the claimed focus and buffer improvements.
Here are my findings with the OM-1 Mark 2, which is a mixed bag:
1. For the stationary small songbirds the autofocus appears to be more accurate. There is less pulsation of the autofocus and most of the shots are sharp if the eye of the birds is clearly visible. With the old OM-1 often some frames were soft. However, the autofocus recovered within a couple of frames giving sharp frames.
2. OM-1 II finds the stationary small birds better within branches even with large focus box selected if the eye is visible. For the OM-1 many times selecting a smaller focus area helped in this situation. However, for the large birds (e.g. bald eagles) when most of the bird was covered with branches, except for the head, the autofocus of OM-1 2 often struggled/failed. Selecting smaller boxes would not change this behavior. With OM-1 large boxes would also fail in this situation, but selecting the smaller autofocus areas often would recognize the head/eye of the bird.
3. When photographing bald eagles in flight fishing OM-1 tended to lose the bird in a sequence for a few frames with busy background (e.g. trees or moving water and backlit scenes). In most of such cases the autofocus recovered and sharper and less sharp pictures were alternating during a sequence. In some cases (10-20%) the autofocus was completely lost without recovery.
To my great surprise with OM-1 2 the number of misfocusing of the complete sequence was considerably higher. If the camera could not acquire the focus in many cases, it never recovered. In other cases, there were 5-6 frames out of focus and after that the autofocus recovered.
4. With a clear background (e.g. blue sky) both cameras had very good success rates, have not noticed any difference.
5. I could not see any differences between the 2 cameras in the stabilization either. The OM-150-400 with the teleconverter engaged was handholdable at 1/50s at 1000 mm full frame equivalent focal length for stationary subjects with similar keeper rate.
6. I found the increased buffer useful on OM-1 Mark 2 for long flight tracking sequences
7. IN OM-1 Mark 2 it is also possible to zoom without loosing the tracking sequence, which was not the case with OM-1
In conclusion, my impression was that the autofocus for stationary small birds in OM-1 mark II slightly improved, also for small birds in branches if the bird eye is visible. However, the tracking for birds (e.g. eagles) with busy background (trees, rocks, moving water, backlit scenes) got even less reliable compared to the original OM-1. If it grabs the sequence there is less pulsation of the autofocus and more frames are in focus (more sticky). Hopefully these issues could be fixed by firmware updates.
I also use Sony FF system with the 200-600 mm zoom. The tracking of Sony is significantly more reliable though for stationary birds the autofocus of OM-1 mark II is slightly better/faster. Mostly I go out with my friend to photograph eagles and he is using a Canon system with a large prime. In most situations when I am upset with the OM-1 loosing the tracking he is getting the shots.
However, the ergonomics and handholdability of OM1 I/II with Olympus-150-400 F4.5 1.25x TC PRO mm lens is unbeatable and my Sony system in most cases stays at home. I can hike with OM-1 150-400 F4.5 or 300 mmF4 30 miles holding it in my hands and never really need/use a tripod. I fall in love with that lens. Hopefully with the future firmware updates the tracking of OM1 Mark 2 under more challenging conditions (complicated and backlit background transitions) would improve and get closer to Sony, Canon systems.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with the OM-1 II
My impression of this camera is such that I hardly pick up my R5 anymore. What truly sold me is the MZ 150-400 f/4.5 with built-in TC. (300-1000mm FFE), although that 300mm f/4 (600mm FFE) is a great lens also. The MkII (I have both) has faster and stickier AF and 8.5 stops of IS when used with OMS lenses. It may not have a third wheel, but has lots of buttons to customize. I use the front buttons to switch between C1 and C2. two of the top buttons are set to C3 and C4. And the lever lets you set up basically two different sets of total settings. so C1-C4 x 2.. To me as a wildlife shooter The AF and stabilization is better than my R5. Last African Safari I left the R5 setup at home and only took two OM-1s. Like any camera, in order to get the best out of it, you need to live with it for a bit. You barely scratched the surface. BTW it's a BSI stacked sensor. Oh, and live ND plus many other computational features.
Thanks for sharing how you use the OM system for wildlife:) i use the G9 + 100-400mm Panasonic and have been debating between Canon, Nikon and Sony for future wildlife photography upgrades. My only issue is that even though the 150-400mm f4.5 seems brilliant, it’s super expensive and almost as heavy as the Nikon 180-600mm or Sony 200-600mm.
But from what i heard, the build quality, weather sealing, in-built TC, macro capabilities, and great ergonomics make it a worthy competitor of even the best Full Frame telephoto primes
I mentioned the stacked sensor 😉 I know other people that used it for a while and also know the R5 and they also said that the tracking of the R5 is mich better. But maybe you had different experiences, everyone needs to find whats suits him/her best
@@jeffbronson3696 Please go watch Duane Pattons review on the OM1; he said it was a stellar camera with fantastic autofocus. There are many videos out there praising the OM1 but his experience with it is exactly how I feel every-time I pick the camera up. Furthermore, the OM1 has been compared to the Sony A1 and the Nikon Z9 in terms of autofocus because it’s just that good. Please do more research/ check out the video I recommended and you’ll find my comments to be more than true/accurate:) this video was a huge disservice to the OM1 and its capabilities. I can from owning the Sony A1 and several primes and was so impressed by the OM1, I sold all my gear and made the switch and haven’t looked back.
I currently use the OM1 and the 300 f4 and the 150-400 and it’s an AMAZING setup!
Thanks
Thank you for your review, Fabian. For bird photography I switched from the Sony A7r3 and 200-600mm lens to the OM-1, the 300mm f4, and the 1.4 teleconverter. My main reason for the switch was weight. I rarely use a tripod and found I was less interested in shooting wildlife because I had to lug around Sony’s heavy telephoto lens. With my OM-1 kit, I have an 840mm equivalent focal length in a lightweight package. In addition, some of the advanced features of the OM-1, like Pro Capture, have really improved my bird photography, especially for “action” shots. Still, I sometimes miss the smooth bokeh potential of full frame.
Thanks for sharing your experiences after switching
I'm in love with my OM-1 MK2 + Olympus 300 Pro + MC14 combo. Birding paradise.
If I had to complain it would be : lack of external battery charger in the box, no touch in menus, while buffer is clearing you can still take photos - but only in the same mode you were on (you can change the modes on the dial but it will keep shooting in the mode that corresponds to the photos in the buffer).
Also, it would have been nice to make the lever remember more settings (like subject detect , so you can switch between pets and birds, or on and off).
But overall, although it's a stup1d expensive camera - I love it. I went birding for 1.5 days and came home with 77GB of footage :)
Have fun with it! I often manage 100GB on one day 😅
I shoot MFT but, in my case, I use the Lumix G9 and 100-400mm for a my bird outings. However, I think the OM-1 deserves a lot of credit for breathing new life into the MFT concept. In a few cases the OM-1 has been good enough to convince a couple TH-cam photographers to choose it over highly regarded full-frame cameras like the Sony A1. However, I think the biggest asset of MFT is to provide sophistication in a light-weight package. To that end I've found the digital 2x converter in the G9 very useful and would love to see a vertical grip and shutter release WITHOUT a battery offered, so long as it doesn't cover the battery door. These are and would be options that increase the utility of the camera while adding no, or very little weight to the camera, options I think OM Systems and Lumix photographers would appreciate.
Thanks for sharing your impressions
Please go watch Duane Pattons review on the OM1; he said it was a stellar camera with fantastic autofocus. There are many videos out there praising the OM1 but his(Duane’s)experience with it is exactly how I feel every-time I pick the camera up. Furthermore, the OM1 has been compared to the Sony A1 and the Nikon Z9 in terms of autofocus because it’s just that good. Please do more research/ check out the video I recommended and you’ll find my comments to be more than true/accurate:)
Thanks
Well produced detailed review as always Fabian.
They are great cameras with an excellent feature set, and are currently really standing alone for macro work.
I'd be tempted but as a current R7 \ RF100-400mm user I can't justify paying over twice the price and holding double the weight for minimal (if any) gain, especially when it comes to auto focus tracking performance and pixels on subject.
It will be interesting to see how OMD go longer term as apart from macro I don't see them having much advantage over decent crop sensor options but I know they have a very loyal following.
Yes, APS-C is also a very interesting option
Please go watch Duane Pattons review on the OM1; he said it was a stellar camera with fantastic autofocus. There are many videos out there praising the OM1 but his(Duades) experience with it is exactly how I feel every-time I pick the camera up. Furthermore, the OM1 has been compared to the Sony A1 and the Nikon Z9 in terms of autofocus because it’s just that good. Please do more research/ check out the video I recommended and you’ll find my comments to be more than true/accurate:) this video was a huge disservice to the OM1 and its capabilities. I can from owning the Sony A1 and several primes and was so impressed by the OM1, I sold all my gear and made the switch and haven’t looked back.
I currently use the OM1 and the 300 f4 and the 150-400 and it’s an AMAZING setup!
Thanks
@@ForrestHogue What makes you assume I haven't watched Duades video or "done my research?"
Just because I have a different opinion to you?
FYI I am Australian and have watched all of Duaude's videos and most TH-camrs won't say negative things about a brand otherwise they won't get sent stuff to test so they present overtly positive reviews.
Irrespective of the autofocus comparisons ( Maybe you should research that as you don't mention Canon in your comments, it's widely accepted Canon has the best AF systems currently) you fail to address my other points of price and weight.
It is irrefutable the OMD is twice the weight and twice the price, significant factors for many when purchasing a wildlife set-up, not to mention less pixels on subject.
If you own and like the system good for you, but for the money and weight I'll stick with the R7 any day of the week.
Maybe you yourself could reference one of Duade's videos where he goes through the "2023 Wildlife camera & lens awards" where OMD don't rate a mention in any of the categories. :)
Nice & complete feedback, Fabian !
I use OM-1, it performs nice, I get nice results with it. So I will keep it for the next 2-3 years (no upgrade yet to OM-1 MK II)
I also use 300mm and sometimes MC-20. When the birds are far away, MC-20 can help. Of course at longer distances, there is a risc of air turbulences, especially when I shoot near the ground. Although is nice, Panasonic 200mm F/2.8 would be too short for me.
How is the damage to image at MC20? Very visible or like looks more just softer but still sharp?
With MC-20 mounted on 300mm the image remains sharp at 100%, not as sharp as 300mm alone, but still sharp. I am also not impacted by loosing 2 stops.
Problems can come from somewhere else : sometimes the subject does not fit into the frame, the focus speed is slower, the focus accuracy is also affected.
Then air turbulences can also affect the IQ or can cause soft images. And finnally it is more dificult to stabilize 600mm (1200mm echivalent).
All these negative factors can have impact and lower the keeper rate. Even so, MC-20 it's a nice to have tool, but not to keep it all the time on the lens. Just in some scenarios. Perhaps MC-14 is more versatile, as it was said in the video.
@@tonigenes5816Thank you sir! That's what I thought. But still that's a great lens, and when it comes darker you can just take off extender and be happy of 1 EV for at least 30 minutes more after sunset/before sunrise.
Have fun
I feel everyone that can afford it should have the 300mm f4 and 200mm f2.8. They are so good and portable for what they do. I’m saving for the 300mm f4 after seeing someone crop 2x digitally on it and not losing quality. I don’t think they can match the other setups you have, but they are very convenient for just grab and go without any monopod or tripod. Thanks for the review, really liking the channel.
I can‘t believe you don’t see a difference with the 2x digital zoom, that’s just not possible
Please go watch Duane Pattons review on the OM1; he said it was a stellar camera with fantastic autofocus. There are many videos out there praising the OM1 but his experience with it is exactly how I feel every-time I pick the camera up. Furthermore, the OM1 has been compared to the Sony A1 and the Nikon Z9 in terms of autofocus because it’s just that good. Please do more research/ check out the video I recommended and you’ll find my comments to be more than true/accurate:) this video was a huge disservice to the OM1 and its capabilities. I came from owning the Sony A1 and several primes and was so impressed by the OM1, I sold all my gear and made the switch and haven’t looked back.
I currently use the OM1 and the 300 f4 and the 150-400 and it’s an AMAZING setup!
Thanks
Nice, concise video about your experience with this camera Fabian. Am also pleased to hear that the 200 2.8 worked well for you. Did you find the reach generally sufficient with that lens?
For my use case it was often enough. But sometimes I preferred the reach of the 300/4
Never thought I would appreciate mallards and coots but your shots made me to
Haha, thanks
I'm not sure a £2000 camera should be compared to £4000‐5000 cameras when it comes to a lot of features. It's like expecting a £50000 car to perform like a £100000 car. That said I get that those cameras are likely your only source of comparison but would have liked to seen it compared more to the G9ii
I will do a separate video where I compare it to the G9 II
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Fantastic! Thank you!
Please go watch Duane Pattons review on the OM1; he said it was a stellar camera with fantastic autofocus. Furthermore, the OM1 has been compared to the Sony A1 and the Nikon Z9 in terms of autofocus because it’s just that good. Please do more research and you’ll find that my comments to be more than true.
Thanks
Readout speed is about 8ms. Very fast but A1, Z9, Z8 and R3 are a bit faster. You can sometimes notice tiny bit of roling shutter, but not comparison to non-stacked sensors. I have both R5 and OM-1 and OM-1 seems significantly better in that regard to me but not by a big margin.
Thanks for sharing your experiences
Please go watch Duane Pattons review on the OM1; he said it was a stellar camera with fantastic autofocus. There are many videos out there praising the OM1 but his(Duades) experience with it is exactly how I feel every-time I pick the camera up. Furthermore, the OM1 has been compared to the Sony A1 and the Nikon Z9 in terms of autofocus because it’s just that good. Please do more research/ check out the video I recommended and you’ll find my comments to be more than true/accurate:) this video was a huge disservice to the OM1 and its capabilities. I came from owning the Sony A1 and several primes and was so impressed by the OM1, I sold all my gear and made the switch and haven’t looked back.
I currently use the OM1 and the 300 f4 and the 150-400 and it’s an AMAZING setup!
Thanks
AF is a myth it seems. A few of my friends now using OM1.2 said it is better than R5! They have been using R5 for several years and just got OM1.2 for about a month. If I don't have back issue, I would be shooting Z8 or Z9 with either the 400mm F2.8 with built-in TC or the 600mm with built-in TC.
I could not test the AF of the OM-1 II so far, so I was only speaking about the OM-1
I'm from southwest Germany but I frequently photograph in South America, especially Brazil, and in certain regions, not only the weather sealing, but also the small size, are advantages that cannot be ignored. With lots of light, lots of rain and a lot of need to be “discreet” it’s hard to imagine a better system.
Thanks for sharing your experiences. In Costa Rica I was very happy with the 600/4 on full frame since I was often shooting over 10‘000 ISO
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography The issue of size also involves the issue of security in many places around the world. I also use FF in some scenarios. In my case, M43 is used more because I spend many months traveling and my adventures through jungles and mountains involve hiking often 50km+ and rock climbing. The best equipment is the one that is suited to what you do. In practical use, the discussion about sensor size is mushy
Please go watch Duane Pattons review on the OM1; he said it was a stellar camera with fantastic autofocus. There are many videos out there praising the OM1 but his(Duades) experience with it is exactly how I feel every-time I pick the camera up. Furthermore, the OM1 has been compared to the Sony A1 and the Nikon Z9 in terms of autofocus because it’s just that good. Please do more research/ check out the video I recommended and you’ll find my comments to be more than true/accurate:) this video was a huge disservice to the OM1 and its capabilities. I came from owning the Sony A1 and several primes and was so impressed by the OM1, I sold all my gear and made the switch and haven’t looked back.
I currently use the OM1 and the 300 f4 and the 150-400 and it’s an AMAZING setup!
Thanks
The only issue I have with the om-1 is you really need the high end Tele lenses to get the most out of it.
The 150-600 is ridiculously big and heavy for a m43 lens and costs the same as the RF 100-500....after that you're looking at £6k and up.
There are cheaper 100-400 lenses but optically they're not the greatest.
As for the AF issues.... having shit with both I'd say I found the OM body a bit more reliable than the R7 which is what I'd compare it to instead of the Z8/9 or Canon R3
The Canon R6 II has the better AF than the R3 and might be a good camera for comparison with the om-1
I appreciate your views on the Om1. I am thinking to change to it with the 100-400 lens. Currently my kit is Canon R6 with 600mm f11. I want lighter but don’t want to compromise image quality much. What do you think
Is the OM-1 & 100-400 really that much lighter than the canon combo?
For me om-1 focus work better over the r6, detects much quicker and for that senzor size is doing a well deserved bravo job.... Maybe you should try a 150-400 f4.5 with om-1 to se the real deal :D
Interesting. Which lens did you use on the R6?
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography with oly for the moment I use oly 100-400, with r6 I use 500mm f4 IS (first version with is) and 100-400 II. It's amazing how such a small sensor is close to full frame in some cases.
Ah, this explains a lot. Do the same test with an RF600/4 and you will see how much better the AF of the R6 gets 😊
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I can't live without any kidney, to expensive. And the last equipment canon release it's not as realiable like dslr era. Anyway, great content!
Please go watch Duane Pattons review on the OM1; he said it was a stellar camera with fantastic autofocus. There are many videos out there praising the OM1 but his(Duades) experience with it is exactly how I feel every-time I pick the camera up. Furthermore, the OM1 has been compared to the Sony A1 and the Nikon Z9 in terms of autofocus because it’s just that good. Please do more research/ check out the video I recommended and you’ll find my comments to be more than true/accurate:) this video was a huge disservice to the OM1 and its capabilities. I can from owning the Sony A1 and several primes and was so impressed by the OM1, I sold all my gear and made the switch and haven’t looked back.
I currently use the OM1 and the 300 f4 and the 150-400 and it’s an AMAZING setup!
Thanks
I believe Sigma might do 500 mm f5.6 rebranding from actual Sony mount. If they do.. that would be the first 1000 mm equivalent under 1,5 kg with f5.6 😅😅
Well, actually more like a 1000mm f/11 in terms of Bokeh
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography in bokeh sure ;p but let's be honest, the light capabilites would be insane at that weight and focal length. sony do have 900 mm f6.3 at aps-c but that weight over 3.0 kg with any A6XXX series (I weighted that)
When I use independent manufacturers batteries I always buy a matching independent charger too. All camera makers charging systems detect and undercharge 3rd party batteries. I have tried and confirmed this with the Sony, Panasonic and Olympus cameras I own.
Interesting, thanks for sharing
If I remember correctly and if they didn’t change it you should also be able to zoom using a double tap. Pinch to zoom would be more intuitive though.
This could be, I don’t think I have tried that
The OM-1 is a very good camera, but doesn't measure up to my Z8; however it definitely has a size and weight advantage over the Z8 and Pro-Capture on the OM-1 is superior to the Z8 too. As for the OM-1ii... nope, not getting it as the difference is negligible and is a very expensive firmware upgrade. I get firmware upgrades with new features from Nikon, it's a shame OM Systems are ruining the camera and brand with their backward thinking
Yes, Nikon is amazing with their update strategy
Well, Firmware upgrades is mostly to fix shortcomings in a product. If the product is as good as it can in functions, then you can't win on firmware updates.
About OM-1 firmware, It has till today had 4 firmware updates. The HW level and SW level is now about as good as it can be. And there is now a major firmware update coming. Yes, it is as major as it can be due to HW level. The mark 1 can't reach mark 2 level due to HW issues. But it will be again better AF, and one or so new functions. I wish the GND in some form could be implemented in that firmware. But HW level might stop that.
So, all talks about OM System don't do firmware updates, are wrong. It's only evidence that the product is almost as good as it can - right from the first day of sale. That is called quality.
I have to agree with most of what you said, however I am perplexed as to how the autofocus didn’t perform well for you? I owned the Sony A1 and a few of their primes for almost 2 years, shooting primarily birds and BIF before making the switch to the OM1 and the 300 f4 and the 150-400 f4.5; I switched because I rented the OM1 and found it to be almost on par with the autofocus of the A1, which blew my mind; we’re talking a $1999 camera vs a $6500 camera. All cameras have minor flaws with their autofocus systems, as no one system is perfect. With this being said, I rarely, if ever , miss a shot with the OM1 because the autofocus performance is stellar. What settings did you use to come to the your conclusions regarding the autofocus?? I respect your opinions but as someone who has used this system for more than a year now and knows it’s capabilities, this video is upsetting because videos like this give OM systems and the OM1 a bad rep, when in all reality it is a FANTASTIC system in the right hands. Duane Patton, big wildlife TH-cam channel, reviewed the OM1 himself and agreed that the autofocus performance is stellar. Furthermore, on the day he used the OM1 paired with the 100-400, he said it was one of the best days he’s ever experienced while photographing birds and he was so overwhelmed with joy.
Thanks
Thanks for your comment. I tried several AF areas, but in none of them the tracking was nearly as good as with a Z8 or R6 Ii (can‘t talk about Sony). I have some friends that also used other camera brands and were also a bit disappointed with the tracking of the OM-1 (the panasonic g9 ii is clearly superior). I heard that it got a lot better with the OM-1 II though.
Is there a specific setting that really improved the accuracy of the tracking for you?
If using subject detection turn off tracking. My autofocus grabs birds even in very low light.
Greater depth of field can often be an advantage as you don't have to stop down to get the whole subject sharp. Modern software makes it easy to soften the background so shallow depth of field is not an advantage anymore.
I don’t like to blur the background in post, I prefer to get it eight in camera
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I also prefere in camera and do no post processing but again I will when needed post process so not a knock on the camera. Again lots of times greater depth of field is an advantage, I dont have to stop down.
Hi Fabian, How would you compare the files from this setup compared with the R5?
I did a video about that exact comparison a fee weeks ago on my channel
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Thanks very much. I will take a look.
Abysmal non-subject detect tracking is the biggest letdown for me. Also takes a long time for the IS effect to kick in when half-pressing the shutter which is weird. No dedicated EV dial above the SS dial is a huge miss - the EV button is so much slower and more cumbersome. But all in all an incredibly competent package with I think the best ergonomics around.
Thanks for sharing your experiences
Please go watch Duane Pattons review on the OM1; he said it was a stellar camera with fantastic autofocus. There are many videos out there praising the OM1 but his(Duades) experience with it is exactly how I feel every-time I pick the camera up. Furthermore, the OM1 has been compared to the Sony A1 and the Nikon Z9 in terms of autofocus because it’s just that good. Please do more research/ check out the video I recommended and you’ll find my comments to be more than true/accurate:) this video was a huge disservice to the OM1 and its capabilities. I can from owning the Sony A1 and several primes and was so impressed by the OM1, I sold all my gear and made the switch and haven’t looked back.
I currently use the OM1 and the 300 f4 and the 150-400 and it’s an AMAZING setup!
Thanks