Is anyone exploring the Olympus OM-1 for birds and wildlife?

[Calson]

The MFT lens provides half the view angle with a given focal length lens but the same amount of magnification. A 600mm in DX format only pre-crops the image and the magnification provided does not change. The 800mm PF provides a 77% larger image than the 600mm PF and with smaller subjects that is quite significant.

 

[Passakorn]

I would throw in Sony A6700 with 200-600 as another option. Besides a bit weird ergonomic due to small body. It works very well. It gives 300-900mm FL (plus very good 1.4x TC) and has 4K120P (with extra 1.58x cropped). Very fast birds eye AF and very good image quality. It has no problem for the bird AF at f6.3, ISO 20,000 at 1/400. This setup is probably cheapest at around $3,500 (unless compared with 100-400 olympus/pana lens.) and much cheaper if get the used lens. This was gonna be my lighter second system when I got the Z9.

The bad is that this setup is heavier than the OM1 with 150-400 pro as the 200-600 is heavier. Also F6.3 vs F4.5. I think one of the major weak points for this setup is very poor image stabilization for video. No way I can handhold at 600mm for 4k video with good result. Although post processing can stabilize it more, I don’t think it is that much effective at 600mm FL so not recommended for a handholding video shooter. I get a much better result doing a video with handholding pana 100-400 at 400mm with the EM1iii than either the A6700 or A74 with 200-600 at 600mm.

 

[TNTphotos]

Rig Choices for bird photography:

New offerings and availability of certain lenses (OM Systems 150-400 for example) have really muddled the picture IMHO.

1-Light-weight single lens (zoom) combinations
I think the choice is between an OM-1/100-400 and a Canon R-7/100-500. The OM Systems rig is lighter and cheaper and without rolling shutter issues, but the Canon has a 32.5MP cropped sensor compared to 20.4MP and a better upgrade path since most of the money is invested in the lens, not the camera.

2-Non-Lightweight single lens (zoom) combinations.
The OM-1/150-400 versus the Nikon Z-8/180-600 versus the Sony A1/200-600 is probably the most discussed choice. The Nikon is much cheaper. The OM Systems combo is lighter, and the Sony may be the best camera of them all. My feeling is that the Canon R-5/100-500 is now a bit long in the tooth but is less expensive than the others.

3-Prime Combinations not insanely expensive.
I believe that the Nikon Z-9/Z-8/600pf is the winner here.

4-Insanely expensive and heavy
I like a Z-9 with the 600f4/TC

I'd add the Canon 100-400mm f/8 to the R7 which makes it the least expensive and lightest kit for birds. The R7 has the same pixel pitch as a 20MP m4/3 sensor so 400mm would have the same reach, same pixels per duck, on either system. The trade off is the slower sensor and lower AF performance, but noise/DR is the same when crop to the same reach.

I'd also put the OM-1 and 100-400 zooms in the same class in terms of performance and image quality as the Canon 100-500mm, Nikon 180-600, Sony 200-600 on any high MP (45MP and more) FF bodies or APCS-C bodies (plus the Fuji 150-600 but no upgrade path atm).

Now the MZ 150-400TC does indeed muddle the pictures since it adds greater performance, fast aperture, while maintain flexibility and light weight for a very competitive price. With any of the other systems, if you want to go up from the above class, you'll get greater performance but won't get flexibility of a zoom, or competitive price with Canon or Sony, and only with Nikon will you have some choices between light weight, competitive price vs fast aperture.

 

[TNTphotos]

The MFT lens provides half the view angle with a given focal length lens but the same amount of magnification. A 600mm in DX format only pre-crops the image and the magnification provided does not change. The 800mm PF provides a 77% larger image than the 600mm PF and with smaller subjects that is quite significant.

It's 33% larger in image height, which is the more useful metric. Eg, on your display screen, if the bird is shown as 10cm with 600mm then it'll be 13.33cm with the 800mm. Nobody talks about a bird of 50cm2 compared to 88.5cm2.

33% is a good bit more magnification but not that more significant. A 1.4x TC has even greater mag but practically when 600mm is not long enough for a bird, 40% larger image of that bird won't make a good picture. Well, maybe good enough for social media.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I'd add the Canon 100-400mm f/8 to the R7 which makes it the least expensive and lightest kit for birds. The R7 has the same pixel pitch as a 20MP m4/3 sensor so 400mm would have the same reach, same pixels per duck, on either system. The trade off is the slower sensor and lower AF performance, but noise/DR is the same when crop to the same reach.

I would throw in Sony A6700 with 200-600 as another option. Besides a bit weird ergonomic due to small body. It works very well. It gives 300-900mm FL (plus very good 1.4x TC) and has 4K120P (with extra 1.58x cropped). Very fast birds eye AF and very good image quality. It

I forgot the 100-400 Canon/ R-7 combo. It is lighter by almost a pound and cheaper by over $1000. I also failed to mention the cropped sensor Sony a6700 which will save a ton of $$$ over the A1.

Laying out the lightweight, low-cost single lens (zoom) options for enthusiasts that don't want to spend a ton of $$$, switch lenses or add/deleted TCs

1-Lowest Cost/lowest weight. Canon r-7/100-400. A bit over $2K, bit less than 3#
2-Stacked sensor/ ultra-fast acquisition. OM-1/100-400. About $3300 on a frequent deal, a bit less than 4#
3-Large 32mp sensor. CanonR7/100-500. About $4400, about 5#
4-Long reach. The Fuji X2-HS/150-600 is in the price range @ $4000, weigh is about 5#.
5-Excellent 900mm reach with a 26MP sensor. Sony A6700/180-600. About $3400, 6+ pounds

Note: the OM-1/150-400 qualifies by weight but not by price while the OM-1/300F4 qualifies by both weight and price but is not a single lens (zoom) solution. The closest Nikon offering is a Z-8/180-600. About $6700, about 6.6#

 

[TNTphotos]

Note2: The Fuji X2-HS/150-600 is in the price range @ $4000, but the weigh is about 7# which moves it out of the range.

The X-H2S is 1.5lbs and the 150-600 is 3.5lbs, which together is good for a light weight system. If the X-T5 or X-H2 is kitted with this lens, it'd give the longest reach, most pixels per duck, out of all these systems in the list at the moment until the G9ii is available. (But reach is not the only thing to be considered, of course.)

 

[StefanSC]

The Fuji 150-600 is F8 at the long end...

 

[TNTphotos]

The Fuji 150-600 is F8 at the long end...

Same as the Canon 100-400mm f/8. All of these long zooms are better in good light whether f/6.3 or f/8. Even f/4 or f/4.5 is only good until just after sunset, not long after.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

The X-H2S is 1.5lbs and the 150-600 is 3.5lbs, which together is good for a light weight system. If the X-T5 or X-H2 is kitted with this lens, it'd give the longest reach, most pixels per duck, out of all these systems in the list at the moment until the G9ii is available. (But reach is not the only thing to be considered, of course.)

Thanks. Corrected the post. The Fuji is an interesting alternative which I know very little about. I do consider reach quite important up to a point for an occasional bird photographer.

Tom

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I would like to ask another question and I chose to ask it on this thread because I wanted input from users of camera/lens combinations that fin into the lightweight, low-cost range that we collectively identified a couple of posts previous to this.

"What do you use to fix a picture and why?" To be more specific what are the problems that you encounter with photos that you would like to save and what new tools are you experimenting with or have found useful? Please identify your output when you answer the questions.

My goal, since I can't run down all the new advances in postprocssing software software that are emerging fast and furious, I am hoping the community can give some pointers to what new feature to investigate next.

My answer, an example:

Since moving to the OM-1 and using a high f/stop zoom (100-400) as my primary lens I needed to deal with noise. As I often also needed to crop that makes the noise issue worse. I have currently standardized on Topaz Photo AI as the last step in my workflow. I find the results generally good although I sometimes turn down the sharpening which is strange because I am a notorious over sharpener. I have experiment with the new "adjust lighting" and "balance color" beta features with mixed results.

Shooting @ F/6.2 with a 2:1 cropped sensor I am usually fighting subject separation due to a wide depth of field. I am experimenting with Adobe's lens blur feature. I have tried other methods such a ON1 but the Adobe feature looks most promising. The first thing I do is set the focus on the eye and dramatically shrink the DOF by moving the [o] brackets. I then use the refine brushes to get the DOF portion of the picture in focus, then adjust the blur to where it doesn't look too fake.

I only output to an 11x14 metal print, 300DPI which is typically viewed 8-10'away so I do over sharpen. I do like ON1's subject masking to get the subject to pop and I love the dynamic contrast feature, over sharpened as it may be.

 

[Palmor]

I would like to ask another question and I chose to ask it on this thread because I wanted input from users of camera/lens combinations that fin into the lightweight, low-cost range that we collectively identified a couple of posts previous to this.

"What do you use to fix a picture and why?" To be more specific what are the problems that you encounter with photos that you would like to save and what new tools are you experimenting with or have found useful? Please identify your output when you answer the questions.

My goal, since I can't run down all the new advances in postprocssing software software that are emerging fast and furious, I am hoping the community can give some pointers to what new feature to investigate next.

My answer, an example:

Since moving to the OM-1 and using a high f/stop zoom (100-400) as my primary lens I needed to deal with noise. As I often also needed to crop that makes the noise issue worse. I have currently standardized on Topaz Photo AI as the last step in my workflow. I find the results generally good although I sometimes turn down the sharpening which is strange because I am a notorious over sharpener. I have experiment with the new "adjust lighting" and "balance color" beta features with mixed results.

Shooting @ F/6.2 with a 2:1 cropped sensor I am usually fighting subject separation due to a wide depth of field. I am experimenting with Adobe's lens blur feature. I have tried other methods such a ON1 but the Adobe feature looks most promising. The first thing I do is set the focus on the eye and dramatically shrink the DOF by moving the [o] brackets. I then use the refine brushes to get the DOF portion of the picture in focus, then adjust the blur to where it doesn't look too fake.

I only output to an 11x14 metal print, 300DPI which is typically viewed 8-10'away so I do over sharpen. I do like ON1's subject masking to get the subject to pop and I love the dynamic contrast feature, over sharpened as it may be.

Just as a precursor I use LR so I start my workflow there. After I do my normal adjustments I almost always run through a denoise step but I use 3 different software packages....

1. My go to is the old Topaz Denoise. I find that it usually does the best job
2. If #1 doesn't give me the results I want I'll try Topaz Photo AI
3. LR Denoise is fast becoming just as good as Topaz Denoise, but right now I prefer the sharpening in Topaz

If I have a shot that may be not as sharp as I want but I want to try to save it I'll turn off sharpening in Topaz then run the NR file through Topaz sharpening trying various settings to see if I can get something acceptable.

I'd say 95% of my photos are "normal" edits in LR and a quick trip to Topaz Denoise for NR and sharpening. A very small number of photos that are either very noise or not sharp enough but I want to try to save I run through additional steps. LR Denoise could probably replace the Topaz products now that it's on par for people who haven't already bought Topaz.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

An older shot processed with Adobe lens blur to provide a shorter DOF look. What do you think?

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[eaj101]

An older shot processed with Adobe lens blur to provide a shorter DOF look. What do you think?View attachment 72070

To a first approximation, I think the lens blur works, even the fade-off in the closer section under the tail.

My workflow is generally Import-> LR -> rough highlight/shadow recovery -> Topaz DeNoise AI (don't trust Photo AI yet and I'll often try several models). Sometimes pull it into Photoshop, run DeNoise on a layer copy, mask it off and try gradually revealing areas where I think I want more sharpness.

Files out of the OM-1 generally clean up well. Files out of the EM-1X got gnarly getting to 3200 ISO but newer tools have made some of those files usable, if not great.

As several others have noted I often find the implicit increase in DoF inherent in m4/3 to be a benefit, getting more of my subject in focus than might otherwise be the case (I hate getting the tip of the beak sharp and the eye a little off). I also often shoot what might be called 'animalscapes', animals in their environment, smaller in the frame, in which case I'm looking for front-to-back clear focus through the scene.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Another Adobe Lens Blur fix. This was taken @ f/6.3 a long way off. What do you think?

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Adjusting the Bobcat photo:

We were parked on the road waiting for the Bobcat to pass by. We were there at least 2o min as the Bobcat came over the hill hunting along the fence and foliage that lined the road. We saw it hopped when it caught a mouse or something. Suddenly it crossed under the fence and emerged on the road shoulder about 10' in front of the car. Ginnie was standing at the back of the car waiting and as the Bobcat emerged it looked directly at Ginnie. Ginnie snapped a couple of shots then the Bobcat turned and walked away providing me with a beautiful shot of his backside. At 20 f/s Ginnie caught the Bobcat looking right at her. It happened that fast.

Unfortunately, Ginnie had no time to adjust settings so the shutter was set @ 1/4000 and the Lens was @F/8. F/8 is a pretty long DOF on a m43 sensor. Additionally, @ 1/4000 the ISO was higher than Ginnie wanted. Plus, Ginne shot horizontally, and the resultant shot needed to be vertical meaning a serious crop The result was an in focus shot of the Bobcat with a close background nearly the color of the cat. The shot lacked pop. It did not convey the experience of a dangerous wild animal glaring intently at us from 20' away. This was the cat's space and it obviously deciding if we were interlopers or prey in the split second. Fortunately, we humans are big and Ginnie, wisely, did not duck down to get to the cat's level. Not a good idea with a wild predator that close.

Time to adjust to capture the moment.

My normal process starts with Adobe Camera Raw. The new version allows me to set the DOF artificially blurring areas in front and back artificially to overcome the long DOF and close background of the original shot. I then invoked Topaz Photo AI from inside Photoshop and adjusted the sharpening to fit my taste. I then cropped. Not good enough. The cat simply didn't stand out in the picture like it did in our brain when it appeared.

I saved the photo as a .tiff and moved it into ON1. I masked the cat and applied dynamic contrast to the subject. Now the cat POPPED, somewhat capturing what we experience. I save back to Photoshop and created a large .JPG file. That will make a nice 11 x14 print. I can upload a file that large here but this low res version will give you an idea.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[TNTphotos]

Regarding noise, I usually try to get the exposure right so I'm not worried too much about that. The first picture is camera's JPEG at ISO 25600, 1/13s handheld, camera's Noise Filtering (NR) turned off :

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

And below is a Topaz Denoise run on the Raw file then a quick conversion by ON1. I can do ON1 conversion first then Denoise after, which often retains better colours.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I just received a Bay Photo print, 11x14, glossy, metal @ 300DPI. This photo is now on my wall, and I can compare the print with other prints also printed by Bay Photo but with different camera/lens combinations. All photos have the same ceiling lighting on them so I think it is a fair comparison of how a photo will print.

I do not have Steve's setup to test sharpness, but I can interpolate his results because Steve tests the 500pf and I have two single subject prints taken in ideal conditions (Laguna Seca Ranch, Texas) with a D-500/500pf.
My ranking:
1-OM-1/300F/4. I have a Yellow Fronted Woodpecker sitting on a prepared perch @ LSR. It is the sharpest to my eye.
2-OM-1/300F/4 +TC-20. This is the print I just received. It is a Western Bluebird taken at Point Reyes at a distance slightly farther away than the LSR perch but with the background far in the distance. The result is an even background identical to the LSR photos background. Surprisingly, the difference is virtually unnoticeable from the non-telephoto 300F/4 shot.
3-D-500/500pf. I have a shot of a male Cardinal and a Green Jay taken @ LSR. They are a slight bit less sharp than either of the 300F/4 shots. However, these shots were processed before Topaz Photo AI became part of my standard workflow. That might make a difference
4-OM-1/100-400. I have a Great Egret landing wing spread from Santee Lakes, Sandiego, and a Yellow Warbler taken at a preserve North of Bosque Del Apache, New Mexico. Still quite sharp but noticeably less than the shots ranked above them. I have taken many shots @ LSR with this combo but none have made the wall.

By interpolation I drop the new Nikon 600pf in the ranking as 1a, or equal to a 300F/4 because Steve reported that the 600pf is slightly sharper than the 500pf.

Regards,

Tom

 

[Photographer_Bill]

Regarding noise, I usually try to get the exposure right so I'm not worried too much about that. The first picture is camera's JPEG at ISO 25600, 1/13s handheld, camera's Noise Filtering (NR) turned off :

View attachment 72827

And below is a Topaz Denoise run on the Raw file then a quick conversion by ON1. I can do ON1 conversion first then Denoise after, which often retains better colours.

View attachment 72828

Stunning recovery! Denoise AI and Blur AI may open up new doors of opportunity for MFT and even with full frame and the new super tele zooms that are using higher f's and struggle with background rendering some...

 

[Pauhana]

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

A discussion on FM centered on the upgrade path for the OM-1. Most responders focused on improvements that could easily be implemented in software.

In terms of hardware improvements, it was thought that a global sensor would significantly increase the heat generation and would add unwanted weight to the camera. It was also the consensus that increasing the sensor to 24-26mp may be possible, it probably wasn't enough of an upgrade to entice OM-1 owners from upgrading.

There were relatively few contributors and a portion were older Olympus users. I am wondering what OM-1 users here on Backcountry Gallery think a new OM-1 camera would need to provide in order for them to upgrade.

Tom

PS: I currently own three (3) OM-1's and don't do enough wildlife photography to upgrade unless 26+MP is available with equivalent dynamic range. Assuming an OM-1X came in @ $2500, upgrading three (3) cameras would cost somewhere in the range of $5K. I would do that for 26MP which is probably possible.

 

[Nimi]

A discussion on FM centered on the upgrade path for the OM-1. Most responders focused on improvements that could easily be implemented in software.

In terms of hardware improvements, it was thought that a global sensor would significantly increase the heat generation and would add unwanted weight to the camera. It was also the consensus that increasing the sensor to 24-26mp may be possible, it probably wasn't enough of an upgrade to entice OM-1 owners from upgrading.

There were relatively few contributors and a portion were older Olympus users. I am wondering what OM-1 users here on Backcountry Gallery think a new OM-1 camera would need to provide in order for them to upgrade.

Tom

PS: I currently own three (3) OM-1's and don't do enough wildlife photography to upgrade unless 26+MP is available with equivalent dynamic range. Assuming an OM-1X came in @ $2500, upgrading three (3) cameras would cost somewhere in the range of $5K. I would do that for 26MP which is probably possible.

I agree with you. Higher MP and/or global shutter would degrade dynamic range and low-light capabilities. Olympus has a small but loyal following, and many of us have great respect for the fabled optics. Personally I think that they should keep cameras small and light, move to a 24mp APS-C while keeping the excellent AF, improve video capabilities and get some new lenses out.

 

[Photographer_Bill]

I wanted to really like the OM-1 and there were features it had that really came in handy for bird photography, but current sensor offers limited cropping capabilities and images are still pretty noise. Would like to see an OM-2 that offers greater MP, greater DR, lower starting ISO and better noise control throughout ISO - if that were to become reality I think I would seriously consider MFT once again as I love the idea... Here's some bird shots I took last year, not the best but they were the best talent I could find on short notice

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Palmor]

A discussion on FM centered on the upgrade path for the OM-1. Most responders focused on improvements that could easily be implemented in software.

In terms of hardware improvements, it was thought that a global sensor would significantly increase the heat generation and would add unwanted weight to the camera. It was also the consensus that increasing the sensor to 24-26mp may be possible, it probably wasn't enough of an upgrade to entice OM-1 owners from upgrading.

There were relatively few contributors and a portion were older Olympus users. I am wondering what OM-1 users here on Backcountry Gallery think a new OM-1 camera would need to provide in order for them to upgrade.

Tom

PS: I currently own three (3) OM-1's and don't do enough wildlife photography to upgrade unless 26+MP is available with equivalent dynamic range. Assuming an OM-1X came in @ $2500, upgrading three (3) cameras would cost somewhere in the range of $5K. I would do that for 26MP which is probably possible.

I saw the discussion on FM but never got around to participating. I think the biggest thing they could do is increase pixel count (~30) while keeping all other aspects more or less the same (shooting speed, sensor read-out etc). Every generation will also have new/faster processors for better AF/subject recognition and computational features. Throw in little stuff like higher rez screens and you'd have a decent upgrade. I would not be interested in a OM-1X as I don't want a gripped body (did that with a 1d III back in the day).

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I agree with you. Higher MP and/or global shutter would degrade dynamic range and low-light capabilities. Olympus has a small but loyal following, and many of us have great respect for the fabled optics. Personally I think that they should keep cameras small and light, move to a 24mp APS-C while keeping the excellent AF, improve video capabilities and get some new lenses out.

Nimi-
I assume that you mean APS-C specific lenses. I agree that is a currently uncovered area. Imagine OM Systems providing a 1.6Crop 32MP sensor and an accompanying 100-500mm lens. Let's say that they can bring that in for 1# additional weight and $1500 more than a current OM-1/100-400 combo.

Sweet.

Tom

 

[Palmor]

Nimi-
I assume that you mean APS-C specific lenses. I agree that is a currently uncovered area. Imagine OM Systems providing a 1.6Crop 32MP sensor and an accompanying 100-500mm lens. Let's say that they can bring that in for 1# additional weight and $1500 more than a current OM-1/100-400 combo.

Sweet.

Tom

I honesty don't think they would ever venture into APS-C. The investment in an entire new system from the ground up seems way beyond what they would do IMO and there isn't that much advantage to APS-C over m43 (a little less than 1 stop) to make a real difference. I believe that is why Panasonic decided to go to FF with their second line (and even Fuji skips to medium format), to start an entire second line just one "step" up doesn't make enough sense.