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

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

The reviews thus far seem to indicate a very real upgrade re high ISO and auto-focus. The whole computational photography thing plus the build quality, portability and small size make it seem like an attractive potential option.

If I buy in I would probably limit myself to the 300mm f4 with the 1.4 converter and the new 12-40mm f2.8 for all round photography.

Any thoughts folks?
 
I'm keeping an eye on it. A friend of mine is getting it and he has shot Olympus in the past but currently shoots two A1s. He won't beat around the bush and will let me know exactly where it stands. He will have the 300/4 but also the 150-400 fairly soon (he is next in line at his dealer of choice).

I'm eyeing it because I'd love ProCapture and a small, lightweight package in addition to my larger Sony kit. I'm a little hesitant about the EVF experience as it seems you only get blackout free at the really high FPS. Also even though it is a stacked sensor the read speed doesn't seem all that fast (more like the non-stacked R5 speed) so I'm not sure the EVF is really a live feed...may be a super fast 25-50FPS slideshow like the R5's 20FPS slideshow in ES.
 
I'm interested, but hesitant. I currently shoot a D850 but I'd like to go to mirrorless, I just don't see how the Z9 is in the budget, and I have heard good things about Olympus from others. I shot the Olympus point and shoots for years because of the weather sealing (you can stick under water and shoot away, which is pretty handy I think).
 
Yes, I lucked into one yesterday and hope to have it Tuesday. I recently reacquired the 300 f/4 and TC’s.

I was an Olympus shooter since the original E-M1 and always appreciated the silent shooting and IQ, and robust of their equipment in bad weather. C-AF was dreadful for BIF and rolling shutter was an issue.

I abandoned them late 2021 after not expecting anything from OMDS which I’m happy to admit I was wrong.

Obviuously, only time will tell. We each have to decide what is needed and acceptable to us.

Cheers

George
 
Yup, I’ve been using it. Doing side by side with my A1.
1) OM has MUCH better focus acquisition. It’s instant.
2) EVF is better for following, A1 feels floaty, even though it has a higher refresh rate
3) Shutter lag is non existent, noticeably better than the A1

Would love to hear any other comparison findings. How is the BEAF? How is the Tracking for fast/erratic BIF? Does the OM-1 love backgrounds like Z9 and R5 or is it more sticky like A9/A1.
 
I’ve only been testing the AF, the weather here is extremely poor. It was night and day between A1 and OM. The OM picks up birds much faster. Its instant. An example of the viewfinder. Taken with my phone but gives an idea. Same position. Lifted first camera to my eye then next
3C6DED7B-B128-4E94-92BE-A253E82F61A0.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
C1D26F63-18B5-4C5C-8D9F-E22BE47C583E.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
One of my main concerns here is not how good the camera is but how viable the company is. Is there a long-range Olympus / OM Systems future? If one were to buy into the system today is there a 3-5 year future where lenses and product support will be available?

I don't think there is a definitive answer to these questions which is one reason I'm hesitant to get too excited about them. I really like the idea of the Micro 4/3 especially if the new sensor produces good images. However, the questions about viability could become a downward spiral if more people have the same reservations as I do.

Jeff
 
Sounds promising.

Switching the A1 into AF-C will probably help things along nicely as you continue your testing.;)
Ha, snagged on my jeans while lifting. Haha. Was just pointing around to see the box, realized it was out and pulled it back in.

I had a soap bottle which with a spout, the OM did pick that up as a birds beak , the A1 doesn’t ever mistaken anything that isn’t a bird.

I can see 2 distinct reasons for either. If you need to crop or want a 600 f4, the A1 is the only option.
If you don’t crop as much or want portable, the OM-1 is very compelling because m43 finally has good af.

The tracking without Ai is terrible, CAF is better but after using A1 tracking, it’s hard using anything else. With Ai, it’s a whole different experience.
 
My wife has been using the EM-1 cameras and pro quality lenses for the past 7 years. The lenses can be smaller and lighter and they are less expensive to manufacturer as well. Olympus makes a full range of f/2.8 constant aperture zoom lenses from 7mm to 150mm and a 100-400mm that provides the view angle of a 200-800mm lens on a full frame camera. Her most used lenses for wildlife are the 90mm macro (180mm FX), 40-150mm f/2.8 (80-300mm f/2.8), 100-400mm, and the 300mm f/4.

The Olympus 300mm f/4 has optical stabilization that works in tandem with the in-camera 5-axis optical stabiliation to allow one to shoot hand held at shutter speeds as slow as 1/8s and get sharp pictures. I found it incredible when the 300mm lens arrived to be able to put it on the camera and immediately start shooting with it and not need to spend a great deal of time doing autofocus fine tuning with all my cameras and with the various teleconverter combinations. Autofocus fine tuning is necessary with a DSLR but it is far from being accurate at all focal lengths with a zoom lens and much of the time I use manual focus when I want the best possible image of a subject.

My wife's 18 liter photo backpack for a trip to Costa Rica weighs about 17 lbs whereas my full frame kit fills up a 32 liter backpack and weighs in at 37 lbs and the difference is quite significant. For a quick grab and run shoot she will use the 100-400mm but with my FX camera I end up taking the 100-400mm and the 500mm PF and still do not have the reach that she does.

The main drawback with the Olympus MFT cameras is that a ISO setting greater than 3200 is going to result in much more noise in images than I get with the D850. The cameras produce a smaller image in terms of area but that is only a problem if one is making 30x40 prints to use in an exhibition. Overall the Olympus EM-1 cameras are in their third or fourth generation and the EVF and AF and other features are as sophisticated as any other mirrorless camera excepting the Z9 with its eye tracking.
 
This might be of interest to those looking at the OM-1

 
My primary concern with the EM system is the depth of field.
I have been watching the Olympus OM-D E-M1X + 150-400 since their inception. While the OM1 seems to be even better, the E-M1X is now an insane bargain for what you get. Between this and the better AF algorithms in the OM1, it's hard not be be interested in the camera.
However, every time I see images made with the u4/3, I am bothered by the background elements. This is especially true when looking at animals in brush or when the background is not far from the organism.
A recent review of the body by a wildlife photographer showed lovely details, but the background branches seem way too prominent in the images.
Here's the review that I read.
regards,
bruce
 
Last edited:
I run Nikon and Olympus gear in parallel, and find enough benefits to each that neither is going away. At the end of the day, I'd rather have a 45mp D850/Z7 image than a 20mp Olympus M1X image. The drawbacks to the m43 sensor are real (noise at higher ISOs, limited ability to blow out backgrounds, limited cropping). But in decent light the images can be stellar, though I need to pay closer attention to the limits because there's less room for error.

But the benefits are real as well. If I need to travel light and small the Olympus wins hands down. The 'reach' of m43 lenses is stunning, the result of a 2x crop factor, making a 300mm the equivalent of a full frame 600mm. (Yes, I know all the arguments about equivalence). The lenses are ultra-small and light by comparison to full frame and wicked sharp, especially the f/2.8 and f/4 zooms and the primes.

The M1X bird AF works well, though it's not a panacea. I don't have my Z9 yet, but the M1X is definitely more responsive than the D850 or Z7. But it can't easily tell *which* bird you want in a group and gets confused enough to make me use one of the group modes at times. Tracking can work well and can also be an ugly mess. The just announced OM-1 supposedly has better IQ and AF. (Note: the E-M1X was recently on sale at a ridiculously low price. If it still is, grab one).

If weight/size/convenience aren't an issue I'll take the Nikons and the 500PF or 600 f/4 (and the heavy tripod and gimbal and big pack). If they are an issue, I take the Olympus. A three lens Olympus kit covering from 14mm to 600mm equivalents would fit in a breadbox (a small one).

As I said, I'm keeping both.

(Add: I just checked and the Olympus E-M1X is still on sale for $1700, which is a $1300 discount. It's not quite at the A1/Z9 level, I think, but it's not far behind. And that price is... A pro-level camera (drives nails, water resistant, etc etc) at @$4K discount?)
 
Last edited:
Like eaj101, I also run Nikon F and m43 in parallel and I can atest that there benefits to using both.

The optics of the m43 system are very light and very high quality (e.g.: I shot the m43 Panasonic-Leica 50-200 f2.8-f4 against the Sony FE 100-400 f4-5.6 and the m43 lens is visibly sharper wide open while being 1 stop brighter across the board, as well built, half the weight and cheaper...).

The combination between sharp lenses wide open and image stabilisation actually does a lot to mitigate sensor shortcomings in real life use (and you always can use DXO's PureRAW for some stunning noise cleanup).

Where I disagree with eaj101 is regarding the E-M1X. My opinion is that it is a poor value camera as it doesn't really do many things better than the <1000$ E-M1 II.

Regarding the OM-1 ...I for one am considering it for birds and wildlife.
Initial reviews seem very enthusiastic about it and everybody is singing it's praise. I am cautiously optimistic about it.
I do hope it is as good as people claim (and that OMDS will further improve it via software update).
 
My primary concern with the EM system is the depth of field.
I have been watching the Olympus OM-D E-M1X + 150-400 since their inception. While the OM1 seems to be even better, the E-M1X is now an insane bargain for what you get. Between this and the better AF algorithms in the OM1, it's hard not be be interested in the camera.
However, every time I see images made with the u4/3, I am bothered by the background elements. This is especially true when looking at animals in brush or when the background is not far from the organism.
A recent review of the body by a wildlife photographer showed lovely details, but the background branches seem way too prominent in the images.
Here's the review that I read.
regards,
bruce

That's why I never tried M4/3. Subject separation is often tough enough on a full frame camera, adding another couple of stops more DOF makes me shudder. Although, that 150-400 is sure tempting.
 
The reviews thus far seem to indicate a very real upgrade re high ISO and auto-focus. The whole computational photography thing plus the build quality, portability and small size make it seem like an attractive potential option.

If I buy in I would probably limit myself to the 300mm f4 with the 1.4 converter and the new 12-40mm f2.8 for all round photography.

Any thoughts folks?

I am waiting to receive mine. My original plan was to shoot it on my 300mm Pro along with my D500 + 300 PF as backup, but with everything I have been reading about its AF capabilities with Bird AI, I feel confident in selling my Nikon gear to cover the costs of it. Still waiting to hear from Roberts Cameras ... I know that they received some stock last week but I haven't received a call yet.

I would advise you to look at the MC-20 TC instead of the MC-14. Unlike most telephoto lenses, the 300mm Pro works extremely well with the 2x TC. Having shot lenses like the Canon 300mm f2.8L, the 300mm Pro is the only lens that I would use with the 2x TC. It's unreal how sharp it stays.

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


Taken with the 300mm Pro, MC-20 and E-M1ii and cropped to achieve portrait mode.

I haven't used my MC-14 in a while. That might change if I find that BIFs (swallows, kingfishers etc.) are consistently possible with the MC-14 on, while using the OM-1. The keeper rate is poor with my E-M1ii.

Unless you need a high shutter speed for wide / normal shots, you might also want to consider the 12-100 f4 Pro. Just a bit heavier and a lot more versatile. Sync-IS is used to compensate for the smaller aperture.

Fsi has already answered your other questions. Hi Fsi and Arbitage - nice to see you both here! 👋
 
My primary concern with the EM system is the depth of field.
I have been watching the Olympus OM-D E-M1X + 150-400 since their inception. While the OM1 seems to be even better, the E-M1X is now an insane bargain for what you get. Between this and the better AF algorithms in the OM1, it's hard not be be interested in the camera.
However, every time I see images made with the u4/3, I am bothered by the background elements. This is especially true when looking at animals in brush or when the background is not far from the organism.
A recent review of the body by a wildlife photographer showed lovely details, but the background branches seem way too prominent in the images.
Here's the review that I read.
regards,
bruce

I'd counter that by pointing out that having a handholdable system allows you to easily move to one side, crouch etc. to quickly adjust your position and achieve background blur. This is especially beneficial if your subject is mobile, and is a lot harder to do if you're using a tripod. And if you're of average strength and shooting a full frame system handheld, you'll have to use lenses with smaller apertures, which doesn't exactly help with the DOF problem. ;)

Smaller sensors are at an inherent disadvantage in terms of DOF but there are other advantages that you can exploit to often level the playing field. Greater DOF is also an advantage for genres like macro photography.

The juvenile barn swallow in my previous post was shot by taking a few steps to the side after he moved to a different branch. It was easy enough to eliminate background clutter that way. Here are a couple of other examples shot with m43:

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


This common yellowthroat was on the juniper tree that he was nesting in. This was in a thicket and we surprised each other as I walked around the tree. I had just a brief moment to take this shot - no time to compose, plan for background separation etc. Goes to show that pleasing backgrounds are entirely feasible with m43. Shot with the 300mm Pro, MC-14 and my E-M1ii.

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

For the Brewer's blackbird portrait - the bird was walking through grass so there was virtually no distance from the background. Background separation was easy to achieve by laying prone on the ground. I was shooting ducks and was able to instantly turn around, lay on the ground and photograph this bird and his mate. Had I been using a "superior" lens like the 600mm f4, I would likely have missed this shot.
 
If the online DoF calculators are to be believed, the DoF of a FF camera with a nikon 500mm PF wide open at 10 meters is 13cm.

The DoF of a m43 with the 300mm f4 lens wide open at 10m is... 13cm.

So I'm scratching my head as to why people complain of lack of DoF control with m43...

I do have to admit that Olympus zooms are kind of known of making zooms with iffy bokeh.
 
If the online DoF calculators are to be believed, the DoF of a FF camera with a nikon 500mm PF wide open at 10 meters is 13cm.

The DoF of a m43 with the 300mm f4 lens wide open at 10m is... 13cm.

So I'm scratching my head as to why people complain of lack of DoF control with m43...

😂 Precisely! Don't knock it until you try it.

And for anyone saying, "well, why not just shoot with the 500 PF then?". First off, the 300mm Pro is an f4 lens which allows for better AF acquisition in low light. It works beautifully with the 2x TC - the 500 PF does not. It resolves more detail than the 500 PF for equal megapixels. Despite this, its used price is 50% of that of a used 500mm PF. Its OIS syncs with an Olympus camera's IBIS to provide unreal stabilization. I've shot 2 sec handheld shots in the dark with the 2x TC on (1200mm FOV, 2 sec exposure, SHARP!). It is IP53 rated and allows for ProCapture with all compatible bodies and 50 fps shooting with an OM-1. And so on ...

I do have to admit that Olympus zooms are kind of known of making zooms with iffy bokeh.
Yes. Panasonic zooms are nice in that respect e.g. the PanaLeica 50-200 and 100-400. Although the 100-400 isn't as sharp as I'd like, but it renders OOF areas beautifully - great for real-world use / printing!
 
The whole DOF/equivalence argument with m43 does seem fraught with some heated opinions on the Internet. I find that a) I'm more likely to appreciate any increase in DOF in trying to keep more of the the subject in focus, and b) I'm comfortable shooting most of the Olympus long lenses wide open. So yes, sometimes I have to move around to get more subject/background separation, but I also have less trouble getting most of a flying eagle in focus. YMMV.
 
If the online DoF calculators are to be believed, the DoF of a FF camera with a nikon 500mm PF wide open at 10 meters is 13cm.

The DoF of a m43 with the 300mm f4 lens wide open at 10m is... 13cm.

So I'm scratching my head as to why people complain of lack of DoF control with m43...

Talking about equivalency is hard because you always have to compare apples/apples or make caveats. In your example, the caveat is that you are taking the photo from the same location so the extra "reach" of the M43 makes up for the sensor size (for DOF). If you could move 1m closer your DOF with the 500PF would only be 10cm (assuming you could move closer).

As to why people complain about the lack of DOF control is because in FF you have options because you can always stop down a faster lens. Take your example, someone who wants more DOF control can get a 600 f4 and at the same 10m their DOF is only 6cm. If the needed 13cm of DOF they will just stop down to F8.

Anyway, it all comes down to choosing a system that meets your needs at a price you can justify. There isn't one system that is always better because what is best for one person may not be the best for another.. and ultimate IQ is not always the determining factor on what is "best".

Disclaimer, I shoot M43 and FF but have decided that FF meets my needs for my wildlife photography more the M43. I keep M43 in my kit for the times I really want/need to go as light as possible (with cameras like the GX9 and GX850).
 
Back
Top