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

[Tom Reynolds]

If you are a "subject isolation" freak, welcome to a 600 f/4 and enjoy carrying that load with the camera/lens across your back and the tripod legs running interference in front of you. There is really no other way to get the subject isolation desired.

If you want light weight, small size and flexibility choose the OM-1/100-400 F/5-6.3 and be prepared to make sure your exposure is perfectly set as bright as can be and get familiar with using noise reduction software in your post processing.

Both approaches will take different, but pleasing images of the same scene.

Every other choice will move towards the middle. Use a 500-800pf on a Z-9, you won't get the same subject isolation that a F4 lens gives you, but the rig will be much lighter and, for some, hand-holdable. Substitute a 150-400 F/4.5 for the 100-400 f/6.3 and you will have less noise and better subject isolation but with a heavier and bulkier rig.

If you are willing to give up the flexibility of a zoom, the OM-1/300F4 is only slightly heavier and no less maneuverable than the 100-400 F/5-6.3 and is a good compromise if the specific 600mm reach is appropriate. It is not, however, the equivalent of a FF/600 F4.

Tom

 

[Palmor]

I was out looking for an American Avocet and Black Crowned Night Heron that have been in this little alcove (found the Avocet but not the Heron) and decided to bring both the OM-1/300F4 and A1/600F4 combos. While these aren't great shots (you can't get to the water level in this particular spot) but I did shoot a couple of things back-to-back for fun. This is about as much "testing" as I do... I typically just go out and shoot and if I get an image I like I don't think about what it could have been like if I brought different gear.

I used the 1.4x TC on the 300F4 to make up for the extra pixels on the A1 and both images were cropped pretty heavily. The Egret shots ended up being ~7.5 MPs on both setups after cropping while the Yellowlegs were 7MP for the OM-1 and 9.5MP for the A1.

With fairly heavy crops sharpness was good from both setups (especially considering I was using a TC on OM-1). Both images had basic stuff done in LR then a pass through Topaz (Topaz AI for the Yellowlegs and Topaz Denoise for the Egret).

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.

The Egret moved a little bit between switching cameras, the A1 shot was a few feet further away.

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.

Just in case anyone was wondering here is a shot of the immature BCNW from last week in the same spot using the OM-1, unfortunately backlit just after sunrise. I was hoping to get him just before sunset this time for some nice lighting, but no such luck.

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

 

[AlfC]

Nice shots, especially the Night Heron - the back lighting works very well here to me. The great pose helps!
From what I can see on the screen here there is not much to choose between the two combinations. Would the OM-1 shots have been better with the x2 TC rather than a deep crop?

 

[Palmor]

Nice shots, especially the Night Heron - the back lighting works very well here to me. The great pose helps!
From what I can see on the screen here there is not much to choose between the two combinations. Would the OM-1 shots have been better with the x2 TC rather than a deep crop?

Thanks! Looking at them full size there is little difference in sharpness between the two (maybe a slight edge to the Sony). Obviously the Sony has shallower DOF (as you can see in Greaterlegs photos ).

Unknown if the 2x TC would have helped since conditions have to be perfect to use a 2x IMO (I have one for Sony). I also could have used the 1.4x TC on the Sony 600mm with little image quality loss as well... so it's almost a never ending comparison if someone wanted to.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I would say, as an amateur enthusiast, that the heron shots are equal and prove that decent shots are available even with deep crops. I would have liked to see a shot with the Olympus 100-400 (no TC) and 150-400 (no TC) and with the Sony 200-600 but I expect that I would call them equal also.

TOM

 

[Palmor]

I would say, as an amateur enthusiast, that the heron shots are equal and prove that decent shots are available even with deep crops. I would have liked to see a shot with the Olympus 100-400 (no TC) and 150-400 (no TC) and with the Sony 200-600 but I expect that I would call them equal also.

TOM

I've never used the Oly 100-400 but did have the Pany version for a few years. I believe I had a good copy and that lens didn't come close to the 200-600, never mind the primes. Maybe the Oly is that much better but I think of them as about the same (depending on sample variation).

 

[StefanSC]

I tried 3 Panasonic 100-400s over 5 years, each of them was seriously underwhelming. Image quality was just not worth the money.

Of what I've seen, the Oly 100-400 is a tad better.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Here is another Egret shot, a very deep crop with the 100-400. As expected, a longer DOF. Otherwise?

Tom

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

 

[Woody Meristem]

I've never used the Oly 100-400 but did have the Pany version for a few years. I believe I had a good copy and that lens didn't come close to the 200-600, never mind the primes. Maybe the Oly is that much better but I think of them as about the same (depending on sample variation).

The consensus among people who have used and/or tested both lenses is that the Olympus is significantly sharper than most samples of the Panasonic (apparently there's quite a bit of sample variation) although it's also significantly heavier. I'm very pleased with my Olympus 100-400 but don't carry it around much, for that I use the 75-300mm ii which is really light but somewhat lacking in image quality. The 100-400 focuses to a bit over four feet which makes it excellent for close-ups of butterflies, dragonflies and similar sized subjects.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

What I am seeing on the net is the underreporting of the utility of a camera storing images prior to the shutter being depressed. Although this capability exists with the Nikon Z-9 (Pre-Release Capture) and Canon R-7 (Pre-Capture) it appears that Nikon and Canon shooters are just beginning to experiment with the capability. Believe me, it is a game changer.

Even with Olympus which has had this feature for a while, one of the issues that I have seen is that the OM-1 is a serious upgrade over past Olympus 4/3 systems. ProCapture is one of those upgrades. Two other upgrades, AF speed and subject identification: bird tracking conspire with upgraded ProCapture to provide a fantastic BIF experience-birds taking off, birds landing, birds doing something interesting.

In ProCapture mode you simply focus on the bird (half-press the shutter), recompose to where you think the bird will go (or come from), and wait. The camera will store images, so you won't miss the bird taking off or another bird landing.

My reason for a zoom with the OM-1 is that taking BIF taking off (or landing) you need to give the bird room to spread its wings. For stationary subjects, I like to fill the frame if possible but as Fred Rouse said, catching birds taking off is not for the fill-the-frame crowd. I like the capability to back off to 250MM (500mm FF equ) or so.

 

[Chris K]

I really enjoyed pre-capture with my old Panasonic G9, and was very happy to get it back on my Z9. I only wish it would work with RAW, because JPEG isn't always sufficient.

Olympus certainly has the best implementation at the moment. I hope everyone else catches up, because I agree that it's a hugely useful feature!

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I really enjoyed pre-capture with my old Panasonic G9, and was very happy to get it back on my Z9. I only wish it would work with RAW, because JPEG isn't always sufficient.

Olympus certainly has the best implementation at the moment. I hope everyone else catches up, because I agree that it's a hugely useful feature!

I would think that a firmware upgrade would add the capability to the Z-9 (for RAW), Canon R5 and Sony A1 if the manufacturers so wished.

I did fine a tutorial on using ProCapture on getolympus.com but with an older model: https://learnandsupport.getolympus....phy-tips/birds/pro-capture-back-to-the-future

 

[Chris K]

I sure hope it does. Alongside subject-detect AF, pre-capture (if that's what we're calling the feature generically) is the most useful camera improvement for wildlife and action photography since digital. It's a shame that such an easy-to-implement feature has seen so little attention until now.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I sure hope it does. Alongside subject-detect AF, pre-capture (if that's what we're calling the feature generically) is the most useful camera improvement for wildlife and action photography since digital. It's a shame that such an easy-to-implement feature has seen so little attention until now.

On the OM-1, pre-capture (ProCapture) combined with subject-detect (subject detection: birds) is essentially cheating. I don't see how I could get the shots I am now routinely get with my D-500/500pf or any other camera that doesn't have the feature.

Depending on my lens, I now get 25 f/s (100-400) or 50 f/s (300F4) for 93 frames split before and after pre-press any way I want. (The Canon R7 is 30f/s, 15 frames before pre-press about the same # of frames)

It is an entirely new way of taking action bird shots.

Tom

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I am exploring ProCapture. My first attempt was mounting the camera on a tripod and using the wired remote shutter. The problem was I couldn't get a good feel for when I was half-pressing, not pressing or full pressing so I shot off 2300 shots in less than an hour. Not good.

What I needed was a "half-press and hold" function and the iPhone app has that. After enabling half press in settings the app has a "half press" on button and a separate shutter button.

I might add for people unfamiliar with this feature that the process is FOCUS-HALF PRESS-WAIT. You are waiting until the subject does something interesting. When it does you FULL PRESS and the designated number of buffered frames will be written to the card. The Z-9 and the Canon R-7 also have this capability.

Half-pressing can get tiring waiting for the bird to do something interesting.

Tom

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

 

[wildpics]

My guess would be too slow a shutter speed. That is my most common reason for a failed shot with fast moving subjects with my PL100-400. Like you I find very little difference between lens IS only on, IBIS or both, so I just leave them both on. I think it is rare for them to worsen the result.
For the Oly 100-400 I saw a video by Peter forsgard in which he explained that although there is no synch IS both the lens and the body stabilisation covered different aspects of shake: yaw, roll, pitch etc and did provide a better result than leaving either of them off so I guess the same may apply to the PL lens too(?)

Had a good look at my images again and find the lens is sharp. Just that some images had blur due to low shutter speed as well as poor handling technique . I need to improve the way I hold the lens more steadily being a light weight lens, specially above 300mm on distance subjects. For some reason I cannot upload any JPEG images, maybe the files are too large?

 

[BLev65]

I was out looking for an American Avocet and Black Crowned Night Heron that have been in this little alcove (found the Avocet but not the Heron) and decided to bring both the OM-1/300F4 and A1/600F4 combos. While these aren't great shots (you can't get to the water level in this particular spot) but I did shoot a couple of things back-to-back for fun. This is about as much "testing" as I do... I typically just go out and shoot and if I get an image I like I don't think about what it could have been like if I brought different gear.

I used the 1.4x TC on the 300F4 to make up for the extra pixels on the A1 and both images were cropped pretty heavily. The Egret shots ended up being ~7.5 MPs on both setups after cropping while the Yellowlegs were 7MP for the OM-1 and 9.5MP for the A1.

With fairly heavy crops sharpness was good from both setups (especially considering I was using a TC on OM-1). Both images had basic stuff done in LR then a pass through Topaz (Topaz AI for the Yellowlegs and Topaz Denoise for the Egret).


View attachment 45906

View attachment 45907


The Egret moved a little bit between switching cameras, the A1 shot was a few feet further away.

View attachment 45903


View attachment 45904



Just in case anyone was wondering here is a shot of the immature BCNW from last week in the same spot using the OM-1, unfortunately backlit just after sunrise. I was hoping to get him just before sunset this time for some nice lighting, but no such luck.

View attachment 45905

I really appreciate this comparison, as it might be the best of its type I have seen.
It is clear that the 300 f4 olympus is quite the capable lens. W/out a converter is might be as sharp as the 600mm f4. Here the A1 is a difference maker w/ its pixels. I wonder if you'd see any difference if you used and A9ii instead of an A1. While the Olympus is sharper, the background also reveals more depth of field. To me, this is the primary compromise a wildlife photographer must accept when embracing the u4/5 system.
I currently use a Z9 w/ 500PF (one of the man), and I find that I crave a better background bokeh under specific shooting circumstances. While I love my Z9 and the speed w/ which I can handle the 500PF, I'd consider the Olympus if I cold get my hands on a 150-400 f/4.5... the flexibility and performance of this type of lens makes Olympus a real viable option for wildlife photographers.

 

[DavidT]

Lost track of this thread and wow has it been active! I skimmed the 10 pages I was behind so I apologize if this has been discussed.

How is the rolling shutter? I’d consider adding this to my Sony kit for the pro capture feature. I’d pair it with a 300 and would likely have a limited use case for me but I don’t want to be stuck with a mechanical shutter.

 

[Palmor]

Lost track of this thread and wow has it been active! I skimmed the 10 pages I was behind so I apologize if this has been discussed.

How is the rolling shutter? I’d consider adding this to my Sony kit for the pro capture feature. I’d pair it with a 300 and would likely have a limited use case for me but I don’t want to be stuck with a mechanical shutter.

I think a hummingbird sequence would be a good test (see below)

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.

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.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

The ProCapture mode does not use the mechanical shutter but does use up arms, fingers and batteries.

Let's say you set ProCapture to 50 f/s and wait one minute before the bird takes off. In that time the camera has taken 3000 images (60 sec * 50 f/sec). Now imagine 5 minutes: 15,000 images in the buffer but not written to the card. Now imagine focusing on a perch and waiting for the bird to land: 120 f/sec * 5 minutes, yikes!

The camera heats up and the battery drains. Your arms get very tired, and your shutter finger cramps from half-pressing the shutter.

That's why I carry multiple batteries (Kaster), us a monopod-monogimble to support the camera, and use the iphone OM Share app to lock "half-press".

Tom

 

[kingfisherblue1959]

Just found this forum and this a superb thread,
I use the EM-1 mkiii and 300mm f4 as well as both teleconverters although mostly the 1.4.
That combination is good for me and the other lenses discussed and the OM-1 do not really convince me to change what i am already using.
I think i will wait for the OM-2 and the 800mm f5.6 although i doubt the latter will ever exist.
Great thread and some wonderful pictures.

 

[eaj101]

The ProCapture mode does not use the mechanical shutter but does use up arms, fingers and batteries.

Let's say you set ProCapture to 50 f/s and wait one minute before the bird takes off. In that time the camera has taken 3000 images (60 sec * 50 f/sec). Now imagine 5 minutes: 15,000 images in the buffer but not written to the card. Now imagine focusing on a perch and waiting for the bird to land: 120 f/sec * 5 minutes, yikes!

The camera heats up and the battery drains. Your arms get very tired, and your shutter finger cramps from half-pressing the shutter.

That's why I carry multiple batteries (Kaster), us a monopod-monogimble to support the camera, and use the iphone OM Share app to lock "half-press".

Tom

Yeah, but you can set the frames-per-second and number of frames, so I've got it set to 50 fps and 50 frames. much easier to deal with

 

[Tom Reynolds]

After using the Om-1 for a time I believe that the OM-1 should not be compared with other flagship cameras. My view is that the OM-1 does different things, takes different pictuers and is deployed in different situations.

Consider Steve's "How I got the shot" of the Reddish Egret. In fact, with my OM-1 and 300f4 Steve could have taken the picture exactly the same way-Camera flat on the ground, Subject ID: BIRD, AF area: ALL. The OM-1/300f4 combo would probably not lose focus on the bird like the Z-9/600f4 occasionally did and the lighter, more compact OM-1/300f4 would probably have been easier for Steve to track the bird. However, the OM-1 would produce 20MP raw files @ f8 effective, 600mm effective while the Z-9 would produce 45mp files @ f4. The Z9 would have better resolution, about a stop more dynamic range, lower ISO/noise and better subject isolation.

If you think that is the proper decision criteria: slightly better subject tracking and more maneuverability versus an overall better image you don't understand the OM-1.

I would be in the same position as Steve (assuming I was younger) and tracking the bird through the articulated live view BUT I would have the Olympus 100-400 in place of the 300f4. I, however, would have backed off a bit to maybe 450-500mm effective to give the bird space to move as opposed to filling the frame. I would be shooting in 50 f/s ProCapture trying to get the perfect pose as the Egret went through its many gyrations while fishing.

I would have tried to get a different shot than Steve.

Now, in fact I would also have taken the shots Steve did and Steve could have squirmed back a bit and taken the shots I did as the Z-9 also has pre-capture capabilities BUT our focus would have been different. Steve wanted that perfect frame filling portrait while I wanted that prefect pose. At 50 f/s ProCapture there is no telling what fantastic action I might record and the action, not the perfect technical aspects of the image is what I would be focusing on.

tom

 

[kingfisherblue1959]

After using the Om-1 for a time I believe that the OM-1 should not be compared with other flagship cameras. My view is that the OM-1 does different things, takes different pictuers and is deployed in different situations.

Consider Steve's "How I got the shot" of the Reddish Egret. In fact, with my OM-1 and 300f4 Steve could have taken the picture exactly the same way-Camera flat on the ground, Subject ID: BIRD, AF area: ALL. The OM-1/300f4 combo would probably not lose focus on the bird like the Z-9/600f4 occasionally did and the lighter, more compact OM-1/300f4 would probably have been easier for Steve to track the bird. However, the OM-1 would produce 20MP raw files @ f8 effective, 600mm effective while the Z-9 would produce 45mp files @ f4. The Z9 would have better resolution, about a stop more dynamic range, lower ISO/noise and better subject isolation.

If you think that is the proper decision criteria: slightly better subject tracking and more maneuverability versus an overall better image you don't understand the OM-1.

I would be in the same position as Steve (assuming I was younger) and tracking the bird through the articulated live view BUT I would have the Olympus 100-400 in place of the 300f4. I, however, would have backed off a bit to maybe 450-500mm effective to give the bird space to move as opposed to filling the frame. I would be shooting in 50 f/s ProCapture trying to get the perfect pose as the Egret went through its many gyrations while fishing.

I would have tried to get a different shot than Steve.

Now, in fact I would also have taken the shots Steve did and Steve could have squirmed back a bit and taken the shots I did as the Z-9 also has pre-capture capabilities BUT our focus would have been different. Steve wanted that perfect frame filling portrait while I wanted that prefect pose. At 50 f/s ProCapture there is no telling what fantastic action I might record and the action, not the perfect technical aspects of the image is what I would be focusing on.

tom

F8 effective for depth of field but not light gathering or effective focal length.
I think a person takes the same pics as a full frame user with MFT but with advantages and disadvantages of each system.
I do anyway.

 

[fsi22]

Different tools with different goals. The real competition for the OM-1 is against 100-400, 200-600 and light 400/500 Primes.

Against a 600/f4 or 400/f2.8, If one is willing to lug around that weight, there’s not much point comparing. I got tired of carrying around a 3.8kg lens, which is why I moved to the PL200 a few years back.

If resolution and blur is what you’re after. A 600/400 End Game prime is the pinnacle.

On the hand, we have Petr Bambousek, who produces the most artistically stunning images, I’ve ever seen, that defy most expectations with what is achievable with his gear, as he thinks his shot through and has an incredible way of seeing.