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

[StefanSC]

Thanks so much. I’ll post a few that were shot in cloudy conditions that are too smoothed out. I used Photoshop AI on the raw files.

The classical shooting up at a bird against a blow-out sky. I'm guessing the heron was under-exposed and you pushed the shadows a bit too?

This is the kind of shot that I usually avoid, no matter the sensor size.
The reason is as follows:

In order to get feather detail, you need to have your light somewhere behind you, falling directly on the feathers and adding contrast to them. In your, the light source is behind the subject (the sky acts like a big soft-box) and most of the light the feathers are getting comes from whatever bounces back from the ground...

So this is the kind of situation where both a bigger sensor or a better lens would be a waste of money. The light is not working with you (or you are working against the light ).

(Yellow bird is misidentified. It’s a female Orchard Oriole)

I'm not sure what was expected of this shot... The subject is out of focus. And if the OM-1 can't grab it, then you are looking at Nikon Z8, Z9, Sony A1, maybe Canon R5/6.

On my phone, the feathers have no details, the eye is not in focus and the duck is soft overall.

Better phone. That simple.

The shot, at the size it is posted, viewed on a monitor, looks ok. The head seems to be in focus, and I've shot plenty of ducks... you ain't gonna get much in terms of feather detail out of them unless you fill the frame.

I think so.

It's simple only if you have unlimited budget. You get a Z8, a 600mm f6.3 PF (or the 600mm f4 TC) and you're set.

If you have budget constraints, you need to put into balance body capabilities (because short of a Z8, Z9, A1, R5/6, the rest of the FF bodies are worse than the OM-1 for wildlife), lens speed, focal length and so on.

Because you can end up in situations where you'll be paying more than the cost of a 300mm f4 and getting less keepers (e.g: Z6 II and 180-600mm f6.3 is 600$ more expensive than a 300mm f4 for a heavier set-up with a slower lens and worse body... yes, it zooms, but of what I am getting you already are using the 100-400mm at the 400mm focal most of the time )

 

[orangecafe]

The classical shooting up at a bird against a blow-out sky. I'm guessing the heron was under-exposed and you pushed the shadows a bit too?

This is the kind of shot that I usually avoid, no matter the sensor size.
The reason is as follows:

In order to get feather detail, you need to have your light somewhere behind you, falling directly on the feathers and adding contrast to them. In your, the light source is behind the subject (the sky acts like a big soft-box) and most of the light the feathers are getting comes from whatever bounces back from the ground...

So this is the kind of situation where both a bigger sensor or a better lens would be a waste of money. The light is not working with you (or you are working against the light ).



I'm not sure what was expected of this shot... The subject is out of focus. And if the OM-1 can't grab it, then you are looking at Nikon Z8, Z9, Sony A1, maybe Canon R5/6.



Better phone. That simple.

The shot, at the size it is posted, viewed on a monitor, looks ok. The head seems to be in focus, and I've shot plenty of ducks... you ain't gonna get much in terms of feather detail out of them unless you fill the frame.



It's simple only if you have unlimited budget. You get a Z8, a 600mm f6.3 PF (or the 600mm f4 TC) and you're set.

If you have budget constraints, you need to put into balance body capabilities (because short of a Z8, Z9, A1, R5/6, the rest of the FF bodies are worse than the OM-1 for wildlife), lens speed, focal length and so on.

Because you can end up in situations where you'll be paying more than the cost of a 300mm f4 and getting less keepers (e.g: Z6 II and 180-600mm f6.3 is 600$ more expensive than a 300mm f4 for a heavier set-up with a slower lens and worse body... yes, it zooms, but of what I am getting you already are using the 100-400mm at the 400mm focal most of the time )

Thanks for all of that. A couple of responses and probably more a bit later: Sometimes like with that Heron, there is no choice but to shoot where you are due to water etc. Point taken that it’s a difficult shot to get from where I was. Here it is unedited as requested.

 

[orangecafe]

Thanks for all of that. A couple of responses and probably more a bit later: Sometimes like with that Heron, there is no choice but to shoot where you are due to water etc. Point taken that it’s a difficult shot to get from where I was. Here it is unedited as requested.

The classical shooting up at a bird against a blow-out sky. I'm guessing the heron was under-exposed and you pushed the shadows a bit too?

This is the kind of shot that I usually avoid, no matter the sensor size.
The reason is as follows:

In order to get feather detail, you need to have your light somewhere behind you, falling directly on the feathers and adding contrast to them. In your, the light source is behind the subject (the sky acts like a big soft-box) and most of the light the feathers are getting comes from whatever bounces back from the ground...

So this is the kind of situation where both a bigger sensor or a better lens would be a waste of money. The light is not working with you (or you are working against the light ).



I'm not sure what was expected of this shot... The subject is out of focus. And if the OM-1 can't grab it, then you are looking at Nikon Z8, Z9, Sony A1, maybe Canon R5/6.



Better phone. That simple.

The shot, at the size it is posted, viewed on a monitor, looks ok. The head seems to be in focus, and I've shot plenty of ducks... you ain't gonna get much in terms of feather detail out of them unless you fill the frame.



It's simple only if you have unlimited budget. You get a Z8, a 600mm f6.3 PF (or the 600mm f4 TC) and you're set.

If you have budget constraints, you need to put into balance body capabilities (because short of a Z8, Z9, A1, R5/6, the rest of the FF bodies are worse than the OM-1 for wildlife), lens speed, focal length and so on.

Because you can end up in situations where you'll be paying more than the cost of a 300mm f4 and getting less keepers (e.g: Z6 II and 180-600mm f6.3 is 600$ more expensive than a 300mm f4 for a heavier set-up with a slower lens and worse body... yes, it zooms, but of what I am getting you already are using the 100-400mm at the 400mm focal most of the time )

Yes, I shoot 400 most of the time. The rig is amazing in bright sunlight. I do think I will add, in time, the Z8.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

The Z-8 with a 600pf would be the choice if I could deal with the weight because the Nikon PF lenses are outstanding and relatively light. I had a D-500 and a 500pf and the shots were outstanding.

Tom

 

[silx]

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.

I think that there are a lot of little fixes that could be done in software. Supposedly the processor has the headroom.
AF tweaks, button assignment options, tracking and human subject detection. None of these actually bother me that much
I'd really like the sensor to record depth information and take a background frame (probably wouldn't work for fast action but I'm less worried about oof areas in these cases)
I'd like HHHR to have some movement compensation built in.

With regards to hardware I'd like to see the current sensor available with all it's read modes. I think this would need a different microlens configuration.
In theory, it's an 80mpix sensor and the documentation suggests it can read all pixels as 120mpix, bin some pixels to decrease noise, do HDR etc. This would open new options in good light while maintaining low-light performance.

The FPS is fast enough for everything I want. I'd like to see the default resolution reach 30 mpix perhaps with a multi aspect sensor (though diffraction?), a deeper buffer. Prehaps a couple of additional custom modes on the dial.

There are a few high end lenses I'd really like, lets see what the 50-200 an 50-250 bring to the party..

 

[Calson]

I would never rely only on a single prime lens. It is too restrictive in terms of its field of view and results in many over-cropped images as a result. With the 600mm I always had a 80-400mm and with the OM-1 it is the 300mm f/4 along with the 100-400mm or the 40-150mm depending on the situation.

When I owned a 600mm f/4 lens I used it most of the time with a 1.4x teleconverter giving me a 840mm f/5.6 lens. The Olympus 150-400mm with the built-in teleconverter would be great but for its $7,500 cost.

 

[StefanSC]

A couple of responses and probably more a bit later: Sometimes like with that Heron, there is no choice but to shoot where you are due to water etc. Point taken that it’s a difficult shot to get from where I was.

Well, there is always the option of not taking the shot... For example, I would not have taken that shot as it would have just meant more work for no gain.

Yes, I shoot 400 most of the time. The rig is amazing in bright sunlight. I do think I will add, in time, the Z8.

The Z8 is a great camera and in heron situation, something like the Z8 with a 180-600mm would have gotten you less noise on the subject. But not more detail so it would still have been a missed shot.

So the best advice should be: "Until you get the Z8, spend the time to improve the photographer and put yourself in better shooting situations."

 

[orangecafe]

Well, there is always the option of not taking the shot... For example, I would not have taken that shot as it would have just meant more work for no gain.



The Z8 is a great camera and in heron situation, something like the Z8 with a 180-600mm would have gotten you less noise on the subject. But not more detail so it would still have been a missed shot.

So the best advice should be: "Until you get the Z8, spend the time to improve the photographer and put yourself in better shooting situations."

Thank you for your thoughts and engagement (and everyone who chimes in) in this pursuit. Always trying to improve for sure. I have to say, that shot is not exemplary of my photography but it was an example of the smoothing effect. Either I was going to shoot that bird from pretty close up or not at all. I was on a dock. Of course I wanted to shoot it. There’s also more to learn about the camera and I will try to incorporate support (tripod/monopd) more often.

 

[StefanSC]

Just for fun, I shot side by side my D810 with the Sigma 150-600mm C @600mm f8 with the OM-1 and 300mm f4 @ f4. Kept the shutter speed the same and let the ISO compensate:

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

That Olympus prime is doing a lot of heavy lifting but the bigger MPX sensor has just a bit more edge when it comes to details, especially around the eye of the pheasant.

Also, while I was at it, I shot the D500 with 300mm f4 and 1.4x TC @ f5.6 (same shutter speed, left the ISO on auto) versus the OM-1 with the 300mm f4 @ f4:

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

First thing that surprised me is how well the old AF-S 300mm f4D and TC1.4x perform. I was not expecting such a good showing. And if I can close it down to f8, it gives the Olympus lens a run for it's money (especially given that the Nikon can be had for under 600$ on the used market ).
Secondly, that Olympus 300mm f4 focus breathes a lot at close range (this was under 15 feet away).
Thirdly, the high contrast of the Olympus lens works against it, leading to highlights that are a bit too hot and a bit too dark shadows.

Now, I am not going to go a lot into features, but let's say it this way: the keeper rate and the ease of acquisition are much better with the OM-1.
Also, the F-mount combos will start to break down faster as the subject moves further away from you as compared to the OMDS one.

Overall though, I'm a happy camper, as with this new OMDS system, the image quality is at least on par with what I had and I am getting a lot of state of the art performance and cool features, making it great value for money.