Z6lll or OM 1 mark ll

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).

Member's gallery
hsjd700 said:
Yes, that is the dilemma. I know the OM 1 ll comes in at 599 grams paired with M.Zuiko ED 12-40 F2.8 pro ll lens at 382 grams which just under a Kilo.
I tend to shoot between F4 and F8 so I think I'll have to choose between weight or ISO performance.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that f2.8 on a m43rds lens gives you roughly the same subject isolation/DoF as f5.6 in FF land.

So if you shoot at f4-f8 in FF you'll want f2-f4 in m43rds for the same look of the images. And in plenty of field sitiations, the fact that you can shoot 2 stops faster on m43rds for the same look of the image means that the DR/noise advantage of FF mostly goes away ;).

And the 12-40mm f2.8 is a very good lens even wide open.
 
Member's gallery
I’ve used a pair of OM-1 cameras with a mix of M.Zuiko, Lumix Leica, and Laowa lenses for a couple years now. Lower back trouble and later, sprains of ankles and knees dictated a shift away from EOS R-series and mirrorless L-mount cameras and their large lenses. I carry cameras with a Spider Pro holster system on a belt, keeping the camera weight off my neck. I can draw a camera from my waist almost as quickly as picking one up on a neck strap.

I kept all the heavier gear, though. I still use it when I don’t have to carry it very far.

Here’s my blog post about my equipment switchover: https://www.markbohrerphoto.com/blog/choosing-m
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I’ve found the M.Zuiko 12-40mm f2.8 PRO II to be very easy to break whenever it‘s dropped or knocked around. it breaks at the mount. I’m thinking about selling mine off for that reason.

The Lumix Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 12-60mm f/2.8-4 is much more robust and gives me extra reach at the long end, with a 1-stop penalty. The rugged construction and reach more than offset the f/4 aperture at 60mm.
 
Member's gallery
I own the D850, Z6ii, Z8, OM1 (original, not Mk2) and associated lenses. Love both systems but full frame is definitely heavier, no getting around it. My OM1 has a couple of great travel and street lenses, the 25mm 1.2 and the 12-100mm f4. When we fly for travel the Nikon gear stays home, the OM kit gets the choice.

That said, the Nikons give superior IQ across the board and I can crop photos from both the Z8 and Z6ii without losing much. The Nikons are my primary landscape and action gear, although I often use my OM1 + 150-400mm 4.5 for birds and wildlife interchangeably with my Z8 + 600mm 6.3.

Everything has its tradeoffs these days. And just to throw you a curveball, if I was in your situation - I may be in a few years - I would seriously look at the Fuji APS-C cameras. In the past few years I think Fuji has outpaced the other major brands for lightweight versatile crop sensor cameras, cameras with as much as 40MP to play with. I just bought the XS20 as a gift for my daughter - a very impressive light, inexpensive camera with a ton of lenses to choose from.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
I just finished a trip to Maine with the Z6iii. My light kit was the 14-30 f/4 and the 24-70 f/4 carried in a ThinkTank Turnstyle 20 bag. The bag had plenty of room for the lenses and camera, and can hold another longer lens or macro lens if needed. The 50mm f/2.8 MC is a very good small macro lens. You could substitute the 24-120 f/4 in this kit. Image quality with this kit is excellent.
Click to expand...
Eric, I am sitting on the fence about the Z6-iii. I currently have the Z6-ii and mostly just shoot my grandson's baseball games and granddaughter's band. I don't know if there is enough low-light advantage for me to switch (having seen the data from photons-to-photos). So please tell me what you think if there is any low-light improvement in the 6-iii ---thanks
 
Member's gallery
Lecycliste said:
I’ve found the M.Zuiko 12-40mm f2.8 PRO II to be very easy to break whenever it‘s dropped or knocked around. it breaks at the mount. I’m thinking about selling mine off for that reason.

The Lumix Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 12-60mm f/2.8-4 is much more robust and gives me extra reach at the long end, with a 1-stop penalty. The rugged construction and reach more than offset the f/4 aperture at 60mm.
Click to expand...
I think that this lens has a design feature to break at the mount first if dropped, to protect the lens' elements and becomes a cheaper repair. However, if it breaks after sustaining a heavy knock that would not have damage the lens under the same circumstances, would be extremely frustrating.
 
Member's gallery
Brian L said:
I own the D850, Z6ii, Z8, OM1 (original, not Mk2) and associated lenses. Love both systems but full frame is definitely heavier, no getting around it. My OM1 has a couple of great travel and street lenses, the 25mm 1.2 and the 12-100mm f4. When we fly for travel the Nikon gear stays home, the OM kit gets the choice.

That said, the Nikons give superior IQ across the board and I can crop photos from both the Z8 and Z6ii without losing much. The Nikons are my primary landscape and action gear, although I often use my OM1 + 150-400mm 4.5 for birds and wildlife interchangeably with my Z8 + 600mm 6.3.

Everything has its tradeoffs these days. And just to throw you a curveball, if I was in your situation - I may be in a few years - I would seriously look at the Fuji APS-C cameras. In the past few years I think Fuji has outpaced the other major brands for lightweight versatile crop sensor cameras, cameras with as much as 40MP to play with. I just bought the XS20 as a gift for my daughter - a very impressive light, inexpensive camera with a ton of lenses to choose from.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the tip. I'll definitely put the Fuji APS-C in the mix for consideration.
 
Member's gallery
Z6III has 8 stops of IBIS therefore expands indirectly the capability of ISO performance and almost eliminates the need to carry a tripod in many cases.

You can do a slow shutter speed waterfall shot hand held.

Its full frame.

12800 iso is perfectly fine even higher.

The combined weight of lens and camera can make a difference, the Z6III on a 24-70 F4 is a great package as is the new 35mm 1.4, its a great match and cheap.

The 4/3rds systems are great in their own right, so many people love them, equally so many members in our club have had them and gone back to 35mm Full Frame or run both systems.

With very high pixel density comes compromises.

Its a journey you have to decide to take or not.

Rent one 4/3rd outfit for a week end, then a Z6 III.

The Z6III i feel would have better focusing tracking performance as well, if that even matters to you.

That said, the OM 1 and Fuji outfits i have seen many outcomes that are very nice but its hard to really say its as good or better than full frame 35mm image files, its personal.

Safe journey

Only an opinion
 
Member's gallery
tomcat said:
Eric, I am sitting on the fence about the Z6-iii. I currently have the Z6-ii and mostly just shoot my grandson's baseball games and granddaughter's band. I don't know if there is enough low-light advantage for me to switch (having seen the data from photons-to-photos). So please tell me what you think if there is any low-light improvement in the 6-iii ---thanks
Click to expand...
I would not upgrade for low light capability. Low light AF is materially better - but if you are exposing properly that does not make as much difference. If you recall, underexposing can cause subject detection to fail, and that area is much improved with the Z6iii. There is no material difference in noise levels for any camera - they are all near the limit of what current technology can achieve without increasing noise reduction at the raw level.

Frame rate is much faster and opens up some new functions. Subject detection is much improved. There are a lot of upgrades and I sold a Z7ii in anticipation of getting the Z6iii - but I have a Z8 when needed.
 
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
I would not upgrade for low light capability. Low light AF is materially better - but if you are exposing properly that does not make as much difference. If you recall, underexposing can cause subject detection to fail, and that area is much improved with the Z6iii. There is no material difference in noise levels for any camera - they are all near the limit of what current technology can achieve without increasing noise reduction at the raw level.

Frame rate is much faster and opens up some new functions. Subject detection is much improved. There are a lot of upgrades and I sold a Z7ii in anticipation of getting the Z6iii - but I have a Z8 when needed.
Click to expand...
Thanks Eric for your honest assessment. I don’t have any focus issues on my 6-ii, other than ones I physically create myself. Your comment about the low-light capabilities being the same help me in my decision. Thanks and good talking with you again
 
Member's gallery
I hesitated to weigh in at first because you are asking about the Z6III and OM-1 Mk II, and my experience is with the Z6, Zf, and the OM-1, but I went through this very same conundrum not too long ago, and I believe the cameras in your scenario and mine are close enough for the sake of what I'd like to share.

My m4/3 kit consisted of the OM-1, the 12-40 f/2.8, the 40-150 f/2.8, and the 2x TC. I just kind of assumed that it was lighter and smaller than anything I could build around a Nikon Z full-frame system. I was surprised to discover one day as I looked at my OM-1 with the 40-150 f/2.8 attached and my Z6 with the Z 70-180 f/2.8 that there was almost no difference in their overall size and weight. Ditto the OM-1 with the 12-40 f/2.8 and the Z6 with the 24-70 f/4. And before we get too far, yes, I'm aware that I am comparing a lens with an effective reach of 300mm vs. 180mm in the first scenario, and an f/2.8 lens to an f/4 lens in the second, but let's put that difference aside for just a moment.

That's when I asked myself, "Is there enough of a difference in size and weight in a "full-size" kit - that is, any given full-size body and higher-end lenses - to justify giving up the resolution, dynamic range, and low light performance of the Nikon's sensor?

The answer for me turned out to be "no." The same is true with my Zf, and even more true with the Z6III (which I don't own but have used).

There are endless variables here, of course. For instance, with m4/3, you have more depth of field for a given aperture, so you don't have to stop down and raise the ISO to get an equivalent exposure, which helps mitigate the advantage the Nikons have in the noise department.

Prior to the Zf and Z6III, the OM-1 handily outperformed the Nikon Z bodies in terms of AF performance, particularly in subject detection and tracking. To the best of my knowledge, pre-capture was unique to Olympus before those same cameras came out. But in my experience, the Zf and Z6III perform every bit as well as the OM-1.

In-camera noise reduction in my OM-1 was phenomenal; I rarely used RAW files from that camera because I struggled to do better in post, and the OOC JPGs were beautiful. But the OOC JPGs I've shot with the Zf and Z6III are better still, right up to ISO 12,800.

In the end, I sold my OM-1 and my f/2.8 PRO lenses. My Z6 and Zf and their equivalent lenses weighed no more and were no larger, and I felt as though I was trading dynamic range, low-light performance, and overall image quality for nothing, and I'm considering adding the Z6III to my bag.

Now, if I was looking to build a truly small and light kit based around something like the OM-5 and the f/4 Olympus PRO zooms, that's a different story entirely. This is where m4/3 really shines. So if that's the direction you're leaning, then yes, m4/3 makes sense. But the first item on your list is "High ISO low noise capabilities for low light shooting," and the Z6III is the clear winner here.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Z6iii versus OM-1 mk 2 is a difficult choice. You won't go wrong with either one.

The 24MP FF sensor versus the 1/2 crop m43 sensor means that you need double the mm on the FF sensor to get the same reach and 1/2 the f/stop on the m43 to get the same effective f/stop. This kinda works out as a wash.

I you were shooting birds I would recommend the OM-1 because of its advanced pre-capture features but otherwise I would prefer the Nikon if buying new and the OM-1 if buying used. The reason is that Nikon gear will hold its value better than OM Systems so purchasing Nikon new makes sense but conversely, there are great deals on used OM Systems gear.

One question, "do you need a large buffer?". The Z6iii is essentially unlimited and the OM-1 mk 2 almost so BUT the OM-1 mk 1 is a great camera and if you don't need the larger buffer or the advanced ND filter capability, you can pick up a used OM-1 mk 1 on FM for in the neighborhood of $1000.

Regards,
Tom
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Member's gallery
Perhaps being moderately controversial, although the 2 options have similar resolution - they are chalk and cheese when it comes to SYSTEM weight.

The OM 150-400 with built in 1.25 TC gives 1000mm FX equivalent for less than half the weight of a Z6 and 180-400.
The OM 90mm macro has a similar FX angle of view to a 180mm macro - though as yet nobody seems to make one taking advantage of higher large flange ML optics and 8 stops VR - making hand holding at 1:1 relatively easy.
Wake up Nikon!

For those for whom weight (and lower cost for reach) is important the OM system is HUGELY in front.
For some this is a significant dilemma - with many older wildlife photographers having switched systems primarily for this reason.

Again being moderately controversial, you can say you only need high ISO noise performance and significantly wider dynamic range than in a brightly lit sunset scene with deep shadows (9 stops) if you choose to regularly shoot in these conditions - and accept you do not get either at 10,000 ISO and higher.
Something like Denoise can resolve high ISO noise and to some extent reduced high ISO resolution but not reduced dynamic range.

Obviously the Z6 III is ahead for potential "best" image image quality quality with better high ISO noise control, a bit in high dynamic range situations, fps, video at a specialist level, option to use a 45 MP body etc - offset by relatively heavy SYSTEM weight - and no image stacking in camera.

Both OP preferences are not currently possible with either of the 2 short-listed systems.
The nearest Nikon to the OM 150-400 being the distinctly heavy Nikon 100-400 with 2x TC attached - that as an owner I find usable but not very practical

Only an individual photographer can decide the priorities - unless extremely well off.

An OM body, 150-400, 70-200 and 24-70 f 2.8 equivalent plus the 90mm macro combined cost about 75% of the price of the Nikon 600 f4 TC.
If I win £12,000 on this week-ends lottery I have a green light to buy a second comprehensive quite light weight wildlife 150-400 and 90mm macro system for little more than half the price of the Nikon 600 f4 TC.
I cannot afford both :mad:
 
Member's gallery
hsjd700 said:
I recently sold my D850 & lenses. Loved the camera but, too heavy and found that I just wasn't taking photos.
I'm in the market for a new camera and narrowed my choices down to the z6lll or the om 1 mark ll (I'm aware that this is mico 4/3 sensor)

So, what do I want in a camera?
  • High ISO low noise capabilities for low light shooting
  • A camera system that's no more than a kilo in weight including a lens. (give or take a few hundred grams)
  • In-body stabilisation
  • 20 to 24 Megapixels is fine for me
  • Good subject detection and auto focus
  • I generally don't shoot fast action
  • I'm not too concerned with the crop factor between these systems
  • I will invest in the best possible lens for either camera
I did look at hiring each camera but, a minimum of 6 months is required, works out to be a lot of $$$$
Your thoughts would be appreciated as it will help me make an informed decision
Click to expand...
You’re very first bullet point would say you need a full frame and not M 4/3. High iso performance is not a strength of M 4/3 sensors.

However, what subjects are you shooting that you need high iso? Then I’d ask what lenses in say Nikon are you looking at? An advantage OM Systems will have is the size of the lenses and the top F stop. Example is if you are wanting a 600mm lens but in Nikon you are looking at say the f6.3 max aperture with OM you could get a 600 f4 that is about the size of a Nikon 135mm lens. So the improved F stop of the lens likely will allow a lower iso which would likely close the gap in the sensor.

If you end up preferring full frame sensor I’d encourage you to look at Sony. They have smaller bodies, very good af in a comparable camera to the Nikon and Sony lenses tend to me smaller and lighter.

Best of luck!
 
Member's gallery
I was considering changing from Z8 to OM1 MkII. As regards weight I use a Z8 with the 500mm f5.6 usually with the 1.4 teleconverter and the FTZ ll adapter which weighs in at 2.495Kg. Taking off the teleconverter it would weigh 2.305Kg. If I got OM 1 with the 150-400 it would weigh 2.374Kg so weight wise there is nothing in it! Sticking with the Z8!
 
Member's gallery
MattOZW said:
I was considering changing from Z8 to OM1 MkII. As regards weight I use a Z8 with the 500mm f5.6 usually with the 1.4 teleconverter and the FTZ ll adapter which weighs in at 2.495Kg. Taking off the teleconverter it would weigh 2.305Kg. If I got OM 1 with the 150-400 it would weigh 2.374Kg so weight wise there is nothing in it! Sticking with the Z8!
Click to expand...
I would not make that change either. I would change to an OM-1-2/100-400 at 3.9# (my electronic scale, no lens foot, with hood, cards and battery)

A better comparison would be the OM-1-2/300f4+1.4TC compared to the Z-8/500pf/1.4tc/FTZ II, but in your position, I would simply get a 600pf and lose the FTZ and 1.4TC

It is when you want a zoom that the OM Systems 150-400 becomes interesting because it performs at prime level IQ. I would rather have a OM-1-2/150-400 than a Z-8/ 180-600 for example

Tom
 
Member's gallery
It's all swings and roundabouts, Tom. The OM 140-400 sounds an awesome lens. But I don't want to shell out any more money and as most of my photography is birds I am happy with the images I get (see my gallery). I have too much other Nikon stuff to change and apart from the 24-70 Z for landscape I will probably not get any more new lenses. Besides I have D500 for backup and would have to get another Z8 or 6iii as well!
 
Member's gallery
jameskuzman said:
I hesitated to weigh in at first because you are asking about the Z6III and OM-1 Mk II, and my experience is with the Z6, Zf, and the OM-1, but I went through this very same conundrum not too long ago, and I believe the cameras in your scenario and mine are close enough for the sake of what I'd like to share.

My m4/3 kit consisted of the OM-1, the 12-40 f/2.8, the 40-150 f/2.8, and the 2x TC. I just kind of assumed that it was lighter and smaller than anything I could build around a Nikon Z full-frame system. I was surprised to discover one day as I looked at my OM-1 with the 40-150 f/2.8 attached and my Z6 with the Z 70-180 f/2.8 that there was almost no difference in their overall size and weight. Ditto the OM-1 with the 12-40 f/2.8 and the Z6 with the 24-70 f/4. And before we get too far, yes, I'm aware that I am comparing a lens with an effective reach of 300mm vs. 180mm in the first scenario, and an f/2.8 lens to an f/4 lens in the second, but let's put that difference aside for just a moment.

That's when I asked myself, "Is there enough of a difference in size and weight in a "full-size" kit - that is, any given full-size body and higher-end lenses - to justify giving up the resolution, dynamic range, and low light performance of the Nikon's sensor?

The answer for me turned out to be "no." The same is true with my Zf, and even more true with the Z6III (which I don't own but have used).

There are endless variables here, of course. For instance, with m4/3, you have more depth of field for a given aperture, so you don't have to stop down and raise the ISO to get an equivalent exposure, which helps mitigate the advantage the Nikons have in the noise department.

Prior to the Zf and Z6III, the OM-1 handily outperformed the Nikon Z bodies in terms of AF performance, particularly in subject detection and tracking. To the best of my knowledge, pre-capture was unique to Olympus before those same cameras came out. But in my experience, the Zf and Z6III perform every bit as well as the OM-1.

In-camera noise reduction in my OM-1 was phenomenal; I rarely used RAW files from that camera because I struggled to do better in post, and the OOC JPGs were beautiful. But the OOC JPGs I've shot with the Zf and Z6III are better still, right up to ISO 12,800.

In the end, I sold my OM-1 and my f/2.8 PRO lenses. My Z6 and Zf and their equivalent lenses weighed no more and were no larger, and I felt as though I was trading dynamic range, low-light performance, and overall image quality for nothing, and I'm considering adding the Z6III to my bag.

Now, if I was looking to build a truly small and light kit based around something like the OM-5 and the f/4 Olympus PRO zooms, that's a different story entirely. This is where m4/3 really shines. So if that's the direction you're leaning, then yes, m4/3 makes sense. But the first item on your list is "High ISO low noise capabilities for low light shooting," and the Z6III is the clear winner here.
Click to expand...
Well explained,

There is no question that there are pluses and minuses, my answer for the OP is
Buy the OM1, if you don't like it sell it, as many people before you have, at least it gets it out of your system.

Or as i would choose, simply the Z6III, because if you loved the D850 you will love the Z6III.

Only an opinion
 
Member's gallery
I agree with these conclusions. Once you load an Olympus Pro lens on the OM-1 you lose most of the weight gain. For example, the OM 300f4 is near the weight of a Nikon 600pf.

In my view the lightweight advantage of OM only occurs when you load a 100-400 non-Pro Zoom. Then you have a sub-four-pound rig that is just great for walk-around bird photography.

Tom
 
Member's gallery
Tom Reynolds said:
I agree with these conclusions. Once you load an Olympus Pro lens on the OM-1 you lose most of the weight gain. For example, the OM 300f4 is near the weight of a Nikon 600pf.
Click to expand...
Yes but - an OM f4 optic with a 600mm FX angle of view compared to a Nikon f6.3 optic.

Although a different lens with built-in TC the Nikon f4 S is significantly heavier - and dramatically more expensive.

There are gains as well as trade-offs choosing between the 2 systems.
 
Member's gallery
Len Shepherd said:
Yes but - an OM f4 optic with a 600mm FX angle of view compared to a Nikon f6.3 optic.
Click to expand...
I have a sneaky feeling that in real life scenarios, there won't be much if anything in image quality between a Z6 III and a 600mm f6.3 PF and an OM-1 with the 300mm f4...

Now, in the US, there's less than 2k USD between them, but where I am from the OM kit is about 4k USD while the Nikon kit is 8k USD with the lens on special order.
That makes the choice between the two easy, especially if you are a working professional with a family and responsibilities :D
 
Member's gallery
Len Shepherd said:
Yes but - an OM f4 optic with a 600mm FX angle of view compared to a Nikon f6.3 optic.

Although a different lens with built-in TC the Nikon f4 S is significantly heavier - and dramatically more expensive.

There are gains as well as trade-offs choosing between the 2 systems.
Click to expand...
I've used both systems, used to be deep into an E-M1X with the 1.2 Pro lenses, the 300 Pro, the 40-150 Pro, 7-14 Pro.....

The Nikon lenses blow the Oly stuff out of the water. The difference in quality between my 400/4.5 and Z9 in DX mode vs my E-M1X and 300/4 Pro was shocking. Not even close. And the 1.8S primes all make the Oly 1.2 Pro's look old and broken. A Z6(v1) with a 50 1.8S is just such a better combination than the OM + 25 1.2

I'm not saying you can't get good images out of the OMD, but at a technical level, it leaves alot to be desired compared to cheaper Nikon glass.

The 600/6.3PF on a Z6III vs the 300/4 Pro on an OM would be a bloodbath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top