OM-1 Any good?

[Sangoma]

I found that as a specs wearer the G9 evf was horrible so its down to individual choice

As a specs wearer (need several pairs for different uses) I haven't found one camera that is nice or comfortable, I usually adjust the viewfinder to use without them, though that won't last for long, as I am now getting to the last bit of adjustment
But using it with glasses, I have found it better than others, as it has three size adjustments so you don't lose the edges.
Without glasses, it is the best viewfinder I have seen, probably better than most optical ones to focus. (and most old film cameras are terrible to use with glasses, especially rangefinders, as you usually need one pair to see the camera settings, and another pair to see through the viewfinder to focus, so usually just set the distance by estimation)
As you say, individual preferences

 

[peat]

If it helps i was a canon user for about 15 years . (A range of cameras including the 1d series and i mainly used the 500mm f4 and the 100mm macro). Canon arguably have better lenses than nikon so i think my experience is relevant to you on the nikon system.
But i am now on the om1 and 100-400 (soon to be 300f4) and i would never go back.
I am getting shots now i could never do before. Ive never felt like ive had that much of a jump in what photos I could get with any change of cameras in my 20 years taking wildlife photos.
And now the recent 90mm macro is letting me get shots my canon 100mm could never do.
I prefer to travel light weight and take photos of what i come across so the om system suits me perfectly.
I think if someone prefers tripods, hides, sitting still for hours on end then the canons, nikons, sonys and the monster lenses (oh and extreme cost ) will always get the better shot in that scenario though.

But have a look in the om sub forum for shots people are taking with it.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

A large majority of less than sharp images are caused by camera shake and inappropriate shutter speeds.
Your own physiology and preferences have as much impact on sharpness as the camera body that you choose.

Individual Examples of good quality lenses vary more than quality differences between actual makes. This is even more true for zooms. It would take an exceptionally poorly positioned sensor to affect sharpness, but it can happen.
Badly centered lenses. Usually because elements have become dislodged is a common reason for uneven focus. This can happen to even new lenses. (From personal experience)

A lens can be within specification, but still visibly inferior to other examples of the same lens.

 

[the black fox]

As a specs wearer (need several pairs for different uses) I haven't found one camera that is nice or comfortable, I usually adjust the viewfinder to use without them, though that won't last for long, as I am now getting to the last bit of adjustment
But using it with glasses, I have found it better than others, as it has three size adjustments so you don't lose the edges.
Without glasses, it is the best viewfinder I have seen, probably better than most optical ones to focus. (and most old film cameras are terrible to use with glasses, especially rangefinders, as you usually need one pair to see the camera settings, and another pair to see through the viewfinder to focus, so usually just set the distance by estimation)
As you say, individual preferences

suppose that proves theres no one size fits all solution

 

[the black fox]

A large majority of less than sharp images are caused by camera shake and inappropriate shutter speeds.
Your own physiology and preferences have as much impact on sharpness as the camera body that you choose.

Individual Examples of good quality lenses vary more than quality differences between actual makes. This is even more true for zooms. It would take an exceptionally poorly positioned sensor to affect sharpness, but it can happen.
Badly centered lenses. Usually because elements have become dislodged is a common reason for uneven focus. This can happen to even new lenses. (From personal experience)

A lens can be within specification, but still visibly inferior to other examples of the same lens.

camera shake doesn't come into it with olympus , I fail to see any in my photos with olympus and for the record I'm getting on for 80 and have a dodgy heart

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

camera shake doesn't come into it with olympus , I fail to see any in my photos with olympus and for the record I'm getting on for 80 and have a dodgy heart

I am 88 and have fairly severe tremor. However most of my shots are sharp as I take precautions. And the in lens stabilisation helps with my Fuji.
However it is still true that a majority of people's photos are spoiled by camera shake to one degree or another.

 

[tijuana taxi]

I am 88 and have fairly severe tremor. However most of my shots are sharp as I take precautions. And the in lens stabilisation helps with my Fuji.
However it is still true that a majority of people's photos are spoiled by camera shake to one degree or another.

Think you have a point Terry, noticed it first hand the other day.
Missus and me needed photos for our two together railcard so we took them of each other.
Wife's efforts were definitely better, knew I was a bit shaky, but surprised about the difference.
Made me think about making more use of a tripod or at least some form of support.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Think you have a point Terry, noticed it first hand the other day.
Missus and me needed photos for our two together railcard so we took them of each other.
Wife's efforts were definitely better, knew I was a bit shaky, but surprised about the difference.
Made me think about making more use of a tripod or at least some form of support.

I use a chest pod, or walking pole as a monopod. You just need something for your hands to press against.

 

[jakeblu]

I use a chest pod, or walking pole as a monopod. You just need something for your hands to press against.

For me it’s my stance. I’ve never been very good with my balance could never roller/ice skate. I can keep my camera steady by pressing it against my forehead but if the ground is even a little uneven I struggle. Not too bad if I can lean against something Still the Oly ibis helps a lot.

 

[woof woof]

If it helps i was a canon user for about 15 years . (A range of cameras including the 1d series and i mainly used the 500mm f4 and the 100mm macro). Canon arguably have better lenses than nikon so i think my experience is relevant to you on the nikon system.
But i am now on the om1 and 100-400 (soon to be 300f4) and i would never go back.
I am getting shots now i could never do before. Ive never felt like ive had that much of a jump in what photos I could get with any change of cameras in my 20 years taking wildlife photos.
And now the recent 90mm macro is letting me get shots my canon 100mm could never do.
I prefer to travel light weight and take photos of what i come across so the om system suits me perfectly.
I think if someone prefers tripods, hides, sitting still for hours on end then the canons, nikons, sonys and the monster lenses (oh and extreme cost ) will always get the better shot in that scenario though.

But have a look in the om sub forum for shots people are taking with it.

It's nice to read a nice positive post and to know you're enjoying your kit and photography but I will just add that something like a Sony A7 (which I have) isn't IMO significantly bigger than a mini SLR style MFT camera (and indeed in some instances it's actually smaller) if you can choose and be happy with a compact lens

 

[Stephen L]

It's nice to read a nice positive post and to know you're enjoying your kit and photography but I will just add that something like a Sony A7 (which I have) isn't IMO significantly bigger than a mini SLR style MFT camera (and indeed in some instances it's actually smaller) if you can choose and be happy with a compact lens

In the main it’s the size of the lenses which make mirrorless systems heavy. Stands to reason that the mass of the glass in a full-frame lens is greater than that of a similar focal length in m4/3.