OM-1: Convince me I Don't Need it

Sony Corleone

Sony Corleone

Suspended / Banned
Messages
213
Edit My Images
Yes
I have developed a sudden desire for an Olympus (OM) camera. Talk me out of it.

When I got back into photography in '23, I made a guess. I thought, "I'll just buy a really big camera that costs as much as I am willing to spend, and it will cover everything I want to do." I bought an A7RIV, and of course, it would not cover everything I wanted to do, in spite of being a great camera. It was also heavy, and the lenses were heavy and costly. Since then, I have fallen in love with an A6700 and a Canon Powershot V1, and I use them a fair amount. I think I haven't used the A7RIV since November.

When I tried to do macro, I got nowhere with any camera I owned, so I quit, which is a shame, because macro photos are neat additions to any home.

Lately, I have been learning about the OM-1. It has a few things that sound great.

1. In-camera focus stacking in raw. I never succeeded in focus stacking with software, but I did learn that it was a colossal pain.
2. Amazing IBIS, so I should be able to do more with long exposures without a tripod.
3. Great weather sealing.
4. That weird Olympus buffering system that works off a half-pressed button.
5. More compact than full-frame, although bigger than an A6700.
6. Excellent for wildlife, which I would be doing sometimes if I had the lenses for it.
7. More DOF for the same focal length.

It sounds particularly good for macro and near-macro.

I also learned that the autofocus is nowhere near as good as Sony's, so that could be annoying while shooting a squirming, running kid.
 
Maybe Sony AF is really good, but I have never had an issue with OM-1 AF.

Check out the dog appreciation thread, I get very few missed AF on running dogs.
 
I've shot macro with a few different systems (latterly with an A6700 and 90mm) and have been very impressed with the OM1 and 60mm (1:1 macro) - the lens is tiny but sharp and I've given up on using a flash as you get plenty of dof at f8ish. Also the longer lenses (eg 100-400) can produce a decent macro if you're not looking to get super close. Not really talking you out of it, sorry! :LOL:
 
I have the OM2n

With the OM1 you have to remember to include the price of Film, Chemicals, Processing, Scanning and the is no Metering on the OM1, OM2 has a meter, I don't know if the OM1 has autofocus. Its not just spray and pray like digital.

Are you put off yet. :)
 
Barney said:
I have the OM2n

With the OM1 you have to remember to include the price of Film, Chemicals, Processing, Scanning and the is no Metering on the OM1, OM2 has a meter, I don't know if the OM1 has autofocus. Its not just spray and pray like digital.

Are you put off yet. :)
Click to expand...

Probably not *that* OM1
 
Just do it , lightweight , cheapish lenses , superb results once learned .
 
benc98 said:
The pursuit of equipment is a distraction from photography
Click to expand...
That's a very sensible comment, but it has to be said that the OM cameras are such jewels that they exert an unusual and magnetic grip on the imagination. The OM-1 is currently (in the UK, from Amazon) 25% off. That makes it a bargain in my books. But, I don't have that kind of money as, clearly, many here do have.
 
Last edited:
If you buy equipment to make photos then it's not a problem at all, but if you buy it as jewellery using photography as an excuse then that's a bit more problematic.

I've never found kit distracting, because the end goal isn't kit.
 
I love my OM kit (OM1, OM1.2 and OM5.2). The macro capabilities are superb and the 90 mm macro lens is awesome.

If buying from Amazon make sure it sold and delivered by Amazon, not a reseller on there. You can then register it with OM online and get the extra 6 months warranty cover.
 
I like the name "Olympus." "OM" sounds like the name a corporate raider would give a company as he bled it and drove it out of business.
 
Barney said:
If that doesn't put you off nothing will,

Soulless lump of plastic, the font is nice though.
Click to expand...

Explain to me where the soul lives in the lump of metal and plastic that consumed film. ;)
 
I use Panasonic G9s, very similar in ways, but I much prefer the menu system and ergonomics.
They are much better in low light than many expect, and you can carry just three lenses to cover from 14mm to 800mm (FF eq) it a small back pack.
Changing to M43 format was the best thing I have done :)
 
Why not get the OM-1 ii, the tracking AF is improved and the control dials are much nicer to use
Also if its your thing the mk ii has live graduated ND filters.

Does that count as a reason not to buy the OM-1?
 
I meant "Om-1 Mark II," but I guess I wrote the wrong thing.
 
Today I realized I was irrationally influenced by reviewers. Seems like everyone who loves and reviews Olympus and OM cameras puts gorgeous shots on the web.
 
I am trying an OM-1 II out. So far, I love it. I got it with the 12-40mm lens, which is very good and has an excellent everyday range. The combination is pretty handy, even though the body is actually bigger than an A6700.

The AF's smarts could be better. Other cameras can tell I'm shooting not just a person, but a baby.

I think the buffering feature will be very helpful for candids. I am looking forward to taking some decent macro and near-macro shots with less work and disappointment. Sooner or later, I'll get an appropriate prime.
 
Sony Corleone said:
I have developed a sudden desire for an Olympus (OM) camera. Talk me out of it.
Click to expand...

I've been with MFT since the GF1 and G1 (the newest cameras I've had are the GX9 and G100) and nice though MFT can be I haven't seen a file yet which can match what I get from Sony FF, even from the original and now old A7 if I look for the differences.

So, if you care about image quality go FF. If you give something else a higher priority then go MFT if the system meets your requirement but I don't think you'll ever match FF IQ, if that matters to you.
 
Well, here is my beginner opinion, which I'm sure will be widely respected. If you're not blowing images up a lot, FF is not noticeably better than MFT. Is that about right? I don't think I could look at an MFT print that was 9" wide and see any problems caused by the sensor's size. Maybe I'm wrong.

I shot a lot of photos today and yesterday, and the autofocus is clearly going to take more effort than Sony's. Today my son and wife were right in front of me, and the camera focused on a lady behind and between them, 70 feet away.

It doesn't have an "infant" setting, so I had to keep trying to force it to focus on my son.

I have managed to get some nice shots during the learning-curve phase. For image quality, this exceeds my personal requirements.

P1010026DxO 700 for print.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sony Corleone said:
Well, here is my beginner opinion, which I'm sure will be widely respected. If you're not blowing images up a lot, FF is not noticeably better than MFT. Is that about right?
Click to expand...

A FF picture could just look better with better DR, colours or colour depth or a combination of these and other things which could all just add up to a better looking picture... IQ wise. Some people just don't care about IQ. Some people look for adequate for them IQ and nothing more. You'll have to decide what matters to you.
 
Sony Corleone said:
I shot a lot of photos today and yesterday, and the autofocus is clearly going to take more effort than Sony's. Today my son and wife were right in front of me, and the camera focused on a lady behind and between them, 70 feet away.
Click to expand...

To the best of my knowledge, Olympus AF is dumb, therefore you have to take charge of what is the target. From what I recall, you can manually select the focus point on the rear screen or in the viewfinder, and that will offer the best chance of getting what you want. The other option is to use a single point, focus on the target and then recompose.
 
ancient_mariner said:
To the best of my knowledge, Olympus AF is dumb, therefore you have to take charge of what is the target. From what I recall, you can manually select the focus point on the rear screen or in the viewfinder, and that will offer the best chance of getting what you want. The other option is to use a single point, focus on the target and then recompose.
Click to expand...
That is something I like about the G9, you can select the further or nearer, I often use it when a branch is in front of/behind a bird by pressing one of two buttons
 
I think I may have failed to save the "human" mode while programming C1, but it is impossible to tell now.
 
Sangoma said:
That is something I like about the G9, you can select the further or nearer, I often use it when a branch is in front of/behind a bird by pressing one of two buttons
Click to expand...
Do you need that if you use a focus point, or are the points too large to work through a gap?
 
ancient_mariner said:
Do you need that if you use a focus point, or are the points too large to work through a gap?
Click to expand...
Quite often they are almost in the same place with a small subject, and hard to see what the point is on, I haven't persevered with a single point, and not using a tripod makes it harder :)
 
Sony Corleone said:
I think I may have failed to save the "human" mode while programming C1, but it is impossible to tell now.
Click to expand...

You can tell the camera to either keep or reject changes you make on the fly.

Menu. Custom mode. C1. Save Settings. Hold.

Now when shooting in C1 any changes you make will stick.
You can unstick them by clicking reset. Same menu.
 
I am hoping I just screwed up. In any case, even if I miss some shots while doing certain things, I am looking forward to making use of the camera's special abilities.
 
You could also enable focus and shutter release on the rear screen.
Just tap the target you want on the screen and it will focus and take the picture
 
My family has a Sunday ritual of going to Costco and taking a camera, and that's where I got the shots of the far-off stranger, so I had an opportunity to do some more shooting today. I got some lovely shots of the back of an old man about 40 feet away, and my blurry wife and son frame him nicely. I definitely had the "human" setting on, so that question is answered.

It seems like I keep having to remind the OM who I'm shooting, by banging on the monitor with my finger, but you can't always find time to do that while shooting candids. Sometimes you have to push that button in a hurry.
 
Sony Corleone said:
It seems like I keep having to remind the OM who I'm shooting, by banging on the monitor with my finger, but you can't always find time to do that while shooting candids. Sometimes you have to push that button in a hurry.
Click to expand...

This is where single spot focus & recompose works.
 
ancient_mariner said:
This is where single spot focus & recompose works.
Click to expand...

I think most who have used dSLRs would be used to doing just that.

That focus problem doesn't happen on the G9 :)

Does the Olympus not have focus peaking? With it it is quick to see just what the camera has focussed on. I would be surprised if it does not have it.
 
Sangoma said:
I think most who have used dSLRs would be used to doing just that.

That focus problem doesn't happen on the G9 :)

Does the Olympus not have focus peaking? With it it is quick to see just what the camera has focussed on. I would be surprised if it does not have it.
Click to expand...

In many ways I see M43 cameras as being like DSLRs in that the AF is not particularly clever. I'm sure it's getting better, but haven't heard anyone talking about eye detection yet.
 
Sangoma said:
I think most who have used dSLRs would be used to doing just that.

That focus problem doesn't happen on the G9 :)

Does the Olympus not have focus peaking? With it it is quick to see just what the camera has focussed on. I would be surprised if it does not have it.
Click to expand...
It has focus peaking, but it is zoned, so not all that useful except on a WA lens.
 
Interesting thread.
I am a long-term OM-1 user and an EM-1 before that. I moved from Full Frame over 10 years ago due to the weight.
The OM-1 can do all sorts of amazing things; it does have focus peaking, and the subject tracking on humans, birds and animals is as good as most other cameras. and it is especially good at wildlife and macro imho,

The one thing it lacks is dynamic range; the sensor in it is now 10 years old. So, landscape photography is not its strong point.
I am actually thinking of going the opposite way and considering the Sony A7R V or even the VI if it is released soon.

The question you need to answer is what it is that your current Sony can't do that is impacting your photography.
 
ancient_mariner said:
In many ways I see M43 cameras as being like DSLRs in that the AF is not particularly clever. I'm sure it's getting better, but haven't heard anyone talking about eye detection yet.
Click to expand...

The G9 (Mk1) does not have eye detect as such, it has human and animal. Both work well for me, if and when I use them, which is not often. Animal seems to work better on eyes.
The nearer and further works very well, especially with adjusting the focus area depending on what you are doing.

I am sure there are better cameras for some things, but taking everything into account, I don't think I could find one that suits me better all round, and the same goes for format, M43 suits my aims.

If it stops raining one day, I will try using the human/animal detect along with the nearer/further buttons :)
 
The only MFT camera I have now is the GX80 which seems to have very good eye detect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top