Several months ago, after trying one, I purchased an OM Digital Systems (OMDS) OM-1 camera body and lens primarily for two reasons. First, I wanted to test if the OM-1 and Olympus 100-400mm combination locked onto and captured birds-in-flight and wildlife better when compared to the Fujifilm X-H2S and Fujifilm 150-600mm lens. I had used the Fujifilm kit several times over the past year and haven't yet decided if I am satisfied with my 'hit rate' when trying to capture wildlife, birds in general as well as birds-in-flight. I had read and seen many videos and blog posts from OM-1 users touting how well it worked for birds so I thought I would try it.
Second, sometime in the distant future, I hope to eventually downsize to potentially one camera/one lens and M4/3 is the system of choice for me when that time arrives.
I have two road trips planned for December and January to photograph migrating waterfowl and a variety of wading and shore birds on Virginia's Eastern Shore as well as in the National Wildlife Refuges in northeastern North Carolina. Those two outings should give me the information I need to make a decision as to which system I prefer. Whichever works better for me, I plan to sell the other gear.
As to how I ended up with this kit, since 2012, I had photographed extensively with the M4/3 system owning and using six different cameras from both Olympus and Panasonic. I've made some of my best images with M4/3 cameras and lenses. I loved the system but the last time I decided to reduce the amount of gear I own (a process through which I go through on occasion), the M4/3 gear was sold. Mistake? I'm now thinking kind of so. We are so fortunate as photographers to have such high quality, extremely capable gear which also has a smaller than average footprint at our disposal. In the past, when shooting film, you had to 'go big' to get better image quality. No longer, thankfully.
After trying the OM-1 and 100-400mm lens, I liked the results I was getting so I bought the combination for more extensive testing. I planned on only buying one other M4/3 lens, the 12-100mm f/4 PRO, as it is the best all around, versatile, sharp corner-to-corner, travel lens I've ever used and it would be my 'go-to' lens when eventually I decided to relegate myself to just one camera/one lens—in other words, when I'm really old! So, my intention was not to fully buy into M4/3 again but that kind of just happened. I'm not sure how, it just happened.
Well, the 'problem' I encountered was the more I used the OM-1 the more enamored I became with it. I still think this camera is the 'best bang for the buck' available today for general photography. As it goes, the more I used the OM-1, the more I wanted to use it and the more lenses I wanted to use with it. I sensed danger! GAS was creeping in! I am especially enamored with the image quality I get from this camera. In my judgment it is certainly a step up from the Olympus E-M1 Mark III I sold in 2022. So the rationale I developed was that as time passes, gear prices rise and things will cost more in the future. It better to buy now. :-) So I submitted to the GAS, sought out some good deals and made the purchases. That's my story and I'm sticking to it! lol.
Coincidentally, it wasn't long after I started looking for an additional lens or two that OM held one of their sales on their factory refurbished gear. The prices are excellent and the lenses I've bought from them in the past always appeared brand new. I try to wait for OM/Olympus to hold one of those sales and buy from them. I've done that repeatedly over the years and have never had a bad experience. Additionally, I found some excellent and well priced used lenses, rebates and/or good sales on new gear so I picked up a lens or two here and there. It is just too easy to find and buy stuff nowadays. :-(
All of the lenses I purchased were strategically chosen to be a compact, complete and versatile kit as well as for size, weight, image quality and price. Since I mostly photograph landscapes, nature, travel, Americana, etc., I rarely use an aperture faster than f/4. If I didn't photograph wildlife and birds on occasion, I would have skipped the larger 100-400mm lens altogether. Even that lens, to me, represents a compromise as it is smaller, lighter and less expensive than similar lenses offered by Fujifilm, Nikon, Canon and Sony. It is not the best telephoto zoom on the market but it is the best lens for my purposes. However, if I specialized in wildlife or bird photography, I would invest in a camera/lens combination from one of those companies at double or triple the cost. But I practice it only occasionally and I wasn't willing to spend any more more than I have.
The photo at the top of the post is all of the M4/3 gear I own. I don't envision a time when I would need to take all that is shown. But this camera and the lenses I now own give me a nice variety of options when going out to photograph, depending on my intent.
Below are additional photos and an explanation of when I would choose a particular combination of lenses and the reasons.
I guess my point in writing this is that with one reliable camera and a handful of high quality small, lightweight but excellent lenses, you can cover just about anything you encounter without breaking the bank or your back. Don't let your mind get stuck in the obsolete thinking that you have to go big and expensive to achieve excellent photographs.
(For those of you who may be wondering, no, I'm not neglecting or selling my Fujifilm gear or using this kit exclusively. My X-T5 is still may favorite camera!)
Join me over at my website, https://www.dennismook.com.
Thanks for looking. Enjoy!
Dennis A. Mook
All content on this blog is © 2013-2023 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.
As it goes, the more I used the OM-1, the more I wanted to use it and the more lenses I wanted to use with it. Wow I can relate to that statement.
ReplyDeleteTerrible affliction! lol. ~Dennis
Delete“ when I'm really old!”. I love it
ReplyDeleteSomeone must have made a mistake on my birth certificate because I can’t possibly be as old as it says! 🤣 ~Dennis
DeleteOh my Dennis, you've been busy LOL.
ReplyDeleteWhat are your thoughts on the 40-150 f4 lens, possibly compared to the image quality of the f2.8 version? I'd always thought that the f4 version paired with the 8-25 would make a very nice combination with only a small gap of missing coverage.
One other quick question... there seems to be mixed information from reviewers about whether the OM-1 does or doesn't have more latitude in dynamic range over the EM1 III. Are you seeing anything in your photos? - Jim
Jim, thanks for the questions. I’ve owned and used the 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO extensively in the past. Outstanding lens. I’ve only owned the 40-150 f/4 PRO lens for a month or two and haven’t had the chance to use it extensively yet. That said, I tested my copy as I normally test my lenses when I first get them and I believe it is outstanding as well. Kind of surprised me, to be honest. Since I no longer own the f/2.8 version I can’t really compare them head-to-head but my f/4 lens is certainly a keeper. I hope that might of helped a little.
DeleteOh! Also, the 8-25mm f/4 PRO lens is outstanding as well. I’ve owned and used the 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO lens in the past and this new lens is just as good, in my opinion. Both of my new lenses are significantly smaller and lighter as well as less expensive than the older lenses and those factors were a big part of my decision-making process.
As for the dynamic range of the E-M1 Mark III versus the OM-1, Photons to Photos say the dynamic range is about the same on both cameras. In my personal experience, whenever I’ve come across a really high contrast subject, I always make some bracketed exposures. However, when editing in Lightroom, 95 times out of 100, I can pick one exposure and edit it perfectly. The bracketing wasn’t needed. The camera surprises me with the flexibility of the files. Also, I do think it has less noise. I’m able to use higher ISOs and, subjectively, I’m seeing a lot less noise. Surprisingly so. Part of that might be that I always expose the frame keeping the histogram to the right so I never have to raise the exposure slider and brighten my images in Lightroom. It is always better to overexpose and have to darken the image in editing than have to brighten it. Of course, if there is noise, we now have superb software to eliminate it without losing detail. ~Dennis
Thanks for the detailed response Dennis. - Jim
DeleteMy pleasure, Jim. ~Dennis
DeleteHi, Dennis--thanks for your commentary and lovely photos. I have a question--how do you feel about the 4/3 image format? I was a longtime Canon shooter and tried Micro 4/3 for a period. I loved the size of the gear (and I was especially fond of Olympus 75mm f/1.8 lens), but I could never get used to 4/3. I moved on from the format, but I sure did like the gear.
ReplyDelete-steve
Steve, thanks for the question. I’ve shot the 35mm (3:2) format in my film cameras and then digital cameras since 1971. The only other choice we had (with a couple of exceptions) was medium or large format. I was always largely dissatisfied with 35mm film image quality (too much grain) so I quickly bought in to medium format, first 6X6 and then the Pentax 6X7, with is a 5:4 or 8X10 ratio. I carried those huge 6X7 Pentaxes around for decades but the images were delightful! I used 35mm for mainly slide film but all my ‘serious’ black and white and color work was done with the 6X7. Because of that, I came to prefer the 5:4 ‘look’ over the 3:2 look over time and, of course, I printed thousands of 8” X 10” prints and it worked perfectly for me. When digital came along, it was mainly 3:2 again. I was okay with that. Several years ago I remember writing in this blog that I preferred the 3:2 over the 4:3 ratio. That has now changed. I much prefer the 4:3 ratio over the 3:2 or 5:4. The 3:2 is just a bit too long on the long side or too short for panorama or 16:9 crops. The 5:4 looks too squarish now for my taste. The 4:3 is a nice ratio for both horizontal and vertical images. Now, often times, I’ll crop my 3:2 images in a bit and I don’t at all like vertical 3:2 images. I shoot for and crop those down to 4:3 just about all the time. Tastes change. Shoot the proportions that a) fit the individual image and b), look best to you. ~Dennis
DeleteBeen thinking of adding 8-25 to my bag. Maybe time to rent one to try out. Currently 12-100 100-400 and panny 15 prime, Olympus 45 1.8 and panny 20 prime that lives on my Pen E-P5
ReplyDeleteIf you have a need for very wide angle, I think you will enjoy that lens. I almost bought the Panny 15, but ended up buying the OM 20mm f/1.4, mainly due to the deal I found. That 45 is really nice and the Panny 20 is a great lens but focuses slow, if that even matters. Both of those lenses are worthwhile. ~Dennis
DeleteThanks for your interesting article. You may also consider to take the 8-25 and 40-150. I used this setup for some shoots in urban environments (in my case with the 40-150/2,8). But with the /4 it would be a lightweight combination for wide and also detail shoots.
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome. Good idea. Good combination. Thanks. ~Dennis
DeleteGreat Article Dennis, long time Canon shooter for (Wildlife&Birds) dipping my toes into M4\3 (for travel) as I “also” age and looking at lighting up my kit. Currently using my Pan Lumix Gx8 w/ only one lens Oly 7-14mm pro for my multi day backpacking trips (thinking about picking up the 14-140mm ver ii) any experience with this lens? I would prefer a F/4 lens, your thoughts. Thank you for your detailed content and ideas 💡.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment and compliment. I appreciate it. I don’t have any experience with the 14-140mm lens, unfortunately. Sorry. I do have experience with the 40-150mm f/4 PRO and I can recommend it. Not to large and nice and sharp. Jason Odell of The Image Doctors Podcast, a professional landscape and bird photographer has experience with the 12-40mm f/4 PRO as well as the Panasonic 9mm and told me he is very pleased with both of their performances. Also, I have experience with the 8-25mm f/ PRO and it is an excellent lens as well. My overall “go to” all-time favorite m4/3 lens is the Olympus 12-100mm f/4 PRO. Excellent in every way! ~Dennis
DeleteI love my OMDS/Olympus gear (various OM, EM, and Pen bodies and many lenses) . I moved to MFT from Nikon DSLRs last year. I love the size, weather sealing, computational features, and lens library that the MFT system offers. MFT has fun cameras. My photography, which was stale with DSLRs, has taken off. I enjoy taking pictures everyday.
ReplyDeleteI write only with black type on a white background. If you see my posts in some other fashion, then it is either Google or your device that is formatting them in the manner. If you don’t read my post, then you’ll lose out on some very interesting and worthwhile content. ~Dennis
ReplyDelete