Well, I'm Disappointed With My OM-1 Mark II

Farm scene.  My goal in this little exercise was to ascertain if the OM-1 camera could hold detail
in white snow in direct sunlight as well as in the deep shadows.  All cropped images shown
were first upsized 4X (10,368 X 7776 pixels), or 80.6mp, then cropped significantly so as to be able
to clearly see if or if not shadow detail was visible while retaining some image quality.
OM-1 Mark II; 12-100mm f/4 PRO lens @ 12mm; 1/2000th sec. @ f/4.5; ISO 200
(click to enlarge)

Full disclosure.  The title of this post is click bait.  But, I encourage you to read on anyway.

We don't get snow very often in southeastern Virginia.  If it does snow, it is mostly what I'll call a 'dusting' and then it is melted by the next day.  That said, last week the region was blanketed with a very healthy snowfall.  The snowfall ranged from 13" (33cm) down to about 4" (10cm).  At my home, it snowed 7" (18cm).  Nice!

Cropped to 1625 X 1625 pixels from an 80mp
upsized file.

Cropped to 1059 X 1059 pixels from an 80mp
upsized file.

One additional good fortune came our way in that the temperatures were not predicted to rise above freezing for the next day or two.  That meant the snow would not melt so quickly.  That made for a good opportunity to make photographs in ways that I normally cannot.

On Friday, the sky was a crystal clear blue.  Not a cloud to be seen anywhere.  The extraordinarily fresh white snow would contrast with deep shadows in the direct sunlight.  I seized this opportunity to conduct an informal test of my OM-1 Mark II to see if its dynamic range could handle the extreme contrast.  I set out to find some subjects to test the camera.

Why am I disappointed?  Well, the OM-1 Mark II handled the contrast just fine.  It didn't fail my test as I have been told it would over and over again by the YouTube and Internet crowd.  I expected failure! (Not!)  The camera was able to retain texture in the sunlit snow as well as detail in deep shadow areas.  In these images, none of the histograms straight out of the camera showed highlight clipping nor crushed shadows.  Subsequently, I did edit them for taste and I could have brought down the bright white snow and raised up the shadows to show even more detail but then the images wouldn't look realistic.  So I edited highlights and shadows only partially to retain a high contrast as you would expects in scenes like these.

From what we've been repeated told over the years, Micro4/3 sensors can't handle these kinds of high contrast image subjects.  Only full frame sensors can do that.  The influencers and reviewers tell us that the dynamic range of micro4/3 cameras just isn't good enough for professional and high quality work.  Sadly for them, it is.  

Will the dynamic range match full frame cameras?  No, not quite, but it seems that in my photography over the years when I have encountered a very high contrast subject and bracketed exposures, I never (yes, never) had to use more than one exposure to achieve a finished image.  The camera’s sensor handled all those situations well.  So, evidently, not having all of the dynamic range of a full frame camera, in my experience, has not been imperative nor detrimental to creating high quality images.  For all of my purposes, and I photograph in a wide variety of conditions, the dynamic range of Micro4/3 sensors is just fine.  You may photograph in different circumstances and have different results.

Enough tongue in cheek and sarcasm.  The OM-1 Mark II handled everything I figuratively threw at it in the way of direct sunlight, white snow to deep shadows, on a clear sunny day.  These are not scientific nor definitive tests and maybe not the best subjects, but for all practical purposes in the kinds of photography I practice, detail was held in the bright snow highlights as well as the deep shadows.  I'm sure someone out there will contradict me with subjects where the dynamic range was not enough.  That's fine. We need to know the limits of our gear before we encounter difficult subjects.

The shadow in the outhouse back in the right rear of this image was almost black in the unedited
file.  The snow has held detail nicely.

Cropped to 1420 X 1420 pixels from an 80mp 
upsized file.

Gee, I guess I'm actually not disappointed in this camera as I knew I wouldn't be because my Micro4/3 cameras of the past have always handled extreme contrast despite what the critics have said.

Snow and pretty deep shadow up in the locomotive's running gear.

Cropped to 2734 X 1538 pixels from an 80mp
upsized file.

Snow and pretty deep shadow inside the locomotive's running gear and under its front porch.

Cropped to 2745 X 1544 from an 80mp upsized file.

If you are considering a Micro4/3 system because you want to have a more than full featured camera with extraordinary capabilities and top quality lenses that is smaller, lighter and less costly than the 'bog boys', don't not buy it because you think the dynamic range can't handle 99.9% of the situations encountered.  I'm not saying that Micro4/3 can equal full frame in every way, but the system has come a long way and is more than sufficient for almost all of us out here wanting to enjoy our photography.  There is no need to fear lack of dynamic range nor excessive noise.

Just sayin'.

Join me over at my website, https://www.dennismook.com.  

Thanks for looking. Enjoy! 

Dennis A. Mook  

All content on this blog is © 2013-2025 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.