One major reason the OM-1 is such a good deal is for its computational photography features like Live Composite, Live ND, focus stacking, and handheld and tripod hi-res mode. For relatively still birds in difficult lighting you can shoot handheld hi-res at very high ISO's yet get noise free 50MP images.
The OM1 + 150-400mm f4.5 PRO TC1.25 is the best “Crop” alternative for Wildlife (specifically Birds and BiF). The 150-400mm is for many photographers the best Long tele zoom lens ever made!
Hi Duade, an important advantage of the M4/3 bigger depth of field is that it helps to keep more of the bird in focus, especially if it if longways to the camera where, with full frame, the eye might be sharp but the tail blurry. Also, Olympus has a great pro capture mode - Canon has tried with the R7 but, due to rolling shutter, failed miserably.
I have done a similar thing but gone to Fuji. I'm finding that I'm hankering for heavier Fuji bodies now (I started with an X-E1 and XC lenses which are incredibly light), so my current XT-2 and XF lenses are probably slightly heavier than a DX Nikon!. There is much more to like about a Fuji though, so I'm happy. I would like to try a micro 4/3 someday though, I like what I hear about those too.
Between AI Noise reduction and PS/LR Lens Blur, the full frame "advantages" are quickly going away... whereas the size, weight and price make M4/3 pretty much a clear winner if you travel, walk a long way, and want weather sealed for lets say real telephoto (Camera, 600mm f/4 lens, or roughly 200-800 f/4.5 equivalent). There is no contest having used both Full Frame and M4/3. I love the fact that full frame has higher resolution. I truly miss that capability. I happily trade that for the size, weight, price advantage. The other issue I have with comparisons between M4/3 and Full Frame is the perception that F/4 on MFT = F/8 on Full Frame. Your explanation is the best I have seen. Many don't bother explaining it only applies to DOF. If I shoot in the same conditions a MFT and Full Frame camera, I use the same exposure values to get equivalent exposures. Same ISO, F-stop, shutter speed yield a well exposed image on MFT and Full Frame. Only difference is depth of field. So now let's compare: Olympus 300mm f/4 vs Sony f/4: $2,999 vs $12,998; 8.9 inches tall vs 17.7"; 3.3 lbs vs 6.7 lbs. M4/3 is 25% of the price, half the size and half the weight. I know which I would rather pay for and carry with me. And if I need to use a little post processing to increase background blur, I'm happy to spend the time. Will the Full Frame end up with slightly better image quality.. probably. Would I notice most of the time without pixel peeping... I doubt it. As I said before... wonderful, well balanced, honest video.
Depth of field is not the only difference. It's light gathering capability (noise depends on it). OM, 300mm f4, Shutter 1/500, ISO 200 is equivalent to FF 600mm f8, Shutter 1/500, ISO 800. This will produce same DOF, noise level everything. By the way , shutter speed and physical aperture (=focal length/f-stop) determines how much light is coming to a lens. 300mm f4 has a diameter of 75mm; same as 600mm f/8. MFT offers good value, 300mm f4 (aka 600mm f8) is no joke, but it is not 600mm f4. A 600mm f4 literally means physical diameter of 150mm and produces much cleaner picture with shallower DOF. If you don't want that 600mm f/8 is definitely good compromise, or even 600mm f/6.3 (nikon pf) which is a better option but expensive.
@@atanuhalder7750 With due respect, I literally shot the Nikon 600 on a Z9 (rented) and the OM 300 on an OM-1. This was not a mathematics problem. Same shutter speed, ISO, f/4. Exposure is the same in the real world. Only difference is depth of field. Try it for yourself.
@@rudigerwolf9626 That's because the ISO is same in your experiment. As you mentioned, 300mm F4, ISO 1600 on OM-1 will have same exposure as 600mmF4, ISO 1600 on full frame, but it will be much noisier. Better comparison is 300mm F4, ISO 1600 on OM-1 and 600mmF8, ISO 6400 on full-frame which leads to same DOF, same noise, same exposure at same shutter.
@@atanuhalder7750 But the ISO value is no longer a reference between brands, because I understand that each manufacturer puts the value they want. The ISO value was a standard at the time of the film. And on the other hand we have that the value of the F number in M43 is a nominal value, not a real value. This is a marketing move to make the lenses appear brighter than they are.
One of the things I like most about your channel is that you don't have a competition to show the most expensive equipment. On the contrary, you show that with good ideas and looking for the opportunity you can do bird photography, probably the genre in which you have to spend the most on equipment, with a moderate budget. Also, beyond your preferences, it is interesting that you show various brands and types of cameras without fanaticism and with good humor. Thank you so much.
These videos are such an important contribution for those making big financial decisions when buying into a new system. I really appreciate how you demystify the options, allow people to make informed choices based on their needs, and emphasize that there is ultimately no “correct” choice, particularly for hobbyists.
I own Canon R3 and R7 which I love both, Recently rented the OM-1 and 300 f4 plus 1.4 tele and I kinda think the OM-1 runs circles around the R7, I got great images out of the OM-1.
I own the OM1 and 300 f4 and it’s an amazing combo! I loved it so much I sold my a1 and a7riv and go to OM1 bodies. The 300 f4 is amazing but I’d love to have the 150-400. I rented that lens and it’s phenomenal.
I use a Panasonic G9 and the PL 100-400mm for my bird photography. Weight, size and cost were the determining factors in my kit choice. Whilst M43 can have it's limitations I find it's fun to shoot and enjoy wringing everything I can out of it.
Ditto! Does plenty of other stuff too including Sports and sunsets. Also I just saw the G9 advertised somewhere here in Australia for under $900. Now that must be a bargain! But now it has been on the market for over 5 years (Dec 2017) so could at least have bird and animal eye focus added to keep in competitive.
I paid about £1300 used for my G9 and 100-400. It's about the heaviest kit I want to carry when I'm walking in the countryside. I'm very tempted to try canon out though. It seems that can get some reasonably priced gear at a weight that's not too crazy either.
When I looked for a kit this winter I came down to choosing between Sony a74 and the Om-1, ultimatly ended up with the Om-1 for because of the lenses were obtainable within my budget and the size. I hike alot and wanted the smaller form factor, and the weather sealing was also a huge factor. Im more then happy with it, it's more camera then I can master. But having alot of fun with it, walking in nature alot more then I used to. And I have to thank you for the inspiration I found in this channel for that.
Hi Duade, that’s simply the best explanation of sensor size effects I‘ve ever seen. Great idea to start with the image circle of the lens. It‘s a joy to watch your content, even here where I new most of it before. I really like your calm while also enthusiastic presentation. Your gorgeous example photos add to that also a lot. To show the crop and editing from the RAW is another highlight of your videos. Thanks a lot and keep up the great work!
OMG, I have been struggling with this issue for years. I have a R7 and R6m2 do I keep both or not and why....This is absolutely the best explanation that I have ever heard. Thank you so much for your teaching, you are the best on You tube
For years the selling point of full frame was the pleasing shallow depth of field for portrait, personally I sometimes see this as a handicap for birding, where the eye of the bird is sharp but the tip of the tail is out of focus, another benefit of the M4/3 is the pixel density so more pixels on the subject, compact lighter and sharper lenses, plus the OM-1 is IP53 rated as are the lenses none of the other more expensive bodies have the same weather sealing and toughness as the OM-1.
Thanks, yes, the OM1 package is very nice and I am glad I purchased the camera, I think I need the 300 f4 to really enjoy it. Thanks for the comment, Cheers, Duade
Pixel density of m43 and the r7 are the same. The difference is the overall size of the APSc sensor will record more light. Of course if you find yourself always cropping the r7 down to 20mp, then the extra surface area of APSc is irrelevant and you may as well be shooting m43, other things being equal.
I owned the Canon R5 for a year, and shot about 100K shots with it. It was my first mirrorless and it was a really nice camera. Then I rented the R7. Loved it so much, I ordered one before i even returned the rental. Shot with it almost every day for a month. I started to feel guilty about my R5 sitting on the dresser, so i pulled it back out to give it some play. In a nutshell, I didn't enjoy it as much, but most importantly, I was not getting as many keepers with the R5. Ended up selling my R5 to buy a second R7 + the 100-400 (won't use it that much, but had to have it in case I needed to shoot something wider) + the 600 F11... But my primary lens is my beloved 800 F11 🙂👍 1280mm equivalent on my R7, and I'm finally finally getting close enough most of the time. Many of my shots of small birds nowadays need zero crop 👍
This is sooo useful as someone who has been eyeing the OM-D e-M1 mark iii. I still think the crop is worth it for me, I travel full time so weight is a big thing, even the more expensive tele lenses are so heavy!
I own both the E-M1.3 and the OM-1. I would recommend stepping up to the OM-1 if you are able to, depending on your use case. The noise handling is far far superior, which makes a big difference for wildlife shooting as you definitely need to spike the ISO to get the shutter speeds. The subject tracking is also a revelation, if you shoot wildlife. It is worth the upgrade for that alone (ignoring cost from a pure performance perspective). The extra improvements in burst rate, Live ND etc are just the icing on the cake for me.
either get em1 mkii and save up money big time, or step up to om-1. I bought mk 2 some time ago cuz did not find mk3 to bring any large benefits for its lot higher price. then I went om-1 , which obviously comes with more power, latest features and some improvements across the board. but it does not do any magic in any way, if budget is concern mk2 is just fine.
Great comparison and as an OM1 user I agree with all the pros and cons. For me weight and price were major factors along with the great tracking, IBIS and the 60mm Macro but we all compromise based on circumstances. I think you show that it's the photography rather than the tools that are important, Cheers!
I think you've made a very fair comparison, but it would have been great if you mentioned the stabilisation of the OM-1, which I would say is still 1-2 stops better than the best-stabilised full frame options available right now. I think perhaps you need to be less conservative with shutter speed to notice this. For example, the Kookaburra which you shot at 1/320s and 25600 ISO could have probably been shot at 1/30 or even lower with a good hit rate in a continuous burst. With my OM-1 and 300F4, the synchronised stabilisation system gives me a decent hit rate with 1/2 second exposures (about 40-50%) and 1 second exposures (about 10-20%). These shutter speeds are totally unusable for moving subjects of course, but it shows that the gap in noise performance can be considerably narrowed by dropping shutter speed. Great video nonetheless!
he prob did it on purpose for demonstration. but I can agree that in situations without subject movement, there where I would have shoot my DSLR at 1/200 , I use my m43 at 1/25, negating any advantage of the larger sensor and pulling ahead actually.
Very interesting, thanks so much for this. I have just got an OM-1 and 400mm lens, having used Canon full frame for years. The weight is the big factor for me - I just shot some gulls in flight in Anderson Park, Napier and there is no way I could have done it with my Sigma 150-600mm lens on the Canon. I like to walk around and the OM-1 is just a dream - the stabilisation is out of this world and the AF/AI tracking is sensational. I also prefer to have some habitat in my shots so the DOF is not such an issue for me. I also enjoy the challenge of having to get in the right position without spooking the subject. But as you say it is a matter of personal choice and there is no right or wrong - whatever works for the individual. Maybe as you get older you will move towards lighter gear haha...
Hello there just wondering if u are using the 100-400 f5.0 to 6.3? I use it with an em5 mk3 and sometimes have issues with the stabilisation, although when taking enough photos I still get them sharp. Just wondering the difference with the om-1 and the em5
@@Ricky9Toes Hi, I have the Panasonic Leica DG Vario Elmar f4.0 - 6.3 100-400 ASPH which I got based on reviews and also it's size and weight. It is smaller and lighter than the equivalent Olympus lens I saw. This is my first Olympus/OM-Systems camera so I cannot comment on the EM5. What I can say is that the lens and camera are very, very sharp, the autofocus and AI subject recognition are extremely impressive and the stabilisation is great (6.5 stops). I can hand hold at 400mm for hours no problem.
Great video! For me the OM-1 + 300mm f4 is the perfect combination for my trekking trips! The 150-400mm is the better Lens, but bigger and expensive. The 300mm is more affordable and compact!
Great explanation Duade. I also shoot with an Olympus M1 Mark iii. Cost and weight were the determining factor. I use the olympus 75-300 again for weight and cost. approx. A$2000 total combo . It lacks the eye tracking of the OM-1 but otherwise is very competent. I've considered the 100-400 for greater reach but with the weight and size the "travelability" goes down. I would be lost without DXO Pure Raw 2 (Pure raw 3 is very slow on my computer and the size of the processed file is massive). I often have to shot at Iso 6400. A lot of bird action is early morning. Yes. It's hard not to compare the quality of photos on the local facebook group and wonder how they get such crisp detailed photos. But, I get enough good bird in flight shots to keep me occupied in post processing. Especially with pro capture.
Thank you so much for taking the time to put together this video. You did such a wonderful job explaining the differences in the three formats. As an OM-1 user, it was especially helpful to learn about the greater DOF I’m getting and, thus, the less blurred out backgrounds. It hasn’t been a big problem for me, but I will certainly keep it in mind when I’m out shooting.
Thanks for sharing all of this valuable information! I think the R7 with the RF100-400mm for me is the perfect balance of light weight, reach, image quality and low-light handling. I get 640mm field-of-view and a short minimum focusing distance with good magnification and pre-capture to never miss action in a lightweight, affordable and fun to carry package.
You are a very good instructor. Feels like you are talking with us and not at us and not trying to sell people on one item. I have been out shooting and been asked if my R7 was a crop body. Wasn’t real confident in how to answer so I have been studying up. Your video helped me better understand the differences. Ready for that question next time.
The depth of field is definitely a limitation on smaller sensors if you're trying to isolate, but I've also found sometimes it goes the other way. When you're working with a depth of field of 20-30mm, and you're tracking a moving bird, I've found it's much easier to miss focus on the eye. If your bird is in flight that also usually gives you more background separation so the depth of field is less of an issue. Of course, if you're shooting full frame you can just stop down, but then you're not getting the advantage of low light performance. There's an element of best tool for the job but I agee with Duade that it also comes down to personal preference. For me, it was the OM1. It's excellent value for money, has great built in features, and the size/weight of the lenses are a huge consideration for me for multi-day hiking trips and travel, plus it's easier to hand-hold for longer. Also worth considering the ergonomics of the camera - this may be less important to you than, say, full frame vs M43 performance, but if for example you're deciding between Sony, Canon or Nikon, definitely get your hands on the cameras first. You want it to be something that feels good to hold, and personally this was a large part of my decision in Nikon vs Canon when I first bought a full-frame DSLR. I don't like the ergonomics or menu systems of the Canons and that ended up being the deciding factor between two otherwise similarly spec'd bodies. If you know someone with a camera/lens you're considering and they're open to it, I highly recommend taking it out for a day or two and really getting a feel for it. At the end of the day, if you have something you enjoy using, you probably made the right choice :)
Hi Duade, good review and explanation of all positives and negatives. I’m shooting with an a1 and 200-600. Recently I got an elbow injury due to hiking and handholding this combo. Plus birds in flight handholding are a challenge due to the weight. Therefor I also opted to test the om1 and 300mmf4. This is nee combo does what you also point out. It’s a baby A1. I agree with noise, dof etc. However everyone seems to miss the practical actual usage. Example to fill the frame with a small bird I need to go to f7.1 or f8 to get the bird completely sharp in the frame. The om1 can stay at f4 where it’s now almost two stops faster mitigating iso difference and dof. All in all it’s about the right tool for the job right.
If you already have the A1, why not just go for a lighter lens on the Sony? Like the Tamron 150-500 or the Sony GM 100-400? No need to change systems and you still get the same reach at the same weight
@@MegaWeitzel Well too late for that. It's also about size, the Tamron is still a beast. The Sony 100-400 I have tested but is doesn't work for me. Makes the combo very front heavy, as well as the 200-600. I love the 200-600 for what it is and can produce, but the 100-400 is not an alternative in my mind. So this is mainly on use case. Hiking and carrying multiple things the Sony combo is too heavy, the OM1 is a great alternative or addition. In some cases the OM1 is even faster than the A1 - really. As Duade said I would put them on the same playing field in certain conditions, sometimes the OM1 even outperforms the A1. Again it's about the practical usability.
@@robertdoeleman3471 The Sony 100-400mm GM is lighter than the Olympus 300mm F4, while also offering 600mm F8 equivalency. [There is also the Sigma and Tamron versions which are even lighter but "only 6.3" so only 600mm F9 equivalent.] Not really sure where that weight saving you mention comes from.
@@MegaWeitzel The 100-400 is not lighter, at best equal, but that's not my point here. I just don't care for the 100-400, don't like it. It's a personal choice.
Great video! I thought your coverage of the various size sensors was accurate and balanced, they all have advantages and disadvantages and you covered them extremely well. You also gave great examples as to why you might choose one over the other and how you can work around some of the limitations of the smaller sensors (software, distance of target to background, etc.). Thanks for taking the time to show this. Being an OM-1 shooter myself I'm hopeful that I see you occasionally beating around in the bush on future videos with that rig!
As always a great video, showing the comparisons without bias is much appreciated. As a Panasonic m4/3 wildlife (mainly birds) I rarely shoot above F8 and when needed I compensate the more detailed background in post by selecting the background, and running basic noise reduction, often more than once in order to obtain the desired effect.
Thanks for the very good comparison. I am an Mu-43 user and are happy with the results. I can afford it, easily carry it and the quality is good enough for me as no one will ever look at my images when I drop off the perch. The main thing for me is to get out there and have a good time. I do this for enjoyment not a living so one has to keep that in perspective if you are on a budget
It’s worth keeping in mind that many people shoot at 600mm f/8 on full frame to keep the subject in focus, or to improve sharpness (e.g. sigma 150-600mm C). That is more than adequate in many situations if you can compose with more room behind your subject, or if you can get closer to the subject. I moved to Sony because the 200-600 IQ smokes the 100-400, and I wanted the flexibility of a zoom, but Olympus is a very viable option and I don’t think there’s a huge DOF advantage between 300mm f/4 and all the 600mm f/6.3 zooms.
Definitely the best video to explain crop sensors, and how they handle field of view. A lot of folks trying to explain it don’t do a great job explaining the distance to the subject and such.
Thank you for producing such a clear and balanced review of the three different sensor sizes. As always any choice is based on a series of compromises; DoF, cost, weight, lowlight noise etc etc in the end you pays your money....
Hi Duade, thanks for this excellent video. When I look at my own photographs all taken with the R7, the biggest difference in quality of the shots is, as you so rightly mentioned, distance and light. Of course there are differences in equipment, but that is really secondary to circumstances. Cheers!
It's all about the light (and distance). People don't realize, and often don't want to acknowledge, how important good light is to perceived sharpness.
I would say the 300mm F4 from Olympus is so much better than this 100-400 because it has a brighter aperture and it’s sync IS is unbelievably good that you can get sharp shots at 1/10 of a second easy.
it also has a shorter reach, so if you can't get closer, you start loosing some of those benefits(DOF,noise,res) . 1/10 is great, but depends what you shoot, as with many subject movement, or even breathing will force you to increase the shutter speeds.
That was the best explanation of depth of field between FF/APSC/MFT that I've ever heard! I'm currently looking for a new camera and system and this was extremely helpful. Thank you
This was a really good and balanced video. I will add a few things to consider, F/4 is F/4 is F/4 as far as light goes so if you have the choice between for example a M4/3 400mm F/4 lens or a full frame 800mm F/8 lens the DOF may be very similar (2X crop factor) however with all other settings being the same, the M4/3 allows you to use 2 stops lower ISO for the same exposure (I realise this is completely hypothetical) There is also the focus forgiveness of smaller sensor cameras, you did touch on this when discussing the background blur, but nailing focus is easier on a smaller sensor with a bigger DOF. Many photos of birds I have seen where the focus hits the branch or back of the bird and the head is just not in focus on full frame (and APSC sensor cameras) but M4/3 and smaller cameras with their larger DOF get the whole bird and the branch in focus. This is actually more important when talking about 2nd hand gear, that have slower autofocus systems (and lack subject detect autofocus of the new cameras) and something a beginner should consider. Also with AI subject detect in Lightroom, separation can be achieved by raising exposure on subject or lowering exposure on back ground and other techniques to make the subject pop. I'm not a wildlife photographer as a profession (portraits and events) but I know the client does not care what gear you use when you send them the images regardless of sensor size or lens used. I could shoot the same photo on APSC or Full frame and the client would not know. what I used. If I was shooting on a full frame with an 84mm F/1.8 or an APSC 56mm F/1.4 in the studio the image would look similar, if i stopped down to F/4 or F/5.6 where the full person was in focus, you could not tell the difference (assuming using professional quality lenses)
Wonderful explanation and visualization of the differences between the formats, Duade. An additional advantage of m43 for the birding photographer is the compactness of the other lenses in the system. For example the tiny 14 mm pancake lens fits in a pocket in case you wish to capture the habitat that you were birding. If you didn't use it you don't regret having carried it around all morning.
Hi Duade, Great video. Sensor size is always one of those topic's that many RU-vidrs get way to emotional about.I shoot the OM-1 with the F4 300mm prime and I am really pleased with results. What gets lost in a lot of the discussions is that understanding the strengths and weaknesses of your chosen format is more important than the gear itself. I appreciate that you were fair in your assessment. Too many folks like to imply that Full Frame always produces a better image than a crop sensor camera. That is simply not true. What is true is that all cameras today are capable of producing great pictures if you spend time learning how to use your gear. A mediocre photographer with the Z9 is not going to produce a better image than an expert photographer with an OM-1. I'm sure if someone said Duade, "you have to shoot with M4/3 for the next six months", you would adjust how you do things to get great pictures with that format. Thank you for providing great content as always. Hope you keep the OM-1 in your arsenal.
Thanks Duade for your great explanations ! My own experience with different sensor sizes largely mirrors your own. I now shoot with Olympus - EM-D M1 mkiii and in the last two weeks added the M1x , which replaces the EM-D M1 mkii. My old Canon 1Dx outperformed my old 7D mkii and the Olympus models, but the Olympus and 7D mkii I find almost indistinguishable. Maybe the 7D mkii is very slightly less noisy. The big difference is weight. The 1Dx and Canon 100-400 mkii weighed in at over 3 1/4 kilos, the 7D mkii and the 100-400 mkii at over 2 1/2 kilos, whilst the OM-D mkiii and my Panasonic 200 2.8 comes in at under 2 kilos. Being able to shoot at 2.8 gives me a similar D of F to the full frame with sensible ISO, which reduces (but not eliminates) the noise increase with MFT. Compared with the 7D mkii, it is an improvement noise wise. Weight was the reason for the switch to MFT. Yes I'd like to shoot full frame, but can't afford the bills for having my back seen to every week! Incidentally my main photography is shooting motorsports and birds - static and especially in flight.
Duade If you are using a 30mm, 45mm or 60mm macro lens on the Olympus OM-1, get a flash diffuser. It takes your macro images to the next level. The Cygnustech diffuser is a great option (Melbourne based,). I also have the AK Diffuser from the US. The Cygnustech is worth every cent. For me, M4/3 is my go to macro rig. I use a Godox V350o mounted on the flash shoe, which has the Lithium battery.
A very rational discussion, kudos. I use OM-1/G9ii, from 16-800 FF equiv. in a small backpack that fits in an overhead on the plane. May your back support your FF preference for many years!
I tend to use my E-m1x with the EF 400 4.5 which is super sharp , when I need the extra reach that full frame doesn´t give me. The noise is not an issue as I also pass it trough pure raw and does its magic. Great to see you trying m43
Yeah as someone who has been shooting crop for ages, i always needed 1-1.5 f-stops less for DOF on crop compared to FF ... the avrg 2.8 FF zoom should be 1.8 on crop. But it never is... 😉 very good overview! Now compare lens prices ... since people always like to brag about cheaper crop lenses... 70-200 F4 on FF is about the same as 70-200 F2.8 on crop bokeh wise, but 2.8 is about twice the price. Still i really like my crop bodies 😄 Especially for macros i pref crop - where you actually want less bokeh.
My favorite aspect of APSC mirrorless coming from a person with a huge collection of DSLR lenses is the versatility given by the extra flange distance. You can use drop in filter adapters, focal reducers, tilt shift adapters, etc with older lenses. That 400 5.6 is a 450 f4 on the r7 with a .7 focal reducer, and weighs almost nothing comparatively.
Very interesting comparison, Duade, and well explaned. I always appreciate that you point out relative strengths and weaknesses without making claims that one is definitely superior to all the others. You rightly point out your preference for what works for you, but you don't denigrate all the others in the field. As an Olympus and now OM shooter, I agree with your assessments about some of the challenges in subject isolation and noise handling. The challenges are at their most difficult for wildlife. For almost any other genre, these are less of an issue or virtually non- existent. For me, the trade-off of weight and portability was worth it when I changed 5+ years ago from Canon crop sensor DSLR and Tamron 150-600 lens. I captured way more photos with Olympus as I carried the camera way more often. I could take a wildlife lens on a general holiday overseas with my wife where I would not have justified it previously. Were making the switch today, I don't know if I'd make the same decision now that the others all have smaller mirrorless bodies and native mirrorless lenses that are also smaller than previously. I have a lot invested in Olympus/OM so I won't be considering switching. And as you say, the capability of the OM body punches so far above its weight per $$$. I think if you shoot multi-genre, the MFT system is hard to beat. But if you are a dedicated wildlife shooter, the options are so varied. Terrific to have the options now, as you say! As an FYI, you might find the noise handling challenging on the OM-1 but it is a vast improvement compared to the previous Olympus bodies. The noise is only slightly less, but the control and type of noise is massively improved.
Love all of your content Duade! I've been using a 90D (APSC) with a Canon 100-400 II and a Canon 70-200 II along with a 1.4x III teleconverter when I'm desprate for more reach. I'm extemely happy with the results I've been able to get! Your videos have offered a wealth of knowlege that have repeatedly proved invaluable in choosing my gear!
Best explanation of the various sensor sizes and the practical consequences! Clear, no BS, to the point with excellent visualization and examples. The recipe of turning a random viewer to subscriber. 🎉❤
Great "objective" comparison! Thanks for that! Best comparison i've ever seen. I own the OM1 since a couple a weeks and ist just such a incredible good piece a camera! Personally as a Hobby Fotographer I see no reason too spend more money for and to carry heavier gear, knowing that DXO does such a good job in reguard of denoising. Camera and lens for far less than 4000,- $US! I'm done! But your arguments in mind, I see the point that other people will vote differently.
Thank you for the video, very balanced commentary. I use an OM-5 for general photography and it is awesome: very light and feature rich for the price. One benefit of MFT, which your genre would not teach you, are vintage lenses. With the right adaptors, a world of full frame vintage lenses are available for MFT cameras. Importantly, the MFT sensor suits right in the centre of the full frame lens, giving you the very best of the resolution of that lens. Really gives your photography a new dimension and very budget friendly 😂. Thanks for your video, much appreciated.
Love my Olympus/OM cameras and lenses. Besides being much lighter, you can also shoot wide open and have enough DOF. Especially with the 300/f4 and it works very well with both extenders. That lens is much more expensive now than when I bought it though.
Great video Duade. I hadn't appreciated the effects on depth of field on full frame vs crop so that was very interesting for me and excellently explained. For me I've always been an APS-C shooter due to cost. If I could afford it I would love to have full frame. But then I feel I would miss the extra reach and perhaps want longer heavier lenses....but then the low light performance would be better on the full frame....Pros and cons. In an ideal world I might have a crop and a full frame depending on the scenario. Alas I can only afford one and Im ok with that. I will always have camera and lens envy but I will never stop enjoying going out and taking photos. Your channel has really helped reignite my motivation to get out there and improve my photography not to mention also learning more about the wildlife and nature I am photographing -so I thank you for that 😊
Thanks Jonathan, great attitude and I think it is important we never lose sight of the fact we do this for the enjoyment first, gear is just one component of that. Cheers, Duade
Once again a brilliant video, even though I was aware of all the info already. The trouble with manufacturers tempting us with ever more elaborate kit is we can become overwhelmed. I bought an R5 to get more MP and found that most images were unusable with my Sigma 120-300, so I can only use that on my R6 or 5D4. The images on my 7D2 are horrendously noisy, only now usable because of Topaz, and I was wondering about an R7 for the reach. Only we don't always have to clamour for MP, using the R5 in crop mode I get the same field of view, just 17MP instead of 32MP, and do we actually need 32, especially with current resizing software. Some OM1 users have told me it isn't good if you crop heavily, not enough clarity. I was thinking about doing a video on crop sensors, that too many pixels can make the image soft, the sensor is out resolving the lens, only the difference isn't that obvious on RU-vid quality. It would help if I wasn't on a pension, only I have far too much kit already. Once again, excellent quality video, keep up the good work.
Well Done !! I am enjoying keeping track of all the various brands. Get close with nice light and some luck with the subject's pose and any one of them will put a smile on your face.
And the sensors get smaller too, which give reasonably good results for people who dont need the highest quality images.The Nikon bridge cameras are nice as are the Sony 1 inch models.Thanks for this comparison(the Olympus 75-300 is good in good light!).
For me, a significant difference is the aspect ratio. The full-frame and the APS-C have a 3:2 aspect ratio. The micro 4/3 has a 4:3 aspect ratio. I prefer the 3:2 aspect ratio for landscape and scenic shots. I prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio for portraits and general subjects.
Duade, Thanks so much for your videos. In a world filled with biased content, your videos are a breath of fresh air! One thing you might want to explore on your OM-1 is the in-camera AF limiter settings. That one feature is what makes the OM-1 my go-to camera when it comes to BIF. My Canon cameras are always reverting to minimum focus distance when I miss getting the subject in frame against the sky. While some lenses have an AF limiter setting, it is almost always way to short a distance to be meaningful. I often am shooting birds that are no closer than 70-100 feet. The OM-1 allows you to set 4 separate AF limiter settings with both near and far distance being customizable. Makes the focus get back to the needed distance much quicker. Wish my Canons had that. Curious if Nikon or Sony cameras have anything similar. I hope you get a chance to look into that feature on your OM-1.
Holy cow, your videos are the best I've come across. They're so well laid out and edited. I just got back from Costa Rica, where I realized how limited I was by my phone camera to capture the beauty that I was seeing. I bought my first camera, a used FZ1000 for $200, to just practice taking manual photos while I decide on a budget and a camera setup. I'm strongly considering getting an R7 and am going to head over and watch your full review after this video. Thanks!
I shoot micro 4/3, APS-C, and full-frame digital cameras. For full-frame, I shoot 21/35/90mm lenses. For APS-C SLR, I shoot 14/24/55mm lenses. For APS-C mirrorless, I shoot 12/23/56mm lenses. For micro 4/3, I shoot 14/20/45mm lenses. All work well. A 12mm prime is my widest wide-angle. For telephoto photography, I use adapted prime lenses that range from 105mm to 1000mm in focal length.
finally my favorite youtuber and my mentor is using Olympus. great video, i did not see it properly, but will get back to it. but already loved the swallow shot, hope i can get nice images for the pale crag martins when they come back to breed in my back yard.
Hello again Duade, when i first fell down on my 300 mm f4, knew that repair will take quite some time, as no agent for Olympus in my country, so i ordered the 100-400 mm f6.3, the extra reach worth the down grade in f stop, as the lens was not less sharp than the prime when the light is wright, and it is always great light here in sunny Jeddah. but two things made me go ahead and send the 300 mm to Europe for repair, first the disappointing IS in video, which is sometimes important for me, yes mostly i do stills, but sometimes when its impossible to approach the bird and have to document it have to take videos. the second thing it the drop of IQ when using the 1.4 TC unless its on a tripcode, unlike when using it with either the 300 f4 or the 40-150 mm f2.8. so sad i dropped the 300 mm again, and this time will not bother with it as it costs so much for the DHL, so i think i might consider the Leica 200 mm f2.8, mainly for my tamed garden birds, there are some nice offers in the second hand ones, Kasey in camera conspiracies convinced me. enjoy your new kit, the OM-1 is a real fun to use, and yes its focusing is much much much better than all my old Olympus bodies. hope you try the pro-capture of it, it is much improved than the older modals more mature, used it mostly with weavers when they build nests and bee-eaters.
I think one thing that a lot of people who are really into high-end gear is the fact that the budget and consumer level equipment is largely what sustains and brings in new people to the hobby. Bird photography is so specialized that I can't fault anyone for going APSC or M4/3 to be able to get some nice photos without breaking the bank. I feel birding is probably one of the photography areas that has the steepest barrier to entry (especially if you insist on FF camera). Being able to buy a brand new camera house and a lens that is pretty good for about 1/4 of an RF 800mm F/5.6 should be considered. You can get a birding kit + a decent starting point for a canon FF kit (for everything else than birds) for less that one lens FF birding lens. Unless you KNOW you won't ever want to do anything else than birds/wildlife, then that's a value proposition that's quite tough to beat. Thanks for keeping a realistic point of view on this hobby. It's easy to forget that most people might have quite a tight budget, so it's always nice to know you are thinking of us mortals haha :D Cheers!
One thing that is always forgotten is that when depth of field is desired then the full frame sensor has no low light advantage. If you want "f8 of depth of field" then on M43 you only need to be on f4. The extra light passing through to the sensor allows you to reduce the ISO by 2 stops meaning you don't get any more noise at all. The problem with videos like this one is that more depth of field is always seen as a bad thing which is simply not true.
Another very informative video Duade. I've personally only had a full-frame camera with the R6 and I've just ordered an R5. Though I'm tempted to get an R7 as well for the extra reach. Especially for smaller birds like Fairywrens.
Thx Duade, as you know, I am a OM-1 / E-M1X shooter. Amazing feature of OM System / Olympus is the ProCapture mode. Thats an insane feature ... Tomorrow I will get my OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 90mm F3.5 Macro IS PRO lense. Weekend is scheduled for testing.
I've been an avid amateur wildlife photographer and have had 7Dnkii and now have R6 , and what I struggle with is rising costs of mirror-less cameras. They are now truly in the range for Professions who can offset their costs of gear thru the sale of their work, Most avid amateurs are unable to do this and are in fact very happy if they are aski for permission to use one their images, for free, I truly believe cutting enthusiasts out of the quality camera market via price point is the end of many camera producers. Same really. That is why I watch you videos with a grain of salt as it very unlikely the enthusiast can afford anything close to your kit (envy). Camera makers need to find their way to lower retail prices and soon.
Great footage as always Duade. People might not realize how the weight helps in low light shooting circumstances with MFT. I recently finished my Great Horned Owl project along with my friend where we had to photograph the parents feeding the young, and their other routines as owlets fledged from the nest before sunrise. My OM-1 with Penleica 200mm F2.8 is so easy to handle comparing if someone with FF + 400mm F2.8 lens. I took two OM-1 one with 200mm F2.8 and one with 300mm F4 and had a fantastic time without any tripod. It was much harder for my friend with his R5 with 600mm F4 lens. In most situations before sun came up, he could only manage still and not any more fast moving shots. But his image quality of course are better than mine and that is to be expected.
Very good explanations and demonstrations of the differing cameras, sensors, and types of expectations in the field for nature. Thank you for sharing your results and your thoughts.
Nice to hear about M4/3. I'm a user of Olympus OM-1 and 300mm f4 - and sometimes to carry around Lumix 100-300mm 5,6 II. On the little island (Als) where I live in DK, there are several nice areas with birds - even a few with many migratory birds. However it is rather difficult to get really close at the birds (water, mud and legal restrictions). All in all M4/3 is a good compromise on weight and price for me. Olympus is a lot cheaper as you state. Your channel is of very great value for me even if you do prefer full frame! Thank you 😊
Wow. There is so much here that I cannot take it in in one viewing. I know a lot of this that you covered, but there are new explanations I have not heard before which answer some questions I've had on other things. This is a good video, worth making and worth posting. Thanks so much, Duade.
Excellent video I really liked your explanation of the differences, I have a 7d ii which has been superb, I recently bought a practically new 5ds the image quality is superb and I've started to use instead of the 7d ii even for motor sports although the frame rate is half of the 7d ii its worth it for the extra quality and being slower has made me slow down a bit and concentrate on getting the picture composed and exposed correctly now I'm trying to use it for bird photography when you get the shot right the quality is so superior to the 7d ii for me its worth the slower frame rate and the depth of field is also easier to control, I know the 5ds isn't really meant to be used for this type of photography but it can be done
Really great video. You covered the difference between the sensors very neutrally, which definitely isn't normal on this topic :). The main thing I wish we (photographers) could get away from is the word "crop." That a 35mm sensor is "full frame" is really an arbitrary distinction - certainly back in the film days, 35mm wasn't considered that. I get why people do it - as you mentioned, _relative to a 35mm sensor_ these sensors cover a smaller area, but they're designed that way -- nothing is chopped off. If you look at the equivalent megapixels by area that often really tells the story. My FF Pentax K-1 for example, is 36MP, my E-M1.2 covers 1/4 the area at 20MP, that's more than double the resolution...
Thanks Dion, yes, I agree and even I get confused, I got the image circle wrong and yes the Olympus and Fuji sensors are purpose built that size and not a crop and the lenses are designed to fit, I will be sure to mention this in the review. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade You are really awesome! Frankly, "crop" is the accepted term, so you're not faulted for using it, but there's no doubt it's led to a misperception that M43 is somehow inferior to FF. With all sensors, the biggest challenger we face is physics. Low light performance of M43 is generally worse than that of larger sensors, but that's mostly a function of pixel size. FF hits the challenge that aperture size is a function of the focal length and the size of the opening, so lower f/stop requires bigger equipment. No way around either of those. You hit absolutely perfectly the point, though - I don't think anyone in our community would say that M43 is objectively "better" than FF. Just that it takes great pictures, for a package that's much smaller and lighter. No wrong answers on sensor size - it's whatever you need to get the shots you want... Thanks again for the awesome review...
Thanks for the vid. I feel people obsess too much about blurry backgrounds and noise. I find that you can usable shots at 6400 ISO with the Canon R7 and even the Canon 90d. Also bear in mind that Adobe products don't seem to be able to deal with Canon raw files.
Colin the cockatoo is adorable! ♥️😭♥️ Your wife is very talented! Excellent video mate you sum things up really well, I am still very happy with my om-1 but ran into the same DOF issues you did with the 100-400 f6.3, ultimately I ended up selling that lens cause I hated it! Very happy with the 300mm f4 though. And with DXO DeepPrime I'm not shy about noisy images at all now, the tech has gotten so so good that I'm comfortable even shooting at 16,000iso. M4/3 definitely isn't for everyone though, if I was more able bodied I would have chosen a full frame but sadly even though I'm young the weight is just too much for me to carry round. You also definitely have to be careful with the om-1's dynamic range. Generally I shoot with +0.3 EV or sometimes 0.7 (auto iso on) because while the highlight recovery is excellent the shadow recovery is absolutely abysmal. Always better to slightly overexpose on the Om-1 unless youre shooting over water eg a lake.
Great video Duade! I would love to see you compare and contrast the new R8 to the R7. Most of the videos on the R8 are comparing it to the other full frame bodies which is understandable. Since the R8 and R7 are the exact same price but fairly different cameras I would love to see you compare them from a wildlife perspective. Cheers!
Excellent presentation To all the knowledgeable folk out there. If on a FF Canon you utilise the cameras crop mode, I understand it affects the megapixels but does it also affect the DOF like a crop camera?
my possibly wrong understanding here is the following: the DOF is defined by the optics' length in mm, its f-number and focusing distance. not by the sensor size that gathers the light projected by this piece of optics. Now, to get equivalent composition such as a bird filling the frame - FF allows you to move closer which results in getting shallower DOF. or you have to move further with APSC effectively increasing the DOF. This is happening by focusing the same piece of optics at closer or further distance. Then another topic is circle of confusion, which is a parameter accounted for in all the online DOF calculators, and leads to cropping causing shallower DOF, as applying larger magnification (from smaller sensor size to a defined print of size X) makes the previously smallest visibly sharp point become softer and more blurred, thus enhancing the DOF. You can take for example 'dofmaster' calculator and see that CoC for m43 is half of CoC for FF, and thus running the calc for the same hypothetical 500f4 mounted to both, we get 1/2 DOF with the m43 system for the >same distance< of a subject. Honestly I don't know what to make of this later point , as obviously by cropping into optics that doesn't have unlimited resolution, or cropping into an already captured image, we are blurring more the already blurred areas as well as blurring the previously sharp areas. So even though calculation wise it looks like it's the best idea to attach an astronomy telescope to a smartphone due to CoC and get the ultimate shallowest DOF, it may not be the highest quality approach in real life. Optics project only limited lines of resolution and the larger pixel-size sensors probably deals better with this limitation. Having said that I have little knowledge in this area and I ll be glad for being pointed wrong and the right way . back to the original question, it would sound funky to me, based on my understanding, if switching on DX crop mode would make your f5.6 into f4 DOF wise. yes you are "looking" from closer/magnifying the projected light more, so it is more blurry, but the impact is absolute across the image, it does not impact the relative difference between the areas being in focus compared to those being out of focus.
Exactly Martin, the sensor or choosing to use crop mode isn’t what affects your DOF. Crop sensor or crop mode literally just discards the outer part of your image, the rest is the same. The difference, as Martin has said, is when you use a shorter physical focal length, e.g. a 300mm f/4 on Olympus. It will have the same DOF as a 300mm f/4 on full frame or in crop mode. But when comparing it to full frame systems, people compare 300mm on m43 to 600mm on full frame because the fields of view are approximately the same, however the DOF on a 300mm f/4 is equivalent to a 600mm f/8, while a 600mm f/4 will have a much shallower DOF than the 300mm at f/4.
this is brilliant...s'funny tho i hear soooo many people (who own Olympus) always bragging about how much better their equipment is. i even had one "ambassador" say to me "suck on this, canon" whilst showing me a buffered BIF shot. i think you nailed it with the portability tho....key point... but one thing you do not cover is the macro element. yes, good walkabout, and i used to love my 180mm macro lens, but a 100mm macro is effectively a 200mm telephoto on a 4:3 no? and certainly not a .26m distance consideration where my flash and diffuser also need to be.... perhaps you don't shoot that too...but a critical consideration for me; as most of the macro (or snake, or lizard) shots i can set up so they are full frame, and i also need to be near enough to wrangle that bug sometimes...not something you need to do with birds, eh? thanks again....superb.
Quite a few well-informed folks such as yourself have highlighted the full range of pros and cons, including DOF, across these systems. Strange that manufacturers cite focal length equivalents, but not aperture equivalents when selling lenses. Great review and comparison. And to the point about being able to take great photos with any of these systems, I completely agree. But the added benefit of features like electronic shutter or eye and subject tracking or "heads-up" displays or customizable buttons on the more advanced cameras just make photography a bit easier and enjoyable for me as an older photographer. Thanks, Duade.
The major advantage of Micro 4/3 compared to APSC is it is cheaper to manufacture. Cheaper sensor, cheaper lens, but still show up good in specification data sheet. Btw, the sample bird photo is beautiful.
I love that we have such choice but I seriously can't wrap my head around the funky maths!! Back when I started taking pictures I didn't even know I had an APSC or what it even meant. I think if people have cameras they like no matter what kind they are that is all that really matters. But seriously thanks for breaking down the mind bending specs for us Duade! You really do make the confusing conversion sort of easy to understand! 😵💫
Lots of info for sure! Thanks, Duade! I'm still loving my Canon 7D ii DSLR, but I do plan on going R6 full frame to add to my kit when I can. Keep up the great work!
Hi Duade, I love your videos. So informative. I have spent hours pouring over your content. You do a wonderful job explaining everything in detail. Your videos have been so helpful to my bird photography. Thank you for the time you spend providing this information to those of us trying to learn. I love my OM-1 with the 300.
Where to start. Saying that there are fewer pixels on cropped sensors is really misleading, and, this case, wrong. The R5 is 45 megapixels. The R7 is 32.5. The OM-1 is 20. None of these numbers are affected by the size of the sensor alone, but also by the density of the pixels on the sensor. (I have a Canon 5D full frame camera with 12.8 MP.) According to this presenter, the OM-1 should have 11 MP because it's physically 1/4 the size of the full frame R5. Then there's the name of micro four thirds. The name is not because of the aspect ratio of the sensor but because of its size, which fits into a video tube sensor that's four thirds of an inch in diameter - weird but true.
Thanks for taking the time to comment, that was my error about the name, thanks for clearing that up. I was probably not clear enough regarding pixel size. I used 80mp to show that is how big a FF would need to be to have the same sized pixels as the OM1. I agree the R7 and Om1 having better density but the point I was making is the R5 has 45mp the OM1 has 20. So if I used a 600 f4 on the R5 and a 300 f4 on OM1 them the R5 will have more pixels. I do agree if shooting on a 300 f4 on FF at same spot the OM1 and R7 have advantage hence why I showed the Bee-eater example. But again I can get closer with the R5 and 300 f4 and have more megapixels if I fill the frame. I appreciate the feedback and will continue to try to be less confusing or misleading in the future. Cheers, Duade 👍
Nice and honest comparison between systems! As an olympus user for many years I happy with te results portability & price wise I can afford myself more compared to fullframe system and the size assures that I have my camera with me on every hike whithout hurting my back... Mostly 300F4 mm and 12-100F4 also 1,4 teleconverter works superb with the 300mm. The 100-400 is in my opinion not the right choice if you are "serious" in wildlife.... to much of a compromise of everything price / range / aperture & stabilisation ( 100-400 does not work together with bodystabilisation -- 300mm or 150-400F4,5 do so) I enjoy your content, so continue! Grtz
Hi Duade. Yet another great video, thank you. Really helps explain the pluses and minuses of the different formats. The size (and weight) of the M4/3 kit is really impressive and tempting. I seem to end up shooting at high-ish ISO settings in order to get a high enough shutter speed (can't afford or want to carry around a massive 500 F4 lens) for bird/wildlife photography so the larger the sensor the better for me. Also prefer the control of DOF with full frame. Having said that I just spent 6 weeks down under in your part of the world and you certainly have better/more light than we do up here in the North of the UK (well I'm sure the sun doesn't always shine down there but you know what I mean!). While we were down under we were with a friend who uses Olympus kit and he certainly seemed to do as well as I did with my R7 and RF 100-400. Thanks again.
Thanks John, yes, light can always be an issue, the Olympus 300 f4 is nice as you get f4 which lets in a lot of light. Yes, very lucky to get the light we do down here, cracking few days lately. I am sure you have many wonderful photos from the trip. Cheers, Duade
High Duade, I do subscribe and enjoy your videos but just a few comments. The olympus system is great for travel because of size but also for one other reason. My wife shoots with a sony A7R4 and the 200-600 and i use a OM1 with a 300 F4 often with the 1.4 TC. My wife constantly gets comments like "nice camera" from on lookers, my gear goes unnoticed. In recent trips in Kenya and Panama when we were walking in less secure areas the sony stays in the hotel and we carry only the OM1. I do agree it is probably more important to get exposure correct in camera but will say we need to stop talking about image noise. As you indicated lots of software handles image noise easily. What is important is how much detail does the camera retain at high ISO and I am amazed how well the OM1 does at high ISO. I also believe increased depth of field is an advantage for the OM1 not a disadvantage. In our trip to Panama 1/2 the images were taken in dense brush, my F4 was a great advantage over my wifes sony at 6.3 for keeping ISO lower. Also at F4 on the OM1 the entire bird was sharp not just the head or the tail which is a problem with full frame at F4. In post I will add a blur to the background and I get to decide what depth of field I want. I can have only the bird in focus or let the background show as I want.
