Before commenting, 3 questions to think about :) 1. Ask yourself how many camera bodies you've reviewed and compared that are current and not outdated. 2. Why would OM Systems ask for my feedback on this camera personally in meetings if I was just trying to put them down? 3. I'm making less money on affiliate sales because I point out the downsides I notice about each camera :) So honesty is the only goal here
I've used as well and you are correct it helps a lot, but all current Denise programs still fall short of a truly clean image taken straight out of the camera. Even with denoising it, I didn't like the results once I start hitting 6400 and definitely not above that. And yes, I didn't talk about Pro Capture in the video but I mentioned them in some other reviews I did on it :) in regards to features, I wasn't disappointed in the slightest at this camera as I mentioned in the video
@@JeremyNeipp I am very suprised about your results. With DXO Lab (Deeprime XD), I got clean ISO-6400 files (similar to ISO-200). The results are so good, that I keep ISO on AUTO and I don't care what ISO value camera will pick up. For me ISO-12800 looks still fine.
I recently moved to the OM-1 from a Nikon D850 and could not be happier with my wildlife shots. I was very concerned with the size of the 20 megapixel sensor and it really has not been an issue. I also use denoise software which addresses my other concern.
Full Disclosure: I am in no way an OM user but I have fiddled around with the idea of switching systems ever since the OM-1 was announced. Have also had the opportunity to play with it for some time. I find it surprising that you found the autofocus to be subpar. Mathieu Gasquet from mirrorless comparisons rates this body as one of the best for BIFs out there. Not to mention other countless reviewers who have had similar shooting experience. I won't mention the experience of some of the 'OM ambassadors' because IMO they are heavily biased in their approach. Anyhoo I look forward to your reviews of the pro lenses!
I appreciate your response! I think that is the same reason why I was surprised to is because I’ve heard that the OM-1 is possibly the best BIF out there, but like I said I have a plethora of scenarios in which it underperformed through the course of a month with it. Once again it wasn’t bad, just not quite as good as I hoped. My perception from online reviews is that I would tack around 80%+ of my shots, when in reality I found it to be closer to 65% like I said, and I worked through every different focus sensitivity and I worked through different zones and modes to achieve my results. I’d personally rank it in the top 10-15 camera bodies currently available most likely, just not too 3 like it’s made out to be :) Good news is, the next lens review coming out was a shocker for me in a good way and probably the most pleased I’ve ever been with a prime lens! I hope you like that one! ☺️
Being the current owner of both the Nikon Z9 and the OM-1, I can clearly say that the af for photo is quite similar, both are nailing shots and the OM-1 is clearly on par with the best autofocus cameras out there and including the Sony A1. But, I agree that the af for video is very good and which is the reason I still shoot the Nikon Z9, the af for video is superior and it has bird eye af in video but it is a much heavier setup that I don’t use all of the them. I hope OM systems can improve the video af of the Om-1
Great perspective you share in both of your two comments 🙌🏻 I hope they can get video AF more up to par as well and like you said, ultimately you can’t cheat physics of a smaller sensor, but there can be certain scenarios where it’s just nice to use the MFT tool. Thanks for sharing 🙌🏻
I appreciate you reviewing the OM gear. I think you missed out on some of the features though. People watching this will get the impression that the OM-1 has less than stellar AF. I came to the OM-1 from the Canon R5 and R6 and I have used both the A1 and Z9 briefly. The OM-1 AF stands up well to all of them in AF. I have not tried the Panasonic S5ii due to the poor (IMO) lens selection for birds. It almost sounds like you were using Subject detection and C-AF with tracking. That doesn’t really work very well. If not then it’s something else like settings or a damaged review unit. What it will do is shoot 50fps without blackout while autofocusing. It has Pro Capture which works better than other implementations. I have not found noise to be an issue with AI noise reduction. I primarily use the 300mm F4 with both TCs. Sharpness is excellent even at 1200mm equivalent. Again thanks for doing the review.
I agree with your sharpness evaluation of that lens, 100% it’s one of the sharpest out there as you’ll see me mention in my lens review on it 😍 I did use both C-AF and S-AF in different scenarios (mostly used S-AF), so my results were talked about accordingly. To be fair, my standard of a good AF is very high and I wouldn’t define any AF system I’ve ever used as “stellar”, so I think it comes down a lot to what scale you are judging on. Until the day an AF is able to provide me with 90%+ hit rate, I’ll personally be waiting to call a camera AF “stellar” for wildlife photography ☺️ And in regards to noise it is a tricky topic as it comes down largely to someone’s pickiness and taste. Personally, I am very strict with my noise levels so I am very easily displeased, and compared to other FF cameras I’ve recently tested, this camera isn’t close in noise control. So my comments are made accordingly. You are totally right though that the S5II does lack a great lens selection right now 👌 I appreciate your response! Hope you’re able to check out my 300 lens review sometime as I think you’ll agree with me alot on that one ☺️
Hi, thanks for a comprehensive review, your honesty is greatly appreciated. I've had an OM-1 for some time now (switched from FF for weight reasons mainly, and the subject detect and AF capabilities). I don't shoot much video so can't comment on that, but I haven't noticed the AF issues with still shots that you mention. I find that changing the sensitivity in cluttered surroundings (easy to set up a button for this) fixes all of the 'stickiness' issues. One of my biggest learnings was not to use "C-AF with tracking" for birds, but to just use C-AF. I do find that for BIF maybe one shot in 5 will be soft, but given we get 25 or 50fps that I can easily live with. I'm sure you will have seen his channel already, but for very detailed OM-1 reviews, usage and settings (and a Sony comparison) I highly recommend Mike Lane.
Thank you! :) and thanks for sharing your experience. For whatever reason, I wasn't getting very different results as I changed my sensitivity settings, so idk. In regards to C-AF I didn't have it on tracking most of the time so I don't think that was a problem either. I have seen a video or two of Mike Lane but I haven't seen his OM-1 content so I'll have to check that out! Glad you're enjoying your OM-1
I've shot the OM-1 + 300/4 for almost a year now. The autofocus performance in stills shooting is much better than video. The issues you were referring to and footage you used to reference the issues appear to be video shooting (it looks like 4K video recorded in camera, rather than using an external recorder to record live video of stills performance while shooting photos). If you are indeed getting only 60% in stills shooting, I'd be curious to see some footage of that with external recorder. I have read on forums before that some users had poor autofocus performance on the OM-1, and it was fixed after they sent the camera in for repair. Just from reading what users have reported, I do think the OM-1 quality control has not been very consistent. My body already shows some signs of paint loss, and I take very good care of it. None of my other bodies have paint loss, and they've been used longer too. It's possible that your unit was faulty if you're only able to achieve 60% hit rate in stills shooting. On the topic of ISO performance, the standout poor noise performance samples you provided were heavy crops of a very far away, small subject. If a full frame body shot the same photo at the same ISO level, using the same lens focal length (not equivalent focal length, but lens focal length), and then cropped to match the same framing on the OM-1 sample, the noise performance would be identical. When comparing two photos, cropped or magnified to the same framing for noise examination, full frame sensors will only see a noise performance advantage if they are using a lens with more reach. When comparing equivalent lenses - the noise performance will be identical. I'm not sure if you understand what I mean, or why this is the result. I can make a video to explain if you are unsure.
I appreciate your response! You definitely aren’t wrong that the photo AF is much much better than video. And you’re right about the clips I show being shooting 4K video and not external recorded… unfortunately, I’ve found it too cumbersome to try to shoot with an external recorder attached when I go out to do wildlife photography on the go so I don’t take the time to do so. So unfortunately I can’t show external recorded footage so I can only speak from undocumented experience or from my Live Streaming experiences that people can join me on. That’s something I could definitely improve on showing in my reviews if I take the time + investment to do so, so I appreciate you showing that it matters to you and I’ll throw it in the suggestion box 🙌🏻 With that being said, it’s definitely possible I have a bad model, although generally I’ve found that Wildlife Photography reviewers as opposed to other types of photographers/videographers in specific “overrate” the quality of their retained shots. So either that means in general I review harsher than others, or generally others review too generously. So I guess you can take your pick haha :) to give context, the best camera I’ve ever used for photos I would argue has a 70% landing rate, so 60% isn’t bad. In regards to noise control, I understand what you mean, but I wouldn’t say that’s accurate and it’s a misconception in my understanding. I could compare side-by-side examples of the same exact focal length or crop between the S5II and OM-1 and the difference is very clear between the two. Better yet, I could show an old GX8 and compare it with the S5II and one will see a night and day difference. What it mostly comes down to is pixel density (A.K.A how many pixels are crammed into a physical amount of space), but it also is effected by much more. Maybe I’ll put up a simple photo comparison on my Instagram sometime demonstrating the examples of noise control all else equal 👌
@@JeremyNeipp when I tested high ISO performance using the same lens and same crop on my 5DSR vs OM-1, the OM-1 had much less noise. Full frame cameras have better high ISO noise performance because the larger sensor collects more light. But if you are comparing samples that have been cropped to the same framing, using the same lens focal length, the full frame setup will require 2x the amount of cropping to achieve M43 framing - the more you crop in, the more visible the noise. At the end of the day, you can't cheat physics. Once you crop a full frame image to match the framing of a M43 camera, you are cropping away the sensor size advantage - the region of the image being examined consists of physically the same area on the sensor. Higher pixel pitch gives worse noise performance per pixel, but it doesn't give worse noise performance per area. So, it depends on how you are comparing. If you are zooming in to match pixel density (more zoom on higher pixel pitch photo), then yes, the higher pixel pitch sensor will have more visible noise. But if you are comparing the same framing, the higher pixel pitch sensor will generally give cleaner files, since there is more data to work with in noise reduction and more pixels to average correct color when resampling.
Hello Jeremy, i like so much this review and as a user of this OM-1 since February 2023 coming form OM em1 mark III which was there previous flagship camera but with no bird detect. both camera are quantum leap compared to the OM em 5 mark II where i come from, yet in both bodies i never felt i had to give up finetuning with MF, as i do with many other systems dslrs or mirrorless, old or modern. in the OM-1 i have noticed two ways for its C-AF + bird detect, if the bird in hopping from a branch it struggle to keep it in focus, even if the surrounding is uncluttered. but if the bird is moving erratically, like what happened with one sunbird as it was perched normally, then it hung up-side-down to the flowers, then it started to hover over the flowers all within less than 4-5 sec, to my mega surprise all, yes all the shots about 60-70 are tack sharp, for me as a very slow person those hovering shots were not possible even in my wildest dreams. so yes there is a need for serious update for the CAF. regarding the high ISO performance, yes the 4000+ flies are noisy, but easy to clean in Topaz and DXO and get fabulous results, now i don't hastate to go even 10000.
Thanks for sharing your experience! It’s interesting to hear your similar AF experience as an OM user. And you’re right about DxO and Topaz being very helpful to clean up, I tend to have a very tough threshold on how I critique noise in my images so that’s helpful to know in how I review things most likely. Thanks for sharing! ☺️
Great review of MFT Jeremy I've just brought the mk1 of this body after being with Nikon for some 40 years, and at 70 it's a ideal set up for me and for the bird/wildlife I now shoot, with your review I would buy the latest body if it wasn't for the cost, thanks for taking the time to review the OM Systems camera and lenses.
I switched from a Nikon D7200 with full frame lenses and do not regret my move to the OM-1 and their M43 lenses. My only disappointment is the drop from 24 to 20 MP between these cameras. Otherwise, the weight and maneuverability on small watercraft is truly amazing. ISO performance is as good as the APS-C camera. This includes their cleanup capability in post. I would never compare the OM-1 to full frame cameras. I dropped FF over a decade ago because of their poor reach for wildlife. When compared to a flagship Nikon APS-C camera and their APS-C specific lenses, OM-1 dramatically outperforms Nikon.
Jeremy, great review. Portability and lower cost are two features full-frame has a hard time matching compared to the OM-1 when it comes to bird photography. To many amateurs, and some professionals, less low-light performance, might be mitigated enough by seven-stops of stabilization, noise reduction software and very good AF. It wouldn't surprise me if OM owners are even a little more motivated to get up in the morning knowing they won't feel like they need a Sherpa by the end of the day. I'd be curious to see you try out a Canon R7 and 100-500mm lens as a full-frame alternative birding alternative. Admittedly, It will probably take a full-frame camera to "beat" a full-frame camera but, for some of us, coming in a close "second" might be everything we need. Some of your own results suggest FF isn't always needed. These matchups are interesting and giving MFT a look is appreciated for those of us who shoot a format that was practically declared "dead" on one RU-vid channel. Thanks.
Thanks Bruce! Very well said in your statement. MFT definitely isn’t “dead”, just a different tool. A tool that will may never be able to “technically” outperform a FF, but may be a better tool in certain scenarios where portability is required and depending on the user. I was pleased with my experience with it and like you said my own results show that you can still capture great stuff with it. I’d love to get to try an APS-C like the R7 soon, we will see where I get to head next!
@@JeremyNeippmost definitely. Being a current owner of both the Nikon Z9 and OM-1, I reach out for the OM-1 clearly more because of its lightweight and versatility but for ultimate image quality, it can’t beat the Z9 especially for bird in flight. You can’t cheat physics but for what it is and what it can do, the OM-1 is a great tool for wildlife photography but if they can improve its af in video, I definitely will use it more.
@@JeremyNeippthe point here is : MFT doesn’t need to outperform or try to outperform FF Cameras. They are different tools. In the opposite way also FF will never technically outperform the MFT advantages (size and weight- lens included, sensor temperature and readout, iBIS, etc…). I’m working and using different Camera brands and sensor sizes since 1998 and I cannot find something better than MFT for what I do. 50KM+ a day in the mountains and forests in Europe and South America for climbing and photography adventures. In my opinion MFT should be the better alternative for most people. I tend to use FF only in very specific situations and conditions. When FF the right tool is!
Must also remember, the price difference between the OM-1 and the others is a point. The OM-1 is more affordable then others. I have shot at ISO4000+ and it cleans up great with DXO PhotoLab or ON1 NoNoise AI.
100%, taking pricing into account is crucial and that's how I always judge it at the end of my reviews. The most recent S5II release made this camera a lot harder of a sell for the price however as I mentioned. And I was able to clean up decently with 4000 as well, but getting much higher than that I felt got too "pastel" like when I'd through it through denoisers.
Thanks for another great video and honest review, your findings with the autofocus mirror my own findings to the point I'm considering a trade in hit to either fujifilm or the s5ii. Would you consider the s5ii autofocus to be better at sticking on a subject? Thanks again.
Glad you found it valuable! 🙌🏻 In regards to photo: I feel the S5II is ever so slightly worse at finding focus initially (roughly 5% worse), but the S5II is quite a bit better at keeping focus once it’s locked (roughly 15% better). In regards to video: the S5II is definitely better at finding and sticking focus (I’d argue 25%-30% more accurate) so in video the OM-1 definitely suffers
I'm not sure which MFT camera models you handled, but the E-M1 lineup and especially the E-M1X has always had great build quality. And yeah, for stabilization ratings, i mentally have to add "for the sensor format". In addition to lens weight differences, those CIPA ratings seem to neglect how much more work a bigger sensor has to do to stabilize than a smaller sensor does. Physics works to the smaller sensor's advantage here. Also I think this is the first time I've heard of someone wanting camera settings to be the same between photo and video. I like the frankness of the user experience. I guess luminescence noise tolerance is a matter of taste. But I also don't get paid to do wildlife photography so i don't really know how well noise is tolerated at higher ISOs by others, but I'm perfectly fine with it for myself in equipment older than the OM-1 (as recent as the E-M1X and going all the way back to the first Olympus DSLR, the E-1) at ISO levels beyond the level of comfort described here and will just denoise to taste. Denoising isn't a panacea but throwing in a little bit doesn't hurt detail much. All that matters is getting a good moment in the end, like an unusual behaviour or a nice posture.
Ditto on the image stabilization, I’ve been learning about those sensor format differences as well in regards to that. And you’re totally right about noise levels also being a preference/taste if you will. What I deem “unusable” someone else may consistently be okay with. I typically find my standard for quality of image to be much higher than most, so I judge my cameras accordingly. Thanks for bringing that up!
Not that i think it's the case here but I've nlticed some other brand camera users aren't aware of some features that make challenging bird photography easier on the OM-1. Features such as a highly customizible AF area make shooting with bird detect AI very usable for busy scenes unlike in some Canon models where the whole area is always active when bird detect is active. Another little-known feature that makes BIF shooting a breeze especially for very fast, small birds flying low against busy backgrounds is the AF limiter. AFAIK no other camera has this feature.
I dont know what feature that would get me to go back to Olympus (OEM-system). It just comes down to the bad low light compared to a FF, I dont think if it had the best af, stabilization or fastest fps I wouldn't make the switch, sadly!
Yea that’s definitely the most challenging part for me as I mentioned. I really like a clean image and that makes it difficult to see myself moving back to MFT with the lighting conditions I often shoot in 👌
I would love to! Unfortunately I haven't been able to get connected with Nikon or Canon yet to do reviews on any of their gear, but I am trying to see if I can get my hands on the new Z8 currently. No guarantees though
Best noise reduction is DXO PhotoLab or DXO PureRaw with Deep PRIME. There is Deep PRIME XD but only use it for lower high ISO to sharpen the image because it uses A.I. and it can leave artifacts. Lightroom new noise reduction is second best. So e the other noise reduction programs I'm not a fan of.
You seem to talk about IS in photos but only illustrate it with video footage taht is extremely jerky. It always try to lock the frame no matter what until it gives in and jerks. Panasonic or Canon R5 for that matter don't behave like that. The image floats constantly to smoothen the jerks. For telephoto it is much more appropriate way of dealing with movement. BTW I don't review cameras but own(ed) all the cameras I talk about and much more.
If that's what you consider extremely jerky that's your preference :) to me, I've never seen footage as stable as I showed at 1000mm ff equiv. Remember, these tests are all down standing and handheld with no stabilization for my elbows so it's in the tougher scenario to truly test it. Once, again, this is 800-1,000mm so double the focal length of what you'll often see with ff cameras. I own many Panasonic cameras, I've used Sony and Nikon many times before, and all of them have fallen short of what I experienced with the OM-1. If anything, I'd be most biased towards Panasonic since they are my favorite camera brand and I own mostly Panasonic bodies.
@@JeremyNeipp I used Sigma 60-600 + Tc-14. I swayed a lot but there were never any jerks on R5. This looks much more pleasant to my eyes. With OM-1 if you can keep shakes within certain amplitude it is rock-steady. But once it exceedes that, it gives badly. Those jerks are hard to watch.
Hallo, nur gut das diese Objektiv so teuer ist, wir könnten alle eines haben, aber so haben es nur Leute die Reich sind und nun angeben können, schaut her was wir können? Traurig.
How niaive can you be? You get free loaner gear and outstanding support because they know you're already on the OM team. Great customer support for its ambassadors/marketing partners doesn't help those of us who pay for their gear and don't get free loaner gear. I notice you have fingerless gloves. Good idea, especially with the OM-1's poor ergonomics that make it nearly impossible to use the front dial (which fails). I've owned the OM-1 for a year. It's a purchase I regret. If it lived up to half of the hype it would be a good camera. This will be the last m43 camera I buy.
I don’t get paid anything by them ever and I didn’t keep to get any gear just as I mentioned in the video. If you look at the comments you’ll notice that if anything I was more harsh on the camera than more people would think, so I’m not sure where your defensiveness is coming from?
Nothing will bring me back to M43. I am into bird photography and this mostly early in the morning or late in the afternoon to catch the golden hour. M43, and it does not which camera you use, simply is super poor in high ISO or low light performance. All the statements saying you can use Denoize to cope with this is nonsense, you lose details, it is not the same as a with a clean shot. Especially when you take JPG images directly. You can get today for the same amount of money a top FF camera with a decent lens for Wildlife, like a Sony 2000-600mm. Such a combo is much more useable for Wildlife than M43. Time for M43 is simply over and this for good.
