Title basically. I’ve been “long term renting” a few camera bodies by purchasing used gear with the intention of selling what I didn’t want to keep. I’m now at the point of thinning the heard. I’m partially writing this for myself, but am more than open to feedback :)
The cameras in the post photo are an OM-1 and an A7 III, but I’m really comparing the OM-1 against an A9 II. The A7 III is generally a solid camera, but its mechanical shutter is somewhat loud to use in places like museums with the kiddos and its electronic shutter catches tons of banding from modern lighting. Both the OM-1 and the A9 II solve that problem, although the A9 II does so a bit better (yay faster readout).
What do I take photos of?
Candid kids (playing, sports, etc), some pets, some bugs, some plants, some landscape. But mostly kids in various states of motion.
What lighting do I shoot in?
In other words, do I really need the ISO/DR performance? There are a few answers to this question. First, I shoot in a wide range of lighting:
Second, when I shoot in lower light I am able to decrease my shutter speed and/or use fast glass to keep ISO fairly low:
Third, I am wary of needing to push ISO in the future for faster motion + lower light, but this isn’t currently a concern.
What kind of lenses am I using these days?
For shorter distances, fast(ish) primes. On the long end, telephoto zooms.
On e-mount, I have a pair of Sigma 35mm lenses: their f/1.4 and f/2.0. The 2.0 is much more compact and is on the camera most of the time. I also have Sony’s 50mm 1.8, which I will likely upgrade if I keep the camera. Closing out my e-mount collection is Tamron’s 150-500.
On M43, I have the 25mm 1.2 pro and 12-40mm. I don’t yet have a long telephoto, but will buy one if I decide to stick with the OM-1.
OM-1 Pros
- Of the cameras in this comparison, the burst rate of the OM-1 is frankly nuts
- Feels more mechanical than it is. Turns on nearly immediately, even when sitting for a long time, and its controls are all very responsive
- New M43 glass is cheaper than FF glass, used M43 glass is very available
- M43 is a much more macro friendly mount, especially once you factor in 2x FF equivalency. For example, the 12-40 has 0.3x magnification, but when you factor in that the sensor is half the size of a FF sensor this is equivalent to 0.6x
- The promise of compact
- The promise of fast AF
OM-1 Cons
- Minor one first. Since the camera isn’t very popular accessories are somewhat harder to find and/or have less verity available
- Even when in focus priority, it will happily take photos that are out of focus. This seems to be more of an issue for humans than say birds, but I happen to want to take photos of humans
- Human face/eye detect works fairly well as long as faces/eyes leave the frame when they’re lost. If the face/eye stays in the frame, and the camera starts to lose focus, it will continue to indicate focus on the face/eye as it slowly goes soft
- FF lenses can be even more compact once you get into FF equivalency, especially when you get into shorter focal lengths. More on this later
- The depth of field preview thing bugs me. For those who haven’t shot M43, their preview (eg waving the camera around to get framing) and focusing happens wide open. They only step down when you’re taking photos. They do have a depth of field preview button you can use, but the workflow turns into: press button, camera steps down, focus, camera opens, take photo, camera steps down ‘just in time’
- If you want GPS coordinates in your photos the companion app is very silly. The OM-1 can encode GPS coordinates as you take photos, but only if you launch the camera app and record your location as you’re walking around. This requires you to take an action in the app. Leaving the app in this mode will drain your phone battery. Sony/Nikon/Fuji simply require the companion app to be running in the background on your phone
- This is a quibble, but in a series of photos the OM-1 will fiddle with exposure a lot more than any other camera I’ve used. It’s easy enough to address in post, but it’s somewhat distracting while culling two very similarly framed photos with slightly different expsorues
A9 II Pros
- Very easy to use autofocus. Set it to tracking flexible spot M or L, aim the camera at the thing you want, engage autofocus, forget about it
- If it loses a face eye, it tells you immediately and often before that face/eye is out of focus. I’ve taken very few out of focus photos with this camera
- Preview and focus are stepped down, although it will occasionally go wide open to acquire initial focus. Once focus has been achieved it will step back down
- Huge quantity of available glass to fit basically any need/use case
- Ability to push ISO
- Large ecosystem around the camera
A9 II Cons
- The HMI is laggy, the camera can take a long time to turn on if it has sat for a while
- Expensive glass
- Physical size/weight of of lens when you get into bigger focal lengths
One sentence each
A9 II = very easy to focus on taking photos (framing, depth of field, etc)
OM-1 = the promise of compact, very fast
On compactness
On the shorter side of the focal range: Once you factor in FF equivalency (2x better total light gathering thanks to surface area, 2 stop depth of field difference), my 25mm f1/2 turns into a 50mm 2.5. This means that I can put something like Sony’s 50mm 2.5 G or Sigma’s 50mm F2 DG DN on the A9 II and have very comparable image quality with a more compact lens.
On the telephoto end, my 150-500 spends a lot of time between 350 and 500. It’s a sharp lens, it focuses quickly, renders nicely, and I really appreciate 500mm. But it’s heavy at 1.7 kg and the zoom ring is pretty stiff. The closest M43 lens to it are the pair of 100-400s. They will admittedly gain me quite a bit of reach, but I don’t need that reach right now. Physically, they’re not much smaller than the 150-500, but they’re 600 grams (the Olympus) and 750 grams (the Panasonic) lighter respectively. I do wonder how sharp the Panasonic 100-400 is and am somewhat wary of the Olympus 100-400 since in Sony land its Sigma counterpart has the reputation for somewhat slow AF.
Which is more fun to use? That would be a major point for me. My favourite to use is my old oly em10, even though I have a “better” camera than that. Thinking about buying an em5 III in hopes I like it just as much, don’t think I’d sell the em10 though. I use mostly small primes and adapted manual lenses with it. Full frame I only have film cameras, which are fun too, but I have not used them in a good while.
I sold the OM-1 today :( it was hard to pack up the two lenses especially, they feel very nice on hand. The A7III and A9II are not always responsive, especially when turning on, but man are they easier for me to chase my kids around with. I also sold the A7III. The A9II with a compact prime like Sigma’s i series is actually more compact than the OM-1 with one of the 1.2 pros.
If you’re willing to give Sony a shot, the OG A9 is worth a look. The A9II has the same sensor and the A9 has had a ton of firmware updates that put its AF performance on par with the A9II. The biggest differences I remember are the buttons (they feel slightly nicer on the A9II) and the addition of an Ethernet port.
Great question, it really hits at the heart of my struggle. If you read between the lines of my post, it’s clear that I think more highly of the Sony. So why am I waffling? Why write a wall of text?
I haven’t been able to put my finger on it, but I just don’t love the Sony. It’s a very technically capable camera, its ecosystem is great, and it does disappear pretty effectively when you’re using it. I don’t hesitate to bring it with my on a family outing. In fact, I use it way more often than I used any other prior camera.
Maybe it’s the ergonomics. The OM-1, and the Z6II for that matter, have a more comfortable grip and feel somewhat better in hand. They also have more accessible control surfaces that you can use without taking your eye off the EVF. An example includes the two buttons on the front of the body by the lens mount.
Maybe it’s the responsiveness of the camera. The Sony is certainly a fast camera, but the OM-1 always turns on immediately. It will also blaze away at taking photos and seems to do so just a touch faster, granted I’m using third party glass on the Sony.
All that said, the Sony is just so easy to get great results with. I was messing around with the OM-1 and A9II yesterday while my kids were building legos. My youngest held their creation up after they completed every step, often in front of their face, and the OM-1 would consistently choose to focus on the lego. The A9II on the other hand stayed laser focused on his face much more consistently with its tracking AF.
Although my heart isn’t really in camp Sony, at the end of the day it’s probably better to have a reliable dance partner that you work well with than a drop dead gorgeous dance partner that steps on your toes.
I was toying with similar recently - have piles of FE gear and an A9m1, mostly do wildlife, so like children, fast focus, good tracking, and good burst, sans blackout if possible, are critical.
Got all the OM gear, including the OM-1, 100-400, 1.4x TC, kit 12-24 … played with it for a day or two, copied the images over to my laptop… and was floored by how bad the shots are compared to FF! I’ve been using FF for 12 years or so, so I think I’m just spoiled … every time I try something else (including an LX100m2 I picked up to try out as a travel camera), the IQ just kills me. Even running it through Topaz, it just doesn’t come out as sharp or crisp, with practically no room for cropping with the low MP count on the sensor (not that the A9 is much better in that regard).
I’ll have to go MFT one day, like so many people in my camera club … you get to an age where FF and that big heavy glass is just too much… but until I have to, my goto will always be the FF.
That’s the thing, I would say that the OM-1 is capable of delivering very sharp and low noise photos. Potentially even sharper than the A9II, due to either the OM-1 having a less strong AA filter than the A9II or my choice of glass on both bodies (first party ‘pro’ on the OM-1, third party and cheap first party on the A9II). You can see this in things like the shirts my kid wear - the stitching around the collars and seams, and even the weave of the shirts tends, to pop a bit more in the OM-1 photos.
The really frustrating thing with the OM-1 is that I know it can deliver very sharp photos. And yet it doesn’t do so fairly often because its focus system holds it back. Some of this might be due to brand philosophy. Set the A9II to focus priority and it will drop its burst rate to ensure every shot is in focus. Do the same on the OM-1 and the burst rate stays pretty high, resulting in more total shots but also more shots out of focus. I’ve done some sleuthing by wiring my phone up to the OM-1’s HDMI output and recording it focusing, and it seems like the AF algorithm will falsely claim focus. The thing behind the green focus box isn’t in focus and the camera’s green focus dot claims that focus has been achieved. This is something I do not see happen very often on either the A7III or A9II. Those two cameras very reliably indicate what they’re focusing on. If the green focus indicator isn’t where you want it, simply reacquire focus. On the OM-1, you have to judge both the focus indicator, as well as whether or not your intended subject is actually in focus.
I suspect I could work harder on the OM-1 to get better focus more consistently, but the A9II, and the A7III, are just so easy that I’m spoiled.
If you’re pushing ISO, the FF gear will obviously come out ahead. Thankfully, I rarely need to push ISO.
As for croppability, I’ve done some decent crops with the OM-1. If you look over in !beebutts@lemmy.world you’ll see a lot of cropped OM-1 bee photos that I’ve posted. Crop and pixel peep? On a high resolution display without exceeding 100% zoom, sure. On a lower resolution screen, maybe not so much. Prints shouldn’t be an issue unless you’re going to do a heavy crop and then print large.
As for weight, if you’re taking photos in the ‘normal’ focal length range and want shallower depth of field FF really is pretty competitive these days. Especially if you like primes. M43s do have very compact glass, but their FF equivalent f-stops are pretty high so I’ve found myself gravitating to fast M43 glass. It’s the telephoto end that M43 wins on. I could happily hand hold my D5300 + 70-300 (FF glass, but only 745 grams - half the weight of my 150-500) for hours on end. With the A9II and the 150-500, I find myself squatting/sitting and bracing my left arm against my leg, especially when I’m shooting baseball and my kid’s team is batting - I’m just sitting at the end of the fence bursting every time a pitch comes to try to get a good photo of each kid making ball contact. Lots of ‘ready position’.
If I were approaching the age where weight was really an issue, and I was mostly focused on wildlife with longer glass, I would go the monopod route. I’ve been avoiding one at my kid’s sports events due to wanting to keep a (somewhat) low profile. The 150-500 is still a pretty beefy lens though and now that my oldest is in coach pitch some of the kids are taking more notice. One even asked me if they were going to be in the news, lol. Sony’s 200-600 would probably be easier to handle, thanks to its super easy zoom action, but that lens is big. At least with the 150-500 I can walk past the stands fully zoomed out and locked in place.
Final thought: the best camera in the world is the one you’re carrying. If you’re not hesitating to grab the A91 then keep rocking it. If you’re hesitating, maybe consider going the M43 route. As for me? I continue to waffle. For daily use in the normal range, it’s the A9II with a prime hands down. I am tempted to sit on the OM-1 until this summer and rent/buy a used Panasonic 100-400 to see how it does. I’ll be using it mostly in the 100-250mm range, so it should be plenty sharp. But do I really want to have the $$ tied up in two bodies…
Yeah, I sent my A9 off for surgery - https://www.lifepixel.com/photography-gear/anti-aliasing-low-pass-filter-removal 😄
I think my initial “yuck” with the OM-1 was the 12-24 just taking bright landscape shots … everything looked, muddy. Of course, a kit lens on a Sony wouldn’t really shine either.
To be fair I did only give it a few days and then gave the whole lot of it to my dad who was shooting with my old FZ-1000.
And yes, with my 200-600G, monopod is a minimum, tripod if I know I’ll be stationary. Handheld is practically never, but I have in a pinch and with sufficient bracing, and for just one subject (before it flies or runs away typically), I can manage. And I’m only 44 😄 … hoping I can keep using it for another 10 years or so at least!
I only use that for wildlife though … for the odd recital or what have you the boy has, I bring the 70-200G with the 2x TC.
100% agreed about “the one you’re carrying”, which is why I haven’t actually put much money into anything lately - I do about 90% on my Xiaomi 13 Ultra, with a 1" sensor like was in my FZ-1000. I find I only use my big expensive gear when I actually go out to “do photography”, which is pretty rare these days. My son is 14 now too, so there’s way less recitals and games and events and such for me to shoot.
Groggy day today here for me, so a slightly rambley and discombobulated response, but, as I’ve typed it, I’d might as well post it now :-)
Yeah, I sent my A9 off for surgery - https://www.lifepixel.com/photography-gear/anti-aliasing-low-pass-filter-removal 😄
That’s pretty cool, the thought hadn’t crossed my mind previously. $350 seems a bit steep, but now I’m not going to be able to unsee this.
I think my initial “yuck” with the OM-1 was the 12-24 just taking bright landscape shots … everything looked, muddy.
I briefly shot the A9II and the OM-1 back to back again and sold the OM-1 to MPB :( Probably for the best long term, but it was a tough decision due to my lack of adoration for the A9II. I do greatly appreciate what it can do, I just don’t love it. The results do speak for themselves and the A9II’s tracking AF is just so easy to use.
And yes, with my 200-600G, monopod is a minimum, tripod if I know I’ll be stationary. Handheld is practically never, but I have in a pinch and with sufficient bracing, and for just one subject (before it flies or runs away typically), I can manage. And I’m only 44 😄 … hoping I can keep using it for another 10 years or so at least!
I’m 38 here, but even if you’re young and very athletic, holding 5-6 pounds in front of your face for an extended period of time still isn’t pleasant - especially if you’re not doing it frequently enough to build those muscles. What about the 200-600 puts you off, especially if you’re using a monopod?
I only use that for wildlife though … for the odd recital or what have you the boy has, I bring the 70-200G with the 2x TC.
No reticles or indoor sports here (yet?), but the 70-200GM does look like a very nice lens! So far I’ve been stubbornly sticking with primes for days I’m not doing sports photography, but the idea of a zoom with a touch more reach is kind of appealing. I’ve been circling the 70-200 F2.8 along with the F4 and F4 ii (quasi macro!) and Tamron’s 28-200. For whatever reason, a normal zoom doesn’t really appeal to me - I’m totally happy using my feet and know to bring a 35 with me if I’m going to be in a tighter space.
100% agreed about “the one you’re carrying”, which is why I haven’t actually put much money into anything lately - I do about 90% on my Xiaomi 13 Ultra, with a 1" sensor like was in my FZ-1000. I find I only use my big expensive gear when I actually go out to “do photography”, which is pretty rare these days. My son is 14 now too, so there’s way less recitals and games and events and such for me to shoot.
I guess I’m lucky in that my kids are younger and we are fortunate enough to be able to afford to be members at a couple of local attractions. Between visiting those places and going to parks, I’m out with the camera most weekends.
Groggy day today here for me, so a slightly rambley and discombobulated response, but, as I’ve typed it, I’d might as well post it now :-)
All good, I also tend to be a bit verbose so cheers!
That’s pretty cool, the thought hadn’t crossed my mind previously. $350 seems a bit steep, but now I’m not going to be able to unsee this.
I’m a Canadian, so $350 USD stings even worse, and the shipping hurts a little more too - still 100% worth it to me though! I liked the camera before, now I love it. And I’m barely even talking about the results - just the fact that it is my A9 now, and it’s different from other A9s, and imo better, LOL. I don’t know, it’s weird! Maybe a bit like customizing a car? I’m not sure, I’ve never done that, lol. The results do, at times, look sharper to me - but basically as soon as I got it back I said “oh crap, I should have taken some really controlled and repeatable ‘before’ shots so I could compare!”
I briefly shot the A9II and the OM-1 back to back again and sold the OM-1 to MPB :( Probably for the best long term, but it was a tough decision due to my lack of adoration for the A9II. I do greatly appreciate what it can do, I just don’t love it. The results do speak for themselves and the A9II’s tracking AF is just so easy to use.
Same, honestly, especially prior to the surgery. The fact that I got it used for less than an A7IV was a huge part of how I ended up with it and stuck with it - plus the stacked, blackout free business, especially with wildlife being my main passion! But there is a lot NOT to love about it - and mine is a Mark 1, so it’s got a couple extra things to dislike.
I’m 38 here, but even if you’re young and very athletic, holding 5-6 pounds in front of your face for an extended period of time still isn’t pleasant - especially if you’re not doing it frequently enough to build those muscles. What about the 200-600 puts you off, especially if you’re using a monopod?
Very true about the weight. Honestly not much puts me off about the 200-600, I love the thing to death … it just REALLY big and REALLY heavy, but that’s the price of admission with a lens with that kind of range and quality I suppose.
No reticles or indoor sports here (yet?), but the 70-200GM does look like a very nice lens! So far I’ve been stubbornly sticking with primes for days I’m not doing sports photography, but the idea of a zoom with a touch more reach is kind of appealing. I’ve been circling the 70-200 F2.8 along with the F4 and F4 ii (quasi macro!) and Tamron’s 28-200. For whatever reason, a normal zoom doesn’t really appeal to me - I’m totally happy using my feet and know to bring a 35 with me if I’m going to be in a tighter space.
I believe I looked at the GM and it doesn’t work with a TC so it was out for me (I believe, it has been a while since I did the research) … or maybe it was the weight … either way, as I was doing the research and planning the buy, the F4 ii came out and I pulled the trigger day 1 … probably my favourite lens … probably by a large margin 😀 … 100% agree too about the ‘standard zooms’, I had the Sigma Art 24-70 and did NOT love it. As you say, in that range super easy to just use your feet, and I think it weighed 2-3x what my primes do. I sold it to KEF and don’t think I’ve missed it even once since. Not to mention at that range, honestly, the 1" sensor in my Xiaomi 13 Ultra does a pretty bang up job! It’s 23mm native but has a very nice 46mm crop mode, so if I’ve got an inopportune prime on, really need a different length and can’t move, I just whip that out with no complaints.
I guess I’m lucky in that my kids are younger and we are fortunate enough to be able to afford to be members at a couple of local attractions. Between visiting those places and going to parks, I’m out with the camera most weekends.
Yeah, that’s a good time. It’s not long before they don’t want their picture taken, and shortly there-after they don’t want to do things with you lol! That’s when a camera club becomes worth it’s weight in gold 😀