Olympus OM-1

[Mark Romero 2]

4 hours ago, M_Williams said:

I love Olympus cameras but they always had the worst menus.

You never used the old Sony menus, huh?

[MrSMW]

It's growing on me, I have to say...

Just watched Chris Eyre-Walkers review...and I know he's somewhat biased being an Olympus ambassador and all that, but...

First half, especially the picture review in the frozen North, I thought, nah. It's OK, but I wouldn't kick my full frame 47mp S1R out of bed for it.

But then I watched his second project with the MTB and focus on video and really liked it.

OK, it was shot with cinema primes and a crew of 7, but really really nice output.

The talk is that the OM-1 is going to be the more stills orientated compared with the GH6...and the GH6 will probably have the video chops over the OM-1, but I think as things stand, I'd still be leaning more towards the OM-1 at this time for my hybrid needs.

[M_Williams]

5 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

You never used the old Sony menus, huh?

Oh absolutely, a6000 was my first mirrorless camera. There are some ways Olympus menus are certainly better than the old Sony menus, but they really needed to be reorganized. It's just a result of the sheer number of features the cameras have.

[John Matthews]

This guy has some low-light slow-mo footage. Interesting review, but I hate mouth-open thumbnails- sorry about that! He only has 500 subs.

 

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

4 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

This guy has some low-light slow-mo footage. Interesting review, but I hate mouth-open thumbnails- sorry about that! He only has 500 subs.

 

How in hell a guy with 500 subs get a pre-production camera, and some OM embassadors not?

(we know the answer)

[MrSMW]

Never mind the 500 subs or the open mouth thumbnail, I’m just a bit disappointed he didn’t demonstrate how to barn dance.

#CottonEyeJoe

[Amazeballs]

23 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

There is savings in the lenses that should be taken into account.

Ok, let's do a fact check on this one. MFT vs FF.

1. Olympus 12-100 f4 - 1300$

1. Tamron 28-200 f2.8-5.6 - 729$. Same weight.. but in terms of m43 it has f1.2-2.8 aperture! And its almost half the fricking price! Nice macro capabilities as well. 

2. Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 - 1300$ (534 gramm)

2. Tamron 17-28 f.28 - 900$ (420 gramm). Yes, the range is a bit smaller,  but f1.2 in MFT terms plus its even lighter. 

So in no way MFT lenses are cheaper or smaller, lets forget that crap already. Add Samyang tiny 1.8 primes for Sony E and you are set. 

So if you pick up a Sony A7IV and those two zooms, you will end up with quite a cheaper set. 

Olumpus: 2200 body + 2600 for those 2 zooms = 4800$ total

Sony: 2500 body + 1600 for 2 zooms = 4100$ total

Now, it doesnt mean that FF is better in all occasions, all depends on your use case. Just dont see any price\size advantage over it from MFT. 

 

[webrunner5]

Yeah really nice lens from any manufacture is not cheap. I have had like 3 or 4 different brands of cameras at the same time and I find no cheap way to go on any of them other than older glass, and even then Nice older glass is more than new stuff. No way to beat the system.

  Now sure size wise it is really hard to beat M4/3, but for video hardly anyone uses a longer lens. For birding yeah super long lens do look pretty stupid. The Nortrups are a great example of looking well, like jackasses using them. So yeah for super long lens needs yeah I would vote for M4/3.

[webrunner5]

Now for REALLY long use a B4 2/3" ENG lens on a M4/3 camera and you are easily over 1000mm.

[John Matthews]

1 hour ago, Amazeballs said:

Ok, let's do a fact check on this one. MFT vs FF.

1. Olympus 12-100 f4 - 1300$

1. Tamron 28-200 f2.8-5.6 - 729$. Same weight.. but in terms of m43 it has f1.2-2.8 aperture! And its almost half the fricking price! Nice macro capabilities as well. 

2. Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 - 1300$ (534 gramm)

2. Tamron 17-28 f.28 - 900$ (420 gramm). Yes, the range is a bit smaller,  but f1.2 in MFT terms plus its even lighter. 

So in no way MFT lenses are cheaper or smaller, lets forget that crap already. Add Samyang tiny 1.8 primes for Sony E and you are set. 

So if you pick up a Sony A7IV and those two zooms, you will end up with quite a cheaper set. 

Olumpus: 2200 body + 2600 for those 2 zooms = 4800$ total

Sony: 2500 body + 1600 for 2 zooms = 4100$ total

Now, it doesnt mean that FF is better in all occasions, all depends on your use case. Just dont see any price\size advantage over it from MFT. 

 

It sounds like you made the right choice for yourself, given your criteria.

Personally, I wouldn't have chosen any of those lenses to make the comparison as they are huge lenses from the first-party manufacturer versus a bunch of third-part stuff. By the way, not all M43 cameras and lenses are big (GM1=204g + a tonne of under 150g, pocketable primes to choose from) and many of them have much better IBIS, especially with longer lenses; so, not really apples to apples here. Is that Tamron 28-200 a fully metal constant aperture lens with IBIS that works perfectly with the body and heavily weather-sealed with a MF clutch system that's probably the best in the industry?

I don't buy anything new unless heavily discounted (like 50% off or free, with full warranties) and most of the time I buy used. The fact is that there are so many good, small M43 lenses for dirt cheap because of people saying FF is the greatest thing in the world and anyone serious SHOULD use FF. Please keep saying it too because I want more people to ditch their M43 stuff so I can keep buying it for ridiculously good prices. If I don't like the lens I buy, I usually sell it for more than I got it for. In my experience, you have a lot more risk with anything FF because the prices end up being way more and you'll be lucky to partially get your money back.

Sometimes I think the mere existence of M43 pisses FF users off. It's funny.

[webrunner5]

There is no such thing as dirt cheap M4/3 lens that are the top end stuff. Any 2.8 even F4 stuff is damn expensive even if itis 5 years old. Yeah Kit lenses are cheap, but they are cheap from any company. The only great, relatively cheap lens for M4/3 is the 14-140mm. I think they are a bargain, and the later ones are Really good end to end. But they are hardly great for video.

The Olympus ones with the clutch in them for manual focus is the way to go video wise, but you had better have some deep pockets to buy them.

[John Matthews]

7 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

There is no such thing as dirt cheap M4/3 lens that are the top end stuff. Any 2.8 even F4 stuff is damn expensive even if itis 5 years old. Yeah Kit lenses are cheap, but they are cheap from any company. The only great, relatively cheap lens for M4/3 is the 14-140mm. I think they are a bargain, and the later ones are Really good end to end. But they are hardly great for video.

The Olympus ones with the clutch in them for manual focus is the way to go video wise, but you had better have some deep pockets to buy them.

Olympus 12-100mm f/4 is 800 euros used all day long.

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 is sub 300 euros used.

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 is 800 euros used.

All of those are PRO level gear for much less than retail.

Olympus 12mm = 350 euros

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 = 250 euros

Olympus 75mm f/1.8 (my fav) = 350 euros

All the Olympus f/1.2 primes are almost always 700 euros or less.

All of those lenses are awesome lenses for far less than retail.

[ac6000cw]

13 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

The only great, relatively cheap lens for M4/3 is the 14-140mm. I think they are a bargain, and the later ones are Really good end to end. But they are hardly great for video.

The Pana 14-140mm 3.5-5.6 is actually my favourite lens for video, especially as it supports dual-IS2 stabilization with the higher-end Panasonic cameras. It's certainly the lens that's been on more foreign trips than any other I own. Just wish they'd make a version of it with power zoom - I can dream...

Next favourite is the Pana 12-60mm 3.5-5.6 - very cheap used, weather resistant, light weight, minimal focus breathing, dual-IS2 support, and works nicely on my E-M1 II as well as the Panasonic cameras.

[webrunner5]

Yeah, the Pana 12-60mm 3.5-5.6 is a really nice, not too expensive lens. Very true. I am not a fan of a video lens that doesn't have a constant aperture. The 14-140mm is not so hot for that. Now for Photography, sure no problem.

And you are right, the Pana 12-60mm 3.5-5.6 on a GH5 is a dream stabilized package.

[webrunner5]

46 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

Olympus 12-100mm f/4 is 800 euros used all day long.

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 is sub 300 euros used.

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 is 800 euros used.

All of those are PRO level gear for much less than retail.

Olympus 12mm = 350 euros

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 = 250 euros

Olympus 75mm f/1.8 (my fav) = 350 euros

All the Olympus f/1.2 primes are almost always 700 euros or less.

All of those lenses are awesome lenses for far less than retail.

A $1000.00 for me in retirement, or anyone not making a living doing this stuff is a bridge too far. High end lenses are a hard sell for non pros. Sure if you are going to stay on that platform for years and years but thigs are moving Way too fast to stick to one brand now. There is just a lot of great stuff out now. Heck look how cheap the Sony A7 IV is. And that is a pretty amazing camera for the money.

[John Matthews]

 

[John Matthews]

Here's the final product. Cool!

[John Matthews]

15 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

A $1000.00 for me in retirement, or anyone not making a living doing this stuff is a hard sell. High end lenses are a hard sell for non pros. Sure if you are going to stay on that platform for years and years but thigs are moving Way too fast to stick to one brand now. There is just a lot of great stuff out now. Heck look how cheap the Sony A7 IV is. And that is a pretty killer camera.

I disagree. People spend vast sums of money on phones, just to have the latest camera. Just buy a proper camera and lens, it'll be great. I don't stick to one brand as I have lots of Panasonic stuff; however, I stick with one format because it would get super-expensive otherwise.

[Amazeballs]

3 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Personally, I wouldn't have chosen any of those lenses to make the comparison as they are huge lenses from the first-party manufacturer versus a bunch of third-part stuff.

Thats not a valid argument anymore. Those "3rd party lenses" as you call them are all premium quiality. Even new Samyangs are and Tamrons or Sigma lenses can compete with first party lenses from Sony in a heartbeat. 

I am glad that used m43 gear is becoming more accesible cos frankly I always though of it as overpriced. 

[kye]

6 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Never mind the 500 subs or the open mouth thumbnail, I’m just a bit disappointed he didn’t demonstrate how to barn dance.

#CottonEyeJoe

If you think that guy with his Russian accent is hick, you need to adjust your expectations....

 

6 hours ago, Amazeballs said:

Ok, let's do a fact check on this one. MFT vs FF.

1. Olympus 12-100 f4 - 1300$

1. Tamron 28-200 f2.8-5.6 - 729$. Same weight.. but in terms of m43 it has f1.2-2.8 aperture! And its almost half the fricking price! Nice macro capabilities as well. 

2. Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 - 1300$ (534 gramm)

2. Tamron 17-28 f.28 - 900$ (420 gramm). Yes, the range is a bit smaller,  but f1.2 in MFT terms plus its even lighter. 

So in no way MFT lenses are cheaper or smaller, lets forget that crap already. Add Samyang tiny 1.8 primes for Sony E and you are set. 

So if you pick up a Sony A7IV and those two zooms, you will end up with quite a cheaper set. 

Olumpus: 2200 body + 2600 for those 2 zooms = 4800$ total

Sony: 2500 body + 1600 for 2 zooms = 4100$ total

Now, it doesnt mean that FF is better in all occasions, all depends on your use case. Just dont see any price\size advantage over it from MFT. 

Compare them to the Canon L-mount glass or Sony G-Master lenses and see how that comparison goes!

However, you're missing the point.

You can't buy an apartment for 1/5th the price of a house just because it's 1/5th the total area - that's not how houses work.  The reason that they don't scale is because both provide a place to live, and both probably have the same number of kitchens and how water heaters and air conditioners etc.  
A GoPro is maybe 5% of the weight of a large DSLR camera, but it's not 5% the price because both are cameras that you can use to take images, and both have a lens, sensor, SD card writer, screen, etc.

MFT has the same features as a FF camera, it provides much the same value to the customer as a FF camera (takes photos, video, etc) and still takes the same kind of money to manufacture (takes the same number of chips and electronics and the same number of people in a factory to assemble it using the same number of steps in the various processes etc).

FF has more options for shallow DoF - sure.  If you accept that you won't match the DoF then MFT is smaller and lighter.

It's not a competition....

4 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

There is no such thing as dirt cheap M4/3 lens that are the top end stuff. Any 2.8 even F4 stuff is damn expensive even if itis 5 years old. Yeah Kit lenses are cheap, but they are cheap from any company. The only great, relatively cheap lens for M4/3 is the 14-140mm. I think they are a bargain, and the later ones are Really good end to end. But they are hardly great for video.

The Olympus ones with the clutch in them for manual focus is the way to go video wise, but you had better have some deep pockets to buy them.

Actually, not always.  There were no cheap kit lenses for the Canon flagship DSLRs like the 5D.  It came with constant f2.8 zooms, which aren't cheap at all.

If you don't care about shooting a lens wide-open then actually most lenses are great.  "F8 and be there" works spectacularly well on most lenses.  Besides, the kit lens limitations actually tend to look a lot like the characteristics of vintage lenses.......  check out this comparison I made.