Help me spend my money (Page 5): Yeah, I was being silly. I had some issues like that recently--balance, and lack of depth perception due partly to AMD, climbing 1500 feet up to the...

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

Blaster34 wrote:

Climbing a wet, very rocky, slippery hillside was a piece of cake years ago but now with balance issues, these are no longer in my capabilities, thus the falls…maybe next time I should rent a helo…😊.

What did Clint say? “A man’s gotta know his limitations…Cheers

Yeah, I was being silly. I had some issues like that recently--balance, and lack of depth perception due partly to AMD, climbing 1500 feet up to the top of the mesa on a canoe/camping trip in the loswer canyons of the Rio Grande.

Much of the problem was discovering how out of shape I was!

Any wasy, all the best.

Mcobean Loc: Center Florida

Blaster34 wrote:

Just got back from Scotland, England and Iceland, ... (show quote)

Love this! Thanks

thorondor

You wont see a big improvement with OM-1's MFT sensor compared to RX10's 1-inch sensor, high ISO is average at best. At least go for an APS-C or Full Frame sensor camera. I used Olympus and Panasonic MFT's hated the image quality.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

SuperflyTNT wrote:

If he’s a wildlife shooter, and he says he is, then the OM-1 is a big step up.

Yep, That is a good point !

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

thorondor wrote:

You wont see a big improvement with OM-1's MFT sensor compared to RX10's 1-inch sensor, high ISO is average at best. At least go for an APS-C or Full Frame sensor camera. I used Olympus and Panasonic MFT's hated the image quality.

OP wants something less bulky and heavy than APS-C of FF. Plus very few of those have the features he wants, and none of them have all of them, like the OM-1 does.

And m4/3 has come a long way, baby! If you can't get great images from an OM-1, it's not the camera...

thorondor

moonhawk wrote:

OP wants something less bulky and heavy than APS-C of FF. Plus very few of those have the features he wants, and none of them have all of them, like the OM-1 does.

And m4/3 has come a long way, baby! If you can't get great images from an OM-1, it's not the camera...

OM-1 is a great camera, I agree. Very few ILC cameras has built-in BD filter, Live Composite, IP53 certified weather sealing, excellent IS etc. but on the other hand it only has a 20MP tiny MFT sensor. High ISO is no match with larger sensors.

MFT came a long way except the image quality, and the OP is asking if he is going to see a big improvement in IQ, and my opinion is 'No, he won't see much improvement'.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

thorondor wrote:

You wont see a big improvement with OM-1's MFT sensor compared to RX10's 1-inch sensor, high ISO is average at best. At least go for an APS-C or Full Frame sensor camera. I used Olympus and Panasonic MFT's hated the image quality.

Talk about what you know, and that is nothing about the OM-1. As I said before, I shoot both the RX10MIV and the OM-1 and the OM-1 has a clear advantage over the RX10MIV. And with its modern stacked sensor it has better IQ and ISO response than my old D500.

Mcobean Loc: Center Florida

thorondor wrote:

MFT came a long way except the image quality, and the OP is asking if he is going to see a big improvement in IQ, and my opinion is 'No, he won't see much improvement'.

This is a critical question for me. I do want a significant improvement in IQ and not hearing that a long reach lens on the OM-1 IQ will “wow” me has been the number one reason I have not pulled the trigger

If you wanted a rig where you could crop a long distance bird or whale image taken from a ship to fill the frame and have great IQ. What would you pick?

Or, will the OM-1 wow me?

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

He will according to posters here who have both. 20 megapixels is more than plenty for very large prints. I have 30x40 prints from m4/3, all pre OM-1. If you don't know how to focus or compose, or understand exposure, no amount of megapixels is going to help. .

#"Twenty is Plenty".

The only thing you give up is shallow depth of field, which is a plus or a minus depending on your needs, and a couple stops of usable high ISO. But OLY has the best IS in the business, so you can get away with slightly lower shutter speeds. And how high an ISO do you need in a travel camera?

I have nothing against the larger formats, except size, weight, and exorbitant cost. But saying m4/3 hasl ousy image quality is just silly.

thorondor wrote:

OM-1 is a great camera, I agree. Very few ILC cameras has built-in BD filter, Live Composite, IP53 certified weather sealing, excellent IS etc. but on the other hand it only has a 20MP tiny MFT sensor. High ISO is no match with larger sensors.

MFT came a long way except the image quality, and the OP is asking if he is going to see a big improvement in IQ, and my opinion is 'No, he won't see much improvement'.

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

Mcobean wrote:

This is a critical question for me. I do want a significant improvement in IQ and not hearing that a long reach lens on the OM-1 IQ will “wow” me has been the number one reason I have not pulled the trigger

If you wanted a rig where you could crop a long distance bird or whale image taken from a ship to fill the frame and have great IQ. What would you pick?

Or, will the OM-1 wow me?

Took this in Scotland at a Red Kite Sanctuary from a ‘Hide’ as they call it…OM-1, Oly 100-400, from ~100 yds, cropped, converted in Luminar…I had a lot of good ones, a lot of bad ones since I’m not a great BIF shooter, and these birds are fast. I really need practice….Cheers

(Download)

Mcobean Loc: Center Florida

cyclespeed wrote:

Have you thought of a donation to a worthy cause?

Yes I have, do you know any? ;)

Cheers
Daryl

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

imagemeister wrote:

Firstly, beating the overall quality/versatility o... (show quote)

bwa

Mcobean Loc: Center Florida

Blaster34 wrote:

Took this in Scotland at a Red Kite Sanctuary from a ‘Hide’ as they call it…OM-1, Oly 100-400, from ~100 yds, cropped, converted in Luminar…Cheers

Ok... that's pretty wow.

Cheers
Daryl

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

Mcobean wrote:

Ok... that's pretty wow.

Cheers
Daryl

It’s all on the ability of the user and how well they know their camera…cheers

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

Mcobean wrote:

This is a critical question for me. I do want a significant improvement in IQ and not hearing that a long reach lens on the OM-1 IQ will “wow” me has been the number one reason I have not pulled the trigger

If you wanted a rig where you could crop a long distance bird or whale image taken from a ship to fill the frame and have great IQ. What would you pick?

Or, will the OM-1 wow me?

Maybe a full frame with a $20,000 lens that weighs eleven pounds?

Seriously, the naysayers on m43 probably haven't used a 100-400 Oly--NOT Panasonic-, or the 300mm f/4, which are very highly regarded. Remember, you can do 50 MP Hi-res shots handheld, or 80 MP on a tripod if you want. (Not recommended for moving subjects, of course.)

Nothing is perfect, and you have to decide for yourself. Why not go to mu43 dot com and look at some of the galleries? It's a very friendly site, and tons of info on 4//3. I started a thread there on the 100-400 which has lots of images on it if you're interested:

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/new-oly-100-400-impressions-and-images.109375/