Lumix G95 (Page 2): Single shot autofocus is very fast but tracking in burst mode is poor for all the LUMIX M43 cameras. Another issue is that BIF shots often require considerable...

bkwaters

Ed Chu wrote:

Does anyone have experience with this shooting birds in flight? Satisfactory features, results, etc? Trying not to spend $2,000 on an OM-1, but....

Single shot autofocus is very fast but tracking in burst mode is poor for all the LUMIX M43 cameras. Another issue is that BIF shots often require considerable cropping. While a 400mm M43 is 800mm equivalent it’s still really 400mm.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

bkwaters wrote:

Single shot autofocus is very fast but tracking in burst mode is poor for all the LUMIX M43 cameras. Another issue is that BIF shots often require considerable cropping. While a 400mm M43 is 800mm equivalent it’s still really 400mm.

I’m not quite sure what you’re saying there. Yes the actual focal length will always be 400mm but it’s the equivalent number that’s significant.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

SuperflyTNT wrote:

I had a G9 and switched to the Olympus E-M1X mainly for focus speed and tracking. The E-M1X was head and shoulders over the G9 for wildlife. I’ve since upgraded to the OM-1 and it’s a phenomenal camera. The AF is faster and more accurate and it will track at faster frame rates. It also has great ergonomics and is a joy to shoot.

Thanks for the update and information. One day in the future I will have to figure out how well my existing Lumix lenses work on an OM-1. I know they attach, but I wonder what limits there might be, especially stabilization.

HardwareGuy

I know the G9 still gets dinged for bird photography, but there was a firmware update over a year ago to specifically address this. A trip to the coast nailed seabirds in flight just fine. I was impressed, and the GAS syndrome to move to Olympus subsided to zero.

wrangler5 Loc: Missouri

I had a G9 at the same time as an EM1 Mk2. I really liked the G9's feel, viewfinder and features, but its autofocus simply could not keep up with small grandchildren nearly as well as the Olympus. Especially in low light, where a lot of my shots are made. I now have an EM1 Mk3, and I'm sorry to hear the OMD is even better - I thought I'd gotten past my GAS time for camera bodies.

BTW, my walkaround lens for the Mk 2 and now Mk3 has long been the Lumix 12-60 kit lens. It mounts and works just fine on Olympus bodies, and is so much lighter than the superb Oly 12-40/2.8 that I'd just rather have it on the camera except when I really need the wider aperture of the Oly lens. (I also like the direction the Lumix zoom rings move, compared to those on Olympus lenses, enough that I frequently use the Pan/Leica 12-60/2.8-4.0 in low light situations instead of the fast Oly lens.)

Beenthere

Ed Chu wrote:

Does anyone have experience with this shooting birds in flight? Satisfactory features, results, etc? Trying not to spend $2,000 on an OM-1, but....

Another commenter recommended the EM1 MkIII, as an alternative to the OM-1. I agree but would also add the EM5 MkIII, of the remaining Olympus models, which can be had at a very good price, both new and used. Even a EMI MkII may give you what you're looking for. So many choices...

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Ed Chu wrote:

Does anyone have experience with this shooting birds in flight? Satisfactory features, results, etc? Trying not to spend $2,000 on an OM-1, but....

The Lumix cameras are great for a little bit of everything except action. Contrast Detect Auto Focus (CDAF) is best for stationary subjects, while Phase Detect Auto Focus (PDAF) is best for action (sports, wildlife, BIF...).

Trade for an OM-Systems current model if you intend to stick with Micro 4/3 for the lenses. They will work on either brand.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

bsprague wrote:

Thanks for the update and information. One day in the future I will have to figure out how well my existing Lumix lenses work on an OM-1. I know they attach, but I wonder what limits there might be, especially stabilization.

They will work great and the IBIS in the OM-1 is as good as it gets. What won’t work is the OIS in the lens working in conjunction with the IBIS. You can choose to use the OIS but you’ll need to turn the IBIS off. Most of my Lumix lenses don’t have it but that’s one reason I sold my Panny/Leica 100-400 and bought the Olympus version. I do have the “trinity”, (7-14,12-40,40-150), in Okympus Pro lenses. There are certain features, like some of the more advanced Pro Capture settings, that only work with certain lenses.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

wrangler5 wrote:

I had a G9 at the same time as an EM1 Mk2. I real... (show quote)

It is the new OM Systems OM-1 that is the hot choice for action with a Micro 4/3 camera.

bkwaters

SuperflyTNT wrote:

I’m not quite sure what you’re saying there. Yes the actual focal length will always be 400mm but it’s the equivalent number that’s significant.

Think of it this way. You have a Sony A7R5, shoot a picture with a 400mm lens and then crop it down to 50% of the surface area. You now have roughly the same size image as a 400mm lens on a M43 with around the same resolution. You’re not really gaining any extra closeness or resolution simply because M43 is a 2X crop. The only advantage is that the lens is smaller and lighter.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

bkwaters wrote:

Think of it this way. You have a Sony A7R5, shoot a picture with a 400mm lens and then crop it down to 50% of the surface area. You now have roughly the same size image as a 400mm lens on a M43 with around the same resolution. You’re not really gaining any extra closeness or resolution simply because M43 is a 2X crop. The only advantage is that the lens is smaller and lighter.

Not really true. The pixel density of the 61mp Sony A7RV is about 20% lower than the 20mp OM-1, so if you crop the Sony image to the same view as the OM-1 you’re at about 20% less resolution. And most people aren’t shooting 61mp FF cameras. They’re shooting FF cameras that are from 24-45mp so the resolution is even less. You are right about one thing, my OM-1 with the 100-400 is much smaller and lighter than my Z9 with the 100-400.

User ID

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Not really true. The pixel density of the 61mp Sony A7RV is about 20% lower than the 20mp OM-1, so if you crop the Sony image to the same view as the OM-1 you’re at about 20% less resolution. And most people aren’t shooting 61mp FF cameras. They’re shooting FF cameras that are from 24-45mp so the resolution is even less. You are right about one thing, my OM-1 with the 100-400 is much smaller and lighter than my Z9 with the 100-400.

Youre both ignoring the real benefit of shooting a 4/3 camera instead of a FF. Forget the pixel count. You both know that it hardly matters.

When you shoot the FF, the IS doesnt anticipate significant cropping of the 400mm view, but the the 4/3 gear is designed to account for it cuz its an already cropped format.

The same effect holds true for focus accuracy, whether you use the AF or especially if using the MF magnifier.

bkwaters

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Not really true. The pixel density of the 61mp Sony A7RV is about 20% lower than the 20mp OM-1, so if you crop the Sony image to the same view as the OM-1 you’re at about 20% less resolution. And most people aren’t shooting 61mp FF cameras. They’re shooting FF cameras that are from 24-45mp so the resolution is even less. You are right about one thing, my OM-1 with the 100-400 is much smaller and lighter than my Z9 with the 100-400.

Everything you said is true and I apologize if I implied otherwise. Though I do believe one can obtain images of similar quality and subject size with a 400mm on a high resolution FF vs a 400mm on a M43. So which camera do you use for action and BIF shots? Is the OM-1 as good as the Z9 in tracking? Do you agree with the other poster who states M43 has better focusing accuracy?

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

An M4/3 camera and long lens lets me have a lot more wildlife photography and videography"fun" than bigger gear. It was cheaper, lighter and can fit in my small RV. If I see a target, I can pull over roll down the window, brace my elbow and get a shot at up to a 800 mm equivalent field of view.

Reality dictates that a lot of wildlife tracking in my age group is done via vehicle with limited hiking. I'm no longer intrigued by trekking into the wilderness looking for bears or wolves. I'll try to shoot them from a Yellowstone road pullout!

If I had invested in a full frame and 600 hundred or 800 mm lens, that would not be possible and I would miss the shot.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

bkwaters wrote:

Everything you said is true and I apologize if I implied otherwise. Though I do believe one can obtain images of similar quality and subject size with a 400mm on a high resolution FF vs a 400mm on a M43. So which camera do you use for action and BIF shots? Is the OM-1 as good as the Z9 in tracking? Do you agree with the other poster who states M43 has better focusing accuracy?

I just started using the Z9 and won’t really get a chance to put it through its BIF paces until February when I’m back in Florida. I still haven’t really set it up. Tonight I’ll be going through tge Thom Hogan eGuide and Steve Perry’s wildlife settings and really learn it. As for the OM-1, well I sold my D500 when I was waiting to order the Z9 after determining that my E-M1X was an adequate replacement for wildlife until I got the Z9. Then the OM-1 came along and it blows the E-M1X away with focus tracking and frame rate. I love the Pro Capture feature, (plus many of the “computational photography” features that are unique to Olympus). Now others are including their version of “pre-release capture” but I’m bummed that the Z9 only does it in JPEG. I’m hoping for a firmware update that will do it in raw.