SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Forgot you camera when going to a shoot? Reminds me of the time I saw Buckwheat Zydeco and his trumpet player was playing the washboard. He forgot his trumpet.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I was heading out to a hike when I read this and couldn’t respond, but I’m one of those guys that shoots Nikon FF and Olympus M4/3. I will say that those 45mp raw files from my Z7 and Z9 are the best raw files I’ve ever worked with and I love shooting those cameras. That being said my OM-1 is my workhorse. I’m often hiking or kayaking and I love the size and weight of the OM-1. Last August when I flew to Scotland I was able to take the OM-1 with a full complement of lenses as my carry-on item, although almost the entire trip was shot with the 12-40 f/2.8 Pro lens. Yes the crop factor is great for wildlife but I also shot a lot of landscapes while hiking in the highlands. Despite what an earlier poster said it has excellent focus tracking. I really haven’t seen anything it can’t handle. All that being said I still love shooting full frame. I will say that hi-res mode with 80mp on a tripod or 50mp handheld images on the OM-1 is pretty sweet. All of these were shot with the 12-40 except the heron in flight which was shot this past Friday from a kayak, with the 40-150 and 2X TC.

Glasgow Cathedral

(Download)

Shot while walking in Glasgow

(Download)

Glasgow Cathedral

(Download)

DC Wharf at night using Live ND

(Download)

Great Blue Heron shot from a kayak.

(Download)

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I own a Nikon D610 full frame and I find that I use my Olympus with the Zuiko 12-40 f2.8 Pro more often. This is certainly so when I travel.
Micro fourths thirds is not the best format for noise and I cannot comment on the OM-1 because I do not own it and I have never used one. With my EM-10 Mk II and my Pen EP-5 I have plenty of noise past ISO 1600 which can be mitigated using the "exposure to the right" technique. I am not a low light shooter but when I have been shooting in low light I have exposed to the right and I have used in post Topaz Denoise with very good results.

If you ask me and this is only my personal opinion, the images made from the Olympus cameras I own are of excellent quality. I seldom go beyond 12x18 inch enlargements and in those I can see how the lenses I own are capable of discerning fine details, like the images posted by Superfly TNT. I have never enlarged beyond 12x18 inches but Joe Edelman, Olympus Visionary regularly enlarges his beautiful portraits to sizes beyond 20x30 with no issues. Just go to any of the Olympus demonstrations and I bet you will see those images.

If you finally decide to go full frame consider the expenses involved among them new lenses. I have never used the OM-1 Mk II so I cannot comment on its AF. Joe McDonald keeps the OM-1 Mk II as a backup camera and is now using the OM-1 for his wildlife photography. Just look at the list of professional photographers using the OM-1 and I bet you will call it impressive.

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

I used to own a Sony A7R4 and Olympus EM1X. I now own two OMS/Olympus OM1 bodies. I do not miss my 60MP A7R4 at all. Prior to my EM1X I owned a Sony A9, but the weight of my Sony wildlife system was giving my back and hip rooty toot. Just having two OM1's works for me, fantastic camera - as ate the Sonys.

MattG Loc: New Jersey

Hi
I have a Nikon D850 and Leica Q2. I wanted something light and more reach. I purchased a OM1 with 12-40 2.8 lens which is equivalent of 24-90 on FF. The ergonomics, weight, and body are excellent. I was disappointed with quality of the pictures. The noise level was too much for me. I guess I’m used to FF images quality. I end up returning the camera. I’m considering Sony A7c in terms of portability.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

One of the reasons I went with Sony, I have a FF body and a crop sensor, I buy only lenses that work on the FF. I find that for macro and landscape I use my FF and the crop gets used for birds and other telephoto shots since I get an extra 1.5 X magnification on my crop sensor. Before I got the RX100VI I would use the a6500 with the little Zeiss 35mm for a small carry camera.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

Only peons use FF. Medium Format beats them all! Indeed my 8 x10in camera is still better.





Guess what! I still like my MFT equipment for macro work.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

A little perspective on the concept of "full frame" is in order. If you haven't seen Zack Arias' take on it, watch this video for a chuckle and a guffaw.

https://youtu.be/PHYidejT3KY — "Crop or Crap?"

By the way, it was filmed on a Lumix GH4, one of the same cameras I use.

AndyT Loc: Hampstead, New Hampshire

Love my Pen-F

gwilliams6

Very nice,

gwilliams6

gwilliams6

I used 4x5 in., 8X10 in. and 11X14 in. view cameras while a photo student at R.I.T. Loved the quality, but wouldn't want to lug that 11X14 in. Dierdorf around as a photojournalist, LOL.

Cheers and best to you.

Josephakraig

_____________________________________________________________________

I have been shooting well over 50 years. I shot for newspapers, magazines and books. I shot medium format in film when shooting sports and 35mm for walk around candid shots. Medium was by far and away the most versatile when cropping.

I got into digital slowly because the early resolutions were not up to cropping. I could work miracles in the darkroom but not so much with early versions of Corel or Photoshop. Today is an entirely different story. My first digital was only 2 megapixel, then 6, then 7.1 then 10, then 12, then 24 and now 46. Digital has arrived. Recently I was out and there was a picture I saw that I would like but didn't have a camera except for my cell phone. I have always just poo pooed cell phone pictures. My Samsung S22 Ultra took the shot, in raw by the way, and in Photoshop you can't tell the difference from that shot and any in my Nikon D850. Don't misunderstand me, I think that with the Nikon D850 digital has finally arrived but I was shocked by the quality of what I got with my phone camera. It would have been useless without Photoshop but I have Photoshop so it turned out great.

My D850 is wonderful in low light. My S22 is wonderful in low light. My D850 is wonderful in color saturation, my S22 is wonderful in color saturation. While my S22 has lens selection built in my D850 beats the pants off the cell phone in lens selection. I'm not saying my S22 camera is as good as my FF, it isn't. 4/3rds is not as good as cropped, cropped is not as good as FF and certainly FF does not equal medium format, size matters. If you're a pixel peeper (I certainly am), then only the best will do and often that is not good enough.

Nearly any camera made today is better than any camera of 10 years ago. Good pictures can be had with a very wide variety of camera types and makes. Don't misunderstand me, my D850 is a better camera than any digital camera I have ever owned and I expect the Z9 to even be better than that, but, you can get good pictures with a wide range of cameras. Good, better and best? Sometimes good is just what the doctor ordered.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

While I would never expect my OM-1 to handle noise as well as my FF Nikons I have been impressed by how well it does. That heron shot was 1/1600, f/5.6 @ 12800 ISO. Yes I ran it through DxO PureRAW 3, which everything goes through. But besides the noise handling I’m impressed by how well it maintains the dynamic range.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Why do you want to a 2nd system? This will be very expensive? What are your reasons for wanting to change?

If you’re worried about image quality, you won’t notice a difference in good light. You might find autofocus tracking for moving objects or action shots to be better with some brands of full frame cameras.

If you really want to know borrow ur rent a full frame camera and try it out.

I think what you will find is FF rigs are bigger, heavier, more expensive and return marginal, at best, benefits.