Interested in the OM-1 (Page 2): I really like my Oly’s, but every time I reach for one it seems the battery goes kaput asap, never happens though with my Nikon DSLRs.

Flickwet Loc: NEOhio

I really like my Oly’s, but every time I reach for one it seems the battery goes kaput asap, never happens though with my Nikon DSLRs.

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

billnikon wrote:

Eye detection on Nikon, Canon, and Sony are all excellent. You will not save much weight going with the OM-1 with telephoto lenses.
The difference is the skill, knowledge, and experience of the photographer. If you don't set your camera up for the type of shooting your doing you will not get good results.

Not save weight? On telephoto lenses?

That is absurd. Do the math.

User ID

billnikon wrote:

Eye detection on Nikon, Canon, and Sony are all excellent. You will not save much weight going with the OM-1 with telephoto lenses.
The difference is the skill, knowledge, and experience of the photographer. If you don't set your camera up for the type of shooting your doing you will not get good results.

Naked Fact: Equivalent lenses, m4/3 & FF

(Download)

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

billnikon wrote:

Eye detection on Nikon, Canon, and Sony are all excellent. You will not save much weight going with the OM-1 with telephoto lenses.
The difference is the skill, knowledge, and experience of the photographer. If you don't set your camera up for the type of shooting your doing you will not get good results.

"You will not save much weight going with the OM-1 with telephoto lenses." Really!?! For the same angle of view and features, that is not true. For example, let's compare the OM-1 and 300 f4 Pro IS to the Z7ii, Z8, Z9, and new Z version 600 f4 (same angle of view). First the bodies: OM-1 is 1.3# ($1900), Z7ii is 1.4# ($2300), Z8 is 1.8# ($3700), and Z9 is 2.9# ($5650). Now the lenses: 300 F4 Pro IS is 3.64" X 8.94" and 3.25# (2.7# w/o tripod mount)($2900) and the new Nikon Z mount 600 f4 VR is 6.5" X 17.2" and 7.2# ($15,500)(even going to the non Z 600 f4 saves about 0.5 in weight and about $2500 in cost).

This means that the OM-1/300 is 4.55# (4# w/o the tripod mount and handholdable) and the lightest Nikon Z7ii/600 is 8.6#. The heaviest Nikon is 10.1#! Comparing 4# to 8.6#, and wearing them for a day, is hardly "not save much weight".

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

runakid wrote:

How good is the eye detection compared to Nikon's?

Interested in the OM-1 to save weight but hopefully not sacrifice quality.

I suggest you go over to YouTube and look for reviews by Emily on the Micro Four Nerds channel. She has tested it extensively. Also check out reviews by Chris Niccolls and Jordan Drake. I'm not sure whether the review is on DPReview.com or PetaPixel, or both, but they ran it through its paces several times. It's Chris' favorite knock-around camera.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

both at the same max - min apertures ???

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

DaveyDitzer wrote:

both at the same max - min apertures ???

The 600 in 4/3rds and full frame are both f4 and collect the same amount of light. Now depth of field is a different story. The full frame f4 will have a narrower depth of field than the 4/3rds f4 depth of field. Since I have rarely used a narrow depth of field, especially with birds in flight or moving wild animals, it is not as important as the actual f-stop needed for exposure. I know for some pro photographers that absolutely need that narrow depth of field or absolutely need the extra megapixels for cropping hard, 4/3rds is not for them. But my observations of many people's photos, including some advanced amateurs, the need for extreme DOF and hard cropping is over-rated. And now days, software is now advanced enough to assist with both in post processing.

P.S. - And the aperture is the same for both; f4 to f22.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

wdross wrote:

P.S. - And the aperture is the same for both; f4 to f22.

So the smaller size and presumable lower weight is only due the amount of "glass" needed to fill the M4thirds sensor?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

DaveyDitzer wrote:

So the smaller size and presumable lower weight is only due the amount of "glass" needed to fill the M4thirds sensor?

That's correct. MUCH less glass for a given field of view, because you get the same coverage with 300mm on Micro 4/3 that you do with 600mm on full frame.

The 100-400mm zoom on Micro 4/3 equates to a 200-800mm zoom on full frame. But it weighs far less than a 200-800mm zoom would, if it even existed.

User ID

wdross wrote:

The 600 in 4/3rds and full frame are both f4 and c... (show quote)

Your DoF explanation is upside down and backwards. The error likely derives from applying the identical FL to both formats, instead of applying equivalent FLs to each.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

User ID wrote:

Your DoF explanation is upside down and backwards. The error likely derives from applying the identical FL to both formats, instead of applying equivalent FLs to each.

Correct. My simplfied DOF was limited to angle of view reference. Both the 4/3rds 300 f4 and the Nikon 600 f4 have the same angle of view while the focal lengths are different. Relative to the angle of view, the 4/3rds' f4 DOF is larger than the full-frame's f4 DOF for the same subject image size.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

billnikon wrote:

Eye detection on Nikon, Canon, and Sony are all excellent. You will not save much weight going with the OM-1 with telephoto lenses.
The difference is the skill, knowledge, and experience of the photographer. If you don't set your camera up for the type of shooting your doing you will not get good results.

That’s completely ridiculous. I shoot both a Nikon Z9 and an OM-1. I love shooting the Z9 with the 180-600 and I have no problem shooting handheld, but I also love shooting my OM-1 with the 100-400, (200-800 equivalent), and it is considerably smaller and lighter. And the eye focus is also excellent. Skill and proper setup are important no matter what brand you shoot and the OM-1 is a very capable camera.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Flickwet wrote:

I really like my Oly’s, but every time I reach for one it seems the battery goes kaput asap, never happens though with my Nikon DSLRs.

Any mirrorless will have less battery life than a DSLR. It’s not a problem if you plan and keep extra batteries.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

burkphoto wrote:

That's correct. MUCH less glass for a given field of view, because you get the same coverage with 300mm on Micro 4/3 that you do with 600mm on full frame.

The 100-400mm zoom on Micro 4/3 equates to a 200-800mm zoom on full frame. But it weighs far less than a 200-800mm zoom would, if it even existed.

It also weighs over 1/2 pound less than my Z mount 100-400.

Canisdirus

Nikon has way better eye detection...and phase AF.

Weight...well Nikon likes to go heavy for some reason.