OM System OM-1 vs Canon EOS R3 Indoor Sports Shootout

[@ryantang8146]

The fact that Dpreview even put the OM-1 against one of the best full frame cameras out there in the market in terms of sports photography is already very high praise to the OM-1

[@bngr_bngr]

The results were as expected. In no way is 4/3 comparable to full frame.

[@TheNarrowbandChannel]

@@bngr_bngr It beat it in two categories. Pro Capture and Price.

[@TITAOSTEIN]

Exactly. Two different tools! And the R3 costs 3x more than the OM1!

[@08-15-dude]

@@bngr_bngr Fullframe Marketing victim. I'm sorry but both systems are good and which one serves you well depends on your private needs.

[@ryantang8146]

@@TheNarrowbandChannel Actually three, frame rate: 50 vs 30 😄

[@kjl6138]

The OM is used by many professionals! With the Canon, you gain a full pound in weight, much larger and more expensive lenses, and almost 3 times the price in the body. I wish Evelyn would do some print tests, and she would see, in prints, you can’t tell the difference.

[@GallicGarlic]

Same applies to a compact camera 📸 or an iPhone📱.. even lighter .. Question is how much do you value image quality?!? 😅

[@davida.4933]

@kjl6138 said in prints you can't tell the difference.

[@yukonchris]

After watching this, I'd take the OM-1 over the R3 every time. The differences in so called "image quality" are essentially negligible. They are visible in some situations when both cameras are being used in the same way despite being different tools, and when compared closely side-by-side. A good photographer, knowing their camera's strengths and weaknesses, will use different lens combinations, and different settings to get the best out of their kit. Then there is the matter of making images that people will enjoy. I'd argue that both cameras will do that just fine. There's no way I'd pay an extra 5 grand for the Canon solution, especially since that is just the start. You're going to be paying more for additional lenses, accessories, etc. It is going to add up to something significant! Plus, there is always the weight, and size penalty. It really shouldn't be understated. I currently own a Canon system (EOS R based), and an Olympus system (original E-M1 based). Using my skills as an experienced photographer, I can produce equally good images with my seven year old Olympus kit, and in day to day use, it's just more enjoyable. Anyway, my two-bits. Thanks for the video.

[@BrentODell]

I have an R6, and used to use an E-M1 mkii, so this is an interesting comparison to watch, for me. One thing that strikes me when watching reviews, almost every time, is what reviewers think 'high-iso' means. You're worried about 1600? I shot my Olympus at 3200 without worry, and got good shots at 6400 as long as I made sure everything else was good(focus, shutter, filling the frame, etc.). With the R6 I've gotten good shots at 25600. I think people need to get outside their comfort zone a little.

[@amonkril919]

truth is, you don't need to spend an extra $5K to get that same quality. You can get an R6 mkII and 70-200mm F4 and get the same IQ as the R3 combo in this demo, for a much closer price to the OM-1 combo.

[@calvint3419]

I hope more people buy the OM1 so OMSystems has more support to improve the product. I think 4/3rd is a great system that many people misunderstood that.

[@mimstyle]

Using olympus mirrorless for 12 years. And my om-1 om system is a killer even in high iso with electronic shutter, damn it's my best camera ever! No regrets even already have e-m1 III !

[@klackon1]

I sold my EM1X and EM1.3 and purchased two OM1 bodies. It was the right move. The new CAF + TR + bird recognition is stunning for BIF and the new EVF and LCD a great improvement for macro.

[@mimstyle]

@@klackon1 I confirm that, is so fast! I can catch a bird flying an hide in a fraction of second. When I review images I can't believe it! 🔥

[@mimstyle]

@@klackon1 good move, but in my case I keep the e-m1 III for backup

[@c3vette47]

Nice comparison. The Canon R3 is phenomenal. But I would have no problem whatsoever using that OM-1 for professional sports photography. The noise reduction and sharpening software available today is over-the-top fantastic. And that pro capture mode is awesome. Software will never be able to capture those pre-shot frames.

[@AlbertKel]

Good luck selling photos without subject separation. I guess you are talking about a parent shooting their kids sport.

[@pentagramyt417]

@@AlbertKel where are you selling your photos? or might sell sport photos? and how to price that photo?

[@joshuagutierrez8407]

Love the video! The fact you’re even comparing the OM-1 to the Canon R3 actually says more about the OM1 then it does the R3. Also, having shot Canon for the last 13 years, now that I’ve switched to the EM1 Mark III, the OM-1 colors (EM1-3) are so much more accurate. It even shows in these photos.

[@Centauri27]

I agree with the others that even mentioning the OM-1 against the high end, purpose-built for sports photography like the R3 is a great compliment. Side by side, the R3 images are better no doubt. But after factoring size, cost, and "nearly as good" image quality, the OM-1 is a slam dunk for 95% of the photographers out there.

[@tamasvarga9862]

It's not nearly as good. It's the exact same 2 stop of noise performance difference as it was 5 years ago. Plus full frame sports cameras have better autofocus especially in low light and better buffer and also better video. If you want to freeze motion of a bird in a dark forest the m43 will be absolutely inferior for shooting, this is just a fact. the advantages are supposed to be weight and cost and that's it. It doesn't make sense to attempt to convince anyone that it's a slam dunk. You can buy a camera like the a7 iv sony for the exact same price that has vastly superior image quality. It is true that the c-af performance in good light now is near the other brands and that it shoots really fast, but in my opinion it needs something else to make it worth choosing the system over other systems. for example killer video specs and AF.

[@nellatrab]

@@tamasvarga9862I disagree...I have both and a FF Sony. The IQ of the OM 1 is as good as my R3...The colors and contrast are superior IMO. I'm guessing you actually haven't tried using one in a dark forest capturing a bird in flight! There is some kind of zen installed in the OM's...don't know quite how to explain it..The ibis on the om is superior to any maker, they pretty much invented it! For my motorsports work I prefer it over the R3, my Sony and my Fujifilm. As for video I will use my Panasonic...but rarely shoot video only sometimes for real estate work.

[@danieldougan269]

We always love seeing Jordan's wife Evelyn. A couple of years ago, my local camera store here in Indianapolis set up a class in which students could shoot our ECHL team (Indy Fuel) in action. I shot the game with an original OM-D E-M1 and that 40-150mm f2.8 PRO lens. (I have since upgraded to the E-M1 Mark II, but that lens will have to be pried from my cold, dead hand.) I was really pleased with what I got out of that camera, and the OM-1 could stomp it, I'm sure. Is the OM-1 equal to the R3 for this work? No, of course not. But, is it good enough? Yes, I think it is. Back in 2002, I worked for a small newspaper and shot high school sports using a Nikon D1. The important takeaway is that pro sports shooters really just need to get a couple of decent shots out of the whole night. Hitting on hundreds or even thousands of shots is an incredible luxury. Having f2.8 glass is crucial on Micro Four Thirds. Before I got that lens, I tried shooting outdoor soccer at night with the 40-150mm f4-5.6 lens, and it was essentially pointless. I went back to that same soccer field with even my old E-PL5 and that f2.8 lens, and I was able to get some great stuff.

[@momchilyordanov8190]

I've shot the E-M1 II and 1DX side by side at a U19 soccer game in the middle of the day. Trust me - the pictures were indistinguishable. But the weaker the light gets, the bigger the difference will be, no doubt about that.

[@bngr_bngr]

What’s lens did you use?

[@momchilyordanov8190]

@@bngr_bngr on the Oly the one he uses. It's a great lens, by far my favorite of the system. On the Canon the 2nd gen 70-200. I think 3rd is the latest, but they are virtually the same.

[@keithholland4322]

You can compensate for the fading light by using a brighter lens though. In this situation, the tiny and super sharp Olympus 75mm f/1.8 would have been an excellent addition to the setup!

[@sergeyzakharov7326]

@@keithholland4322 its not long enough and at that range zooms are pretty much a necessity for professional work

[@keithholland4322]

@@sergeyzakharov7326 Zooms vs. primes are a matter of personal preference. The 75mm f/1.8 is a 150mm FF equivalent, so it sits right in the middle of the zoom range of a 70-200 f/2.8. I shot a dock dogs competition with it, and aside from the fact that it wasn't weather sealed, it was perfect! Sports photographers use prime lenses all the time! In fact, the 400mm f/2.8 is considered the primary lens of choice for many professional football photographers. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to use a 75mm for hockey. You can always crop a little if you need the extra reach. I would keep the 75 on one camera body and the 40-150 on the other and switch to the 40-150 when the players were very distant. With DXO Photolab, all of the noise can be eliminated with negligible loss of detail, even at very high ISO settings anyway.

[@streamodor2973]

What an incredibe camera that GH6 is! Such splendid footage!

[@RichardBO9]

Evelyn must be invited back for the best gear of the year and drinking game. 😀

[@chrispatmore8944]

Where the Olympus/OM System camera would excel is for extreme sports, such as surfing, snowboarding, BMX/MBT, skateboarding etc. Places where the weathersealing are vital. I shot surfing on an OM-1 back in the 1970s and 80s, and the humidity, salt air and sand eventually killed it. And the 800mm f/8 lens I was using was a massive beast. What I would have given for the new OM-1 with the 150-400, or even the more affordable 100-400.

[@rogerlee440]

Someone from my generation 😊. My first DSLR was an Olympus OM1 in 1975.

[@rogerlee440]

Someone from my generation 😊 My first DSLR in 1975 was an OM-1 with 50mm lens which I took to England while teaching there. There will always be a special place in my heart for Olympus…but not for 4/3rds.

[@chrispatmore8944]

@@rogerlee440 When I got my first DSLR it was an Olympus E-500, just because I was still using the OM-1. It was OK, but totally useless in the low light I was shooting in more and more (live music), so I switched to Canon. Last year I wanted to go the mirrorless route, when the R6 came out, but £2500 just for the body was a bit steep. So I started looking at Olympus again. Tried one and loved it, once I'd adjusted my muscle memory. I've found that in low light it was not significantly worse than my 6D, and a whole lighter for this ageing body. I'm sure the R6 is better in low light, at a price. The tech and build quality I got in the EM-1ii and EM-1iii for the half the cost of an R6 made sense to me. And the Zuiko lenses are fantastic. I'm happy I switched and don't regret not sticking with Canon. My body appreciates it too.

[@moisescugat3948]

I think this is the worst case scenario for this comparison from the OM1 point of view. In any other scenario, (longer reach, faster speeds, better light, birds, landscape, extreme, bad conditions, etc) the OM1 would be closer or even superior

[@vic_the_roman]

Jordan didn't disappoint with the subscribe button 😂

[@EmberSkyMedia]

I was in tears, that was SO funny when you consider he COULD of put it inbetween them.

[@ontaevo]

The price point is big, especially for someone who is still learning photography. Being able to buy as much as two lenses for the price of one means you can get to know more, different lenses. That is, with the assumption big makers won't be able to drive the price down.

[@lekkerpruven887]

Seems like prices are only going up. New lenses all seem to be in the€3000+ category. With this I am referring to the pro level 2.8 zooms and 1.2 primes.

[@lekkerpruven887]

@Workshopper i have a second hand Z6 for now. With the newest software it's quite capable. Maybe a Z8 will come soon. All gear I have now is second hand. Saves a lot of money. Some Z lenses and some F mount adapted.

[@d3xtRR]

It's not something one gets while learning photography, I think. I think these prices are only justified when you earn a living from photography.

[@lekkerpruven887]

@@d3xtRR i guess so. But without thousands of amateur photographers buying the gear it wouldn't be possible. The camera manufacturers rely on many people buying the equipment. But i guess it's like this with any hobby. At the bike shop my father goes they told us they sell more bikes €5000 and up than €2000 and down. People want the expensive stuff. Want the extra tech and pay the premium. Even if it doesn't make them a better cyclists.

[@alanm.4298]

This comparison is great. It's something I've been wondering about... Whether or not the OM-1 was a viable alternative for sports/wildlife photography. In the past I've often recommended APS-C instead of full frame for many people shooting action, for the savings in size, weight and money. Might have been even better to also consider M4/3, but none of those cameras had the AF system to handle the job. It appears with the OM-1 this has finally changed and you gotta give the new owners props for working hard to improve the camera's action photography capabilities. Of course there are still some limitations such as the differences in depth of field rendering and high ISO capabilities. But there are always trade offs. So while I'm still a Canon shooter myself, when asked I will very likely be adding the OM-1 as one of the viable options for people looking to shoot sports and wildlife.

[@keithholland4322]

I think the OM-1 is definitely better for wildlife photography than any of the crop sensor mirrorless cameras out there. Fujifilm has great cameras, but their only wildlife lens is the 100-400, which I've heard isn't exactly the sharpest lens around. I guess they have a 200mm f/2 as well, but even with a teleconverter, you can't often get close enough to wildlife with a lens that short. So while APSC makes a lot of sense on paper, they just don't have the camera and lens combinations that are necessary for professional quality results yet. Also, keep in mind that in this type of a situation, you could use a bright prime lens like the Olympus 75mm f/1.8, which would give much shallower depth of field and less noise. And it's tiny!

[@sergeyzakharov7326]

depends on lighting condition. if you're not shooting in poorly lit gyms you could probably get away with mft, but in my experience good lighting is not that common. imo for 2500$ any current sony/nikon/canon body is a much better option for sports

[@keithholland4322]

@@sergeyzakharov7326 I'm not aware of any $2500 full frame camera with a blackout-free EVF or a frame rate that rivals the OM-1, and none of them have a Pro Capture mode, not to mention that the lenses are far more expensive. In a poorly lit gym, another solid contender would be the Fujifilm XT4 with a 200mm f/2, 90mm f/2, and/or 50-140 f/2.8, depending on the situation. I might point out that noise in low light really isn't an issue anymore because it can be completely removed with negligible loss of detail in applications like DXO Photolab, so the primary advantage of full frame cameras is bokeh, which can be negated by fast glass in some cases (such as the Fujifilm 200mm f/2) and is mostly a matter of personal preference. Any interchangeable lens camera system can provide better bokeh than the cell phone pics that most people are accustomed to seeing, so the bar is pretty low in that respect!

[@sergeyzakharov7326]

@@keithholland4322 who needs all those features if in the end images are not usable? r6 and a7iv already give you dslr like experience in terms of viewfinder x-t4 isnt really a good contender because of ergonomics. lack of grip hurts it so hard. current fuji t line isnt that comfortable to use paired with big lenses. but i think x-h2 gonna be quite good for sports if iq at iso 6400 is decent ive already answered you about denoise software in other comment. its not that usable in professional workflow when you need to provide fast and good results

[@keithholland4322]

@@sergeyzakharov7326 That's the problem with DSLRs and most mirrorless cameras for sports and wildlife photography. I can tell you from experience that the blackout makes it very difficult to track a rapidly moving subject that is moving perpendicular to the camera lens. While most modern interchangeable lens cameras can get usable photos of sports and wildlife, what is important is capturing decisive moments, and the OM-1 clearly outperformed the R3 in this regard in the video above as it was able to capture the instant that the puck went through the goal and the hockey stick flying through the air and that sort of thing.

[@tomweis1194]

"... still focusing in that more classic way." LOL when I was a newspaper photographer, I focused manually. That's right, kids, I had to turn the focus ring with MY FINGERS! That's the classic way!

[@bladestorm1980]

So Jordan put the subscribe button on Chris's face :D

[@scottgmaclean]

I think the real winner here is the GH6… the footage is stunning!

[@richardwl5773]

Good solid comparison. It's not about what the best camera is, all round. It's about what fits your own style and type of shooting, and understanding which system offers which benefits and downsides. If money wasn't an issue, I'd shoot both mFT and FF. And pick what I would need depending on what I was doing. But not many of us can invest in two full systems.

[@-grey]

Great format. Pitting two options for purpose. I'm not a sports shooter, but I'd like to see a shoot out comparison for other genres like street, travel, event, etc.

[@SpruceUp612]

I have been shooting for a couple decades now and been through every system. The last few years I’ve been addicted to micro four thirds and I can’t articulate why. It’s so fun. There’s something about how the glass mixes with the smaller sensor that is magical. A cheap kit Olympus or Panasonic lens can render intensely sharp, interesting images. I do astro, wildlife, portraits, landscape and my micro four thirds cameras come with me. My one full frame camera I have left sits around most of the time. Carrying around a little 300mm kit Olympus lens and being able to do a landscape shot at 80mp in high res mode and cropping to get a 40mp, detailed 1200mm equivalent photo is insanity. That’s just one of the fun perks. I could go on and on.

[@jorgegranados4201]

The most honest comparison i have seen.

[@maxbrindle3577]

OM System OM-1 seems like really great camera.

[@dominiclester3232]

Well done Jordan, the end logo placement made this video for me!

[@Ulrich.Bierwisch]

5:55 The OM-1 got a still with a stick flying thru the air with ProCapture - the R3 didn't but at the same time somebody else got a slow motion video with the same stick flying thru the same air perfectly from start to finish. I want that camera.

[@dpreview]

GH6. It’s awesome!

[@ridgefield]

I wondered the same.

[@mmartel]

Nice colab, guys, and nice, fair and candid comparison. Thanks for including the Olympus ≠ OM Digital Solutions outtakes - always makes me laugh.

[@nightowlnzab]

It's slightly amusing, and yes, while I think OM Digital Solutions / OM System is not a catchy name - it just gets a bit grating when reviewers go a bit overboard on the naming. Just call them "OM" and be done with it.

[@charles-andremorisset1237]

IMOHO, the OM-1 pictures did not have the ice overexposed, the R3 did in an unpleasant way. The contrast on the OM-1 pictures was also spot on, not so much on pictures from the R3. The white balance was yellow on the R3, perfect on the OM-1. I know this can be corrected in post, or you can tweak the picture style parametersI to get jpegs properly exposed, but I just found the OM-1 pictures more pleasing, specially when viewed on an iPhone. And it is a bonus in time saving if you can get it out perfect straight out of the camera. Were those pictures retouched, or were they jpeg straight out of the camera?

[@jbaldsing]

Oh yeah! I love these dpreview / TCSTV crossover specials! Woohoo!

[@andreasgiobel6355]

I mean 5K USD is a lot, and 4/3s usually packs lighter, both in kilos and volume. And It’s good for all Digital media platforms, but as you said depth of field ,lowlight, 20mp are not at the top end, but that is reflected in the price point. I’ll assume that most would have nice time with Chris kit, as the extended range of 100 mm is nice.

[@keithholland4322]

1600 ISO is nothing on modern MFT cameras. If you denoise them with DXO Photolab's Deep Prime noise reduction, you will see no noise at all and no noticeable loss of sharpness. I don't know if they have a profile for the OM-1 yet, but I don't even hesitate to shoot my E-M1 Mark II at 6400 ISO and the results have no noise at all, although if I start adding any clarity in Lightroom or anything like that, it will reintroduce noise. But 1600 is nothing. I remember photographing river otters in Portland, Maine last December. Carl Walsh was also there with his Sony A1 and a 200-600. I was using a 40-150 f/2.8 with a 2x teleconverter. After a while, it started getting dark and he switched to an adapted Canon 300mm f/2.8. I just swapped out the 2x teleconverter for the 1.4x and got one of my best shots ever using ProCapture. I could have taken the teleconverter off and shot at f/2.8 too, although I would have had to wait for the otter to come in pretty close. It's worth mentioning that the Canon 70-200 doesn't allow for the use of teleconverters, so you not only don't get as much reach, but you can't extend it with teleconverters either. For this test, it would have been interesting to see you take some shots with the 75mm f/1.8, which is tiny, super sharp, and relatively inexpensive. It's too short for most wildlife photography, but it's a great lens for indoor sports and the depth of field would have been pretty close to what you would get with the Canon 70-200, as would the noise, since you could use lower ISO values with the brighter lens. The tracking on my E-M1 Mark II leaves a lot to be desired, especially with running dogs, but it does a pretty good job with something like a horse trotting around a pasture, so I wouldn't say it's unusable. It just depends on the situation. And even with running dogs, you will get a number of shots in focus. It's just a bit of a roll of the dice sometimes and I have little doubt that Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Fujifilm will get you a better keeper rate. I think the bottom line is that OM System cameras are designed for wildlife, landscape, and macro photography, and while they can shoot sports, portraits, and other things, there are better (and more expensive) options for most indoor applications with the notable exceptions of real estate photography and studio portraits.

[@MotoRich900]

The OM-1 would be better for birding with greater depth of field and high pixel density vs full frame, which was never mentioned. I'd say it a win for OM-1 over the R3!

[@golaoi]

I've have the OM-1 and other MFT cameras with loads of lenses and still have a big Canon outfit with 1Dx's and big lenses. They both have their strengths. I use Olympus stuff 80% of the time. I shoot a lot of running photography. Chris, your diction is perfect. I understand every word.

[@furiousdoe7779]

Finally an honest review over the OM-1 .... great in outdoors .... and wildlife without having a heavy load.

[@ryantang8146]

I think OM system knows that they can’t compete with those big boys at this genre. Indoor sports is m43 biggest weakness so they put resources into subject detection with animals and birds instead of refinement on human faces. But then If they improve enough, I think it will still work as a good alternative for this type of photography.

[@youknowwho9247]

MFT is useless for wildlife for the exact same reason as it's useless for indoor sports. The good light happens at dawn and dusk, when it's dim. In those situations, MFT produces absolute crap images. Sure, you can shoot at noon with your Olympus, but wildlife imagery in broad daylight isn't worth taking on the first place, so who cares?

[@ryantang8146]

@@youknowwho9247 Maybe that’s your problems for not being able to take advantage of a light and compact system which in fact does produce amazing results at the right hands. We won’t stopping you for lugging around big and heavy and expensive lenses and gears if that’s what you wish. Your opinions don’t stop those gears being great. It just shows you are ignorant.

[@keithholland4322]

@@ryantang8146 They have the potential to be competitive. If they improved the subject detection for humans wearing helmets and added a 100mm f/1.4 to the lineup and made it compatible with teleconverters, I would say that would be competitive, especially if you had a 75mm f/1.8 on a second camera body, but I think they recognize that the areas in which they can really run circles around FF are macro, wildlife, landscape, food, and real estate photography and they have designed their system to take advantage of those strengths.

[@Whatsup_Abroad]

I like that he puts up "poor richard's" iso 6400 shot at 14:18 while negging the performance, but viewing on my zfold 2, which should be the biggest phone screen on the market other than the oppo folding phone that nobody bought, it looks great. Pulled it up on a 12.9 inch ipad pro and it still looks great. If that is the definition of bad iso performance nowadays then I'm more than happy with it.

[@ryantang8146]

I think for most people, the results of those photos are good enough for web and social media publications but for the most demanding professionals who demand the absolute best image quality for serious publications. The R3 delivers cleaner results and without having to use Denoise software to clean up, it will speed up the workflow for his clients. But for parents who want to shoot their kids, the OM-1 is more than capable.

[@Whatsup_Abroad]

@@ryantang8146 I'm not sure how this om1 compares to the gh6, but the quality coming out of the Panasonic is leagues ahead of older full frame staples like the 5dm3 and more. These are serious tools that seriously outperform ff counterparts in certain use cases. Basically shooting anything that doesn't move the gh6 and om1 leave all FF options in the dust. The fact that now they perform so well in low light (again the gh6 is ridiculous in this regard) just means they are even better in other use cases as well. As a professional photographer I've shot all around the world with my g9 and bmpcc 4k. The gh6 is replacing both of those for me now and doing so with aplomb.

[@youknowwho9247]

If you're an amateur who shoots for phone screens then sure. Any professional though should stay away from MFT. Nobody is going to buy such grainy crap images, and let's not even mention the lack of subject isolation.

[@helio-c2525]

@@djstuc I think "Rent Free" is completely loosing his mind.

[@ryantang8146]

@@youknowwho9247 I reckon you have never shot with M43 system. I completely disagree m43 produces crappy images. Maybe my eyes are blinded and you are more credible than dpreview. I didn’t see them say m43 images are crappy.

[@nellatrab]

First of all....the OM1 is $2000...the R3 is $4500...So like the guys below said...it's pretty damn great you're comparing it! IMO handling the OM1 for sports trumps the big ol' R3. The thing about vloggers on YT trying so hard to squander their opinions. I shoot motorsports with OM systems...focus tracking is great, but moot, I really just I prefer to use the basic panning technique I have been using for 40 years...The OM1 IQ is quite stunning.

[@dominiquedrouin7816]

Thank you for the video. Most reviews out there come to the conclusion that the R3/Z9 is better than the OM-1 .... I certainly hope that they are at more than double the price! But for us mere mortals that cannot take a second mortgage to buy a camera, the OM-1 sounds like a more realistic solution that still offers many (sometimes even more) of the capabilities.

[@moisescugat3948]

Marginally better and tricking with the lenses... here the OM1 reach was 300... they didn't do the same test with a 140-400 f4,5 vs Canon 800 and the price tag would have been REALLY different and the absence of Zoom would had made the Canon lens really hard to use to get the desired frames

[@3dtrip870]

I know that a lot of people think this doesn't matter that much, and in many ways I agree, but I would still like to see a 43 megapixel om systems camera. I am very happy with my 20 megapixel E-M1 iii, but if an OM-1X (E-M1X ii) came out with 40+ megapixel, I would be willing to spend $3000+ for it. That being said, I think this is where OM needs to go. If they want to become one of the most sought after nature wildlife cameras, they will do 3 things to compete with Sony/Canon/Nikon: 1) Keep the similar performance to OM-1 (maybe 24 frames per second would suffice), 2) bump the megapixels to compete with the R5, and 3) keep putting an emphasis on improving video features. Look, I am extremely happy with what I have, but I want my investment to keep winning financially, and imagine how many people would prefer the lightweight portability of micro 4/3, but the detail and flexibility of having larger files for cropping, and higher res video and/or more video fidelity: i think this is the winning formula for OM, and micro 4/3 as a whole

[@SaintKimbo]

The smaller size and weight are huge for me, I had a 2012 OM-D EM M1 and came into some money when I got laid off work a couple of years ago and upgraded to a Nikon Z5 with a 24-200 kit lens, absolutely an improvement in all areas, beautiful IQ and great low light performance, very happy with it. I bought a few 'F' mount lenses, a 16-35 f4 and a 300 f4 prime, with the adapter, because I wasn't gonna pay the outrageous price of the premium 'Z' lenses, and they work superbly, BUT, as I mostly photograph on hikes, the WEIGHT is killing me, so now I am seriously considering trading the Nikon on an OM-1, because it's gotten to the point where I'm just not willing to cart that extra weight around and the Nikon is just not getting used as much as it should. Realistically, I'm only a keen amatuer Photographer, and I've realised that full frame is more of an ego trip than a necessity, because my old Mark 1 is still totally sufficient for what I do, and with 10 years of improvements, the OM-1 should be more than sufficient, and the thought that I can go back to carrying my camera and 4 lenses, including my 140-300 4 thirds lens, in one medium size shoulder bag is starting to make way more sense to me.

[@1BigBucks1]

LOL at the subscribe box, good one Jordan

[@ziqinz5zhao547]

I think oridinary C-AF with face detection ON is the best combination for OM-1 in your guys situation. Apparently works better than either C-AF+Tr or C-AF w/ manual focus area selecting.

[@MrPhilbautista]

Great work, Jordan. I literally LOLd with that closing.

[@paja13]

I just came from basketball shooting with my OM-1 and 40-150mm F2.8 and Im extremelly happy with the results. around 1200pics, C-AF, ISO MAX 3200 few times, mostly around 2000, "only" 25 FPS, I have like 20 non-focused pictures so I can pick from the rest the right picture. So I can NOT confirm what Chris is saying...

[@youknowwho9247]

ISO 3200 on MFT is completely unusable garbage. Good enough for a hobbyist, but useless for a professional. Nobody is ever going to buy such noisy images.

[@paja13]

@@youknowwho9247 ever heard about topaz denoise or different SW? 🙂 10 Secs in the PP and you have nice noisefree but full of details picture, so your argument is not valid 🙂

[@lackom75]

@@youknowwho9247You said, ISO 3200 useless on MFT camera. Did you used any, or just read/heard it somewhere? I sometimes use my 2 gen. older M 1 mark II on 6400, and it makes the jobb. Yes, there can be- not necessary- a little noise, but nothing that I can't handle.

[@michaelhall2709]

@@youknowwho9247 Are you a professional troll, or just a ‘bot? Either way, your ability to copy-and-paste your own commentary is outstanding. How’s your photography?

[@TITAOSTEIN]

@@youknowwho9247 are you, Landscape360 and stefan1968ful, the same troll with different names? You are already known! Little trolls spreading nonsense!

[@Garrus4Spectre]

I would love to see a rematch with the OM1 Mark II.

[@AMG19]

@ 4:33 the hockeyracket is bending, is that rollingshutter of the r3?

[@Jgatti41]

I know this is an older video, but I watched it again out of boredom. I realized after seeing the costs comparison that the canon set up is as much or slightly more than the cost of my entire Olympus kit. I own the OM-1, the E-m1 mark III , 7-14 2.8 pro, 12-40 2.8 pro, 45 1.2 pro 40-150 2.8 pro and just bought the 300f4 pro. Bought both bodies new, mark III on sale. I'm at around $8300, maybe a tad more for taxes and if I paid any interest. The canon IQ was better, but was it really $5,000 better? Not in my opinion.

[@Maddin1313]

I like how Noct has become a unit of measurement. It's like when talking about distances in space. What is 764'430'000 miles? Can you give me that in AU?

[@arianchandler9285]

What intrigues me most about the micro four thirds format is the increased pixel density. Not only can you put more pixels onto tiny subjects, you can also cram more pixels into the focal plane, which is critical for macro. A 20MP MFT camera has the same pixel density as an 80MP full frame camera, while being more portable. Plus, the OM-1's crazy fast burst modes would be perfect for capturing subjects that can't be tracked with autofocus and are moving in and out of focus rapidly, such as flying insects. Every system has its pros and cons, but IMO MFT seems ideal for macro.

[@rudolfappel7236]

Whether you need the bigger, heavier, way more expensive and undoubtedly better quality or you just appreciate and love it, it doesn’t matter. I used to own a full frame DSLR set with an f2.8 80-200 mm zoom. Loved it. But I am not in that phase of life anymore that I feel I need to proof something anymore and the OM System is just so appealing to me as an enthusiast photographer. I really appreciate it ways less, costs less, compact and remains state of the art features and build quality.

[@LuposVoice]

OM-1 rules the camera world - ONCE MORE! 👍😉

[@t.k.1448]

To be fair, the price difference is actually even more than indicated: a 300mm F2.8 to get the equivalent focal range for Canon would add a significant chunk of change to the comparison. I think for most people, if you never used a Sony A1 or Canon R3, you will be amazed with the results of the OM Digital Systems OM-1. If you have, well, it is sort of tough to go back. Kind of like getting that rare free upgrade to business class, it's awesome so long as you don't have to pay 2+ times the price of economy.

[@groundhoppingwlkp3622]

on APSC 70-200mm is z 100-300 so it's not a big deal. The isolation of subject is a problem for OMD...

[@sergeyzakharov7326]

yeah but 80-300 5.6 is not really comparable to 70-200 2.8 as well

[@groundhoppingwlkp3622]

@@sergeyzakharov7326 it's F4 if you convert it because from F4 to 2.8 you've twice much light, to 5.6 it's x4 for twice smaller matrix as m4/3 is

[@sergeyzakharov7326]

@@groundhoppingwlkp3622 m43 sensor is 4 times smaller than ff (crop factor comes from difference in diagonals not from difference in sensor area). with 2.8 mft lens you get dof of 5.6 ff lens and mft bodies lose close to 2 stops in terms of high iso performance -> 2.8 mft lens is comparable to 5.6 ff lens in terms of the end result

[@SirMo]

@@groundhoppingwlkp3622 not if you're also using APS-C.

[@Stephen.Bingham]

People always get in such a muddle when comparing cameras with different sensor sizes… If we are trying to take the same picture with both cameras - with the same shutter speed and depth of field - them the m43 camera will be operating at two stops lower iso than the full frame camera. The image noise will usually be comparable for a sensors of comparable vintage irrespective of their size.

[@noxtrom]

$5,000 US difference... Great results! Excellent video.

[@moisescugat3948]

And wait until you start buying more equivalent lenses... try to find something equivalent to the Zuiko 150-400 f4,5 IS 1,25x in Canon...

[@terrywbreedlove]

With my Olympus gear Topaz DeNoise a very handy piece of software. Noise is the price you pay for the smaller more affordable system. I do hope OM really goes after the AF tracking in future products. Until then keeping my EM1X.

[@DeepteshLovesTECH]

There are much cheaper full frame cameras. And full frame cameras will get cheaper and cheaper.

[@terrywbreedlove]

@@DeepteshLovesTECH Yes but to buy a FF 600mm F4 is very expensive and heavy. My 300mm F4 is lighter and cost so much less. Same with my 40-150 F2.8 the FF equivalent would be crazy expensive and heavy.

[@Whatsup_Abroad]

@@DeepteshLovesTECH So? Do those FF cameras offer all of the features that the om-1 does? Oh, no they don't. Why compare apples to oranges?

[@ianparr1533]

@@DeepteshLovesTECH World wide chip shortages and camera companies chasing profitability rather than sales volume suggests not

[@Whatsup_Abroad]

You should buy the om1, they need continuous income and sales otherwise they will drop the line altogether. Just sell your current camera and get the om1, then sell that when the next one comes out. It's going to be like 3 years most likely. Maybe more

[@np-ql2ih]

Good review overall but almost seems like it was paid for by Canon. The Om-1 is camera that costs 1/4 (or less) of the price of the r3 and will definitely loose in a comparison against any full frame camera in the price range. For $5k you can have a complete OM-1 professional kit with a couple of pro zooms and a good portrait lens. How much would the r3 system be?🤔

[@tizio54]

To further reduce price and weight om the OM-1 kit, one could also use the Panasonic 35-100mm F2.8. This is also a very sharp lens, with focal range equivalent to Canon 70-200. This would bring the kit down to around 955 grams, about half the weight of the R3 kit.

[@ryantang8146]

But then you won’t be able to use the Pro capture L with a Panasonic lens though.

[@koolkutz7]

But I think you would lose the phase detection AF on the OM-1 by using a Panasonic lens.

[@tizio54]

@@koolkutz7 phase detection is in the body, works with any lens.

[@koolkutz7]

@@tizio54 Yes I understand that but it was always the case that using a Panasonic lens on an Olympus body would result in the AF being contrast detect only, thus losing the advantage of the phase detection that the OM camera has-unless that has changed recently.

[@tizio54]

@@koolkutz7 I know there are some compatibility issues using Panasonic lenses on Olympus bodies (focus stacking, dual/sync IS) but I had never heard/read that phase detect doesn't work with Panasonic lenses. Can you show me the source of this information?

[@whafrog]

Like the guy who is still using the DSLR, every choice is a compromise, so you work with what solves most of your requirements. And sometimes it takes more work, but honestly, isn't that where the jazz is? I mean, you don't want the system working against you, but if you can't plan your shots and just rely on pray-and-spray to hit the jackpot, is that really very satisfying? Where's the skill? Pretty happy with my EM1-iii, still on the fence as to whether this OM1 is worth the upgrade for anything but birds.

[@joennick1]

No mention of the tracking on the OM1 and its sensitivity setting. Did he use high sensitivity to make it very sticky so the tracking stuck with the player without jumping to another or not?

[@andresgonzalezcerda7635]

What a nice videos shots!! Gh6 but what Lens? Bravo Jordan.

[@gonzalolaurie8243]

Interesting video! I've seen some youtube channels, event top ones, bashing the OM-1 because "it's too expensive for a micro 4/3". How about putting the OM-1 against something more in it's price range like, say, the Canon R6?

[@IntothewestOkotoks]

Good review. I’ve been shooting minor hockey games in Alberta for several years (80D with 70-200 2.8v3 and 135F2) and I can’t imagine using tracking. Single point, and try hard to time the shots. Lighting has drastically improved the last few years as a lot of community arenas have switched to LEDs…but I never had a problem with flicker (with anti flicker turned on). It used to be a lot of these arenas had different colour temperatures depending on the area of the ice. Also, 1/2000 sounds way to fast. I usually am shooting 1/1000, and can’t imagine needing to go faster than 1/1600 (tho I haven’t shot NHL lol). Also, I personally think that new RF70-200 would drive me nuts as I like being real close to the glass, and would likely be banging it every time I zoomed out. My best images have come from the 135F2, albeit you miss some shots without being able to zoom - but for a photographer just getting into shooting hockey, I’d recommend 80D or 7DII and either then 135F2, or 70-200 V2 or 3. If you want a real challenge now for that OM1 try shooting a local basketball game ;-)

[@DilianVelev]

It would be interesting to see the same comparison, but with an XT4 instead of the OM-1. XT4 with a 50-140 2.8 will even be a little bit cheaper than the OM-1 and that 40-150 :)

[@problemat1que]

Shorter focal range though and the 1.4x TC makes it darker, roughly equivalent with the Oly. So depends on the range needed. Fuji also has the "pro caputure" (should that really be "pre" capture?). The X-H2 will be a huge contender, likely with very good tracking focus for all next generation Fuji cameras.

[@keithholland4322]

@@problemat1que And with Fuji, you could also use the 200mm f/2!

[@paulhills1967]

Excellent and entertaining comparison

[@rfisher413]

Just admit that you don’t like the om1. I find the quality superb and the iso is not as bad as people keep saying!

[@lim2001burger]

I do like that Jordan put the in-video links over Chris vs Evelyn ;) great video!

[@esmpmedia8586]

Given the size, performance and dollars, OM-1 RULES!!

[@jeffdrew625]

“Managing expectations…” definitely! Nice comparisons! Hockey arenas are always a challenge, but that was well lit! Nice colors & action shots! Imo, the m43 pix & feature compromises were not THAT bad. Then kit prices were compared and I’m glad I was in the chair! Wow! That Canon kit cost a few hockey camps! Oh my! Good video; nice job!

[@paulhab7267]

Great video Chris & Evelyn 😊👍

[@oscarc1100]

What do you mean by "electronic shutter" in some of the images? Does it OM-1 not have an electronic shutter per se?

[@georgieb.4278]

Great video !! Now Lets get the rematch with their latest gear, Thanks guys ✌🏼

[@mipmipmipmipmip-v5x]

Considering the R1 is just a slightly upgraded R3 you can do R1 vs OM1 ii.

[@simonp8088]

Pro capture is a game-changing feature. Why haven’t Sony (and Canikon) done this yet????

[@pault151]

My 2009 Casio EX-FH20 had this feature, so it isn't like Oly...OM-SYSTEMS has a lock on it. For the specific sports / wildlife situations, it is really nice.

[@indyvin]

The quality of the noise reduction software available today makes high ISO shooting with the OM-1 a non issue. I am using the ON1 No Noise software and shooting micro 4/3 at ISO 6400 looks perfect after processing. That full frame advantage is gone.

[@Your_Paramour]

This doesn't make any sense since the same applies to both full frame and m4/3.

[@Your_Paramour]

@@djstuc Yes that's what i was saying. The same software advantages are available for full frame as it is for m4/3. Full frame has a what, roughly 2 stop advantage over m4/3, so if software can make 6400 iso useable on m4/3, then 25600 iso is useable on full frame.

[@sergeyzakharov7326]

great point! i have to process up to 800 pictures after weekend games, can’t wait wasting 13 hours each week because of inferior hardware!

[@problemat1que]

@@Your_Paramour Yes you can correct FF images too but MFT gains the bigger benefit obviously, while retaining smaller size and price. The only difference that remains is background separation.

[@keithholland4322]

@@Your_Paramour The question is "How high do you have to run your ISO to get a clean shot?" In this case, they're shooting at 1600, which you can clean up perfectly with either system, so there's no point in breaking the bank and your back with a full frame setup if noise is the problem. Obviously, autofocus is a real problem with the OM-1 for indoor sports, but noise isn't.

[@michaelhawkins1173]

Thank you. If you have the light then all good with both systems. So all the good news was good in both cameras with $5000 compensation for a few disappointments. You saves your money and makes your choice, as the rich said to the competent. Thanks again for your video they are very helpful.

[@philbrown8181]

Really enjoyed that video. Great dynamic and warmth. Nice to see the Olymp.... .....mother.....

[@mhector1532]

Ha!!! Too funny about that box at the end! :D Great video and comparison. Both cameras are truly impressive, and yes the price points are very relevant. If I won the lottery, I would have these cameras and some lenses to go with them (not in any particular order): 1. Sony A7R IV (already have it) 2. OM Systems OM-1 (dying to try those hi-res modes!) 3. Canon R5C (could I go to the dark side and make videos, finally?) 4. Nikon Z 9 (just plain sweet) 5. Panasonic model yet to be decided Cheers!

[@lekkerpruven887]

Nice list! I would go with the Sony for the 12-24 and the best 70-200 to date. Canon for its RF 28-70 and Nikon for the new 400tc. That leaves the Oly for travel and wildlife, hard to beat the 150-400tc although I think it's just too expensive. It's unique, but it could have sold 4x as mutch as it was priced very sharp.

[@DragonfireRC]

I am curious if the Eye Tracking Autofocus only works if you have brown eyes? Both Evelyn and Jordan have blue eyes, and it does not work for them. Other people I have talked to with blue eyes, also said they could not get the Eye Tracking Autofocus to work either, and I know 2 local photographers with brown eyes who use R3 Eye Tracking and it works for them.

[@niccollsvideo]

Evelyn actually has fairly dark Hazel coloured eyes, and her co-host Dave has bright blue eyes. It doesn't seem to be related to eye color, which just makes the results even more confusing. There doesn't seem to be any method to the madness.

[@Ildskalli]

In the halcyon days of the EOS-5, it was absolutely true that it was mostly people with lighter eyes who had trouble getting the Eye AF to work. But with this implementation, things are more complicated.

[@sebastiaanvanwater]

That would mean a Japan-based Canon made eye tracking tech only work on blue eyes. Doubt it.

[@DragonfireRC]

@@niccollsvideo Thanks for replying Chris. It is appreciated!

[@mysticuser4118]

DPR can you do a test to show which RAW software delivers the best IQ (all brands, free and paid (even ones included when you buy the camera))? Thanks!

[@LoFiAxolotl]

they all have the same image quality if you just convert raw to a png/jpeg/tif.... the image format dictates the algorithm used to convert the format not the software... little more complex than that but makes absolutely no difference what software you use....

[@konradkoeppe2840]

@@LoFiAxolotl i disagree, if i use nx studio my nikon raw converts much better. When i had a sony i used specific sony capture one. It did make a some what noticeable diifference imo. I also think it depends on your editing style as well. Use what works for you.

[@mysticuser4118]

Software makes a big difference (especially if you shoot Fuji). Apart from what you find easier/faster to use, trying to make the exact same photo using different software shows how they translate the data. e.g. Lightroom I used to use for management/printing but Capture One collects much better actual detail that I couldn't recreate in LR. If changing software makes a difference it can stop people from wanting to buy a better camera/lens if they aren't happy with their current photos (if detail/noise/DR worries them).

[@nightowlnzab]

@@mysticuser4118 it's incredibly subjective and no-one will agree, just look at the forums - especially with Fuji's x-trans sensor. I personally use Capture One, but others swear Lightroom is fine as-is, or by fiddling with sharpening or enhance details, then you'll have those who like Iridient X-transformer, or DxO. Folks just have to try, and decide for themselves.

[@mysticuser4118]

@@nightowlnzab Yeah, having to work out which software is good by going through a handful can be annoying but vital to people's best work flow. Unfortunately most people go for the most 'popular' one and also compare cameras/sensors/lenses and judge what to buy/sell when just a cheap (sometimes free) software makes a big change. It'll be good for DPR to educate buyers.

[@StrangelyIronic]

Some of the best interior shots of abandoned architecture I've seen were taken with an E-PL7, the "entry level" MFT camera from years ago. Some of the best portraits I've seen were taken with an E-M1, E-M5.II (baby E-M1 more or less), and an E-M1.II all using the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 and 75mm f/1.8. I've seen and taken amazing shots with the f/1.2 25mm along with my Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 (and to be fair the APS-C Sigma f/1.4 lenses are great for portrait, both the 30mm and 56mm f/1.4's are sharp and affordable 60 and 112mm equivalents, but they're great options as native APS-C lenses everyone knows about), but the shots I've seen a few photographers I follow take with the much more affordable 45mm and 75mm f/1.8's with bodies you can get for stupidly low prices these days in the E-M1, E-M5.II, and E-M1.II I can't really justify spending thousands to replace my MFT collection. If we're pixel peeping at 100% you're going to find differences, if you nitpick obvious losses like depth of field you find differences, but in effective use (depending on said use to be fair) if you as a photographer have the skill, you're fine with most anything that's come out in the last 8 or so years. I had a GFX kit with a 50R, sold it because I was taking my Pentax K-1.II out more often for work (journalism gigs in areas I wasn't really wanting to bring a kit that expensive to), and even then I ended up selling my K-1.II because I used my KP more often than it. My clients love the images I capture with my Pentax KP (an APS-C that rivals a lot of full frame cameras still for pure image quality... mediocre autofocus, but honestly I use manual focus with focus trapping a lot or single point af that's good enough) and with my MFT kit of an E-M5.II, E-M1.II (had an E-M1.III, sold it for enough profit to almost buy the solid used E-M1.II with the difference alone), and E-P5/E-PL8. Cameras like the recently announced G9.II are perfect for me, a person with a large collection of MFT lenses I love that also wants the features in the S5.II. I get to effectively have an S5.II while also keeping my native glass and having benefits I would never use due to the smaller sensor (primarily video, but I do like e-shutter even for stills if possible). Why would I spend thousands to replace my MFT kit I assembled used that I love the look of if I have options like the G9.II and OM-1?

[@FabledFew]

Really interesting discussion and great video! Nice job everyone! 👏🏻

[@pmc7105]

Always love the Noct comparison weight system.

[@Bloggerky]

Evelyn is a star.

[@klackon1]

Chris, when using the CAF + TR, what sensitivity setting were you using? I use either +2 or -2, depending on whether I want really sticky on an isolated subject, or if I know there will be other subjects, set it so it ignores anything popping up between me and the targetted subject.

[@FierceSleepingDog]

$5k for slightly better? I'll take smaller and more rugged OM-1. Add to it the future cost of MFT lenses...all smaller, lighter, and less expensive

[@ddsdss256]

Yep--Pro Capture (and Pre-Burst from Lumix) makes it much easier to catch the decisive moment (although nobody needs 60 or more FPS--I never use more than 20 and even that can produce more images than I care to sort through in the rare cases I use burst at all). Also, shallow DoF IS VERY RARELY AN ADVANTAGE (quite the opposite)!!! Overly shallow DoF is a WAY overdone gimmick and any competent photographer can get shallow DoF with an MFT sensor (plus it's easy to get that look in post if you insist). Further, high ISO (I'd call that 12,800-25,600--and how many times have you ever been in a situation where even that was required?) is no big deal anymore, thanks to the superior noise reduction offered by programs such as Topaz DeNoise and DxO DeepPRIME. I can get great, large prints from high-ISO RAWs with my G9, and the OM-1 and GH6 should enable even better results (read: more overkill). It simply makes no sense to carry the ridiculously bulky/heavy (not to mention pricey) long lenses required for certain types of shooting anymore, when MFT can give you way more IQ than you could reasonably use in a much more compact, more ergonomic package. Nobody needs (nor should they drive) a disgusting, gas-hog SUV/pickup/van to go to the grocery store or the office, and we longer need "FF" cameras, even for sports in low light. MFT is way more than good enough for almost any photographic or video situation and it's too bad that so many people still buy into the marketing hype pushing them into systems that won't result in better photographs (but will drain their wallet)!

[@youknowwho9247]

You should actually watch the video and look at the image quality the MFT produces in even moderately low light. It's completely unusable garbage. The system is obsolete and it's dead for a reason.

[@michaelhall2709]

@@youknowwho9247 Maybe you should try watching it yourself.

[@keithholland4322]

@@youknowwho9247 There is some visible noise because they didn't denoise the images in post. DXO's Deep Prime will take a 6400 ISO image and remove all the noise. You can't see a bit of noise, even viewing the images at 100%. And while it takes a couple of minutes to render each photo in DXO PhotoLab, if it saves you $5,000, that's going to be worth it for a lot of photographers, especially if it means not having to retire early because of a back injury from using big, heavy glass. There's an equine photographer in my area who had to retire early for that reason. In my opinion, the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro is the ultimate lens for equine photography because you shouldn't be shooting a large animal like a horse with a shallower depth of field unless it's a profile shot, so why carry the extra weight? For indoor sports, you can also use the 75mm f/1.8 or adapt an Olympus 150mm f/2, so the brighter aperture almost makes up for the crop factor. The real disadvantage of the OM-1 for photographing a hockey game is the autofocus, which definitely leaves something to be desired.

[@evildead1791]

Just had to through your opinion on transportaion in there huh haha

[@barclayjb]

Thanks for inviting us to dinner. I feel like you finally broke that fourth wall, so to speak.

[@timpolster]

Thanks for the video. Which green was closest to the real uniform color?

[@erichramone7812]

This is why I love your channel. Was waiting for a comparison like this. My Om-1 is waiting on preorder and should arrive in a week or two, maybe sooner. I’m gonna watch the video. Hopefully I won’t feel like I should cancel the order. Fingers crossed

[@bathvader]

What's the verdict

[@erichramone7812]

@@bathvader I shoot birds mostly and street photography, so I’m definitely excited about it. Plus it has a stacked sensor and a over 1,000 Quad pixel phase detect system covering 100% of the frame. The sensor also has a fast scan rate now being it is stacked. So this system has plenty of room to grow with firmware updates. Not worries about it one bit.

[@moisescugat3948]

@@erichramone7812 I think they purposely made the comparison in the worst case scenario for the OM1. For birds, with the 300 f4 or the 150-400 f4,5 and pro capture, I think there is not even comparison.

[@erichramone7812]

@@moisescugat3948 I hear ya, I didn’t see it that way. I believe that the Canon AF and Sonys is just far superior than Olympus in general I had a ‘Em1 mark II and it was useless for sorts for me. My canon 5d mark III DSLR was much better at that time. However I mostly shoot birds and landscape and street and am pretty excited about the OM-1 for this and a few others cool features.

[@moisescugat3948]

​@@erichramone7812 I have the OM1 (and the 1.3 and just sold the 1.2 which I had some years). I don't shoot birds (I do landscapes) but there are a lot of them in were I live and I tried... the OM1 focusing is WOW. I didn't miss a single shot. You put a focusing tech equivalent to the other flagships (I don't care which one is best, because it will be a marginal number of missed shots in any of the contenders, focusing it is not a reason for choosing anymore), combined with pro capture (with focusing capabilities, not like before) and with the best birding lens in the market right now (150-400) and you have a winner combo. (for a fraction of the price)

[@frstesiste7670]

Really interesting video, but it would be super interesting to see the OM-1 vs Canon R6 that is much closer in price.

[@robynaldridge8304]

Hello there. First up it's OM System, NOT SYSTEMS! THAT WAS MENTIONED ON A RECENT OM TALK. I used to be a Canon shooter but I'm so glad I've changed over to Olympus and OM System. That's b/c I have a couple of busted tendons in my shoulder and as one is advancing in years it's time to look ahead and think of where you're going with your photography. OM System also means that I have less weight to lug around whenever I'm travelling on a plane. I'm not going back!

[@hakeem-ji]

great .. but if there is any disadvantage to OM1, its not due to sensor format 4/3 vs FF but the r&d that canon can afford vs olympus (or om-system) imho 4/3 or any smaller sensor format should be better than any larger format for AF or computational photography department .. period DR and resolution can be an advantage to larger formats, but we know how much we need it!

[@roycejohnson929]

At the end of the day it's about cost as well, the Canon R 3 and the 70 - 200 rf lens = $15000 NZ, the Om1 and the 40-150 f2.8 = $5400 NZ, myself i have the EM1 Mk iii and are awaiting the Om1 as I do mostly birds, macro and landscapes. Each to their own but a good comparison showing that the new Om1 is very very good Camera !! Oh and don't forget weight and size !!

[@youknowwho9247]

Except the R6 with the 70-200 f/4 is on par with the OM1 and much cheaper. Of course the R3 setup costs more. It's also worlds better at everything.

[@roycejohnson929]

@@youknowwho9247 The R6 and the above lens is still around $3000 NZ above the OM1 setup cost !!

[@videoguyla]

Great job 👍

[@ReginaldEsque]

How would you compare the OM digital colors compared to previous Olympus cameras?

[@peevee5588]

Rob Trek just put up a comparison between m1m3 against om1 on that very subject.

[@dwong92464]

I wish you would do a comparison with the R6, which has similar resolution and price.

[@darryllafferty8730]

Try the zone cluster focus system on the OM-1

[@jeremyjs8863]

Interesting and thoroughly enjoyable !

[@jeffslade1892]

Understanding what the various focus modes are supposed to do on a given brand is important. C-AF is a form of follow-focus especially in movie modes, which includes fast bursts. It will follow a player but not refocus on another if you pan across a stage, then it will get confused if its line of sight is crossed. It will actually try to stay on the first subject and need a touch on a focus button to make it refocus where you want it. Your GH6 movie continuous focus is a different thing to its AF-C, it works well for following the subject bobbing about on a vlog but not if you want it to swap to a product and back, it's a movie follow-focus. For that switch to AF-S with movie continuous focus on. Eye/body/animal detect is not a focus, merely detection. MFT tracking will lose the plot if the subject goes out of the focus box area. Holding the subject within a small focus box can be tricky with a long lens. Try S-AF, eye/animal/body detect and tracking with a full focus box. With every frame of a burst refocused S-AF works. Does the OM-1 have eye sensor pre-focus like the G6? It's not a full focus but ball park. It readies the camera for quick focussing. No two camera brands do stuff the same way. Lumix have had pre-burst (Olympus Pro Capture) since 2014 but in 4K mode by shooting movie. The G9 pushes that up to 6K but it's still not the full 4/3 frame. Shooting at full tilt it will buffer-out, slower is better for machine gun.

[@Swsmvideo]

Loved the “disrespectful” subscribe buttons at the end 😆

[@ReneGrothmann]

I always feel uncomfortable when you say "affordable". Depends. The OM-1 with a decent lens lists for 2800€ here. This is not even "relatively affordable". It is not a pro level price, admittedly.

[@questioneverything680]

Y’all should do something similar compared to the xh2s!