Well, you know about ass-u-me.
I just started using the OM-1 when I got it, assuming most things were the same as
the E-M1 II & III. Some yes, some no.
The good/interesting news:
-------------------------------------
Where the predecessors had two burst speeds for ProCap, the OM-1 has three. I just saw that ProCap was grayed out with a
Panny lens attached, and didn't look further.
As it turns out, only the slow, mechanical shutter burst mode is unavailable for non-Oly lenses. The middle speed, using
electronic shutter and focusing and/or setting exposure for each frame, IS available for the PL 100-400!
This mode gives 50 fps with a few, specified Oly lenses, 25 fps with others.
ProCap SH2.
ProCap SH1 can be blindingly fast, but focus is fixed with first frame. It's
predecessor on the E-M1 II was useless for me.
There is also a trade-off between fps and number of frames and the time they
cover.
The possibly bad news:
-------------------------------------
I did a controlled set of comparison shots of Oly and PL 100-400 lenses. 400 mm, tripod, remote release, ISO 200, focal
distance 22', f6.3, 7.1 and 8.
The Oly is sharper by a bit in the center and a bit more in the corners. The Oly center doesn't get sharper going from
wide open to f7.1, but subtleties of contrast improve slightly and the corners get ever so lightly better. F8 doesn't
improve anything.
The PL improves noticeably @ f7.1, and maybe a bit away from center @ f8.
The amelioration of bad news:
-------------------------------------
I'll bet no more than a couple of non-test shots I've taken @ 400 mm have corners that are in the same focal plane as
the subject.
Shots @ 40'+, even less on hot days and/or parallel to the earth, air movement
loses much of that sharpness.
DoF is really shallow. Pix of 3D things, like birds, flowers, vehicles flying off cliffs, etc. have sharpness varying
across the subject.
In critter capture, subject movement is a significant factor.
Once through Topaz Denoise AI (which somehow sharpens/improves small details) and perhaps Sharpen AI, which is often
pure magic with subject movement, the differences lessen.
In summary, I'm not sure this rather small difference will ever be seen in print or on a screen, esp without a one to
one comparison
-------------------------------------
Other factors, of untested consequence:
-------------------------------------
It seems focus is faster with the Oly, which makes sense. The Oly is designed for PD focus, the Panny for CD focus and
their Depth of Defocus. This could have an effect on burst and ProCap shots.
Both will depend on an unsynced mix of OIS and IBIS, with who knows what effects. With the Oly, and both IS modes
active, the lens handles pitch and yaw, IBIS the rest. PL is undefined, as far as I know.
I have some spectacularly sharp, clear shots taken with the PL.
-------------------------------------
'Twere me, I had a PL 100-400, and was lucky enough to be able to buy an OM-1, I'd probably stick with it, unless/until
unsatisfied with results - and convinced the problem was with the lens, not other factors.
As it is, I suppose I'll stick with the Oly.
Much info came from two excellent reviews.
<https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/om-system/om-1-bird-photography/>
And <https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/guide/om1-settings-birds/>
Almost Off the Fence Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|