OM-1 for wildlife photographers - My experiences (Review)

I have been using OM-1 mark 2 for close to 2 months. Since that I have spent several days at Conowingo Dam photographing bald eagles in flight and also at Cape May photographing Osprays. I used OM-150-400 at 20 fps using C-AF with Bird AI, shutter priority at 1/2000 or higher with auto ISO. Focus box was set 1 down from Max or Max size in most cases. During this period, I took over 30,000 pictures of various birds from very small ones to bald eagles both stationary or in flight or fishing. Previously I used 2 OM-1s with the same setup for around 2 years, exclusively for birds and wildlife photography with over 200,000 pictures taken. I was hesitant to upgrade to OM-1 mark 2 but finally did it exclusively because of the claimed focus and buffer improvements. Here are my findings with the OM-1 Mark 2, which is a mixed bag: 1. For the stationary small songbirds the autofocus appears to be more accurate. There is less pulsation of the autofocus and most of the shots are sharp if the eye of the birds is clearly visible. With the old OM-1 often some frames were soft. However, the autofocus recovered within a couple of frames giving sharp frames. 2. OM-1 II finds the stationary small birds better within branches even with large focus box selected if the eye is visible. For the OM-1 many times selecting a smaller focus area helped in this situation. However, for the large birds (e.g. bald eagles) when most of the bird was covered with branches, except for the head, the autofocus of OM-1 2 often struggled/failed. Selecting smaller boxes would not change this behavior. With OM-1 large boxes would also fail in this situation, but selecting the smaller autofocus areas often would recognize the head/eye of the bird. 3. When photographing bald eagles in flight fishing OM-1 tended to lose the bird in a sequence for a few frames with busy background (e.g. trees or moving water and backlit scenes). In most of such cases the autofocus recovered and sharper and less sharp pictures were alternating during a sequence. In some cases (10-20%) the autofocus was completely lost without recovery. To my great surprise with OM-1 2 the number of misfocusing of the complete sequence was considerably higher. If the camera could not acquire the focus in many cases, it never recovered. In other cases, there were 5-6 frames out of focus and after that the autofocus recovered. 4. With a clear background (e.g. blue sky) both cameras had very good success rates, have not noticed any difference. 5. I could not see any differences between the 2 cameras in the stabilization either. The OM-150-400 with the teleconverter engaged was handholdable at 1/50s at 1000 mm full frame equivalent focal length for stationary subjects with similar keeper rate. 6. I found the increased buffer useful on OM-1 Mark 2 for long flight tracking sequences 7. IN OM-1 Mark 2 it is also possible to zoom without loosing the tracking sequence, which was not the case with OM-1 In conclusion, my impression was that the autofocus for stationary small birds in OM-1 mark II slightly improved, also for small birds in branches if the bird eye is visible. However, the tracking for birds (e.g. eagles) with busy background (trees, rocks, moving water, backlit scenes) got even less reliable compared to the original OM-1. If it grabs the sequence there is less pulsation of the autofocus and more frames are in focus (more sticky). Hopefully these issues could be fixed by firmware updates. I also use Sony FF system with the 200-600 mm zoom. The tracking of Sony is significantly more reliable though for stationary birds the autofocus of OM-1 mark II is slightly better/faster. Mostly I go out with my friend to photograph eagles and he is using a Canon system with a large prime. In most situations when I am upset with the OM-1 loosing the tracking he is getting the shots. However, the ergonomics and handholdability of OM1 I/II with Olympus-150-400 F4.5 1.25x TC PRO mm lens is unbeatable and my Sony system in most cases stays at home. I can hike with OM-1 150-400 F4.5 or 300 mmF4 30 miles holding it in my hands and never really need/use a tripod. I fall in love with that lens. Hopefully with the future firmware updates the tracking of OM1 Mark 2 under more challenging conditions (complicated and backlit background transitions) would improve and get closer to Sony, Canon systems.

My impression of this camera is such that I hardly pick up my R5 anymore. What truly sold me is the MZ 150-400 f/4.5 with built-in TC. (300-1000mm FFE), although that 300mm f/4 (600mm FFE) is a great lens also. The MkII (I have both) has faster and stickier AF and 8.5 stops of IS when used with OMS lenses. It may not have a third wheel, but has lots of buttons to customize. I use the front buttons to switch between C1 and C2. two of the top buttons are set to C3 and C4. And the lever lets you set up basically two different sets of total settings. so C1-C4 x 2.. To me as a wildlife shooter The AF and stabilization is better than my R5. Last African Safari I left the R5 setup at home and only took two OM-1s. Like any camera, in order to get the best out of it, you need to live with it for a bit. You barely scratched the surface. BTW it's a BSI stacked sensor. Oh, and live ND plus many other computational features.

Thank you for your review, Fabian. For bird photography I switched from the Sony A7r3 and 200-600mm lens to the OM-1, the 300mm f4, and the 1.4 teleconverter. My main reason for the switch was weight. I rarely use a tripod and found I was less interested in shooting wildlife because I had to lug around Sony’s heavy telephoto lens. With my OM-1 kit, I have an 840mm equivalent focal length in a lightweight package. In addition, some of the advanced features of the OM-1, like Pro Capture, have really improved my bird photography, especially for “action” shots. Still, I sometimes miss the smooth bokeh potential of full frame.

I shoot MFT but, in my case, I use the Lumix G9 and 100-400mm for a my bird outings. However, I think the OM-1 deserves a lot of credit for breathing new life into the MFT concept. In a few cases the OM-1 has been good enough to convince a couple YouTube photographers to choose it over highly regarded full-frame cameras like the Sony A1. However, I think the biggest asset of MFT is to provide sophistication in a light-weight package. To that end I've found the digital 2x converter in the G9 very useful and would love to see a vertical grip and shutter release WITHOUT a battery offered, so long as it doesn't cover the battery door. These are and would be options that increase the utility of the camera while adding no, or very little weight to the camera, options I think OM Systems and Lumix photographers would appreciate.

I'm in love with my OM-1 MK2 + Olympus 300 Pro + MC14 combo. Birding paradise. If I had to complain it would be : lack of external battery charger in the box, no touch in menus, while buffer is clearing you can still take photos - but only in the same mode you were on (you can change the modes on the dial but it will keep shooting in the mode that corresponds to the photos in the buffer). Also, it would have been nice to make the lever remember more settings (like subject detect , so you can switch between pets and birds, or on and off). But overall, although it's a stup1d expensive camera - I love it. I went birding for 1.5 days and came home with 77GB of footage :)

Nice, concise video about your experience with this camera Fabian. Am also pleased to hear that the 200 2.8 worked well for you. Did you find the reach generally sufficient with that lens?

Well produced detailed review as always Fabian. They are great cameras with an excellent feature set, and are currently really standing alone for macro work. I'd be tempted but as a current R7 \ RF100-400mm user I can't justify paying over twice the price and holding double the weight for minimal (if any) gain, especially when it comes to auto focus tracking performance and pixels on subject. It will be interesting to see how OMD go longer term as apart from macro I don't see them having much advantage over decent crop sensor options but I know they have a very loyal following.

Nice & complete feedback, Fabian ! I use OM-1, it performs nice, I get nice results with it. So I will keep it for the next 2-3 years (no upgrade yet to OM-1 MK II) I also use 300mm and sometimes MC-20. When the birds are far away, MC-20 can help. Of course at longer distances, there is a risc of air turbulences, especially when I shoot near the ground. Although is nice, Panasonic 200mm F/2.8 would be too short for me.

Never thought I would appreciate mallards and coots but your shots made me to

I feel everyone that can afford it should have the 300mm f4 and 200mm f2.8. They are so good and portable for what they do. I’m saving for the 300mm f4 after seeing someone crop 2x digitally on it and not losing quality. I don’t think they can match the other setups you have, but they are very convenient for just grab and go without any monopod or tripod. Thanks for the review, really liking the channel.

I'm not sure a £2000 camera should be compared to £4000‐5000 cameras when it comes to a lot of features. It's like expecting a £50000 car to perform like a £100000 car. That said I get that those cameras are likely your only source of comparison but would have liked to seen it compared more to the G9ii

Hi Fabian, How would you compare the files from this setup compared with the R5?

I'm from southwest Germany but I frequently photograph in South America, especially Brazil, and in certain regions, not only the weather sealing, but also the small size, are advantages that cannot be ignored. With lots of light, lots of rain and a lot of need to be “discreet” it’s hard to imagine a better system.

When I use independent manufacturers batteries I always buy a matching independent charger too. All camera makers charging systems detect and undercharge 3rd party batteries. I have tried and confirmed this with the Sony, Panasonic and Olympus cameras I own.

If I remember correctly and if they didn’t change it you should also be able to zoom using a double tap. Pinch to zoom would be more intuitive though.

AF is a myth it seems. A few of my friends now using OM1.2 said it is better than R5! They have been using R5 for several years and just got OM1.2 for about a month. If I don't have back issue, I would be shooting Z8 or Z9 with either the 400mm F2.8 with built-in TC or the 600mm with built-in TC.

For me om-1 focus work better over the r6, detects much quicker and for that senzor size is doing a well deserved bravo job.... Maybe you should try a 150-400 f4.5 with om-1 to se the real deal :D

I have to agree with most of what you said, however I am perplexed as to how the autofocus didn’t perform well for you? I owned the Sony A1 and a few of their primes for almost 2 years, shooting primarily birds and BIF before making the switch to the OM1 and the 300 f4 and the 150-400 f4.5; I switched because I rented the OM1 and found it to be almost on par with the autofocus of the A1, which blew my mind; we’re talking a $1999 camera vs a $6500 camera. All cameras have minor flaws with their autofocus systems, as no one system is perfect. With this being said, I rarely, if ever , miss a shot with the OM1 because the autofocus performance is stellar. What settings did you use to come to the your conclusions regarding the autofocus?? I respect your opinions but as someone who has used this system for more than a year now and knows it’s capabilities, this video is upsetting because videos like this give OM systems and the OM1 a bad rep, when in all reality it is a FANTASTIC system in the right hands. Duane Patton, big wildlife YouTube channel, reviewed the OM1 himself and agreed that the autofocus performance is stellar. Furthermore, on the day he used the OM1 paired with the 100-400, he said it was one of the best days he’s ever experienced while photographing birds and he was so overwhelmed with joy. Thanks

If using subject detection turn off tracking. My autofocus grabs birds even in very low light. Greater depth of field can often be an advantage as you don't have to stop down to get the whole subject sharp. Modern software makes it easy to soften the background so shallow depth of field is not an advantage anymore.

I believe Sigma might do 500 mm f5.6 rebranding from actual Sony mount. If they do.. that would be the first 1000 mm equivalent under 1,5 kg with f5.6 😅😅