OM System OM-1 Indoor Hockey Sample Gallery

I think what they were trying to do was compare the camera with another camera with similar build quality such as a Canon R3 they also could've compared it with the Nikon Z9 we all know full frame is a different beast than micro 4/3.
Compared to other professional cameras with similar build quality the OM-1 is
A lot cheaper than the competition because it has micro 4/3 sensor which has its advantages and disadvantages. There is no perfect camera
Every photographer has different needs.
Back in the 80s to cover sports I used to shoot T-max 400 and push it to 800 ISO occasionally to 1600 ISO and the image quality was nowhere as good as what I could get the micro 4/3 sensor camera.

As Evelyn said in the conclusion of our video, the major advantage we're seeing on the recent crop of flagship fułl frame cameras is brought on by the stacked sensors. The OM-1 is the first time people will be able to experience those stacked sensor advantages with a camera that costs less than $5000. We wanted to demonstrate how large the OM-1 compromises are from a flagship full frame that offers similar specs, but at nearly three times the price.

I get that, and I enjoyed the comparison. I just think real world, R6 is the “budget” R3 alternative, not an OM.

@tkbslc The R6 is even more behind the OM-1 with regard to sheer continuous focusing speed than the R3 (20 fps instead of 30 fps, with electronic shutter), which may not be a problem for other situations, but I guess people will want to have that speed for sports (even if, like in this shooting, they might dial it down most of the time).

I'm more than fine with my Pana 35-100/2.8 & my Oly 75/1.8, but I'm not getting paid for anything I'm shooting and I'm not buying an OM-1 anytime soon... I do shoot multiple systems tho and if I wanted something like that I'd just get the Tamron 70-180 f2.8 which will likely still be lighter and cheaper than a hypothetical M4/3 35-100/1.8.

Take into account that said Tamron is about the same weight as the 40-150/2.8 Pro, and the Sigma 50-100/1.8 for APS-C weighed in at nearly twice as much as either or them... I think there's a sweet spot for lenses on each format tbh and anything that veers too far out from that tends to get really niche and harder to justify, but more options are always nice to have.

@Impulses: Which "PL 50-100" are you talking about? There are rumors they might make a 50-100mm f/1.7 to top off their f/1.7 zoom line which probably would be just what the thread starter asks for, but to the best of my knowledge there is no such lens yet. I do believe they could make it in similar dimensions, with similar weight and for a similar price than the existing two f/1.7 zooms, though.

Sigma has you covered for FF with their 60-600mm. Or I guess it's 90-900mm if you used it on an APS-C sensor. A little heavy in m4/3 terms, though.

https://www.sigmaphoto.com/60-600mm-f45-63-dg-os-hsm-s

OK a LOT heavy at 2700g or 6lbs. :)

Probably the best semi compact alternative for you is an RX10 M3 or M4. 25-600mm equivalent. In m4/3 equivalent terms it's like a 12.5-300mm f3.2-5.4 lens.

Disagree with @Boss of Sony, you may not want to see clear across ice to boards, however it's just as important to capture the action and expressions around the main subject. This provides emotion and context. If everything besides subject is isolated you might as well be shooting portraits in a studio. I have shot Triple A Canadian hockey for several years through the glass with a D300, back in the day, I might add with excellent results.

Thanks for sharing, but what has that to do with this sample gallery?

Thank you for that "contribution" Becksvart.

@A Cronhelm, @Little John of GC: I have the Panasonic 10-25mm f/1.7 and it's an excellent lens. I don't need the 25-50mm range covered by a zoom so I don't have that one, but people who've tried it say it's just as good. And maybe there's even a chance that Panasonic will top off that line with a third lens, a 50-100mm f/1.7. Such a lens should fit into the dimensions of the two existing lenses.

That lens would reduce the 2 stops gap between the OM-1 and the R3 for both subject separation and sensor-based image quality to a mere half stop, which would be great!

And in the meantime, OMDS can fix their generic C-AF+TR to become something worth switching to. The new processor has already proven that it should be up to it.

The two lenses that you're talking about are too short for my use.
Where I live I will need to take commercial flight just to go to any camera store
To try out a new lens is not practical.
So I have to currently do my research and spend my money hoping that I've got the right lens and camera system.
I live in a winter wonderland or there's only two seasons
This winter and last winter.

I wonder if Sigma would ever release their 18-35/1.8 & 50-100/1.8 in mft mount. The 50-100 would be decent for indoor sports.

As for the OM1, I think it has room to mature; perhaps the "OM2" would have a first class AF Tracking system. Who knows!

Cheaper lens you're talking about with full frame lenses are generally not weather sealed.

That is not the case at all the Sony FE 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G { doing the same job as a m43 35-150mm f/2.25-2.8}. Is weather sealed and here in the UK costs about £120 less than the Olympus 40-150mm F/2.8. It is weather sealed and built to their G standard.

When you compare lenses that do the same job { same diagonal AOV, same DOF control and same total light gathered}. The m43 lens rarely comes out well in the price equation. The closer you get to equivalent lenses the closer in size the lenses become

Does anyone shooting indoor sports actually need weather sealing?😉

@ James Stirling ""The FF is too expensive routine only plays out when you compare apples to orange's. Lenses that do the same job are typically cheaper in FF land"" That lenses argument has certainly taken on much less of a significance in the last couple of years. With that said, shooting hockey pretty much requires an fov of 300mm. The Z mount doesn't have that lens and a Nikon Z9 is $7K while a OM-1 is $2.8K (Cdn prices). The $4.2K difference buys a lot of glass.

I'm pretty sure everyone knows that yes, the Z9 is a better camera. I would also suggest that a $2800 camera holding its own compared to a $7000 camera is a pretty big accomplishment.

As an aside, these comparisons by DPR *are* useful *and* fair IMO, but much pricier FF stacked sensor bodies *aren't* the only thing the OM-1 is competing with when it comes to C-AF or tracking (unless you absolutely need >15fps bursts).

@ Impulses - Exactly! Everything is a compromise one way or another. The arguing about what is "better" is ridiculous. The only person I know shooting hockey (NHL) is still using a Canon 1D III and has no plans to change it because it just works. He also has an Oly EM5 for vacations/general shooting because it works for that.

Equivalence Police have entered the chat..

Shooting that slightly cheaper Sony at 5.6 isn't the same as shooting the more expensive Oly at 2.8. Two stops faster capture is two stops faster-that means lower ISO, faster shutter speed, or a bit of both. Those matter in shooting things that move, as in sports and wildlife.

I don't think Sony G is as good as Olympus' top end pro. The Olympus is IPX rated, like with an actual engineering department rating. G is 'marketing department WR' as in probably decent. Probably. You get what you pay for.

Still, using the worst raw converters there are for Olympus cameras like C1 doesn't help showing what a camera can do, either. Since I've moved to DxO PhotoLab for higher ISO I wouldn't hesitate to go up to 4000 or 5000, maybe 6400 in those situations, getting tack-sharp images with hardly any visible noise. (Of course with PhotoLab you could go up to 16000, 20000 or 25600 with FF and still get the same quality, but the practical gain of that is limited when 5000 is already enough for the application at hand.)

And if Panasonic really comes up with a 50-100mm f/1.7 to complete their f/1.7 zoom line as some have been thinking they might do, the two-stop difference between MFT and and FF regarding both subject separation and sensor-based image quality suddenly drops to a mere half stop.

Although then Olympus would still have to fix their generic C-AF+TR.

Another issue with editing Olympus 4/3 raw files in an attempt to remove high ISO noise with editors such a DXOPureRaw is the increased workflow. Not only the time consuming workflow steps, files scattered outside my primary editor C!-21, consolidating the scattered files. etc. and the resulting large DNG files averaging 80MB. At times I have to wonder why I'm doing all this to get a photo that looks half as good as 36MP unedited Nikon Raw.

As I've said, for most amateurs a JPEG output is satisfactory and one should not impose his own level of IQ acceptance on others. After all, probably 95% of all photos taken are with cellphones. All that said and along with the some of my frustrations with IQ with my M1X, is that undeniably, the build quality is perhaps the best of any camera I've owned in over 60 years. The pro lenses are as good or even better in cost, build and acuity of any lens made. These pro lenses do help improve IQ and are essential to gain every advantage.