OM-1

Four thirds - I shoot most sensor formats all the way up to a GFX100S. The color from my ancient E500 with a Kodak CCD is very pleasing to my eyes, and the lenses are spectacular - and cheap. Resolution is fine for sharing online and making small prints. The spiked my curiosity - I really like the c

Ok, I don't have vast experience, but here's how I see it. It's gonna be a bit of a wall of text, sorry. Question: Do you care about low light and/or shallow depth of field? If yes, you might want to look into lighter alternatives for your camera. Shooting at f1.2 M43 would behave similarly to f2.5

The 12-100 is a superb lens which really has no weaknesses, except that it is a largeish lens for the MFT system. I love mine, and it is my go-to lens in most situations. My go bag has two bodies: an OM-1 with the 300 f/4 PRO and an OM-1 II with the 12-100.

As someone who's had a camera in their hand for more than 35 years, I like that OM has a very nice simple selection of bodies and a rather amazing array of lenses. I've owned Minolta, Kodak, Pentax, Fuj, Sony, Canon, Leica, Nikon, Panasonic and Olympus. Even with bigger bodies like the OM-1 the m43

Thanks for confirming. This MkII is really what the original OM-5 should have been. Updated menus and USB-C. Slightly different body. I don't mind the plastic as I have an existing OM-5 Mk I and it's fine for me. I don't do a lot of tri-pod or capture clip use, though I do have that installed along

I’ve had Fuji, Sony FF, APSC as well as Olympus/om cameras which I currently use. For me I really enjoy the lighter weight, ergonomics, ruggedness of OM and the quality of the output is completely acceptable for what I do with the cameras. The downside of m43 being MUCH less actively developed in th

The thing is, I don't think history can tell us much. Mirrorless cameras developed so quickly and made huge leaps between 2008 and 2020. But the technology, as with smartphones, is hitting a stable ceiling where the improvements are incremental, though welcome. But the point is that they don't need

I think there is a perception problem with m43 that is unfortunately fueled in part by the m43 maker marketing. I say this as a mft user for the past four years that is now looking for alternatives elsewhere. There are many reasons why users come to or look at m43. My reasons were size, affordabilit

This again… Everyone says “there’s no new tech in m43 bodies”. What new tech is needed? Leading edge computational features have been a part of m43 for years. We have image pre-capture on even the lowest tier camera bodies for years, something that only recently appeared on LUMIX FF and flagships. T

Honestly, if you're getting into M43 for the weight, the OM-1 ii and 2.8 zooms is not a weight-saving plan. You'd be saving like 4 to 8 ounces total, compared to a FF mirrorless + f/4 zooms. Especially if your subjects are all low-light where you really want wider apertures and close subjects with n