Thanks so much for your reviews on OM-1 and OM-5 I'm debating between the 2 still? I hope OM-D doesnt' go out of business, I have full frame, but really like to carry smaller compact cameras. I go jogging and love to have something small that's fully weather sealed to take snapshots while outside. Trying to figure out if OM-1 is still small enough. Without seeing them in person it's hard to know. I don't have a photography store that has them to see. (subscribed) What are some weather sealed lenses that are compact?
Thanks, interesting review, really showed the durability of this awesome little camera. We love the OM5, so compact and excellent features. Starry Sky AF for Astrophotography is so useful. Will trek in Switzerland this Summer and take OM5 along. As you say quality lenses too, 12-40 (24-80mm) f2.8 is very sharp. Images stabilisation works well. Had the camera a few months and enjoying it. You mentioned AF tracking, yeah that misses at times - much better results with C-AF. I only use C-AF now for birds /animals on the move. Not planning to bury it in snow...:)! but again, helpful to see your Demo. Happy Shooting to All.
Same thought re: the grip, so I purchased the external grip and love the added surface area. Would you recommend high res for detailed distant landscape shots to enlarge (panoramas)? Nice review, thanks!
Thanks for this video on the OM-5, however, may I state my objections to your title "Best Travel Camera?"... 1. While I did enjoy my first digital camera, the Olympus E-1, many years back, and loved the ergonomics, build quality, lens sharpness, etc.,, I have since moved to printing quite large (30" x 40" and up). The Laws of Physics state that the more an image is enlarged, the more image quality (i.e., sharpness and detail rendition) is negatively impacted. In other words, the small m4/3 sensor simply cannot compete with larger APS-C and FF sensors when large prints are needed, regardless of the "High-Res" mode. 2. The necessarily small battery in these cameras cannot hold their charge very long, especially in frigid temperatures. 3. When shooting in low light, the m4/2 sensor is noisier, thus producing more "grain" than larger sensors at equivalent ISO. That said, if a photographer was shooting for social media output only , and wasn't interested in making large prints or images with extreme detail and dynamic range, or shooting in low/available light, then the OM System may be a viable alternative for them.
May I state my objections to your objections? APS-C and FF sensors are a poor compromise when compared to medium format, and when enlarged, are negatively impacted by such enlargement and the resulting image will suffer. Typically the noise is also worse! So if a user is not willing to compromise, why would they shoot FF when they could be shooting MF? Of course, not many people want to pay for or indeed carry around a medium format camera, so are willing to make compromises., and that's where things get interesting. I've shot all four formats (MF, FF, APS-C, M43) extensively and also printed fairly big from all of them too. I do not worry about the image quality from M43 sensors at all. No one has ever looked at my large prints (mostly A2, but some A1 as well) and said, oh, that's noisy, low res, lacking detail or such a shame you didn't shoot that on an (pick your) xyz sensor or camera. The compromise I am willing to make is not carrying large, heavy gear anymore, so what ever the size & weight of the body, it's the lenses that make the difference. Then we come to DOF. There seems to be an internet truth that says if you can't get DOF narrower than a Gnat's backside then the camera & lenses are no good. I take issue with that since most of the images I take require the entire subject to be tack sharp from front to back. FF/APS-C makes that so much harder to achieve. In terms of low light, FF has some advantages in some circumstances (but not all), and if that is where you shoot most, by all means use FF, but I found that using FF + fast lenses required me to stop down more to get enough DOF, requiring a much higher ISO which in turn introduced more noise. There is no free lunch here. M43 is a good compromise. especially for travel. Stop looking at the pixels and start looking at the picture :). Let's not fight about which is 'best', there is no one system out there that is best at everything, it's just about what compromises you are willing to make based on what you shoot at the time.
@@DaveEP I think we're both saying the same thing, as I agree with your points. For my style of photography, currently FF seems to make the most sense...especially since MF isn't an option in terms of budget. And I too, have experience in most formats, including 4x5 and 8x10 for product photography, and the sharpest images I've ever seen are 8"x10" contact prints from an 8"x10" black and white negative from a view camera, which obviously required Zero enlargement, thus yielding the ultra-sharp and detailed image. (Though admittedly not too glamorous, since it was merely a book cover.) In any case, I enjoy photography regardless of equipment used. Thanks!
Sorry, but that sounds academic, have you tried it in practice? What is the viewing distance of your large prints, and how come hi-res mode doesn't help with fine details? If you have some super-specific extreme requirements, I don't see sense in using FF when medium format is available at not-so-extreme price.
You make valid points regarding M4/3. I am currently satisfied with the sharpness and detail I achieve in prints up to 30” x 40” using FF gear, but would love to see what MF would do in that size print, but as I do some hiking in mountainous terrain, would not relish the added weight and bulk. Perhaps that’s one scenario in which I would prefer M4/3 gear or even my old Fujifilm X-T2! Thanks.
Hi there, nice to see the camera work after covered with the snow. I am looking for a lightweight and compact camera to use on high altitude expeditions in the Himalayas and I am expecting to get good quality photos of other mountains from the top of the summit. which would be a great? I'll be very grateful if you guide me. Thank you.
Thanks so much for your reviews on OM-1 and OM-5 I'm debating between the 2 still? I hope OM-D doesnt' go out of business, I have full frame, but really like to carry smaller compact cameras. I go jogging and love to have something small that's fully weather sealed to take snapshots while outside. Trying to figure out if OM-1 is still small enough. Without seeing them in person it's hard to know. I don't have a photography store that has them to see. (subscribed)
What are some weather sealed lenses that are compact?
I’d go with the om 5 for that with something like the 12-45 lens
Actually it's the smaller version of the em1 mark 3.
I haven't used mine with gloves, but without gloves and my big hands, I have found the grip to be marvellous and the photos to be marvellous too.
Oh really? Just felt kind of small in mine. I’ve had that issue with Fuji too
The size has always been my biggest issue with the OM-5 but maybe that’s fixed with a battery grip
Thanks, interesting review, really showed the durability of this awesome little camera. We love the OM5, so compact and excellent features. Starry Sky AF for Astrophotography is so useful. Will trek in Switzerland this Summer and take OM5 along. As you say quality lenses too, 12-40 (24-80mm) f2.8 is very sharp. Images stabilisation works well. Had the camera a few months and enjoying it. You mentioned AF tracking, yeah that misses at times - much better results with C-AF. I only use C-AF now for birds /animals on the move. Not planning to bury it in snow...:)! but again, helpful to see your Demo. Happy Shooting to All.
Glad you enjoyed it! Yeah I wouldn’t recommend burying it in snow and ice but it still works even if you do!
I shot the E-M1 along side the Fuji X-T1 and well......while nice, It isn't a Fuji.
Fuji cameras are nice
True, olympus has better lenses. At least primes I haven't tried fuji zooms.
In what way(s) is the Fuji nicer?
Thanks for doing the testing with the more affordable 12-45mm which is IPX1 and it seems unphased by that snow burial which is encouraging.
Yeah! I’ve put it through more lately and is still a champ
Same thought re: the grip, so I purchased the external grip and love the added surface area. Would you recommend high res for detailed distant landscape shots to enlarge (panoramas)? Nice review, thanks!
Thanks for this video on the OM-5, however, may I state my objections to your title "Best Travel Camera?"...
1. While I did enjoy my first digital camera, the Olympus E-1, many years back, and loved the ergonomics, build quality, lens sharpness, etc.,, I have since moved to printing quite large (30" x 40" and up). The Laws of Physics state that the more an image is enlarged, the more image quality (i.e., sharpness and detail rendition) is negatively impacted. In other words, the small m4/3 sensor simply cannot compete with larger APS-C and FF sensors when large prints are needed, regardless of the "High-Res" mode.
2. The necessarily small battery in these cameras cannot hold their charge very long, especially in frigid temperatures.
3. When shooting in low light, the m4/2 sensor is noisier, thus producing more "grain" than larger sensors at equivalent ISO.
That said, if a photographer was shooting for social media output only , and wasn't interested in making large prints or images with extreme detail and dynamic range, or shooting in low/available light, then the OM System may be a viable alternative for them.
All great points!
May I state my objections to your objections? APS-C and FF sensors are a poor compromise when compared to medium format, and when enlarged, are negatively impacted by such enlargement and the resulting image will suffer. Typically the noise is also worse! So if a user is not willing to compromise, why would they shoot FF when they could be shooting MF?
Of course, not many people want to pay for or indeed carry around a medium format camera, so are willing to make compromises., and that's where things get interesting.
I've shot all four formats (MF, FF, APS-C, M43) extensively and also printed fairly big from all of them too. I do not worry about the image quality from M43 sensors at all. No one has ever looked at my large prints (mostly A2, but some A1 as well) and said, oh, that's noisy, low res, lacking detail or such a shame you didn't shoot that on an (pick your) xyz sensor or camera.
The compromise I am willing to make is not carrying large, heavy gear anymore, so what ever the size & weight of the body, it's the lenses that make the difference.
Then we come to DOF. There seems to be an internet truth that says if you can't get DOF narrower than a Gnat's backside then the camera & lenses are no good. I take issue with that since most of the images I take require the entire subject to be tack sharp from front to back. FF/APS-C makes that so much harder to achieve.
In terms of low light, FF has some advantages in some circumstances (but not all), and if that is where you shoot most, by all means use FF, but I found that using FF + fast lenses required me to stop down more to get enough DOF, requiring a much higher ISO which in turn introduced more noise. There is no free lunch here.
M43 is a good compromise. especially for travel. Stop looking at the pixels and start looking at the picture :).
Let's not fight about which is 'best', there is no one system out there that is best at everything, it's just about what compromises you are willing to make based on what you shoot at the time.
@@DaveEP I think we're both saying the same thing, as I agree with your points. For my style of photography, currently FF seems to make the most sense...especially since MF isn't an option in terms of budget. And I too, have experience in most formats, including 4x5 and 8x10 for product photography, and the sharpest images I've ever seen are 8"x10" contact prints from an 8"x10" black and white negative from a view camera, which obviously required Zero enlargement, thus yielding the ultra-sharp and detailed image. (Though admittedly not too glamorous, since it was merely a book cover.) In any case, I enjoy photography regardless of equipment used. Thanks!
Sorry, but that sounds academic, have you tried it in practice? What is the viewing distance of your large prints, and how come hi-res mode doesn't help with fine details? If you have some super-specific extreme requirements, I don't see sense in using FF when medium format is available at not-so-extreme price.
You make valid points regarding M4/3. I am currently satisfied with the sharpness and detail I achieve in prints up to 30” x 40” using FF gear, but would love to see what MF would do in that size print, but as I do some hiking in mountainous terrain, would not relish the added weight and bulk. Perhaps that’s one scenario in which I would prefer M4/3 gear or even my old Fujifilm X-T2! Thanks.
Hi there, nice to see the camera work after covered with the snow. I am looking for a lightweight and compact camera to use on high altitude expeditions in the Himalayas and I am expecting to get good quality photos of other mountains from the top of the summit. which would be a great? I'll be very grateful if you guide me. Thank you.
This would do the job! Just get extra batteries!
@@LandscapePhotographyUniversity thank you very much.
They do sell a grip.... The problem is the price 180 pounds lol
🫨
@@LandscapePhotographyUniversity managed to get a used one for 60 dollars from mpb
Still less than half the price of a Sony, Canon, Nikon or Fuji Grip!,
i think youre missing the point 😂... its not even a vertical battery grip... stop justifying them lol. @@gordonmackinnon817
-20cels. battery life is 15min😂
Nah it’s longer than that 😂
Two batteries will last me most of the day.