Interesting, thanks for sharing!

My theory is that the OM-1ii is stickier and has better tracking because the algorithm is not constantly searching for a bird to focus on. On the OM-1, even when the camera has found a bird and focused on it, it is still looking for a bird to focus on. It is 2 very different approaches in animal eye AF. Generally, an AF system that is stickier will have the weakness of not being able to find the subject, or that it will be slower to find the subject. I find the OM-1ii and Lumix G9ii to be like this. On the other hand, there are AF systems that have very fast focus acquisition speeds, and will often find the subject, but they are not very sticky. The focus will pulse a bit back and forth, even after finding the subject, because the algorithm is searching for a bird in every frame, just incase it has locked onto the wrong target. The OM-1 and Canon R7 are like this. OM System announced that the OM-1 will be getting a firmware update in fall for improved autofocus. I feel that the OM-1ii's autofocus is not actually "better". It just works differently. It trades off focus stickiness for acquisition. I suspect that OM System launched the OM-1ii with this new autofocus algorithm to test the crowd response of its performance. Since the autofocus is not actually better (it's very situational - better for sticking to the subject, but worse for acquisition, or knowing when it should stop/continue to search for a bird in the frame). Remember, the camera NEVER really "knows" if it has successfully acquired a bird in its detection. It can only make an educated guess. Sometimes, patterns in twigs or rocks could be mistaken for a bird. An autofocus system that is programmed to be very sticky will risk sticking to the incorrect subject. An autofocus system that is programmed to constantly second guess itself will experience more pulsing and slightly missed frames (since it is constantly reanalyzing each frame to find a bird - there is less time for focus confirmation and to precisely dial in focus distance), but it will be less likely to focus on the wrong thing, or be stuck in a state where it just refuses to focus or find the right subject. I think that's the reason why OM System is withholding the firmware update for the OM-1 until fall this year. They want to see what the consumer reaction is to the OM-1ii's new algorithm first. Are people generally happier, or less happy with the less reactive, but stickier algorithm? When that firmware update arrives in fall, I do not recommend upgrading your camera until seeing thorough tests. Just incase OM System does decide to tradeoff subject acquisition for stickiness in that update, it might not be a change that is suitable for all birders. Depending on the subjects you shoot and what you prefer in an AF system, the current implementation may very well serve you better.

Thanks a lot!

Thanks for the feedback, I will keep it in mind

I never tried that

Thanks

I wish I had enough time to test it with the 90mm macro - but I was too busy

Though decision! If you need reach, I would go for MFT. Otherwise Canon

You know the G9ii shoots faster than the OM1ii right? 60fps with AFC and 75fps with AFS also 4k 120fps for video.

@@JoeMaranophotography I'm looking at sensor readout speed for rolling shutter effect, I get it in the em5iii and g9 while doing panning shots of cars and bikes. Have seen tests in the dpreview forum where people calculate it by shooting at led lights and g9ii it is 1/75 without DR boost, while om-1 is 1/120. Sensor readout also improves the time for high res shots, I use that for macro.

Thanks!

Why would you say it’s more complete? It certainly has some nice lenses, but I think Nikon or Canon offers way more options

@FabianFoppNaturephotography Well practically every Panasonic lens has image stabilisation built in which works well with the already industry leading in body stabilisation, OM are one of the only manufacturers with IP ratings, you have one of the largest catalogues of lenses to be found on any mirrorless line up and let's not forget you can adapt almost any lens that's in existence to the M43 mount. Let us also consider that if you are travelling you can fit your entire setup in hand luggage. Good luck doing that with full frame. Good luck walking and hand holding 800mm lenses all day. Tripods, gimbals, backpacks and other accessories are cheaper because they don't need to hold such big items or weight. You are also going to find it hard finding an APSC or Full Frame that can achieve 60fps in photo and 120fps at 4k, have raw pre burst for anything less than £2.5k. All it gives up is a couple of stops in low light (in the worst case scenario) but considering most people can only afford F5.6 lenses you can easily achieve that with F2.8 M43 lenses which are smaller and lighter. For Macro you have no disadvantage against full frame at all - they are the same except you have smaller lenses that weigh less. Trust me I have looked at Canon, Nikon and Sony for a setup that can rival a G9ii or OM1 and there isn't anything to be found like I say all you give up is some low light performance, depth of field I don't consider a disadvantage because most environmental images benefit from an increased depth of field and portraits we often have control over our subject and the background anyway. Besides no one ever made an award winning image solely because it had a shallow depth of field. Lens options for cost is incomparable. You have 40-150 pro F.28, 300mm F4, Leica 200 2.8, Leica 100-400, Lumix 100-300, Oly 100-400, Oly 150-600, Oly 150-400 and many more affordable telephoto as well. In fact my first telephoto was a 90-350 equivalent which cost me pennies on Ebay and was as sharp as anything I've seen! Canon you have 100-500 - not enough reach 200-800 well you may as well use M43 at this point at F9! Sony 200-600 or 100-400 great options but not enough reach and their APSC cameras are all flawed. Nikon I will admit to not knowing enough about but from what I've seen you'll have to sell the cars on your driveway to buy from them. Fuji I don't know enough about to comment. I was having a discussion with someone the other day (he was shooting full frame Sony A9 and me sadly I only have the original Lumix G9) and we agreed that a decent APSC camera would be the perfect common ground. You can then have your cake and eat it in all regards. Shame no-one seems too interested in that! If Sony made an APSC camera that matched the best M43 cameras I would buy it in an instant! The ideal situation would be to have a decent APSC lens line up and also the option to use full frame lenses just in case you ever wanted to move up to it one day and the APSC lenses for if you didn't.

Thanks

I will see if that’s possible

I have both lenses. What do you want to know?

The OM-1 & Panasonic 200/2.8 was indeed more stable than the G9 II & Olympus 300/4

If I remember correctly, they did not change the implementation compared to the original OM-1

@tonysvensson8314. I am not entirely sure I understand the issue you are describing but if my understanding is correct the problem you are referring to does not impact the MK1, which I own and use. By way of an example. With the camera in Aperture mode I set the AEL button as my subject detection button and simply press it to toggle the mode on or off. With the subject detection toggled to on one then goes into the super control panel and with the lever switch which surrounds the AEL button set to position 1 I set the Target mode on the screen to small or to my preferred custom mode focus point which is a much smaller and accurate single point which I created immediately I bought the camera. I then toggle the lever to position 2 and change the Target mode to all and switch the camera off. Thereafter, when I switch the camera back on I have subject detection and single focus point or subject detection and all focus points available at the flick of the lever. I understand that in the mark two body most professional users state that the previously somewhat complicated focusing modes have been simplified by virtue of the fact that the detection modes are now so reliable that all they do is enable the subject they require and then use all focus points or a grid sufficient large for the circumstance they are working in and the auto detection and the cameras ability to stay on the subject ax it moves through the frame does the rest. If I have interpreted your question correctly, I hope the above helps. In closing I would recommend that users coming to the brand for the first time immediately turn the noise filter down to low or off and set the noise reduction to auto. Also to maximise the available dynamic range, expose to the right and take full advantage of the fact that the Olympus Pro Lenses are optically superb and can be used at their lowest aperture without fear. The lens used in this review and the 300mm f4 are perfectly fine opened up to their maximum aperture of f4.5 and f4 and for most depth of field requirements don’t need to be closed down beyond say f5.6. I find adding the optional battery grip improves the balance of the camera significantly when using these longer lenses and helps considerably In getting sharper images. (Viewer often mistakenly identify the effect of slightly out of focus images as noise and it’s certainly the case that this will exaggerate any noise present) Finally I would recommend the raw files are either processed via Capture One or if you prefer then initially through the free OM Workspace Raw Processing Application before being exported into your de-noise application of choice and then into Capture One for final editing If you do use Workspace, you may find it’s free built in de-noise program sufficient?

@@stevenbirds2920 That doesn´t help me. If I would program the camera that way i woukd have to lift up the tumb and toogle then put my tumb back to thr af-on button. It would take too much time and the AF-tracking would be interrupted while i changed the settings (toogled the lever to pos. 2). On my Canon bodys i can program to AF-buttons so I just have to move my tumb a centimeter or program so I have, for eample, AF-C with just one focus point on the index finger and Bird AF on the whole area on the AF-on button - this is the fastest way because i never have to move my fingers sideways while switching during tracking. I think the only way to do somethimg similar with OM--camera is to have focus on the shutterbutton and the tumb ready on the lever and I find that fingerpsosition very uncomfortable.

Thanks! In many situations the bird was still moving a bit, so AF-S would not have been an option

True. It's just an emergency solution. In some scenarios will work fine or perhaps combined with PRE-CAPTURE.

I saw a significant drop when going from a 1/80 Sec or so to 1/30, in both systems. So I think it should be quite comparable but next time I push it more 😊 The AF of the R8 is much better than the R5 😉

Still using it for 90% of my videos 😊

Personally, I would stick with Nikon 😊 Maybe have a look at the Z6 III instead of the ZF?

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Thank you my friend for responding. Yes I will stick to Full frame Nikon

I agree and I brought up to the Fabian that he needs to try to compare both system at extreme slow SS like 1/15 or below to see the differences. He is as if he didn't want to commit to this aspect as I brought it up when he did OM1.1 review.

Well, I still prefer a 600/4 or 400/2.8 on fullframe. And from what I seen, I can go to quite comparable shutter speeds than MFT but I have much more light do to the larger sensor on FF. Until 1/60 Sec almost all of them are sharp and at 1/20 still a „reasonable amount“. + my Canon FF at 12‘800 looks similar than the OM-1 at 4000 ISO.

There is no need to try to be defensive about your FF Canon. There is no debate FF will always provide better IQ and when light is really dim, it will last longer. However, not everyone will be able to afford those big lens of handle it forever. This is why my friend who is 70s had to change from R5 and 600mm F4 to something much lighter. There are pros and cons for each system and it is the best thing we all have choices. I still insist thought anyway, MFT will have better stabilization than than FF 600mm or over. Try to see if you can shoot 1/5 SS at ISO 40,000 +1.7 EC at 600mm FOV with your setup Fabian handholding it! How much sharp image you can get.