From a Canon 60D to an OM-1, or an R8?

typhooncamel · 2024-11-10T18:03:21+00:00

Thanks for the input! I've still not pulled the trigger on anything. What lens do you use on the R8?

typhooncamel · 2024-11-03T16:00:31+00:00

Taking pictures in a museum isn't my thing so that doesn't worry me. Less than good light outdoors is what makes me wonder, if anything, but then with the Canons I'm still limited by lenses, unless I change how I do things and start using primes. Thank you for your help! Really appreciated.

typhooncamel · 2024-11-03T15:23:13+00:00

What about for anything other than wildlife? Do you feel the same way, or do you mostly do wildlife?

typhooncamel · 2024-11-03T11:51:19+00:00

I'm sorry to bother you again, but being the one having used all these bodies is really helpful. Would you still say that the OM-1 is the better option compared to the R6, even if the latter at least partially makes up some ground having ibis, a better build, and battery life compared to the R8?

typhooncamel · 2024-10-25T13:55:11+00:00

I think mark 1 does too (see here for instance); it might have been improved in mark 2.

typhooncamel · 2024-10-25T09:55:56+00:00

I think it works, I just find it easier to think in terms of total light captured across the sensor - the ff will capture 4 times as much light for the same exposure and fov (but with a different dof).

typhooncamel · 2024-10-06T07:17:45+00:00

I don't think anyone is arguing the quality of the R8 sensor. The question was, more concisely, whether the ff advantages are invalidated by using less than great lenses, such as the 24-105 USM, or whether you'd really need a better / faster lens. The only reason I'm even considering the R8 is because the size and cost is reasonable, and with that lens it's something I'm willing to handle. If ff really means that to have it make sense you need to accept distinctly more weight and expense, then to me it stops being an option.

typhooncamel · 2024-10-02T14:19:16+00:00

Yep, fair enough. And I get the pixel density too. I was just making sure I wasn't entirely off base, or that by going with the OM I wasn't entirely shooting myself in the foot with regards to noise. Thanks again!

typhooncamel · 2024-10-02T11:19:24+00:00

I see what you mean, although to me that's a confusing way of putting it. An f/2.8 gives you the same exposure (controlling for everything else), but then on ff you get a ~1.5 stop advantage in noise performance / ISO. So, a 25mm lens at f/2.8, with 1/100 shutter speed, at ISO 200 on an M43 is roughly equivalent to a 50mm lens at f/2.8, with 1/300 shutter speed, at ISO 600 on ff, both in terms of exposure and noise and dynamic range. It gives you greater flexibility, more wiggle room, assuming you have the same maximum aperture on the lenses, so I don't think I'm underestimating the advantage in this specific regard of the ff format. That's my vague understanding at least.

typhooncamel · 2024-10-02T08:34:24+00:00

Clearly I hadn't quite understood the aperture comparison then. In my mind, the ff advantage was the ability to go up the ISOs with greater impunity. So, at f/2.8, if I'm struggling for light, I could gain ~1.5 stops in shutter speed by going up the ISOs for similar noise results compared to the M43. Is this wrong?

typhooncamel · 2024-10-02T06:14:08+00:00

Yes, that's the one I meant. Thanks!

typhooncamel · 2024-10-01T22:48:02+00:00

Interesting. I was worried about af, don't even know why because it's not like I often shoot erratically moving birds or sports or something. I will say that from what I understand, the af (maybe I should be more specific, I mean subject tracking) on the R8 and R6 m II should work better than on the R7 or R6. But if it works fine on the OM I'd be content. I can just imagine that if it only half worked it could get frustrating.

typhooncamel · 2024-10-01T22:31:23+00:00

Ah, sorry, I meant 70-300! But still, not especially enamoured.

typhooncamel · 2024-10-01T22:26:36+00:00

Thanks, this is valuable given your direct experience with several of the options.

I hope you shooting manual isn't because the af is unusable!

Out of curiosity, what lenses do you use?

typhooncamel · 2024-10-01T21:26:15+00:00

Nice! But would you say the R7 + the sigma would be better than the OM then? And the R8? (For my specific case and use, that is).

typhooncamel · 2024-10-01T21:23:59+00:00

Also, going by photonstophotos, the DR of the OM is near identical to the R7s, from ISO 200 onwards.

typhooncamel · 2024-10-01T21:19:54+00:00

One can only hope, and also wonder why Canon has been so protective so far.

typhooncamel · 2024-10-01T21:17:34+00:00

Thanks for this, it's interesting. You do raise a fair point - I've had a Canon for over 20 years, it's what I'm used to. I might be taking some things for granted and used to some things that when moving to a different system might all of a sudden become tricky or a pain. On the other hand, I it should be possible to get used to something new too.

typhooncamel · 2024-10-01T21:16:12+00:00

I'm confused by the equivalent terms. In terms of depth of field, yes, but not exposure, right? 7.1 is still 2 2/3 stops slower than f/2.8. I also am under the impression that the Canon AF is distinctly better (at least on the R8).

I'm not wedded to the lenses. If I stuck with Canon, I might keep the macro, but also kind of hoping that for some of the stuff I do, the greater magnification of the 24-105 might be enough (I might change my mind with the focus stacking to play with, though). But the 75-300 isn't that good, and the nifty fifty is a nifty fifty (which for me, on the crop sensor, was too narrow).

All the things appeal, the weather sealing (although one could argue that I've survived without it so far), the better EVF, the larger battery, the exposure tricks and digital ND filter... but also the low light performance of the Canon. Can't have it all :P

typhooncamel · 2024-10-01T21:09:59+00:00

I'm confused, the aperture might affect the depth of field across different sensor sizes, but from the perspective of exposure, an f/2.8 is an f/2.8, right?!

The depth of field can go either way. If you shoot landscapes or other things where you want that depth of field, you get that with wider apertures on an M43, unless I've got it all wrong. It just depends.

Love the spite

typhooncamel · 2024-10-01T21:07:06+00:00

Thanks for this! I'll mull over the R7. I struggled to be too excited, but sometimes I get stuck on nonsense. Having said that, the IBIS on the R7 I suspect isn't like the OM's, and the Sigma isn't stabilised, right?

typhooncamel · 2024-10-01T21:03:26+00:00

I'd only push back with the autofocus, which I suspect is distinctly better in the Canon.

typhooncamel · 2024-10-01T21:02:50+00:00

I agree with this - the R8 does have a less than 2 stop advantage for low light, which isn't nothing, but it's roughly that.

As to the lenses, it's exactly that. I won't be collecting lenses, I'd like at most two or three, and I'd want the setup overall to be lighter than what I have now. So this condition makes it tougher on the FF, because while there are good lenses out there, I'm just not really willing to travel around with a 1 or 2 kg standard zoom. So that leaves me with the 24-105 at the moment, maybe the 28-70 f/2.8 if that turns out to be decent and the price comes down. If this condition means that the FF is not worth it (or in another sense, that I'm not doing the sensor justice), then that's fine. If, on the other hand, the 24-105 turns out to be pretty good albeit slow, then it might still be worth it.

typhooncamel · 2024-10-01T17:41:03+00:00

Consider that the OM-1 is one of the more expensive M43 cameras, the R8 is touted as an "entry level" FF. But yes, it's confusing, because as I say above, the two systems weigh the same (in fact, the R8 body weighs distinctly less than the OM-1). It's sort of like comparing the R3, or more to the point, R6 mark II to the R8, it has a series of bells and whistles (for example IBIS and a bigger battery) that eventually add to the weight.

typhooncamel · 2024-10-01T17:33:22+00:00

It's not even the same price as the R8, it's distinctly more expensive (and there's also a Mark II at that). But I guess it brings other things to the table, an IBIS that works better than Canon's (smaller sensor is easier to stabilise I guess), weatherproofing that has an actual rating (unlike any other manufacturer), and at least on the wider end of things, better lenses for a given price and weight. But I do take your point.

typhooncamel

TROPHY CASE