I just might be likin' my OMD over my M9........

[willie_901]

Every camera choice involves compromise. The compromised features and performance may be of little importance to you, but those same characteristics are vital to others. Just because your priorities are satisfied now, doesn't mean the camera will suit your needs should your interests evolve and change.

If you want to use a rigorous definition for photographer, what percent of m4/3 owners (or RFF members for that matter) qualify according to Merrium-Webster? Where do you draw the line between a photographer and a consumer who takes photographs?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/photographer

At this point in time practically all consumers who take photographs value convenience and price more than anything else. In my initial post I expressed an opinion that it was about time the m4/3 vendors rewarded their customers with a newer generation sensor.

If the sensor had not been improved it would not matter because consumers who take photographs would still value convenience and price point over the compromises with the first generation of m4/3 senors. Millions of satisied consumers who only take photographs with iPhones are just another example. There needs are met. M4/3 consumers who take photographs needs are met. My needs are not met by either camera because I accept a different set of compromises. And my compromises are completely wrong for someone who owns a M9, a MPM and $10,000 to $20,000 worth of Leica lenses.

[Bug]

Maybe one good point on the Leica for this comparison:
You can buy a second original battery for your Leica (although for around 130$ for what I have seen)!

Olympus, the camera was out in April and still, no original battery to buy???

I got the grip accessory despite the price and the fact that I will seldom use the portrait part of it for 2 reasons: improve handling for my big hands full of fingers AND thinking that the kit came with battery. Which it does not, not in Germnay at least...

I cannot imagine that manufacturing the batteries is the bottleneck which makes delivery times so long for the kits and cameras.

[DNG]

Seeing that the cells are made in Japan, and sent to Vietnam to be further processed, the bottle that could be in Vietnam not being able to complete the manufacturing at their end, on a timely basis.

I have bought some Chinese batteries that work just fine. But you do need their charger, but at $20 for one charger and one battery it's a deal.

The sensor for the OMD is made by Sony, but let's be clear Olympus specs it out. Just as the Nikon sensors are made by Sony, and Nikon specs it out.. Sony may have the contract, but Olympus gives them the details of what they want the sensor to do. Just as Nikon tells Sony what the sensor is to be specked at.

I do believe Willie has extremely high standards for what he wants in a product. Which is totally fine, just expensive to maintain.

Keith did a comparison between the OMG and a Pentax 6 x 7. The results are astounding. You guys should check that out in the micro 4/3 forum.

As far as switching out and OMD for an M9?
To do it for traveling with a slightly more compact system, but with comparable quality but not the same, may be a good idea if you don't want to travel with many thousands of dollars of equipment.. And OMD kit could cost you $4-$5000, and have a fast wide-angle a fast normal a fast portrait and a nice zoom. Or even a superwide zoom, not available for the M9. I don't know if I would sell the M9, unless it just doesn't get used. The money from the sale of an M9, would make available a very nice OMD kit for travel... Of course you'd want to buy some Chinese third-party batteries and a charger that goes with them, so you have plenty of power away from the Hotel room.

[Bug]

OK, I spoke too quickly!

I just received a notification from Amazon that my battery has been sent!

I agree with you DNG that 3rd-party batteries are very cheap. But I had very bad experience in that past with this type:
- Charge for 30 shots where my original battery would last something like 200
- battery which expands and heats up. In itself, one can expect that from a 20$ battery, but problem is when you are on vacation, it happens at day 3 and the battery burns and destroys the neighbouring SD card with a bunch o photos inside...

So, since episode 2, i stick to exagerously expensive original batteries.

[OurManInTangier]

Originally Posted by kbg32

Fantastic IQ. Ultra fast AF. Metering right on. Light. Extremely compact.

So Keith, would you recommend me dumping my M9 and getting two OM D bodies instead?

I'm seriously looking at selling up on my Leica gear and getting a system that is as user friendly (Ultra fast AF, weather proofing, small and a good meter) as the OM D appears.

It looks like I could get a kit with zoom, plus another body and a prime for the money I'd get for my M9 - thats the kind of functionality I can't really afford to overlook.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by OurManInTangier

So Keith, would you recommend me dumping my M9 and getting two OM D bodies instead?

I'm seriously looking at selling up on my Leica gear and getting a system that is as user friendly (Ultra fast AF, weather proofing, small and a good meter) as the OM D appears.

It looks like I could get a kit with zoom, plus another body and a prime for the money I'd get for my M9 - thats the kind of functionality I can't really afford to overlook.

Different Keith here Simon but the answer is no from my perspective. If I had an M9 I'd certainly compliment it with something like an OMD but I wouldn't consider replacing it with one. Full frame digital whether it be an M9 or D700 is the real deal for IQ and total control over depth of field IMO.

[kbg32]

Originally Posted by OurManInTangier

So Keith, would you recommend me dumping my M9 and getting two OM D bodies instead?

I'm seriously looking at selling up on my Leica gear and getting a system that is as user friendly (Ultra fast AF, weather proofing, small and a good meter) as the OM D appears.

It looks like I could get a kit with zoom, plus another body and a prime for the money I'd get for my M9 - thats the kind of functionality I can't really afford to overlook.

No Simon. I do plan on keeping my M9. I am an old stick-in-the-mud and can't see me getting rid of it. The OMD is a wonderful companion to it though!

I do highly recommend one though. If you really want to get rid of your M9, it would buy a lot of MFT gear, I think you will really enjoy the OMD experience.

[OurManInTangier]

Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself? Not only is it a new camera but a completely new, to me certainly, system.

The DoF 'thing' that seems to come up quite alot from the reviews, blogs and threads I've read, is possibly the biggest issue that I think may put me off...but so much else is incredibly enticing. I love my M9 but, beyond shooting some personal snaps with it I don't get much use from it. I'm off to Africa in the New Year and have been advised to leave the M9 behind and don't bother to take the big DSLR's. Hence my search for something with some true flexibilty.

I'm off to a local store later today to fondle one so perhaps I'll know more as to whether its for me or not but thanks for the reality check - I probably needed it!

[Archiver]

Originally Posted by OurManInTangier

So Keith, would you recommend me dumping my M9 and getting two OM D bodies instead?

I'm seriously looking at selling up on my Leica gear and getting a system that is as user friendly (Ultra fast AF, weather proofing, small and a good meter) as the OM D appears.

It looks like I could get a kit with zoom, plus another body and a prime for the money I'd get for my M9 - thats the kind of functionality I can't really afford to overlook.

I'm not Keith, either, but I wouldn't let go of the M9. The low ISO daylight images are in a completely different class over the OM-D photos. That image quality, plus the control of DoF with fast lenses, makes the M9 indispensable for my preferences.

The issue with the OM-D's weatherproofing is that to be sure, you need the lens to be weatherproof as well. The only weatherproof m43 lenses are the Oly 12-50 and the Pana 12-35. The Pana is a good chunk of cash but provides a nicely versatile 24-70 range, as well as excellent image quality. The 12-50 is slower and the IQ isn't as good.

The OM-D's AF is very fast and the burst mode is like a mini submachine gun, but it is still not quite what I'd expect from a higher end DSLR. The touchscreen, however, is amazing. Touch it and the camera focuses and shoots in an instant, right on the spot you touched.

If anything, I would consider the OM-D as a companion camera to the M9, especially if you get a m43-M adapter. When I was in Japan a couple of years ago, I had to stow the M9 in my bag when I was caught in rain a few times. Afterwards I thought that if I were to go into similar conditions, I would pick up a Nikon D700 and a weathersealed prime, but now I'd go with the OM-D and the Pana 12-35. Much cheaper, perhaps more versatile, and capable of decent video, too.

[OurManInTangier]

Part of my thinking was that if the OM D was lost, stolen or damaged during my time in Africa I could shrug my shoulders and claim on my insurance whilst relying on my X100 as a back up, if the same happened to my M9 it would be a larger and more bitter pill to swallow. This thought process has led me to wonder if I'd be better off switching to a more utilitarian set-up generally.

May I ask what the general consensus is here as to the best use/role for the OM D, for instance the night shots I've seen appear to sparkle. When would you switch from you M9 or similar and reach for the OM D?

Slightly off topic, I'm beginning to be extremely glad I kept my old film OM gear as it could be this that ends up going to the Gambia with me!

Thanks and sorry if I'm temporarily hijacking the thread.

[johnwolf]

Originally Posted by OurManInTangier

May I ask what the general consensus is here as to the best use/role for the OM D, for instance the night shots I've seen appear to sparkle. When would you switch from you M9 or similar and reach for the OM D?

I sold my M9 system a while ago and now use a GX1/GF1 kit and a few primes. No real regrets. For street I've grown to love its very fast AF and face recognition. I get more keepers this way. Quite a change for me, but I'm enjoying it. I also use hyperfocal focusing and value the extra DOF.

I used to shoot a lot of natural and urban landscapes, and liked the M9 for that. But I'd say if you are a street shooter, there's no reason not to use an OM-D exclusively.

A bit OT, but before parting with the M9 I did some print testing. In the size I print (12x16" B&W), I could not see any difference in prints and neither could anyone else I showed them to. I'm sure the same is true of the OM-D.

John

[robert blu]

Originally Posted by johnwolf

A bit OT, but before parting with the M9 I did some print testing. In the size I print (12x16" B&W), I could not see any difference in prints and neither could anyone else I showed them to. I'm sure the same is true of the OM-D.

John

This is interesting. I don't own an m9 or the OM-D (but thinking more and more about) but personally I feel reasonably sure that the m9 files are better than OM-D files for various reasons (sensor size, lenses maybe).
This in theory but I'm asking myself and curious to know others opinion, unless you print very large (120 cm x 180 example) like is now in fashion in the art world can a difference be seen on the prints (a3 size) ?
robert

[Lss]

Originally Posted by johnwolf

I used to shoot a lot of natural and urban landscapes, and liked the M9 for that. But I'd say if you are a street shooter, there's no reason not to use an OM-D exclusively.

Well, they are very different tools. I have the M8 and OM-D myself.

[Archiver]

The M9 and the OM-D produce very different images. There is something incredibly rich about the M9 files that I can't seem to get from the OM-D, or even the 5D Mark II. Maybe it's a combination of the lack of AA filter, the sensor optimized to look like Kodachrome, the lenses or whatever, but the M9 produces a much wider range of tonal subtleties that I can't get from the OM-D at this time. It also blazes with colour when I handle the files correctly, whereas the OM-D tends to saturate in a more cartoonish way. Again, this may be in the way I process, and I am steadily working on getting a look that I really like from the OM-D.

I would even use the M9 at night, as long as there is sufficient street or shop illumination. The OM-D, for me, is more about convenience of AF, much smaller and lighter footprint, weatherproofing and much lesser cost. I agree about the loss of an OM-D body vs the M9! But if I want image quality that makes me squeal, I reach for the M9. If want a very fast and convenient camera then I use the OM-D.

Oh, and video. The OM-D's video is pretty darn good, and the use of video is something that I miss when I'm shooting with the M9. It is just more convenient to have full HD video capabilities in your stills camera. I sometimes wish I had taken more video in Japan, where I used the M9 80% of the time, and the Ricoh GRD III, with its crappy video, the rest of the time. Something like the OM-D would have let me capture excellent video whenever I wanted.

[Lss]

Originally Posted by Archiver

Oh, and video. The OM-D's video is pretty darn good, and the use of video is something that I miss when I'm shooting with the M9. It is just more convenient to have full HD video capabilities in your stills camera.

It's useful but I am honestly rather disappointed. Firstly, I would prefer having 25/50 fps video. Okay, bought the camera knowing of this omission. And secondly, I have found the encoder in OM-D isn't particularly good. It produces nasty blocking artefacts in busy material. This greatly limits what I can do with this camera. If these two issues were not there, I would have sold my NEX-5N already.

I agree that having video capability in at least one of your still cameras is extremely convenient (if you use video). The large sensors even offer some creative possibilities a typical camcorder lacks. But the MFT camp video king is Panasonic. Hopefully Olympus will try harder in the future.

[rbelyell]

this topic has me a bit confused. i dont own an m9 but do own an omd, purchased mostly for use as a digital vehicle for my RF lenses. are folks here saying the omd is competitive with the m9 based on a comparison of the omd using AF/native m4/3 lenses vs the m9 using RF focus/rf lenses? or are you all saying the omd is competitive with the m9 using it as i do, with RF lenses? if the later, i'm stumped because the omd is not optimized for rf lenses (no micro lenses) like the m9, nor has it dispensed with the AA filter as has the m9, both of which i thought was essential to get the most out of RF lenses. help me understand this...thanks!
tony

[Archiver]

Originally Posted by rbelyell

this topic has me a bit confused. i dont own an m9 but do own an omd, purchased mostly for use as a digital vehicle for my RF lenses. are folks here saying the omd is competitive with the m9 based on a comparison of the omd using AF/native m4/3 lenses vs the m9 using RF focus/rf lenses? or are you all saying the omd is competitive with the m9 using it as i do, with RF lenses? if the later, i'm stumped because the omd is not optimized for rf lenses (no micro lenses) like the m9, nor has it dispensed with the AA filter as has the m9, both of which i thought was essential to get the most out of RF lenses. help me understand this...thanks!
tony

I haven't used the OM-D with rangefinder lenses, so I can't answer that question. For me, the M9 blows away the OM-D for well lit scenes in terms of image quality. High ISO like 1600 and above becomes increasingly spotty with the M9, but the OM-D handles it very well. I highly doubt that the OM-D performs as well as the M9 when using rangefinder lenses, though. The Ricoh GXR comes much closer IMO.

[Nikkor AIS]

I used to own a M9 and am using a OM-D..

While the file of the M9 where indeed tasty. I had problems with not getting files written and fankly the high ISO of M9 is joke...
Not to mention the buffer and the lack of moterdrive and Video..and non flipping chimp screen.

While the OM-D certainlly isnt perfect. I can see that compared to the M9, , it's a picture taking machine..

There where several occasions where in the heat of the moment that the M9 would simple quit taking pictures in order to write..

And I am huge long burst.. Just clck , click click, click ...freeze..


After shooting with a Nikon D3/D3s or even a humble Leica M3 , not being to take a half a dozens shots in a row is ... frankly a joke..




If olympus puts out a full frame version I can it really cutting into the role that M9 now fills.


Even though I have only had OM-D for a couple of weeks. I have gotten shots that would have been impossible with the M9


Take this these one's for example..









OM-D and 35 1.2 ASPH


And these taken with the swilled chimp screen..







To me having the ability hold and see the image with my arms overhead is a really great feature..





And this was frame 6 in a 14 frame burst I shot yesterday..




and the Macro on te 12-50 ED is really quite usefull










And mounted with a lens like the 35 1.2 ASPH decent seperation and bokeh is possible..


While there no denying that the M9 is awsome for what it is... I just understand why it is it can't have beter high ISO, frame rate and lack of movable chimp screen..


I am still considering getting a M9 mono for street use for use with my 35 1.2 ASPH .But honestly if I was to get the 17 .5 mm F .95 and another body , I am sure I would be quite happy..

The ultimate IQ is always nice.. But at some point it's really about getting the shot.. And for now the OM-D is getting the shots for me..




35 1.2 ASPH on OMD using the crop feature and the 16-9 format..