OM System just announced the OM-1 Mark II together with the OM System 150-600 f/5.0-6.3 lens, strengthening the position of Micro Four Thirds for wildlife photography. The OM-1 Mark II gives you some small but meaningful upgrades to the original OM-1. Meanwhile, the 150-600mm lens gives a native 600mm lens to Micro Four Thirds for the first time.
The OM-1 Mark II
The OM System OM-1 Mark II is very similar to the original OM-1. It’s got the same sensor resolution, burst rate, and viewfinder. One thing that has improved is the buffer: the old OM-1 has a buffer of 96 frames at 50fps, whereas the OM-1 Mark II improves this to 256 frames, allowing for just over 5 seconds of continuous shooting before the buffer fills.
The OM-1 Mark II also gets some autofocus improvements with a human-detection mode and updates to its machine-learning algorithm along with faster AF calculations. This should improve the speed and accuracy of the OM-1 Mark II’s autofocus system.
The image stabilization has also been improved in the OM-1 Mark II to a theoretical 8.5 stops of stabilization, up from the OM-1’s 7 stops. Of course, in practice, you may not actually get 8.5 stops for a variety of reasons – nonetheless, it is likely to be a noticeable improvement. Like the original OM-1, this stabilization system can sync with compatible lenses to provide a very stable view indeed.
Also new is a simulated graduated neutral density filter, which builds on the simulated neutral density filter of the original OM-1. It remains to see how good it really is and whether you can “leave your costly and clumsy external filters behind and trust the camera,” as OM System claims.
At $2400, the OM-1 Mark II is a bit pricey but not much more than the original OM-1, which was selling for $2200 until its current discount to $2000.
OM System M.Zuiko 150-600 f/5.0-6.3
OM System also announced a 150-600 f/5.0-6.3 lens, which appears to be a modified Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN Sports lens. This is the first native lens for Micro Four Thirds that reaches 600mm without an external teleconverter (although the OM SYSTEM M. Zuiko 150-400mm f/4.5 TC Pro comes close, since it can reach up to 500mm with the built-in 1.25x TC – though at a cost of $7500).
Personally, I think the new OM System 150-600mm lens is a great idea for Micro Four Thirds. Long ago, I tried adapting a Tamron 150-600mm G2 lens to my Panasonic G9, and I found it worked very well for video. I can say that 600mm is definitely not too much on a Micro Four Thirds camera.
If there’s anything strange about this lens, it’s the price, which is $2700 (USD). To compare, the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Sports lens for Sony E is $1500, the Nikon 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 is $1700, and the Sony 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 is $2000. In fact, this new lens plus the new OM-1 Mark II is only about $500 less than the Nikon Z8 and Nikon 180-600mm combo – which strikes me as a better value for photographers not already in the Micro Four Thirds ecosystem. It makes me wonder if the lens has any improvements beyond the Sigma version.
Regardless, a native lens that goes to 600mm is a welcome addition to the Micro Four Thirds ecosystem. Although the price is high, it will let you put more pixels on a distant subject than almost any other native camera + lens combination on the market today.
OM System M.Zuiko 9-18mm f/4-5.6 II Also Announced
The third announcement today from OM System is a rebranded version of the Olympus 9-18mm f/4-5.6, a lens from 2010. Although the OM System label is new, and the lens’s external design has changed a bit, it has the same optics and does not appear to add any new features over the previous version.
Pre-Order
If you’d like to preorder these products, you can use the following links to support Photography Life at no extra cost to you:
Hi Jason, surely as a bird and wildlife photographer you would certainly appreciate beyond dollars and cents what a 150-600mm (micro 4/3 lens) can deliver, which is a reach of 300-1200mm in real life application. Add to that the superior bird tracking of the OM-1’s as well as Pro Capture and weather rated sealing and simply put, an Nikon Z8 and Nikon 180-600mm combo is not an Oranges to Oranges comparison, let alone the exuberant cost of the Z8+ any Z-lens for that matter = a Bank loan to get much less reach in return.
In terms of pixels on target, 600 on 20MP micro four thirds actually gives virtually the same number of pixels as a 781mm on a 45MP full-frame camera. Of course, you are right about the camera being a cost-savings though. But let’s not confuse field of view with reach. It’s a more general case of the D500 not providing any (technically only a slight amount) reach over a D850.
Logic would indicate that these devices equipped with smaller sensors should have a lower price and also be smaller and lighter.
But none of this happens. This Zuiko 150-600 is similar in size and weight to its Full Frame counterparts (even more than some). All this without improving the maximum apertures. What is the advantage? As can be seen from the article, using Full Frame with crop factor is much more advantageous… or even APS-C.
They are…the closest Nikon camera that reaches OM-1 MK II levels is twice as expensive. Lighter gear doesn’t happen as much with very long lenses, because the weight of the lens is mostly in the front elements, the size of which is dictated by aperture, not sensor size (of course, there are some reductions)…but the only time weight savings can truly be claimed is when manufacturers use shorter focal lengths and the higher pixel density to compensate.
Okay. But then why in sharpness tests is there a distinction between full frame sensors and sensors cropped in the corners? The smaller sensor only occupies the central part of the lens and in that sense there should be room to reduce the size. I guess there’s something I’m not considering, but I don’t know what it is.
Does it make any difference at all to the image quality if I use the Nikon Z7 II in DX mode instead of the OM-1 Mark II? Both then have a resolution of around 20 megapixels. So the combination of OM-1 Mark II and OM System M. Zuiko 150-600 f/5.0-6.3 should not really make a visible difference compared to the Nikon Z7 II with the Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR.
DX mode is still APS-C sensor area to micro-4/3s, so you have to go down another factor of 2 in size for FOV equivalence.
The price is high, but I can see this being a useful combo for hiking and other places where size and weight matter. The extra tricks OM-1 brings to the table are also welcome under those circumstances since it might obviate bringing a tripod to boot,
Maybe I’ll get one for trekking one of these years.
I see less and less sense in the micro four thirds system. Why does this Zuiko 150-600mm weigh the same as its full frame counterparts?
What is the advantage of the system if in the end they have the same weight and size as systems with larger sensors?
The bigger issue is that the Zuiko appears to be a re-branded Sigma lens coupled with a massive price increase. Value for money is quite questionable in this case.
Nikon Z 7 Mk I & II sensor:
• 8256 × 5504 sensels (45 441 024)
• 35.9 mm × 23.9 mm ≈ 858.01 mm²
• 52 960 sensel/mm²
OM SYSTEM OM‑1 Mk I & II:
• 5184 × 3888 sensels (20 155 392)
• 17.3 mm × 13 mm ≈ 224.9 mm²
• 89 619 sensel/mm²
89619 / 52960 ≈ 1.692
When the lens on each camera is set to the same focal length — especially the maximum, 600 mm — and your subject fits within the field of view of the OM‑1 then the OM‑1 will have 69% more sensels (pixels) on your subject, regardless of whether the Z 7 is in FX or DX recording mode.
Yes, that is correct. You can also take the square root of your number to get the linear crop factor of about 1.3, showing that 600mm on 20MP micro four thirds will gave the same number of pixels on target as 777mm on a 45.7MP full-frame camera, though of course the usability of those pixels is not factored into the calculation, and the sharpness and speed of the lens also factors into how much you could really crop your image before descending into the madness of image degradation.