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

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
 
rbelyell said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom