The OM System OM-3 Thread

[paddler4]

yup, I've tried both focus stacking (where the camera creates a JPEG composite) and focus bracketing (where it just creates the stack). The former I did handheld just to see what the camera would do, but in practice, I never let the camera stack. Both worked well. In camera stacking is presumably depth map stacking, and it is vulnerable to halos, which can be dealt with better by stacking with software like Zerene.

I have the same lens, the 12-40 f/2.8. It's an amazingly close-focusing lens for a zoom. I took the photo above, which is not cropped at all, from a distance of perhaps 6 cm. I have the 60mm macro, but I'll need it a lot less than I needed a macro lens with my FF equipment.

 

[Skygod44]

From yesterday's fantastic "waterfall exploration": and what a great birthday treat for me, it was .

These steps led down to some stunning falls, but they were in bright sunshine, while the opposite bank was deep in the shade.

Using the in-camera Graduated ND filter mode, rotated using the control dials, I could adjust the exposure sufficiently to get a shot - impossible without physically attaching & rotating graduated glass filters in the past.

The bright line diagonally was blown out, without some kind of adjustment.
So the in-camera system really can save the day.

Definitely, this is going to come in handy for proper shoots.

 

[paddler4]

If you'd like to see how this is done (for a regular ND, not graduated, but it's the same principle), see this article, which explains it, although referring to a Phase 1 back, not OM. It's frame averaging. He explains why he considers it superior to a physical ND filter.

 

[Skygod44]

If you'd like to see how this is done (for a regular ND, not graduated, but it's the same principle), see this article, which explains it, although referring to a Phase 1 back, not OM. It's frame averaging. He explains why he considers it superior to a physical ND filter.

Thanks
I'll have a read in the morning.

 

[Skygod44]

If you'd like to see how this is done (for a regular ND, not graduated, but it's the same principle), see this article, which explains it, although referring to a Phase 1 back, not OM. It's frame averaging. He explains why he considers it superior to a physical ND filter.

That was a great read, and clearly since 2021, OM System have worked out how to include GNDs on top of whole-image NDs.

Additionally, it was intriguing to read that noise is as good as deleted automatically by the math involved in frame averaging and, DR is tweaked above the native range of the sensor.

His images also have given me ideas of how else to use frame averaging available inside the OM-3 which wouldn't be immediately obvious.

Thanks again for the link.

 

[Skygod44]

I'm adding this image here, to show how the creative, arty-farty part of my photography journey is being assisted by the OM-3.
This was created in-camera, with no editing after the shutter was pressed, including my choice of a 1:1 frame.

This is Entirely My Opinion, but in some/many situations, ignoring the obsession for sharpness can improve the expression of feelings presented via a photograph.

The shot below was taken with my Olympus EP-7, as a near enough comparison.

The sensor technology in the OM-3, imho, makes the use of Olympus/OM System creative jpeg imaging objectively & subjectively "better".

A final reminder note:
I'm not "against" PC editing.
RAW files do contain more data, offering "greater levels" of, not least of all, dynamic range.

There are times when "the extras" (RAW + PC editing software) are critically important, or vital.
But for me, having more of my free time used to take photos, is more important than getting every last ounce of "perfection" from the photons hitting the sensors in any/all of my cameras, for each individual photograph.


Cheers for now,
Simon

 

[paddler4]

But for me, having more of my free time used to take photos, is more important than getting every last ounce of "perfection" from the photons hitting the sensors in any/all of my cameras,

This is really a topic for an entirely different thread, but since you raise it:

Whether one shoots raw is clearly a matter of personal preference, and I'm not arguing that others should do what I do (which is virtually never to use the JPEG format other than to post final results to the web). I just want to point out that 'getting every last ounce of perfect from the photons' is not the only reason to do one's own editing. Yes, sometimes, editing is to correct problems in the capture, e.g., incorrect color balance, bright spots, phone lines, or whatever. But it is also often a key part of the creative process. When you shoot JPEG, you are ceding control of editing to a group of engineers or programmers who have never seen your image. Often, that works fine, but not always. And I want to control that part of the creative process myself. Ansel Adams said something like 'the negative [these days, read 'raw capture'] is the score; the print [these days, read final image] is the performance. I want the performance to be mine, for better or for worse.

For a great video showing Ansel Adam's "postprocessing" of Moonlight Hernandez, this.

 

[Skygod44]

A great comment, @paddler4 but as you say, going any further into the RAW & JPEG debate isn't for this thread.

So, onwards and upwards with continuous AF + tracking with the OM-3 today.

Another "first try" for me, but a great Canadian friend here said he wanted to go to the ice rink in the mountains, so I simply had to go too.

These three shots are three frames apart each, as he whizzed from a "towards me" to an "across the frame" direction.



You can tell from the angle he's at, that he's going swiftly.
And I didn't know exactly when he'd change direction.
But the OM-3 did a great job.

I'll be trying out all the AF modes over the next few days/weeks, but I'm yet to find a flaw with this camera...
...and despite it being bulkier than my ideal body, the fun factor hasn't been diminished at all, compared with my other MFT cameras.

Cheers for now,
Simon

 

[Skygod44]

Another "in-camera ND" shot.

The OM-3 has an additional overlay you can switch on, in the middle of the EVF or Rear Screen which shows in real time how much you're moving.

The better you can keep the little, moving, white square in the middle of its frame, the less motion blur there'll be in the final image.

 

[paddler4]

On the OM-1 also, but that’s not quite what it is. According to the manual, it’s binary, not continuous. The box displays the limit of motion that IBIS can compensate for. Outside of the box at all, you will get motion blur. Inside the box, you may or may not, depending on how much the camera moves.

This only works with certain lenses.

 

[Skygod44]

On the OM-1 also, but that’s not quite what it is. According to the manual, it’s binary, not continuous. The box displays the limit of motion that IBIS can compensate for. Outside of the box at all, you will get motion blur. Inside the box, you may or may not, depending on how much the camera moves.

This only works with certain lenses.

Yeah...
...I dunno...
This is page 207 from the OM-3 manual.

I can't see anything about it being binary. And it looks pretty continuous to my eyes.
Are you looking at the OM-1 (or MK2?) manual?
It could be set up differently.
Perhaps?

 

[paddler4]

Nope. Same. I was just unclear. The key is "the boundary of motions that can be corrected". Outside, no correction, inside, correction. It doesn't say that there will be less outside the box; it says that there will be none. That's what I meant by binary: it's zero/one, yes/no. There is nothing saying that there is better correction the less far you go within the inner frame--which would be continuous--but that may well be the case. They just don't say.

Then there is also the warning that there can be blur inside the box. I'm finding that some of my hi-res shots are not completely sharp when blown up, but my hands aren't very steady. Also, it's very hard to compare the lo-res original the camera stores (*.ORI) with the hi-res (*.ORF) because when you blow them up to 100%, the hi-res is at a much finer level of detail. So maybe that's what I'm seeing, not a lack of sharpness.

Here's one hi-res shot that did work out. You can't see the high resolution on line, of course, but I was pleased with the result.

 

[Skygod44]

Nope. Same. I was just unclear. The key is "the boundary of motions that can be corrected". Outside, no correction, inside, correction. It doesn't say that there will be less outside the box; it says that there will be none. That's what I meant by binary: it's zero/one, yes/no. There is nothing saying that there is better correction the less far you go within the inner frame--which would be continuous--but that may well be the case. They just don't say.

Then there is also the warning that there can be blur inside the box. I'm finding that some of my hi-res shots are not completely sharp when blown up, but my hands aren't very steady. Also, it's very hard to compare the lo-res original the camera stores (*.ORI) with the hi-res (*.ORF) because when you blow them up to 100%, the hi-res is at a much finer level of detail. So maybe that's what I'm seeing, not a lack of sharpness.

Here's one hi-res shot that did work out. You can't see the high resolution on line, of course, but I was pleased with the result.

Thanks for the extra info.

Though, I haven't looked at any photos (mine, or anyone else's) at 100% for years and years and years...

Just my opinion, but if I can't see what's good in a photo when looking at the whole image from a "normal viewing distance", that won't improve by zooming in, with my nose pushed up against a large screen.

Cheers for now,
Simon

 

[Skygod44]

Well this was a surprise.

I forgot to reset the ISO in my OM-3 after going to the zoo a few days ago under cloudy conditions, and shooting using the electronic shutter, I didn't spot that this was shot at 1/16,000 of a second.

With no noise reduction at all, I'm definitely pleased with the result at ISO2,500 compared with my older MFT cameras.

Another win for the OM-3.

 

[medroller]

View attachment 204739
Well this was a surprise.

I forgot to reset the ISO in my OM-3 after going to the zoo a few days ago under cloudy conditions, and shooting using the electronic shutter, I didn't spot that this was shot at 1/16,000 of a second.

With no noise reduction at all, I'm definitely pleased with the result at ISO2,500 compared with my older MFT cameras.

Another win for the OM-3.

With all the stuff on cameras these days , it' easy to miss something when you pick up the camera a few days later.

 

[paddler4]

In my so far limited experience, the noise levels on my OM-1 (same sensor) at moderate ISOs are OK, but not spectacular. However, I'm not sure this one is a real test.

The new OM cameras have two settings for noise reduction. Which one did you turn off? The one labeled "noise reduction" isn't relevant here. It's long-exposure noise reduction, basically black-frame subtraction. Normal noise reduction that applies to all images is called "noise filter", under "High ISO Noise Reduction Options". That's the one that has to be set to off to get no noise reduction in a short-exposure JPEG. Is that what you turned off?

Downsizing also reduces the appearance of noise. The sensor is 3888 x 5184. This image as posted is 907 x 1366.

I have done a little night photography with my OM-1, some with long exposure NR set to auto. It seemed to me that the camera turns it on at much shorter exposures than my R6 II. However, I have no way of knowing whether that means it's actually needed at shorter exposures or the engineers just took a more conservative approach in writing the firmware.

 

[Skygod44]

In my so far limited experience, the noise levels on my OM-1 (same sensor) at moderate ISOs are OK, but not spectacular. However, I'm not sure this one is a real test.

The new OM cameras have two settings for noise reduction. Which one did you turn off? The one labeled "noise reduction" isn't relevant here. It's long-exposure noise reduction, basically black-frame subtraction. Normal noise reduction that applies to all images is called "noise filter", under "High ISO Noise Reduction Options". That's the one that has to be set to off to get no noise reduction in a short-exposure JPEG. Is that what you turned off?

Downsizing also reduces the appearance of noise. The sensor is 3888 x 5184. This image as posted is 907 x 1366.

I have done a little night photography with my OM-1, some with long exposure NR set to auto. It seemed to me that the camera turns it on at much shorter exposures than my R6 II. However, I have no way of knowing whether that means it's actually needed at shorter exposures or the engineers just took a more conservative approach in writing the firmware.

Thanks for your thoughts...

For nighttime shots, I'm still enjoying using my E-P7 which will take a burst, and layer them in-camera.
It works with moving people in the frame, and ends up with a noise-free image.
I've no idea, nor do I care how. But for now, it's brilliant.

I've played with "proper" low-light professional photography in the past, when shooting operas etc. for Missus Skygod mk3, and all her operatic/musical chums...
...but the less said about that the better.

Oh, and at the moment, until I'm sure about the effects, everything is turned off on my OM-3.
I don't care about some "grain-like" noise in my photos, if at a normal viewing distance, the image looks interesting.
And, I stopped pixel-peeping many moons ago.

So my point was that making such a daft error (1/16,000 second at ISO2,500) won't ruin a photo from the OM-3.

My daughter had her "Seven-Five-Three Ceremony" last month, so I expect I'll start printing some big images soon, of her in a kimono, which I'll hang on the wall on my staircase.

For me, that'll be the beginning of the rebirth of wanting to print large, which I've not bothered with recently, due to the fun of uploading to the 'net.

Catch you soon.

 

[Skygod44]

Another amazing mystery I discovered with the OM-3 today.

I charged the battery three days ago, and have taken about 100 photos with it, since then.

But throughout today at the zoo, right up until I finished uploading images to my smartphone via WiFi, the cameras was still showing "100% Battery".

Maybe OM System have installed a little tube-battery, like in your car when you fill it up...
...until the fuel drops out of the filler tube, it still registers as "Full".

I swear, they're wizards at OM System.

 

[Skygod44]

I can't believe I'm quoting the musical Grease, but "How low can you go?"

With IP53 rating, no concerns about some splashes on the OM-3 while taking this shot, with the M.Zuiko 12-40 pro (splash proof) lens attached.

Though I was like greased lightning, so as not to get my trousers soaked.

 

[paddler4]

Another amazing mystery I discovered with the OM-3 today.

I charged the battery three days ago, and have taken about 100 photos with it, since then.

But throughout today at the zoo, right up until I finished uploading images to my smartphone via WiFi, the cameras was still showing "100% Battery".

Maybe OM System have installed a little tube-battery, like in your car when you fill it up...
...until the fuel drops out of the filler tube, it still registers as "Full".

I swear, they're wizards at OM System.

Sorry, but this sounds like a malfunction, not a feature. Mine is an OM-1, but it has the identical sensor, so the battery performance should be very similar. My experience has been that the battery indicator works just like the ones on every other digital camera I have owned and drops steadily as the shots accumulate. I would expect at least 25% drain by the end of 100 shots. I actually kept track on a few shoots this week to have specific numbers. I forgot to jot them down, but all three were in that range.

I did this with both the OEM battery and an aftermarket battery (Watson, which I think is the B&H store brand), and the performance was about the same. However, some aftermarket batteries may not have the right electronics to be metered propertly.