Big test
“ACHIEVING CREATIVE EFFECTS WITHOUT HAVING TO FIRE UP THE COMPUTER WAS A BIG SELLING POINT OF THE OM-1; THE OM-1 MARK II TAKES IT MUCH FURTHER”
PERFORMANCE: ISO
IS benefit is 7EV, I achieved a good success rate even at 1/15sec. But, at 600mm – where the benefit is 6EV – I needed 1/60sec for sharp shots. With the standard zoom at 50mm, I got the odd sharp shot at 1sec yet more consistently sharp results at 0.5sec, which is probably my limit. The OM-1 Mark II reportedly boasts a buffer size twice as large as the OM-1, which my tests confirmed. Shooting Raws only and using the same Prograde 300MB/s card, the OM-1 Mark II and OM-1 yielded 260 and 125 Raws respectively, both shot at 10fps with the normal shutter and stopping when the frame counter hit zero. With the silent shutter at 20fps, the OM-1 Mark II’s benefit was more marked with 240 shots compared to the predecessor’s 104, although it took about 50 seconds for all those files to finish writing to the card. OM System is keen on its computational modes – and they’re very useful too. Achieving creative effects without having to fire up the computer was a big selling point of the OM-1. The OM-1 Mark II takes it much further with major upgrades
to existing features, as well as something completely unique. Let’s start with the upgrades, covering them in menu order. High- Res Shot mode is not for every user or occasion, having been a regular on Olympus/OM System cameras (but working in 12-bit). The OM-1 Mark II comes with handheld and tripod High-Res Shot mode, giving 50- and 80-megapixel resolutions respectively, which – in terms of file size – open up to 10,368x7776 pixels and 8160x6120 pixels. Meanwhile, normal Raws are 5194x3888 pixels. On the OM-1 Mark II, you have the extra option of 14-bit High-Res Shot, though normal Raw capture is 12-bit only. Capturing in 12-bit gives 4096 tonal values of each colour, making a total of around 68 billion levels. That’s a lot, but in 14-bit capture, there’s 16,384 levels for each colour and around four trillion in total. In theory, this should produce files allowing for significantly better tonal, colour and contrast control in extreme lighting, particularly in highlight regions where there are many more levels.
12,800 and above – the OM-1 handled detail better, although at the cost of coarser grain. Of course, we haven’t taken into account the potential of noise reduction in software. The OM-1 Mark II’s high-ISO Raws benefit hugely when put through Lightroom’s Denoise or PureRaw 4. Results were clean albeit with a slightly smudgy, over-processed look.
more pronounced after reaching ISO 3200, where it is evident across areas of midtones and shadow. A stronger impact on detail and blotchy midtones are evident from ISO 6400. For comparison, I shot with both the OM-1 and OM-1 Mark II using the same lens. The imaging core of the OM-1 and OM-1 Mark II are said to be the same, but on very close inspection – at ISO
To assess the OM-1 Mark II’s ISO abilities, a set of Raws were shot at each speed in a low-light interior with in-camera noise reduction turned off. The images were processed through Adobe Lightroom with default settings. Images were clean up to ISO 800, from which point you can spot grain if you look critically. It’s still fine; there’s no impact on intricate detail. Grain gets
1600
800
200
12,800
6400
3200
102,400
51,200
25,600
STILL ON THE FENCE? No problem with the OM-1 Mark II’s handling, which is slick and intuitive. There’s plenty of potential to customise camera set-up too
34 Photography News | Issue 115
photographynews.co.uk
Powered by FlippingBook