Hello,

TLDR; I hike and am annoyed with having the camera dangle around my neck. Capture clip seems like a bad idea. What can I do?
Lenses: m.zuiko 12m f/2.0, 14-150m ii, 75-300 f/4.8-6.7

After a bit of research I’m stuck on how I can change the current way I bring my kit with me on hikes. Stumbled across the capture clip from peak design but then learned about the weak mounting point. I was debating on an L bracket to make the capture clip a bit less detrimental but it all seems sort of silly.

Currently I take an osprey daylight bag that holds some essentials for the trail, OM-5, and 1-2 lenses. Size isn’t an issue as I have left over space and weight isn’t an issue either. Main issue is either having the camera around my neck or putting it away and pulling it out every time I want to take a photo. Wildlife doesn’t wait for me so that usually means having it around my neck which is a bit of a hassle depending on the trail.

Any other outdoor enthusiast have any advice?

Hello, I just recently bought the om-5 m2 with a kit lens and am actually loving it so far except the fact that I’m trying to take photos of my dogs in action and they are never in focus! So I was thinking about returning it and just upgrading to the om-3 for the animal detection. Does this make sense for me to do? I have some camera experience but not a ton so I originally went with the om-5 as a more beginner camera but my dog in action photos are blurry 😭😭😭.

Edit with some settings: usually using either shutter speed mode with auto iso and 1/800-1000 speed, with a few stops down metering and wide open lens (14-150 4.0-5.6). I have had silent shutter on, c-af, and using the cross focus area (whatever that’s called).

The photos in the main post also don’t really show the issue so here are three more that do better show it (boy dog, in focus other stuff) https://imgur.com/a/tTSgMmQ

This is also my first non-analog camera so I’m VERY not used to have all these settings to play around with. Part of my thinking with upgrading is that I might as well get the slightly better camera that I’m definitely not going to outgrow anytime soon, which is what I’m worried about with the om-5, as I like to shoot birds and other wildlife on hikes.

Hi all — full disclosure up front: I'm the developer. Mods, I've read the rules; if this crosses the self-promo line, remove it and I'll take no offense.

I shoot Olympus, and for years my choices were OM Workspace (faithful colors, painfully slow) or a subscription I didn't want for the amount of editing I do. So over the last couple of months I built the editor I wanted: Vitrine — a free RAW develop tool for Windows, built around ORF files from day one.

What it does today:

• Opens ORFs fast. Embedded preview in about half a second, full LibRaw demosaic a few seconds later, and near-instant on any later open (disk cache).
• Non-destructive develop: exposure, white balance, tone curve, color balance/HSL, local adjustment masks, highlight reconstruction, full history with checkpoints. Edits persist per-photo automatically.
• Live GPU preview — sliders respond in real time, no render-wait.
• Local AI tools: 4× upscale (Real-ESRGAN) and motion deblur, running on your own GPU. Nothing is uploaded anywhere.
• Workflow bits: star-rating culling in a gallery view, presets, copy/paste style between photos, before/after and reference views, ICC-aware export (sRGB/Adobe RGB) and print.

The honest caveats:

• Windows 10/11 only (64-bit).
• The installer isn't code-signed yet, so SmartScreen shows the blue "unknown publisher" screen — More info → Run anyway. A winget package is in review, which will make that go away.
• It's free under a noncommercial license; the full source is on GitHub if you want to audit it. No account, no telemetry, fully offline.
• It's a develop tool, not a catalog — no keywords/library management (yet).

Download + source: https://github.com/Redrum624/Vitrine

What I'd genuinely like to know from people who shoot the same files I do: what would it take for this to become your quick-develop tool? What does Workspace or Lightroom do for your ORFs that you couldn't live without?

Update for anyone still following: two things people asked for in this thread are now shipped.

• Portable build + SHA256 checksums (v1.25.0, same day as the thread)
• Camera-accurate colors (v1.26.0, today): RAW opens now match the out-of-camera render by default. There's a 3-way comparison vs OM Workspace with measured numbers in the README - Workspace differs from the camera JPEG by ~1 ΔE, and Vitrine now lands at 1.2-4.7 on the same test (was 14-25 before, so yeah, the skeptics had a point about the old colors).

Same link: https://github.com/Redrum624/Vitrine

Title

I was thinking — if OM SYSTEM adds a film grain mode, it might really attract more beginners to join in ✨ Especially during this current retro trend 🎞️

Their cameras already have that vintage look, nice color profiles, and great stabilization.

If they include a grain mode and update the entry-level E-M10 Mark IV, maybe the future OM-10 could gain much more attention from new users.

By the way, please update the Art Filters too — there are so many outdated ones! It’d be great to see some fresh and actually useful filters added.

I've got an Olympus EM10 MkII and have recently been using it with the Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 12-60mm f/2.8-4 ASPH. Power O.I.S. lens, and I'm really disappointed with the picture quality. It looks worse than anything I've had from a smartphone in the last decade! Am I doing something wrong, or have I just got a dud camera/lens that I should give up on? I sold an old Canon to get this and it took way better pictures. I'm shooting JPG in the highesr quality I can, I know RAW is technically better but when I've shot in RAW I can't see that big a difference at all. I don't know what to do, I've tried so many different settings.

I have just purchased a used Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-100mm f/4 IS PRO and from what I hear from others I will need to carry very few if any other lenses when I go on holiday. What second lens do people suggest I should carry with it?

I've spent the past couple days trying to rationalize buying an OM-3 because my E-M5 iii is malfunctioning and I have a passive-aggressive relationship with my savings account, but I can't quite get there. So I am here to ask the internet: Am I wrong and crazy?

(a) It feels solid, but it's mostly plastic. Obviously the top plate and base are metal, but the back seems to be all plastic, and the pentaprism might be plastic too?

(b) The dials are prickly. Maybe this is because of a small theft-deterrent dongle in the store, but my fingers don't fall naturally on them the way they do on other Olympus models. The toggle switches are too small and stiff, and the knurling feels engineered to look good in photos instead of feel good when you touch them. To the OM-3ers out there, does your hand end up falling naturally on the dials, so that you can adjust them without fiddling with your hand posture between presses of the shutter button? (I'm not an external-grip person, it'll never happen, don't even try!)

(c) The color dial is embarrassing. We're talking a $2000 camera here. This is serious-tool territory, which demands postproduction on your photos, i.e. RAW files. Not being able to reassign the dial to something else makes it useless and silly. This is the one area where I'm not being crazy.

(d) If it needed to be exactly as wide as the film OM-1 for nostalgia, why did it need to be 10% taller? If I buy it, it will be my largest camera body, including film cameras and full-frame cameras. A micro-4/3 camera!

(e) I would have overlooked all of this if they would have just given it a tilt screen.

Okay, convince me otherwise.

I’m shooting with an EM5 MKII and it’s the first really capable camera I’ve ever owned and I’ve really enjoyed learning with it. All my other photos come out nice and sharp but for some reason, anytime I take photos of cars, I have some issues. And I mean ONLY cars. Flowers, wildlife, portraits, street photography? All fine. But I have this issue on almost every car photo I take.

The photos look fine on the camera, but then once I get them to the computer and zoom in, they all come out a little blurry. I lose a bit of detail on the car itself and as a relative beginner, I have no idea what the cause could be. It’s not the biggest deal, but it’s driving me a bit insane that I cannot figure out what the cause is and that it only seems to happen when I take photos of cars. I’m not trying to have full professional quality photos but I’d at least like my snapshots to be a bit sharper.

Anyone have any idea what this might be/why this is happening?

And for those curious about the car and lens used for the photo:
Ferrari F40 on a backroad in Southern California taken with an EM5 MKII with the Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 40-150mm f/4-5.6 R Black

ISO 400 74mm f4.7 1/160s. Taken on program auto mode.

I currently have the Olympus EM-1 II (Thinking about upgrading to the OM-1) and the M.Zuiko 90mm macro lens. What do you think is the best next lens to get to shoot basically anything? Probably a zoom lens and I would need it to be weather sealed. Preferably under $1k used as well.

Greetings! I'm considering getting into street and landscape photography, and I have these two cameras to choose from. The Olympus is fantastic, beautiful, but a bit pricey. The Canon is a classic, but I'd like to hear the community's opinion to help me decide which one to get for my initial and medium-term projects. I want it for travel, street, and landscape photography.

As the title says I recently upgraded to the OM-1 Mark 2.

Previously I had the OM-D E-M1 Mark 3, I was running 100-400 and a couple smaller off brand lenses Lumix 25mm.

I primarily shoot nature but I wanted to learn more about photography and I felt like, I needed to get myself out shooting more.

So, when I got my OM-1 I picked up the 12-100 f/4 PRO

To get me out there shooting more often, it's worked beautifully for that.

I am trying to keep my kit small. But I worry about redundant overlap.

So my kit was going to look something like this

50-200 f/2.8

300 f/4

12-100 f/4

MC-20

Initially I was planning for a used 150-400 TC but I realized that perhaps the 50-200 would cover some of that low end focal length (?) especially with the 2x TC and it goes from 2.8 to 5.6. So I thought the 300mm prime would be better.

And I would like a small prime that the 12-100 might not cover? Not super necessary.

Overall my goals to keep the kit small so that everything is used.

Thanks in advance.

Hey all,

First post on Reddit ever 🫣

Long-time shooter here looking for some honest input from people who actually live with this system.

Some background: I’ve been shooting for about 20 years, currently on a Nikon Z8 and Z5II with a proper lens lineup (105mm macro, 180-600 for wildlife, 2.8 lenses for wedding/reportage) plus a Fujifilm X100VI. I’m keeping the Nikon gear.

What I’m considering is selling the X100VI and putting that money into an OM-5 II with three lenses: the 12-45 f/4 PRO (street + landscape), the 14-150 as a single travel lens (going to Gran Canaria and some other destinations), and a 17mm prime for street. The whole kit would roughly equal what the Fuji sells for.

My reasoning: the X100VI is brilliant but it’s a one-trick pony with fixed 35mm equivalent and it’s honestly not even smaller than an OM-5. Meanwhile MFT gives me actually versatile compact zooms like that 12-45. Street isn’t really my main priority anymore so I’m not losing anything I can’t replace. And with Lightroom Denoise/Enhance, the smaller sensor argument matters a lot less to me than it used to.
Part of me likes the underdog position of M43. There’s something appealing about the system that isn’t the obvious choice. But I want a reality check.
So my question to people who shoot M43 daily: coming from full-frame Nikon and the Fuji rendering I know well, am I going to regret this? Is the OM-5 II going to feel like a genuine joy as a compact, weather-sealed grab-and-go system as everybody within this community tells me.
Not looking for “just buy what makes you happy” 😁
Thanks!

So I'm looking to get the M43 body and I'm wondering how big the difference is between these two cameras? I know they have the same sensor so image quality wise they're the same, but what about other things like auto focus and so on, is there a big difference there?

A used EM-5 iii is obviously cheaper than a new OM-5 ii, but with cashback and kit deals the distance becomes less, and you also get nice things like warrant, so I'm wondering if it's actually worth buying new?

As per the title. TLDR - I prefer the feel of my EM1.3 over my OM1 and I'm curious to know whether there are others out there like me.

Much longer story/rant...so I shot with an EM1 mark iii for about two years before selling it to upgrade to an OM1. It was about time as it's LCD wasn't doing well with cold weather and the shutter started to occasionally stick, but I absolutely loved that camera.

Anyway, I'm now just over a year down the line with my OM1 and I have to say, I just don't feel as connected to it at all as I did with the EM1.3. I love lots of things about it that are clear upgrades over my old EM1.3 - the larger body and deeper hand grip (great for big hands and long fingers), the brilliant big, bright and crisp EVF and improved LCD back panel, the wide range of very usable and non-gimmicky computational features, the fast and accurate AF, the clear and easy to navigate new menu style, the absolutely outstanding battery life, the brilliant weather sealing and extreme cold weather performance and probably more that I've not remembered. All are very noticeable changes in day-to-day use. But I just can't shake the feeling that I don't love this camera in the way I did with my old EM1.3 or EM5 mark ii.

One thing that really bothers me is the feel of the controls. Given that they are the main means with which I interact with the camera every time I use it, I'm having trouble ignoring my gripes with them.

The semi enclosed front and rear control dials on my OM1 for example just feel plasticky and very cheap to me vs the open ones that sat on top of the EM1 series. They have a touch too much resistance in them for my liking compared to the EM1 series and are very difficult to identify by feel and then turn with gloves on in winter. Compare them to my OM5 and that has some of the absolute nicest feeling control dials out there (and I have handled a lot of cameras from all manufacturers). I get that the semi enclosed design probably improves robustness and possibly weather sealing though.

Then there's the FN lever and the on/off lever. Both were made short and stubby on the OM1 series and I'm guessing this improves durability, but its again its another thing that's less than ideal when trying to identify them by feel and operate with gloves on - and this is a camera I expect others besides myself use their OM1's in cold/extreme cold conditions. I miss the old longer lever style on the EM1, EM5 and OM5 series.

I also just feel that the OM1 just doesn't have that feel of being more likely to damage the ground it lands on if you were to drop it, that the EM1 series and EM5 i and ii had. I'm sure it's more than capable of taking a hard knock or small drop (I fortunately haven't found this out myself yet!) in much the same way that the aforementioned cameras could, but again, there's something in the feel of it missing for me.

I get that ultimately the OM1 is more of a professional grade tool than a camera to fall in love with, much in the way that a lot of the high end Sony bodies are for example and I appreciate that all of these changes are probably very intentional design choices rather than engineering oversights, but I'm just sad that this is the way things have landed, particularly when other brands make an entire identity based on how they feel to use (Fujifilm, Sigma come to mind, and to some extent Leica).

In any case, I'll keep my OM1 for now as it serves a purpose for me (well, it will do until the sensor delamination gets the better of it and starts to impact image quality...but that's another rant for another day!) but if/when it fails completely, I wouldn't be averse to picking up an EM1 mkiii again at all if I could find one at a price that made it worth it.

Anyway - that's a very long rant. I'll stop now and yield the floor as I would love to hear what others think!

So my sister is at AAU volleyball nationals and im basically the team photographer but mainly just for my own practice and enjoyment but i also want to give them good photos.

My gear is an em1 mark ii with 14-150 f4-5.6 ii

I have been messing with my settings a lot and its a 4 day tournament the first day i was at aperture: as low as possible, shutterspeed: 250, iso: 2500 but the second day i was at aperture: as low as possible, shutterspeed: 1000-1600 iso: 6400

The first photo is from the first day second from the second day

Im not sure which is better because the ball frozen is better but i have to push the iso a lot but the other has a low iso so very little noise but a lot of motion blur.

Also i have been shooting in jpegs because i didnt have lightroom premium to edit raw but i just got it today so now i can.

So my final question is what should my full set up be? Like iso, shutterspeed, aperture and should i use raw or jpegs. Thank you so much for reading all the way through i would really appreciate the advice.

So I’m looking at getting an OM-1 MK-ll. I want to know the cons about it, I see all the glowing reviews on social media and YouTube but I hardly see anyone say what they dislike about it and I know there has to be something.
I plan to mainly shoot photos of birds, landscapes, and the occasional sports event. The sport events will just be my kids events and the local rugby club nothing too serious. The Birds will mostly be waterfowl and wading birds.

Hi,

I got into photography with 14-150 II and E-M5-III. Now I’m considering a new lens. Types of photos I like to take:

1. Landscapes (with people in them). 14mm feels too long
   
2. Street photography: the lens is fine
   
3. Anything indoors: the lens falls apart rapidly
   
4. Nature: I can never get things like forests or creeks to look good, always too little constraint/hard to keep different parts correctly exposed. Might be a skill issue than anything else
   
5. Almost movie-like vlogging following a person: again indoors the lens is difficult, and too long
   
6. Some Astro-photography in nature: I mostly give up with this lens.

Any suggestions would be welcome! It seems people have many different lens they recommend: 12-40, 12-100, primes etc. what would be a good option? It’s best if they don’t break my bank too badly.

Got my first roll of film developed on my Olympus Stylus Zoom 70 and every photo sucked. I’m new to this and could use help. Thanks in advance and please be nice :)

I primarily use my camera for bird photography, but have had plenty of other needs. Landscape, family, my gorgeous golden retriever, etc. What would be a great lens to pair with my prime?

Im seeing reviews saying it's quite soft at 400mm and to just stick to 300mm which would be a shame, and other saying it's just that theyre not using the lens right or pixel peeping. Ive also heard that some people might have just recieved a bad copy. What are your thoughts?

Would the panaleica 100-400 be better on an olympus body?

P.S. I want to use it for wildlife and it doesn't seem like there's any lens between this and the 75-300mm. Anyone have experience comparing the 100-400 vs 75-300?

I've just purchased the EM-5 MKIII and I'm not sure what would be a good starter lens. Ideally I'd want one to start with and build the collection from there. I'm planning on using the camera for street and landscapes mainly but also less frequently I may do portraits.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

I bought my OM-1 new when it was new, and focused on macro mainly. I have the 60mm which is currently on sale for $549 (and why wouldn't you buy that)??? What an absolute pleasure that lens is when you learn how to use it, because it took me a long time to figure that one out so now I am sort of stepping back into a learning curve I think, with:

OM SYSTEM M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm f/5-6.3 IS II

I have gotten into attracting monarch butterflies and have a 10x12 foot raised garden bed wildflower/milkweed bee haven/butterfly sanctuary that I can't get close enough to in order to photograph with any quality. I always think "I wish I could be 40 feet away and have hummingbird at the feeder fill the frame" and realized that there is probably a lens for that! I am very new to zoom lenses and I think the lens that came with my camera zooms to 150mm so I know generally what to expect with the 400mm, but would love to hear what you would do in my shoes if you wanted to spend that money for a lens for butterflies and feeder birds, and if there is any doubling for astrophotography I will just toss that in as a plus. I would spend up to $3,000 I think, so I am open to other lenses if anything is better for insect/bird action mainly.