[wim]

You're welcome, J!

The G9 II is actually extremely bulky, so it defeats the object of MFT in any case.
The Mark 1 version uses DFD or CDAF for autofocus, which means it isn't as good as the Olympus system for stills photography, especially for things like long lens birding and/or wildlife. The AF system of the G9 is better at video, however, if that is something you want to do a lot.

I'd also recommend using a Panasonic body/lens combo or Olympus body/lens combo for optimum use of IS and optimum waterproofing, although the Olympus is better in this regard. Up to the G9 the IS system of Olympus was the best, but it is much of a muchness these days. Olympus bodies are smaller than Panasonic bodies as well.

I'd also suggest to go with slightly better lenses from a maximum aperture POV at the lower range, so rather than an F/4 lens, if you can afford it, go for F/2.8 - you will thank me for it later .

Here are some prices I found on B&H (no idea where you live, prices in euros tend to be somewhat higher, but over here on OM-System lenses and cameras there are a lot of cashbacks currently).

G9 II $ 1897.99
G9 II with 12-35 F/2.8 $ 2795.98
Can't find a G9 Mark I, but they are still available here, for € 999. There are also very substantial discounts over here on G9/lens combo's, like € 1000 less on G9 + Panny 100-400 (€ 2284 currently)

Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 12-35 F/2.8 $897.99
Panasonic Lumix GX Vario II 12-35 F/2.8 $997.99
Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 35-100 F/2.8 $1147.99
Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmar 100-400 F/4-6.3 II 1597.99 (without tripod ring)
Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmar 100-400 F/4-6.3 II 1797.99 (with tripod ring)

OM-1 $1999.99
OM-5 $ 999.99

OM-1 with 12-40 F/2.8 Pro $2599.99
OM-5 with 12-45 F/4 Pro $1399.99

Olympus 12-40 F/2.8 Pro II $999.99
Olympus 12-45 F/4.0 Pro $699.99
Olympus 12-100 F/4.0 Pro $1399.99
Olympus 40-150 F/4.0 Pro $899.99
Olympus 100-400 F/5-6.3 IS $1499.99

So, if I had to make a choice, I would either go for a setup with
G9
Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 12-35 F/2.8 $897.99
Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 35-100 F/2.8 $1147.99
Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmar 100-400 F/4-6.3 II 1797.99 (with tripod ring)

or
OM-1 $1999.99 or OM-5 $ 999.99
Olympus 12-40 F/2.8 Pro II $999.99
Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 35-100 F/2.8 $1147.99 (basically because the 40-150 F/2.8 is too big and heavy, and I don't like the bokeh)
Olympus 100-400 F/5-6.3 IS $1499.99

If that makes for a too high budget, it would be as you suggested, I guess,
G9 ($ 1100? if you can find one)
Olympus 12-100 F/4.0 Pro $1399.99 (there is no other option in this range)
Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmar 100-400 F/4-6.3 II 1797.99 (with tripod ring)

or
OM-5 $999.99
Olympus 12-100 F/4.0 Pro $1399.99
Olympus 100-400 F/5-6.3 IS $1499.99 (it gets very good reviews)

Anyway, so far my suggestions. If you can afford it, go for OM-1 with Oly 100-400 and 2 F2.8 zooms.

HTH, kindest regards, Wim

[JBradshaw]

I am in Singapore, the camera market here is dominated by Sony and Canon (which I guess is typical for many markets), with Fujifilm quite popular and widely sold and then Nikon trailing behind. After Nikon it really is niche, you can find OM System and Panasonic but Ricoh Pentax seems to have vanished. If anything Leica seems more widely sold than Olympus and Panasonic. Those general electrical and department stores which still sell cameras are almost always Sony and Canon, with a few doing Fujifilm, you have to look for actual camera shops for other brands.

I have now bought an OM-1 with a 12-100 lens, now I just need the weather to improve (it's been raining here since returning from a Christmas holiday back in England a couple of weeks ago). First impressions are great, the body is just a nice size, compact but the grip is well proportioned and it's a nice fit for the hand. The camera and lens have a wonderful tactile feel, materials feel top notch, fit and finish is superb and there's a lovely almost film like weight and fluidity to the lens zooming action. The lens is quite heavy for MFT but it still very compact and reasonable given the focal length range and it balances nicely on the body. I also liked the Lumix G9, it was a difficult decision but in the end I just thought the OM-1 felt nicer in the hand (though the G9 is also a wonderfully built camera).

[wim]

Congratulations!

Good choice, I think. I also always thought the Oly/OM cameras had better ergonomics that the Panny ones, but I guess that is quite personal anyway. The OM-1 is a small camera, but despite my rather big hands it feels indeed very comfortable.

In Japan Oly/OM is quite popular, BTW. In 2023 it held spots 6, 8 and 9 for number of camera sales, in between Sony, Canon and Nikon in the top ten, so not bad going.

Kind regards, Wim

[JBradshaw]

I went over the 1000 shutter count this week, really enjoying the camera. Starting to feel comfortable with the menu system and adjusted to the shutter release (it's a lot lighter than my last camera). I think those are two things a lot of reviewers can make a lot of both things but I think adjusting to how a camera handles and the menu system is just a part of changing and you soon adjust and get used to it.
I haven't bought a long tele lens yet, I was wondering if you might have advice. A friend suggested that I would be better off with the 40-150 F2.8 as much of my photography would fall within the 150mm length and to go longer get the MC14 which apparently still offers a reasonable constant F4 aperture and would cover the great majority of my needs. The MC20 is also an option. Do you have experience of these teleconverters please? The friend in question tells me that the impact on optical performance is acceptable and that overall the lens remains excellent and worth the hit for the excellent performance of the 40-150 without the converter. Others tell me to avoid as the hit to optical performance is too uch and to go for either the Zuiko or Lumix Leica 100-400 or Lumix Leica 50-200.

[davidmanze]

While we are talking of the lack of activity in Olympus's camera output and the review viability of the MFT system here on OLs
..... all of a sudden out pops one of the most exiting lenses of all time ....... the 150mm-600mm F5-6.3 .......
the native FF equiv. of course being 300-1200mm ......

This in itself should make many MFTs birders think more than twice about relinquishing the Olympus system.... on utube it's getting great reviews ........

A right out of the blue lens if ever there was one!

[wim]

I went over the 1000 shutter count this week, really enjoying the camera. Starting to feel comfortable with the menu system and adjusted to the shutter release (it's a lot lighter than my last camera). I think those are two things a lot of reviewers can make a lot of both things but I think adjusting to how a camera handles and the menu system is just a part of changing and you soon adjust and get used to it.
I haven't bought a long tele lens yet, I was wondering if you might have advice. A friend suggested that I would be better off with the 40-150 F2.8 as much of my photography would fall within the 150mm length and to go longer get the MC14 which apparently still offers a reasonable constant F4 aperture and would cover the great majority of my needs. The MC20 is also an option. Do you have experience of these teleconverters please? The friend in question tells me that the impact on optical performance is acceptable and that overall the lens remains excellent and worth the hit for the excellent performance of the 40-150 without the converter. Others tell me to avoid as the hit to optical performance is too much and to go for either the Zuiko or Lumix Leica 100-400 or Lumix Leica 50-200.

Since you did go with the OM-1, I'd suggest you go with any Oly option, because of the additional IS-benefits you get. Whether that is the 40-150, 100-400, 150-400, or the new 150-600 doesn't really matter apart from you specific needs. If you are into birding, I'd suggest the longer lenses, for game the 40-150 with teleconverter may be enough indeed. In that case I would certainly also consider the Lumix Leica 50-200, because its longer reach, equivalent to 100-400 on FF.

As to teleconverters, you always get a little drop in resolution etc., when using them, which is why I personally would not recommend going beyond a 1.4x version, apart from the loss of light. A 2x converter really only serves as a last means to get a shot, IMO. Of course, built-in converters, as with the Oly 150-400, which has a 1.25x built-in which is always available without having to mount it, is generally the better option, as they are specifically designed for the optical design of such a lens. However, that is one expensive piece of equipment, even though it is considered t be excellent.

The 40-150 is available as a package including the 1.4x teleconverter, BTW, well, it was in the past anyway, and that could be a cheaper option to acquire such a setup.

Personally, I like slightly longer teles, so I would go for a 100-400 or thereabouts, to be very honest. That is exactly what I currently use my Canon 100-400 for, with adapter and/or speedbooster. I find that for landscapes which make use of the "compression" that telezooms provide, 300 mm equivalent often isn't enough, and the same holds true for getting any close-up shots of animals, birds or otherwise. In the latter case, I must admit I am not very good at sneaking up to animals either, or maybe I do not have the patience (or both).

And yes, the Canon 100-400L is heavy, but since I also use it on my FF Canon system, it is just one of those things, as in, decisions on budgetary restraints etc. Personally, if I had the money available, I would likely get the 150-400 or the new 150-600.