Is anyone exploring the Olympus OM-1 for birds and wildlife?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

That offer from B & H is strange, isn't it? A free 2x telextender for a lens that really has a terrible time making good use of it. It would make more sense to bundle the 1.4x with the lens, as that combination is far more usable. At 1600mm the math is actually f13.5 (yikes). But like Ben said, why turn down an offer like that?

I am lucky enough to own both the 150-400 and the 100-400. The 150-400 (plus built-in 1.25x) is a fantastic, pro quality lens, but for my upcoming trip as part of a non-photography tour group to Tierra del Fuego with my wife, it would be overkill and too conspicuous. I will be taking the 100-400 plus the 1.4x. This rig fits into a padded hip holster. I will report back on its performance relative to the pricier zoom.
 
That offer from B & H is strange, isn't it? A free 2x telextender for a lens that really has a terrible time making good use of it. It would make more sense to bundle the 1.4x with the lens, as that combination is far more usable. At 1600mm the math is actually f13.5 (yikes). But like Ben said, why turn down an offer like that?

I am lucky enough to own both the 150-400 and the 100-400. The 150-400 (plus built-in 1.25x) is a fantastic, pro quality lens, but for my upcoming trip as part of a non-photography tour group to Tierra del Fuego with my wife, it would be overkill and too conspicuous. I will be taking the 100-400 plus the 1.4x. This rig fits into a padded hip holster. I will report back on its performance relative to the pricier zoom.

I saw that and thought the same, it would have been better with the 1.4x. Over the last couple of weeks I was trying to decide between the 40-150 and the Pany 50-200 (I've decided that I'm taking my M43 kit to Iceland this summer instead of the FF kit so I'm trying to round things out) and even if I didn't already have both TCs I don't think it would have swayed my decision. I picked up the 50-200, I just think it's a better compliment to the 300 Pro for wildlife than the 40-150.
 
I just assumed when I saw the offer that they're having a hard time moving the 2x TCs so they figured they might as well give them away. Seems crazy, but it nothing about it makes much sense. Maybe it would be useful with the 300mm f4 though. Anyone tried that combination? I'm not a huge fan of primes for shooting songbirds because sometimes they're right on top of me and sometimes they're in a distant tree so I need the flexibility of a zoom, but that lens isn't too pricey and would be great for blinds.

The 150-400 looks awesome, but the size, price and lack of availability all undermine they whole point of why I'm going with the OM-1 to being with (instead of waiting for a future Nikon that's basically a Z9 without the grip for a much smaller form factor).

I'm intrigued by the idea of a hip holster for the OM-1 with the 100-400. Which holster are you using or would you recommend?
 
Is anybody else salivating over the OM Zuiko 90mm f3.5 2:1 auto focus image stabilized Macro that will be announced Tuesday night or Wednesday??
Slightly off topic, but I had it on my radar until I saw the price would be over $1700 (suggested price 231,000 yen according to the 4/3 Rumor site). May be less in the US, we'll find out soon. The high price is inline with the OMS announcement (last year?) that they would be concentrating on higher end gear ($$).

My 60mm macro is starting to look pretty good. I don't do much macro yet, another thing to learn more about but extension tubes and a Raynox would be a better first step for me. There is the Micro Four Thirds forum at DPReview that has some great macro shooters using MFT gear.
 
Last edited:
Had it on my radar until I saw the price would be over $1700 (suggested price 231,000 yen). My 60mm macro is starting to look pretty good. I don't do much macro yet, another thing to learn more about but extension tubes and a Raynox would be a better first step for me. There is the Micro Four Thirds forum at DPReview that has some great macro shooters using MFT gear.
The 60mm macro was a preferred lens in underwater photography back in the day. An extension tube will increase the magnification without decreasing the working distance while a diopter will also increase the magnification and the working distance.
 
Back in the film days, when Nikon dominated the underwater sector (even for housed systems), the 60mm and 105mm micro Nikkors were really the only options for macro. (The alternative was extension tubes with the 35mm Nikonos camera, but that was a rangefinder camera so it required the use of metal frames.) The 105mm was by far the most commonly used due to the extra working distance it afforded from skittish critters. I'm looking forward to using the 60mm Olympus as it's effectively a 120mm. Most recently I've been using a diopter on a flat port for a housed compact camera (Canon Powershot G7x) which actually worked pretty well, but focusing was a challenge. The prospect of advanced AF is super exciting, even if the eye-tracking AF doesn't work.
 
During the Nikon d-200/d-300 days the 105mm Nikkor was tops for macro closely followed by the 60mm Olympus. I used a +10 subsee diopter to take near-world class macros with my D-300/105mm/+10 by simply setting the camera in "focus" mode then backing up until the subject came in focus.

Tom
 
Is anybody else salivating over the OM Zuiko 90mm f3.5 2:1 auto focus image stabilized Macro that will be announced Tuesday night or Wednesday??
I was as I shot quite a lot of bugs in the past 6 months... until I saw the potential pricetag.

On one side a weather resistant 2:1 magnification AF lens that can potentially do hand held focus stacking is an unique proposition these days... so the price is definately justified.

On the other hand, for the rumored price I can get a Laowa 100mm 2:1 macro for Nikon F mount (with better working distance), a decent mount adapter and a WeMacro motorized slider to compensate for the loss of in camera focus stacking and still have cash left over for a 60mm macro :).
 
Will probably spring for it just because it sounds ideal and there isn't anything else coming anywhere close to it. Laowa would be my second choice, but it has no stabilization which I think will be really important. Auto focus is nice, but not necessary. So it's the only 2:1 with stabilization. And I'm old and I can't take those $$$s with me. LOL
 
I just assumed when I saw the offer that they're having a hard time moving the 2x TCs so they figured they might as well give them away. Seems crazy, but it nothing about it makes much sense. Maybe it would be useful with the 300mm f4 though. Anyone tried that combination? I'm not a huge fan of primes for shooting songbirds because sometimes they're right on top of me and sometimes they're in a distant tree so I need the flexibility of a zoom, but that lens isn't too pricey and would be great for blinds.

The 150-400 looks awesome, but the size, price and lack of availability all undermine they whole point of why I'm going with the OM-1 to being with (instead of waiting for a future Nikon that's basically a Z9 without the grip for a much smaller form factor).

I'm intrigued by the idea of a hip holster for the OM-1 with the 100-400. Which holster are you using or would you recommend?

Re the 150-400: price and availability issue, check, but the size is really NOT an impediment, in my estimation (based on using the lens a LOT since I got it). The 150-400mm is quite hand-holdable, considering it is the FF equivalent of 300-1000mm. I think it's a winner of a product.

The holster I have to accommodate the OM1 plus 100-400mm is a

Lowepro Toploader Zoom 55 AW II, Blue.​


I got it on ebay for $38 two years ago. There are a lot of other holster packs that would work. It actually does not quite fit the camera/lens with the hood extended, but it is fine for the hood reversed.
 
Re the 150-400: price and availability issue, check, but the size is really NOT an impediment, in my estimation (based on using the lens a LOT since I got it). The 150-400mm is quite hand-holdable, considering it is the FF equivalent of 300-1000mm. I think it's a winner of a product.

The holster I have to accommodate the OM1 plus 100-400mm is a

Lowepro Toploader Zoom 55 AW II, Blue.​


I got it on ebay for $38 two years ago. There are a lot of other holster packs that would work. It actually does not quite fit the camera/lens with the hood extended, but it is fine for the hood reversed.
I'm not worried about the hand-hold-ability, just the overall compactness. For my hiking/non-photography-specific travel wildlife lens I want something as small and inconspicuous as possible. I actually prefer the PanaLeica 100-400 to the M.Zuiko 100-400 as it is even more compact (and less expensive), but my understanding is that it is limited in working with ProCapture and the IS doesn't sync with the OM-1, so the M.Zuiko seems like the better choice overall.

Thanks for the tip on the holster. I'll check that out. I've also heard the Cotton Carrier system is pretty good so I'm looking into that too. It's more expensive, and there's a definite dork factor that would prevent my kids from wanting to hike with me :LOL:, but it does seem very secure and convenient.
 
I actually prefer the PanaLeica 100-400 to the M.Zuiko 100-400 as it is even more compact (and less expensive), but my understanding is that it is limited in working with ProCapture and the IS doesn't sync with the OM-1, so the M.Zuiko seems like the better choice overall.
I don't think the Oly 100-400 has sync stabilization, either.
 
That's correct. You only get the sync stabilization from the lens, not from the camera body. I don't think it is that big a deal, frankly, but some people think it is.
It's 3 EV steps of IS and not sync IS compatible. I don't have one but I've seen people say that using inbody IS is better than the lens IS (but again I don't have one to prove or disprove that)
 
It's 3 EV steps of IS and not sync IS compatible. I don't have one but I've seen people say that using inbody IS is better than the lens IS (but again I don't have one to prove or disprove that)
Interesting, I have heard people say the opposite about long lenses, that it is the in lens stabilization that is more important then the in body IS. Obviously it is better to have both working and sync IS together. It is disappointing to hear that the 100-400mm IS doesn't work together with the IS in the body. As someone who contemplates switching/trying the OM system, I had pretty much decided that I would go with the 100-400mm (the 150-400mm was just too heavy to justify switching). Great to hear all this info on this thread.
 
It's 3 EV steps of IS and not sync IS compatible. I don't have one but I've seen people say that using inbody IS is better than the lens IS (but again I don't have one to prove or disprove that)

I have played with the various combinations and really, I can perceive no real difference one way or another. It is clearly somewhat less stabilization that you get with lenses like the 150-400mm, but the lack of dual IS is hardly a deal-breaker for the 100-400mm
 
So when using the 100-400, are you using the in-body IS or the lens IS? Or do you get to choose, and in that case which is preferable?

If the IS issue is the same between the Oly and the PanaLeica 100-400 lenses, then I guess the PreCapture issue becomes more relevant. Am I correct in understanding that PreCapture does not work, or is more limited, with the PL than the Oly lens? If it's just limited, how so?
 
The 100-400 works best with the lens IS turned off, relying on the camera IS. The lens is limited to 25 f/s in ProCapture SH2 (focus every shot). So far in my ProCap thread I have only posted shots with the 300f4 but we took plenty of shots with the 100-400 at various magnifications so hang on and you will see the results and a discussion between the plusses and minuses of the two lenses.

Tom
 
So when using the 100-400, are you using the in-body IS or the lens IS? Or do you get to choose, and in that case which is preferable?
You get to choose; I haven't yet done a comparison.

I recently bought the Oly 100-400, but did a lot of research comparing it with the PL 100-400 before I did so. The consensus out there seems to be that the PL is smaller and lighter, but the Oly is slightly sharper. I actually chose the Oly because I have a use for the free MC-20.
 
Laowa would be my second choice, but it has no stabilization which I think will be really important.
The IBIS in Olympus cameras is more than sufficient for my macro photography. I had the 7Artisans 60mm and now the Olympus 60mm, neither of which is stabilized but the IBIS takes care of any camera movement.

So when using the 100-400, are you using the in-body IS or the lens IS? Or do you get to choose, and in that case which is preferable?
I use the OIS in the 100-400mm lens with the camera's IBIS off since the IBIS doesn't seem to be able to handle movement of the long lens while the OIS handles it quite well. I've repeatedly tried all combinations of stabilization: lens OIS on camera's IBIS off, camera's IBIS on lens OIS off, both IBIS and OIS on and it seems pretty obvious with my camera/lens combination that the OIS on IBIS off performs best. That might not be the case with all body models, but it's the best with my E-M10 ii cameras.
 
The IBIS in Olympus cameras is more than sufficient for my macro photography. I had the 7Artisans 60mm and now the Olympus 60mm, neither of which is stabilized but the IBIS takes care of any camera movement.


I use the OIS in the 100-400mm lens with the camera's IBIS off since the IBIS doesn't seem to be able to handle movement of the long lens while the OIS handles it quite well. I've repeatedly tried all combinations of stabilization: lens OIS on camera's IBIS off, camera's IBIS on lens OIS off, both IBIS and OIS on and it seems pretty obvious with my camera/lens combination that the OIS on IBIS off performs best. That might not be the case with all body models, but it's the best with my E-M10 ii cameras.
The reports that I saw were with the OM-1 which has 7 stops of IBIS vs 4 for your EM-10. The lens itself is 3 stops so it could be even though lens IS is better for long lenses the extra 4 stops the OM-1 gives makes up for it.
 
Back
Top