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).

The Olympus 100-400mm is a fantastic lens, especially considering its price. Mike Lane has tested that lens against the 150-400mm (
) which is almost four times the price and concluded that the difference in image quality is minimal. Of course the 150-400has an internal teleconverter which can be a real advantage.
 
The Olympus 100-400mm is a fantastic lens, especially considering its price. Mike Lane has tested that lens against the 150-400mm (
) which is almost four times the price and concluded that the difference in image quality is minimal. Of course the 150-400has an internal teleconverter which can be a real advantage.
Only quickly looked at this video, but didn't see that they did any comparison of photos in low light? I would have thought that the f/4.5 of the 150-400mm would have made a big difference than shooting at f/6 at 400mm with the 100-400mm, especially with the small sensor of the OM-1. Isn't that a major advantage for low light photography (something I do a fair amount for owls, etc)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bax
The 150-400 is better than the 100-400 but NOT MUTCH according to this video. @ 400mm you are @ F/4.5 versus F/6.3 which significant in low light. However, I find the OM-1/100-400 quite good in low light. The 150/400 also shoots @ 50 f/s if one so desires and has a built in TC. The build quality of the 100-400 is quite good and contributes to its low weight so I don't see that as a 150-400 advantage. I shot a 20mp D-500/D-7200 for years and have no problem with the small sensor but some do.

I find that the big advantage of the 100-400 is weight and compactness. Compared to my D-500/500pf which is about the weight of an OM-1/150-400, I find that everything is just easier. When I mount mt 300f4, which is great in low light, the extra weight, which is only 1/2# is noticeable and bothersome.

That being said I am an Old, fat, out of shape wimp. Your mileage may vary.

Tom
 
I have both the 300f4 and the 150-400 f4.5. Love both. For walking around I use the 300f4 when in a more static situation I use the 150-400 f4.5. That said, I don't find the 150-400 all that heavy using the Cotton Carrier and a monopod, so If i really need reach, I take it.
 
I have both the 300f4 and the 150-400 f4.5. Love both. For walking around I use the 300f4 when in a more static situation I use the 150-400 f4.5. That said, I don't find the 150-400 all that heavy using the Cotton Carrier and a monopod, so If i really need reach, I take it.

I suspect that if the 150-400 was available when I decided to switch to OM Systems, I would have gone for it since it was no heavier than my D-500/500pf and it was a zoom. However, now that I am used to the 100-400 even the 300f4 seems heavy to me and my monopod/monogimbal sits unused in the car's trunk. How easy it is to get spoiled.

Tom
 
I suspect that if the 150-400 was available when I decided to switch to OM Systems, I would have gone for it since it was no heavier than my D-500/500pf and it was a zoom. However, now that I am used to the 100-400 even the 300f4 seems heavy to me and my monopod/monogimbal sits unused in the car's trunk. How easy it is to get spoiled.

Tom
Got lucky, found a 150-400 used in ebay. Didn't look like it had been used at all. Needless to say I paid full price for it, but didn't mind given it cndition. Superb lens.
 
Northern Mockingbird and an Eastern Screech-Owl about 15min after sunset (I used a tripod, not even the Oly IS can do 840 EQ @2s handheld, or least I sure can't :) ).

P1285460_1200.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.



P1285690_1200-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
An interesting perspective is that non m43 photographers are concerned about the dearth of megapixels in the OM-1 while previous m43 photographers did not see more megapixels as an important upgrade.

For m43 photographers, more reliable AF (40.41%) and greater subject ID reliability (26.5%) topped the list. Lower noise at higher ISO (35.40%) and better dynamic range (19.47) were next. More sensor megapixels came in @ 2.65%.

The Sony IMX471 sensor has four light collection sites arranged in a X pattern for each pixel. This is how the OM-1 gets better AF, subject ID and better noise performance and dynamic range.

Regards,
Tom
 
An interesting perspective is that non m43 photographers are concerned about the dearth of megapixels in the OM-1 while previous m43 photographers did not see more megapixels as an important upgrade.

For m43 photographers, more reliable AF (40.41%) and greater subject ID reliability (26.5%) topped the list. Lower noise at higher ISO (35.40%) and better dynamic range (19.47) were next. More sensor megapixels came in @ 2.65%.
I would agree with that order of importance but I would love more MP. I believe to compete with higher pixel density APS-C and FF cameras M43 will have to raise the MP or it will lose the “reach” advantage.

For example I already have to permanently use the 1.4x TC with the 309F4 to match the reach on my A1 and 600mm lens.

The Sony IMX471 sensor has four light collection sites arranged in a X pattern for each pixel. This is how the OM-1 gets better AF, subject ID and better noise performance and dynamic range.

Regards,
Tom

I don’t find visibly better noise or DR than other 20MP M43 sensors. The claimed better ISO by OMS was only for jpg because of the better noise reduction algorithm built into the camera. I still find it ~2 stops behind my FF cameras.

There really hasn’t been any sensor breakthrough advances for ISO and DR in years.
 
Be careful what you wish for in regard to megapixels. I'm an Olympus user, but for many years I also used a Canon SX50 and SX70 for their long lenses. Overall the SX70 is a better camera, but in going form the SX50 to 70 the megapixels were raised from 12 to 20, there seems to be a consensus that crowding all those pixels onto that small sensor lowered the image quality a bit. It seems there's a limit to how many megapixels can go on a sensor without adverse impacts on an image, what that is for a MFT sensor I don't know but it's out there somewhere.
 
Against all odds, I stumbled across a 150-400mm f4.5 lens, and have it reserved to pick it up this week.
You really have to be lucky to find one where I live, I waited for one earlier for 8 months before giving up and getting a Sony A1 with 200-600.

I shot Olympus in the past with the E3, and some of my first birding images were with Olympus.
So I am well aquainted with the 4/3 format.
I am on the waiting list for a Nikon 800PF but don't expect it till next year and am also waiting for a Nikon gripless Z9 type body.
Since I don't see a full frame sensor as a neccessity for mobile wildlife/birding and don't like big 600/4 type lenses, the OM-1 with the 150-400mm seems a good option to be combined with a Nikon Z8+800PF in future years.

I owned some of the Zuiko SHG lenses for my E3 in the past, and even with the poor sensor in the E3, the quality of the Olympus lenses was obvious. So I do't doubt the 150-400mm f4.5 will be a stellar lens to enjoy in many scenarios on the OM-1.
 
Be careful what you wish for in regard to megapixels. I'm an Olympus user, but for many years I also used a Canon SX50 and SX70 for their long lenses. Overall the SX70 is a better camera, but in going form the SX50 to 70 the megapixels were raised from 12 to 20, there seems to be a consensus that crowding all those pixels onto that small sensor lowered the image quality a bit. It seems there's a limit to how many megapixels can go on a sensor without adverse impacts on an image, what that is for a MFT sensor I don't know but it's out there somewhere.
Assuming the sensor tech is the same there isn’t really impact to IQ from higher MP sensors. The problem is everyone wants to look at 100% crops and of course you’ll see more noise when zooming in that much to a high density sensor. Once you normalize the output there isn’t any difference.

 
My two cents' worth, just having returned from two weeks in Colombia with Glenn Bartley. First of all, using DXO PureRaw, issues of image noise up through ISO 6400 largely disappear, and if pictures taken with my M43 rig were weaker in this respect than those taken by others using Canon and Sony gear (no Nikon users in this group), the differences were very, very small. Others were routinely going to ISO 12,800, however, and at that level the Olympus images clearly were less correctable for image noise. But come on, ISO 6400 solves a lot of low light problems.

To invoke my second point, I must recount the painful fact that in a moment of inattention, I failed to prevent my tripod-supported rig comprising the OM1 plus Olympus 150-400mm zoom from toppling to the ground (actually a gravel road) in the Colombian Andes, ouch. The viewfinder was apparently damaged. The "good news" was that otherwise, the camera still operated, so in some situations I could take photographs using the rear screen. For fast-moving birds in confusing vegetation this did not work so well, but at (say) feeder setups it was do-able.

Fortunately, I followed the practice of bringing along a backup body. To save weight and space, I had brought a "low-level" Olympus OM-D-M5 mark iii as my spare. To my surprise, this camera proved quite capable. I gave up bird/eye focus. Otherwise, what was the big difference? The sensor size is pretty much identical, I could use Pro Capture with effectiveness, and if the image quality was inferior, the difference is very, very tiny. I went back to the "old ways" of dealing with autofocus, including using the joystick to move the focus spot to the best location, of using the much cruder but still usually effective "subject target mode," Of using single autofocus and recomposing, and of resorting to manual focus adjustments in some critical situations. That there was no "focus peaking" was a small loss, definitely.

I will add that it was apparent that compared to the Sony and Canon systems, low-light autofocus with Olympus/OM1 cameras is not as good. I lost reliable autofocus while the rest of the group was still having no difficulties. Having to resort to manual focus in these situations was not "suffering," but the difference was definitive. Also, with some bird photo situations, including dealing with the gorgeous but exposure problem-prone Multicolored tanager (attached, I hope) with its oh-so-pale pale yellow back patch, it was apparent that the dynamic range of the M43 sensors is not as extensive as with the full-frame cameras. I had to underexpose remarkably drastically to avoid blowing out that back patch. The good news was that even at -1.3 EF, shooting RAW and using DXO PureRaw as a first postprocessing step rendered the issue fairly moot. After a first session that produced blown-out tanager back patches, I rallied during the second go-round and got some great photos of this amazing bird.

My damaged OM1 is now off to New Jersey for repairs. The generic estimate was a curious $417, and OM Systems told me the turnaround was under two weeks. We'll see. I am off to Patagonia in early March, and I am still hoping to take the OM1. Because this is not a bird photography workshop (it is a Road Scholar trip, a "general tourism" type trip with my wife), I will not bring the 150-400mm zoom. Instead, I will be bringing the 100-400mm zoom, lighter and much less conspicuous; the rig can be placed in a holster-type hip pack to protect it from the lousy weather of Tierra del Fuego.

multicoloredsmall.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Against all odds, I stumbled across a 150-400mm f4.5 lens, and have it reserved to pick it up this week.
You really have to be lucky to find one where I live, I waited for one earlier for 8 months before giving up and getting a Sony A1 with 200-600.

I shot Olympus in the past with the E3, and some of my first birding images were with Olympus.
So I am well aquainted with the 4/3 format.
I am on the waiting list for a Nikon 800PF but don't expect it till next year and am also waiting for a Nikon gripless Z9 type body.
Since I don't see a full frame sensor as a neccessity for mobile wildlife/birding and don't like big 600/4 type lenses, the OM-1 with the 150-400mm seems a good option to be combined with a Nikon Z8+800PF in future years.

I owned some of the Zuiko SHG lenses for my E3 in the past, and even with the poor sensor in the E3, the quality of the Olympus lenses was obvious. So I do't doubt the 150-400mm f4.5 will be a stellar lens to enjoy in many scenarios on the OM-1.
I have it and it's superb! :)
 
Great shot and very informative post, thank you. I'm sorry about the tripod incident. I almost suffered that same fate on a hillside in Chile, but thankfully someone more observant than I caught the tripod and camera as it was falling.

I'm curious, Glenn is the one who got me into using fill flash years ago, before mirrorless technology. Was anyone using fill flash on your trip, or has frame rate and high ISO performance made it less important?
 
Also, with some bird photo situations, including dealing with the gorgeous but exposure problem-prone Multicolored tanager (attached, I hope) with its oh-so-pale pale yellow back patch, it was apparent that the dynamic range of the M43 sensors is not as extensive as with the full-frame cameras. I had to underexpose remarkably drastically to avoid blowing out that back patch. The good news was that even at -1.3 EF, shooting RAW and using DXO PureRaw as a first postprocessing step rendered the issue fairly moot. After a first session that produced blown-out tanager back patches, I rallied during the second go-round and got some great photos of this amazing bird.

I find that with my OM-1 100-400 that I routinely use an exposure compensation of -1.3EV for white birds and even have a button that does exactly that. (I also have a button for black birds that is +1.3EV. )
 
Great shot and very informative post, thank you. I'm sorry about the tripod incident. I almost suffered that same fate on a hillside in Chile, but thankfully someone more observant than I caught the tripod and camera as it was falling.

I'm curious, Glenn is the one who got me into using fill flash years ago, before mirrorless technology. Was anyone using fill flash on your trip, or has frame rate and high ISO performance made it less important?

In the workshop description(s), Glenn indicates that participants should bring a flash (or even two), and that fill flash technique will be among the learning outcomes for the trip. In actual practice, "we" used flash one time, at Las Tangaras ProAves reserve in Choco province. Glenn did go through the discussion of what flash is and is not good for, how to approach settings, etc. Personally, I got a few good images this way but I actually struggled with exposure, i.e., avoiding a "flashy" look to the results. I frankly am far more comfortable with the Nikon flash system, and trying to fumble through using the Godox system with OM/Olympus seemed frustrating, with lots of trial-and-error, mostly error.

After that, no one brought out the flash stuff at all the rest of the trip. At the end, during "feedback and evaluation" time, more than one participant indicated that really, there was no advantage to having brought 2-4 pounds of flash gear along, as it sat unused nearly the whole time. Meanwhile, the Canon and Sony folk blithely set their ISO levels to 12,800 almost routinely. This is a whole new era, frankly. As I indicated, I pretty much topped out at 6400, though I did go higher a few times.

Glenn actually defended the requirement for flash gear on the basis of, "What if we had encountered an owl at night?" Frankly, this prospect is not sufficient for me to have changed my mind about the uselessness of flash on the trip, as I do not/will not use flash on birds in total darkness. I do think there is at least a mild ethical issue here, and. besides, talk about images that appear "flashy." I don't like the finished product. The one owl we did photograph was a Spectacled owl perched high in a tree in Ciudad Bolivar, illuminated by daylight.
 
Congratulations Chris! Having shared your quest since the Pentax DA 560 days. I think you're going to be very pleased.
Thanks,

I had a hard time finding a fitting replacement for the Pentax DA560.
I first went for the Canon 400mm f4DOII, because with both TC's I could mimmick the focal lengths/apertures of the DA560 (bare and with 1.4TC)
It did not work out for two reasons: I could not get the same performance at 800mm with the 2.0TC that I got with the DA560+1.4TC over larger distances.
Next to that, the 7DII had very poor RAW dynamic range, and the 7DIII that I counted on never came.

Next, I sold the Canon combo and opted for the Nikon D500+500PF. That was a really nice combo, best I have owned so far, except I did not like performance with the 1.4TC, and with mirrorless taking over, I started looking for a mirrorless solution.

So I sold the Nikon combo and opted for the Sony A1+200-600G, which is a superb combo performance wise, but somehow the 200-600G does not win me over. No more needed to be sais about that, because it is a hugely popular lens and countless people have sold their f4 primes for the switch to this combo, but it is not for me.
I had two plans, either get the 600GM or get the Nikon 800PF.
The first however is just too big for me, and the second is unavailable.

On top of that, I stopped searching for a one lens solution like the DA560 was.
I now intend to split things up in two combos: a walkaround versatile combo and a hard core long reach combo.
For the first I think the Olympus seems a very good solution.
For the latter I intend to wait things out a little longer until e.g. Canon comes with a RF500/4 or 500/4.5, or the 800PF becomes available and Nikon releases a gripless Z9
 
Thanks,

I had a hard time finding a fitting replacement for the Pentax DA560.
I first went for the Canon 400mm f4DOII, because with both TC's I could mimmick the focal lengths/apertures of the DA560 (bare and with 1.4TC)
It did not work out for two reasons: I could not get the same performance at 800mm with the 2.0TC that I got with the DA560+1.4TC over larger distances.
Next to that, the 7DII had very poor RAW dynamic range, and the 7DIII that I counted on never came.

Next, I sold the Canon combo and opted for the Nikon D500+500PF. That was a really nice combo, best I have owned so far, except I did not like performance with the 1.4TC, and with mirrorless taking over, I started looking for a mirrorless solution.

So I sold the Nikon combo and opted for the Sony A1+200-600G, which is a superb combo performance wise, but somehow the 200-600G does not win me over. No more needed to be sais about that, because it is a hugely popular lens and countless people have sold their f4 primes for the switch to this combo, but it is not for me.
I had two plans, either get the 600GM or get the Nikon 800PF.
The first however is just too big for me, and the second is unavailable.

On top of that, I stopped searching for a one lens solution like the DA560 was.
I now intend to split things up in two combos: a walkaround versatile combo and a hard core long reach combo.
For the first I think the Olympus seems a very good solution.
For the latter I intend to wait things out a little longer until e.g. Canon comes with a RF500/4 or 500/4.5, or the 800PF becomes available and Nikon releases a gripless Z9
Congratulations ChrisM...
Your ability to find the 150-400 f4.5 is enviable. As someone who has the Nikon kit you desire, albeit with a gripped Z9, the Olympus 150-400 w/ converter is the one lens that could persuade me to move away from Nikon. It is not just the size advantage that makes this lens compelling, it is the zooming capacity at f4.5 and the built-in converter.
Other than the rare case where a small subject is directly against a vegetation rich background, the pro OM-system body has more than enough dynamic range and megapixels to do 95% of what I do.
I look forward to seeing how the lens performs.
regards,
bruce
 
Last edited:
This is Pro Capture in action in Colombia, as it recorded an unexpected encounter between a Great Thrush and a Slaty brushfinch. Oops! No harm done. This picture was actually taken with an Olympus OM D EM5iii, which also has Pro Capture. This was after my OM1 hit the pavement and lost the function of its viewfinder the day before, ouch. I know this is a thread about the oh so capable OM1, but when I had to rely on the cheaper camera, the latter did just fine.




brushfinchthrush.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Red Crossbills with the OM-1, 300F4+1.4x TC

P2056840_1200.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


P2055895_1200.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.



P2057092_1200.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.



P2056610_1200.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


P2056701_1200.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


P2056793_1200.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
I just placed an order for the OM-1 with the 12-40 lens, plus the 100-400 f5.6-6.3. Assuming I like it, I'll fill in the lens kit later. My plan is to use it as my lightweight travel camera, in place of my Z9. I need something I can bring with me while hiking or when going on a family trip where photography is not the primary activity but I still want to be able to photograph birds and wildlife, and the Z9 is inconvenient and too conspicuous in those circumstances. I was going to buy the 1.4x teleconverter for a little extra reach when needed, but B&H is including a 2.0x teleconverter with the 100-400 for free (!) right now. I'm concerned about it becoming effectively a 1600mm f11 lens (I think that math is right). I'm not sure how usable that's going to be and how well it will autofocus, but who am I to turn my back on a free TC? I figure I'll at least give it a try and I can always get the 1.4x TC later if I want.

My other purpose for buying this system is to use it underwater in a housing. The small size and weight makes for small housings and ports, which should be a welcome relief when traveling with scuba gear and on the dive boats. I'll have a couple months to try it out on birds around the upper Texas coast before heading to Belize for it's first underwater trial in April. With the additional lenses (wide zoom and 60mm macro) plus the housing and ports it's still a pretty significant investment, but still only about half what it would cost to house my Z9 system, and from everything I've read on here and elsewhere I'm pretty excited to try it out.
 
I just placed an order for the OM-1 with the 12-40 lens, plus the 100-400 f5.6-6.3. Assuming I like it, I'll fill in the lens kit later. My plan is to use it as my lightweight travel camera, in place of my Z9. I need something I can bring with me while hiking or when going on a family trip where photography is not the primary activity but I still want to be able to photograph birds and wildlife, and the Z9 is inconvenient and too conspicuous in those circumstances. I was going to buy the 1.4x teleconverter for a little extra reach when needed, but B&H is including a 2.0x teleconverter with the 100-400 for free (!) right now. I'm concerned about it becoming effectively a 1600mm f11 lens (I think that math is right). I'm not sure how usable that's going to be and how well it will autofocus, but who am I to turn my back on a free TC? I figure I'll at least give it a try and I can always get the 1.4x TC later if I want.

My other purpose for buying this system is to use it underwater in a housing. The small size and weight makes for small housings and ports, which should be a welcome relief when traveling with scuba gear and on the dive boats. I'll have a couple months to try it out on birds around the upper Texas coast before heading to Belize for it's first underwater trial in April. With the additional lenses (wide zoom and 60mm macro) plus the housing and ports it's still a pretty significant investment, but still only about half what it would cost to house my Z9 system, and from everything I've read on here and elsewhere I'm pretty excited to try it out.
I found the 2.0 too much for the 100-400. I also felt that it changed the balance significantly. Maybe I am just used to the lightweight compact form factor of the OM-1/100-400. It is my primary wildlife setup.

Tom
 
Back
Top