Anyone using M 4/3 for birds?

[GrandNagus50]

I am taking my M43 kit on my trip to Costa Rica (which is imminent) . This includes two camera bodies, the 150-400mm zoom, a 12-40mm zoom, a 40-150mm zoom, the Panasonic Leica 200mm, and three (3) teleconverters, two Olympus and one Panasonic. I decided to splurge, weight-wise, and take my Think Tank International rolling bag instead of a lighter backpack. Including the ancillary lens cloths, extra batteries, cable release, etc., the bag weighs 27 pounds. This is about 8 pounds lighter than the same bag prepared for international travel with a kit of Nikon gear (featuring a 600mm f4 lens). The rolling bag itself weighs over ten pounds, of course. On my last trip, to Belize, I left the 200mm and teleconverter at home, and also the 12-40mm (I just used a small point and shoot for scenics). I used a MindShift Backlight 26L backpack, and the whole thing weighed about 17 pounds. In both cases, I put my binoculars and a small point and shoot camera in my personal item backpack.

So there is a weight saving using M43 gear, although the big white Olympus 150-400mm does weigh over four pounds and the OM-D M1X weighs 2.2 pounds.

 

[eaj101]

If I had to choose to just have one of them I would have the 40-150, as it is a sharp zoom and clearly more versatile than the 200 f2.8. The 200 is, in my experience, very slightly sharper (it's amazingly sharp), but the 40-150 is quite sharp even at 150mm. If your situation would be that you would be using the zoom at 150mm. all the time, then maybe the 200 would be a better choice, as it has more reach. But a zoom has all those different focal lengths! In terms of ergonomics, both lenses have slightly problematic lens hood designs. The Panasonic-Leica has a hood that is held on by a set screw, and the Olympus zoom has a weird twist and fold up/down design that is fussy and some people report that the hood eventually self-destructs. You can substitute a cheaper hood that you can just store reversed on the lens.

Thanks both. It's one of those things where you try to come up with a reasonable kit for a given situation. For example, on full frame my default wildlife kit is a 500 and 80-400. I'm still working out my m43 kit. I have the 40-150 and 100-400, which covers everything, but I feel rather meh about the 100-400. So, investigating options. the 150-400 is out of my price range for now, but the 200 f2.8 and 300 f4 are possibilities. (The 40-150 is excellent, if a little heavy and awkward for a zoom).

Thanks.

 

[GrandNagus50]

If the choice is between the Olympus 300 f4 and the Panasonic/Leica 200 f2.8, I would choose the 300 in a heartbeat. For me, at least, the reach is more important than one f stop, and with the 1.4x teleconverter the rig is an excellent 420 f5.6, which of course in full frame equivalent is 840mm. And hand-holdable. Before I got the 150-400 (just a few months ago) the Olympus 300 was my workhorse bird lens.

 

[Pistnbroke]

It seems to me as the OP that yes you can use 4/3 but it needs a 2.8 or F4 lens to avoid the noise problems at higher iso.
I was wanting to use my Tamron 100-400 but its F6.3 and it looks like the adaptor is not quite 100%.
thanks everyone for posting.

 

[StefanSC]

So there is a weight saving using M43 gear, although the big white Olympus 150-400mm does weigh over four pounds and the OM-D M1X weighs 2.2 pounds.

One of the things that soured me a bit about the m4/3rds system has been this whole "let's make things bigger" approach that Olympus has been on, producing over-engineered products (i'm especially looking at the f1.2 primes and E-M1X) that go against the USP of the system.
Luckily they've been getting their act togheter with the 8-25mm f4 and the 12-45mm f4 lenses which are brilliant and rather portable.

If the choice is between the Olympus 300 f4 and the Panasonic/Leica 200 f2.8, I would choose the 300 in a heartbeat.

Generally speaking, the choice isn't as clear-cut as that.

First off, the PL 200 f2.8 usually comes with the 1.4x TC in the box as well, which will give you a 280mm f4, getting you nearly the same reach as the 300mm f4 out of the box (and if the pundits are to be believed, the PL with TC is close as to make no difference in image quality).
While you can get the 2x TC for the PL and reach 400mm f5.6 (same aperture and nearly the same reach as the Olympus 300mm with 1.4x TC), you can get the 2x TC for the Olympus 300mm and reach a (frankly silly) 1200mm equivalent-FOV that is still hand-holdable.

Secondly there is the issue of AF and Dual-Stabilisation. If you shoot Panasonic, you'll want the PL 200mm for their special contrast detect DfD AF and Dual IS. Also for Olympus you'll want the 300mm f4 if you want to have Dual IS and some special functions (ProCapture High and Focus Stacking work only with certain Olympus lenses IIRC).

Finally there is the budget issue... While brand new the PL 200mm is more expensive than the Olympus 300mm f4, I've seen used copies of the 200mm f2.8 and TC14x in excellent state go for around 1200 euros on MBP while Olympus 300mm f4 stays at about 1800 euros. And at that priced for one, the PL 200mm f2.8 is a bargain of a lens .

It seems to me as the OP that yes you can use 4/3 but it needs a 2.8 or F4 lens to avoid the noise problems at higher iso.

As a general rule of thumb, yes. You want the fastest glass to keep your ISO as low as possible. Plus that, by f5.6 you are entering difraction teritory for m4/3.

Now, with modern noise reduction software, like Dxo PureRAW, I am quite confortable shooting m4/3 at ISO3200 and even ISO6400 if the light is good (not flat, dull light).

And you can always use the extremly capable IS systems to keep you shutter speed low when the subject is relatively static.

That may lead to some silly situations like I got into a while back, when shooting grey-headed woodpeckers looking for insects in the grass hand-held at 600mm eq-FOV and 1/200s, where my first 100 shots had the body of the bird tack sharp and the head blurry due to it moving too fast for my shutter speed .

 

[Nimi]

Has there been any development or even meaningful announcements since Olympus exited the camera business?

 

[StefanSC]

Well, since the beggining of 2021, the former camera division of Olympus rebranded themselves as OM Digital and put out the 8-25mm f4 and 20mm f1.4 Pro prime lenses.

And they announced that they are developing the next gen m4/3 camera (kind of like Nikon did with the Z9), with a release target of this year.

On the Panasonic side, they put out the 25-50mm f1.7 lens and the GH5 II plus quite a lot of firmware improvements to existing cameras to bring them in line with their FF line.

Also they announced they are developing the GH6 with details to come this spring.

Not a bad year considereing the overall situation.

 

[Nimi]

Well, since the beggining of 2021, the former camera division of Olympus rebranded themselves as OM Digital and put out the 8-25mm f4 and 20mm f1.4 Pro prime lenses.

And they announced that they are developing the next gen m4/3 camera (kind of like Nikon did with the Z9), with a release target of this year.

On the Panasonic side, they put out the 25-50mm f1.7 lens and the GH5 II plus quite a lot of firmware improvements to existing cameras to bring them in line with their FF line.

Also they announced they are developing the GH6 with details to come this spring.

Not a bad year considereing the overall situation.

The sale to JIP was completed Jan 1, 2021. So those lenses are "legacy," not developed by new ownership. I guess "remains to be seen," and in the meantime I wouldn't advise anyone who isn't already invested in glass to get into the system.

 

[StefanSC]

...all I can say is:

Quoting the previous message when you are responding only to it, that's just poor forum etiquette...

 

[Nimi]

...all I can say is:

Quoting the previous message when you are responding only to it, that's just poor forum etiquette...

Apologies. I actually think that is the proper way to provide a direct response as to not to confuse it with other messages in a meandering thread.

 

[StefanSC]

In the past 20 years I have rarely if ever seen a forum where this was accepted practice... most frowned at directly quoting only the previous message and some actively prevented it.

Anyway, enough off-topic from me.

 

[Palmor]

In the past 20 years I have rarely if ever seen a forum where this was accepted practice... most frowned at directly quoting only the previous message and some actively prevented it.

Anyway, enough off-topic from me.

I think experiences may be much different for different people. All the forms I participate in always quote (as I did) if you are replying to someone specifically. How else would someone know what your replying to?

Honestly curious how that could be considered bad taste?

 

[bleirer]

I think experiences may be much different for different people. All the forms I participate in always quote (as I did) if you are replying to someone specifically. How else would someone know what your replying to?

Honestly curious how that could be considered bad taste?

I don't see the issue either. I'm an experienced forum user too. I think one quotes to avoid confusion to show that you are responding to the quoted post OR to show that you are continuing a subtopic that has emerged. Perhaps we need some guidelines for this forum?

 

[Roy]

D850 getting too heavy so was thinking of a Nikon to 4/3 adaptor (electronic) and using my Tam 100-400 with a Oly M5 mk3.
Anybody had any success. Lots of reviews say its good but they said that about Lada cars.

M4/3 is good for some people but does lack a little dynamic range and resolution.
The lens is usually the heaviest piece of gear and a smaller camera may not mean a smaller lens.
For birding/wildlife maybe look at the Nikon D500 - its small and light and not only fits the same lenses as the D850 but the controls are the same.