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).

Member's gallery
Chris Weller said:
I was really tempted to purchase an OM-1 with the OLY 100-400 using their new promotion for $400 off plus trade-in of old gear....but...I realized that the Oly zoom lenses zoom the opposite way of my Nikon and Sony zoom lenses. It may sound crazy, but I think it's a deal breaker for me and that system. I have the OM-5 and OM-10, but I've only really used prime lenses. I've used Panasonic Zooms (they turn the same way as Nikon and Sony), but Ultimately I'd really want the Oly 100-400 or the 150-400 for their compatibility with Oly body and the Price of the 100-400.

I just don't want to mess up my muscle memory.
Click to expand...

I switched without difficulty. There issues going from DSLR (Nikon D-500) to mirrorless with the OM-1 because you need to pay particular attention to proper exposure, and you really need to learn to trust the Subject ID AI as opposed to placing the FP but the zoom direction issue was in the noise for me.

That $400 off deal drops the price of an OM-1/100-400 to an insanely low level for a modern BSI stacked sensor setup. We due respect to Nimi's point that the long-term development future of the m4/3 sensor is bleak, that is still one awesome deal.
 
Member's gallery
Chris Weller said:
I was really tempted to purchase an OM-1 with the OLY 100-400 using their new promotion for $400 off plus trade-in of old gear....but...I realized that the Oly zoom lenses zoom the opposite way of my Nikon and Sony zoom lenses. It may sound crazy, but I think it's a deal breaker for me and that system. I have the OM-5 and OM-10, but I've only really used prime lenses. I've used Panasonic Zooms (they turn the same way as Nikon and Sony), but Ultimately I'd really want the Oly 100-400 or the 150-400 for their compatibility with Oly body and the Price of the 100-400.
Click to expand...
I find the Olympus zoom ring counterintuitive even after using the lens for quite some time. The lens is sharp with good color and I enjoy using it and the photos from it, but certainly wish it zoomed in the opposite direction. That said, I cant remember ever missing a photo because of the zooming direction. I'd definitely buy the lens again and I often use it with the 1.4 X TC without any discernible reduction in image quality -- even with the camera's digital TC it takes excellent photos. From what Mike Lane says after a side-by-side comparison, the 100-400mm is almost as good as the 150-400mm at a fraction of the cost.
 
Member's gallery
Ever said:
Hey friends. Thought I'd circle back with an update.

Those photos were basically my first time shooting wildlife with something other than a smart phone. They were using default settings, and I was just kind of point-and-shooting.

I just finished my next attempt after watching some tutorials about the camera, as well as some technique (ETTR, Manual+Auto-ISO, etc). I ran things through Lightroom afterwards for basic corrections and de-noise, and it was neat seeing how much that helps.

Overall I'm pleased with the results. Especially since they were snapped pretty quickly. It gives me a better idea of what to expect, and I'm excited to switch over to this D500 to see if I can start understanding the tradeoffs. I think I'll miss the live screen/histogram, eye-tracking, etc. We'll see.

Album with additional photos. Samples below. Open to feedback :) (Note: I'm new to photo-posting etiquette. Think I'm supposed to mention that they're all pretty large crops. Not sure why some have EXIF and some don't, they're all from the same export).

View attachment 67115

View attachment 67116

View attachment 67117

View attachment 67118

View attachment 67119
Click to expand...

Hi friends. Circling back on this.

To recap, I'm deciding between these two setups. I just finished a day with the D500, and I'm comparing it to photos of the OM-1
In short, the photos from the Nikon feel more "professional" to my untrained eye. The Olympus seems just as sharp. But it also seems on the warm side. It's possible it's due to the difference in shooting conditions, and/or too much processing.

Anything I might want to note while using those albums as possible references? Which itself could be misleading since I'm new to photography and probably shouldn't be my own reference 😄 For example, maybe someone with experience can share whether my photos from the OM-1 are typical/atypical.

Since this is an OM-1 thread, it feels worth mentioning that I like it for just about every other factor (other than price. It had a higher keeper rate with the Olympus due to eye-tracking. I can see how valuable that is now that I'm finding great photos with the Nikon are slightly mis-focused on a wing (example). The two setups honestly feel the same weight to me. But when you're in the field shooting you can feel the difference, including the length. The OM-1 is just easier to maneuver. I find the menu to be easier to navigate. The live preview is pretty amazing. And I see why a silent shutter is valuable. The DSLR was scaring the hummingbirds.

Worth noting is both albums are taken in pretty ideal conditions in someone's back yard. But the intended use for things like hawks/owls that I stumble across while on a hike.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Ever said:
Hi friends. Circling back on this.

To recap, I'm deciding between these two setups. I just finished a day with the D500, and I'm comparing it to photos of the OM-1
Click to expand...
Ever said:
In short, the photos from the Nikon feel more "professional" to my untrained eye. The Olympus seems just as sharp. But it also seems on the warm side. It's possible it's due to the difference in shooting conditions, and/or too much processing.
Click to expand...
You get more background separation with larger sensors, all else being equal (aperture, distance, etc). That might be part of it. Both cameras took good images imo.
Ever said:
Anything I might want to note while using those albums as possible references? Which itself could be misleading since I'm new to photography and probably shouldn't be my own reference 😄 For example, maybe someone with experience can share whether my photos from the OM-1 are typical/atypical.
Click to expand...
The images with the d500 looked better because I think you got to the right place more often for the subjects. If you'd shot them with the Olympus I don't think you'd notice as much of a difference.
Ever said:
Since this is an OM-1 threat, it feels worth mentioning that I like it for just about every other factor (other than price. It had a higher keeper rate with the Olympus due to eye-tracking. I can see how valuable that is now that I'm finding great photos with the Nikon are slightly mis-focused on a wing (example). The two setups honestly feel the same weight to me. But when you're in the field shooting you can feel the difference, including the length. The OM-1 is just easier to maneuver. I find the menu to be easier to navigate. The live preview is pretty amazing. And I see why a silent shutter is valuable. The DSLR was scaring the hummingbirds.
Click to expand...
There's a lot to be said for the things you don't see on the screen, handling being the biggest. Comfort level with the af system and tracking is another.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks Cameron.

* I'd forgotten about background separation between the two, good point
* Good call on the framing. I'm starting to think about lighting/angle before pulling the trigger.

Worth noting is both albums are taken in pretty ideal conditions in someone's back yard. But the intended use for things like hawks/owls that I stumble across while on a hike.
 
Member's gallery
As it happens, about a week ago I took an OM-1 with the 100-400 lens out to test against a D500 with the 80-400 G lens. (I was about to send the D500 and lens to a friend and wanted to be sure it worked. ) My main priority was to compare the two lenses -- I have always thought that particular 80-400 is a very good copy, but wanted to be sure. The result of the test was that the two produced indistinguishable images. Depth of field was not a factor in the shots I took, but the subjects included nesting cormorants and flying pelicans. The D500 did just as well with the pelicans as the OM-1.

So my thought is that you just need to balance the depth of field differences and potential noise issues against the size and convenience of the OM-1. There's no one right answer here.
 
Member's gallery
I moved from D-500/500pf to an OM-1/100-400. The 500pf is a sharper lens than the Sigma 150/600. (I previously shot the Sigma 150-600 on a Nikon D-7200.)

My analysis was that the 500pf had better subject separation than the 100-400 owing to the fact that is a f/5.6 lens on a 1.5 crop camera while the 100-400 is a f/6.3 lens on a 2.0 crop camera. The effective F/stop is (actual F/stop X crop factor) to the tune of F/8.4 versus F/12.3. Compared to the OM Systems 300f4 lens, however (F/8 effective F/stop) the 500pf was very slightly inferior.

Therefore, my advice at resolving your decision is to plan to purchase a 300PF and use it when subject separation is what is important, as in a back yard. That is what I do. (This lens is about $2K used.)

My experience, however, is that the OM-1's ability to focus of the birds eye whereas the D-500 focuses on the nearest portion of the bird makes the OM-1/100-400 combination than the D-500/500pf in most situations.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for the insight above. Really helpful.

Was able to sneak out yesterday to snap a few more on a hillside in San Francisco during sunset. The angle wasn't optimal, but I suppose that's a valuable thing to try as well :)

It dawned on me that I've missed the opportunity to try both cameras side-by-side. My favorite photos so far are from the D500. But I need to rule out if it's simply from the lighting conditions that day (I didn't have the OM-1 with me). Or instead, if I'm just partial to the characteristics of that camera.

That's aside from the obvious benefits the OM-1 bring. I imagine the AF was more accurate in some of the photos below (the busy orange flowers behind/surrounding the subject).

Album (cropped/edited/de-noised in Lightroom)

P1010767-Enhanced-NR-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
P1011033-Enhanced-NR-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
P1010942-Enhanced-NR-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
P1010644-Enhanced-NR-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
P1010691-Enhanced-NR-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
P1010565-Enhanced-NR-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
P1010681-Enhanced-NR-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 

Attachments

  • P1010918-Enhanced-NR-2.jpg
    P1010918-Enhanced-NR-2.jpg
    202 KB · Views: 67
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I decided to take the plunge and bought a used OM-1 and 100-400mm, both in like new condition. It just arrived so I haven't been out with it, but this is my first shot ever with it.

100mm (200mm equivalent) , f5, 1/30 (handheld), ISO 5000. It was in natural room light, under a table so fairly dark. Cropped a little for composition. Animal Eye AF. It turned out really well. I think this will be a great purchase. Looking forward to using it at Glacier NP and Banff next month, the 800mm reach will be nice. Gonna have to go to the marsh in the morning.

Sunny P8180058.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


EDIT: I heard a bird outside so I went out and shot this. 800mm, 1/500, f6.3, ISO 800. Really nice. Just raised the shadows a hair and nothing else. I really like this camera. Red Vented Bulbul. Note: I forgot to change it from animal to bird AF, but it still found the bird's eye. Excellent.


Bulbul BCG P8180078.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
splatbass said:
I decided to take the plunge and bought a used OM-1 and 100-400mm, both in like new condition. It just arrived so I haven't been out with it, but this is my first shot ever with it.

100mm (200mm equivalent) , f5, 1/30 (handheld), ISO 5000. It was in natural room light, under a table so fairly dark. Cropped a little for composition. Animal Eye AF. It turned out really well. I think this will be a great purchase. Looking forward to using it at Glacier NP and Banff next month, the 800mm reach will be nice. Gonna have to go to the marsh in the morning.

View attachment 67852

EDIT: I heard a bird outside so I went out and shot this. 800mm, 1/500, f6.3, ISO 800. Really nice. Just raised the shadows a hair and nothing else. I really like this camera. Red Vented Bulbul. Note: I forgot to change it from animal to bird AF, but it still found the bird's eye. Excellent.


View attachment 67853
Click to expand...
The other lens to consider might be the Panasonic 100–300 mm.

I have two set ups – An EM5 mk3 with the 100-300 mm, and a full frame mirrorless with a 200–600 mm that is F6.3 at the long end. The little Olympus kit is less than a kilo and from an equivalence standpoint is a 600 mm F 11 at the long end. When weight matters the little Panasonic is hard to beat. Panasonic updated the focusing motors when they introduced the version two of the lens and it performs pretty well considering it's minuscule size and weight.
 
Member's gallery
Wanted to test my new OM-1 and 100-400mm out before I take it out for wildlife so I took it to the polo matches we go to every week. The autofocus worked great. I like it. The last one is a friend's horse and she ask me to take a picture of it. She loved it.

Polo BCG P8200962.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Polo BCG P8201163.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Polo BCG P8201196.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Ehu BCG P8201738.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
My backyard perch/blind is finally attracting birds so I plan to run some experiments with my OM Systems OM-1. I am wondering if any other OM-1 user has experience with these questions. I will be using a 300f4 lens because I don't have a 150-400 and the 100-400 only shoots at 25 f/s which seems too slow for catching the small fast birds in flight that frequent my backyard.

Questions:
1-In ProCapture (pre-capture) if I focus on a spot and wait for a bird to enter the frame, then shutter press, will the camera switch the focus to the bird and its eye if in SID:Bird. Think focusing on a near the perch spot where a bird is expected to land but until the bird enters the frame the camera is focused on the background 20' more distant Perch is out of the frame).

Also, I could limit the focus depth so the camera has nothing within that range to focus on but that has less applicability when not shooting in a prepared blind.

Also, consider the bird taking off from the blind from out of the frame. Here the bird may be moving slower but the same focus considerations are present.

2-How do the 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters affect the autofocus speed of the 300F4. Assume I can both be in ProCapture and not in Procapture, shutter pressing when the bird enters the frame.

Regards,
Tom
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
RE: Pro-Capture.

Yes, the AF works normally during the buffer period (half-press) and capture period (full press), in other words if you had your AF set to C-AF + Bird ID it will do just that. If the bird enters the frame the AF will switch to Bird ID as long as it can detect the bird. It's easier to use Pro-Capture with a bird on the perch and then waiting for it to leave, compared with focus on the perch and wait for the bird to enter the frame.
 
Member's gallery
MarkG said:
RE: Pro-Capture.

Yes, the AF works normally during the buffer period (half-press) and capture period (full press), in other words if you had your AF set to C-AF + Bird ID it will do just that. If the bird enters the frame the AF will switch to Bird ID as long as it can detect the bird. It's easier to use Pro-Capture with a bird on the perch and then waiting for it to leave, compared with focus on the perch and wait for the bird to enter the frame.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

We will see how fast AF works with a TC.
 
Member's gallery
Cattle egrets. My first real wildlife photos with the OM-1 and 100-400mm. One taken in Digital 2x Teleconverter mode, the other not. See if you can figure out which is which. :) Anyway, I'm really liking this camera. I don't expect to use the Digital Teleconverter much, but it's nice to have the option.

Egret BCG P8290039.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Egret BCG P8290107.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Nice shots. The digital teleconverters in Olympus cameras are the best of any camera I've used, while the photos aren't great they're certainly acceptable for most uses. I often use the 1.4x TC with the 100-400mm and can't see any loss in image quality, but the digital TC is always there at the push of a button. Use both TCs and you're up to a 2240mm equivalent, but the quality goes down quite a bit.
 
Member's gallery
Some shots from this morning at Kawainui Marsh on Oahu. OM-1, 100-400mm.

First some Cattle Egrets.

Cattle Egret BCG P9040407.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Cattle Egret in Flight BCG P9043116.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Cattle Egret BCG P9040552.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Common Waxbill

Common Waxwing BCG P9042365.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Pacific Golden Plover, calle Kolea here in Hawaii.

Kolea BCG P9041038.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Tom Reynolds said:
Very nice shots to me. The FF, F4 boys probably want a smoother background. ON-1 might be able to fix that in post.

Tom
Click to expand...
I could have use my ff Nikons, but then the birds would be very small in the frame. A less smooth background is a good trade off to me. The waxbill is a very small bird and was 20 yards away. Couldn’t have gotten it with my Z7 and 500PF.
 
Member's gallery
splatbass said:
I could have use my ff Nikons, but then the birds would be very small in the frame. A less smooth background is a good trade off to me.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. Having a 600mm effective reach in such a small package is, in my opinion, an underappreciated benefit. Getting the bird in the frame is much easier with the OM-1/100-400 than it was with my D-500/500pf due to less weight.

I can imagine how much more difficult a Z-8/180-600/1.4TC setup on the bird would be due to the lighter weight and smaller form factor at 800mm+ FOV.

Still, ON-1 seems to selective backgrounds semi-automatically and I think that ultimately, I can learn to soften out the background. (I am still learning to use ON-1 as I am a Photoshop guy since forever.)
 
Member's gallery
There is an interesting discussion on the FM site in both the Nikon and Micro 4/3 forums that discusses the Nikon Z-8/180-600 zoom with the OM-1/150-400 zoom. If you are considering such a choice, I suggest that you read the FM thread. Tor others my analysis is as follows:

1-The Nikon rig is less expensive than the OM Systems rig. This is true and by a significant amount. The OM Systems lens comes in at a cool $7500. for a camera + lens price of about $9500 when you can find the OM-1 at a good deal. The Nikon Z-8 is a bargain @ $4000 . for a camera + lens price of $5700. That is a fair bit of change. Imagine choosing Nikon over OM Systems in order to save money! Normally, it is the other way around. An OM Systems OM-1/100-400 is about $3500 and an OM-1/300f4 about $5000. But not so with the pricy 150-400f4.5

2-The FM reviewers indicated that the rigs are about the same weight. "About" is a relative term. In fact, the Nikon combo is almost a pound heavier (6.3 vs 5.4) and in my view a pound is not trivial for a walk-around rig. People universally liked the Z-8 form factor better which is also not a trivial feature.

3-Most FM reviewers did not have a Nikon 1800-600 to pair with their Z-8 but did have a Nikon Z prime or zoom that they compared to the 150-400. Bottom line is according to them the 150-400 is one awesome lens that is sharper and faster focusing than any Nikon lens they compared it to. The also felt that the OM Systems rig was better focusing on birds than the Nikon Z-8 combo. They felt that the subject ID of the OM Systems gear picked up the bird rather than the background more accurately.

4-FF vs m4/3. For birds the discussion was mixed. The FF Z-8 will give a shorter DOF and provide more dynamic range than the m4/3 sensor, but several said that the preferred the subject completely in focus. Everyone agreed, however, that the extended reach of the m4/3 was very significant. (The 150-400 has a built in 1.2 TC.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top