Not worth it to me either. The 100-400mm takes great, sharp pics, is $6000 cheaper, and quite a bit smaller and lighter too. I don't see a value in spending $6000 for marginal improvement.
Is anyone exploring the Olympus OM-1 for birds and wildlife?
- Thread starter Mitch56
- Start date
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).
I had the 150-400 and sold it. Also had the 300 f4 and kept it. The 150-400 is a magnificent amazing lens, but basically negates one of the main reasons to go with m43, weight and portability. So I now have the 300 f4, 40-150 f2.8, and 1.4x and 2x TC. Works for me.
That was a takeaway from the FM discussion. The difference between the 150-400 and the 100-400 is 1.7# and $6,000 and you can get pictures that are just as good, plus or minus depending on the specific shooting conditions, with a Z-8/180-600 for almost $4000 less. I also have the 300F4 which I purchased used on FM for $2,000 which is also a great lens.
Tom
The 150-400mm is 1.5 stops faster than the 100-400 @400mm. That is pretty significant, and it instantly goes to 500mm at f5.6 with the flick of a switch, whereas the 100-400 does. I own both lenses and yes, the 150-400mm is a huge investment, but it's always the case that that extra what, 10% or so in performance draws a premium price. I don't regret the investment one bit.
sagar
New member
First post here, I am the one who started the said thread on FM and while most of the inferences are right we are missing few important points here in above conversation :
- OM-1 and 150-400 with built in 1.25TC offers 300-1000 @ f5.6. There is nothing in the market across any system thats so compact, lightweight and offers such ridiculously good range
- Surprisingly at least with current firmware Z8 seems to be slightly lagging behind OM-1 in AF. Being a long time user of both systems, I never thought i would see a day when Olympus is better in AF than Nikon
- When comparing 150-400 with Oly 100-400 or Nikon 180-600 we are comparing consumer grade lens to pro grade thats not really fair. If you compare any similarly priced consumer vs pro grade you will find similar pricing vs output fight
- In my opinion OMDS should have priced it around $5.5-6K. But Olympus always had this problem of overpriced lenses compared to their peers since their 43 days. I wish they fix this and price their pro lenses competitively
Last edited:
Welcome Sagar. You will like this forum.First post here, I am the one who started the said thread on FM and while most of the inferences are right we are missing few important points here in above conversation :
- OM-1 and 150-400 with built in 1.25TC offers 300-1000 @ f5.6. There is nothing in the market across any system thats so compact, lightweight and offers such ridiculously good range
- Surprisingly at least with current firmware Z8 seems to be slightly lagging behind OM-1 in AF. Being a long time user of both systems, I never thought i would see a day when Olympus is better in AF than Nikon
- When comparing 150-400 with Oly 100-400 or Nikon 180-600 we are comparing consumer grade lens to pro grade thats not really fair. If you compare any similarly priced consumer vs pro grade you will find similar pricing vs output fight
- In my opinion OMDS should have priced it around $5.5-6K. But Olympus always had this problem of overpriced lenses compared to their peers since their 43 days. I wish they fix this and price their pro lenses competitively
The OM-1/150-400 vs. Z-8/180-600 evaluation is a study of two divergent approaches for a non-professional enthusiast towards birds/wildlife photography. Lighter weight and more reach are always valuable for a sometimes photographer but so is lower effective f/stop and more megapixels. The difference is the almost $4000 difference in price that tips the scale towards the Nikon kit.
However, substitute the OMDS 100-400 lens and the cost difference flips the other way, and the OM Sytems kit is less expensive by $2000 and the weight advantage increases dramatically but at the expense of even greater effective F/stop divergence.
You pays your money and takes your chances.
MarkG
Member
I use a1/200-600 and OM-1/100-400. Basically the same reach. OM: 800mm equiv. @20MP; a1: 840mm equiv. @22MP in APS-C mode. When I want more DOF control and the light is iffy I prefer Sony, when I want to travel light it's OMDS. Both are great. OM-1 has a number of very useful additional features that are lacking on Sony: Pre-capture, Live ND, Focus Stacking, Hi-res mode (that reduces noise as well).
sagar
New member
You forgot built in 1.25xTC which makes it 1000mm/f5.6 (for light/ISO) vs 840mm @APSC
No TC on the 100-400….
sagar
New member
You got me didn’t realize reference is to 100-400. I agree with 100-400 I believe any FF high resolution sensor system with 200-600 could be better value for money may be at the cost of marginal weight
TNTphotos
New member
If you need to crop on FF to match the 100-400mm on m43, I'm not sure what you'd get for your money when you pay almost twice the price for twice the weight. At the pixel level when you crop, the DR is exactly the same between your Z8 and the OM-1, so IMO, all you would get a bit less DoF at the same f/6.3, but no better IQ at all. The A1 has less than 1/2 stop more pixel DR at higher ISO but almost 3 times the price.
Not true. DR is a function of pixel pitch and the Z8's is about 25% larger, so probably two stops better DR.
TNTphotos
New member
It's true if you looked the measurement numbers (available online). I did not just pull it out of nowhere. Pixel size is absolutely not the only thing that decides DR. And there's also absolutely no FF sensor that has 2 EVs more DR at the pixel level than the 20MP m43 sensors. If there is, please cite your source.
Lets not bring this thread down the equivalency rabbit hole. It's been a great and useful thread and I don't want to see it get locked once that stuff takes over
Lets not bring this thread down the equivalency rabbit hole. It's been a great and useful thread and I don't want to see it get locked once that stuff takes over
You're right. Apologies.
TNTphotos
New member
There's no intention to bring up equivalence on my part but there are real measurement numbers: engineering DR at photonstophoto and Screen DR at DXO Marks. The numbers are kind of hidden but represent the real measurements when one looks at the pixels to assess the sharpness/details and noise appearances. These numbers may not be representative to compare different sensor sizes at full picture, but when it comes to reach and pixels per ducks, i.e. cropping, they are the best numbers to look at, short of doing the measurements yourself for all the cameras in question. And definitely fact based, better than just guessing.Lets not bring this thread down the equivalency rabbit hole. It's been a great and useful thread and I don't want to see it get locked once that stuff takes over
Last edited:
MarkG
Member
From a practical perspective, I tend to be more successful with a1/200-600 in quickly framing and then cropping in LR, especially BIF, than with my OM-1/100-400. The a1/200-600 gives more latitude for mistakes in framing and tracking and I don't have enough skill to frame perfectly in-camera, every time. So, crop-ability of the 50MP (and before that 61MP) sensor is helpful to me. There is less difference with perched or slowly moving birds where OM-1/100-400 offers similar IQ (IMO) at ~800mm equiv. reach. The OM combo is also much easier to hand-hold. I suspect that Z8/180-600 would have similar trade-offs against OM setup.
TNTphotos
New member
About that 25%, assuming everything else equals, to get 2 more stops of DR requires 100% larger pixel pitch. 25% larger would get 2/3 of a stop more, max. But everything else is not equal, if ever. Sometimes smaller pitch actually has more DR (like the Fuji 40MP), sometimes larger has little to no more.
Last edited:
OM-1/100-400 full frame. Topaz Photo AI processed
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
I think most of us behind these keyboards simply love photography and wildlife and appreciate all well captured images. Most of us aren't making a living with our photos and sometimes this seems to get lost in forums. When I die, I suspect my pictures will be thrown out by my children on what they consider ancient computers and back up hard drives and likely disappear forever. While alive, my photos bring me joy and a treasured memory of the circumstances and location with each picture I review. I've seen pictures from iphones that impress me, let alone Nikon, Sony, Canon, Pentax, OM systems, etc. I'd much rather see this thread remain open to share OM-1 images and insights. Turning it into a MFT vs FF vs crop vs lens cost/aperture internet slugfest will ruin it.
That being said, let's get back to sharing photos and insights like Tom just attempted. Here's a picture I liked from my trip to South Africa recently, using an OM-1 with my "overpriced " but loved 150-400 TC
And I just saw an add for an upcoming Olympus Tough TG-7 with focus stacking an pro capture! We are living in amazing times for photography.
Southern Double-collared Sunbird
That being said, let's get back to sharing photos and insights like Tom just attempted. Here's a picture I liked from my trip to South Africa recently, using an OM-1 with my "overpriced " but loved 150-400 TC
And I just saw an add for an upcoming Olympus Tough TG-7 with focus stacking an pro capture! We are living in amazing times for photography.
Southern Double-collared Sunbird
Pauhana
New member
Common Redpoll from trip earlier this year at Zax Zim. OM-1 w/Oly 100-400
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Mitesh
Well-known member
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
I’ve been to Glacier NP this week and got some good shots with my OM-1 and 100-400. On my way to Banff so hopefully I’ll get some more there.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Testing the 300f4 with an MC-20 T/C.
I am in Point Reyes for 3 days with Daniel Dietrich. The subjects are mostly away or small so I used the 300F4/MC-20 combination as much or more than the 144-400 (my normal go to lens, both on an OM-1) These are not necessarly the best of a sequence because @ 50/f/s I have a lot of frames per sequence.
I am in Point Reyes for 3 days with Daniel Dietrich. The subjects are mostly away or small so I used the 300F4/MC-20 combination as much or more than the 144-400 (my normal go to lens, both on an OM-1) These are not necessarly the best of a sequence because @ 50/f/s I have a lot of frames per sequence.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
