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

[GrandNagus50]

You can indeed use the Olympus 1.4x TC on the 100-400mm lens. It works quite well. You are stuck with f. 9, but in good light, it is an option. I brought this lens and TC along on a "non-bird photography" trip to Patagonia last March where I decided the larger 150-400 zoom would be too much lens. Here is a Red shoveler in Ushuaia, Argentina, 560mm f9

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

.

 

[GrandNagus50]

Here is a Lapwing closeup, same place, same rig. I have to add that the photos posted in these forums never look quite as good as they might. Not sure why.

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

 

[ricardo00]

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.View attachment 71219

Purely a non-scientific test, but think I was in Pt Reyes at the same time as you shooting the same bobcat since there was another car there when I was photographing a bobcat (Oct. 4, 9:21am)? Would this be a first for BCG? I was using the 800mm lens on the Nikon Z9. If the same bobcat, you were closer (on the other side of the street but I had the better angle?). Anyway, this was my photo (but if anyone objects to my post, let me know and I can remove):

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

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Purely a non-scientific test, but think I was in Pt Reyes at the same time as you shooting the same bobcat since there was another car there when I was photographing a bobcat (Oct. 4, 9:21am)? Would this be a first for BCG? I was using the 800mm lens on the Nikon Z9. If the same bobcat, you were closer (on the other side of the street but I had the better angle?). Anyway, this was my photo (but if anyone objects to my post, let me know and I can remove):


View attachment 71269

Nice shot. I did photograph a Bobcat on Oct 4 but the shot I posted was for Friday (10-6).

 

[ricardo00]

Nice shot. I did photograph a Bobcat on Oct 4 but the shot I posted was for Friday (10-6).

Thanks. Okay, saw Daniel pull up with a client on Oct. 4, didn't know if it was you. Daniel is great, glad you got some bobcat shots.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

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.

 

[tegel]

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.

This was also my experience, I borrowed the OM-1 and 100-400 for a few days to see if I would like it. While I was able to get some nice shots, I found it difficult to capture small BIF due to the small sensor. When zoomed in to get close, they were difficult to get in the frame (although Pro Capture certainly helped). When zoomed out, there was not much latitude for cropping. I also found that I needed to use noise reduction on every shot, but they did clean up very nicely in Topaz. I think it is a terrific kit for someone coming from a crop sensor like a D500 and looking to keep the weight down, but I'm already on the Z8 train and really like the results I'm getting.

Here are few shots I got with the OM-1 + 100-400 with the short time I had it. All of them were run through Topaz DeNoise. The Red-Bellied was a backyard shots using Pro Capture.

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.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I think it is more complicated then that. The problem is that using ProCapture you need to give the bird room to spread its wings, the result being that cropping is necessary most of the time. That argues for a 50mp sensor.

However......
I find that I need the 50 f/s capability of the OM-1 in order to get multiple subject positions for BIF so I use a 300F4 when I attempt ProCapture. My experience is that I need to decide whether I am going to shoot BIF or not when observing a perched bird because the shutter speeds I use are much different. The attached shot was taken @ 1/1600 and is slightly soft because I was setup to take a perched shot (which is tack sharp). For BIF I am always @ 1/3200 or higher.

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

The Nikon Z9/Z8 doesn't take that many Frames per second. In addition, I have found that modern RAW conversion software allows me to crop more than one would think when starting with 20mp and Nikon doesn't shoot pre-capture in RAW.

 

[tegel]

The Nikon Z9/Z8 doesn't take that many Frames per second. In addition, I have found that modern RAW conversion software allows me to crop more than one would think when starting with 20mp and Nikon doesn't shoot pre-capture in RAW.

Sure, it would be nice if the Z8/9 saved RAW files when using the Pre-Release Capture, but in practice, I have't found this to be a limitation (yet). I primarily use it for birds and prefer to shoot them on cloudy days where their colors are more vibrant and the dynamic range is limited. So far, the JPEGs I've been getting are excellent and do not require much editing. The Z8/9 shoots plenty fast in this scenario. I typically use 30fps with a 0.5sec buffer. Here's are a couple of (heavily cropped) backyard shots with the Z9 using Pre-Release Capture:

1/3200s @f6.3 with 400/4.5 + TC1.4 and ISO 5600

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

1/2500s @f/4.5 with 400/4.5 at ISO 10000

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

 

[Frank73]

I just slugged through all 22 pages of this thread and what a treat. Great discussion and some amazing photos. I think I have come to a conclusion but I am not sure yet. Some context first. My wife has the OM-1, 150-400 and other lenses. I have the Z9, 100-400, and I am first in line for the new 600 PF at my local store. After reading this thread I realized that I need two lenses to cover what the 150-400 covers and the price works out to be about the same. 100-400 plus 600 compared to the 150-400. With the 150-400 I won't be swapping lenses like the Nikon kit. I know there are other ways to get there but there are compromises to do so. For instance the new Nikon 180-600 and the Olympus 100-400. We had the Olympus lens and it took three tries to get a sharp one at 400. Neither lens are a perfect match but it gets close. I have the advantage to be able to shoot both systems and I have a few thousand shots under my belt with the OM-1 and lens. I have been a Nikon user for years. I am seriously considering getting the OM-1 and 150-400 and have the ability for my wife and I to be in sync with each other on equipment. We are amateurs and we don't lose sleep over sensor size or noise or equivalency or pixel count or dynamic range or any other technical reason to favor one camera or lens over another. I find it mindless to worry over things that really in the long run just don't matter. Any camera today is excellent. I can tell you that the 150-400 is very well balanced and easy to carry and shoot. The kicker here is the 180-600. Its slower than the 150-400 and to get full reach the 180-600 will require cropping which negates some the advantages of the larger sensor. I find that the internal TC on the 150-400 is used often and the results are truly great. The reviews are very good for the 180-600. I do know the Nikon kit (100-400 and 600) I am looking at will weigh more and I need a bigger backpack to carry it. Even if I go with the Z9 and new zoom it will weigh more (7.2 pounds for Nikon vs 5.4 for OM). That is significant. I do miss no raw ability with precapture on the Z9. I spent some time going through photos on both setups. They both are great. I am not one to do photography just to look at photos online. I print and print often. Either setup can be printed to poster size without trouble. Heck I could do that with my old D70. Anyway, I have enjoyed this thread and now I have some thinking to do.

 

[ricardo00]

I just slugged through all 22 pages of this thread and what a treat. Great discussion and some amazing photos. I think I have come to a conclusion but I am not sure yet. Some context first. My wife has the OM-1, 150-400 and other lenses. I have the Z9, 100-400, and I am first in line for the new 600 PF at my local store. After reading this thread I realized that I need two lenses to cover what the 150-400 covers and the price works out to be about the same. 100-400 plus 600 compared to the 150-400. With the 150-400 I won't be swapping lenses like the Nikon kit. I know there are other ways to get there but there are compromises to do so. For instance the new Nikon 180-600 and the Olympus 100-400. We had the Olympus lens and it took three tries to get a sharp one at 400. Neither lens are a perfect match but it gets close. I have the advantage to be able to shoot both systems and I have a few thousand shots under my belt with the OM-1 and lens. I have been a Nikon user for years. I am seriously considering getting the OM-1 and 150-400 and have the ability for my wife and I to be in sync with each other on equipment. We are amateurs and we don't lose sleep over sensor size or noise or equivalency or pixel count or dynamic range or any other technical reason to favor one camera or lens over another. I find it mindless to worry over things that really in the long run just don't matter. Any camera today is excellent. I can tell you that the 150-400 is very well balanced and easy to carry and shoot. The kicker here is the 180-600. Its slower than the 150-400 and to get full reach the 180-600 will require cropping which negates some the advantages of the larger sensor. I find that the internal TC on the 150-400 is used often and the results are truly great. The reviews are very good for the 180-600. I do know the Nikon kit (100-400 and 600) I am looking at will weigh more and I need a bigger backpack to carry it. Even if I go with the Z9 and new zoom it will weigh more (7.2 pounds for Nikon vs 5.4 for OM). That is significant. I do miss no raw ability with precapture on the Z9. I spent some time going through photos on both setups. They both are great. I am not one to do photography just to look at photos online. I print and print often. Either setup can be printed to poster size without trouble. Heck I could do that with my old D70. Anyway, I have enjoyed this thread and now I have some thinking to do.

Wow reading all 22 pages! Makes sense to me in so many ways for you to use the same brand as your wife (my wife and I both use Nikon). No lens/camera is ever perfect but one can get great pics for sure with either system (or others like Sony). Some amazing photographers use the OM system (though I am not a fan of one of the OM system tour leaders, PM me if you want his name, the worst wildlife photography tour leader I have ever gone with):

https://leehoyphotography.com/

https://www.emilietalpin.space/

https://thisweekinphoto.com/itinerary-08-wildlife-around-world-kevin-loughlin/

 

[Passakorn]

I have some experiences about M4/3 system and also cross platforms that I use at the same time:

I have used olympus EM1iii with panasonic 100-400mm (eqv 200-800) among other lens for several years as a lightweight setup. Although it seems to work fine, there are a few things that I hope could be better.

1. The depth of field is not great, eqv f12.6 at f6.3. It is very difficult to control the background if I cannot move around much. It works fine for open space where I can move around and choose better background.

2. Higher noise, I get struck to mostly around iso 800 all the time. 1600 is possible but is much noisier. Topaz and the like helps cleaning it up a bit.

3. Poor AF for EM1iii in low light. I think it hunts at iso around 2000 with f6.3. I am not sure how the OM1 AF performance in low light is. For me, low light AF performance is as important as bird detection and fast tracking AF.

I have been wanting to try the 300f4 pro but I cannot find the used ones here. $3000 new is a bit too much just for trying. We cannot rent it here. 150-400 pro is not available here either. I was gonna jump in to place and order but afraid that I might have to camp out after that if the boss at home knows about it. I think if OM does come out with the 40-250 f2.8 with reasonable price it will be really awesome as we can us it with 1.4x and give us evq 700mm at f4 (eqv f5.6).

I also have a sony A7iv and a6600 that I use with FE200-600. So most of the time I take both system, use A7iv/200-600 as the main kit on tripod and EM1iii/100-400 as a quick second setup for a quick shooting off a tripod. In early morning/late afternoon or in the woods where the light is low, besides the poor AF, I feel that the image quality of the EM1iii, when the light is poor is worse that A7iv even after cropping around 10-20% of the A7iv to have the same eqv 20MP. A6600 (eqv 300-900mm with 200-600 lens) is ok but for some reasons I never like it. I use it when I need very long reach. I think a7iv/200-600 plus 1.4xTC give me the best result but then it is f9.

Then I get the A6700 to replace A6600 just to see how good the mini A7rV is and to benefit 4k120P video. I hope to use this as a permanent 300-900mm setup. Although AF is very good, I never like it, maybe because of the small body, everything is cramped into small form factor, evf, button, etc, and it is much less ergonomic. Using a6700 with 200-600 handhold is tired (and hurts my palm) much quicker compared to a7iv and M4/3. I put a smallrig bottom plate to make the body easier to grip on but it is still not very comfortable at all. Noise performance is good. I can get very good images with noise reduction for most iso less than 3200 now.

What comes at surprises is the Canon R7 with ef100-400 f5.6 is ii. It gives eqv FL as 160-640mm. This one turns out to be the setup I like most. Very good bird AF, light enough and can crop a bit more to have eqv 800mm at 20 MP. Noise is much better than EM1iii at iso 1600. I also put on 1.4x and the result is very good. The only complain I have is that it is getting heavier and longer when adding EF/RF adapter and a 1.4x TC so it does not have a weight/size saving anymore. RF100-500 is too expensive and I am not sure if f7.1 is ok for my use or not. So I trade them in for Z800PF and Z9.

So now I sold all canon, and plan to sell most of sony stuffs but still having a full set of M4/3 (14-400mm) Still not sure if I should keep them or sell them off. I have been use it as a “better than bringing nothing” system for a trip that I cannot take a big setup. It has been giving me many nice photos, even for birds. I have been waiting for indepth comparison between the OM1 and the new Pana G9ii and may decide later. If I can afford it, I definitely will try OM1/G9ii with the 150-400f4.5 and will keep it for lighter setup. My lighter setup now will be Zf/Z8/Z6iii/Z7iii with Z24-105f4 and Z180-600 (plus Z14-30f4).

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I have some experiences about M4/3 system and also cross platforms that I use at the same time:
I have been waiting for indepth comparison between the OM1 and the new Pana G9ii and may decide later. If I can afford it, I definitely will try OM1/G9ii with the 150-400f4.5 and will keep it for lighter setup. My lighter setup now will be Zf/Z8/Z6iii/Z7iii with Z24-105f4 and Z180-600 (plus Z14-30f4).

om-1 IS A BIG UPGRADE over what you are using.

 

[Passakorn]

That is probably true that OM1 is an excellent camera and I am thinking about upgrading it from EM1iii since it came out too. What hesitates me is that I am not sure how much I would get (beside the much better performance) in term of the improved image quality of the OM1 compared to the EM1iii as it is still a 20MP camera after all. So far the only examples that convince me of the M4/3 image quality is the work of Petr Bambousek (https://500px.com/p/sulasulacom?view=photos). I never get the results from my EM1iii to be at that level of image quality anyway. It could be due to my poor image processing skill combined with less than ideal Panasonic 100-400 zoom. Right now, except for poor AF performance in low light and no BIF capability, the EM1iii serves me very well as a quick grab and go.

My intention is not to say that which camera is better than the others. Just want to share my own experiences. The reason I move to nikon is a combinations of many things (user communities, customer services, total money have to spend for the whole system etc). Performance is just a part of the decision. Anyway, if I could find used OM1 with a reasonable price here I may just jump for it!

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Puassakorn-
Neither the Panasonic 100-400 nor the OM Systems 100-400 produce prints as good as my D-500/500pf but the AF is better because the OM-1 gets the eye while I typically use GRP with the Nikon D-500. However, the 300F4 produces better prints. (I typically have Bay Photo print at 11-14 300dpi on metal, gloss)

I found a 300PF on Fred Miranda, used for $2K.

Tom

 

[StefanSC]

What hesitates me is that I am not sure how much I would get (beside the much better performance) in term of the improved image quality of the OM1 compared to the EM1iii as it is still a 20MP camera after all. So far the only examples that convince me of the M4/3 image quality is the work of Petr Bambousek (https://500px.com/p/sulasulacom?view=photos). I never get the results from my EM1iii to be at that level of image quality anyway. It could be due to my poor image processing skill combined with less than ideal Panasonic 100-400 zoom.

I've been a m43 user since the Panasonic GF1 back in 2010 and I just grabbed an OM-1 as it had a great price where I live. Before that I've been using the Panasonic G9 (another 20Mpx m43rds camera).

My initial impressions is that, if you are a RAW shooter, there is no difference in terms of image quality between the OM1 and the G9 or any other 20Mpx m43rds.
OM-1 JPEGs are better (some NR tricks basically) but you can get the same or even better using DXO's PureRaw or LR's new AI Denoise.

Right now I see the OM-1 as a great upgrade if you are a m43rds birds/wildlife shooter over all other m43rds cameras but there are some flaws and some nuance to it's usage, and it is not much better than any other 20Mpx m43rds camera when it comes to general photography.

Regarding the Panasonic 100-400, I have had three tries to get that lens and every time I found it underwhelming in use and sent it back. It just doesn't have the sharpness and contrast for a main wildlife lens, especially for the price.

There are people who vow that their PL 100-400 is sharp but every time they provide a sample photo it is usually a heavily edited, over sharpened mess that looks good at web sizes but not much more.

 

[Woody Meristem]

The consensus appears to be that the Olympus 100-400mm produces sharper images than the Panasonic 100-400mm at the cost of more weight and a larger lens. Mike Lane thinks the Olympus 100-400mm is almost the equal of 150-400mm for a lot less money --

 

[jmurthy]

I have been shooting om-1 150-400 side by side with my z9 and pf lenses.

heres an image from OM processed thro dxo prime and the light when this image was shot was very low after the sun had set. As i was walking away from the shoot, i saw a big bird flying across the water, whipped the camera around and shot the image.. Focus acquisition was fast and the lock was very good. I goofed up on the composition by not including the entire reflection.

Things i have noticed about om-1 150-400 f/4.5 TC
-this is a great zoom in a relatively small package and significantly light
-focus acquisition is very quick
and in a burst, it does seem to have a few shots that are soft as compared to nikon z9 firmware 4.10 , but def not a deal breaker for me.
- def not inexpensive, but they never claimed it would be
- have to be more cautious when shooting as compared to FF- always thinking about background selection and light

My final thoughts can be summed up as
- can u make good images with this system- absolutely! your skills as a photographer will drive the quality of the images more, when compared to some other systems.
- if weight is the main consideration this is a clear winner. If you are thinking of a second system in addition to FF and weight is not a consideration, you maybe disappointed.
- 300mm zuiko f/4 is a great lens but takes away the advantage of a zoom imho
- 150-400 zuiko costs more than 800pf but is also f/4.5 throughout and has a superb built in tc 1.4 just like 400f/2.8 and 600f/4

 

[GrandNagus50]

People pretty consistently offer that the somewhat greater DOF at similar apertures exhibited by M43 vs FF is a disadvantage. In cases of "busy background," I agree. But the way I do bird photography, a more frequent situation is that I am photographing a bird at close range and it can be a struggle to get the whole bird in focus. At wide apertures, with a FF camera if I get the bird's eye in focus, most of the body might be out of focus. With a FF prime like an f4 (or 2.8!) this can be vexxing. With M43 there is a greater chance that there is sufficient DOF to get the whole bird in focus. So for most of MY bird photography, I see the M43 as having an advantage with DOF, not a disadvantage.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Rig Choices for bird photography:

New offerings and availability of certain lenses (OM Systems 150-400 for example) have really muddled the picture IMHO.

1-Light-weight single lens (zoom) combinations
I think the choice is between an OM-1/100-400 and a Canon R-7/100-500. The OM Systems rig is lighter and cheaper and without rolling shutter issues, but the Canon has a 32.5MP cropped sensor compared to 20.4MP and a better upgrade path since most of the money is invested in the lens, not the camera.

2-Non-Lightweight single lens (zoom) combinations.
The OM-1/150-400 versus the Nikon Z-8/180-600 versus the Sony A1/200-600 is probably the most discussed choice. The Nikon is much cheaper. The OM Systems combo is lighter, and the Sony may be the best camera of them all. My feeling is that the Canon R-5/100-500 is now a bit long in the tooth but is less expensive than the others.

3-Prime Combinations not insanely expensive.
I believe that the Nikon Z-9/Z-8/600pf is the winner here.

4-Insanely expensive and heavy
I like a Z-9 with the 600f4/TC

 

[ricardo00]

Rig Choices for bird photography:

New offerings and availability of certain lenses (OM Systems 150-400 for example) have really muddled the picture IMHO.

1-Light-weight single lens (zoom) combinations
I think the choice is between an OM-1/100-400 and a Canon R-7/100-500. The OM Systems rig is lighter and cheaper and without rolling shutter issues, but the Canon has a 32.5MP cropped sensor compared to 20.4MP and a better upgrade path since most of the money is invested in the lens, not the camera.

2-Non-Lightweight single lens (zoom) combinations.
The OM-1/150-400 versus the Nikon Z-8/180-600 versus the Sony A1/200-600 is probably the most discussed choice. The Nikon is much cheaper. The OM Systems combo is lighter, and the Sony may be the best camera of them all. My feeling is that the Canon R-5/100-500 is now a bit long in the tooth but is less expensive than the others.

3-Prime Combinations not insanely expensive.
I believe that the Nikon Z-9/Z-8/600pf is the winner here.

4-Insanely expensive and heavy
I like a Z-9 with the 600f4/TC

Yep lots of great options these days!

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Yep lots of great options these days!

My goal was to break down the offerings into categories. it makes little sense to discuss the relative IQ of a Z-9/600mmTC with an OM-1/100-400 since few would be considering that choice.

 

[eaj101]

Rig Choices for bird photography:

New offerings and availability of certain lenses (OM Systems 150-400 for example) have really muddled the picture IMHO.

1-Light-weight single lens (zoom) combinations
I think the choice is between an OM-1/100-400 and a Canon R-7/100-500. The OM Systems rig is lighter and cheaper and without rolling shutter issues, but the Canon has a 32.5MP cropped sensor compared to 20.4MP and a better upgrade path since most of the money is invested in the lens, not the camera.

2-Non-Lightweight single lens (zoom) combinations.
The OM-1/150-400 versus the Nikon Z-8/180-600 versus the Sony A1/200-600 is probably the most discussed choice. The Nikon is much cheaper. The OM Systems combo is lighter, and the Sony may be the best camera of them all. My feeling is that the Canon R-5/100-500 is now a bit long in the tooth but is less expensive than the others.

3-Prime Combinations not insanely expensive.
I believe that the Nikon Z-9/Z-8/600pf is the winner here.

4-Insanely expensive and heavy
I like a Z-9 with the 600f4/TC

I'd add the Olympus 300mm f4 to the list of primes. It's a little larger and heavier than the 100-400, but boy is it sharp!

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I'd add the Olympus 300mm f4 to the list of primes. It's a little larger and heavier than the 100-400, but boy is it sharp!

I did not because 600mm on a m43 sensor is kinda short for bird photography. The Nikon 600pf is 900mm in DX format and equally sharp. Of course, if weight is important the OM-1/300f4 combo is considerably lighter and takes great pictures. On my wall are two perched birds (Green Jay, Male Cardinal) taken with a 500pf/D-500 and two perched birds (Great Kiskadee, Yellow Fronted Woodpecker) taken with an OM-1/300PF and one is in the mail (Western Bluebird) taken with the 300PF/TC20. If the shot taken with the TC is as sharp as the 500PF shots I will relent. The 300F4 shots are noticeably sharper than the 500pf shots but only viewed together. Before is hung the 300F4 shots I considered the 500pf shots awesome.

 

[eaj101]

I did not because 600mm on a m43 sensor is kinda short for bird photography. The Nikon 600pf is 900mm in DX format and equally sharp. Of course, if weight is important the OM-1/300f4 combo is considerably lighter and takes great pictures. On my wall are two perched birds (Green Jay, Male Cardinal) taken with a 500pf/D-500 and two perched birds (Great Kiskadee, Yellow Fronted Woodpecker) taken with an OM-1/300PF and one is in the mail (Western Bluebird) taken with the 300PF/TC20. If the shot taken with the TC is as sharp as the 500PF shots I will relent. The 300F4 shots are noticeably sharper than the 500pf shots but only viewed together. Before is hung the 300F4 shots I considered the 500pf shots awesome.

Gotcha. In my experience the 1.4 TC on the 300f4 is difficult to detect (I know, how many times have you heard that). The 2x TC is detectable, but I can't think of another way that's as simple to get to 1200mm FOV.