Nikon Newbie looking for advice - OM-1 + 150-400 Pro zoom - system swap to Z9 or A1

[DavidT]

Another fox image taken with OM-1+ 150-400 Pro zoomView attachment 52856

What a beautiful shot!

You mentioned low light conditions which is understandable. I think I would give pause to considering lenses such as the Nikon 800PF or some of the super zooms from Nikon and Sony as you won't be picking up any speed. The 500PF is F5.6 and that is without the converter you will likely need.

I would think if you want the advantage of the full frame sensor you are likely looking at the faster F4 primes vs the more compact slower primes of Nikon. I think either system delivers results but iso and shutter speed are the same no matter the sensor size. Considering that if you crop you magnify grain which can often be overcame by software. Considering this and that higher MP cameras tend to struggle a bit more in the noise department the glass becomes most important. If needing a 600F4 for example Nikon has a new sexy lens at a significant price. Sony 600F4 is cheaper, a little lighter but you can also find them in the used market.

I guess with saying all that we know you are using a zoom with built in TC but what focal length do you use the most? What is the MM for the shots of the fox? For me I would rather use a M4/3 and fill the frame than have a full size sensor that I am heavily cropping to deliver the same subject size.

 

[BLev65]

In many ways, you have the dream wildlife kit for a lot of shooters. The flexibility of the 150-400mm lens with a built in 1.25x converter offers you about 1000mm FX equivalent field of view with your u4/3 sensor. From what I've seen, your Olympus kit is more than capable of delivering high quality images. However, there is little doubt that an FX sensor has the potential to reduce noise and isolate the subject if you can fill the frame. Your images are beautiful, but they suffer from a lot of depth of field... this increases the impact of distracting elements.
I shoot with both a Z9 and Z6II because each offers me something very different. The Z9 is a high performance and high megapixel body that allows me to crop to produce a tighter composition. This cropping has the same impact as using a u4/3 sensor... more noise and more distractions. Thus to maximize the Z9, I need to fill the frame and be sure that the subject is not surrounded by distracting blades of grass, branches, etc... My 800PF creates this opportunity, but it comes at the cost of light and size. The Z6II is my lower resolution but low light body. I can easily shoot at ISO 6400 and make clean files.
My point... the grass may not be greener. You will need to crop with a 500PF to approach what you can do with your OM camera. In addition, you have benefited from the Zoom and internal TC with that lens. Your 150-400 w/TC is in such high demand that you might find someone wanting to make a straight trade with their Nikon 180-400 w/ built in TC. While large, it is an F-mount FX f/4 lens with a 1.4x converter. When used with a Z9, you might have close to the same field of view after cropping... You will miss the light weight of your rig, but you might enjoy the Nikon experience a bit more... hard to say.
regards,
bruce

 

[Nimi]

What a beautiful shot!

You mentioned low light conditions which is understandable. I think I would give pause to considering lenses such as the Nikon 800PF or some of the super zooms from Nikon and Sony as you won't be picking up any speed. The 500PF is F5.6 and that is without the converter you will likely need.

I would think if you want the advantage of the full frame sensor you are likely looking at the faster F4 primes vs the more compact slower primes of Nikon. I think either system delivers results but iso and shutter speed are the same no matter the sensor size. Considering that if you crop you magnify grain which can often be overcame by software. Considering this and that higher MP cameras tend to struggle a bit more in the noise department the glass becomes most important. If needing a 600F4 for example Nikon has a new sexy lens at a significant price. Sony 600F4 is cheaper, a little lighter but you can also find them in the used market.

I guess with saying all that we know you are using a zoom with built in TC but what focal length do you use the most? What is the MM for the shots of the fox? For me I would rather use a M4/3 and fill the frame than have a full size sensor that I am heavily cropping to deliver the same subject size.

Don't you think that any modern FF sensor would beat any modern MFT sensor by 2-3 stops of dynamic range and thus allow for better shadow recovery, which appears to be the challenge? The Olympus leads in in-camera processing to overcome noise (like a phone camera) and I don't know how well it edits further as a result, ie introducing artifacts and blowing highlights when pushed.

 

[fcotterill]

My 0.02c is conduct a real world test using loaned Z6 and Z7 and appropriate lenses against your Olympus rig in your local woodland in the late afternoon and into the gloaming.
Ideally hire a model. This should be cheap (treats and the outing) to hire your's or a friend's pooch : ideally a Golden spaniel or Red fox Labrador to pose
I would suggest a feline. However my three cats are the perfect models to test telephotos, but it's only on their strict terms of engagement.....
This scenario will get comparable results of all the key attributes of image quality, including ISO, DoF and bokeh etc. You should be able to answer the imaging tech aspects.
Then there's the question of tactics to get close enough with FF lenses like 400 or 500mm versus using 800 or longer equivalent with the M4/3 cropping factor. This is where Key tactics can solve many of the barriers to maximize image quality for your shy subjects.
So using a hide with silent shooting if you're not already, which allows closer focusing distances, which in turn make it possible to use a much faster telephoto eg 400 f2.8 or f4.5 or the equally excellent 180-400 f4 TC14.
(Edited)

 

[Palmor]

Don't you think that any modern FF sensor would beat any modern MFT sensor by 2-3 stops of dynamic range and thus allow for better shadow recovery, which appears to be the challenge? The Olympus leads in in-camera processing to overcome noise (like a phone camera) and I don't know how well it edits further as a result, ie introducing artifacts and blowing highlights when pushed.

If you were shooting at the same ISO/f-stop yes, the FF camera would be ~2 stops better but all of the options being presented are comparing f4.5 on the OM-1 and F8 on the FF. You’ve basically wiped out the advantage on FF with that.

The Olympus in camera processing magic only applies to jpg’s from the camera, not RAW files. You get basically the same advantage from running the RAW files through Topaz or similar products.

 

[DaveR]

Some nice shots there. I really like the light on the subject on the last one.

So if your looking to work in woodland which usually means low light you need as large an aperture as you can get. This would be a 400 f2.8. Nikon do a great one with a built in 1.4 TC. If 400mm is not enough focal length the next choice would 600mm f4, again Nikon do one with a built in 1.4 TC, Sony also do the same lenses but without the built in TC's, excellent lenses but beginning to look a bit long in the tooth now.

After that you come down the Nikon F mount 500mm PF 5.6. I used one with a Z9 earlier this year to photograph badgers and it worked well but struggled a bit when the animals were in deep shadow where f2.8 would have been very useful. Then comes the Nikon Z800mm f6.3. One third of a stop down from the F500mm f5.6. Another choice is the Nikon Z400mm f4.5, a very light weight lens.

I'm not including zooms as I don't really like them and prefer primes. As I said before I think you need to think of the lens first and then work backwards to the body. The A1 and the Z9 are pretty much on par with the AF now, either body would work fine for your subjects.

At the end of the day it comes down to your budget but I would think you would be very happy with a Z9 and the 600mm f4 TC. The built in TC would give you 840mm f5.6 at the flick of a switch.

I hope that all makes sense and wish you good luck with your choices and your photography.

 

[wildlife_62]

What a beautiful shot!

You mentioned low light conditions which is understandable. I think I would give pause to considering lenses such as the Nikon 800PF or some of the super zooms from Nikon and Sony as you won't be picking up any speed. The 500PF is F5.6 and that is without the converter you will likely need.

I would think if you want the advantage of the full frame sensor you are likely looking at the faster F4 primes vs the more compact slower primes of Nikon. I think either system delivers results but iso and shutter speed are the same no matter the sensor size. Considering that if you crop you magnify grain which can often be overcame by software. Considering this and that higher MP cameras tend to struggle a bit more in the noise department the glass becomes most important. If needing a 600F4 for example Nikon has a new sexy lens at a significant price. Sony 600F4 is cheaper, a little lighter but you can also find them in the used market.

I guess with saying all that we know you are using a zoom with built in TC but what focal length do you use the most? What is the MM for the shots of the fox? For me I would rather use a M4/3 and fill the frame than have a full size sensor that I am heavily cropping to deliver the same subject size.

The fox stepping over the fallen tree was shot at 500mm with OM-1 + 150-400 Pro zoom. I'm beginning to feel it's a lot about a trade off. What am I will to accept and or sacrifice

 

[LTK]

I've borrowed the OM-1 150-400 ( I use A1 200-600). If you can keep the subject in the frame and don't need much crop the OM set up is hard to beat . I just prefer the feel , cropping potential of the A1 . I also find the OM-1 shots looked a little flatter than my A1 but presume that's down to full frame compared to 4/3. . The focus system of the OM-1 is excellent , the 150-400 with the built in TC is extremely sharp and fast . Its better than my 200-600 but obviously costs a lot more

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Don't you think that any modern FF sensor would beat any modern MFT sensor by 2-3 stops of dynamic range and thus allow for better shadow recovery, which appears to be the challenge? The Olympus leads in in-camera processing to overcome noise (like a phone camera) and I don't know how well it edits further as a result, ie introducing artifacts and blowing highlights when pushed.

The OM-1 is 1 stop worse than a modern FF camera at the identical F-stop equivalent. However, the m43 sensor 2.0 crop affects the equivalent F-Stop. For example, the 300F4 is the same as a 600F8 in FF equivalence. The 150-400 F4.5 is 800mm F9.0 FF equivalence. This is why people are recommending fast glass (f4) for a Nikon or Sony replacement rig.

 

[DavidT]

The fox stepping over the fallen tree was shot at 500mm with OM-1 + 150-400 Pro zoom. I'm beginning to feel it's a lot about a trade off. What am I will to accept and or sacrifice

Yeah I would agree. Is the 500MM in M4/3 or FF? If FF that is 1000MM at that point I think you are better off with your current kit if you need that much magnification. It is funny I have kicked around adding your kit to my gear and I have a1's along with the 400 and 600GM, 200-600 Sony.

 

[Palmor]

If you were shooting at the same ISO/f-stop yes, the FF camera would be ~2 stops better but all of the options being presented are comparing f4.5 on the OM-1 and F8 on the FF. You’ve basically wiped out the advantage on FF with that.

The Olympus in camera processing magic only applies to jpg’s from the camera, not RAW files. You get basically the same advantage from running the RAW files through Topaz or similar products.

For those interested I had posted an example between the OM-1/300F4/1.4xTC and the A1/600F4/1.4xTC here in a different thread. I didn't do this for the purpose of a comparison, I just happened to have both bodies with me and wanted to use them both. The OM-1 shot is ISO3200 while the A1 is ISO4000. Shots with and without NR applied via Topaz Denoise. Not sure how easy the difference is to see with 1200px images.

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

The 150-400 is a wonderful lens. Am really enjoying shooting in my dark yard using it in my dark yard and shooting at f4.5 or f5.6 (800mm or 1000 mm). And it isn't too heavy to walk around with using a cotton carrier. The 300 f4 is an amazing lens. Will sell the olympus 100-400. Nice lens...

bcgforums.com

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Yeah I would agree. Is the 500MM in M4/3 or FF? If FF that is 1000MM at that point I think you are better off with your current kit if you need that much magnification. It is funny I have kicked around adding your kit to my gear and I have a1's along with the 400 and 600GM, 200-600 Sony.

If you can get the 150-400 it would be a sweet setup for birds. Think procapture @ 50 f/s.

 

[DavidT]

For those interested I had posted an example between the OM-1/300F4/1.4xTC and the A1/600F4/1.4xTC here in a different thread. I didn't do this for the purpose of a comparison, I just happened to have both bodies with me and wanted to use them both. The OM-1 shot is ISO3200 while the A1 is ISO4000. Shots with and without NR applied via Topaz Denoise. Not sure how easy the difference is to see with 1200px images.

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

The 150-400 is a wonderful lens. Am really enjoying shooting in my dark yard using it in my dark yard and shooting at f4.5 or f5.6 (800mm or 1000 mm). And it isn't too heavy to walk around with using a cotton carrier. The 300 f4 is an amazing lens. Will sell the olympus 100-400. Nice lens...

bcgforums.com

that is pretty fascinating! I would give the nod to the Sony but not by much and after denoise I don't think there is much difference at all. Figure the weight and cost savings and the OM is pretty damn impressive.

 

[DavidT]

If you can get the 150-400 it would be a sweet setup for birds. Think procapture @ 50 f/s.

Bingo. The pro capture is what has me really interested. I have been holding off to see if Sony does this with the next a1, if not I think adding OM to my kit will happen.

 

[Palmor]

that is pretty fascinating! I would give the nod to the Sony but not by much and after denoise I don't think there is much difference at all. Figure the weight and cost savings and the OM is pretty damn impressive.

It is impressive . It is all personal preference if the extra $$ and weight worth it (for things like subject isolation and lower ISO) but really you can get excellent shots from either setup (or really any modern ILC system these days).

Here is another back-to-back example (details in the post).

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

If you are a "subject isolation" freak, welcome to a 600 f/4 and enjoy carrying that load with the camera/lens across your back and the tripod legs running interference in front of you. There is really no other way to get the subject isolation desired. If you want light weight, small size and...

bcgforums.com

 

[DavidT]

It is impressive . It is all personal preference if the extra $$ and weight worth it (for things like subject isolation and lower ISO) but really you can get excellent shots from either setup (or really any modern ILC system these days).

Here is another back-to-back example (details in the post).

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

If you are a "subject isolation" freak, welcome to a 600 f/4 and enjoy carrying that load with the camera/lens across your back and the tripod legs running interference in front of you. There is really no other way to get the subject isolation desired. If you want light weight, small size and...

bcgforums.com

Super impressive especially considering you are using the Sony naked and the OM with a tele.

 

[jeffnles1]

Hi Steve and members
I currently have the OM-1 with 150-400 Pro zoom and I am seriously looking at moving to Nikon Z9. I'm loving the reviews and all the chatter on here about the Z9 and A1, but its quite a move and I am looking for comparisons between the systems. I shoot wildlife only, birds and mammals and I am not concerned about camera weight despite using the OM-1.

So advice about making the system change would be great and I thought this would be the best place to come

Thanks
Nigel

Nigel,
I confess I haver not read all there responses so far. If this has already been said, please accept my apology in advance.
The biggest question I would ask is what is it the OM-1 is not doing for you that you believe the Z9 or A1 will do for you? Is there a specific shortcoming the OM-1 is creating? Is there some feature in the Z9 ad A1 that you really are excited about and cannot be replicated on your existing gear? Are there lenses with the Nikon and Sony systems that are missing in the Olympus?

Again, not suggesting you should stick with one system or move to another. Just knowing exactly what it is that you want and why going through the change then the folks who have used both systems can offer a better answer.

Also, there is not a thing wrong with wanting something just because you want it. Not every purchase needs to be so rational as to go through the cost/benefit analysis.

Hope this helps.
Jeff

 

[Palmor]

Super impressive especially considering you are using the Sony naked and the OM with a tele.

I always say that sharpness isn't the main reason to move up to a lens like the 600F4. It's more about keeping your ISO's down and subject separation. In both example I posted you can see how much more subject separation there is. If that matters or not is up to each photographer but it is there and to get the same look in post processing is a lot more work

 

[wildlife_62]

Nigel,
I confess I haver not read all there responses so far. If this has already been said, please accept my apology in advance.
The biggest question I would ask is what is it the OM-1 is not doing for you that you believe the Z9 or A1 will do for you? Is there a specific shortcoming the OM-1 is creating? Is there some feature in the Z9 ad A1 that you really are excited about and cannot be replicated on your existing gear? Are there lenses with the Nikon and Sony systems that are missing in the Olympus?

Again, not suggesting you should stick with one system or move to another. Just knowing exactly what it is that you want and why going through the change then the folks who have used both systems can offer a better answer.

Also, there is not a thing wrong with wanting something just because you want it. Not every purchase needs to be so rational as to go through the cost/benefit analysis.

Hope this helps.
Jeff

Thanks Jeff, I guess I’m looking for image quality and background seperation which I enjoy when I had my Nikon D850. The OM-1+150-400 is great and has many plus points however that extra pop of a separated image you get with FF is a real draw for me. All the cameras and lenses I’m looking at are great and the advice is really helpful. I find it interesting that the OM-1 and 150-400 is causing such a stirr amongst FF users whilst being somewhat dismissed by some “experts “. Food for thought.

 

[wildlife_62]

Too bad you live on "the other side of the pond". I would be interested in swapping my Z9 plus lenses for your OM-1 plus 150-400mm for a week or two since I occasionally contemplate switching to that. Seriously, what about the OM System makes you consider switching?

Hi, thanks for the offer, I’ll hop on a plane The OM system is great, however subject seperation can be an issue, low light AF and inherent noise can have an impact on the final image. Some can be processed with Topaz etc. I have previously shot with Nikon D850 and 400 f2.8 and those images with seperation and image quality seem to really pop. I’m looking for the wow factor and trying to combine all the best options together, the toughest one being my abilities. It’s a tough call

 

[jeffnles1]

Thanks Jeff, I guess I’m looking for image quality and background seperation which I enjoy when I had my Nikon D850. The OM-1+150-400 is great and has many plus points however that extra pop of a separated image you get with FF is a real draw for me. All the cameras and lenses I’m looking at are great and the advice is really helpful. I find it interesting that the OM-1 and 150-400 is causing such a stirr amongst FF users whilst being somewhat dismissed by some “experts “. Food for thought.

If you can, try to rent or borrow a full frame camera and lens that you are thinking of buying. That's the only way to really know if the attributes of full frame will offset the downside of the smaller OM sensor. One of the guys in my group shoots the older Olympus OM and several lenses. I know he has the big zoom and I think he has a telephoto prime too but do not know which one. His photos are excellent.

I think, if possible, it would be a wise investment to rent a setup like you are considering and go out shooting with it for a few days. You may not fully learn all the nuance of the new system in a few days but things like noise, background separation and lower light focusing will be evident (either lack of difference or major difference but you will be able to know pretty quickly). Things like best settings for AF tracking and the like take time and squeezing the most out of any system takes time but ergonomics and the attributes you mentioned can be found out quickly.

The fellow in my group loves the Olympus system. Pretty much everything I've read about it has been positive. Yes there are those who think the only way to capture a quality image is with a $5,000 plus body and a $15,000 exotic telephoto however, most of the comments I've heard about the OM-1 have been overall positive.

Hope this helps. As for Nikon vs. Sony, that is a debate that will never end. I play guitar and the Nikon vs Sony vs Canon reminds me of the Fender vs. Gibson and the Martin vs. Taylor debates on the guitar forums.

Jeff

 

[wildlife_62]

If you can, try to rent or borrow a full frame camera and lens that you are thinking of buying. That's the only way to really know if the attributes of full frame will offset the downside of the smaller OM sensor. One of the guys in my group shoots the older Olympus OM and several lenses. I know he has the big zoom and I think he has a telephoto prime too but do not know which one. His photos are excellent.

I think, if possible, it would be a wise investment to rent a setup like you are considering and go out shooting with it for a few days. You may not fully learn all the nuance of the new system in a few days but things like noise, background separation and lower light focusing will be evident (either lack of difference or major difference but you will be able to know pretty quickly). Things like best settings for AF tracking and the like take time and squeezing the most out of any system takes time but ergonomics and the attributes you mentioned can be found out quickly.

The fellow in my group loves the Olympus system. Pretty much everything I've read about it has been positive. Yes there are those who think the only way to capture a quality image is with a $5,000 plus body and a $15,000 exotic telephoto however, most of the comments I've heard about the OM-1 have been overall positive.

Hope this helps. As for Nikon vs. Sony, that is a debate that will never end. I play guitar and the Nikon vs Sony vs Canon reminds me of the Fender vs. Gibson and the Martin vs. Taylor debates on the guitar forums.

Jeff

Thanks Jeff, wise words. It can be all too easy to get drawn into the debates and believe the grass is greener. I have uploaded a badger

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

pic taken with The OM-1 + 150-400 Zoom that was shot at 800mm FF equivalent iso 6400 and f5.6 Let me know what you think

 

[BorderBirder]

Thanks Jeff, wise words. It can be all too easy to get drawn into the debates and believe the grass is greener. I have uploaded a badger pic taken with The OM-1 + 150-400 Zoom that was shot at 800mm FF equivalent iso 6400 and f5.6 Let me know what you think

Simon Eardley and Mke Lane have posted some interesting OM videos on the Tube, and one of them changed back to Nikon (at least for some work) because of subject separation. You might like to follow that up. But I can’t for the life of me re-find the relevant video!
Regards the Badger … he looks lovely. Nice environmental image, but obviously not a shallow depth of field for a different look. Being picky, on my screen the grasses behind the badger look sharper than the animal’s eyes.

 

[jcgamble]

I think you might consider the Nikkor Z 100-400 f 4.5-5.6 S with the Z9. It gives you the ability to shoot at FX 47 mpx 100-400 or DX 19.5 mpx 150-600 equivalent. That is a lot of range for one lenses. Adding the 1.4 x converter gives you additional range. It was interesting that in a recent Thom Hogan article on his camera and lens use, that the 100-400 was his number one lens choice. He has a lot to choose from.

 

[jeffnles1]

Thanks Jeff, wise words. It can be all too easy to get drawn into the debates and believe the grass is greener. I have uploaded a badgerView attachment 52907 pic taken with The OM-1 + 150-400 Zoom that was shot at 800mm FF equivalent iso 6400 and f5.6 Let me know what you think

First off, let me say that is a nice shot of a badger. I've never seen one in the wild before. Well done.

As for background separation, I'm not sure any current camera / lens system would have offered a lot of difference on this image. I'm not sure just how far away you were from it but the photo looks like the background grass is almost touching the badger in the back. I think even a full frame camera sporting a 600mm F4 would have rendered that grass within the "in focus" depth of field. It may just be an optical thing but I'm not sure this particular photo would have looked much different. The only lens that may have blurred the grass right behind the creature a little would have been something like a 400 F2.8 and even that may not have totally blurred out the grass behind him (or her).

Hope this helps.
Jeff