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

[O]

I am so grateful for all your enthusiasm and advice, it's clear that one size does not fit all. Debate is fantastic but i'm not here to system bash. It is amazing that a micro four thirds system which is often dismissed can hold its head up high amongst the FF systems. Sometimes it feels like I just have the fear of missing out, however I am fortunate enough to have the choice of some awesome equipment to go along with my enthusiasm and passion for wildlife photography. The camera is the tool and the photographer is the passion, I must remember that when the next amazing camera is launched. View attachment 53092

Stay focused on photography not so much the gear, its healthier. Enjoyment and light is the key.
Olympus specializes in optics, their cameras and lenses are highly regarded, my friend has Olympus and the photos all off them even from his compact point and shoot are all amazing.
In my case i get a lot of enjoyment using the D850 as an all round brilliant easy and relaxing tool to use, it really shines the better the glass, i like my Z9 but gee you need to think carefully using it, now that's me, it may be a lot easier for others LOL..with my Z9 i tend to use it more like a DSLR, 20 fps well compared to 9 fps in my D850, i mostly wined the Z9 back to 5 or 12 fps unless is fast fleeting birds.
Horses for courses, stay of the mary go round LOL

 

[Wrogu]

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.

By the way those equivalent theories are in my opinion very missleading. I got very confused at the begining of my photography hobby - not so long ago (almost 3 years) with all they equivalency stuff (nonsense actually). Because there actually is no equivalency. If you use a 300 f4 lens, its the lens you use. What essentially smaller sensor does is in-hardware crop. If you used a 600f*8 lens on a FF camera you still would have a larger sensor with either more pixels or larger pixels with better ISO performance and dynamic range. Which usually means a better file to work with.

Imho once somebody gets it is easier to compare systems and results you can expect to get. And please do not consider it m43 bashing. To have a full view there are other tradeoffs such as weight gain/save, sharpeness, zoom flexibility and a field of view to take into account. It is like comparing apples and oranges. And both m43 and FF can get the job done. With some jobs dones better and some worse.

What I would also advice to crop sensor users is to pay more attention to subject/background distances (or what I would call environment controll) in order to get creamy bokeh that FF users get easier access to. And that is a hard task!

 

[jeffnles1]

As age creeps into my body's joints, I have been (and continue to be) intrigued by the OM cameras. My biggest concern now that Olympus is no longer in the picture is what is OM System's long term vision for the brand, what kind of R&D will they have going forward and is the system viable for the next 3-5 years? I don't know. The OM-1 seems to be a really great camera; however, what I've read is OM Systems had little if anything to do with the development of this camera as it was already on the books when they took over the Olympus camera brand. The most recent OM camera release seems to be a rebadged older Olympus design. What will ongoing support, development, firmware updates, etc. be like in the next few years. I doubt Nikon, Fuji, Sony, or Canon are going anywhere anytime soon but OM systems is such a wild card as to make me more than a little hesitant to invest.
I really like the idea of lighter lenses and less gear weight to carry around in the field. What I would not like would be selling my Nikon F mount glass and bodies for pennies on the dollar to then invest in a system that may not be around 3 years from now and the glass and bodies being worth even fewer pennies on the dollar than my current F mount stuff.

Just thinking out loud here. Not bashing any system. I think it is, at least for me, a legitimate concern. Others may differ.

 

[Palmor]

What essentially smaller sensor does is in-hardware crop. If you used a 600f*8 lens on a FF camera you still would have a larger sensor with either more pixels or larger pixels with better ISO performance and dynamic range. Which usually means a better file to work with.

True FF has ~2 stops better ISO performance, but that is why the same photo with a 300mm F4 lens on a M43 body will have essentially the same ISO performance as that 600 F8 lens (that M43 photo can have 2 stops lower ISO).

If anyone is confused or just wants more info I always point them to this dpreview article. I think it’s clear and has photo examples of everything they talk about.

What is equivalence and why should I care?

Equivalence, at its most simple, is a way of comparing different formats (sensor sizes) on a common basis. Sounds straightforward enough, but the concept is still somewhat controversial and not always clearly understood. We thought it was about time we explained - and demonstrated - what...

www.dpreview.com

 

[Alistair]

By the way those equivalent theories are in my opinion very missleading. I got very confused at the begining of my photography hobby - not so long ago (almost 3 years) with all they equivalency stuff (nonsense actually). Because there actually is no equivalency. If you use a 300 f4 lens, its the lens you use. What essentially smaller sensor does is in-hardware crop. If you used a 600f*8 lens on a FF camera you still would have a larger sensor with either more pixels or larger pixels with better ISO performance and dynamic range. Which usually means a better file to work with.

Imho once somebody gets it is easier to compare systems and results you can expect to get. And please do not consider it m43 bashing. To have a full view there are other tradeoffs such as weight gain/save, sharpeness, zoom flexibility and a field of view to take into account. It is like comparing apples and oranges. And both m43 and FF can get the job done. With some jobs dones better and some worse.

What I would also advice to crop sensor users is to pay more attention to subject/background distances (or what I would call environment controll) in order to get creamy bokeh that FF users get easier access to. And that is a hard task!

Just wondering, where is this land of which you speak, where there is no equivalency?

 

[Icarus]

As age creeps into my body's joints, I have been (and continue to be) intrigued by the OM cameras. My biggest concern now that Olympus is no longer in the picture is what is OM System's long term vision for the brand, what kind of R&D will they have going forward and is the system viable for the next 3-5 years? I don't know. The OM-1 seems to be a really great camera; however, what I've read is OM Systems had little if anything to do with the development of this camera as it was already on the books when they took over the Olympus camera brand. The most recent OM camera release seems to be a rebadged older Olympus design. What will ongoing support, development, firmware updates, etc. be like in the next few years. I doubt Nikon, Fuji, Sony, or Canon are going anywhere anytime soon but OM systems is such a wild card as to make me more than a little hesitant to invest.
I really like the idea of lighter lenses and less gear weight to carry around in the field. What I would not like would be selling my Nikon F mount glass and bodies for pennies on the dollar to then invest in a system that may not be around 3 years from now and the glass and bodies being worth even fewer pennies on the dollar than my current F mount stuff.

Just thinking out loud here. Not bashing any system. I think it is, at least for me, a legitimate concern. Others may differ.

Believe me, I thought about this long and hard before investing in the 150-400 f4.5 lens! LOL Went all in on OM-1, 300 F4 and a macro lens. Finally decided if OM stays viable for 5 years, well worth it. It was the only way I could get fast light weight glass. I have not regretted it one iota. I'm old and a woman. Much as I would love to have a 600 f4 lens, either Canon, Sony or Nikon, I can't afford it and even if I could would not want to carry it! There are trade offs with MFT, some good, some not, but that's the case with any system.

 

[jeffnles1]

Believe me, I thought about this long and hard before investing in the 150-400 f4.5 lens! LOL Went all in on OM-1, 300 F4 and a macro lens. Finally decided if OM stays viable for 5 years, well worth it. It was the only way I could get fast light weight glass. I have not regretted it one iota. I'm old and a woman. Much as I would love to have a 600 f4 lens, either Canon, Sony or Nikon, I can't afford it and even if I could would not want to carry it! There are trade offs with MFT, some good, some not, but that's the case with any system.

First, I would disagree with you being an old woman but I do fully understand that the more mature we get the more light weight becomes important. This is the reason I have looked at the OM Systems offerings. At 62, I'm not getting any younger and my badly abused body is not objecting any less to the weight of my camera gear especially as the day nears an end.

Jeff

 

[Icarus]

First, I would disagree with you being an old woman but I do fully understand that the more mature we get the more light weight becomes important. This is the reason I have looked at the OM Systems offerings. At 62, I'm not getting any younger and my badly abused body is not objecting any less to the weight of my camera gear especially as the day nears an end.

Jeff

Well, let's just say very mature female. LOL

 

[Nimi]

Believe me, I thought about this long and hard before investing in the 150-400 f4.5 lens! LOL Went all in on OM-1, 300 F4 and a macro lens. Finally decided if OM stays viable for 5 years, well worth it. It was the only way I could get fast light weight glass. I have not regretted it one iota. I'm old and a woman. Much as I would love to have a 600 f4 lens, either Canon, Sony or Nikon, I can't afford it and even if I could would not want to carry it! There are trade offs with MFT, some good, some not, but that's the case with any system.

I think this post perfectly sums it up. Each of us, for completely different outcomes picks the right system for them. MFT isn't for me, but so what.

 

[O]

The best camera in the world is the one you have in you hand at the time you take the picture.

The second best camera in the world is the one you know how to use properly.

Often their are discussions reviews on the web and even in our camera clubs, re FF DX 4/3rds systems, Smart Phones, why one differs to the other is largely dependent on need and application, they are all just different tools.

I feel...........Regardless of brands...........

The variable in all these tools is the user, what does the user want, need, believe, above all has the skill to use them fully, a big difference with tools being COST/Affordability that often see us make compromises re purpose to make a fit.

While we often discuss, debate, consider, and some of us become frustratingly indecisive about things is in ways good and bad, we are often so focused on the now we are not noticing the future.

A Respectable reviewer who would show us white owls in the snow, wildlife on the plains in the snow with amazing photos, suddenly are showing U Tube Videos of the same subjects in the same locations, far more enjoyable and holding, also gauging the view numbers at 100 to 1 for video over stills, the future direction is clear, Camera manufacturers are moving quickly into lighter more hybrid based video feature rich systems to tap into the newer technology evolving, also to meet the newer generation of consumers.

Its predicted by 20-50 the balance of older people to younger will see a dynamic shift/change, tilting to an increase of the global average age falling, manufactures think tanks have planed well ahead, some better faster than others.

The world is in a stage of the big will get bigger the small will get out.

To play now, the minimum opening bet on the table of life has just risen markedly.

The tools we buy are often system based and an investment.

4/3rds
Sadly There seems to be a cloud over Olympus and as to its direction and future position in the industry, how true ? what and where that plays out time will tell.
Olympus is an excellent system that has a purpose, Fuji is an excellent very innovative system also.

We know the larger manufactures like Nikon Canon Sony are all heading mirror less, lower cost of production, higher margins, easier refreshing of models, hybrid transitional models, video, all to meet the driving force, the internet.

A few years ago the market was calling for lighter smaller systems, some years later we are seeing this emerge.
Nikon introducing its FE lens elements in smaller compact lighter higher priced enthusiast/consumer grade tools, and following it up with next level very expensive exotic performance rich pro lenses, going mirror less has also a hand to play in this.

There are benefits all round and two price levels, expensive and WOW really expensive LOL.

The bottom line, be it the light sensitivity of the camera sensor or film, the quality or design of the glass, the software that brings it all together, be it old or new tools, the on thing is they largely all just use/depend on the fundamental elements of TIME LIGHT SPEED in a balanced combination.

Like using a flash that brings added light that often makes many lenses all look similar in quality, light is a photon made up of red green blue colour, how you get it is what we pay for.

As many people age we want smaller lighter, often there may be some compromise in performance, there is no one tool that does it all perfectly LOL,
well for me personally the closest to being perfect in 35mm LOL that i have enjoyed in DSLR is the D850, again for me as the best all rounder, in mirror less i haven't mastered the Z9 yet and probably wont before i sell it and get a Z8, hoping, if, its 60 mp 12 fps small and light, and that's not because of age, i am far from that issue.

What my enjoyment meter is liking is the Fuji high MP MF.

The burning question.......Would i go 4/3rds ? while i respect the systems highly and they have a genuine purpose, personally, NO, its hard to leave the D850 FF (potential Z8 Z7III) files and glass. FF has the key advantages for my needs, the compromises of size and weight i am happy to tolerate for now, i have seen many take the journey to 4/3rds and love it for good reason, but equally many usually come home to FF at some stage, or have two systems, for me if i was doing just portraiture then the Fuji sensor is quite attractive.

Only an Opinion

 

[Doug Herr]

Believe me, I thought about this long and hard before investing in the 150-400 f4.5 lens! LOL Went all in on OM-1, 300 F4 and a macro lens. Finally decided if OM stays viable for 5 years, well worth it. It was the only way I could get fast light weight glass. I have not regretted it one iota. I'm old and a woman. Much as I would love to have a 600 f4 lens, either Canon, Sony or Nikon, I can't afford it and even if I could would not want to carry it! There are trade offs with MFT, some good, some not, but that's the case with any system.

According to Ansel Adams the best camera is the biggest one you're willing to carry. Calculate DOF, equivalent apertures, grain & ISO equivalents but it means nothing if the camera is so big & heavy that it's left at home.

 

[O]

With all this discussion of tools and new tools with all the bells an whistles, it should in no way effect using older gear, the 70-200 FL on my D7100 or the stunning old D3X even matches the file quality of the Z9 98% for still shots. In fact i might have a good and bad sample but files from the D850 is more to my liking than the Z9 files, i mean it could also be me not driving the Z9 properly.

One should never feel left behind or out of the game, 95% of what you achieve often comes from you.

Only an opinion

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I think the system is more important than people are giving it credit for.

1) A lightweight zoom rig is critical for people who can't carry the extra weight very far. The lighter, more flexible rig increases the range of the photographer allowing more opportunities for images.
2) If you like BIF, who doesn't, subject detection will increase the number of keepers. Yes, a pro shooting a d-850 will probably outperform an occasional photographer with a Z-9 BUT both will get more keepers with the Z-9.

Tom

 

[Wrogu]

Just wondering, where is this land of which you speak, where there is no equivalency?

And why would you like to make comparisons of stuff where result has always * in it? Or do you want to make stuff equivalent theoretically or with real world equipment? For instance to what FF set up is OM-1 with 300f4 equivalent to in real world use? For instance A1/A7IV with 200-600@600f8? Maybe you do get similar FoV, DoF and ISO performance, but at ff you end up with more pixels and a stepped down lens (sharper). So are your results equivalent or not? Change any variable, other ones change. And how often do you shoot 200-600@f8 in common real world use? The only equivalent thing you end up with is FoV.

P.S. And please do not read my post as m43 bashing. Om1 with 300f4 or 150-400TC is a tremendous wildlife set up. But instead of comparing it to other systems I would rather focus on its perks such as flexibility, lightness, speed (AF and fps), stabilization, weather sealing. But for me a 300f4 lens is not a 600f4 nor 600f8.

 

[Alistair]

And why would you like to make comparisons of stuff where result has always * in it? Or do you want to make stuff equivalent theoretically or with real world equipment? For instance to what FF set up is OM-1 with 300f4 equivalent to in real world use? For instance A1/A7IV with 200-600@600f8? Maybe you do get similar FoV, DoF and ISO performance, but at ff you end up with more pixels and a stepped down lens (sharper). So are your results equivalent or not? Change any variable, other ones change. And how often do you shoot 200-600@f8 in common real world use? The only equivalent thing you end up with is FoV.

P.S. And please do not read my post as m43 bashing. Om1 with 300f4 or 150-400TC is a tremendous wildlife set up. But instead of comparing it to other systems I would rather focus on its perks such as flexibility, lightness, speed (AF and fps), stabilization, weather sealing. But for me a 300f4 lens is not a 600f4 nor 600f8.

Thanks.

 

[Palmor]

And why would you like to make comparisons of stuff where result has always * in it? Or do you want to make stuff equivalent theoretically or with real world equipment? For instance to what FF set up is OM-1 with 300f4 equivalent to in real world use? For instance A1/A7IV with 200-600@600f8? Maybe you do get similar FoV, DoF and ISO performance, but at ff you end up with more pixels and a stepped down lens (sharper). So are your results equivalent or not? Change any variable, other ones change. And how often do you shoot 200-600@f8 in common real world use? The only equivalent thing you end up with is FoV.

P.S. And please do not read my post as m43 bashing. Om1 with 300f4 or 150-400TC is a tremendous wildlife set up. But instead of comparing it to other systems I would rather focus on its perks such as flexibility, lightness, speed (AF and fps), stabilization, weather sealing. But for me a 300f4 lens is not a 600f4 nor 600f8.

I agree that normally equivalence discussion deteriorate into worthless threads. However if we go back to the OP, they were looking to change from a OM-1/150-400 to a Z9/500PF+TC. In this case looking at equivalence was a very valid discussion since his final images would be essentially the same between those two systems.

If you read the entire thread the OP was looking for better high ISO performance and subject separation which they will not get with Z9/500PF combo. It was discussed to gain noticeable differences in either the OP wold have to move to something like the 600F4 or 800PF with the Z9. Of course there could be other use cases that could benefit from the Z9 but those weren't part of the original question or the follow-up discussion with the OP.

 

[O]

I agree that normally equivalence discussion deteriorate into worthless threads. However if we go back to the OP, they were looking to change from a OM-1/150-400 to a Z9/500PF+TC. In this case looking at equivalence was a very valid discussion since his final images would be essentially the same between those two systems.

If you read the entire thread the OP was looking for better high ISO performance and subject separation which they will not get with Z9/500PF combo. It was discussed to gain noticeable differences in either the OP wold have to move to something like the 600F4 or 800PF with the Z9. Of course there could be other use cases that could benefit from the Z9 but those weren't part of the original question or the follow-up discussion with the OP.

As to higher ISO performance, we know that fundamentally, higher resolution 35mm cameras, or higher pixel density cameras usually are more challenged compared to say a Medium Format sensor camera, or a lower resolution large pixel pitch sensor camera.

If challenging low light needing high ISO is paramount then a D6 is by far going to deliver better colour/dynamic range in very high ISO low light applications.

Digressing for a second, As to stickiness compared to mirror less cameras, the D6 has the edge here as well, while currently claims that the gap has closed on this somewhat with recent firmware up dates i am not convinced yet that the Z9 or mirror less has equaled the D6 at least not consistently.

I happily get good results on my Z9 to 6400 iso in low light and even on occasions 10k 12 k is still very good, depending on what glass i am using.

Going from a OM 1 set up as in the OP to say a D850 and 400 F2.8 or Z9 400 2.8 or 600 F4 is a significant difference in capability and performance, equally with a significant compromise on size weight and mobility, while in one hand you gain some optical benefits changing to a larger system, missing the opportunity for a perfect shot is a lost opportunity due to handling a larger combo with a fixed prime.

Going a Z9 with a 500 PF is excellent, the 500 PF wont deliver entirely what a F2.8, F4, would necessarily but gee it wont be to far behind, you will need to use more technique to get closer to similar results.

I have seen many of our club members absolutely excel using a Z6 II on a 500 PF, some have moved to a Z6II with the 400 F4.5 and a TC and love the combo. Some use the Z9 as well, they are mostly birders and walk for miles to get shots.

POP and isolation of a subject we know is best/easier with long exotic glass, however in my experience technique and settings often play equally a major part, in fact in many cases more so on getting excellent results.

Manufactures want you to buy a good photo not know how to make one.

I have enjoyed great subject isolation and pop from most cameras and lenses including an old 150-500 or even a 28-300, 200-500, 300 2.8, 24-70, 600 f4, Z9, D850, D3X, Df, D7100, Canon Sony Nikon Leica Fuji.


Here is Steve's excellent video, i pass it on to our club members and training officers, less is more and in this video there is a lot of excellent information, while i know a lot, i always learn something by just listening, Steve's Videos are all high on quality content, easy to understand, coal face based, with out necessarily being brand specific which helps a lot of people with photography.

Invest more in yourself before you invest more in your gear, you will benefit more this way and target your real needs better.

Only an opinion

 

[Palmor]

As to higher ISO performance, we know that fundamentally, higher resolution 35mm cameras, or higher pixel density cameras usually are more challenged compared to say a Medium Format sensor camera, or a lower resolution large pixel pitch sensor camera.

If challenging low light needing high ISO is paramount then a D6 is by far going to deliver better colour/dynamic range in very high ISO low light applications.

Digressing for a second, As to stickiness compared to mirror less cameras, the D6 has the edge here as well, while currently claims that the gap has closed on this somewhat with recent firmware up dates i am not convinced yet that the Z9 or mirror less has equaled the D6 at least not consistently.

I happily get good results on my Z9 to 6400 iso in low light and even on occasions 10k 12 k is still very good, depending on what glass i am using.

Going from a OM 1 set up as in the OP to say a D850 and 400 F2.8 or Z9 400 2.8 or 600 F4 is a significant difference in capability and performance, equally with a significant compromise on size weight and mobility, while in one hand you gain some optical benefits changing to a larger system, missing the opportunity for a perfect shot is a lost opportunity.

Going a Z9 with a 500 PF is excellent, the 500 PF wont deliver entirely what a F2.8, F4, would necessarily but gee it wont be to far behind, you will need to use more technique to get closer to similar results.

I have seen many of our club members absolutely excel using a Z6 II on a 500 PF, some have moved to a Z6II with the 400 F4.5 and a TC and love the combo. Some use the Z9 as well, they are mostly birders and walk for miles to get shots.

POP and isolation of a subject we know is best/easier with long exotic glass, however in my experience technique and settings often play equally a major part, in fact in many cases more so on getting excellent results.

Manufactures want you to buy a good photo not know how to make one.

I have enjoyed great subject isolation and pop from most cameras and lenses including an old 150-500 or even a 28-300, 200-500, 300 2.8, 24-70, 600 f4, Z9, D850, D3X, Df, D7100, Canon Sony Nikon Leica Fuji.


Here is Steve's excellent video, i pass it on to our club members and training officers, less is more and in this video there is a lot of excellent information, while i know a lot, i always learn something by just listening, Steve's Videos are all high on quality content, easy to understand, cold face based, with out necessarily being brand specific which helps a lot of people with photography.

Invest more in yourself before you invest more in your gear, you will benefit more this way and target your real needs better.

Only an opinion

Sorry, not sure if you are replying to me specifically or the original post. I had some responses written up but honestly I'm not interested in taking the "E" discussion any further and having this thread go further down the rabbit hole so I'll just leave it here . I believe the OP got the info they were looking for.

 

[Woody Meristem]

Although I'm an Olympus user, this applies to all manufacturers. Frankly I don't care whether any individual company is in business in five to ten years; I have good gear that produces the images I want and will last for many years. If a company goes out of business there will be lots of good gear being sold at fire-sale prices by those who panic -- more than enough gear to last any one of us for the rest of our lives.

Since I don't make a living with my cameras I've never considered them an investment. I use a camera like I use a vehicle, run it until it's not economically repairable and then get a new one and never fall in love with something that can't love you back. When my cameras break (more likely when I break them) I'll get a new one, a better model if it's available for a reasonable price otherwise the same model. An investment grows in value, at least it's supposed to, cameras and lenses depreciate and a wise person would never consider them an investment.

 

[Doug Herr]

An investment grows in value, at least it's supposed to, cameras and lenses depreciate and a wise person would never consider them an investment.

Technically an investment is something that is expected to produce wealth. In business terms an example would be a tool that is used to make a product. If the purchase of a camera results in marketable photos then the camera is an investment.

 

[O]

Technically an investment is something that is expected to produce wealth. In business terms an example would be a tool that is used to make a product. If the purchase of a camera results in marketable photos then the camera is an investment.

Bold and the Beautiful is boring at the moment, so here is my 2 bits worth LOL.

Agree.........

The meaning as i understand it is "the action or process of investing money for profit"

Investing in camera gear is a often a bad investment as you loose money, its called depreciation.
If the camera gear is Pro gear and really special that makes you lots of money, then the camera gear is a good investment.

Glass is less vulnerable to severe depreciation it can live longer on successive bodies in many cases.

If your are writing it of in tax, you can in cases actually come out in front a little, which means if you sell well, a profit on paper seems very possible. It depends on what sort of accountant you use, mine does all the work in pencil, LOL

 

[O]

Sorry, not sure if you are replying to me specifically or the original post. I had some responses written up but honestly I'm not interested in taking the "E" discussion any further and having this thread go further down the rabbit hole so I'll just leave it here . I believe the OP got the info they were looking for.

All good and i understand

 

[wildlife_62]

Thought i would post a couple of pics as my request for information and advice is getting a little bit lost. I'm sure we all take our pics no matter what equipment because we love being around wildlife.

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

 

[wildlife_62]

Surprise

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

!!!

 

[wildlife_62]

OM-1 150-400MM Pro zoom today Green woodpecker in our woodland

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