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

[O]

I shoot both the OM-1 and the Z9 and am not giving up either. Each does things that the other has trouble with. I'd ask myself how I think my photos would look different with the other. If all you want is wildlife and birds, I'd stick with the Olympus.

Agree, i am wondering why wildlife_62 is even considering possibly changing as they seem very happy and proud of their photos their getting/showing.

I also ask how will changing systems improve their photography.

Their experience of using a D850 and 400 2.8 was impressive as i understand i assume setting inspiration for considering change.

The simple solution is rent one system then the other and see what the effect on your photography and happiness level is, experience from other users is invaluable but nothing like experiencing something yourself.

I understand the OP later indicates better ISO and more POP is something they are looking for ?, better ISO and low light performance has a simple answer that is clear, better glass like F2 F2.8 F4, large pixels or less of them, much lower pixel density sensor.

More POP as mentioned is also more achieved on technique and slight processing, while easily improved using much longer glass, better glass F2 F2.8 F4 etc, but still technique is important.

What i have noticed with lots of good response in this forum thread, also in all other threads, there are lots of helpful gems of information filter through sometimes regardless of the original post starting the thread, occasional digression is a product of think tanks often contributing, sometimes sadly annoying to a few, myself i listen with an open mind, and hoover up the gem stones that often come from left field through open discussion, BCF is an amazing pool of knowledge and coal face experiences.

I am interested in your experience of what are some of the differences you found between the two systems.

Only an opinion.

 

[Jo Wuori]

I am a convert from Nikon to OM-1 with the 150-400 lens. I find the weight and features to be great. Pro capture, built in tele, live comp, etc. I also am a fan of the 12-100 lens. The combo of these 2 lenses gives a real nice selection.

 

[O]

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

One of the reasons i use F2.8 glass as my first choice always is for the ability to capture more light and detail, especially in the shadow areas, the benefit is more micro contrast, therefore more detail, equals more POP and dimension, add to this shallow depth of field, happy days.
If reach is an issue, i move or everything else slowly becomes a progression to compromise. Admittedly its hard to do that all the time LOL.

A 500, 600, F4 prime does almost what the 300 - 400 F2.8 does at F2.8.

The attached image is a JPEG snap heavily cropped because i can with a 45mp FF sensor on the D850 and therefor little iso is needed.

9 FPS is plenty fast enough, 12 fps for 90% of what i do is also enough on other cameras.

I left the Z9 as a back up on the 200-500, i found the results on the D850 300 F2.8 was perfectly pleasing so i stayed with it.

I shoot the 300 F2.8 VR II at F2.8 99% of the time where i can, this VR II lens is only 2.9kg, while for most hand hold able and on a light mono pod all day is as many would know spectacular even for me shooting very small birds in low light, as you can see the information is there, its just the right tool on the right tool used in the right way.

The benefit is low light performance, low iso, more micro detail and POP.

PS notice face animal and eye recognition on the D850 LOL...only teasing

 

[Woody Meristem]

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.

I switched from Canon to Olympus and, while I hope OMDS is around for the long haul, if OMDS vanished tomorrow it wouldn't impact me in the least. My cameras and lenses will still operate as they have and will continue to do so until I wear them out or I break them, the images will still be as good, the gear won't get any heavier and I'll be able to pick up some great bodies and lenses for a pittance as people panic and dump their gear. Since my bodies and lenses do all I need, any R&D that OMDS might do is of no consequence to me, the same for firmware updates. Plus, by the time I'm done with my Olympus gear it won't be worth anything, too old or too many shutter activations. Unless you're a full time pro it's a mistake to consider any cameras or lenses an investment, an investment should generate an income if it doesn't it's not an investment it's an expenditure that gives you pleasure like a good meal or a great vacation.

 

[Doug Herr]

... while I hope OMDS is around for the long haul, if OMDS vanished tomorrow it wouldn't impact me in the least.

As long as batteries are still available.

 

[jeffnles1]

I switched from Canon to Olympus and, while I hope OMDS is around for the long haul, if OMDS vanished tomorrow it wouldn't impact me in the least. My cameras and lenses will still operate as they have and will continue to do so until I wear them out or I break them, the images will still be as good, the gear won't get any heavier and I'll be able to pick up some great bodies and lenses for a pittance as people panic and dump their gear. Since my bodies and lenses do all I need, any R&D that OMDS might do is of no consequence to me, the same for firmware updates. Plus, by the time I'm done with my Olympus gear it won't be worth anything, too old or too many shutter activations. Unless you're a full time pro it's a mistake to consider any cameras or lenses an investment, an investment should generate an income if it doesn't it's not an investment it's an expenditure that gives you pleasure like a good meal or a great vacation.

I agree, no electronic gear is an investment that will give a monetary return.
I guess my reference to the longer term viability is more my personal financial state. I would not be able to buy a camera body and full compliment of lenses, flash, and other peripherals all at one time. It would have to be spread over a few years focusing on most used stuff first and expanding the kit out from there. In that light, yes the longer term viability is a consideration.

I'm not a working pro but I have put over 100,000 clicks on at least 2 camera bodies and am working on number 3 right now. None of them were worn out. One broke from Jeff's own stupidity, one I still have as a backup (D7200) and the D500 I still use. None of them are worth much in their well worn and much loved condition.

Again, I understand fully your point and agree, just looking at building a kit over a few years longer term viability does play a role.

Jeff

 

[O]

I am all for small and light going forward, i have in my sites a Z8, hopefully 60mp 12 fps, and starting it with the 400 F4.5, however i do want to see how the Z8 turns out first.

 

[O]

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

Nothing wrong with your logic

 

[David Berry]

This might be of interest: Mark Buckler (biologist, educator, photographer) explains his decision to change to OM System.

The interview is hosted by Janine Krayer (photo host) of Pangolin Photo Safaris (Chobe River, Botswana).

… David

 

[ricardo00]

This might be of interest: Mark Buckler (biologist, educator, photographer) explains his decision to change to OM System.

The interview is hosted by Janine Krayer (photo host) of Pangolin Photo Safaris (Chobe River, Botswana).

… David

Thanks David, hadn't seen this. As someone who contemplates trying the OM system, it was interesting to watch, though thought much of the info was "obvious" and a bit biased. To compare the price of a 300mm f/4 Olympus lens with that of the 600mm f/4 seems kind of ridiculous, at least in my opinion. A better comparison would be to compare it with the Nikon 500mm PF which on a DX camera is 750mm. There the price and weight are fairly similar.
Also not sure when this was made, but talks about the 150-400mm OM lens which is actually more expensive than the Nikon 800mm PF lens. And doesn't mention that Nikon Z9 has a "pro-capture mode", though not as good as the OM-1 (ie. only does 12 megapixel JPGs).
Clearly, there are advantages to each system, and would have appreciated a more fair minded comparison. And for example info on the wait times these days for the OM systems 150-400mm lens, which I hear are as long as for the 800mm PF lens. If I were to switch, would like to be able to buy this lens which is clearly a great lens for wildlife though at 4.1 pounds, sort of defeats part of my rationale for switching to the OM system. At least one doesn't have to buy the E-M1X Olympus camera anymore to have the "best" Olympus wildlife camera since at 2.2 pounds (not sure if this included batteries and cards) was for me, a non-starter. That was heavier than my D850.

 

[Alex_photoeyes]

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

Hi Guys,

I work with Canon R5, R6ii, Sony A1 and Om-1 and the 150-400pro.

The best AF with fast detection of fast small birds is with the 400GM and the ultra fast linear AF motors. Then comes the Z9 with the new Z Primes and right after that the Om-1. Of course the bokeh is nicer at f2.8 and f4.0 but look at the picture here of the kingfisher. That was 2000!mm 150-400 1.25x, 2.0x I can do it handheld at 1/50! and ISO 200. I can't get such perfect stabilization with any other system.
The bird was 20 meters away.
The picture has some other dates, but I can show you others as well.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I think the effect of weight is undervalued. An OM-1 with a 300PF lens weighs in at 5#, CONSIDERABLY

 

[ricardo00]

I think the effect of weight is undervalued. An OM-1 with a 300PF lens weighs in at 5#, CONSIDERABLY

I would agree. And most of the great pics above used the 150-400mm, which alone is 4.1 pounds alone ( so with the OM-1 is 5.5 pounds). So, not trivial though lighter than the full frame equivalents.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

The 100-400 combo is 4.5 pounds. A camera that light makes it incredibly easy to get the bird is the viewfinder and the camera recognizes and focuses on the bird/eye almost instantly. My previous camera combo was a Nikon D-500/500pf that was only about a pound heavier and also was easy to find the bird with but the OM-1 is faster because it picks up the bird anywhere in the viewfinder. Me shooting a 600F4 on an A1 or Z9 would be much slower finding the bird.

The 150-400 lens is incredible but, for my purposes no worth the extra size, weight and cost. Just my opinion. The 100-400 and 300f4 do just fine.

Tom

 

[Steve W]

I shoot both Z9 and A1. First off as others have said above you would be well advised to study the two systems and make a decision based on that not only on the camera body. Second, the difference in the two bodies is way more than weight. Due to the difference in size and design/placement of the controls the two camera have a completely different feel. It's a big deal for some people and not for others. I was already used to shooting a large Nikon body and placement/style of Nikon controls. But I also still had multiple bodies including a small DX body. I added the A1/200-600mm about eight months ago. For me the transition wasn't a big deal. When I first got it I thought is was WAY superior to the Z9 in AF performance and customization options. With the firmware upgrades that's no longer the case. There are still differences but now it's more a matter of preferences than functional capability. I've been shooting BIF with both of them on alternating days for the past 10 days and IMO the AF systems are on par. Different, but on par.

One caveat to my comments about controls/customization. I am NOT a "super user" who uses multiple shooting banks based on subject matter etc. I use the camera and figure out which function I want on which buttons and use that configuration regardless of what I'm shooting. If you are a super user and that's important to you I highly recommend downloading the manuals for both cameras as well as watching some videos.

The good news is that either camera and either system is excellent. Unbelievably so. You can't really make a bad decision. Choosing between the two is not a bad problem to have.

You make a very good point about “the feel”. If it doesn’t feel right, you’ll never really enjoy it. I had this decision when moving from Pentax to Nikon or Canon. Both were great, very similarly featured cameras but everything on the Nikon just fell to hand....it felt “right”.
Its not just a brand thing either, I picked up the D750 when it came out, after a few minutes I realised that it and me were no match. I hated it.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

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

The +VE reasons from moving from a Micro Four Thirds mirrorless camera to a Full Frame camera are many (not least the way a FF/FX body can more easily separate subject form backgrounds) BUT the -VEs are the loss of the crop factor and the fact that the glass you will need to replicate what you can achieve with the OM-1 will be much larger and far far more expensive on the FF/FX body than your 4/3rds.

Given that pros like Andy Rouse use the OM-1 I would wonder why you are are seeking to change system. Very specifically - what is it you are seeking to access with a full-frame camera/system that your 4/3rds system does not provide. You seem to have a good option in your OM gear.

The OM-1 is 12 months old and OM will no doubt come out with a new version fairly soon - there is no evidence that either Nikon or Sony will update their flagships within the next 12 months. BUT these days who knows.

I note that you have not included APC/DX sized solutions OR solutions from Canon or Fujifilm these are both very credible alternatives to Nikon & Sony.
Canon is working on their Total Shutter for the R1 in the meantime the R3, R7 and other models are in heavy use by wildlife and BIF shooters.

Steve recently stated that right now the A1 stands up better in his hands than his Z9 - so he would recommend an A1.

I only shoot Nikon and have had no issues with my pair of Z9 (or Z6ii or Z7) AND I consider Nikon's Z exotic glass (with built-in TC and/or PF) is far far better than any alternative -- but scarce/pricey and so is the best Sony glass. I do not routinely shoot small birds. But I do use the 2 biggest new primes and the 100-400 and have nothing but praise to lay on Nikon's team.

Many are waiting for the Nikkor Z 200-600 and after it is launched ordering lead times will be very long -- currently the 100-400 is great but short -vs- your OM solution.
You may need to look at the 800/pf to match your FL for smaller birds. This lens appears to be more and more available -- but have a look at the thread in this forum on those still waiting for it.

 

[Roy]

The +VE reasons from moving from a Micro Four Thirds mirrorless camera to a Full Frame camera are many (not least the way a FF/FX body can more easily separate subject form backgrounds) BUT the -VEs are the loss of the crop factor and the fact that the glass you will need to replicate what you can achieve with the OM-1 will be much larger and far far more expensive on the FF/FX body than your 4/3rds.

Given that pros like Andy Rouse use the OM-1 I would wonder why you are are seeking to change system. Very specifically - what is it you are seeking to access with a full-frame camera/system that your 4/3rds system does not provide. You seem to have a good option in your OM gear.

The OM-1 is 12 months old and OM will no doubt come out with a new version fairly soon - there is no evidence that either Nikon or Sony will update their flagships within the next 12 months. BUT these days who knows.

I note that you have not included APC/DX sized solutions OR solutions from Canon or Fujifilm these are both very credible alternatives to Nikon & Sony.
Canon is working on their Total Shutter for the R1 in the meantime the R3, R7 and other models are in heavy use by wildlife and BIF shooters.

Steve recently stated that right now the A1 stands up better in his hands than his Z9 - so he would recommend an A1.

I only shoot Nikon and have had no issues with my pair of Z9 (or Z6ii or Z7) AND I consider Nikon's Z exotic glass (with built-in TC and/or PF) is far far better than any alternative -- but scarce/pricey and so is the best Sony glass. I do not routinely shoot small birds. But I do use the 2 biggest new primes and the 100-400 and have nothing but praise to lay on Nikon's team.

Many are waiting for the Nikkor Z 200-600 and after it is launched ordering lead times will be very long -- currently the 100-400 is great but short -vs- your OM solution.
You may need to look at the 800/pf to match your FL for smaller birds. This lens appears to be more and more available -- but have a look at the thread in this forum on those still waiting for it.

I'm one of those waiting for the 200-600mm Z lens.
Ive had an A7 since its first came out and i'm still mostly a Nikon shooter.
I found both the A1 and Z9 great cameras and you shouldn't be disappointed by either.
Although I found the A1 easier to set up I ended up with the Z9 because I just found it suited my needs better.
Another alternative for you could be the Sony A9 series...

 

[JamesFarrell]

I apologize if this offends some, but I am going to take an alternate view of what many have articulated in this thread that is now a few months old. But to do so I need to supply some background details. The TL-DR version of my post here is that moving to Nikon and the Z9 is a very positive leap forward from Olympus or whatever the new ownership of that OM brand is named in my view. Yes, the move will be expensive.

Details: I shot Nikon for 10 years until early 2017 when I thought I'd try shooting Olympus Micro 4/3s. I thought the smaller form factor would be advantageous (e.g., easier handholding, etc.) for me over Nikon. So, I went all in with Olympus with their "pro" series lenses, and I sold all my Nikon gear. After owning three EM1-IIs in 2017 and 2018, I sold them and bought two EM1X bodies in early 2019. They were overpriced with an outdated sensor. About the same size as a Z9 it was an unfinished product at best. They were not as good as the EM1-IIs. Any images much above base ISO 200 were just unusable due to noise. The AF system was unreliable. Menu system was difficult at best.

However, I will cite that the Olympus "pro" series lenses were really excellent. The much talked about but not available 150-400 Pro lens was announced as in development but never materialized until about the time Olympus sold their camera line. It's not cheap either at about $7,500 US if one can find it.

Lenses notwithstanding, the bottom line in my view is that the micro 4/3 sensor just cannot compare with Nikon (and I assume with Sony, Canon and other brands; I have no experience with them. So, please resist from flaming me.) Following a disappointing trip to British Columbia shooting M4/3 in May of 2019 and after digesting the glowing reports about the images on the Z6 & Z7 sensors, I bought a Z6 kit in June of 2019. I was immediately blown away at how good the images looked compared to Micro 4/3. So, I bought another Z6 and added a few good Nikon F-mount lenses to marry up to the Z6s via the FTZ. The Olympus gear was all sold immediately. Now for sure, I made two mistakes, one selling all my Nikon stuff in 2017 and buying heavily into Olympus soon thereafter. But I am not the first 'knucklehead' to pay through the nose (Visa sure did love me) having made multiple brand switches in a short period of time. Since them I've moved to the Z6-II and the Z7-II and now very happy with the Z9s and a couple of Z lenses.

For sure there are some excellent M4/3 photographers doing impressive things, e.g. Petr Bambousek and others as they post images. But I wonder what the full resolution images look like compared to those from a Z9, A1 and a Canon R something. I am not promoting the Z9 over the A1, A9s or whatever. I simple saying the micro 4/3 images for the type of shooting in low light and challenging AF cannot compare to the top aforementioned brands. Olympus lenses are good; their sensors not so much. That's the issue that I see with m4/3. End of post; my anti-flame suit is at the ready.

 

[Roy]

I apologize if this offends some, but I am going to take an alternate view of what many have articulated in this thread that is now a few months old. But to do so I need to supply some background details. The TL-DR version of my post here is that moving to Nikon and the Z9 is a very positive leap forward from Olympus or whatever the new ownership of that OM brand is named in my view. Yes, the move will be expensive.

Details: I shot Nikon for 10 years until early 2017 when I thought I'd try shooting Olympus Micro 4/3s. I thought the smaller form factor would be advantageous (e.g., easier handholding, etc.) for me over Nikon. So, I went all in with Olympus with their "pro" series lenses, and I sold all my Nikon gear. After owning three EM1-IIs in 2017 and 2018, I sold them and bought two EM1X bodies in early 2019. They were overpriced with an outdated sensor. About the same size as a Z9 it was an unfinished product at best. They were not as good as the EM1-IIs. Any images much above base ISO 200 were just unusable due to noise. The AF system was unreliable. Menu system was difficult at best.

However, I will cite that the Olympus "pro" series lenses were really excellent. The much talked about but not available 150-400 Pro lens was announced as in development but never materialized until about the time Olympus sold their camera line. It's not cheap either at about $7,500 US if one can find it.

Lenses notwithstanding, the bottom line in my view is that the micro 4/3 sensor just cannot compare with Nikon (and I assume with Sony, Canon and other brands; I have no experience with them. So, please resist from flaming me.) Following a disappointing trip to British Columbia shooting M4/3 in May of 2019 and after digesting the glowing reports about the images on the Z6 & Z7 sensors, I bought a Z6 kit in June of 2019. I was immediately blown away at how good the images looked compared to Micro 4/3. So, I bought another Z6 and added a few good Nikon F-mount lenses to marry up to the Z6s via the FTZ. The Olympus gear was all sold immediately. Now for sure, I made two mistakes, one selling all my Nikon stuff in 2017 and buying heavily into Olympus soon thereafter. But I am not the first 'knucklehead' to pay through the nose (Visa sure did love me) having made multiple brand switches in a short period of time. Since them I've moved to the Z6-II and the Z7-II and now very happy with the Z9s and a couple of Z lenses.

For sure there are some excellent M4/3 photographers doing impressive things, e.g. Petr Bambousek and others as they post images. But I wonder what the full resolution images look like compared to those from a Z9, A1 and a Canon R something. I am not promoting the Z9 over the A1, A9s or whatever. I simple saying the micro 4/3 images for the type of shooting in low light and challenging AF cannot compare to the top aforementioned brands. Olympus lenses are good; their sensors not so much. That's the issue that I see with m4/3. End of post; my anti-flame suit is at the ready.

I can see the appeal of MFT for some people and why a crop sensor camera can be useful.
But a FF sensor is just glorious and the Z9 is so versatile that it can do almost anything ...

 

[Palmor]

I simple saying the micro 4/3 images for the type of shooting in low light and challenging AF cannot compare to the top aforementioned brands.

AF has caught up with the OM-1, for the things I shoot it has been just as good as my A1. You can't judge the AF of the OM-1 based on previous models.

For IQ nothing has changed, a M43 sensor is ~2 stops behind a FF sensor so if you shoot in situations where that matters and you can't make it up be either using faster M43 glass or take advantage of the better IS than you'll see the impact.

If you go back and read through the thread the OP was looking at the Z9 + 500PF compared against the OM-1 and 150-400. In that specific case you aren't gaining much with the Nikon combo because you are using slower glass and you are going to have to crop to match the "reach" of the OM-1 system. At the end of the day the photos will look very similar.

Like mentioned previously if the Z9 + 500PF is the gateway and the OP plans to move up to more exotic glass than yes, there will obviously be an advantage in IQ once you get the 600 F4 or even the 800PF.

 

[carbon]

I am in roughly the same boat as the OP and am considering buying an A1/200-600 or a OM-1/300 4.0 or 150-400 TC1.25 f4.5.

Here are my thoughts.

The entire reason for such a setup (for me) is bird photography, especially BIF.

For everything else I shoot, my Leica and my DSLRs are great.

So for a person in my position, just buying ONE of the cheaper and lighter setups and treating the package as a one-off “BIF telephoto” makes a lot of financial & poundage sense (i.e. not buying more fully into the system, using it as an addition and not switching systems).

If you want shallow dof, the choice is clear; open your wallet and load your arms/back.

If there are other factors in play, the list below might help.

REACH, WEIGHT, PRICE
800mm reach equivalents
OM-1 + 300 f4 + 1.4x = 4.9 lbs | $5550
= 840 f5.6

Following are compared to above, from lightest to heaviest
OM-1 + 150-400mm TC1.25 = 5.4 lbs | $9700
= 800 f4.5 / TC1000mm f5.6, +0.5lbs, +$4150

A1 + 200-600 f5.6-6.3 + 1.4x = 6.6 lbs | $8950
= 840 f9, +1.7lbs, +$3400

Z9 + 800 f6.3 = 8.1 lbs | $12,000
= 800 f6.3, +3.2lbs, +$6450

A1 + 600 f4 + 1.4x = 8.6 lbs | $20,050
= 840 f5.6, +3.7lbs, +$14,550

Z9 + 600 f4 TC1.4 = 10.1 lbs | $21,000
= 840 f5.6, +5.2lbs, +$15450

 

[ricardo00]

I am in roughly the same boat as the OP and am considering buying an A1/200-600 or a OM-1/300 4.0 or 150-400 TC1.25 f4.5.

Here are my thoughts.

The entire reason for such a setup (for me) is bird photography, especially BIF.

For everything else I shoot, my Leica and my DSLRs are great.

So for a person in my position, just buying ONE of the cheaper and lighter setups and treating the package as a one-off “BIF telephoto” makes a lot of financial & poundage sense (i.e. not buying more fully into the system, using it as an addition and not switching systems).

If you want shallow dof, the choice is clear; open your wallet and load your arms/back.

If there are other factors in play, the list below might help.

REACH, WEIGHT, PRICE
800mm reach equivalents
OM-1 + 300 f4 + 1.4x = 4.9 lbs | $5550
= 840 f5.6

Following are compared to above, from lightest to heaviest
OM-1 + 150-400mm TC1.25 = 5.4 lbs | $9700
= 800 f4.5 / TC1000mm f5.6, +0.5lbs, +$4150

A1 + 200-600 f5.6-6.3 + 1.4x = 6.6 lbs | $8950
= 840 f9, +1.7lbs, +$3400

Z9 + 800 f6.3 = 8.1 lbs | $12,000
= 800 f6.3, +3.2lbs, +$6450

A1 + 600 f4 + 1.4x = 8.6 lbs | $20,050
= 840 f5.6, +3.7lbs, +$14,550

Z9 + 600 f4 TC1.4 = 10.1 lbs | $21,000
= 840 f5.6, +5.2lbs, +$15450

Thanks for showing all these calculations. Let us know how you like the OM system you end up getting. I have contemplated it several times and potentially can see myself switching though the one I most likely would try would be the OM-1 plus the 100-400mm, I believe much cheaper and lighter than the ones you show? And according to the OM people, almost as good as the 150-400mm?
However, when I compare my D500 plus 500mm PF, slightly heavier (5.1 lbs versus 4.9 pounds) than the 300mm combo but almost the same reach (750mm versus 840mm), I ended up thinking it wasn't worth it. Since the D500 plus 500mm PF has given me many great shots of birds in flight, it was hard to convince myself it was worth the additional $6,000 for the slightly lighter OM system. One of my many shots with this combo (that is used by many other birders):

https://flic.kr/p/2jmiYjD

 

[carbon]

Thanks for showing all these calculations. Let us know how you like the OM system you end up getting. I have contemplated it several times and potentially can see myself switching though the one I most likely would try would be the OM-1 plus the 100-400mm, I believe much cheaper and lighter than the ones you show? And according to the OM people, almost as good as the 150-400mm?
However, when I compare my D500 plus 500mm PF, slightly heavier (5.1 lbs versus 4.9 pounds) than the 300mm combo but almost the same reach (750mm versus 840mm), I ended up thinking it wasn't worth it. Since the D500 plus 500mm PF has given me many great shots of birds in flight, it was hard to convince myself it was worth the additional $6,000 for the slightly lighter OM system. One of my many shots with this combo (that is used by many other birders):

https://flic.kr/p/2jmiYjD

D500 + 500 PF, hmmm, that’s one I hadn’t thought of. I guess I was using the A1 and OM-1’s tracking advantage and not considering DSLRs. But good idea!

I was going by the Mike Lane FRPS YT channel regarding lens choice, image IQ, and AF performance vs the A1, and he didn’t talk about the 100-400 so I don’t have much to offer there.

After I laboriously calculated the reach/weight/price above, it was apparent to me that I was going for the OM-1 + 150-400mm or 300mm. And since there have been two 150-400’s on eBay in the last couple of days and I missed the first one, I caved and bought the second. Wish me luck!

 

[ricardo00]

D500 + 500 PF, hmmm, that’s one I hadn’t thought off. I guess I was using the A1 and OM-1’s tracking advantage and not considering DSLRs. But good idea!

I was going by the Mike Lane FRPS YT channel regarding lens choice, image IQ, and AF performance vs the A1, and he didn’t talk about the 100-400 so I don’t have much to offer there.

After I laboriously calculated the reach/weight/price above, it was apparent to me that I was going for the OM-1 + 150-400mm or 300mm. And since there have been two 150-400’s on eBay in the last couple of days and I missed the first one, I caved and bought the second. Wish me luck!

Good luck! Would have also gone for the 150-400mm though there is a video posted by OM users saying the 100-400mm is almost as good (and much lighter).

 

[Tom Reynolds]

When it comes to IQ the D-500/500pf is awesome but I still get a better picture with BSI Stacked sensor because usually I can't manually get the D-500's SP on the birds eye so I use GRP as AF. However, on the OM-1 the exposure must be properly set to allow the camera's AI Subject Identification to see the eye. Otherwise the OM-1 just sees the bird and that is no better than GRP.