RKT
New member
Hello all, a long time lurker ... looking for some feedback, esp. if you have had the chance to use and/or compare the options considered below (I have (re-)read most of what I could find around, and I try to frame my question as specifically as possible as I am overloaded with data at the moment) ...
TLDR:
Which of the two would do better - at 800mm, wide open (6.3 & 4.5 respectively) - for details/IQ in small/medium birds in 'shady canopies'/'bright sky in background' type situations - with everything else kept the same (operator, time of day, subject distance, etc.),
LONG (actually!) VERSION:
Background,
> Primary subject(s): Mostly birds ... sometimes butterflies/dragonflies/others
> Currently using Olympus OM-1 + PanLeica 100-400
> Focal length stats as per LR over 6yrs: 90.3% @ 800mm, 92.5% >= 600mm
I think I have a good copy of the 100-400, which, coupled with the OM-1, has been a real surprise. With the EM1m2 I knew this was a sharp lens, but I wasn't exactly happy with the consistency/keeper rate. With OM-1, I am exploring efficient culling strategies I attribute that to the OM-1 AF and how well the lens seems to work with it. I show a sample below to quantify what I take to be good<->acceptable for this combination (full frame | 1:1 | 2:1),
What I like: Portability (~1.6kgs, ~9x5inch footprint), and overall performance when things click, esp. after swapping out EM1m2 for OM-1 m1.
What I don't like: Mushiness/IQ/lost details in photos in some less than ideal scenarios ... where I am unable to optimise the situation, as I usually walk around and shoot wild/non-domestic birds, as and where found - on bushes/trees/poles/wires/ground etc in urban/suburban areas. I show two cases below as examples of what i'd like to address (full frame | 1:1 | 2:1),
Now I understand that these are less than ideal situations, that will challenge any gear in general. And that the current gear is less than ideal (m43/zoom/6.3). I don't expect miracles, but just to see if significant gains are possible here.
And therefore I have gone in circles contemplating / researching and have reached a complete gridlock in my head. With a heady mix of FOMO, YOLO, procrastination, analysis paralysis, and all that Nikon has done over the last couple of years, I am just lost on what upgrade path makes most sense.
Here's a sample of the overanalysis from a while back, when I thought an objective evaluation would see me through the various possible combinations ,
Looking at LR stats, I should skip the 600/6.3 as i'd stick a TC to it most of the times. The same would apply to the 400/4.5. Though I'd love to have them for their size/performance. The 180-600 would give flexiblity (which i like), but with a TC would perhaps leave me as well as or worse off vs. my current set up? The big guns are tempting but expensive & heavy ... though 600/4TC perhaps would be ideal ... but as an enthusiast I'm not sure I should spend that much (but then YOLO is a thing, right?). And that lens alone is two times what I currently carry in terms of weight & size, plus body/etc. Undesirable but perhaps surmountable (new bag? ). The Oly 150-400 is in the mix only because I already have m43 bodies/lenses, though I am not comfortable with the thought that OM may not stay innovative/competitive in the medium/long term so i'd rather sink the money into a system where I can carry on upgrading bits and pieces along the way. Oly 300/4 is out as i'd add a TC there too I guess.
Would one of Z8+Z800 or OM1+150-400TC show significant improvements over what the OM-1 + 100-400 delivers in the given situations? Is something like the 600/4TC the only way to get a significant bump in IQ? Or nothing would really work here, and I am just looking to blow a tidy sum of money due to GAS & looking for reasons ?
TLDR:
Which of the two would do better - at 800mm, wide open (6.3 & 4.5 respectively) - for details/IQ in small/medium birds in 'shady canopies'/'bright sky in background' type situations - with everything else kept the same (operator, time of day, subject distance, etc.),
- Nikon Z8 + Z800 PF
- OM-1 + 150-400TC
LONG (actually!) VERSION:
Background,
> Primary subject(s): Mostly birds ... sometimes butterflies/dragonflies/others
> Currently using Olympus OM-1 + PanLeica 100-400
> Focal length stats as per LR over 6yrs: 90.3% @ 800mm, 92.5% >= 600mm
I think I have a good copy of the 100-400, which, coupled with the OM-1, has been a real surprise. With the EM1m2 I knew this was a sharp lens, but I wasn't exactly happy with the consistency/keeper rate. With OM-1, I am exploring efficient culling strategies I attribute that to the OM-1 AF and how well the lens seems to work with it. I show a sample below to quantify what I take to be good<->acceptable for this combination (full frame | 1:1 | 2:1),
What I like: Portability (~1.6kgs, ~9x5inch footprint), and overall performance when things click, esp. after swapping out EM1m2 for OM-1 m1.
What I don't like: Mushiness/IQ/lost details in photos in some less than ideal scenarios ... where I am unable to optimise the situation, as I usually walk around and shoot wild/non-domestic birds, as and where found - on bushes/trees/poles/wires/ground etc in urban/suburban areas. I show two cases below as examples of what i'd like to address (full frame | 1:1 | 2:1),
Now I understand that these are less than ideal situations, that will challenge any gear in general. And that the current gear is less than ideal (m43/zoom/6.3). I don't expect miracles, but just to see if significant gains are possible here.
And therefore I have gone in circles contemplating / researching and have reached a complete gridlock in my head. With a heady mix of FOMO, YOLO, procrastination, analysis paralysis, and all that Nikon has done over the last couple of years, I am just lost on what upgrade path makes most sense.
Here's a sample of the overanalysis from a while back, when I thought an objective evaluation would see me through the various possible combinations ,
Looking at LR stats, I should skip the 600/6.3 as i'd stick a TC to it most of the times. The same would apply to the 400/4.5. Though I'd love to have them for their size/performance. The 180-600 would give flexiblity (which i like), but with a TC would perhaps leave me as well as or worse off vs. my current set up? The big guns are tempting but expensive & heavy ... though 600/4TC perhaps would be ideal ... but as an enthusiast I'm not sure I should spend that much (but then YOLO is a thing, right?). And that lens alone is two times what I currently carry in terms of weight & size, plus body/etc. Undesirable but perhaps surmountable (new bag? ). The Oly 150-400 is in the mix only because I already have m43 bodies/lenses, though I am not comfortable with the thought that OM may not stay innovative/competitive in the medium/long term so i'd rather sink the money into a system where I can carry on upgrading bits and pieces along the way. Oly 300/4 is out as i'd add a TC there too I guess.
Would one of Z8+Z800 or OM1+150-400TC show significant improvements over what the OM-1 + 100-400 delivers in the given situations? Is something like the 600/4TC the only way to get a significant bump in IQ? Or nothing would really work here, and I am just looking to blow a tidy sum of money due to GAS & looking for reasons ?