Upgrade paths: OM to Nikon (birds)?

[RKT]

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.),

1. Nikon Z8 + Z800 PF
2. 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 ?

 

[ricardo00]

Do you live in NY? If so, maybe you can meet up with someone who has one of the other two camera setups and you can compare photos on the same subject? Alternatively you could rent these alternatives and compare them? Renting gets a bit pricey but much cheaper than buying something and finding no improvement over your current gear.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Tough decision. The choice, in my view is a Z8/600pf versus the OM/150-400. The OLY 300f/4 even with a T/C is sharper than the 100-400 so I would not dismiss that approach.

My baseline is previous shots I took with a D-500/500PF at laguna Seca Ranch. They are printed and on my wall in metal by bay Photo so I stare at them all the time. My impressions.

In terms of sharpness:
1-OM-1/300f4. Clearly sharpest. Obvious when you stare at these pictures. Reach is 600MM FF equ @ 20MP
2-OM-1/300f4 + 1.4TC. Really very little difference between it and no TC. Reach is 840MM

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

3-(tie)-OM1/300f4 +2.0TC. This is tough because perched birds at Laguna Seca Ranch seem equal between this and my D-500/500pf but at extreme distance the 300F4-2.0TC is better. (see attached photo)
3-(tie)-Nikon D-500/500pf SP AF on the eye.
4-OM-1/100-400. Thers is a noticeable drop-off I am sorry to say.

So where would a Z-8/600pf fit in the above and where would an OM-1/150-400? I like the 45mp of the Z-8 in FF mode BUT the OM-1/150-400 has more reach and a built in TC and is still lighter than the Z-8. I am guessing that the IQ will be roughly equal.

 

[RKT]

Do you live in NY? If so, maybe you can meet up with someone who has one of the other two camera setups and you can compare photos on the same subject? Alternatively you could rent these alternatives and compare them? Renting gets a bit pricey but much cheaper than buying something and finding no improvement over your current gear.

Yup, renting would eat out of the budget, esp. if the more exotic stuff for more than a couple of days. Meet/compare would be ideal ... barring the logistical challenges. At least at B&H neither are on display either ...

 

[Tom Reynolds]

That eagle was taken from a LONG way away over water from a boat. the 300f4/2.0TC is 1200mm ff equivalent. I would not sleep on this combo and the 300f4 is available used.

Tom

 

[RKT]

Tough decision. The choice, in my view is a Z8/600pf versus the OM/150-400. The OLY 300f/4 even with a T/C is sharper than the 100-400 so I would not dismiss that approach.

My baseline is previous shots I took with a D-500/500PF at laguna Seca Ranch. They are printed and on my wall in metal by bay Photo so I stare at them all the time. My impressions.

In terms of sharpness:
1-OM-1/300f4. Clearly sharpest. Obvious when you stare at these pictures. Reach is 600MM FF equ @ 20MP
2-OM-1/300f4 + 1.4TC. Really very little difference between it and no TC. Reach is 840MMView attachment 83180
3-(tie)-OM1/300f4 +2.0TC. This is tough because perched birds at Laguna Seca Ranch seem equal between this and my D-500/500pf but at extreme distance the 300F4-2.0TC is better. (see attached photo)
3-(tie)-Nikon D-500/500pf SP AF on the eye.
4-OM-1/100-400. Thers is a noticeable drop-off I am sorry to say.

So where would a Z-8/600pf fit in the above and where would an OM-1/150-400? I like the 45mp of the Z-8 in FF mode BUT the OM-1/150-400 has more reach and a built in TC and is still lighter than the Z-8. I am guessing that the IQ will be roughly equal.

You do build a case for the 300/4+1.4x ... I excluded both the Z600pf & Oly 300/4 for now ... because in both cases, in trying to be at ~800mm, I would use a TC, or be cropping more later.

OM 150-400 is very enticing as a complete package ... incl. little things like AS lens foot, separate strap lugs, the zoom range, TC etc. ... but the thought of 45mp FF @ 800mm/6.3 and the possibilities is very intriguing as well

 

[ricardo00]

Yup, renting would eat out of the budget, esp. if the more exotic stuff for more than a couple of days. Meet/compare would be ideal ... barring the logistical challenges. At least at B&H neither are on display either ...

Is there a photographic club in your area where you could meet people who shoot different cameras/lenses?

 

[Doug Herr]

Cropping isn't as big a problem for 45MP as it is for 20 MP. The above sample photos, if typical, illustrate for me the weakness of m4/3. If you want more detail you want a bigger, more MP sensor. Photons are image data and a bigger sensor captures more of them. Physics. YOLO, as long as it's not so big that you can't carry it.

 

[RKT]

Is there a photographic club in your area where you could meet people who shoot different cameras/lenses?

Have been a bit of a lone wolf so far, but perhaps worth checking around

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I think that my Olympus 100-400 is possibly a bit sharper than your Panny 100-400 nut as I compare shots taken last week it is clear to me that the 300f4 simply produces better pictures than the 100-400. In one sense this makes me very unhappy because the OM-1/100-400 is a very compact, lightweight and rugged rig. (I have 3, me, wife and backup) So let me say I share your pain.

So:
1-Z-8/800pf. Cost about $10K. Weight 7.5# fully configured. 45mp FF @ f/6.3. No Zoom.
2-OM-1 mark II/150-400 Cost about $10K. Weight slightly over 6.1 pounds fully configured. 20mp. F/9.0 FF equivalent, 800mm ff reach. Zoom, built is 1.2 TC. Raw pre-capture with 250+ shot buffer.

If 800mm is enough and you like birds-in-flight I think the pre-capture/buffer feature tips the scale in favor of the OM-1/150-400 and you need the zoom for BIF in order to adjust the FOV to give the bird space in the frame to spread its wings and fly.

However, if 800mm is really NOT enough and/or you are shooting perched birds against a cluttered background in poor light, then I think that the Z-8/800pf is the choice because of the additional reach through cropping/DX and the increased subject separation due to the 6.3 vs 9.0 aperture.

Does that frame it for you?

Tom

 

[RKT]

Cropping isn't as big a problem for 45MP as it is for 20 MP. The above sample photos, if typical, illustrate for me the weakness of m4/3. If you want more detail you want a bigger, more MP sensor. Photons are image data and a bigger sensor captures more of them. Physics. YOLO, as long as it's not so big that you can't carry it.

That's the main temptation ... getting more/better raw material ... I remember the D800 images while i had it, and the only reason I went m43 for long end was that I wanted a light weight set up to complement binos+scope, and this does the trick, except as outlined above ... and then z8+tele starts to be tempting. Plus, I want better images for the sake of the images themselves now, in addition to their ID utility ...

Carry should not be a problem in general (w/ hand/monopod), but everything ideally should be carryon compatible as I do fly with this stuff ... and so far everything fits very well in a Mindshift 26L ... I'd have to get more creative ... and/or get a new pack as well in all the confusion/excitement

 

[RKT]

I think that my Olympus 100-400 is possibly a bit sharper than your Panny 100-400 nut as I compare shots taken last week it is clear to me that the 300f4 simply produces better pictures than the 100-400. In one sense this makes me very unhappy because the OM-1/100-400 is a very compact, lightweight and rugged rig. (I have 3, me, wife and backup) So let me say I share your pain.

So:
1-Z-8/800pf. Cost about $10K. Weight 7.5# fully configured. 45mp FF @ f/6.3. No Zoom.
2-OM-1 mark II/150-400 Cost about $10K. Weight slightly over 6.1 pounds fully configured. 20mp. F/9.0 FF equivalent, 800mm ff reach. Zoom, built is 1.2 TC. Raw pre-capture with 250+ shot buffer.

If 800mm is enough and you like birds-in-flight I think the pre-capture/buffer feature tips the scale in favor of the OM-1/150-400 and you need the zoom for BIF in order to adjust the FOV to give the bird space in the frame to spread its wings and fly.

However, if 800mm is really NOT enough and/or you are shooting perched birds against a cluttered background in poor light, then I think that the Z-8/800pf is the choice because of the additional reach through cropping/DX and the increased subject separation due to the 6.3 vs 9.0 aperture.

Does that frame it for you?

Tom

Spot on ... so far haven't been into BIF much ... more the perched birds in a range of situations ... but won't keep it out of scope for new equipment.

In any case the current set up shall remain, if only because it can fit into pretty much any reasonbly sized shoulder bag/waist bag ... and the range + MFD of the lens comes handy for close up butterflies etc too. It will go when it breaks.

Which is why adding a z8 + 800pf (600/4TC if powerball=true) looks like the best I could throw at my 'most frequently encountered' shooting situations to overcome the 'IQ barrier' ... except if it does not fare significantly better in the situations like above ... then i'd be lugging around a much heavier kit for little gains ...

It's just that I am also aware of the number of things the Oly 150-400 brings to the table ... and that, as you show, the cost/weight/size etc are roughly in the same ballpark ... but then i am retaining a zoom by keeping the current set up anyhow ...