Field testing a 4/3 OM System/Olympus OM1 camera and a couple of its wildlife photography/scenic lenses (Page 3): I traveled to Barrow this summer with a guide who was using the OM...

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

I traveled to Barrow this summer with a guide who was using the OM system with the 150-400 trying to decide whether he wanted to switch from his full frame Sony a1 and 600 f4. He is a guide for Lindblad and traveling a lot saw the advantages of the lighter OM system, but was concerned about IQ. He is quite picky and was actually more concerned about image background quality. He was totally satisfied with the capability of the system for wildlife shooting, mainly birds, and was really impressed with the OM1 image stabilization and commented that he might be his go to system for video because of the superior stabilization compared to the Sony. When we parted, he was still undecided, but was leaning to the Sony with the 600 f4/ providing overall better Bosque than with the approximate equivalent focal length of the OM1 at 400 mm. Again he is picky, but definitely he appreciated the advantages of the OM system for travel.

Canisdirus

moonhawk wrote:

Of course it's not a fair comparison, because the ... (show quote)

Oh my...reality check is in order here.

You are right about not being apples to apples...just backwards. Micro cannot catch FF...not the other way around.

A 400 f/4.5 FF will give a DOF of...f/4.5.

A 400 f/4.5 Micro will give a DOF of...f/9.

That's just what people see when they look at images...and pretty much all folks care about...the DOF...they may not be able to articulate it in words...but the brain automatically is affected by it.

FF wins most of the categories...because sensor size matters...always has.

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

Canisdirus wrote:

Oh my...reality check is in order here. br br You... (show quote)

F/9 is not a depth of field. It affects depth of field, yes, but it is an aperture. Some prefer the increased depth of field of a smaller sensor.

And you need a sense of humor check.

Enjoy your day.

Canisdirus

moonhawk wrote:

F/9 is not a depth of field. It affects depth of field, yes, but it is an aperture. Some prefer the increased depth of field of a smaller sensor.

And you need a sense of humor check.

Enjoy your day.

Hey...come over and stand on the head of this pin.

It will have the equivalent DOF of an f/9 FF lens.

No one enjoys increased DOF...when it is not needed.

It's a limitation...not an advantage...no matter what the marketing dept.'s tell you.

photoman43

Check out Joe and Mary McDonald on Google. They now use the Olympus system for nature and wildlife. Their website may have some info for you.

I have seen the OM system is use with the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-400mm f/4.5 TC1.25X IS PRO Lens. In 35mm equivalent it is 300-800mm. If you must reduce weight and size, it is worth looking at.

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

Canisdirus wrote:

Hey...come over and stand on the head of this pin.

It will have the equivalent DOF of an f/9 FF lens.

No one enjoys increased DOF...when it is not needed.

It's a limitation...not an advantage...no matter what the marketing dept.'s tell you.

LOL. I don't need a marketing department to tell me what I like. Do you?

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

It is said that, "Marriage is grand and divorce is one hundred grand" which is why I won't buy into the Olympus system at this time. Do I want one for macro photography? Absolutely. Do I enjoy living indoors where it's comfortable year-round? Absolutely. A wise man chooses their battles wisely.

ELNikkor

radiojohn wrote:

I really need to understand this theory more!

Since it has not been clearly explained, the aperture/light gathering of lenses at f4.5 is always f4.5. Nothing varies in regard to light gathering at the sensor when you have the same focal length lens on different sensor-sized bodies, just the same intensity of light hits a smaller sensor, if a FF lens is put on an APS-C or Micro 4/3 sensor body. Even lenses made for those smaller sensor bodies will render f4.5 at f4.5.
The variable comes in when you are looking at APPARENT focal length. FF 400mm at f4.5 has a more pleasing bokeh, as there is more compression, (the background seems closer and is more out of focus). A M4/3 200mm lens at f4.5 renders the same subject area of the FF 400mm 4.5, but the background will seem farther away and more sharply delineated (ie. less pleasing bokeh) with the shorter focal length lens.

Peteso Loc: Blacks Hills

I shoot with both the Olympus and Sony FF systems and they both have their strengths and weaknesses, which I won’t repeat here. Just this past spring I attended a Scott Davenport workshop, and there were six attendees, all of whom were experienced and capable photographers. Four of the attendees were shooting Olympus, so based on anecdotal evidence, I would argue that Olympus has found a niche in modern photography.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

I’m going on a safari soon and packed my bag with 35mm equivalent lenses of 28-200 Pro, 50, 150-600, 80-300 f/2.8 Pro, 1.4 tc, 8 batteries, 3 chargers, two conversion power strips, a blower, 2 memory card holders, an Oly m5 III, an Oly m1 III, a mini tripod, headlamp, tooth brush, tooth paste, deodorant and a change of clothes for a total of 17.4 pounds. Plus it all fits into my LowePro side entry backpack that is a medium size. Size, weight, quality of images, and fantastic image stabilization— couldn’t be happier! I went with Olympus after a 6 week National Parks trip hauling around my Nikon and assorted lenses.

Canisdirus

moonhawk wrote:

LOL. I don't need a marketing department to tell me what I like. Do you?

Since I never said that...no. I'm sensing a problem here though.

It's best to understand your system...always.

Canisdirus

Peteso wrote:

I shoot with both the Olympus and Sony FF systems and they both have their strengths and weaknesses, which I won’t repeat here. Just this past spring I attended a Scott Davenport workshop, and there were six attendees, all of whom were experienced and capable photographers. Four of the attendees were shooting Olympus, so based on anecdotal evidence, I would argue that Olympus has found a niche in modern photography.

That's a good description...niche.

Peteso Loc: Blacks Hills

Preparation for the Safari trip is a perfect example of the benefits offered by the micro 4/3 systems. Just for fun, I will throw out another combination that I have used (in nominal focal lengths, so 2x for FF equivalents). Just one Olympus or OM Systems camera body. Then just two lenses, i.e., 12-100mm Pro ILIS & 100-400mm. That is the FF equivalent range from 24-800mm, with just two lenses and no teleconverter. Also, check out the Panasonic 100-400mm (with Leica optics) as an alternative to the Olympus 100-400mm. For a trip, where weight and size are factors, that’s an off a lot of light weight horsepower, don’t you think?

hpucker99 Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

billnikon wrote:

The OM system offers precapture in RAW. Game Changer.

I attended a local presentation by Nikon on their Z8 back in May. One slide showed their version of precapture, 20 frames or so. I asked what format the files were in and the speaker responded jpeg. I thought to myself, my OM-1 captures RAW and can save more. Maybe there is a reason to have 20 MB sensors versus 45 MP.

Peteso Loc: Blacks Hills

Another good combination is 12-40mm Pro & 40-150mm Pro lenses, perhaps with teleconverter(s) for the latter lens. Those lenses are faster than the 12-100mm Pro & 100-400mm, but with less reach. For a wildlife trip, I would prefer the latter combination. For other travel destinations, the former combination might be preferable where you don’t need the very long lenses. Just some travel strategies to think about…