prcb1949 Loc: Ex Zimbabwe - Now UK

I was wondering if anyone has a perspective based on personal experience of these two cameras? I own a D7200 and have had some good results but have also got a D500 which I use pretty much all the time.

ricardo00

Not sure why you are asking the question, if you mostly use your D500, why ask about the D7200 versus the OM1? The D7200 (and D500) is a completely different camera than the OM1, which is a micro 4/3 mirrorless. Assuming that you have only Nikon lenses, you will need to get an OM systems lens? Have you picked out which? I have heard good things about the OM-1 camera but my personal view is that I wasn't thrilled at the lens choice for wildlife photography. Micro 4/3 users always are going on about how lightweight their system is, but the "replacement" for the 100-400mm lens (the 180-600mm) is much heavier than many Nikon lenses and even heavier than their 100-400mm TC f/4.5 lens. Some day I may switch to the OM system (I have both the D7200 and D500 and happily used both for many years but mostly use a Z8 these days) but would want an updated light weight "long" lens before switching for my wildlife photography. That is purely my view as a Nikon user.
I am sure there will be many OM users who will be offended by my comments, but are you really excited about their new lens, the 180-600mm? It is $1,000 more than the Nikon 180-600mm, doesn't have internal zoom and weighs more than the Nikon lens.

prcb1949 Loc: Ex Zimbabwe - Now UK

My apologies for not being clear with my inquiry! You answer however contains the sort of info I am after thanks !! Ill see what else comes in

Hip Coyote

I am a m43 user and not offended at all re the issue of why jump into M43. M43 is a very specific camera system. It has limitations that the user really has to know about and deal with.

Unless I needed M43 for travel, or wanted to really downsize to the OMD em5 and smaller lenses I’d just sty with Nikon.

Also that beast of a lens is pricy, heavy and really would only be used effectively by a small number of photogs. 150 to 600 is equal to 300 to 1200 in ff terms. I can’t imagine wanting or using it.

The Oly pro lenses are very special super sharp great lenses. But getting into all that would cost a lot of $$.

I don’t think the juice is worth the squeeze in this case. Stick with the gear you have.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

A few OM pluses: 1. 5 axis internal stabilization, reputed to be the best in the business 2. Less obtrusive 3. Supremely water resistant, dust proof, and still works well below zero. The only time I need a tripod is if I’m doing HDR, bracketing, fireworks, astrophotography. How water resistant you may ask? I took what would now be an 8 year old Olympus on Maid of the Mist and to cave of the Winds at Niagara Falls with no protection for my camera and it functioned flawlessly! Can Nikon boast the same? And, yes, the lighter weight is a plus. As to the lens… Oh, and image quality, oh that! Far better than anything I captured with my Nikon.

prcb1949 Loc: Ex Zimbabwe - Now UK

Thanks for your input

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

What are you looking to confirm? You've asked about different sensor formats (crop factors), although they all overlap in the 20MP to 24MP range.

That is: the Nikon DX crop-factor is 1.5x. Your D7200 is a DX format at 24MP. Your D500 is a DX format at 20MP. The aspect ratio is 5:3.

The OM System OM-1 is a micro four thirds, with a 2x crop factor, at 20MP. The aspect ratio is 4:3. The camera is mirrorless.

Of course, all the mirrorless benefits vs DSLRosaur apply. The OM-1 is their flagship model, maybe something that would apply to Nikon's DX DSLRs in the D500 release, not something that ever applied to the ancient 2015 D7200 release.

Hip Coyote

All true. I did the same at Niagara Falls. I never protect my gear. IBIS is exceptional. But is it with it? I don’t know.

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

I don't think youll ever do better with OM systems than the 150-400 f/4.5 TC for wildlife, and any equivalent focal length inn FF or APS-C would be far bigger, heavier and more expensive.

I don't see them replacing it anytime soon.

prcb1949 Loc: Ex Zimbabwe - Now UK

Thanks!

prcb1949 Loc: Ex Zimbabwe - Now UK

Thanks for your input!

prcb1949 Loc: Ex Zimbabwe - Now UK

Thanks for your input. I'll mull this over and may come back with a few specific questions.

prcb1949 Loc: Ex Zimbabwe - Now UK

OK thanks !

prcb1949 Loc: Ex Zimbabwe - Now UK

ricardo00

Yep, if the OP is willing to pay the $7,500 for this lens plus the $2,400 for the OM-1 Mark II (ie. total $10,000), they can significantly upgrade their system. Not knowing what lens they currently use, this could be about the same or even heavier than their current system.