prcb1949 Loc: Ex Zimbabwe - Now UK

Currently using the Sigma 150-600Contemporary which is not as heavy as they can get agreed. The OM systems 150-600 is a beast and considerably heavier I think. I am not in the market for new kit so would be looking for used kit.

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

You make some good points. Allow me to suggest one correction and add some context.

1. The new OM Systems lens is 150-600mm, not 180-600mm.
2. The focal length of 150-600mm f/5-6.3 lens on a micro 4/3 camera is equivalent to a 300-1200mm lens on a full frame camera.
3. The Nikon 180-600 mm lens without the tripod collar is four ounces lighter than the OM 150-600mm lens, but if you add a teleconverter to the Nikon lens to get a focal length greater than 600mm, it will exceed the OM lens weight by four to six ounces.
4. To achieve the 1200mm field of view on the Nikon 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 lens, you would need to add a 2x teleconverter which would give you 360-1200mm f/11-13, and you would need to raise your ISO two stops higher than the OM system, and the 2x teleconverter would result in a softer image.
5. Regarding lens weight: Two lenses can weigh the same, but the distribution of the weight in the lens is very important. If the lens center of mass is closer to the camera, the lens will be much easier to hand-hold than if the center of mass is further away from the camera. Unfortunately, data to assess this factor is not available for either lens.
6. The Nikon lens has a minimum focus distance of 4.5 feet; the OM lens has a minimum focus distance of 1.8 feet which, with its 1200 mm reach, gives it a macro capability.
7. The OM lens has sync-IS, which means the lens IS and the camera IBIS work together to provide 7 stops of image stabilization. The Nikon lens provides 5.5 stops of image stabilization.
8. The OM lens does not have internal zoom, but it does have an IPX1 certified water sealing and a fluorine coating on the front element. I don't think the Nikon lens has a weather certification, but I expect it to perform just as well in wet weather.
9. The OM lens also accepts teleconverters, but I recommend a tripod if you intend to use it at its 2400mm limit.

ricardo00

Okay, some corrections on your corrections. First the reach on a cropped camera (like the OPs) is actually 1.5 times the focal length. So their 600mm is actually 900 mm. Putting a lens on a cropped sensor does not change a 600mm lens into a 1200mm lens. To me, one can always crop. The high density of pixels in the OM system means less light per pixel so the aperture equivalent also changes. And as you mention, the distribution of weight is important, and not having an internal zoom means that the center of the weight is going to change when you zoom. Having used the Nikon 200-500mm, it is quite annoying, especially when used on a gimbal. So I strongly prefer internal zooms (like the 150-400mm).
Did you buy this lens? I haven't felt one in the hand and tried to zoom out and see how that feels. Have you?
I know that OM system can be used to get great photos. I can even imagine buying one in the future. Hopefully when they make a lens I like. This new lens is not going to convince me to switch. Reach is important for me (as well as image stabilization) but so is weight, ability to shoot in low light and cost. My current Z8 allows me to hand hold my 400mm f/4.5 lens on a rocking boat and do video, so at this point the image stabilization is sufficient.
I would love to do a comparison at some point, too bad the 100-400mm IS doesn't work with that of the OM-1 camera (love the weight of this lens) so only 3 stops of IS.
PS. Example of a video shot handheld on a rocking boat with "only" 5.5 stops of IS:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/60519499@N00/53080006403/in/album-72177720310122074/

prcb1949 Loc: Ex Zimbabwe - Now UK

I have not bought the lens or the OM1 body. I'm still trying to gain a cross section of perspective from fellow hoggers. I have watched a few Field reviews from Australia - (Duade Paton) and was impressed by the results he achieved with the Olympus 300 F4 on the OM1. The combination including I think a TC is very light which is an attraction for me as arthritis is beginning to cramp my style as it were!!

prcb1949 Loc: Ex Zimbabwe - Now UK

Thanks a lot for your input !

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

Please explain how that works.

ricardo00

Sorry I was actually asking Jack who posted the strength's of that lens. You could make a very lightweight Nikon lens combo by buying a used 300mm PF lens which is about half the weight of the OM 300mm. And add a TC to that. It is quite a bit lighter than the Sigma 150-600mm. It is quite a change to go from a zoom to a prime lens, it might be good to try out a prime and see if you like it. Also the 300mm f/4 is great for low light photography (on your D7200 and D500) the 300mm f/4 will of course be 450mm. Do you know what focal length you use most? If 500-600mm, you might want to get the 1.4TC.
PS. A professional photographer can get great pics with any lens/camera.

ricardo00

Less light per smaller pixel? Think a smaller bucket carries less water. That is why people go to full frame sensors. Or why a micro 4/3 camera is better in low light than a camera with a 1 inch sensor (ie. the Sony RX10 mIV with a 1 inch sensor can shoot at 600mm equivalent with a much lighter and smaller lens than the OM-1).

Hip Coyote

Once again, M43 user here.

M43 is not as good in low light conditions. So one needs to up the ISO or have faster lenses. I can say that the denoise and AI have really helped me resurrect a few shots that otherwise would have been too grainy. As with all systems, there are tradeoffs. Low light is on the negative side of the equation.

ricardo00

Yep, everything is compromises. I would love to use f/2.8 lenses for their better bokeh and ability to let in more light, but their weight (and cost) is too much for me. Even with my full frame Nikon I end up using the denoise programs because for some things (ie. owls, etc) the more interesting shots start when light is very low. After turning down the shutter speed as much as I can, my ISO goes too high. So that is why to me, the OM 150-400mm at f/4.5 would be much better than the 150-600mm which is f/6.3 (though the cost is much higher). Also the 150-400mm is internal zooming.

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

Pixel size and density have zero direct relationship to aperture. Noise, of course, but not exposure.

prcb1949 Loc: Ex Zimbabwe - Now UK

Thanks for your patience. Your reply make a lot of sense to me and the option here is one I am going to look at. MPB Camera have in stock a couple of Nikon 300 f4 at very affordable prices !

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

If you are looking for the most perfect camera system, there isn't one. There are only systems that meet one's certain pros and cons. And one must determine which system's pros and cons are more important than the other system's pros and cons.

Starting with sensor shape, if you crop for most standard print sizes, full-frame can require up to a 11% loss of pixels while 4/3rds will only require up to a 7% pixel loss. This can sometimes "even out" the pixel count between a 24mp full-frame sensor and a 21mp 4/3rds sensor. Personally, I find this is the least determining factor. Because the pixels are smaller with a 4/3rds sensor, there is a difference in ISO and dynamic range with full-frame being the better of the two. But the OM-1 mkII has narrowed that difference by using a stacked sensor. This could be a factor if you do lots of low light shooting. As far as image stabilization, there are very few camera systems that are as good as the OM-1 (the Sony A7IV being one; note, as good, not better). Panasonic 4/3rds is much more prolific with their dual IS than any brand. But OM usually will have fewer but better dual IS overall due to the IBIS/ILIS strength. And the OM dual IS is really some of the total camera industry's very best. The 4/3rds system bodies and lenses are interchangeable for all basic functions (OM and Panasonic). Only a few of the full-frame brands are such. The glass of the OM system Pro series lenses will be able to resolve a 100mp sensor when someone finally makes one. There are differences between full frame lenses and 4/3rds lenses. 4/3rds tend to be smaller, lighter, and less costly for the same angle of view. Full-frame has a narrower depth of field for the same angle of view and aperture as 4/3rds. If you shoot lots of very narrow depth of field, full frame tends to be the better choice. But if size, weight, and cost are more important than depth of field, then 4/3rds will tend to be the better choice. One example of this is comparing the OM 300 f4 Pro IS lens to the Nikon and Canon 600 f4 IS lenses (same angle of view, 4.1°, different depth of field). The OM 300 is less than 10", 2.7 pounds, and $2900 compared to 16" to18" long, 6.5 and 6.7 pounds, and $13,000. In other words, I can buy one 300 lens and two spares for the same price of one of the other 600 lenses.

Does this mean that 4/3rds is better than full-frame? Absolutely not! But it does mean that there are different pros and cons between the two. Some on UHH shoot only full-frame. Some shoot only 4/3rds. But then there are others that shoot both full-frame and 4/3rds depending on what they are shooting or where they are going. Be sure that you look at the pros and cons and, if necessary, rent a 4/3rds to give yourself a feel for the 4/3rds system.

ricardo00

Ok, I am referring to the 300mm f/4 PF lens, there is an older Nikon 300mm f/4 which is heavier though just as sharp.

https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/nikon-af-s-nikkor-300mm-f-4e-pf-ed-vr

I have extensively used this lens and still occasionally use it, even with my Z9/Z8:

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

What are you talking about? The 150-600 is a new lens. (300-1200mm equivalent focal length), not a replacement for the 100-400. The OM-1 is great for wildlife photography with plenty of lens choices.