Linda S. wrote:
Hi everyone! I signed up with Natural Habitat/World Wildlife Fund to take their photo tour in Kenya next September 2025. I could not have done it so quickly without all your input. Many!! tours are already filled.
. . . Oh, by the way, they have LOTS of poisonous snakes...sigh.
Congrats on booking your trip! Nat Hab does a wonderful job in organizing things (have gone with them previously but not to Africa). Two bodies with two different zoom lenses should be perfect. Don't think you have to worry about snakes (the only one I saw was in the beak of a snake eagle). Personally I would worry more about mosquitos and malaria, you might want to talk to a travel doctor and see if anti-malaria drugs are recommended for the areas you are going to. Also various intestinal bugs. Sorry to mention these things but you hopefully are already aware of these things?
imagextrordinair wrote:
Some seem to respond as if the first shot is the only image that will be taken and it has to be perfect.
Experiment and use your camera's histogram. Also enable the highlight over exposure warning feature. You'll catch on quickly.
Also some of the procedures described would also only work on a bird sitting still. I much prefer shooting BIF and they can come from any direction, sometimes with sun on them (I prefer going when the sun is setting) and sometimes backlit. So am constantly changing my exposure settings on the "fly".
Peteso wrote:
The Pro Capture feature is excellent and unique to Olympus.
Not anymore. OM was great in adding this feature first but Sony has it on their new a9 iii, called pre-capture. Nikon has a "cheating" version of pre-capture on the Z8 and Z9, it does only JPG.
prcb1949 wrote:
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 !
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-vrI have extensively used this lens and still occasionally use it, even with my Z9/Z8:
Hip Coyote wrote:
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.
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 wrote:
Please explain how that works.
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).
prcb1949 wrote:
I have not bought the lens or the OM1 body. I'm still trying gain the perspective of 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 artritis is begining to cramp my style as it were!!
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.
jackpinoh wrote:
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.
You make some good points. Allow me to suggest one... (
show quote)
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/
moonhawk wrote:
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.
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.
prcb1949 wrote:
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.
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.
Linda S. wrote:
Thank you, gwong1, for your helpful suggestions and encouragement! I used to have a vest; will have to revisit that. I really enjoyed reading about the bean bags to support your camera. I will check Amazon for bean bags. I don't know where I would find an empty bean bag. The bean bags I have found in the grocery store are all made of cellophane. I will purchase a rocket blower...for some reason, I have never used one! Thank you for the reassurance that the dust is manageable with precautions. I needed to read that!
Thank you, gwong1, for your helpful suggestions an... (
show quote)
I bought these bean bags almost 15 years ago and they are still fine and use them periodically. So maybe a bit pricey but they have held up and are quite good:
http://www.vertexphoto.com/camerabeanbagtv
Rgandel wrote:
What is the best way to photograph white birds without blowing out the highlights?
Are you photographing birds sitting for you or are you trying to photograph birds in flight or doing something?
Nice though agree with Jeff, too tightly cropped for my taste though maybe you were trying to eliminate branches, etc?
Rgandel wrote:
What is the best way to photograph white birds without blowing out the highlights?
I underexpose, almost 2 stops if the sunlight is strong and the birds are on the ground. If in the sky, then 1 stop is usually sufficient. Do you have a mirrorless? What brand? Maybe you can turn "blinkies" on and see when you are overexposing?
Linda S. wrote:
ricardo, thank you so much for this very useful information! This is my first wildlife photography trip. I am leaning towards going to S Africa for my nephew and his wife went there on their honeymoon last year and sung its praises.
I really enjoyed your photos of the birds. However, I have never taken photos of birds. They are very fast! I also appreciated your warning about the Congo. The pillowcase makes sense to me as it is compact when folded but large enough for the lens/camera.
It is an OM Solutions (formerly Olympus) OM-1 Mark ii. Since 2000, I have always had 2 camera bodies as my one camera died on my bucket list trip. So I had to use my cell phone for photos...not very good quality in 2000. I just purchased the 300-1200mm lens for micro 4/3s have small sensors and cannot take a lot of cropping. M 4/3s are relatively new to me. I started with digital cameras in 2000 with a Canon 5D. I ended with the Canon 5DM4. It became too heavy to hold. I do have a tripod but it isn't my favorite tool. I cannot change it quickly. I thought since all the advertising said "wildlife", it would make sense to purchase the lens for large animals.
I already have (in 35mm terms) a 24-200mm Pro and a 80-300mm Pro. Given the close proximity of the animals to the vehicle, I may have to return the 300mm-1200mm (it weighs almost 5 pounds but the IS is fantastic!) The only other trip that I thought I would be using it on is this November going to Hudson Bay in Canada and photographing the polar bears. Given it cost $2700, it's expensive for only 2 uses. I could rent the lens instead.
You have given me a great deal to think about for which I am very grateful. I started to look at your photos but given it is almost midnight, I need to wait until tomorrow. I am looking forward to it for the bird photos were fascinating!
Thank you ricardo for all that you shared.
ricardo, thank you so much for this very useful in... (
show quote)
Thanks Linda! Yep your new lens is a "beast" for micro 4/3 (5 pounds), not sure you need it for Africa, especially South Africa. Though in Churchill it would be handy for the polar bears further away (though they too can be close to the tundra buggies). Tough choices! No lens is perfect, all are compromises. No matter what you decide, am sure it will be amazing!