Whilst the M5 and 400 f5.6 should certainly focus better than an E-M1 II with a Metabones adapter, neither makes a smaller and lighter combo than if Olympus or Pany made a 4/3 400 f5.6. And even though I have not tried an M5, I bet my money that the E-M1 II is a far better camera in many ways.
And no, the Oly 300 f4 with a Tc, should not give better AF and IQ than a native 4/3 400 f5.6. Olympus is already losing a share in the 100-400 market to Pany. Sort of reminds me of the number of sales that Canon has lost because they have no competition in the same price range as the Sigma, Tamron, and Nikon super-zooms.
Now that Oly has much improved AF, it is time they should be bringing out more telephoto lenses over 300mm.
Imagemaster wrote:
Now that Oly has much improved AF, it is time they should be bringing out more telephoto lenses over 300mm.
Give them time; they just released their new top end body, a world class (by early accounts) super zoom and (by early accounts) one of the best primes they have ever made. Not too shabby for a small camera company.
They have stated their lens priority right now are fast primes for the pro range; with the 300/T/C combo being fairly recent, I doubt you'll see a 400 prime this year. Maybe a 2X T/C.
Imagemaster wrote:
Whilst the M5 and 400 f5.6 should certainly focus better than an E-M1 II with a Metabones adapter, neither makes a smaller and lighter combo than if Olympus or Pany made a 4/3 400 f5.6.
You sure a 4/3 400/5.6 would be smaller and lighter? The olympus 300/4 isn't smaller than nikon/canon versions...
I don't care if it is optically better. The Pany is much more versatile and no need to change lenses to get many different focal-lengths from 100mm to 400mm, and no need for putting on or taking off a TC. For action photography where subjects are suddenly moving closer or further away, being able to change focal-length in seconds is a much more important factor to me.
Reason to have 2 bodies ... one with the 300/4 PRO and the other with the 40-150/2.8 PRO ... with or w/o the MC-14.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
I'm with you on that decision. We have both. Poof has missed shots because of the limited FOV at 300 and while she's hunting I zoom in and get the shot. Once on a boardwalk in Florida to zoom with her feet she'd have had to swim
Well I finally had a chance to try it out, albeit crap conditions and setup. But, a couple of observations. One, you definitely want a fast card if you're using the high frame rates. It takes a while to write to the card and you are prevented from accessing some camera functions. Two, I shot nearly 1,400 images and had 64% battery left. What a change from the M1!
It is very deceiving shooting 18fps in electronic shutter. You press the button , let go, with no realization that you just shot 30 images! The autofocus for the birds on my feeders was essentially flawless. Tomorrow I'm going to try some flight and see how it does.
Imagemaster wrote:
Whilst the M5 and 400 f5.6 should certainly focus better than an E-M1 II with a Metabones adapter, neither makes a smaller and lighter combo than if Olympus or Pany made a 4/3 400 f5.6. And even though I have not tried an M5, I bet my money that the E-M1 II is a far better camera in many ways.
And no, the Oly 300 f4 with a Tc, should not give better AF and IQ than a native 4/3 400 f5.6. Olympus is already losing a share in the 100-400 market to Pany. Sort of reminds me of the number of sales that Canon has lost because they have no competition in the same price range as the Sigma, Tamron, and Nikon super-zooms.
Now that Oly has much improved AF, it is time they should be bringing out more telephoto lenses over 300mm.
I've used M5 and M1ii side by side; you are 100 percent correct, M1ii is superior in almost every way. Touch screen on M5 is better and sensor size has an advantage...other than that M1ii is amazing from double slots to fully articulating screen just to name two quickly.
I'll have to weight the M5 + 400/5.6 and then weigh the M1ii + 300/4; or one could get the weights off B-H's website, curious to know but in a hurry now.
No, it's not the lightest setup but if you are not having to walk or hike, it's good to have your 300 PRO on a tripod and 40-150 PRO on your shoulder or neck. But I do have to admit that the PL 100-400 is a damn versatile lens.
Imagemaster wrote:
Hardly a good reason if you are trying to take the lightest route. Don't plan on my wife carrying a second combo.
bobbytan wrote:
No, it's not the lightest setup but if you are not having to walk or hike, it's good to have your 300 PRO on a tripod and 40-150 PRO on your shoulder or neck.
Well if I was doing that and did not care how much gear I had to set up, I would be using a 1DX2 with 600 f4 II on a tripod, and a 5DSR with a 100-400 II sitting next to me.
Like anyone cares but I was curious-
M5 + 400/5.6=1678 grams
M1ii + 300/4=2049 grams
371 gram difference.
And to put it into perspective, my 1DXii weighs 1530 grams
carry around the D5+ 800VR or 1DX mkii + 600 f/4 ii vs M1ii+300/4. If i can get 80% AF speed/accuracy from the m4/3, I'll dump the Nikon/Canon in a heart beat. I already reduce my Canon combo to 1DX mkii with 400DO mkii but it still damn heavy. As for Nikon, I can't shave off any weight on their long lens yet.
It's not just my age advance that is moving me more toward weight reduction (my body and my kit) but we fly a bit and the airlines are getting worse and worse.
In fact, our next trip flying for first time in years the EOS kit is staying home--it will be Sony and mFT.
Imagemaster wrote:
Well if I was doing that and did not care how much gear I had to set up, I would be using a 1DX2 with 600 f4 II on a tripod, and a 5DSR with a 100-400 II sitting next to me.
Honestly, would you rather spend $17,500 for the Canon combo vs $4,500 for the Olympus combo ... and schlepp around a 12-lb camera+lens + a heavy-duty Gitzo + Wimberley Gimbal Head rather than the 4.5-lb Olympus combo with or w/o a lightweight tripod? And how would you get this on the plane?
