If sample variation is at play, I tend to believe it is much more prevalent in photographer skill than in the lens. I've said this before so apologies in advance for being repetitive, but I believe the OM 150-400 is as high in quality as any supertelephoto lens from any of the other manufacturers. That's just my opinion based on having used 200-400/4, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, and 800/5.6 lenses from Canon, Nikon, and Sony (as well as the Olympus 300/4).
Paul_100A wrote:
two things...Olympus has been known for a very long time not to suffer from sample variation.
the 150-400 is their best of the best as far as build quality/craftsmanship.
secondly.
my Nikon friend switched to M/43.
i told him to start with the 4/300 instead of the 150-400. i explained my entire history/saga with Olympus, the 4/300, and the 150-400 to him.
he ignored my advice because he admired the IQ i got from my 150-400 and he was using a heavier 60-600 Sigma lens at the time. he was used to the size, weight and focal length.
well guess what?
his OM-1 150-400 keeper rate was an issue right off the start. he stood next to me and copied all of my camera settings.
he thought his 150-400 lens must be a dud. he has been shooting a lot longer than me (more experienced camera operator)
while out shooting warblers side by side he loudly complained that his lens was junk because he was not getting the shots i was getting.
i put his lens on my camera and immediately showed him sharp crisp images that he couldn't get.
i am very confident that the 150-400 is of the highest build quality and craftsmanship from what i know and have learned along the way.
if and wen i want to I can indeed capture sub-par images from my OM-1 and 150-400 that I would never post and i don't. those are my standards and not everyone has the same standards.
you are wisely shopping. looking for positive and negatives. unfortunately there is little hard/scientific evidence to support either point(s). sure are a lot of great images to support the lens' being pretty good though.
leap of faith, buyers remorse, your decision to make. at least you now know that if you got a 150-400 and got a low keeper rate initially...you may just need to keep at it (or you may have a dud but i'd doubt it).
i will also say that if suspected the lens was garbage i most certainly would not advise anyone (including any complete stranger) that it was a great thing to have/use.
Maybe you've reach the limits of what m43 can do.
I have, hence no more m43 purchases or recommendations.
Colin F wrote:
I’ve been doing a bunch of shooting lately with my new OM-1 and 150-400, and am finding myself very disappointed in the image quality. Unless the shooting situation is ideal, with lots of light and close to subject, the files lack critical sharpness, and appear very “muddy”. I have to work the hell out of them in Topaz Photo AI, and maybe even a bit additional sharpening in NIK to produce something that’s barely acceptable. Today I was shooting an owl and used a tripod, and fully expected the files to be great, and they were horrific. What could be wrong?
One setting I changed a while ago (due to a recommendation) was the “Image Stabilizer” setting in-camera (first menu tab; page 8). I forget what the default setting was (likely S-IS 1), but I’ve recently had it on S-IS Auto. Could that be the problem?
I’m very frustrated. I bumped into a friend today while shooting, and he uses the Fuji X-H2S with the Fuji 150-600, and the 1.4 TC, and really likes it; the results are sharp. I have to wonder now if I should have got that instead. 6 more MP and larger sensor might be enough to make a difference? I dunno. I’m starting to wonder if I should have kept my A1 and 200-600 with 1.4, but that was 2.5 lbs heavier than the OM kit.
I think that the 150-400 is a killer little lens, but the OM-1 just isn't cutting it.
BidinTime wrote:
Maybe you've reach the limits of what m43 can do.
I have, hence no more m43 purchases or recommendations.
So, you have come back twice now to post on as many topics, negatively. If you are that unhappy as you say you are with Micro Four Thirds, why do all the postings? Best for you to cut the cord and move on with your life where you can be happy and perhaps help people with the equipment you are happy with.
"I have, hence no more m43 purchases or recommendations."
BidinTime wrote:
Maybe you've reach the limits of what m43 can do.
I have, hence no more m43 purchases or recommendations.
I’ve been forced to abandon my Sony A1 and 600/4, and that was heartbreaking. I am trying to do the best I can with a lighter kit, so comments like this are not very helpful, in fact, it's downright discouraging.
Colin F wrote:
I’ve been forced to abandon my Sony A1 and 600/4, and that was heartbreaking. I am trying to do the best I can with a lighter kit, so comments like this are not very helpful, in fact, it's downright discouraging.
Don't listen to him man M43 can produce spectacular results in wildlife. I've shot so many with my 300/4 setup.
BidinTime wrote:
Maybe you've reach the limits of what m43 can do.
I have, hence no more m43 purchases or recommendations.
If you had bothered to read through the thread I'm not sure how you could have reached that conclusion as it's clear that it's nothing to do with 'having reached the limit'. User errors (or extreme conditions which are not directly kit related, and which other actions need to be taken to overcome the circumstances) are not limitations of the kit, no matter the brand.
Colin F wrote:
I’ve been forced to abandon my Sony A1 and 600/4, and that was heartbreaking. I am trying to do the best I can with a lighter kit, so comments like this are not very helpful, in fact, it's downright discouraging.
Colin, not trying to question your choice for m4/3, I think the OM-1 with the 150-400mm is a wonderful combo judging by the rendering in many images that I have seen, and I would be véry happy having one next to my A1+600GM large combo, but if weight was the main factor, did you consider a Nikon Z8 with Z600mm f6.3PF to replace your A1+600GM?
F6.3 at 600mm is roughly the same as F4.5 at 400mm regarding subject isolation and light gathering on the bigger full frame sensor area.
The thing is, that with m4/3 you will never get a bigger frame (larger sensor area) when subject distance would allow, you zoom out with the lens instead of cropping less and getter a bigger frame.
With a Z8, if subject distance allows, you can take advantage of the much larger sensor area and thus resolution.
Equivalent (to m4/3) starting focal range (when not cropping) would be 300mm with the 600PF, so you lose zoomrange, but as you did not have that with the A1+600mm either, I am just curious if the Nikon combo would not have been a better replacement for your needs?
ChrisMak wrote:
Colin, not trying to question your choice for m4/3, I think the OM-1 with the 150-400mm is a wonderful combo judging by the rendering in many images that I have seen, and I would be véry happy having one next to my A1+600GM large combo, but if weight was the main factor, did you consider a Nikon Z8 with Z600mm f6.3PF to replace your A1+600GM?
F6.3 at 600mm is roughly the same as F4.5 at 400mm regarding subject isolation and light gathering on the bigger full frame sensor area.
The thing is, that with m4/3 you will never get a bigger frame (larger sensor area) when subject distance would allow, you zoom out with the lens instead of cropping less and getter a bigger frame.
With a Z8, if subject distance allows, you can take advantage of the much larger sensor area and thus resolution.
Equivalent (to m4/3) starting focal range (when not cropping) would be 300mm with the 600PF, so you lose zoom range, but as you did not have that with the A1+600mm either, I am just curious if the Nikon combo would not have been a better replacement for your needs? ...Show more →
Yes, I looked at all options, which you can see in this thread below. As someone there pointed out, while the Z8 + 600PF option is lighter, it's nowhere near as light as the OM-1 + 150-400, and given that my illness is progressive, and I'm only going to get weaker, that option would only work for a short period of time, so that's why I went with the m4/3 kit.
I'm now thinking that I probably just should have sold the 600 f/4 and kept going with the A1 + 200-600 (which I also had) for as long as possible, but even that was about 2.5 lbs heavier than the OM, which is significant. It's not helping that I live in an area that has very dark winters and terrible light; it seems that the smaller sensor really needs better light to produce decent images.
Colin F wrote:
Yes, I looked at all options, which you can see in this thread below. As someone there pointed out, while the Z8 + 600PF option is lighter, it's nowhere near as light as the OM-1 + 150-400, and given that my illness is progressive, and I'm only going to get weaker, that option would only work for a short period of time, so that's why I went with the m4/3 kit.
I'm now thinking that I probably just should have sold the 600 f/4 and kept going with the A1 + 200-600 (which I also had) for as long as possible, but even that was about 2.5 lbs heavier than the OM, which is significant. It's not helping that I live in an area that has very dark winters and terrible light; it seems that the smaller sensor really needs better light to produce decent images....Show more →
Colin, I think you need to recalculate the weight.
Could is be that it was based on a Z9.
The 600PF is featherweight
Seconding not to listen to him—he’s talking nonsense. Honestly Colin, I have the Z9, Z8 with the Z 600mm f4.0TC and the Z 400mm 2.8TC as well as the OM-1 + 150-400mm 4.5. There are many times I can achieve the same results with the Olympus kit as I can with the Nikon gear. You have to remember that you have to nail it with the Olympus to give you the latitude in post that you would otherwise easily get out of a higher MP full frame sensor.
Try not to get discouraged. You have a great eye and know how to work in post… see it as a challenge.
Colin F wrote:
I’ve been forced to abandon my Sony A1 and 600/4, and that was heartbreaking. I am trying to do the best I can with a lighter kit, so comments like this are not very helpful, in fact, it's downright discouraging.
Colin F wrote:
Yes, I looked at all options, which you can see in this thread below. As someone there pointed out, while the Z8 + 600PF option is lighter, it's nowhere near as light as the OM-1 + 150-400, and given that my illness is progressive, and I'm only going to get weaker, that option would only work for a short period of time, so that's why I went with the m4/3 kit.
I'm now thinking that I probably just should have sold the 600 f/4 and kept going with the A1 + 200-600 (which I also had) for as long as possible, but even that was about 2.5 lbs heavier than the OM, which is significant. It's not helping that I live in an area that has very dark winters and terrible light; it seems that the smaller sensor really needs better light to produce decent images....Show more →
You’re right of course that MFT will suffer in low light compared to FF, both because of sensor size and the lack of f/4 on that 150-400mm lens. You also lose out if you want less depth of field.
But those aren’t the issues you described in your original post. The issues you described should not occur, no matter what system you use.
Personally, I gladly accept the shortcomings of MFT because I prefer them over the shortcomings of FF (mostly size and weight), but I wouldn’t accept fuzzy images like you described in your first post.
ChrisMak wrote:
Colin, I think you need to recalculate the weight.
Could it be that it was based on a Z9?
The 600PF is featherweight
The Z8 with 600PF is "about" the same as the OM-1 and 150-600, but the OM option offers enormous flexibility with the zoom, which I'm really enjoying, not to mention the built-in TC.
The dismal weather kept me home today, so I popped out onto the deck to target the Hummingbirds. I put the 2X TC on (1600mm), took the hood off and let the camera cool off for a while before shooting (4 degrees C / 39 F).
Dim light with grey skies; I stopped down from wide open (f/9) to f/11; 1/320 sec; ISO 3200. Roughly 50% crop, and then sized down to 1080 x 1350.
The AF setting was back to S-IS 1, so it appears that it’s back to normal, and it was indeed either the extreme cold or the IS setting (or both) that was the culprit in my muddy shots.
It’s still obvious though that the OM-1 really needs more MP, as the feather detail is poor.
Glad you are back to normal! Yes, I think we can all agree that more MP would be great, but then everything is a compromise. If there was higher demand for MFT, then maybe sensor development would continue to progress, who knows. For now, I rely on software to clean things up.
That still looks soft to me, even downsized to 1080x1350px.
I had a softness problem with my 12-100mm f/4, and when I photographed birds in the water I realized the focus was always in front of the bird, because I could see that the water was very sharp. I attributed this to my lack of experience (I am not a wildlife photographer), but I started noticing this problem even for many static subjects, even with my 8-25mm f/4, so eventually I did a focus adjustment of my E-M1 II.
mitesh wrote:
If sample variation is at play, I tend to believe it is much more prevalent in photographer skill than in the lens. I've said this before so apologies in advance for being repetitive, but I believe the OM 150-400 is as high in quality as any supertelephoto lens from any of the other manufacturers. That's just my opinion based on having used 200-400/4, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, and 800/5.6 lenses from Canon, Nikon, and Sony (as well as the Olympus 300/4).
?