Thanks for posting this. Nice to see the size comparison. I should have my OM-1 and 100-400 in a week or so. Same deal, thinking it'll be great for the kayak. That 100-400 looks a bit bigger than I was expecting.
Gary
While I don't use that lens, I have gone ocean kayaking with the OM-1 and 12-40/2.8 Pro II. When I returned, the camera and lens were crusted over with salt spray.
I stuck the camera with lens attached under the shower for a bit to rinse it off which worked great and no issues with the camera or lens afterwards.
Next month I'll be doing some ocean kayaking with the 12-45/4 Pro and expect a similar experience
liggy wrote:
Dipped a toe into the m4/3 waters with an OM-1 100-400 for kayaking/hiking/lightweight compact carry.
Was looking out of the living room window and spotted a bald eagle getting harassed by some crows. Normally wouldn't shoot them from such a distance and in the rain but there's a visible iq difference between the OM-1 at 400mm and the A7RV 200-600 at 600mm in crop mode.
Unfair fight in a way as I paid less for the OM-1 and the 100-400 than just the body of the Sony. I need to try the 300F4 or the 150-400 Pro to make it a fair fight but I'm not sure I want to start accumulating the bigger, faster more $$$ m4/3 glass just yet.
I'd post pics but they aren't all that great. Just a non-scientific random comparison in lousy conditions.
FF 600 mm is 900 mm in the APS-C mode on your A7RV.
The vertical scaling factor of OM-1 is 23.8mm (the height of the FF sensor)/13.0mm (the height of the MFT sensor) = 1.83
Thus, when framed the same way vertically, am image taken with the MFT 400 mm lens is equivalent to 732 mm.
900 mm is significantly different from 732 mm.
Note that MFT 300 mm is (vertically) equivalent to 550 mm and your 200-600 in the APS-C mode should give you better image quality when used at the effective 900 mm.
Filling the frame is important with both FF and MFT system; however, this is much more important with the 20MP MFT cameras because of the lower pixel count (the camera system MTF is the product of the lens MTF and the sensor MTF).
I watched and read several reviews from MFT users who do wild-life photography.
There seems to be a pattern: when they acquired (or have tried) the 150-400 F4.5 with the built-in TC, they no longer wanted to use the M.Zuiko 300 and 100-400 lenses. I think I understand this, the 150-400 F4.5 with the built-in TC gives both the ultimate reach and ultimate IQ at the long end. The 300 mm prime does not give this reach, whereas the 100-400mm lens does not give the IQ (and doesn't have the built-in TC).
The bottom line: I believe that your 200-600 mm lens on Sony A7RV should typically give you a better (possibly much better) IQ on static or slow moving subjects, when used at the effective 900 mm in the 26MP APS-C mode, when compared to your OM-1 with the 100-400 mm lens.
(Edit: when I say "image quality, IQ", this is with reference to the technical IQ. It is understood that an MFT camera with the 300 mm, or 100-400 mm lens is capable of producing high visual quality photos).
@sum1sgrampa - agreed. The size delta isn't quite as large as I had envisioned. Still markedly easier to handle within the confines of a kayak or to take in/out of a dry bag when not extended.
@offtraildog - the anecdotes of Oly weather sealing just keep coming. I hope never to have to test the limits but am working on the assumption that they are higher than my Sonys.
@ruthenium - makes total sense. More effective reach + more pixels in play should yield a better image. Pretty much got what I had expected.
I noticed the seeming path of 150-400 users abandoning the 300 too. I'm just not ready to pony up $6K+ to slap on a body I don't like as much as the A1. I suppose if I buy a used copy at a good price I could treat it as more of a rental and resell.
At present I'm leaning towards waiting for Sony to come out with a long lens between the 600 F4 and 200-600. Not really sold on the 300 F4 / TC option yet. I can wait.
Cost and size are fairly large determinants for most users. I have plenty of excellent large gear that does not get carried nearly as often as M43.
Weight is often an equally important consideration. It is for me when carrying a lens on foot or bike several thousand feet vertically to get to where I need to be. Size is determinant insofar as it dictates how I can carry the camera+lens.
Sigma says the 500mm f5.6 is 1365g and 237mm long. The PanaLeica 200mm is 1245g and 174mm. It is an incredibly dense lens. The OM 300 f4 is 1270g and 227mm. Both fit in the same bag as a 70-200 f2.8. The Sigma 500mm should also fit in the same size "L" holster (Kinesis C600) as my OM 300 f4 + 1.4x TC for chest carry. The meaningful jump to me is carrying something like the Sony 200-600, Fuji 150-600 or OM 150-400 which require an XL size holster (Kinesis C850) that is more awkward to chest carry hiking and impossible for me to front carry when riding.
M.Zuiko 150-400 is 314.3mm long (without the hood) and Sony 200-600 is 318 mm.
The 3.7 mm difference should make these look practically the same.
The above picture makes the 200-600 look longer than it is, when compared to the 150-400 (or the other way around: the M.Zuiko lens looks artificially shorter)
jeffbuzz wrote:
Weight is often an equally important consideration. It is for me when carrying a lens on foot or bike several thousand feet vertically to get to where I need to be. Size is determinant insofar as it dictates how I can carry the camera+lens.
Sigma says the 500mm f5.6 is 1365g and 237mm long. The PanaLeica 200mm is 1245g and 174mm. It is an incredibly dense lens. The OM 300 f4 is 1270g and 227mm. Both fit in the same bag as a 70-200 f2.8. The Sigma 500mm should also fit in the same size "L" holster (Kinesis C600) as my OM 300 f4 + 1.4x TC for chest carry. The meaningful jump to me is carrying something like the Sony 200-600, Fuji 150-600 or OM 150-400 which require an XL size holster (Kinesis C850) that is more awkward to chest carry hiking and impossible for me to front carry when riding.
Indeed, carrying the 200-600 requires a long holster (in my case, Thinktank Digital HolsterŪ 30, with a separately purchased thick-padded Nanuk shoulder strap). In my experience, hiking with this lens on A1 (total weight just under 3 kg + the weight of the holster, between 700 and 800 g)) for up to 10 km is o.k. I would not like carrying this for longer hikes.
OM-1MarkIIOM 12-40mm F2.8 II lens17mmf/2.81/10s200 ISO-1.3 EV
Firmware updating sure is easier on the OM-1 vs. any of my Sonys on Mac Silicon.
What a concept. Fire up the software, connect the camera and done without having to jump through a ton of hoops / permissions / etc. Updated the OM-1 and 100-400 tonight. Easy peasy.
Shot the OM-1 100-400 alongside the A1 / 200-600 today in very early morning light. I've been reading some complaints about "stick detection" vs. bird detection and it might be a case of my lack of familiarity with the OM kit but there was a palpable difference in the subject recognition / tracking capabilities of the two systems.
My original intent was to use the m4/3 as a kayak kit to take advantage of the size/reach and it'll be great for that but I don't think I'll be adding either the 300F4 or the 150-400 or replacing Sony in my kit.
