Birding A7RVI + 100-400 GM II vs OM1-II + 50-200 2.8
p.1 #1Birding A7RVI + 100-400 GM II vs OM1-II + 50-200 2.8
I currently use my Sony A7RV for landscapes with GM primes, while for birding I use OM1-II + 50-200 2.8.
I'm considering trading in my OM camera and lenses for a sony A7RVI and 100-400 GM II - to simplify my gear into a 1-camera set. At 76. my mental slowing sometimes gives me difficults switching between two cameras with different buttons & set-ups.
My concern is the Sony setup would be too heavy for me to manage without camera shake. The difference in weight between the Sony and OM cameras is fairly negligible, but the difference in lens weight between 50-200 (a superb lens) and the 100-400 GM II is around 600 gm -- pretty substantial. I'll go to my local camera shop to try out the
One other issue: the OM-1 II seems to have better bird focus and IS than my A7RV. I tried using A7RV with 100-400 GM I and felt focusing was problematical, and the lens was softer than I expected (maybe a bad copy?).
Does the A7RVI close the gap or surpass the OM in bird focus and IS? Of course the resolution of the A7RVI is tempting....
Any advice much appreciated!
I'm considering trading in my OM camera and lenses for a sony A7RVI and 100-400 GM II - to simplify my gear into a 1-camera set. At 76. my mental slowing sometimes gives me difficults switching between two cameras with different buttons & set-ups.
My concern is the Sony setup would be too heavy for me to manage without camera shake. The difference in weight between the Sony and OM cameras is fairly negligible, but the difference in lens weight between 50-200 (a superb lens) and the 100-400 GM II is around 600 gm -- pretty substantial. I'll go to my local camera shop to try out the
One other issue: the OM-1 II seems to have better bird focus and IS than my A7RV. I tried using A7RV with 100-400 GM I and felt focusing was problematical, and the lens was softer than I expected (maybe a bad copy?).
Does the A7RVI close the gap or surpass the OM in bird focus and IS? Of course the resolution of the A7RVI is tempting....
Any advice much appreciated!
Jun 16, 2026 at 12:54 PM
p.1 #2Birding A7RVI + 100-400 GM II vs OM1-II + 50-200 2.8
Don't forget that the DOF is substantially wider in the little 4/3 sensor, which can be a hindrance or a plus depending on your viewpoint.
Jun 16, 2026 at 12:58 PM
p.1 #3Birding A7RVI + 100-400 GM II vs OM1-II + 50-200 2.8
good point, thanks
Jun 16, 2026 at 01:02 PM
p.1 #4Birding A7RVI + 100-400 GM II vs OM1-II + 50-200 2.8
sierrabob wrote:
good point, thanks
I think it is better to compare the Sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM with the Olympus OM 50-200 f/2.8, they are closer in capabilities and weight. Making that change might make a lot more sense.
good point, thanks
I think it is better to compare the Sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM with the Olympus OM 50-200 f/2.8, they are closer in capabilities and weight. Making that change might make a lot more sense.
Jun 16, 2026 at 01:08 PM
p.1 #5Birding A7RVI + 100-400 GM II vs OM1-II + 50-200 2.8
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think it is better to compare the Sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM with the Olympus OM 50-200 f/2.8, they are closer in capabilities and weight. Making that change might make a lot more sense.
I agree that makes more sense in comparing the optical capabilities, but the original GM is showing its age in the AF department. I've never used the OM kit, but the OP's report of a less satisfying experience with the GM doesn't surprise me. I had one I was using in a kit with the 70-200GII for wildlife, and then I replaced the GM zoom with the 300GM. Both lenses are significantly more sure-footed trackers than the 100-400. After we got burgled, I replaced the GII and 300GM, but didn't bother with the 100-400.
sierrabob wrote
good point, thanksI agree that makes more sense in comparing the optical capabilities, but the original GM is showing its age in the AF department. I've never used the OM kit, but the OP's report of a less satisfying experience with the GM doesn't surprise me. I had one I was using in a kit with the 70-200GII for wildlife, and then I replaced the GM zoom with the 300GM. Both lenses are significantly more sure-footed trackers than the 100-400. After we got burgled, I replaced the GII and 300GM, but didn't bother with the 100-400.
Jun 16, 2026 at 02:03 PM
p.1 #6Birding A7RVI + 100-400 GM II vs OM1-II + 50-200 2.8
I just looked at the length of the 100-400 GM II. It looks very awkward to carry around - makes me lean to keeping my current setup.
The big advantage of OM system is, being M43, lenses are generally smaller even when not all that much lighter. I prefer the Sony colors, and of course the resolution but...no free lunch in physics.
The big advantage of OM system is, being M43, lenses are generally smaller even when not all that much lighter. I prefer the Sony colors, and of course the resolution but...no free lunch in physics.
Jun 16, 2026 at 03:29 PM
p.1 #7Birding A7RVI + 100-400 GM II vs OM1-II + 50-200 2.8
freaklikeme wrote:
I think it is better to compare the Sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM with the Olympus OM 50-200 f/2.8, they are closer in capabilities and weight. Making that change might make a lot more sense.I agree that makes more sense in comparing the optical capabilities, but the original GM is showing its age in the AF department. I've never used the OM kit, but the OP's report of a less satisfying experience with the GM doesn't surprise me. I had one I was using in a kit with the 70-200GII for wildlife, and then I replaced the GM zoom with the 300GM. Both lenses are significantly more sure-footed trackers than the 100-400. After we got burgled, I replaced the GII and 300GM, but didn't bother with the 100-400.
Having owned the A7r V, however, I wonder if the OP problems were the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM or the camera. I know that for challenging wildlife I always thought the A7r V was a bit limited both in fps and in AF. I suspect he might have a lot more success with the new A7r VI. No doubt the 300 GM would be a lot better and if he can afford it, then I would concur that would likely be a much better way to go, but that lens is 4 to 5 times more expensive.
Steve Spencer wrote
sierrabob wrote
good point, thanksHaving owned the A7r V, however, I wonder if the OP problems were the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM or the camera. I know that for challenging wildlife I always thought the A7r V was a bit limited both in fps and in AF. I suspect he might have a lot more success with the new A7r VI. No doubt the 300 GM would be a lot better and if he can afford it, then I would concur that would likely be a much better way to go, but that lens is 4 to 5 times more expensive.
Jun 16, 2026 at 03:32 PM
p.1 #8Birding A7RVI + 100-400 GM II vs OM1-II + 50-200 2.8
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think it is better to compare the Sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM with the Olympus OM 50-200 f/2.8, they are closer in capabilities and weight. Making that change might make a lot more sense.I agree that makes more sense in comparing the optical capabilities, but the original GM is showing its age in the AF department. I've never used the OM kit, but the OP's report of a less satisfying experience with the GM doesn't surprise me. I had one I was using in a kit with the 70-200GII for wildlife, and then I replaced the GM zoom with the 300GM. Both lenses are significantly more sure-footed trackers than the 100-400. After we got burgled, I replaced the GII and 300GM, but didn't bother with the 100-400.Having owned the A7r V, however, I wonder if the OP problems were the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM or the camera. I know that for challenging wildlife I always thought the A7r V was a bit limited both in fps and in AF. I suspect he might have a lot more success with the new A7r VI. No doubt the 300 GM would be a lot better and if he can afford it, then I would concur that would likely be a much better way to go, but that lens is 4 to 5 times more expensive.
It's possible. I did only use the lens on the rV. However, the GII and 300GM were both better trackers on it, too.
Also, I'm not recommending the 300GM. But the new 100-400/4.5 does keep up with it from an AF perspective.
freaklikeme wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
sierrabob wrote
good point, thanksIt's possible. I did only use the lens on the rV. However, the GII and 300GM were both better trackers on it, too.
Also, I'm not recommending the 300GM. But the new 100-400/4.5 does keep up with it from an AF perspective.
Jun 16, 2026 at 04:02 PM
p.1 #9Birding A7RVI + 100-400 GM II vs OM1-II + 50-200 2.8
freaklikeme wrote:
I think it is better to compare the Sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM with the Olympus OM 50-200 f/2.8, they are closer in capabilities and weight. Making that change might make a lot more sense.I agree that makes more sense in comparing the optical capabilities, but the original GM is showing its age in the AF department. I've never used the OM kit, but the OP's report of a less satisfying experience with the GM doesn't surprise me. I had one I was using in a kit with the 70-200GII for wildlife, and then I replaced the GM zoom with the 300GM. Both lenses are significantly more sure-footed trackers than the 100-400. After we got burgled, I replaced the GII and 300GM, but didn't bother with the 100-400.
The old 100-400 has nearly flawless autofocus and tracking - even with the smallest fastest subjects. I would still pick this lens over any other lens if I wanted to be sure of capturing fast action. The zoom ring on the new version might be a small improvement but the extra weight is not and the faster racking speed on the 300gm often leads to focus jumps to the background during acquisition and doesn't show any meaningful improvement to the hit rate during a sequence.
Its hard to see how you can improve on the hit rate of the 100-400. f/2.8 is useful in very low light but if you have to use f/2.8 for light then BIF images will probably be a bit average anyway.
The first time I have felt the 300 f/2.8 may have an edge is when shooting the A7R6 in APS-C mode where the extra light might mean that APS-C mode isn't constrained by available light from slower lenses.
Steve Spencer wrote
sierrabob wrote
good point, thanksThe old 100-400 has nearly flawless autofocus and tracking - even with the smallest fastest subjects. I would still pick this lens over any other lens if I wanted to be sure of capturing fast action. The zoom ring on the new version might be a small improvement but the extra weight is not and the faster racking speed on the 300gm often leads to focus jumps to the background during acquisition and doesn't show any meaningful improvement to the hit rate during a sequence.
Its hard to see how you can improve on the hit rate of the 100-400. f/2.8 is useful in very low light but if you have to use f/2.8 for light then BIF images will probably be a bit average anyway.
The first time I have felt the 300 f/2.8 may have an edge is when shooting the A7R6 in APS-C mode where the extra light might mean that APS-C mode isn't constrained by available light from slower lenses.
Jun 16, 2026 at 04:07 PM
p.1 #10Birding A7RVI + 100-400 GM II vs OM1-II + 50-200 2.8
Photographing swallows in flight is a real torture test for any camera/lens/photographer. Terrific shots!
Jun 16, 2026 at 07:19 PM
|
p.1 #11Birding A7RVI + 100-400 GM II vs OM1-II + 50-200 2.8
Troube with the OM, it's 20MP all the time even when you fill the frame. If the OM were a 32-40MP APS-C sensor then I'd have been all over it with if they made say a 400 f/4 Pro or the 150-400 was a decent price.
Jun 16, 2026 at 07:40 PM
p.1 #12Birding A7RVI + 100-400 GM II vs OM1-II + 50-200 2.8
sierrabob wrote:
I currently use my Sony A7RV for landscapes with GM primes, while for birding I use OM1-II + 50-200 2.8.
I'm considering trading in my OM camera and lenses for a sony A7RVI and 100-400 GM II - to simplify my gear into a 1-camera set. At 76. my mental slowing sometimes gives me difficults switching between two cameras with different buttons & set-ups.
My concern is the Sony setup would be too heavy for me to manage without camera shake. The difference in weight between the Sony and OM cameras is fairly negligible, but the difference in lens weight between...Show more →
I may be one of the few that owns both an OM-1 Mark II and 50-200mm 2.8 and the new A7R VI with the 100-400 f/4.5 GM. I also previously shot with the A7R V ever since it was released. For the A7R VI and 100-400, I have had the body for about a week and the lens is brand new, so I haven't shot much with it but can speak to the size.
As you would expect, it is apples and oranges in terms of size, though particularly the volumetric dimensions of the Sony lens. The weight of the Sony lens actually isn't that bad, it feels very light relative to the volume, though in absolute terms of course it is significantly heavier than the OM set up. I think the main point to consider is that to transport the Sony combo you need a large camera backpack or a case. It fits in my 45L backpack, but I wouldn't want to take much else with it besides accessories. With the OM, as you know, it can go in a large shoulder bag.
As for shooting wildlife, I have to make it clear that I really don't specialize in this, though my two good friends are wildlife photographers and we talk about the genre all the time. One shoots Sony and recently bought the A7R VI. So far his impressions are very positive. My experience with Sony AF system vs. OM is that the Sony system is miles and miles ahead for most subject types. Additionally, once you crop to APS-C you have 28 megapixels and the per-pixel quality is also higher than the OM. The range of the 100-400mm f/4.5 becomes 150-560 f/6.3 and 28 megapixels vs. 100-400mm f/5.6 at 20 megapixels for the OM.
OM knows its target audience and I believe the bird AF more competitive than its human AF, which is, by far, the worst among my Sony, Canon, and Nikon cameras, and feels on the level of my Fuji GFX. I recently went out with my bird photographer friends and I shot some small birds with the OM and the 300mm f/4 plus 1.4X TC and found it usable for perched birds and ducks in the water. I wasn't able to get great results with BIF but I think that has more to do with my level of experience and using a prime over a zoom where I couldn't pull back to acquire the subject.
In summary, if your results with the OM are good enough and you are primarily shooting birds, then the Sony is less attractive because it it is so much larger and requires a larger bag, larger monopod, larger filters, etc. However, if you want to shoot subjects beyond birds or are hitting an IQ limit with the OM, the Sony is unbeatable.
Let me know if you have any other questions that I might be able to answer.
I currently use my Sony A7RV for landscapes with GM primes, while for birding I use OM1-II + 50-200 2.8.
I'm considering trading in my OM camera and lenses for a sony A7RVI and 100-400 GM II - to simplify my gear into a 1-camera set. At 76. my mental slowing sometimes gives me difficults switching between two cameras with different buttons & set-ups.
My concern is the Sony setup would be too heavy for me to manage without camera shake. The difference in weight between the Sony and OM cameras is fairly negligible, but the difference in lens weight between...Show more →
I may be one of the few that owns both an OM-1 Mark II and 50-200mm 2.8 and the new A7R VI with the 100-400 f/4.5 GM. I also previously shot with the A7R V ever since it was released. For the A7R VI and 100-400, I have had the body for about a week and the lens is brand new, so I haven't shot much with it but can speak to the size.
As you would expect, it is apples and oranges in terms of size, though particularly the volumetric dimensions of the Sony lens. The weight of the Sony lens actually isn't that bad, it feels very light relative to the volume, though in absolute terms of course it is significantly heavier than the OM set up. I think the main point to consider is that to transport the Sony combo you need a large camera backpack or a case. It fits in my 45L backpack, but I wouldn't want to take much else with it besides accessories. With the OM, as you know, it can go in a large shoulder bag.
As for shooting wildlife, I have to make it clear that I really don't specialize in this, though my two good friends are wildlife photographers and we talk about the genre all the time. One shoots Sony and recently bought the A7R VI. So far his impressions are very positive. My experience with Sony AF system vs. OM is that the Sony system is miles and miles ahead for most subject types. Additionally, once you crop to APS-C you have 28 megapixels and the per-pixel quality is also higher than the OM. The range of the 100-400mm f/4.5 becomes 150-560 f/6.3 and 28 megapixels vs. 100-400mm f/5.6 at 20 megapixels for the OM.
OM knows its target audience and I believe the bird AF more competitive than its human AF, which is, by far, the worst among my Sony, Canon, and Nikon cameras, and feels on the level of my Fuji GFX. I recently went out with my bird photographer friends and I shot some small birds with the OM and the 300mm f/4 plus 1.4X TC and found it usable for perched birds and ducks in the water. I wasn't able to get great results with BIF but I think that has more to do with my level of experience and using a prime over a zoom where I couldn't pull back to acquire the subject.
In summary, if your results with the OM are good enough and you are primarily shooting birds, then the Sony is less attractive because it it is so much larger and requires a larger bag, larger monopod, larger filters, etc. However, if you want to shoot subjects beyond birds or are hitting an IQ limit with the OM, the Sony is unbeatable.
Let me know if you have any other questions that I might be able to answer.
Jun 16, 2026 at 09:25 PM
p.1 #13Birding A7RVI + 100-400 GM II vs OM1-II + 50-200 2.8
ketang wrote:
I'm considering trading in my OM camera and lenses for a sony A7RVI and 100-400 GM II - to simplify my gear into a 1-camera set. At 76. my mental slowing sometimes gives me difficults switching between two cameras with different buttons & set-ups.
My concern is the Sony setup would be too heavy for me to manage without camera shake. The difference in weight between the Sony and OM cameras is fairly negligible, but the difference in lens weight between 50-200 (a superb lens) and the 100-400 GM II is around 600 gm -- pretty substantial. I'll go to my local camera shop to try out the
One other issue: the OM-1 II seems to have better bird focus and IS than my A7RV. I tried using A7RV with 100-400 GM I and felt focusing was problematical, and the lens was softer than I expected (maybe a bad copy?).
Does the A7RVI close the gap or surpass the OM in bird focus and IS? Of course the resolution of the A7RVI is tempting....
Any advice much appreciated!I may be one of the few that owns both an OM-1 Mark II and 50-200mm 2.8 and the new A7R VI with the 100-400 f/4.5 GM. I also previously shot with the A7R V ever since it was released. For the A7R VI and 100-400, I have had the body for about a week and the lens is brand new, so I haven't shot much with it but can speak to the size.
As you would expect, it is apples and oranges in terms of size, though particularly the volumetric dimensions of the Sony lens. The weight of the Sony...Show more →
...don't mean to derail the thread, however, in more general terms, I find interesting a discussion of MOST light and compact camera systems that give access to 400 mm (and longer). These, typically imply possible limitations and compromises.
You mentioned having a Fuji GFX in the context of sharing your experience with "OM-1 Mark II and 50-200mm 2.8 and the new A7R VI with the 100-400 f/4.5 GM"; thus, you may possibly find entertaining a comparison of the A7RVI with the 100-400 f/4.5 lens with the GFX100S II with the GF500mm f/5.6 lens. I attached the corresponding screenshot from CameraDecisions.
The weight of one vs the other is quoted as 883 + 1375 g (GFX) vs. 713 + 1840 g (Sony).
For those who are not familiar the GFX, it might be worth adding that the GF500mm F5.6 lens is equivalent to full-frame 395mm F4.4 on the 102MP sensor of the GFX100S II. It can be cropped to full-frame 500mm F5.5 and 63 MP, or 600mm F6.7 and 44MP. The lens is known for its exceptional image quality, and the image stabilization of the GFX100S II with the GF500 lens is on par (surprisingly!) with that of the OM-1 II with the 300mm F4 lens.
In my experience with the original Sony 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 lens, I also found it to be underwhelming in terms of sharpness at 400mm. My Sony 200-600mm lens was visibly much better at 400mm; thus I sold the 100-400. I didn't like the zoom mechanism of the original Sony 100-400mm lens. The new 100-400 GMII zoom is definitely relatively large and heavy for anyone who cares about the size. I also have the Tamron 50-400mm F/4.5-6.3 that is a bit lighter at 1,155 g but it extends significantly when zooming in to 400mm where the lens is less sharp then on the wider side.
I have the OM-1 II and the 300mm F4 lens (equivalent to full-frame 600mm F8), but the lens weighs 1,270 g (without the tripod collar), that isn't that much different from the 1375 g for the GF500mm. I find the latter more versatile as it works as a digital zoom from 395mm to 600mm (and longer, up to 790 mm when the crop still has 25MP - more than the pixel size of the OM-1 II)
The critical question in such considerations is whether the subjects pursued by a photographer is moving rapidly and somewhat unpredictably, or not. Obviously, when shooting mostly perched birds, relatively slowly moving wildlife or people, and for landscapes, then very fast AF and good tracking are not critical. This is my case; thus, I added the GF500 to my kit four days ago.
sierrabob wrote
I currently use my Sony A7RV for landscapes with GM primes, while for birding I use OM1-II + 50-200 2.8.I'm considering trading in my OM camera and lenses for a sony A7RVI and 100-400 GM II - to simplify my gear into a 1-camera set. At 76. my mental slowing sometimes gives me difficults switching between two cameras with different buttons & set-ups.
My concern is the Sony setup would be too heavy for me to manage without camera shake. The difference in weight between the Sony and OM cameras is fairly negligible, but the difference in lens weight between 50-200 (a superb lens) and the 100-400 GM II is around 600 gm -- pretty substantial. I'll go to my local camera shop to try out the
One other issue: the OM-1 II seems to have better bird focus and IS than my A7RV. I tried using A7RV with 100-400 GM I and felt focusing was problematical, and the lens was softer than I expected (maybe a bad copy?).
Does the A7RVI close the gap or surpass the OM in bird focus and IS? Of course the resolution of the A7RVI is tempting....
Any advice much appreciated!
As you would expect, it is apples and oranges in terms of size, though particularly the volumetric dimensions of the Sony lens. The weight of the Sony...Show more →
...don't mean to derail the thread, however, in more general terms, I find interesting a discussion of MOST light and compact camera systems that give access to 400 mm (and longer). These, typically imply possible limitations and compromises.
You mentioned having a Fuji GFX in the context of sharing your experience with "OM-1 Mark II and 50-200mm 2.8 and the new A7R VI with the 100-400 f/4.5 GM"; thus, you may possibly find entertaining a comparison of the A7RVI with the 100-400 f/4.5 lens with the GFX100S II with the GF500mm f/5.6 lens. I attached the corresponding screenshot from CameraDecisions.
The weight of one vs the other is quoted as 883 + 1375 g (GFX) vs. 713 + 1840 g (Sony).
For those who are not familiar the GFX, it might be worth adding that the GF500mm F5.6 lens is equivalent to full-frame 395mm F4.4 on the 102MP sensor of the GFX100S II. It can be cropped to full-frame 500mm F5.5 and 63 MP, or 600mm F6.7 and 44MP. The lens is known for its exceptional image quality, and the image stabilization of the GFX100S II with the GF500 lens is on par (surprisingly!) with that of the OM-1 II with the 300mm F4 lens.
In my experience with the original Sony 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 lens, I also found it to be underwhelming in terms of sharpness at 400mm. My Sony 200-600mm lens was visibly much better at 400mm; thus I sold the 100-400. I didn't like the zoom mechanism of the original Sony 100-400mm lens. The new 100-400 GMII zoom is definitely relatively large and heavy for anyone who cares about the size. I also have the Tamron 50-400mm F/4.5-6.3 that is a bit lighter at 1,155 g but it extends significantly when zooming in to 400mm where the lens is less sharp then on the wider side.
I have the OM-1 II and the 300mm F4 lens (equivalent to full-frame 600mm F8), but the lens weighs 1,270 g (without the tripod collar), that isn't that much different from the 1375 g for the GF500mm. I find the latter more versatile as it works as a digital zoom from 395mm to 600mm (and longer, up to 790 mm when the crop still has 25MP - more than the pixel size of the OM-1 II)
The critical question in such considerations is whether the subjects pursued by a photographer is moving rapidly and somewhat unpredictably, or not. Obviously, when shooting mostly perched birds, relatively slowly moving wildlife or people, and for landscapes, then very fast AF and good tracking are not critical. This is my case; thus, I added the GF500 to my kit four days ago.
Jun 16, 2026 at 11:04 PM
p.1 #14Birding A7RVI + 100-400 GM II vs OM1-II + 50-200 2.8
I use my OM-System OM-1 MKII + OM-System 50-200/2.8 Pro IS + OM-System TC 1.4x MC-14 + OM-System TC 2.0x MC-20 for nature photography (birds, squirrels, insects, frogs, lizards, snakes, and flowers), and I’m very happy with it—it simply doesn’t get any lighter or more compact than this compared to the Sony E-mount.
My Sony A7RV, paired with high-quality lenses such as the Sony FE 24-70/2.8 GM II, Sony FE 70-200/2.8 GM II OSS, premium Sony GM prime lenses, and top-of-the-line Voigtländer manual prime lenses, comes into play when the best possible image quality is required.
My Sony A7RV, paired with high-quality lenses such as the Sony FE 24-70/2.8 GM II, Sony FE 70-200/2.8 GM II OSS, premium Sony GM prime lenses, and top-of-the-line Voigtländer manual prime lenses, comes into play when the best possible image quality is required.
Jun 17, 2026 at 08:50 AM
p.1 #15Birding A7RVI + 100-400 GM II vs OM1-II + 50-200 2.8
ruthenium wrote:
I'm considering trading in my OM camera and lenses for a sony A7RVI and 100-400 GM II - to simplify my gear into a 1-camera set. At 76. my mental slowing sometimes gives me difficults switching between two cameras with different buttons & set-ups.
My concern is the Sony setup would be too heavy for me to manage without camera shake. The difference in weight between the Sony and OM cameras is fairly negligible, but the difference in lens weight between 50-200 (a superb lens) and the 100-400 GM II is around 600 gm -- pretty substantial. I'll go to my local camera shop to try out the
One other issue: the OM-1 II seems to have better bird focus and IS than my A7RV. I tried using A7RV with 100-400 GM I and felt focusing was problematical, and the lens was softer than I expected (maybe a bad copy?).
Does the A7RVI close the gap or surpass the OM in bird focus and IS? Of course the resolution of the A7RVI is tempting....
Any advice much appreciated!I may be one of the few that owns both an OM-1 Mark II and 50-200mm 2.8 and the new A7R VI with the 100-400 f/4.5 GM. I also previously shot with the A7R V ever since it was released. For the A7R VI and 100-400, I have had the body for about a week and the lens is brand new, so I haven't shot much with it but can speak to the size.
As you would expect, it is apples and oranges in terms of size, though particularly the volumetric dimensions of the Sony lens. The weight of the Sony lens actually isn't that bad, it feels very light relative to the volume, though in absolute terms of course it is significantly heavier than the OM set up. I think the main point to consider is that to transport the Sony combo you need a large camera backpack or a case. It fits in my 45L backpack, but I wouldn't want to take much else with it besides accessories. With the OM, as you know, it can go in a large shoulder bag.
As for shooting wildlife, I have to make it clear that I really don't specialize in this, though my two good friends are wildlife photographers and we talk about the genre all the time. One shoots Sony and recently bought the A7R VI. So far his impressions are very positive. My experience with Sony AF system vs. OM is that the Sony system is miles and miles ahead for most subject types. Additionally, once you crop to APS-C you have 28 megapixels and the per-pixel quality is also higher than the OM. The range of the 100-400mm f/4.5 becomes 150-560 f/6.3 and 28 megapixels vs. 100-400mm f/5.6 at 20 megapixels for the OM.
OM knows its target audience and I believe the bird AF more competitive than its human AF, which is, by far, the worst among my Sony, Canon, and Nikon cameras, and feels on the level of my Fuji GFX. I recently went out with my bird photographer friends and I shot some small birds with the OM and the 300mm f/4 plus 1.4X TC and found it usable for perched birds and ducks in the water. I wasn't able to get great results with BIF but I think that has more to do with my level of experience and using a prime over a zoom where I couldn't pull back to acquire the subject.
In summary, if your results with the OM are good enough and you are primarily shooting birds, then the Sony is less attractive because it it is so much larger and requires a larger bag, larger monopod, larger filters, etc. However, if you want to shoot subjects beyond birds or are hitting an IQ limit with the OM, the Sony is unbeatable.
Let me know if you have any other questions that I might be able to answer....don't mean to derail the thread, however, in more general terms, I find interesting a discussion of MOST light and compact camera systems that give access to 400 mm (and longer). These, typically imply possible limitations and compromises.
You mentioned having a Fuji GFX in the context of sharing your experience with "OM-1 Mark II and 50-200mm 2.8 and the new A7R VI with the 100-400 f/4.5 GM"; thus, you may possibly find entertaining a comparison of the A7RVI with the 100-400 f/4.5 lens with the GFX100S II with the GF500mm f/5.6 lens. I attached the corresponding screenshot from CameraDecisions.
The weight...Show more →
No derailment. And I know how insane this sounds but yes I also have the GF 500mm on the GFX100S II. I would summarize my impressions as follows:
1) The GF 500mm is maybe the only Fuji GF lens I am aware of that is competitive with the latest from Sony when it comes to the balance of size, aperture, and IQ. There are many fine GF lenses, but generally they are larger and slower than their full-frame equivalents. This isn't just a matter of larger sensor, larger lens, because when you compare the OM offerings to the latest Sony FF, the OM lenses are often not smaller than the equivalent FL/aperture combo on FF. Sony FF seems to be at the head of the entire market (m43/APS-C/FF/MF) when it comes to FL/aperture vs. size. Generally you are trading less total light gathering on the OM combo for a smaller size. The GF 500mm is competitive because it is similar in size to a Nikon 400mm 4.5 (equivalent to the GF lens in FF terms) or Sigma 500mm 5.6 while covering the larger GFX sensor.
2) The GF 500mm is outstanding in terms of IQ. It's sharp corner to corner from 5.6 with a flat field of focus. I would give it the edge over the new Sony 100-400mm 4.5, which is also good, but being a zoom it's not as simple and it has some weaker spots.
3) The GF 500mm, just as a lens and not considering the body, has one drawback which is maximum magnification. The OM 50-200mm has FF equivalent 0.5x magnification while I believe the GF 500mm would equal 0.16x. The Sony zoom is 0.25x. I often need to add extension tubes to the 500mm to get the kind of shots I want, though the results are good.
4) It's hard to evaluate the GF 500mm independent of the camera body. My sense is that the AF motors are quick (they are also silent) and the OIS is very good. That said, the GFX cameras are pretty much bottom of the barrel for continuous AF with moving subjects and I simply would not trust them for critical work. I am much more comfortable shooting inanimate and immobile subjects, but that takes away from some of the fun of using a lens of this focal length, which I think could be good for certain kinds of wildlife if the camera bodies caught up with their AF.
ketang wrote
sierrabob wrote
I currently use my Sony A7RV for landscapes with GM primes, while for birding I use OM1-II + 50-200 2.8.I'm considering trading in my OM camera and lenses for a sony A7RVI and 100-400 GM II - to simplify my gear into a 1-camera set. At 76. my mental slowing sometimes gives me difficults switching between two cameras with different buttons & set-ups.
My concern is the Sony setup would be too heavy for me to manage without camera shake. The difference in weight between the Sony and OM cameras is fairly negligible, but the difference in lens weight between 50-200 (a superb lens) and the 100-400 GM II is around 600 gm -- pretty substantial. I'll go to my local camera shop to try out the
One other issue: the OM-1 II seems to have better bird focus and IS than my A7RV. I tried using A7RV with 100-400 GM I and felt focusing was problematical, and the lens was softer than I expected (maybe a bad copy?).
Does the A7RVI close the gap or surpass the OM in bird focus and IS? Of course the resolution of the A7RVI is tempting....
Any advice much appreciated!
As you would expect, it is apples and oranges in terms of size, though particularly the volumetric dimensions of the Sony lens. The weight of the Sony lens actually isn't that bad, it feels very light relative to the volume, though in absolute terms of course it is significantly heavier than the OM set up. I think the main point to consider is that to transport the Sony combo you need a large camera backpack or a case. It fits in my 45L backpack, but I wouldn't want to take much else with it besides accessories. With the OM, as you know, it can go in a large shoulder bag.
As for shooting wildlife, I have to make it clear that I really don't specialize in this, though my two good friends are wildlife photographers and we talk about the genre all the time. One shoots Sony and recently bought the A7R VI. So far his impressions are very positive. My experience with Sony AF system vs. OM is that the Sony system is miles and miles ahead for most subject types. Additionally, once you crop to APS-C you have 28 megapixels and the per-pixel quality is also higher than the OM. The range of the 100-400mm f/4.5 becomes 150-560 f/6.3 and 28 megapixels vs. 100-400mm f/5.6 at 20 megapixels for the OM.
OM knows its target audience and I believe the bird AF more competitive than its human AF, which is, by far, the worst among my Sony, Canon, and Nikon cameras, and feels on the level of my Fuji GFX. I recently went out with my bird photographer friends and I shot some small birds with the OM and the 300mm f/4 plus 1.4X TC and found it usable for perched birds and ducks in the water. I wasn't able to get great results with BIF but I think that has more to do with my level of experience and using a prime over a zoom where I couldn't pull back to acquire the subject.
In summary, if your results with the OM are good enough and you are primarily shooting birds, then the Sony is less attractive because it it is so much larger and requires a larger bag, larger monopod, larger filters, etc. However, if you want to shoot subjects beyond birds or are hitting an IQ limit with the OM, the Sony is unbeatable.
Let me know if you have any other questions that I might be able to answer.
You mentioned having a Fuji GFX in the context of sharing your experience with "OM-1 Mark II and 50-200mm 2.8 and the new A7R VI with the 100-400 f/4.5 GM"; thus, you may possibly find entertaining a comparison of the A7RVI with the 100-400 f/4.5 lens with the GFX100S II with the GF500mm f/5.6 lens. I attached the corresponding screenshot from CameraDecisions.
The weight...Show more →
No derailment. And I know how insane this sounds but yes I also have the GF 500mm on the GFX100S II. I would summarize my impressions as follows:
1) The GF 500mm is maybe the only Fuji GF lens I am aware of that is competitive with the latest from Sony when it comes to the balance of size, aperture, and IQ. There are many fine GF lenses, but generally they are larger and slower than their full-frame equivalents. This isn't just a matter of larger sensor, larger lens, because when you compare the OM offerings to the latest Sony FF, the OM lenses are often not smaller than the equivalent FL/aperture combo on FF. Sony FF seems to be at the head of the entire market (m43/APS-C/FF/MF) when it comes to FL/aperture vs. size. Generally you are trading less total light gathering on the OM combo for a smaller size. The GF 500mm is competitive because it is similar in size to a Nikon 400mm 4.5 (equivalent to the GF lens in FF terms) or Sigma 500mm 5.6 while covering the larger GFX sensor.
2) The GF 500mm is outstanding in terms of IQ. It's sharp corner to corner from 5.6 with a flat field of focus. I would give it the edge over the new Sony 100-400mm 4.5, which is also good, but being a zoom it's not as simple and it has some weaker spots.
3) The GF 500mm, just as a lens and not considering the body, has one drawback which is maximum magnification. The OM 50-200mm has FF equivalent 0.5x magnification while I believe the GF 500mm would equal 0.16x. The Sony zoom is 0.25x. I often need to add extension tubes to the 500mm to get the kind of shots I want, though the results are good.
4) It's hard to evaluate the GF 500mm independent of the camera body. My sense is that the AF motors are quick (they are also silent) and the OIS is very good. That said, the GFX cameras are pretty much bottom of the barrel for continuous AF with moving subjects and I simply would not trust them for critical work. I am much more comfortable shooting inanimate and immobile subjects, but that takes away from some of the fun of using a lens of this focal length, which I think could be good for certain kinds of wildlife if the camera bodies caught up with their AF.
Jun 17, 2026 at 09:06 AM
p.1 #16Birding A7RVI + 100-400 GM II vs OM1-II + 50-200 2.8
How much of your bird photography is BiF?
The higher readout speed of the OM-1ii gives it a significant advantage over the A7RV regarding rolling shutter.
The A7RVI has a much faster readout than the V, but still slower than your OM.
The higher readout speed of the OM-1ii gives it a significant advantage over the A7RV regarding rolling shutter.
The A7RVI has a much faster readout than the V, but still slower than your OM.
Jun 17, 2026 at 09:47 AM
p.1 #17Birding A7RVI + 100-400 GM II vs OM1-II + 50-200 2.8
Thanks so much for your reply, very very helpful, since you have both set-ups.
It makes sense it's the volume/physical size of the 100-400 II which is most limiting. Can I ask how you carry it? Do you use something like the Cotton Carrier, or find it's too long for that? Does it work for you if you just put a strap on camera/lens and carry it over your shoulder, or bump against you annoyingly?
Which set-up (Sony vs OM) do you find yourself gravitating to, and in what situations?
Thanks again!
It makes sense it's the volume/physical size of the 100-400 II which is most limiting. Can I ask how you carry it? Do you use something like the Cotton Carrier, or find it's too long for that? Does it work for you if you just put a strap on camera/lens and carry it over your shoulder, or bump against you annoyingly?
Which set-up (Sony vs OM) do you find yourself gravitating to, and in what situations?
Thanks again!
Jun 17, 2026 at 11:20 AM
p.1 #18Birding A7RVI + 100-400 GM II vs OM1-II + 50-200 2.8
Yes, I agree and treat the two systems as you do. I've just been hoping to consolidate to one system, but it may not be practical - especially since I like to walk around the neighborhood or a bird sanctuary to do my bird photos.
Ideally I'd keep the OM for a while, upgrade A7RV to the VI, get the 100-400 II and see how it works out - but I need to sell the OM in order to afford the Sony upgrade. Maybe the sony gear will be available for rent soon.
Ideally I'd keep the OM for a while, upgrade A7RV to the VI, get the 100-400 II and see how it works out - but I need to sell the OM in order to afford the Sony upgrade. Maybe the sony gear will be available for rent soon.
Jun 17, 2026 at 11:24 AM
p.1 #19Birding A7RVI + 100-400 GM II vs OM1-II + 50-200 2.8
sierrabob wrote:
Thanks so much for your reply, very very helpful, since you have both set-ups.
It makes sense it's the volume/physical size of the 100-400 II which is most limiting. Can I ask how you carry it? Do you use something like the Cotton Carrier, or find it's too long for that? Does it work for you if you just put a strap on camera/lens and carry it over your shoulder, or bump against you annoyingly?
Which set-up (Sony vs OM) do you find yourself gravitating to, and in what situations?
Thanks again!
I am on day 2 of using the 100-400 4.5 (technically not a v2) but so far the only bag I know that fits it is my 45L backpack. Again, weight is not bad, but I have to choose to bring this backpack and the particular model I have isn't great for adding on other EDC items like a laptop, etc. For the strap, the lens itself has rings where I have put Peak Design anchors and I attach those to their Slide strap. With a lens of this size and cost I don't think I will leave it hanging, I will likely almost always be holding it in my hands and just having the camera strap on for support and prevent dropping it.
As for use cases, I use OM, Sony, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, and film, so I either have a gear problem or many solutions depending on how you look at it. Basically I do often use OM for day to day nature/flower photography on my walk to and from work. The driving factors are the size and weight, smaller file size, great stabilization, the 4:3 ratio (my preferred, particularly in portrait orientation) and the colors for nature (greens, blues, pinks, etc.), which are among the best of any of these systems IMO. There is also a hard to quantify factor of the OM having worse technical IQ and so there is an engaging challenge when I find a shot I like to figure out how to maximize the quality of the final shot. I also do a lot of food/hospitality photography for businesses' Instagram pages and having 4:3 native is something I prefer, even over in-camera cropping on the other platforms.
For Sony, it is, by far, the most technically capable system in terms of camera control customization and availability of features, lens size and IQ, and to an extent lens selection and AF. I use it for travel and event/portrait shoots where I need to ensure I have a high quality, in-focus final image. That said, it's so capable that it's kind of boring. It's not as challenging to get a high quality image and the cameras have so many features that I feel like I'm operating a computer.
Don't get me started on why the other systems...
Thanks so much for your reply, very very helpful, since you have both set-ups.
It makes sense it's the volume/physical size of the 100-400 II which is most limiting. Can I ask how you carry it? Do you use something like the Cotton Carrier, or find it's too long for that? Does it work for you if you just put a strap on camera/lens and carry it over your shoulder, or bump against you annoyingly?
Which set-up (Sony vs OM) do you find yourself gravitating to, and in what situations?
Thanks again!
I am on day 2 of using the 100-400 4.5 (technically not a v2) but so far the only bag I know that fits it is my 45L backpack. Again, weight is not bad, but I have to choose to bring this backpack and the particular model I have isn't great for adding on other EDC items like a laptop, etc. For the strap, the lens itself has rings where I have put Peak Design anchors and I attach those to their Slide strap. With a lens of this size and cost I don't think I will leave it hanging, I will likely almost always be holding it in my hands and just having the camera strap on for support and prevent dropping it.
As for use cases, I use OM, Sony, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, and film, so I either have a gear problem or many solutions depending on how you look at it. Basically I do often use OM for day to day nature/flower photography on my walk to and from work. The driving factors are the size and weight, smaller file size, great stabilization, the 4:3 ratio (my preferred, particularly in portrait orientation) and the colors for nature (greens, blues, pinks, etc.), which are among the best of any of these systems IMO. There is also a hard to quantify factor of the OM having worse technical IQ and so there is an engaging challenge when I find a shot I like to figure out how to maximize the quality of the final shot. I also do a lot of food/hospitality photography for businesses' Instagram pages and having 4:3 native is something I prefer, even over in-camera cropping on the other platforms.
For Sony, it is, by far, the most technically capable system in terms of camera control customization and availability of features, lens size and IQ, and to an extent lens selection and AF. I use it for travel and event/portrait shoots where I need to ensure I have a high quality, in-focus final image. That said, it's so capable that it's kind of boring. It's not as challenging to get a high quality image and the cameras have so many features that I feel like I'm operating a computer.
Don't get me started on why the other systems...
Jun 17, 2026 at 11:32 AM
p.1 #20Birding A7RVI + 100-400 GM II vs OM1-II + 50-200 2.8
Thanks again. Yes, the small sensor and IQ of the OM can be challenging. I do a lot of post-processing of OM RAW files in Capture One, denoising in DxO, often still tweaking local areas with a few other programs. Hard to keep from looking over-processed. While the 50-200 lens is superb, I'm not too fond of the 12-40 2.8 - very sharp, but almost too sharp and somehow feels a bit flat.
The Sony IQ is superb, and of course the 61 mp resolution leaves lots of room for cropping. I use Sony for landscape with 24 1.4 GM and as a walk-around with the 50 GM. For travel, I have the 20-70 F4 which loses a little IQ and light but gives me flexibility. I also have 70-200 F4 G which does a very nice job and is manageable, if not ideal, for travel.
So: looks like OM for birding, Sony for most everything else.
Thanks again. Enjoy your trip!
Bob
The Sony IQ is superb, and of course the 61 mp resolution leaves lots of room for cropping. I use Sony for landscape with 24 1.4 GM and as a walk-around with the 50 GM. For travel, I have the 20-70 F4 which loses a little IQ and light but gives me flexibility. I also have 70-200 F4 G which does a very nice job and is manageable, if not ideal, for travel.
So: looks like OM for birding, Sony for most everything else.
Thanks again. Enjoy your trip!
Bob
Jun 17, 2026 at 12:00 PM