I know this is the M43 Forum.
I am trying to decide between these two kits. for a 3 week trip to the Pantanal in Brazil with Jaguar Safari Tours. 90% of the drives are in a skiff type boat (6 seats).
Here is a sample of what i am doing.
Most of you know I have been to Africa 4 times so know the drill more or less.
One kit with OMS and Canon and the other all OMS
I want to lose the weight of the RF 100-300, but I am giving up 45mps for 20mps. And I have to be honest, on my last trip with the mixed kit, hard to tell which camera took the shot. With the OM-1 MkII I do tend to "Fill the Frame" more than with the R5 MkII
July 9th is approaching fast and I am torn. Don't want to get there and say "Damn, made the wrong decision."
Thoughts
We went for a month to the Pantanal on two back to back sessions August 2022. Yes we saw Jaguars but also don't underestimate the bird life that is there. Lots to photograph.
What the video does not show is the crowds that can suddenly appear around a jaguar spotting or anything that is good. Radio waves travel fast..
As far as your equipment choices. I have been out of Canon since late 2019 so no recommendations there for you.
You have figured out that the 150-400 lens is your go to for zoom and reach out to 500mm (1,000) to fill the frame and have the most pixels on the subject. Helps so much for image quality and zooming in blurs the background more. I think I used it for 96 percent of the images.
Either combo will work as you have succuss mixing systems. You know best the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Your first selection combo puts you with only one camera body each? You really need a back up body for each setup if you are down there long enough.. Do you bring two bodies each?
We travel each with three bodies (OM-1 mk2 are small) each having the 150-400, 50-200 and a wide angle already mounted to grab quickly to get the shots. Also if one body is acting up it quickly rotated out to wide lens to sort out later. All cameras are programed the same so no left/right brain over thinking.
Do you feel happy and confident that the new 50-200mm f/2.8 / OM-1 mk2 can replace the Canon 100-300 f2.8 / R5 mk2 combo?
I think that and using Canon for anything wider than 100mm is the question you seek a answer to.
You are going to love it! The adventure just getting to the wetlands is great with lots of photo opportunities.
Not sure if you are any closer on your kit decision. I don't have a FF set up so don't have the same decisions to make. But, seems at least from a practical perspective, that the OM kit gives the greater flexibility. Especially due to the 50-200. And as PV Hiker mentioned, having the two OM1's for backup would seem to be a good idea and maybe the deciding factor. Any weight considerations or are both kits weighing in about the same?
Not sure if you are any closer on your kit decision. I don't have a FF set up so don't have the same decisions to make. But, seems at least from a practical perspective, that the OM kit gives the greater flexibility. Especially due to the 50-200. And as PV Hiker mentioned, having the two OM1's for backup would seem to be a good idea and maybe the deciding factor. Any weight considerations or are both kits weighing in about the same?
The kits with the Canon RF 100-300 f/2.8 are substantially heavier.
Decided to go M43 and leave the canon cams and lenses at home.
Cam 1 with Gandalf, Cam 2 with Frodo (50-100 f/2.8)
As far as backups..... I have the two OM-1 MkIIs.
I have had several OMS cams (OM-1 MKI, Pen F, and an older film camera.)
I do try to take care of my stuff, but 4 Africa trips, dropped on the LC floor, rain, amazing dust. The OMS stuff has never even hiccuped. One acted up once, but it was the SD card not the camera.
The OM-1 Mk II seems to be bullet proof.
But then again, as a Canon user since 1968 I've only had one lens failure (24-70 ribbon cable), and one cam failure (5D mirror fell off) in all that time.
Not sure if you are any closer on your kit decision. I don't have a FF set up so don't have the same decisions to make. But, seems at least from a practical perspective, that the OM kit gives the greater flexibility. Especially due to the 50-200. And as PV Hiker mentioned, having the two OM1's for backup would seem to be a good idea and maybe the deciding factor. Any weight considerations or are both kits weighing in about the same?
"Those crowds are crazy...."
Guess you have never been to the Mara (Kenya) for the Great Migration. When the crossing starts and the rangers say OK, it's like a Land Cruiser Demolition Derby to get a prime spot.. (that's when I bounced a OM-1 MkI off the floor of a Land Cruisier. Knocked off some paint, but that's all.
"Do you feel happy and confident that the new 50-200mm f/2.8 / OM-1 mk2 can replace the Canon 100-300 f2.8 / R5 mk2 combo?
After some shots at home, yes. Frodo (Little Gandalf) is sharp sharp sharp. And I am taking a fill flash for almost night shots.
Ths diff is the light gathering advantage of the FF sensor.
Last Africa trip was the combo kit (OM-1 MKII/Gandalf) (Canon R5 MkII/RF 100-300 f/2.8) and I have to go look which cam was used for all the photos mounted on my walls at 13x19.
Success on this trip may cause me to sell that beast of a 100-300. I paid $9500 for it and I can probably get most of that back since Canon has hiked the price of a new one to $10700. I may leave Canon altogether.
Having shot in the Pantanal several times with both my Nikon kit — Z9/Z8 with the 400TC and 70-200mm — and my Olympus kit with the 150-400mm, I’d keep it simple: take your two OM-1 Mark II bodies, the 150-400mm, 50-100mm, and the 7-14mm if you want some environmental or landscape shots.
When shooting from a boat, stability, flexibility, and reach matter most — especially if the river is crowded with other boats.
(that's when I bounced a OM-1 MkI off the floor of a Land Cruisier. Knocked off some paint, but that's all.