For birding I use an OM-1 II with the 50-200 2.8 PRO - fantastic lens, tack sharp, 1250 gm gets you FFE 100-400, and it does well with both 1.4 and 2.0 TC). Great body-lens IS.
I find the OM works great - IF I can fill the frame. Even though, with the TC, I can get up to 800 FFE, there are times I want more reach.
I've been tempted by the 150-600, but it seems awfully heavy. I used the 300 for a while - it's is a beautiful lens, but I missed the zoom. I tried the 100-400 II but found its IQ less pleasing to my taste the the 50-200.
So - I've been wondering if I upgraded my Sony A7RV to the RVI it could work for birding with the old 100-400 4.5-5.6 GM. (I mostly use the A7RV for landscape (with 24 mm 1.4 GM), since I like its dynamic range and resolution - the OM is very good, but doesn't quite match IMO
In the past I tried using the A7RV with the 100-400 GM but never had much luck with it for birds at a distance, especially BIF, using 100-400 GM 4.5-5.6. Too soft for my taste. maybe because of its slow fps and not-great lens+body stabilization. I wonder if A7RVI does enough to address the issue, when paired with "old" 100-400 GM (I'm not interested in the new 100-400 GM, due to fixed-length and weight). Anyone have any experience with the new A7RVI paired with the old 100-400 GM 4.5-5.6?
So for birds needing more than 800 mm of reach, I'm considering OM+150-600 (heavy: 2659 gm) or Sony A7RVI with 100-400 GM + 1.4 TC (2285 gm, considerably lighter). Of course the Sony would have less reach, but at least some of that would be compensated by higher resolution allowing cropping. 67 megapixels is almost like having 2x reach.
I'd have to sell some OM gear to afford A7RVI upgrade, and I'm reluctant to do so given how well OM+50-200 works.
Anyone have experience with both systems? Any suggestions appreciated!
(PS - I know, I know, the best solution is to zoom with my feet. But sometimes that just isn't possible, especially now that I'm having more difficulty walking).
I've been using both systems for years.
The OM-System OM-1 MKII + OM-System 50-200/2.8 Pro IS + OM-System 90/3.5 Macro Pro IS + OM-System TC 1.4x MC-14 + OM-System TC 2.0x MC-20 for macro and nature photography.
The OM-System OM-1 MKII + OM-System 8-25/4.0 Pro + Olympus 12-100/4.0 Pro IS + OM-System 12-40/2.8 Pro +
OM-System 20/1.4 Pro is my personal favorite combination for travel.
When it comes to the best image quality, I use my Sony 35mm system with the Sony A7RV + high-quality Sony GM lenses and top-of-the-line Voigtländer manual lenses ranging from 14mm to 200mm focal length.
I’ll skip the Sony A7RVI + long focal lengths for nature photography
since, at almost 70 years old, I no longer want to carry much weight.
This is a question nobody can answer. Only you can and only after at least many months of heavy use.
On paper they look more or less like this:
Sony A7R6 with crop = 1.5, for 100-400 = 150-600, sensor = 30 MP, lens = 2.0 kg, Camera+lens = 2.7 kg
OM1 (FF equivalent) for 150-400 = 300-800 + (internal x1.25 TC and camera Digital TC x 1.4), sensor = 20 MP, lens = 1.9 kg, Camera+lens = 2.5 kg
True test is the actual use.
I faced this dilemma and used Sony AII + 200-600, Canon R1/R3 with 100-400 and 100-500 and OM1 with 150-400, 50-200 (added recently). These systems are in a comparable price/weight bracket. For the past 2 yrs. I used Canon and OMS gear. Consider a system vs. system and forget a lens to be used with the extenal TCs. For wildlife the most important is AF performance and all these systems have strong and weak points. Next crucial thing is ergonomics (especially menu system). Good luck.
My answer would be the 150-400mm, but it’s expensive. Maybe the 100-400mm versions?
Not really sure what anything longer than 800mm-equivalent is really going to add in many cases, since at those distances atmospheric disturbances often start to decrease the sharpness.
johnvanr wrote:
My answer would be the 150-400mm, but it’s expensive. Maybe the 100-400mm versions?
Not really sure what anything longer than 800mm-equivalent is really going to add in many cases, since at those distances atmospheric disturbances often start to decrease the sharpness.
Not in my experience, unless shooting in the middle of a very hot summer day. I find the 150-600 to be very usable in most conditions.
sierrabob wrote:
For birding I use an OM-1 II with the 50-200 2.8 PRO - fantastic lens, tack sharp, 1250 gm gets you FFE 100-400, and it does well with both 1.4 and 2.0 TC). Great body-lens IS.
I find the OM works great - IF I can fill the frame. Even though, with the TC, I can get up to 800 FFE, there are times I want more reach.
I've been tempted by the 150-600, but it seems awfully heavy. I used the 300 for a while - it's is a beautiful lens, but I missed the zoom. I tried the 100-400 II but found its IQ less pleasing to my taste the the 50-200.
So - I've been wondering if I upgraded my Sony A7RV to the RVI it could work for birding with the old 100-400 4.5-5.6 GM. (I mostly use the A7RV for landscape (with 24 mm 1.4 GM), since I like its dynamic range and resolution - the OM is very good, but doesn't quite match IMO
In the past I tried using the A7RV with the 100-400 GM but never had much luck with it for birds at a distance, especially BIF, using 100-400 GM 4.5-5.6. Too soft for my taste. maybe because of its slow fps and not-great lens+body stabilization. I wonder if A7RVI does enough to address the issue, when paired with "old" 100-400 GM (I'm not interested in the new 100-400 GM, due to fixed-length and weight). Anyone have any experience with the new A7RVI paired with the old 100-400 GM 4.5-5.6?
So for birds needing more than 800 mm of reach, I'm considering OM+150-600 (heavy: 2659 gm) or Sony A7RVI with 100-400 GM + 1.4 TC (2285 gm, considerably lighter). Of course the Sony would have less reach, but at least some of that would be compensated by higher resolution allowing cropping. 67 megapixels is almost like having 2x reach.
I'd have to sell some OM gear to afford A7RVI upgrade, and I'm reluctant to do so given how well OM+50-200 works.
Anyone have experience with both systems? Any suggestions appreciated!
(PS - I know, I know, the best solution is to zoom with my feet. But sometimes that just isn't possible, especially now that I'm having more difficulty walking).
I'm curious. Have you tried using the DTC (Digital Teleconverter) with your 50-200mm + MC-14 TC? I use the DTC fairly often and find the results are surprisingly good. I don't have the 50-200mm, but I do use the DTC with both my OM 100-400mm amd my Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 + 1.4 TC. This hand held photo of our dog, 'Ollie' was done with my 40-150mm & MC14 and the DTC-- so a FF FOV of 840mm @ f/4. I fully realize that it's a resampled 2X crop, but the crop is to the center of the image circle which is the sharpest area.
Greg
OM-1MarkII OM 40-150mm F2.8 + MC-14 lens210mmf/4.01/1600s800 ISO0.0 EV
The fact the 50-200 2.8 PRO works so well with both TCs, is light and contains the superb OM IS is a huge advantage over Sonys for me personally.
At certain times atmospheric disturbances will be an issue at longer distances but even more relevant is that the OM stabilisation is so much better than Sony's (or any FF) by virtue not only of OM's tech but the smaller sensor.
I can hand hold the Sony A7r5 for a max. of maybe ½ sec before losing sharpness whereas the OM1i and OM-3 are easily 3 secs (I think I have a post up on FM with samples even up to 10 secs). Of course you are not using those exposure times for birds but it demonstrates how superior the OM IS is.
This should not be under-valued as I have to make many adjustments when shooting Sony to get sharp shots, such as shutter speeds or ISO (and don't bother any more after using my A7r5 and 200-600 on safari, it'll be a rented 150-400 next time). And yes better technique - you really need to use Long Lens techniques to get great sharp shots. You can still get sharp shots with OM even if you forget now and again.
You don't say if you if a 'hunter' or 'fisherman'. Do you go looking for birds or sit in a hide with your gear on a tripod? This will make a huge difference IMO. If you go hunting birds the OM IS comes into it's own. On a tripod it's irrelevant.
I had the Sony 100-400 (superb lens) and the OM 100-400 (hated it). However the 300/4 fixed FL is less of an issue than most imagine. However it does depend on what and where you are shooting. For me personally I shoot a lot of very small birds and I've only ever once had an issue with the 300mm fixed FL - when the bird was less than 4 feet away and within it's min. focus distance anyway.
I asked AI to confirm this and this is the (abbreviated) response : At its closest focus distance of 4.59 feet, a 3-inch bird will easily fit within the sensor frame and the optical image circle of the OM Systems 300/4.
A small anecdote : I was shooting with some locals in my wife's home town in China recently. Everyone was interested in my OM1i and 300/4 (with / without the x1.4 TC). I exchanged WeChat links with a guy with an expensive Canon and 600mm. A few weeks later I received a message - he'd swapped that kit for the OM1ii and 150-400 and was very happy.
I think you'd be making a mistake to switch to Sony and rely on cropping. IMHO.
The 300 F4 is a fantastic lens. I felt some pangs on parting with it, but needed to sell it to afford the 50-200.
I agree the lack of zoom was less of a problem than I anticipated. Once I got familiar with it I was able to locate birds quickly track BIF. I traded it in for the 50-200 because it's ever-so-slightly less heavy, and somehow feels less awkward to carry even though both have similar specs. The versatility of the zoom, the brighter 2.8 when not zoomed were factors that, all told, outweighed the more limited reach. I find the IQ of both to be superb - maybe the 300 has a slight edge in this regard but it's slight.
sierrabob wrote:
Thanks, I haven't tried the DTC - an interesting idea. Do you need to set it on before taking a shot, or apply it in post?
You have to turn it on. I have programmed it to my 'Video Record' Button, since I do little video and can easily do video by turning my Mode Dial to the Video setting.
So when I'm shooting, if I want to get more reach (via a tighter crop), I simply press the Video Record Button to toggle the DTC on -- press again to toggle it off. The DTC produces a cropped Jpeg file (resampled to full resolution) and a RAW file with the uncropped image if you have your camera set to capture both.
Some shooters use the DTC to simply check critical focus too.
The Sony A7RVI while not perfect, is far better for wildlife than the IV and V. Based on my prior poor experience with the IV, I'd dismissed R versions, but recently the VI has received a lot of love for bird/wildlife photography on the Sony forums here and at Steve Perry's site. Steve just got back from Africa, his opinion is that it is the best overall wildlife camera in existence. The A1ii is better for BIF, due to it's faster readout, but the VI can still handle some BIF situations.
I just got the VI last week, the birds eye autofocus is amazing and will pick up eyes at a distance too far off for a good photo. I guess it's not what you're looking for, but paired with the new 400/4.5 or 600/6.3 the kit weight will be close to the OM-1 and 50-200.
I've not tried it with the 100-400/5.6 yet. Perhaps I will get to it in the next couple weeks.
thanks for your message. Yes, I viewed the lightweight 400 and 600 mm lenses and think they'll be great.
Using the OM 300 F4 on my OM-II, it gives beautiful images at 600 mm equivalent. I found it easier to spot birds without a zoom than I expected. That being said, I missed the flexibility of a zoom. I swapped the 300 F4 for the OM 2.8 50-200 (100-400 equivalent, plus does well with TCs) and I'm very happy with it.
I'm currently thinking of selling my Sony gear to go all-in on OM - but I would miss the resolution. DR and cropping ability of the fantastic sensor. I'll probably keep the A7RV and the 24 1.4 and 50 1.4 GMs, and just sell the longer lenses.
I'll be interested to hear of how you find the VI with the 100-400/5.6. If you're satisfied with it, I might be tempted to upgrade my A7RV to a VI and get the 100-400....but perhaps this is just GAS.
I'm in a similar boat deciding between OM and Sony. I'm lucky enough to afford both, but it's ridiculous to have all this geal sitting around.
Started my mirrorless journey with AR7iv & 200-600, much better than the old 7Dii, but the combo had a lot of focus issues. Got a OM 150-400 at a good price with and fell in love with it's field performance, but really missed the Sony FF files on the PC. GAS set in with Sony's non-stop issuance of new gear: the A1, Aii, 100-400/5.6 300/2.8, 100-400/4.5 followed. The 300/2.8 w/2x is nice, the 100-400 was lighter than the 200-600, but bulkier than I like. I still really preferred the OM-1 & 150-400 in the field. However the new A7RVI is really something and I think I will live mostly with it & the 600/6.3. Trying to figure what lenses to sell right at the moment and if I can bring myself to part with OM. On the other hand sometimes I think I should get the 50-200 and ditch the Sony.
I've always considered the 100-400/5.6 to be a bug and bloom lens. Even on the A7RVI I'd probably consider it short for birds. But I'll try to give it a shot this weekend.
birderbill1 wrote:
I'm in a similar boat deciding between OM and Sony. I'm lucky enough to afford both, but it's ridiculous to have all this geal sitting around.
2nd that, but with Canon and OM.
I have 2 R5 MkIIs and all the RFs including the RF 100-300 f/2.8
and
2 OM-1 MkIIs and all the Pro f/2.8 zooms and the 150-400 f/4.5
and just bought a MZ 12-100 f/4
and a Pen-F with lenses.
I just can't decide which system to stick with and sell the other. The yearly insurance on all this gear is equal to a good lens.
I am such a gear slut. Help.......
I tried the 100-400/5.6 w/1.4x on the A7R6 on some backyard birds this afternoon. The focus speed and eye acquisition were just as quick as on the newer lenses, however it's decidedly softer than my 200-600 or 100-400/4.5 w/1.4x and I'm sure it's softer than the OM white teles. I can't really recommend it as a primary birding lens. It's ok at times in good light and close distance, perhaps 30ft. From what I've read online most copies of the 100-400/5.6 just don't work well with an extender, which has been my experience. And unfortunately it's no different on the new A7R6.
For birding the ultimate setup in the OM system would be either the OM 150-400 f4.5 or the 150-600. There are so many examples of those lenses just killing it here on this forum, actual photographic proof. Either one seems to be more than capable.
In the real world, if you can get enough pixels on the subject, you really don't need more than 20 mp. And as far as DR, just don't blow out your highlights and you'll have more than enough to work with if you shoot raw and process carefully.
M4/3 image files can easily print 40+ inches on the short side on an Epson or Canon printer on Canson paper. I have the prints to prove it can be done. How much bigger do you need?
