New OM-1 (6 Viewers)

[C B Allen]

I think the f4 300mm is the better lens if you are concentrating on birds. Although it is twice the price. For me, as a general naturalist, who spends quite a bit of time photographing large mammals, the 100 - 400 is a a much better choice. I have C1 similar to CB Allen's C1, C2 similar to C3 and C3 with animal detect for mammal photography.

Completely agree that the zoom is both a fine lens and also more flexible for use in the field. I'm not sure which I'd have bought originally had they both been available (and affordable) at the time I went Oly. Saying that, having come from using just a fixed telephoto on the Canon I was used to the occasional compromise where I could have benefited from having the the zoom option. My wife - who has been using the Lumix G9 for several years - has the Pan/Leica 100-400 zoom and gets excellent results from that.

 

[Tony Knight]

Tony, FWIW, I moved from Canon 7D2 albeit with just 400mm f5.6 (& sometimes 1.4 TC) to Olympus nearly 3 years ago & once I got familiar with the EM-1.2 which I originally bought wouldn't think I'd ever go back (getting used to mirrorless after DSLR was biggest difficulty & took some time to get used to).

I started out with the 300mm and the 1.4 TC just because I found them at an almost unbelievably good price for sale with the EM-1 from someone who couldn't get on with mirrorless! I've since got the OM-1 (April this year) and in-between also the 100-400 zoom & the 2x TC.

In practice I almost exclusively use the 300mm, with the 1.4 TC more or less permanently attached. The 300mm and OM-1 give you full sync-IS which I think is somewhere around 7 stops whereas there is no sync-IS using the 100-400 zoom so nominally around 5 stops based on IBIS. In practice I've found that IS with both lenses with and without TC's to be exceptional although I rarely use a TC with the zoom as it does slow down autofocus and anyway light in the UK doesn't often encourage it! Personally I think the 2x TC is pushing it in most cases for the zoom though on the 300 it is excellent and I readily use it.

I've found the OM-1 to be a huge step forward for birding - both static and even more so for BIF's. The bird detect option works well & I have it set on for most birding situations, the exception being where the target is partially obscured and I need to try to get a single point on the target to try and ensure focus is on the bird (there have been occasions where the auto focus is thrown by the vegetation if I use the C2 options below):
C1 - for difficult focussing situations, ie. target partially obscured = S-AF, single point focus, bird detect OFF
C2 - most other non-flying targets = C-AF, small block focus points, bird detect ON
C3 - BIF's = C-AF, all focus points, bird detect ON

If you're interested in seeing some results I've just loaded some from our visit to Costa Rica this spring onto flickr - that includes quite a lots of BIF's and also plenty of forest-dwellers where light was minimal (at worst, down to 1/6th hand held at 840mm effective length for Scaled Antpitta). Not sure how they'll hold up against your own photos from CR as I have no claims to be any more than a birder taking some record shots!

Costa Rica - 2022

Highlights of our birding trip to Costa Rica: just the two of us and a brilliant local birder/guide/driver who sorted all the logistics and kept us birding from dawn to dusk (or later) - which is what we wanted. Selection from the 15k+ photos of 311 species out of a total of 534 species seen!

flic.kr

Thanks. Wow, some stunning photos there ! They were mainly taken with the the 300 and 1.4x ?

I'm no camera expert and I must confess I don't really understand "The 100 - 400mm is already equivalent to 200 - 800m in 35mm terms" which Steve mentioned and your "...at 840 effective length". Does this mean that 300 x 1.4 = 420 but due to the 4/3 mirror type of camera, that would be effectively 820, ie much higher magnification than I currently get with my very heavy 300mm and 2x converter = 600 in DSLR ? If so that would be perfect for birds, though as with Steve, I'm often looking to take mammal photos too, esp in Africa so would still be left with the 300+1.4x or 100-400 zoom question. I guess can do as now and take the converter off for smaller mammals or even use iphone for elephants/close buffalo etc.

I will clearly need to do a bit more reseach on the practical differences between mirrorless and DSLR given your comments "....from someone who couldn't get on with mirrorless!..." and "getting used to mirrorless after DSLR was biggest difficulty & took some time to get used to" as I hadn't realised there would be so much difference in practical use, in addition to getting used to new OM rather than Canon menus.

 

[C B Allen]

Thanks. Wow, some stunning photos there ! They were mainly taken with the the 300 and 1.4x ?

I'm no camera expert and I must confess I don't really understand "The 100 - 400mm is already equivalent to 200 - 800m in 35mm terms" which Steve mentioned and your "...at 840 effective length". Does this mean that 300 x 1.4 = 420 but due to the 4/3 mirror type of camera, that would be effectively 820, ie much higher magnification than I currently get with my very heavy 300mm and 2x converter = 600 in DSLR ? If so that would be perfect for birds, though as with Steve, I'm often looking to take mammal photos too, esp in Africa so would still be left with the 300+1.4x or 100-400 zoom question. I guess can do as now and take the converter off for smaller mammals or even use iphone for elephants/close buffalo etc.

I will clearly need to do a bit more reseach on the practical differences between mirrorless and DSLR given your comments "....from someone who couldn't get on with mirrorless!..." and "getting used to mirrorless after DSLR was biggest difficulty & took some time to get used to" as I hadn't realised there would be so much difference in practical use, in addition to getting used to new OM rather than Canon menus.

EXIF data should be visible on flickr. 99% of that album were using the 300mm, the majority with the 1.4 TC. I also stuck mostly to ISO 3200 which I'd have regarded as being too high in the past but which was essential (?) for a lot of forest birding and thanks to modern post-processing software seems to give me more than adequate results (I've been using DxO Photolab for the last couple of years, which I've found to be excellent and easy to use!).

If full frame cameras (35mm digital-equivalent) are factor 1:1 regards magnification (ie. 300mm = 6x magnification), from memory Canon APSC like 7D2 is 1:1.6 so the 300mm would be equivalent to a 480mm lens on a full frame and with a M4/3 camera like the OM-1 a factor of 1:2 so the 300mm would be equivalent to a 600mm lens on a full frame. Hence Steve's comment that the 100-400 Oly would be equivalent in magnification terms as a 200-800mm zoom on full frame (should one exist) - and for me using the 300 + 1.4 TC the resulting "420mm" is equivalent to 840mm full frame.

Regarding getting used to mirrorless after using a DSLR, the man difference I found was getting used to the view using an EVF rather than an optical one as it is quite different. On the positive side the EVF in the OM-1 is so much better than that in the EM-1 (mark 2 or 3) that I doubt I'd have found it quite such a difference. Once used to it another advantage is using the EVF is much more a WYSIWYG experience when, for example, you adjust exposure compensation during shooting. Finally, you're lucky to start out with the new OM-1 menu system as it is so much easier to understand and use than the famously perverse versions on the EM-1!

 

[Tony Knight]

EXIF data should be visible on flickr. 99% of that album were using the 300mm, the majority with the 1.4 TC. I also stuck mostly to ISO 3200 which I'd have regarded as being too high in the past but which was essential (?) for a lot of forest birding and thanks to modern post-processing software seems to give me more than adequate results (I've been using DxO Photolab for the last couple of years, which I've found to be excellent and easy to use!).

If full frame cameras (35mm digital-equivalent) are factor 1:1 regards magnification (ie. 300mm = 6x magnification), from memory Canon APSC like 7D2 is 1:1.6 so the 300mm would be equivalent to a 480mm lens on a full frame and with a M4/3 camera like the OM-1 a factor of 1:2 so the 300mm would be equivalent to a 600mm lens on a full frame. Hence Steve's comment that the 100-400 Oly would be equivalent in magnification terms as a 200-800mm zoom on full frame (should one exist) - and for me using the 300 + 1.4 TC the resulting "420mm" is equivalent to 840mm full frame.

Regarding getting used to mirrorless after using a DSLR, the man difference I found was getting used to the view using an EVF rather than an optical one as it is quite different. On the positive side the EVF in the OM-1 is so much better than that in the EM-1 (mark 2 or 3) that I doubt I'd have found it quite such a difference. Once used to it another advantage is using the EVF is much more a WYSIWYG experience when, for example, you adjust exposure compensation during shooting. Finally, you're lucky to start out with the new OM-1 menu system as it is so much easier to understand and use than the famously perverse versions on the EM-1!

Thanks Chris.

So you typically set 3200 ISO, max aperture and then let camera select shutter speed ? Love the sharpness of that 3rd Motmot, and second Mountain-gem on the page you linked!

Issues with EVF rings a bell. I bought a Sony RX10 IV bridge camera to use when bird/wildlife photography was a secondary consideration, general walks etc, and the EVF is a massive turnoff. I often struggle to find a bird in a bush through the EVF which I could see clearly with my naked eye and end up taking photos of the wrong branch. Is the EVF on this camera as good as optical for finding a bird in a bush ?

So the 600 (300 and 2x) on my D7ii is really 960 (1.6 x 600) full frame equivalent in comparison to your 840 full frame ?

Thanks, no more Qs I promise

 

[C B Allen]

Thanks Chris.

So you typically set 3200 ISO, max aperture and then let camera select shutter speed ? Love the sharpness of that 3rd Motmot, and second Mountain-gem on the page you linked!

Issues with EVF rings a bell. I bought a Sony RX10 IV bridge camera to use when bird/wildlife photography was a secondary consideration, general walks etc, and the EVF is a massive turnoff. I often struggle to find a bird in a bush through the EVF which I could see clearly with my naked eye and end up taking photos of the wrong branch. Is the EVF on this camera as good as optical for finding a bird in a bush ?

So the 600 (300 and 2x) on my D7ii is really 960 (1.6 x 600) full frame equivalent in comparison to your 840 full frame ?

Thanks, no more Qs I promise

Yes - and if I do still need/want more shutter speed I just bump the ISO up further. Until earlier this year I went along with the popular opinion that going above ISO 800 should be avoided but personally since going with ISO 1600 or - most often 3200 - I've had a much higher %age of keepers so long as I'm happy to run them through some basic post processing. Mike Lane & Andy Rouse have done some good videos on the OM-1 ... particularly this one from Andy Rouse on why you should use high ISO:

Re: the EVF, like I said, I found the old EM-1 EVF to take some time to get used to but the one in the OM-1 is so, so much better (it's very obvious if you compare the two) and I no longer think it inferior to the optical VF in the 7D2 although - of course - I'm only really familiar with using an EVF now!

Your calculations for FF comparison look good: similarly if I was using the 100-400 + 1.4 TC its' range would be equivalent to 280-1120mm. No problem to ask if you have other questions.

 

[Steve Babbs]

Thanks. Wow, some stunning photos there ! They were mainly taken with the the 300 and 1.4x ?

though as with Steve, I'm often looking to take mammal photos too, esp in Africa so would still be left with the 300+1.4x or 100-400 zoom question. I guess can do as now and take the converter off for smaller mammals or even use iphone for elephants/close buffalo etc.

Then I really would get the 100 - 400. I sometimes found it too high magnification at 100m end and not just for elephants. Also, as a general naturalist, the much better close focus is a big advantage.

It might be worth looking at this discussion.

Olympus 100-400 vs Olympus 300 PRO: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

 

[C B Allen]

Then I really would get the 100 - 400. I sometimes found it too high magnification at 100m end and not just for elephants. Also, as a general naturalist, the much better close focus is a big advantage.

It might be worth looking at this discussion.

Olympus 100-400 vs Olympus 300 PRO: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

Would have to agree with you Steve that for the usage Tony describes the zoom makes perfect sense (and at less than half the price if that is an issue).

Bottom line they're both excellent lenses and I'm sure I've got nowhere near exploiting either to its' limits. Now if I won the lottery (unlikely as I don't ever do it) the 150-400 really does sound like the best of both worlds ...

 

[Tony Knight]

Thanks Chris and Steve, ......I will need to have a think !
Heart says OM1 and 300 + 1.4x, take the 1.4x off for safari deer, wild dogs etc, use something else for the very occasional elephant/buffalo shot. 90% of my photos will be birds.
Head says OM1 and 100-400 + 1.4x because I get the flexibility and won't notice the difference in quality and just take the 1.4x off in poor light/forest.
Wallet says Canon R9 and use adaptor for my current 300mm prime lens...but I don't save much weight and do I really need 2.8 lens with better IS etc in a mirrorless cameras now....if so, why not stick with what I have now ie 7Dii....
The money isn't really the issue (though the 150-400 pro would be excessive....), I just want to be able to be able to carry a light camera with sharp images, based on one or two saved settings, and great reach comfortably on 3-4 hr walks esp in Thailand in Dec and Hokkaido Japan in June....

 

[Tony Knight]

Yes - and if I do still need/want more shutter speed I just bump the ISO up further. Until earlier this year I went along with the popular opinion that going above ISO 800 should be avoided but personally since going with ISO 1600 or - most often 3200 - I've had a much higher %age of keepers so long as I'm happy to run them through some basic post processing. Mike Lane & Andy Rouse have done some good videos on the OM-1 ... particularly this one from Andy Rouse on why you should use high ISO:

Re: the EVF, like I said, I found the old EM-1 EVF to take some time to get used to but the one in the OM-1 is so, so much better (it's very obvious if you compare the two) and I no longer think it inferior to the optical VF in the 7D2 although - of course - I'm only really familiar with using an EVF now!

Your calculations for FF comparison look good: similarly if I was using the 100-400 + 1.4 TC its' range would be equivalent to 280-1120mm. No problem to ask if you have other questions.

Last Question Chris....well maybe .
I'm starting to think OM1+300+2x converter. My worry with the 1.4x would simply be losing the reach from where I am today, though of course I could probably afford to crop more heavily.
I assume today with 7Dii I'm at 300 x2 x1.6 = 960.
The OM1 with 300 x 2 x1.4 = 840 so 87.5% of my current reach.
300 x 2 x 2 would = 1200.
You mentioned most of your CR photos were using 300 and the 1.4x but also that you were very happy with the 2x.. Do you tend to use the 1.4x rather than the 2.0x for any particular reason ? Are the 1.4x photos of better quality, or it simply that you have greater flexibilty wrt light conditions with the 1.4x? I'd assumed I'd probably take off the TC for forest/poor light.
Do you think I would be foolish to go 2x rather than 1.4x ?

Thanks again.

 

[Steve Gantlett]

For what it's worth, I've had the OM1 + 300 f4 + 1.4x + 2x for a month or so now and I'm using it all the time with the 2x, so much so that I haven't even tried it yet with the 1.4x which remains completely unused (though I'm saving it for if ever I get the 150-400).

 

[njlarsen]

For what it's worth, I've had the OM1 + 300 f4 + 1.4x + 2x for a month or so now and I'm using it all the time with the 2x, so much so that I haven't even tried it yet with the 1.4x which remains completely unused (though I'm saving it for if ever I get the 150-400).

Which already has its own built in 1.25x TC
Niels

 

[C B Allen]

For what it's worth, I've had the OM1 + 300 f4 + 1.4x + 2x for a month or so now and I'm using it all the time with the 2x, so much so that I haven't even tried it yet with the 1.4x which remains completely unused (though I'm saving it for if ever I get the 150-400).

I kind of assumed your 150-400 must have come through by now as WEX in Norwich allegedly had one/some (?) in stock just over a week ago! So much myth and rumour around this lens though it does sound as though supply is improving.

 

[Tony Knight]

For what it's worth, I've had the OM1 + 300 f4 + 1.4x + 2x for a month or so now and I'm using it all the time with the 2x, so much so that I haven't even tried it yet with the 1.4x which remains completely unused (though I'm saving it for if ever I get the 150-400).

Thanks Steve. In poor light still use the 2x ? Hand held ?

 

[Tony Knight]

Well I didn't "think about it" for too long. Just bought an OM1 + 300 pro + 2x converter. All should arrive on Thursday. I'm away on the Isle of Wight next week which is perfect with little in the way of crucial bird photos to screw up, but plenty of rainy time to get familiar with how the bloody thing works and opportunity for a bit of low pressure practice before Thailand in Dec
Thanks for the advice all....

 

[C B Allen]

Thanks Steve. In poor light still use the 2x ? Hand held ?

Quick reply on this & your earlier question. I used the 300 +1.4 mostly as a high %age of the birding was in forest (on really dark/wet days I went with the bare 300), the birds were mostly fairly close but often there-and-gone so quicker to locate the target than with the 2x. I used the 2x mostly in the more open situations. The same at home - if I was out in open country/wetlands I'd use the 2x otherwise the 1.4 .... I think they're both optically excellent TC's.

As to hand holding, I couldn't remember the last time I used a tripod and in fact I removed the rotating tripod mounts off both the 300 & 100-400 some time ago and replaced them with the DR79 decoration ring (which weighs virtually nothing & costs about £20) which saves about 200gr.

See from your last msg that you've gone with 300 and 2x pairing: hope you find it as good as I have (& you can always add the 1.4 later if you find you need something in between 600mm & 1200mm (effective) lenses.

 

[Tony Knight]

Quick reply on this & your earlier question. I used the 300 +1.4 mostly as a high %age of the birding was in forest (on really dark/wet days I went with the bare 300), the birds were mostly fairly close but often there-and-gone so quicker to locate the target than with the 2x. I used the 2x mostly in the more open situations. The same at home - if I was out in open country/wetlands I'd use the 2x otherwise the 1.4 .... I think they're both optically excellent TC's.

As to hand holding, I couldn't remember the last time I used a tripod and in fact I removed the rotating tripod mounts off both the 300 & 100-400 some time ago and replaced them with the DR79 decoration ring (which weighs virtually nothing & costs about £20) which saves about 200gr.

See from your last msg that you've gone with 300 and 2x pairing: hope you find it as good as I have (& you can always add the 1.4 later if you find you need something in between 600mm & 1200mm (effective) lenses.

Thanks, yes my thinking is that I will just remove the 2x in darker situations as I do currently with the 7Dii/300/2x. Most of the larger or close mammals I ever need to photo are generally on safari from a jeep where it's possible to take a spare camera and for this I will continue to take and use the Sony RX10 Bridge/zoom for larger mammals.

The only real gap will be scenery photos but that would often be the case with the 100-400 zoom too anyway. Carrying the OM1 AND Sony RX10 on walks would be onerous. I could carry only the Sony on walks where I'm not expecting to see anything bird/mammal-wise . What do you do ? Carry a smaller lense/zoom or rely on a small compact/good old iphone in your pocket ?

Decoration ring sounds good but I use the blackrapid camera straps connected to the tripod fitting on the lens so won't be able to jettison that, given the decoration ring doesn't have a fitting...maybe I could attach to the base of the camera itself ? (with heavy Canon DSLR kit didn't want a heavy lens and 2x hanging and supported by just connection points with the camera).

 

[C B Allen]

Thanks, yes my thinking is that I will just remove the 2x in darker situations as I do currently with the 7Dii/300/2x. Most of the larger or close mammals I ever need to photo are generally on safari from a jeep where it's possible to take a spare camera and for this I will continue to take and use the Sony RX10 Bridge/zoom for larger mammals.

The only real gap will be scenery photos but that would often be the case with the 100-400 zoom too anyway. Carrying the OM1 AND Sony RX10 on walks would be onerous. I could carry only the Sony on walks where I'm not expecting to see anything bird/mammal-wise . What do you do ? Carry a smaller lense/zoom or rely on a small compact/good old iphone in your pocket ?

Decoration ring sounds good but I use the blackrapid camera straps connected to the tripod fitting on the lens so won't be able to jettison that, given the decoration ring doesn't have a fitting...maybe I could attach to the base of the camera itself ? (with heavy Canon DSLR kit didn't want a heavy lens and 2x hanging and supported by just connection points with the camera).

I have the infamous 12-100 (reckoned by many to be the best all round Oly lens) for most any non-birding photography which gives you effective 24-200mm range and is one of the PRO series lens & built like a tank. There is also a cheaper 12-200 zoom that gives even more range and generally gets good reviews as well. If interested it's worth knowing that the 12-100 is available from HDEW for around £800 versus £1200 at WEX (I got mine from HDEW a few years ago) & both are normally in stock used at MPB.

I use Peak Design Slide Lite straps and have had no issues by attaching one to the right camera lug and the other to the base plate of the camera. I know some people don't approve of this and worry about putting strain on the mount. Just my personal experience/opinion of course but attached this way the camera with long lens just hangs naturally by my side & makes it quick to bring up to use (same as when I used to use the 7D2/400 f5.6 combo without problems for several years although this is a lot lighter combo than your 7D2/300 f2.8 of course).

 

[Tony Knight]

I have the infamous 12-100 (reckoned by many to be the best all round Oly lens) for most any non-birding photography which gives you effective 24-200mm range and is one of the PRO series lens & built like a tank. There is also a cheaper 12-200 zoom that gives even more range and generally gets good reviews as well. If interested it's worth knowing that the 12-100 is available from HDEW for around £800 versus £1200 at WEX (I got mine from HDEW a few years ago) & both are normally in stock used at MPB.

I use Peak Design Slide Lite straps and have had no issues by attaching one to the right camera lug and the other to the base plate of the camera. I know some people don't approve of this and worry about putting strain on the mount. Just my personal experience/opinion of course but attached this way the camera with long lens just hangs naturally by my side & makes it quick to bring up to use (same as when I used to use the 7D2/400 f5.6 combo without problems for several years although this is a lot lighter combo than your 7D2/300 f2.8 of course).

Looks a nice lens though I guess would need a rucksack/bag to carry it in addition to the OM1 and mounted lens.
Those look good straps. Will have to see how the weight of the lens & 2x feels on the camera and take a view on whether to ditch the weight of tripod mount and attach the blackrapid directly to the camera. As you say will be much lighter than the set up I'm used to.

 

[Tony Knight]

A couple of quick questions;

Does anyone else have an issue with the 300 lens manual focus ring continually slipping down so that when you go to take a picture, no auto-focusing happens, as manual focus has been selected on the lens ? Can't believe it's just me - presume when i walk it rubs against my leg and moves. Is there a way of locking the MF off on the lens ?

Having programmed C1 and C2 with appropriate settings, whenever i switch between the 2, the exposure switches to -0.7. I correct this to +0 (or whatever I need) but as soon as I switch to C1 or C2 it goes back to -0.7. I must have set this somewhere in the C1 and C2 settings but can't see where to set exposure levels in the preferences ....... help !

EDIT - both issues now resolved !

Thanks
Tony

 

[NoSpringChicken]

I don't have an OM-1 but according to page 104 of the manual you can disable the MF Clutch in the menu. MENU > AF > 6. MF > MF Clutch. I have the same problem on my E-M1 II with the 300mm f4 but now if the camera refuses to focus I immediately check the clutch ring. I think the problem is that I tend to support the lens by the clutch ring without meaning to.

Ron