-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Thinking of buying a new OM-1 mk2 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter 10ForCash
- Start date
What's the weight difference do you know ?
I haven’t the exact figures for weight, but I did purchase a Peak Design Slide Strap so I could use the supports on the lens rather than the supports on the camera so subconsciously I felt that the weight was too much for the cameras mount. I can still shoot handheld without any issue though, the camera and lens have sync stabilisation, the same as you’d have if you were using the 300 F4 Pro lens. The only reason OM haven’t classified the 150-600 a pro lens is because it has a variable aperture, which doesn’t bother me.
Google, bing, etc are quite good at answering questions such as this.
Niels
The latest review contains this
aucarius
Marcus
When I switched to OM-1 from Canon 7Dii I started with the 100-400 but found it too soft for me, compared to the Canon EF 100-400 Lii. I traded for the 300mm F4 plus 1.4x & couldn't be happier. Great reach & fantastic sharpness, it's also lighter & I don't end up with backache after a long hike.
I have the OM1.1 and several lenses, longest being the 100-400. I am considering the 150-600. OM1 bird detection is good, and several camera forum users report improved bird tracking on the updated OM1.2, particularly in brushy areas wih partially obscured view.
If I was buying today I would get a Nikon Z8 with the 180-600. Consider your budget. An OM1.1 with the 150-600 would cost less, and with the 100-400 even less. Do you need really 600mm?
Pauhana
Well-known member
If i was richer to buy and younger to carry that load that would I add this to bag. But that is not gonna happen. And besides am quite happy with my OM-1 system
Iceberg slim
Fly by night
I’m looking at the Oly system, but would love the 300 pro on a Fuji body (X H2S)
faunagraphy
Member
I've been shooting Olympus for years, and the OM-1 since it came out (pre-ordered). I didn't see this thread in time to offer buying advice, but I'm glad you found something that works for you (100-400mm). Perhaps some months later, you might want to view your photos and see how many shots were shot at under 300mm. My suspicion is that there would be few of them, and that you will find the 300mm Pro + MC-20 (600mm) far more rewarding to use.
Even with the 2x teleconverter, the sharpness of that lens is insane. It's manufactured to very high standards and I've never heard anyone complain of a poor copy even with a used lens, which are quite affordable these days. That's what I use anyway, after having tried both the Olympus / Panasonic 100-400's and some other systems e.g. Nikon 200-500mm and D500.
Regarding filters: the primary purpose of one, IMO, is to protect the coating on the front element of your lens from scratches, unless you want a CPL filter or a special effects one. Replacing a filter is a lot cheaper than sending a lens in for repair. With a high quality (expensive) filter, the degradation is minimal and you'd barely notice it. You want to use a multi-coated brass filter. As with high-quality optics, you can safely buy a used filter and be assured of good quality, so long as it's manufactured to high standards.
I use a B+W XS-Pro 007 Clear MRC Nano filter with my 300mm Pro, and do not bother with filters for my cheaper lenses. They might have a newer equivalent model now.
007 indicates that the glass is thinner than their 010 filter (less impact on image quality). You want a Clear or a UV filter for birding. MRC means that it is multi-coated to minimize aberrations and light loss. Nano is their water-repellent coating for bad weather.
Other brands might have other nomenclatures, but the key factors remain the same: brass construction and multi-coating. A good brand would include charts of light loss in their literature.
Even with the 2x teleconverter, the sharpness of that lens is insane. It's manufactured to very high standards and I've never heard anyone complain of a poor copy even with a used lens, which are quite affordable these days. That's what I use anyway, after having tried both the Olympus / Panasonic 100-400's and some other systems e.g. Nikon 200-500mm and D500.
Regarding filters: the primary purpose of one, IMO, is to protect the coating on the front element of your lens from scratches, unless you want a CPL filter or a special effects one. Replacing a filter is a lot cheaper than sending a lens in for repair. With a high quality (expensive) filter, the degradation is minimal and you'd barely notice it. You want to use a multi-coated brass filter. As with high-quality optics, you can safely buy a used filter and be assured of good quality, so long as it's manufactured to high standards.
I use a B+W XS-Pro 007 Clear MRC Nano filter with my 300mm Pro, and do not bother with filters for my cheaper lenses. They might have a newer equivalent model now.
007 indicates that the glass is thinner than their 010 filter (less impact on image quality). You want a Clear or a UV filter for birding. MRC means that it is multi-coated to minimize aberrations and light loss. Nano is their water-repellent coating for bad weather.
Other brands might have other nomenclatures, but the key factors remain the same: brass construction and multi-coating. A good brand would include charts of light loss in their literature.
