I posted this on the micro four thirds forum along with my initial post comparing the OM-1 w/ Oly 150-400 PRO and the Canon R5 w/ RF 100-500 L (link here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66007715 ): . As I decide which system to ultimately keep, I’d thought it’d be interesting to post my unscientific, but personal real world experiences of the two telephoto setups.
Anyways, if you care to read this post (and the original comparison post) I thought it would be interesting to see if anyone from this forum had any further helpful insights or experiences. Thanks for reading and, politely, sharing!
(Below is Copied from micro four thirds forum posting):
Hello, after a healthy engagement and polite discussion surrounding my TLDR thread of the OM-1 w/ Oly 150-400 PRO and the Canon R5 RF 100-500 L (link here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66047502), a lot of readers asked if I could post my conclusions and which system I chose.
Unfortunately, we maxed out the responses on the original thread, so I wanted to start this new one and continue the discussion and, hopefully, reach a conclusion - sharing my thoughts (for what they are worth) along the way!
First of all, it bears repeating, in line with the original thread, this isn’t to say one system is better than the other. As I described in my original post, I was hoping to find the one system that works best for me. Please keep responses respectful and informative.
I am in the final days of my decision-making process and will need to make a decision to keep the OM-1/PRO gear or not. With that said, In addition to my findings in the original post (link above), I have noticed some other interesting things between the two systems in how I photograph and using these systems for wildlife.
1). Disclaimer: The following has been probably the best realization I have had lately in comparing these two systems for my use: With the RF 2x Extender on the RF 100-500 L (giving it the same FOV as the 150-400 PRO with built in 1.25 TC engaged), the f11-f14 aperture restrictions force the R5 into very high ISO ranges quickly, and earlier in the evening/early morning light than expected.
To get my shutter speeds into a good range for fast moving subjects (e.g. little birds) I was surprised at how quickly this occurred and it seemed like I still had a lot of light available (from 5-7 p.m. was when I was generally photographing).
With the OM-1/PRO lens, I was not hitting such high ISO’s comparatively and I could maintain higher shutter speeds, for example at ISO 8000, in the same evening lighting situations.
Now, I don’t want to get into an “equivalency war” here: I was surprised by the above info. However, started to realize that this is what many m4/3’s photographer’s describe with understanding how equivalence can actually help the m4/3’s gear, rather than be a hindrance (as it usually is portrayed) and what can make the system so desirable. In my understanding, you can achieve the settings you want (e.g. higher shutter speeds) without sacrificing High ISO quality problems. Or Put another way: While f4.5 on the Oly 150-400 PRO is equivalent to an F9 in regards to FF depth of field look, the f4.5 still behaves as an f4.5 in regard to the amount of lighting hitting the camera’s sensor and allows the shutter speed to coincide with that f-stop to get the exposure you need.
I am finding this very valuable with my use of the OM-1/Lens setup. I found the noise (for example at ISO 8000) didn’t look bad, and I felt comfortable with the noise reduction software I could apply in post to make it even less “intrusive.” With the R5 image at ISO 12800, (or at times 25600 ISO) to get the same exposure, I felt a little less confident on noise reduction software’s ability to help give me the image I wanted. (Yes, it would do an amazing job, but I’m sure it wouldn’t bring back as much detail as I originally saw).
2). After honing in the focus on the OM-1 and setting up my custom buttons appropriately and after updating the Canon R5 to the latest firmware, I actually have found the OM-1 bird C-AF to be more reliable and “sticky” than the R5’s animal AF. At times, it seems like the OM-1 will “reach” between branch’s to grab the bird in focus. For the similar/same image, I had to try and coax the R5 to grab focus.
With that said, with how I have the AF buttons setup on my R5, the R5 seems a little easier and intuitive place my Autofocus where I want it OR override the Animal AF system and single point autofocus quickly if needed.
I’ll continue to post my thoughts and conclusions here as I reach the final days of my decision. (If I want to return the OM-1/PRO lens, I have to return it by April 3rd!).
Happy to engage in further, polite and friendly discussion.
Cheers!
Anyways, if you care to read this post (and the original comparison post) I thought it would be interesting to see if anyone from this forum had any further helpful insights or experiences. Thanks for reading and, politely, sharing!
(Below is Copied from micro four thirds forum posting):
Hello, after a healthy engagement and polite discussion surrounding my TLDR thread of the OM-1 w/ Oly 150-400 PRO and the Canon R5 RF 100-500 L (link here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66047502), a lot of readers asked if I could post my conclusions and which system I chose.
Unfortunately, we maxed out the responses on the original thread, so I wanted to start this new one and continue the discussion and, hopefully, reach a conclusion - sharing my thoughts (for what they are worth) along the way!
First of all, it bears repeating, in line with the original thread, this isn’t to say one system is better than the other. As I described in my original post, I was hoping to find the one system that works best for me. Please keep responses respectful and informative.
I am in the final days of my decision-making process and will need to make a decision to keep the OM-1/PRO gear or not. With that said, In addition to my findings in the original post (link above), I have noticed some other interesting things between the two systems in how I photograph and using these systems for wildlife.
1). Disclaimer: The following has been probably the best realization I have had lately in comparing these two systems for my use: With the RF 2x Extender on the RF 100-500 L (giving it the same FOV as the 150-400 PRO with built in 1.25 TC engaged), the f11-f14 aperture restrictions force the R5 into very high ISO ranges quickly, and earlier in the evening/early morning light than expected.
To get my shutter speeds into a good range for fast moving subjects (e.g. little birds) I was surprised at how quickly this occurred and it seemed like I still had a lot of light available (from 5-7 p.m. was when I was generally photographing).
With the OM-1/PRO lens, I was not hitting such high ISO’s comparatively and I could maintain higher shutter speeds, for example at ISO 8000, in the same evening lighting situations.
Now, I don’t want to get into an “equivalency war” here: I was surprised by the above info. However, started to realize that this is what many m4/3’s photographer’s describe with understanding how equivalence can actually help the m4/3’s gear, rather than be a hindrance (as it usually is portrayed) and what can make the system so desirable. In my understanding, you can achieve the settings you want (e.g. higher shutter speeds) without sacrificing High ISO quality problems. Or Put another way: While f4.5 on the Oly 150-400 PRO is equivalent to an F9 in regards to FF depth of field look, the f4.5 still behaves as an f4.5 in regard to the amount of lighting hitting the camera’s sensor and allows the shutter speed to coincide with that f-stop to get the exposure you need.
I am finding this very valuable with my use of the OM-1/Lens setup. I found the noise (for example at ISO 8000) didn’t look bad, and I felt comfortable with the noise reduction software I could apply in post to make it even less “intrusive.” With the R5 image at ISO 12800, (or at times 25600 ISO) to get the same exposure, I felt a little less confident on noise reduction software’s ability to help give me the image I wanted. (Yes, it would do an amazing job, but I’m sure it wouldn’t bring back as much detail as I originally saw).
2). After honing in the focus on the OM-1 and setting up my custom buttons appropriately and after updating the Canon R5 to the latest firmware, I actually have found the OM-1 bird C-AF to be more reliable and “sticky” than the R5’s animal AF. At times, it seems like the OM-1 will “reach” between branch’s to grab the bird in focus. For the similar/same image, I had to try and coax the R5 to grab focus.
With that said, with how I have the AF buttons setup on my R5, the R5 seems a little easier and intuitive place my Autofocus where I want it OR override the Animal AF system and single point autofocus quickly if needed.
I’ll continue to post my thoughts and conclusions here as I reach the final days of my decision. (If I want to return the OM-1/PRO lens, I have to return it by April 3rd!).
Happy to engage in further, polite and friendly discussion.
Cheers!
Last edited:
