Recommendation for lighter system from FF

lokatz said:

da7329 said:

Seems you already have one of the best kits. R5 738 gr and 100-500 1365 gr total 2103gr. Can crop to 750mm with 20 mp.

Click to expand...

Definitely true. I am probably going to hang on to the Canon kit for local shooting and shorter trips.

lokatz said:

The new oly om1 599gr mated with the best tele other than the 150-400 the 300f4 1270gr total 1869gr

Size smaller but weight saving only 234gr. The pro Capture feature is nice though

i don’t see the pany 100-400 985gr or the better oly100-400 1120 up to your high IQ standards.

Click to expand...

Opinions seem split over whether the Oly or Pana 100-400 is better. I've seen enough evidence of both delivering very respectable results.

This gets into more of a philosophical question, but in my opinion, there are too many bird shooters who pixel peep. To me, getting a shot that appeals to others because it is technically good but, most importantly, visually stunning matters more than whether I can separately count every single feather tip. I see too many bird shots that are perfectly sharp and truly boring. (Sorry for rambling.)

lokatz said:

I’m sure there will be a Zcam with R5 weight and Z9 AF soon. Mated with maybe Zmount 500pf would be interesting about 2200 gr. The current 500pf is 1460gr.

Click to expand...

Will still be the largest and heaviest of all of them, and the most inflexible one because of its fixed FL. Being able to zoom out a little is often the only way to get a good BIF shot, unless you only shoot slow-moving birds (eagles, herons and the like).

Click to expand...

Good observation. Here in Florida birds are in close, most of my BiFs are shot in the 200-250mm range, but still birds are detailed at 350-400mm. My PL100-400 does both.

lokatz said:

lokatz said:

Weight wise I don’t see that big of weight savings with MFT compared to FF mirrorless.

Click to expand...

Not in my book, or for my needs. The OM-1 plus pana lens is 1,584 grams, which means 587 saved over the Canon gear and 716 over the Z7ii + 500 PF, with a MUCH smaller overall package. With the Oly 300, the weight savings are small but still notable, whereas the size reduction is again substantial. When you travel internationally, which I do extensively, and hike a lot, every gram shed is welcome, and the size of the equipment makes a big difference.

lokatz said:

I do see these MFT tele’s heavy for the small sensor they cover!

Click to expand...

They are very solidly built, and I tend to concur that they are heavier than they'd need to be.

lokatz said:

DA

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You were probably trying to add something, but all your latest post did was duplicate mine, I'm afraid.

da7329 said:

No I was wondering about the oly 300f4. Do you have that one? It’s the best there is for MFT other than the very high end 150-400. Sounds like is about the same as the 500pf. About the same weight as the 500pf but does have better min focus distance. Sounds like the om1 has improved AF so the 300f4 kit should do well compared to the E-M1 bodies. Have you every tried the oly 300 with a 1.4 TC? That lens is the only long tele I would consider for MFT but it is heavy for the system. I do have the cheap 75-300ii for a zoom but it is just so so IQ but very light and fits the system.

DA

Click to expand...

Yes I do have the Olympus 300 f4 pro and both TC's.

Agree about minimum focus distance. It is ideal for near macros and with a TC and front diopter lens gets to 1:1. I'm happy to use the 1.4 TC on the lens for birds and image degradation is very little. To get the Olympus system into the same field of view ballpark as the D500/500PF it needs the TC.

I've not had much success with the 2TC. I think that is because acquisition on my part is harder and slower with an effective FOV of 1200mm. For long still birds it's hard to beat for the price and weight. The new OM1 bird AF may help me here out at 1200mm FV.

I also think the cheap 75-300II lens is great to carry around for travel. I also have it with me when doing macro work in case an unexpected bird opportunity comes up. It is sharper than many think, at least mine is.

I forgot too add that a Nikon V3 and a 500pf gives a FOV near 1400mm with an 18 mega pixel sensor. My impression is that the Olympus camera with a 300 f4 pro and 2TC would be better for IQ and AF.

--
Cheers, Brandon.
Olympus EM1mIII, EM10 mII, Sony RX10 M4, RX100 M7
Nikon V1,V3, D500, D810
FlickR Photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/

djrocks66 said:

da7329 said:

No I was wondering about the oly 300f4. Do you have that one? It’s the best there is for MFT other than the very high end 150-400. Sounds like is about the same as the 500pf. About the same weight as the 500pf but does have better min focus distance. Sounds like the om1 has improved AF so the 300f4 kit should do well compared to the E-M1 bodies. Have you every tried the oly 300 with a 1.4 TC? That lens is the only long tele I would consider for MFT but it is heavy for the system. I do have the cheap 75-300ii for a zoom but it is just so so IQ but very light and fits the system.

DA

Click to expand...

I am shooting the OLY 300 f4 with the OM-1 and I find it so light and compact. I’m not sure what you mean by too heavy for the system? Compared to the equivalent in a full frame camera setup it feels like half the weight.

Click to expand...

It's even lighter if you remove the lens foot!

Would you say that with your experience the oly 300 with a 1.4tc will yield about the same image IQ as the D500 with the 500pf? I don’t know about the little 75-300. I really like the size and weight fits the system perfect. But my rx10-4 seems better than the 75-300 on E-M1 or G9. Its not bad but wish they would update to improve sharpness and focus speed. Think it would be a best seller if optics and focus motors were up to the 100-400 standard at half the weight of the 100-400.

DA

Sample from the 300+MC14. Cropped, but not heavily.





Can't compare to another system; just know that at this level it's the person attached to the camera--the gear will come through.

Cheers,

Rick

--
Equivalence and diffraction-free since 2009.
You can be too; ask about our 12-step program.

Nice!

DA

da7329 said:

Would you say that with your experience the oly 300 with a 1.4tc will yield about the same image IQ as the D500 with the 500pf? I don’t know about the little 75-300. I really like the size and weight fits the system perfect. But my rx10-4 seems better than the 75-300 on E-M1 or G9. Its not bad but wish they would update to improve sharpness and focus speed. Think it would be a best seller if optics and focus motors were up to the 100-400 standard at half the weight of the 100-400.

DA

Click to expand...

In answer to your question. The bare 300 f4 pro is as sharp as the bare 500 Pf.

Add the TC14 and it still is similar enough.

The Sony RX10m4 is a great sharp accurate autofocusing camera. I use mine for travel and on dog walks. It is the real successor of the Nikon 1 series with a better sensor and great Autofocus for birds in flight. The problem with it and the Olympus 300mm lenses is that they are not quite long enough for most bird photographers. For me and many bird photographers equivalent focal length of around 800 mm is the ideal usable focal length..

So the 300 f4 pro and tc14 is ideal and sharp enough. Same with the Nikon 500pf on the D500.
But also that is why the two M43 100-400 mm lenses are still very reasonable for bird photography. People say they are slow but are only 1/3 stop slower than 300f4 pro with a TC14 on it. So still usable.

A sharper 75-300 lll will still in general be too short for most bird photographers.

lokatz said:

You were probably trying to add something, but all your latest post did was duplicate mine, I'm afraid.

Click to expand...

Look closer, he commented this midway thru your comment:

lokatz said:

gary0319 said:

Good observation. Here in Florida birds are in close, most of my BiFs are shot in the 200-250mm range, but still birds are detailed at 350-400mm. My PL100-400 does both.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Brandon birder said:

da7329 said:

No I was wondering about the oly 300f4. Do you have that one? It’s the best there is for MFT other than the very high end 150-400. Sounds like is about the same as the 500pf. About the same weight as the 500pf but does have better min focus distance. Sounds like the om1 has improved AF so the 300f4 kit should do well compared to the E-M1 bodies. Have you every tried the oly 300 with a 1.4 TC? That lens is the only long tele I would consider for MFT but it is heavy for the system. I do have the cheap 75-300ii for a zoom but it is just so so IQ but very light and fits the system.

DA

Click to expand...

Yes I do have the Olympus 300 f4 pro and both TC's.

Agree about minimum focus distance. It is ideal for near macros and with a TC and front diopter lens gets to 1:1. I'm happy to use the 1.4 TC on the lens for birds and image degradation is very little. To get the Olympus system into the same field of view ballpark as the D500/500PF it needs the TC.

I've not had much success with the 2TC. I think that is because acquisition on my part is harder and slower with an effective FOV of 1200mm. For long still birds it's hard to beat for the price and weight. The new OM1 bird AF may help me here out at 1200mm FV.

I also think the cheap 75-300II lens is great to carry around for travel. I also have it with me when doing macro work in case an unexpected bird opportunity comes up. It is sharper than many think, at least mine is.

I forgot too add that a Nikon V3 and a 500pf gives a FOV near 1400mm with an 18 mega pixel sensor. My impression is that the Olympus camera with a 300 f4 pro and 2TC would be better for IQ and AF.

Click to expand...

I shoot mostly small shy birds in the bush, so unless I'm prepared to sit in a hide for hours on end hosting all manner of blood sucking critters, which I'm not, then the 300/4 with the 2X TC is the only way. Yes, acquisition is very hard but one gets better with practice. I'm getting quite good at looking along the barrel but it helps to look at a distinctive branch, find that, then the bird... if it's still there of course. IQ is still excellent with the TC but don't expect a great bokeh particularly with a background of streaky things like grass.

Impulses said:

lokatz said:

You were probably trying to add something, but all your latest post did was duplicate mine, I'm afraid.

Click to expand...

Look closer, he commented this midway thru your comment:

Impulses said:

gary0319 said:

Good observation. Here in Florida birds are in close, most of my BiFs are shot in the 200-250mm range, but still birds are detailed at 350-400mm. My PL100-400 does both.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Overlooked that. Thanks!