Recommendation for new birding set up

I have sold a bunch of lenses which I was not using very much, and as a result have a bit of a kitty to use for some better hardware.

I have an OM1, 300 F4 and PL100/400 which are great as my main birding set up, but read so many criticisms of M4/3 and OMS in particular, that there must be something better out there

I set myself a weight limit of 2Kg, as that is already at the edge of comfort for me for long hikes with the rig.

Can those of you who are critical of my current M4/3 gear (as well as others who have experience) please advise.

(The 150-400 is one option, but it falls outside my weight limit, and there are test showing that for ultimate IQ the 300 F4 does as well or better)

Probably I should just spend the money on decent birding trips, or learn to use my current gear better, but hey, just asking what you guys think.

I assume no replies mean there is nothing which does better!

Thanks

Tom

tomhongkong said:

I have sold a bunch of lenses which I was not using very much, and as a result have a bit of a kitty to use for some better hardware.

I have an OM1, 300 F4 and PL100/400 which are great as my main birding set up, but read so many criticisms of M4/3 and OMS in particular, that there must be something better out there

I set myself a weight limit of 2Kg, as that is already at the edge of comfort for me for long hikes with the rig.

Can those of you who are critical of my current M4/3 gear (as well as others who have experience) please advise.

(The 150-400 is one option, but it falls outside my weight limit, and there are test showing that for ultimate IQ the 300 F4 does as well or better)

Probably I should just spend the money on decent birding trips, or learn to use my current gear better, but hey, just asking what you guys think.

I assume no replies mean there is nothing which does better!

Thanks

Tom

Click to expand...

I don’t think you can do any better right now. Multi-system BIF shooters like Lokatz say you can’t do any better, especially with your weight constraint.



Further thoughts:

• OM1.2 might be very marginally better but nobody is claiming that including lokatz and David McAughtry who both have one and do a lot of testing. So they aren’t seeing anything significant.
• I suppose you could test a bunch of PL 100-400s to see if you can strike lucky with copy variation.

I think the next step is the OM1.3 which could be coming late this year or early next year along with the new white lens. We currently have no idea what they will bring to the party but it might be worth holding on to enough cash for them….

tomhongkong said:

I have sold a bunch of lenses which I was not using very much, and as a result have a bit of a kitty to use for some better hardware.

I have an OM1, 300 F4 and PL100/400 which are great as my main birding set up, but read so many criticisms of M4/3 and OMS in particular, that there must be something better out there

I set myself a weight limit of 2Kg, as that is already at the edge of comfort for me for long hikes with the rig.

Can those of you who are critical of my current M4/3 gear (as well as others who have experience) please advise.

(The 150-400 is one option, but it falls outside my weight limit, and there are test showing that for ultimate IQ the 300 F4 does as well or better)

Probably I should just spend the money on decent birding trips, or learn to use my current gear better, but hey, just asking what you guys think.

I assume no replies mean there is nothing which does better!

Thanks

Tom

Click to expand...

Focus on going on birding trips and be creative with your gear. To get better IQ, you have to get heavier gear, such as the 150-400 or full frame with a 600mm f/4 or 400mm f/2.8. But even then, the image IQ isn't too far apart from your 300mm IS Pro.

I now spend my money on bird trips and workshops. Skills improvement go a long way in improving bird shots.

Do you have one of the teleconverters, 1.4x or 2x? Many on this forum have gotten more reach and superb results with the 300 f4 and a teleconverter.

Agree looking like in a good spot with your gear. Yes add extender for 300. My current setup is OM1 MK II 300 f4 Oly 100-400 Also carry 1.4x for the 300



This setup works great for me as I also hike a lot when I bird Personally I have adjusted my style to optimize what works for me with this setup There is no magic system, just focus in what works for you. If you think something out there might work better, rent the gear and give it a try.



Otherwise save you money and use it for trips.

johnCam said:

Do you have one of the teleconverters, 1.4x or 2x? Many on this forum have gotten more reach and superb results with the 300 f4 and a teleconverter.

Click to expand...

Yes, I have both for the 300 as well as for the PL100-400. I find they work well on the 300, but are probably not worth using on the PL

tom

Over your weight limit: Sony A1 (I or II) + 300/2.8 + 2x TC, 2.42kg. AND YES, THEY ARE EXPENSIVE, and "a bit of a kitty" might not get you there.

I started with Sony A6600, and before the OM-1, I used A1 + 600/4. The OM-1.1 + 300/4 + 1.4 combo weighs almost exactly half. After returning from a birding trip with the OM-1 early this year, I picked up the 300/2.8 and then an A1 II. FWIW, I'm a 2.5-year OM-1 user.

I still have most of the Sony gear, and the only thing I needed was the 300/2.8, so I thought. I missed the ProCap so much that I got a used A1 II. With the APSC mode at 22MP, it gets you to 900, but a friend of mine did some tests, you are better off crop than APSC. He's a birding guide and has lots of opportunities for many different types of birds if that matters.

You'll miss the ProCap if it's A1.1. The other thing you'll miss is the Sync IS; I can push SS much slower with the OM-1. There's a slight IQ hit with the Sony 2x TC, and most of the time, I use the 1.4x instead (420/4 but I have room to crop).

You can also take a look at the Z8/Z6III + 600/6.3.

Good luck.

tomhongkong said:

I have sold a bunch of lenses which I was not using very much, and as a result have a bit of a kitty to use for some better hardware.

I have an OM1, 300 F4 and PL100/400 which are great as my main birding set up, but read so many criticisms of M4/3 and OMS in particular, that there must be something better out there

I set myself a weight limit of 2Kg, as that is already at the edge of comfort for me for long hikes with the rig.

Can those of you who are critical of my current M4/3 gear (as well as others who have experience) please advise.

(The 150-400 is one option, but it falls outside my weight limit, and there are test showing that for ultimate IQ the 300 F4 does as well or better)

Probably I should just spend the money on decent birding trips, or learn to use my current gear better, but hey, just asking what you guys think.

I assume no replies mean there is nothing which does better!

Thanks

Tom

Click to expand...

I'd begin detailing what the current kit's failings are, otherwise there are too many aspects at play for a targeted upgrade path.

We have so many excellent birders on the forum (I'm not one) there's ample evidence m4/3 can be a successful bespoke birding rig. Anybody claiming otherwise is as they say, full of beans.

Still, plenty of other paths exist if you wish to put your oar into another brand's waters. However, matching the reach you currently have will push you past that weight limit unless you settle for so-so super tele zooms. "Just crop" is a fool's trap.

Vs. the original, OM-1ii has very helpful lower SH2 frame rates. I frequently find 25fps higher than I want and that annoyance has been resolved. Variable ND is an excellent tool. Human subject detection can be, in certain circumstances. IBIS is a bit better as well. Having both models I prefer the newer but it's also not dramatically different.

@300mm I'll put the prime and 150-400 on par—very detailed testing could tip ultimate resolution to the 300 but I don't see it in real world shooting. The two MCs are must-own for prime owners; I use the MC14 far more than the 20.

For sure I'd prefer a sync IS supertele to the PL+OM combo. Taming the viewfinder shooting 400mm and beyond is critical for my uses.

Good luck,

Rick

number_5 said:

Over your weight limit: Sony A1 (I or II) + 300/2.8 + 2x TC, 2.42kg. AND YES, THEY ARE EXPENSIVE, and "a bit of a kitty" might not get you there.

I started with Sony A6600, and before the OM-1, I used A1 + 600/4. The OM-1.1 + 300/4 + 1.4 combo weighs almost exactly half. After returning from a birding trip with the OM-1 early this year, I picked up the 300/2.8 and then an A1 II. FWIW, I'm a 2.5-year OM-1 user.

I still have most of the Sony gear, and the only thing I needed was the 300/2.8, so I thought. I missed the ProCap so much that I got a used A1 II. With the APSC mode at 22MP, it gets you to 900, but a friend of mine did some tests, you are better off crop than APSC. He's a birding guide and has lots of opportunities for many different types of birds if that matters.

You'll miss the ProCap if it's A1.1. The other thing you'll miss is the Sync IS; I can push SS much slower with the OM-1. There's a slight IQ hit with the Sony 2x TC, and most of the time, I use the 1.4x instead (420/4 but I have room to crop).

You can also take a look at the Z8/Z6III + 600/6.3.

Good luck.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughts. Both that Sony setup, and Z8 you suggest have been in my sights, but I am not convinced that I would do sufficiently better to justify a change.



Do you have any direct comparisons between the OM1/300 and the Sony with 300/2.8?



The Sony is a bit heavy, but I could stretch it if it is significantly better

I also looked at the z8 and 600/6.3. Also over my weight limit and I doubt if I would see much (any) improvement

Naturally everybody is enthusiastic about their own gear, real side by side comparisons are hard to find

Thanks

tom

No Time To Lose said:

tomhongkong said:

I have sold a bunch of lenses which I was not using very much, and as a result have a bit of a kitty to use for some better hardware.

I have an OM1, 300 F4 and PL100/400 which are great as my main birding set up, but read so many criticisms of M4/3 and OMS in particular, that there must be something better out there

I set myself a weight limit of 2Kg, as that is already at the edge of comfort for me for long hikes with the rig.

Can those of you who are critical of my current M4/3 gear (as well as others who have experience) please advise.

(The 150-400 is one option, but it falls outside my weight limit, and there are test showing that for ultimate IQ the 300 F4 does as well or better)

Probably I should just spend the money on decent birding trips, or learn to use my current gear better, but hey, just asking what you guys think.

I assume no replies mean there is nothing which does better!

Thanks

Tom

Click to expand...

I don’t think you can do any better right now. Multi-system BIF shooters like Lokatz say you can’t do any better, especially with your weight constraint.

Further thoughts:

• OM1.2 might be very marginally better but nobody is claiming that including lokatz and David McAughtry who both have one and do a lot of testing. So they aren’t seeing anything significant.
• I suppose you could test a bunch of PL 100-400s to see if you can strike lucky with copy variation.

I think the next step is the OM1.3 which could be coming late this year or early next year along with the new white lens. We currently have no idea what they will bring to the party but it might be worth holding on to enough cash for them….

Click to expand...

That’s sensible. Perhaps in any case I should wait and see what the OM1iii turns out to be. The new lens is probably a bit shorter for birding unless it works really well well with TCs

thanks

tom

tomhongkong said:

number_5 said:

Over your weight limit: Sony A1 (I or II) + 300/2.8 + 2x TC, 2.42kg. AND YES, THEY ARE EXPENSIVE, and "a bit of a kitty" might not get you there.

I started with Sony A6600, and before the OM-1, I used A1 + 600/4. The OM-1.1 + 300/4 + 1.4 combo weighs almost exactly half. After returning from a birding trip with the OM-1 early this year, I picked up the 300/2.8 and then an A1 II. FWIW, I'm a 2.5-year OM-1 user.

I still have most of the Sony gear, and the only thing I needed was the 300/2.8, so I thought. I missed the ProCap so much that I got a used A1 II. With the APSC mode at 22MP, it gets you to 900, but a friend of mine did some tests, you are better off crop than APSC. He's a birding guide and has lots of opportunities for many different types of birds if that matters.

You'll miss the ProCap if it's A1.1. The other thing you'll miss is the Sync IS; I can push SS much slower with the OM-1. There's a slight IQ hit with the Sony 2x TC, and most of the time, I use the 1.4x instead (420/4 but I have room to crop).

You can also take a look at the Z8/Z6III + 600/6.3.

Good luck.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughts. Both that Sony setup, and Z8 you suggest have been in my sights, but I am not convinced that I would do sufficiently better to justify a change.

Do you have any direct comparisons between the OM1/300 and the Sony with 300/2.8?

Click to expand...

I think the sharpness are about the same, but 300/2.8 renders better, especially the background. The 300/2.8 can't touch the 600/4 though but the 600 also costs twice as much.


300/4


300/2.8

Tried to find something similar. I think DxO denoise applied more sharpen on the 300/4.

tomhongkong said:

The Sony is a bit heavy, but I could stretch it if it is significantly better

I also looked at the z8 and 600/6.3. Also over my weight limit and I doubt if I would see much (any) improvement

Naturally everybody is enthusiastic about their own gear, real side by side comparisons are hard to find

Click to expand...

Not trying to convince anyone to switch - it's your $$. The main reason I got into m43 birding was the weight, but the weight is less of an issue with the lightweight lens.

tomhongkong said:

Thanks

tom

Click to expand...

tomhongkong said:

I have sold a bunch of lenses which I was not using very much, and as a result have a bit of a kitty to use for some better hardware.

I have an OM1, 300 F4 and PL100/400 which are great as my main birding set up, but read so many criticisms of M4/3 and OMS in particular, that there must be something better out there

I set myself a weight limit of 2Kg, as that is already at the edge of comfort for me for long hikes with the rig.

Can those of you who are critical of my current M4/3 gear (as well as others who have experience) please advise.

(The 150-400 is one option, but it falls outside my weight limit, and there are test showing that for ultimate IQ the 300 F4 does as well or better)

Probably I should just spend the money on decent birding trips, or learn to use my current gear better, but hey, just asking what you guys think.

I assume no replies mean there is nothing which does better!

Thanks

Tom

Click to expand...

First, your 2kg limit is really very limiting. If that includes the camera, then you are done. You aren't going to find a 2kg setup in full frame; both camera bodies and suitable lenses weigh a lot more than what you have; you're really looking more at 3kg.

I used to use two cameras, the 300/4 with MC-14 teleconverter, and the PL 100-400 or OLY 100-400 (the OLY is bigger and heavier, so I tended to the PL). Both of the zoom lenses are limited to 25fps in SH2.

I used two cameras because you don't have time to change lenses when the action starts. If a bird shows up too close for the 300/4/1.4x at 420mm, then I would shift to the zoom.

Each of the setups, however, is under 2kg, which makes shooting with them a lot easier.

Since then, I have switched to the 150-400/4.5 lens, with a Zemlin lens hood (121g), but that's 2kg for the lens and that's a big lens to hike around with. But it is a great lens for birding, and I spend most of my time at 500mm with that lens (those little birds are often way up in the tall trees).

Note that, because the 150-400/4.5 is internal zoom, it is both well balanced and doesn't change center of mass as you zoom. So it feels much lighter than a lens that is external zoom, because that big front element stays put. That's why a lens like the 150-600 is a more difficult lens to use.

If you increase your weight limit to 3kg, then there are a couple of other options. The Canon R5ii and 200-800mm lens is a great combo. The Sony A1ii and 400-800mm lens is another great combo (might be a little over 3kg). Both of those cameras have Pre-release Capture Raw, which for my shooting is essential. And that is why I don't recommend any Nikon solution. The Canon probably has a better UI for birding; I don't know yet because I haven't done any serious research. At this time, I'm very happy with OMS.

What I would do is pick up a used OM1, an MC-14 teleconverter, and a good camera bag that makes carrying both cameras easy. For example, if you have a medium torso, you can look at a Lowepro Flipside 400 AW ii (should sell for $75 or less). I used to use the 400 AW with a Nikon D500 + 200-500/5.6 and Nikon D750 + 70-200/2.8. That's a much heavier combo.

And then take some trips. That is the main thing; you can have the best equipment available but the birds aren't going to come to you just because of that.

As you have suggested, stop chasing gear and instead chase the birds. You have a good setup. Use the money for trips and experience.

I have om1/150-400/300 and canon r5m2/100-500. I would say the 300 is bit better optical quality than the 150-400. The 150-400 and 100-500 are neck and neck with the optical quality the oly getting an 800mm efov with a 2x crop and the canon an 800 efov with a 1.6 crop20 mp with the oly and 17 mp with the canon. My wife is 100lbs and she goes with the canon over the oly kit. 1 lb lighter than the oly pro zoom kit $ 3000 cheaper better AF an effective zoom range of 100 to 800mm etc. the 100-500L is a pro zoom like the 150-400. I notice the difference over the lesser 100-400,150-600,200-600 cheaper zooms.

DA

I use Canon (R7) with EF100-400 and 300mm lenses for birding.

With the 100-400 it’s just over your 2Kg limit and with the 300mm, well that lens is 2.4Kg on its own, plus I use it with 1,4x and 2x extenders.

I have used a heavier lens and my personal comfort limit is around 4Kg total and that gives me plenty of options for cameras and lenses.

A 2Kg weight limit for birding would for me be prohibitive :-( , but maybe some day if (when) the arthritis in my hands is worse, I’ll be needing a lighter rig so I have thought about using m4/3 for birding and looked at what the lenses have to offer in terms of sharpness and reach . . . and my pick of currently available OM gear would be

OM-1II with the OM300mm f/4 with both TCs. I wouldn’t choose any of the zooms.

I have no fondness for Sony or Nikon cameras. Their best for birding are all FF and that’ll mean I’d need to go longer with the lenses - 600mm minimum.

IF you were looking to try something different I’d suggest an R7 with RF100-500mm but don’t expect anything much different to the IQ you currently get with your OM kit. But if you can fill the frame at 500mm you’ll have 33Mp at your disposal.

I am, like many Canon R7 owners, looking forward to the rumoured R7 Mk II which, rumour has it, won’t have a mechanical shutter and will possibly have some new features not seen before - it might be worth waiting to see what happens in that space.

But for now, I think the gear you have is hard to beat in that size/weight class

jj

Thanks for all the comments and suggestions. Even if I do not reply individually because I don't want to clog the thread up, I really appreciate what you have said.

I think my current set up probably meets my needs as well as I am going to be able to, until there are new announcements. I will seek out more opportunities to use what I have.

I note that a couple of the more vociferous critics of M4/3 did not chip in with any suggestions!

Tom

This kind of weight limit inevitably requires some serious compromising, so you may want to start by questioning your motivation. If you are happy with your MFT gear and your primary motivation for asking the question is the amount of criticism you hear or read, why do you pay more attention to the criticism than to your own experience? It's the results that matter, so if you are happy with them, I'd suggest to stop looking at the grass on the other side of the fence.

In case you are on a serious search: the only lens I know of that allows you to fully meet your weight limit with good IQ is the Canon RF 100-400 f/5.6-8. In fact, it clearly beats it, as this lens is very lightweight while performing quite strongly. Depending on how much "kitty" you're willing to spend, combine it with an R7, R5 or R5ii body.

This gives you a 600mm equivalent pixel count of 23.5MP on the R7 (APS-C) and 20 MP on the full-frame bodies. You biggest drawbacks will be

• slower/less dependable AF in low light,
• strange control layout and a few other quirks (e.g., small buffer) if you choose the R7,
• lesser weather protection and lens build quality.

On the plus side, you'll get

• better AF performance incl. better subject detection in decent/good light,
• marginally better IQ with R7 and clearly better IQ with R5/R5ii in low light,
• higher resolution for larger subjects, and
• a lens that weighs 635 grams and is only 16.5 centimeters long!

Choices, choices...

And workshops offered by OM Systems?

Might help you get more from your current kit.

My current birding setup is the OM-1 and 300/4 + MC-14

I do have the MC-20, but don't use it too often.

There are a couple of lenses from Nikon.

The 400mm 4.5 for one. The Z8 will bump up the weight. But not too bad imo.

The 600pf will get you more reach.

But I buy used and it's hard to beat the OM1 and 300F4 for value and weight.

As much as I enjoy bird photography, I'm just not going to spend over 5k to do it.

lokatz said:

This kind of weight limit inevitably requires some serious compromising, so you may want to start by questioning your motivation. If you are happy with your MFT gear and your primary motivation for asking the question is the amount of criticism you hear or read, why do you pay more attention to the criticism than to your own experience? It's the results that matter, so if you are happy with them, I'd suggest to stop looking at the grass on the other side of the fence.

In case you are on a serious search: the only lens I know of that allows you to fully meet your weight limit with good IQ is the Canon RF 100-400 f/5.6-8. In fact, it clearly beats it, as this lens is very lightweight while performing quite strongly. Depending on how much "kitty" you're willing to spend, combine it with an R7, R5 or R5ii body.

This gives you a 600mm equivalent pixel count of 23.5MP on the R7 (APS-C) and 20 MP on the full-frame bodies. You biggest drawbacks will be

• slower/less dependable AF in low light,
• strange control layout and a few other quirks (e.g., small buffer) if you choose the R7,
• lesser weather protection and lens build quality.

On the plus side, you'll get

• better AF performance incl. better subject detection in decent/good light,
• marginally better IQ with R7 and clearly better IQ with R5/R5ii in low light,
• higher resolution for larger subjects, and
• a lens that weighs 635 grams and is only 16.5 centimeters long!

Choices, choices...

Click to expand...

Thank you for your thoughts. The weight is a very serious consideration for me, especially if I am holding the camera waiting for a ProCap shot of a bird which has not decided whether to take off or not! Age also comes in to it...older than most on this aging forum.

I have considered the R7 and 100-400 but dont think it would be any improvement on my current gear. Not only is the R7 iffy, but I have not been impressed by what I have seen from the 100-400 An R7ii might be better.

800 (820)mm seems to be my regular FL for birds. The R5 would need a pretty heavy crop to get there with a 400mm lens I think that would leave me with 11Mp. Doable if it ends there, but I often find that I have to crop my M4/3 image by 2 linearly, i.e 5Mp on M4/3 and only just over 2.5Mp on R5. I don't have evidence, but doubt that, even with the bigger pixels of the R5 I would get as good an image, even if DR is better.

However, my main gripe with the OM1 is the difficulty of reliably getting birds in bushes first time (yes, if I fiddle I can get focus, but often by then the bird has gone) and too many not quite sharp images of BIF

There is no reliable and unbiased comparison of different brands in this respect. I agree with much of what you say about the Mirrorless Comparison analysis, but it may be the best we have. Most owners laud their own model and are not reliable. There are some clear M4/3 haters on this forum, whose input I dismiss. Some time ago I suggested that with your wide experience of models it would be very useful to us all if you could provide any more detailed input.

That would help a lot

Thanks

tom