New wildlife camera - OMD EM1M2, D500, other?

[DuckyAB]

Looking for inputs on getting a new ILC mainly for wildlife shooting, and a bit of our new addition to the house. I’ve had an old Canon 40D with a few cheap lenses that I got while I was a student but am looking to get something that I can take on hikes and snap pics of wildlife. Loved the 40D, but it’s sluggish and time for an update (it’s been 10 years) and given that I haven’t invested much in lenses and that the 7DM2 doesn’t have a replacement anytime soon, switching brands isn’t a big deal.

Initially I was pretty sold on the D500 with the 300f4PF and 1.4TC and maybe the 200-500 for when I didn’t have to hike but the new Olympus seems like an interesting choice given that it will be lighter, has some good lens options (300 f4 pro and 40-150 2.8) and it’s IBIS would help with video. Most of my DSLR friends trash talk the M43 system and I know the smaller sensor won’t have the dynamic range or low light capabilities of the APS-C, but hoping to get some thoughts from M43 wildlife users out there - do you wish you had more low light and DR or has the M43 system held up?

 

[drj3]

Both cameras are very good.

If you can afford the D500 and the 500mm f4 (and can hand hold them), it will give you better results. When both are used with equivalent FF field of view with the same aperture, the Nikon should have about 2/3 stop advantage due to the larger sensor.

Either camera should perform very well in CAF mode and give fast accurate focus as long as you keep the focus points on the target. The Nikon "tracking" when you don't maintain focus points on the target may be somewhat better, but since I fall into the first category, I have not tried the tracking features of the Olympus I cannot really evaluate that.

The Nikon 300mm f4 PF and the Olympus 300mm are both excellent lenses and either would be sharper than a zoom lens. The Nikon 300mm f4 would need the TC1.4 to give an equivalent FOV and the Nikon would lose any IQ advantage with the one stop light loss. I have no idea how much the TC1.4 would reduce IQ compared to the Olympus 300mm f4.

There would not be much difference weight of the Nikon with the 300mm f4 PF + TC1.4 and the Olympus with the 300mm f4. The Nikon would be significantly heavier with any of the zoom lenses which gave equivalent FOV.

The Olympus E-M1 MkII fast readout of the sensor allows use of the Electronic shutter for most wildlife which allow up to 18 fps with autofocus & exposure or 10 fps with the mechanical shutter with almost no blackout between frames with either. The Nikon also allows 10 fps, but I have no knowledge of the blackout time between frames. The Olympus also has a "Pro Capture" setting which will record up to 18 images with half press of the shutter (Electronic shutter) and will keep these only if the shutter is fully depressed, to aid in "getting the right moment" for things that are difficult to predict.

With moving wildlife, optical stabilization is not that important. The stabilization on either (lens on Nikon - dual lens + IBIS on the Olympus) should be more than sufficient for stationary wildlife. The Olympus would give better ultimate stabilization (6.5 stops) with the 300mm f4, but that is not typically needed for wildlife.

You should try both cameras before purchase (you could rent, if you don't have access in a camera store). A wildlife setup is expensive and should not be purchased on the basis of others recommendations. In addition, you should consider how you would use the camera for things other than wildlife. What are the other features of the cameras that are of interest to you?

Personally I will never go back to my DSLRs. The recent EVFs are excellent and the ability to see what the exposure will be and the ability to instantly magnify the image to assure correct focus are too valuable to ever return to an OVF. However, that is simply my preference, I have friends who would never give up their DSLR.

 

[BeenFramed]

...

Initially I was pretty sold on the D500 with the 300f4PF and 1.4TC and maybe the 200-500 for when I didn’t have to hike but the new Olympus seems like an interesting choice given that it will be lighter, has some good lens options (300 f4 pro and 40-150 2.8) and it’s IBIS would help with video. Most of my DSLR friends trash talk the M43 system and I know the smaller sensor won’t have the dynamic range or low light capabilities of the APS-C, but hoping to get some thoughts from M43 wildlife users out there - do you wish you had more low light and DR or has the M43 system held up?

For a few months until Feb last year I had been using Olympus EM1 with 75-300mm II. I liked the idea of a lightweight system.

I'm new with cameras and birding so not very good to start with but I had difficulties with acquiring focus, either perching birds or in flight. It was also hard to identify subject to frame it. I shoot birds in the jungle so I need plenty of light.

I was hoping the 300mm F4 Pro would fix the problems but when it eventually came out, the price was not cheap, and I went thinking, what if I shelled out this much money and still the system couldn't deliver what I need? And max it can go is 420mm (with 1.4x TC)

I simply went with the flow, and bought D7200 and 200-500 VR. The difference was like a revelation. Bulkier of course, but not much, plus I get better image most of the time.

 

[drj3]

...

Initially I was pretty sold on the D500 with the 300f4PF and 1.4TC and maybe the 200-500 for when I didn’t have to hike but the new Olympus seems like an interesting choice given that it will be lighter, has some good lens options (300 f4 pro and 40-150 2.8) and it’s IBIS would help with video. Most of my DSLR friends trash talk the M43 system and I know the smaller sensor won’t have the dynamic range or low light capabilities of the APS-C, but hoping to get some thoughts from M43 wildlife users out there - do you wish you had more low light and DR or has the M43 system held up?

For a few months until Feb last year I had been using Olympus EM1 with 75-300mm II. I liked the idea of a lightweight system.

I'm new with cameras and birding so not very good to start with but I had difficulties with acquiring focus, either perching birds or in flight. It was also hard to identify subject to frame it. I shoot birds in the jungle so I need plenty of light.

I was hoping the 300mm F4 Pro would fix the problems but when it eventually came out, the price was not cheap, and I went thinking, what if I shelled out this much money and still the system couldn't deliver what I need? And max it can go is 420mm (with 1.4x TC)

I simply went with the flow, and bought D7200 and 200-500 VR. The difference was like a revelation. Bulkier of course, but not much, plus I get better image most of the time.

The D500 would be much better than the original E-M1 Mk1 as a wildlife camera. While the original Olympus could give very good results, it did require a photographer would could manually pre-focus wildlife to allow fast acquisition of the target. The revised camera generally needs no pre-focus and has three different electronic focus limiters that can set to any minimum and maximum distances and selected with a custom button setup.

The E-M1 MkII would be very similar to the D500 in performance, but the D500 would have about 2/3 to 1 stop better noise at the same aperture. With equivalent FOV and apertures, the D500 will give better IQ and I have personally seen few camera/lens combinations that have impressed me more than the D500 + 500mm f4. Unfortunately too expensive and too heavy for me. I personally have not been as impressed with the D500 when used with zoom lenses as I have been when used with the Nikon primes.

The D500 with the 300mm f4 with the TC would have no IQ advantage over the 300mm f4, since you lose the one stop advantage with the TC, but still should give excellent results.

The 200-500mm zoom would have no advantage in IQ since it is one stop slower than the 300mm, but would give a somewhat narrower FOV at 500mm. The 200-500mm is a good lens for a consumer zoom, but it would not be as sharp as either the Nikon or Olympus 300mm f4 lenses. However, it does only cost 55% of the cost of the Olympus 300mm lens and 70% of the cost of the Nikon 300mm and is it far more flexible as a zoom lens, so for the price it is an excellent value.

The Olympus 75-300 is not a wildlife lens, the aperture not wide enough and it not particularly sharp at 300mm. That lens is good as a small, general purpose telephoto when you plan on using it only when the light is good. It is a nice travel lens because of its small size, but with the maximum aperture of f6.7 on the E-M1 MkI it would lose almost two stops compared to the E-M1 MkII with the 300mm f4.

 

[BeenFramed]

Yes even though I haven't read much about m43 systems since making the switch, I am sure Em1mk2 and 300mm f4 pro are miles ahead better than my old setup.

In a quest for "perfection" I recently bought a 500mm f4. Excellent image from long distance and fast focusing. Heavier though.

 

[Denjw]

Looking for inputs on getting a new ILC mainly for wildlife shooting, and a bit of our new addition to the house. I’ve had an old Canon 40D with a few cheap lenses that I got while I was a student but am looking to get something that I can take on hikes and snap pics of wildlife. Loved the 40D, but it’s sluggish and time for an update (it’s been 10 years) and given that I haven’t invested much in lenses and that the 7DM2 doesn’t have a replacement anytime soon, switching brands isn’t a big deal.

Initially I was pretty sold on the D500 with the 300f4PF and 1.4TC and maybe the 200-500 for when I didn’t have to hike but the new Olympus seems like an interesting choice given that it will be lighter, has some good lens options (300 f4 pro and 40-150 2.8) and it’s IBIS would help with video. Most of my DSLR friends trash talk the M43 system and I know the smaller sensor won’t have the dynamic range or low light capabilities of the APS-C, but hoping to get some thoughts from M43 wildlife users out there - do you wish you had more low light and DR or has the M43 system held up?

Don't own any Canikon gear but there is no doubt the D500 complimented with some nice Nikkor lens would be a great setup and produce top class results in IQ and AF.

If the ultimate aim is to shoot in low light conditions with high ISO then m43 would not be the first choice.

drj3 has explained things very well comparing the two systems.

I am a very satisfied Olympus E-M1 & E-M1 MkII shooter with the Pro lens including the 300mm F4 + MC14.

Its early days with the E-M1 MkII but so far it is performing very well.

My gallery of 300mm F4 images (taken mainly with the E-M1) is here:

http://dwehner.zenfolio.com/p932217077

 

[DuckyAB]

Thanks for the feedback and kudos on your bird photos.

As I mentioned, I would prioritize something light over ultimate IQ as I’d like to bring this system hiking as much as I could. If I were looking for a tripod, long prime setup then the Nikon D500 would be a runaway winner - more big glass available and better low light performance would make it a much more well-rounded solution but it would be only for short distances from the car (e.g. spotting a grizzly en route to camping).

I wish I could get my hands on the Oly body for a ‘feel’ test. I took a quick look at the Fuji XT2 and even though I’ve heard nothing but rave reviews, I didn’t like the geometry/feel in my hand whereas the D500 felt perfect, other than maybe a bit bulky - that visit to the camera store made it a two-horse race.

Ultimately I guess I need to win the lottery so that I can take the Oly hiking and keep the D500 in the car ready to go at a moment’s notice when yogi appears.

 

[wildlifr]

Thanks for the feedback and kudos on your bird photos.

As I mentioned, I would prioritize something light over ultimate IQ as I’d like to bring this system hiking as much as I could. If I were looking for a tripod, long prime setup then the Nikon D500 would be a runaway winner - more big glass available and better low light performance would make it a much more well-rounded solution but it would be only for short distances from the car (e.g. spotting a grizzly en route to camping).

I wish I could get my hands on the Oly body for a ‘feel’ test. I took a quick look at the Fuji XT2 and even though I’ve heard nothing but rave reviews, I didn’t like the geometry/feel in my hand whereas the D500 felt perfect, other than maybe a bit bulky - that visit to the camera store made it a two-horse race.

Ultimately I guess I need to win the lottery so that I can take the Oly hiking and keep the D500 in the car ready to go at a moment’s notice when yogi appears.

I think you should compare some weights before you automatically assume the m4/3 is better for hiking. m4/3 finally came out with a decent 300mm f/4 and it's double the weight of the nikon 300mm PF. The D500 along with the PF lens and teleconverter are extremely easy to hike with.

Having used m4/3 for years, and now owning both dx and fx, IMO dx is the perfect combination of reach and IQ for wildlife. You can be sure the D500 will be light years better than the Oly for fast action tracking, and I personally would never consider a camera competent for wildlife if it struggles with fast action.

 

[drj3]

Thanks for the feedback and kudos on your bird photos.

As I mentioned, I would prioritize something light over ultimate IQ as I’d like to bring this system hiking as much as I could. If I were looking for a tripod, long prime setup then the Nikon D500 would be a runaway winner - more big glass available and better low light performance would make it a much more well-rounded solution but it would be only for short distances from the car (e.g. spotting a grizzly en route to camping).

I wish I could get my hands on the Oly body for a ‘feel’ test. I took a quick look at the Fuji XT2 and even though I’ve heard nothing but rave reviews, I didn’t like the geometry/feel in my hand whereas the D500 felt perfect, other than maybe a bit bulky - that visit to the camera store made it a two-horse race.

Ultimately I guess I need to win the lottery so that I can take the Oly hiking and keep the D500 in the car ready to go at a moment’s notice when yogi appears.

I think you should compare some weights before you automatically assume the m4/3 is better for hiking. m4/3 finally came out with a decent 300mm f/4 and it's double the weight of the nikon 300mm PF. The D500 along with the PF lens and teleconverter are extremely easy to hike with.

The two cameras would be very similar in weight and there would be no difference in noise with the TC, however, the Olympus would almost certainly have higher resolution, since the TC on the Nikon will reduce resolution. Either should perform very well.

Having used m4/3 for years, and now owning both dx and fx, IMO dx is the perfect combination of reach and IQ for wildlife. You can be sure the D500 will be light years better than the Oly for fast action tracking, and I personally would never consider a camera competent for wildlife if it struggles with fast action.

Any previous mirrorless camera would sometimes have problems with some types of fast action, but I find that is no longer true of the E-M1.2. It focuses almost instantly, will maintain CAF autofocus at 18fps with almost no blackout. While the camera is relatively new, I have not yet had any problems with maintaining focus on fast BIFs with a variety of backgrounds.

Is it equivalent of the D500 in maintaining focus, I cannot know since I have not used the D500. However, the D500 may have a more sophisticated tracking program at this time for users who are unable to keep the focus points on the target. I have not tried the "Tracking" functions on the E-M1.2, since the standard CAF has worked so well.

With a fast prime with the same aperture as the Olympus, the Nikon will have better IQ. I considered switching to the Nikon D500, before the Olympus E-M1.2 was released, but Nikon did not have a 400mm f4 to give the equivalent FOV to the Olympus 300mm f4 which would have allowed that one stop better performance. If I were younger, stronger and richer, the 400mm f2.8 or 500mm f4 may have convinced me to switch. As I indicated earlier, I am not sure that I have seen wildlife images better than those produced by the D500 with the 500mm f4.

 

[wildlifr]

Thanks for the feedback and kudos on your bird photos.

As I mentioned, I would prioritize something light over ultimate IQ as I’d like to bring this system hiking as much as I could. If I were looking for a tripod, long prime setup then the Nikon D500 would be a runaway winner - more big glass available and better low light performance would make it a much more well-rounded solution but it would be only for short distances from the car (e.g. spotting a grizzly en route to camping).

I wish I could get my hands on the Oly body for a ‘feel’ test. I took a quick look at the Fuji XT2 and even though I’ve heard nothing but rave reviews, I didn’t like the geometry/feel in my hand whereas the D500 felt perfect, other than maybe a bit bulky - that visit to the camera store made it a two-horse race.

Ultimately I guess I need to win the lottery so that I can take the Oly hiking and keep the D500 in the car ready to go at a moment’s notice when yogi appears.

I think you should compare some weights before you automatically assume the m4/3 is better for hiking. m4/3 finally came out with a decent 300mm f/4 and it's double the weight of the nikon 300mm PF. The D500 along with the PF lens and teleconverter are extremely easy to hike with.

The two cameras would be very similar in weight and there would be no difference in noise with the TC, however, the Olympus would almost certainly have higher resolution, since the TC on the Nikon will reduce resolution. Either should perform very well.

Having used m4/3 for years, and now owning both dx and fx, IMO dx is the perfect combination of reach and IQ for wildlife. You can be sure the D500 will be light years better than the Oly for fast action tracking, and I personally would never consider a camera competent for wildlife if it struggles with fast action.

Any previous mirrorless camera would sometimes have problems with some types of fast action, but I find that is no longer true of the E-M1.2.

This is stated with virtually every new m4/3 camera, at least until independent reviews come out at which point we'll hear that it's not really close to DSLR.

It focuses almost instantly, will maintain CAF autofocus at 18fps with almost no blackout.

There's certainly more blackout than DSLR, not to mention inevitable lag.

While the camera is relatively new, I have not yet had any problems with maintaining focus on fast BIFs with a variety of backgrounds.

Is it equivalent of the D500 in maintaining focus, I cannot know since I have not used the D500. However, the D500 may have a more sophisticated tracking program at this time for users who are unable to keep the focus points on the target.

Either you don't shoot very challenging subjects, or you're exaggerating your ability. Either way, the better CAF of DSLR would undoubtedly help you too. I highly doubt you're any better at keeping the focus on target than me, or any other experienced wildlife shooter.

I have not tried the "Tracking" functions on the E-M1.2, since the standard CAF has worked so well.

With a fast prime with the same aperture as the Olympus, the Nikon will have better IQ.

Unless you compare side by side images with the D500 cropped down, that's just a guess. And that's only valid if you assume the D500 shot had to be cropped in the first place. It also assume that you actually got the shot you wanted with the inferior focusing of the m4/3.

I considered switching to the Nikon D500, before the Olympus E-M1.2 was released, but Nikon did not have a 400mm f4 to give the equivalent FOV to the Olympus 300mm f4 which would have allowed that one stop better performance. If I were younger, stronger and richer, the 400mm f2.8 or 500mm f4 may have convinced me to switch. As I indicated earlier, I am not sure that I have seen wildlife images better than those produced by the D500 with the 500mm f4.

IQ is the least of the advantages of the D500 / 300mm PF combination. Ergonomics, battery life, CAF, no EVF lag and shorter blackout during high speed shooting, cheaper, lighter. For a wildlife focused photographer, it's really not much of a competition.

 

[BeenFramed]

....

The Olympus 75-300 is not a wildlife lens, the aperture not wide enough and it not particularly sharp at 300mm. That lens is good as a small, general purpose telephoto when you plan on using it only when the light is good. It is a nice travel lens because of its small size, but with the maximum aperture of f6.7 on the E-M1 MkI it would lose almost two stops compared to the E-M1 MkII with the 300mm f4.

--
drj3

M4/3 is not all bad. When the bird sat really still allowng for slow shutter the picture came out quite nice with the 75-300 actually. Good enough feather details.


Hooded Pitta f6.1 0.6s ISO 200 200mm

Loading…

www.fotodoco.com

I am sure the newer EM1 and 300mm F4 Pro will be a lot better than my old setup.


--------------
More pictures here - https://www.fotodoco.com

 

[Martin.au]

That's a lot of bold claims from someone who's never actually used the E-M1 II.

 

[zackiedawg]

Thanks for the feedback and kudos on your bird photos.

As I mentioned, I would prioritize something light over ultimate IQ as I’d like to bring this system hiking as much as I could. If I were looking for a tripod, long prime setup then the Nikon D500 would be a runaway winner - more big glass available and better low light performance would make it a much more well-rounded solution but it would be only for short distances from the car (e.g. spotting a grizzly en route to camping).

I wish I could get my hands on the Oly body for a ‘feel’ test. I took a quick look at the Fuji XT2 and even though I’ve heard nothing but rave reviews, I didn’t like the geometry/feel in my hand whereas the D500 felt perfect, other than maybe a bit bulky - that visit to the camera store made it a two-horse race.

Ultimately I guess I need to win the lottery so that I can take the Oly hiking and keep the D500 in the car ready to go at a moment’s notice when yogi appears.

While I agree that the D500 would be the best overall choice, with weight/price not a consideration, you did mention that you really would like a lightweight or smaller choice - maybe to compromise a bit in reach for the smaller weight and body, or maybe even as a second or backup camera as you mention to the D500...so I'll just throw out one other possible consideration that I find to be an excellent all-rounder for a compact mirrorless camera and wildlife/bird shooting - the Sony A6300 (or the A6500, but that is much more expensive)...combined with the FE70-300mm G OSS lens, which will give a 450mm equivalent reach with 24MP, so some cropping room. High ISO capability is quite good in this cam, tracking/continuous focus is excellent even for the fast and challenging stuff, and overall IQ excellent...and though the lens is big on the camera, it will still be a small overall combo when compared to a D500 and some high performance lenses...so maybe a good second system too. I also shoot with a larger DSLR body and Tamron 150-600mm when I want overall reach, and use the A6300 and FE70-300mm as the second lightweight body either alongside the larger combo, or when I want to take a break after a morning of shooting with the bigger rig and switch to the smaller rig.

Whether you will like the feel in the hand is up to your personal ergonomics - personally I find the small body but still reasonably large, deep grip to be quite comfy, and the mount is very strong and tight so the large lens mates very well with no wiggle or play.

It's a particularly adept combo for BIF work - the continuous focus keeps up as well as better DSLRs and at a 6fps, 8fps, or even 11fps rate, all with continuous focus. The A6500 is more expensive, mostly for adding a significantly larger buffer if you tend to really hold the shutter button down for 100+ frame bursts and for adding in-body stabilization, which won't really add much with the FE70-300mm lens since it has it's own stabilization in-lens.

Here's my gallery with this camera/lens combo:

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/sony_fe70300g

Just floating the idea out there since you did still express wanting a mirrorless solution, and were considering the EM1II, XT2, and other newer mirrorless that have been seeing improved AF-C performance...the A6300 and A6500 are very much in that bunch as some of the fastest tracking mirrorless systems, so worth a consideration.

 

[R V C]

Some flight shots with the OMD EM1 mk 1, though I fervently hope the mk ii af is as good as the D500 and if it is, then the OMD is the best system for birding.






1) Osprey in Flight




2) Painted Stork




3) Lesser Flamingo




4) Brown headed gull




5) Black kite



--
"Anything worth doing is worth doing poorly until you learn to do it well."
-- Zig Ziglar

Rahul Chavan

Explore Rahul Chavan’s 5,996 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[User1303423862]

If you want to go lighter still, you could consider the Nikon 1 J5 or V3 plus the CX 70-300 zoom which reaches 810mm equivalent with a camera/lens package weighing under a kilo. Well you did say you wanted to hike with your camera kit...

To give an idea of IQ have a look at Thom Stirr's work with this kit.

e.g http://tomstirrphotography.com/nikon-1-j5-bird-images

Here are a couple of my own novice efforts with that lens and the 10mp J2



















--
How the heck did I end up with this username?

 

[rob_b]

I have two systems...

D4s/Sigma 150-600

em1.2/300 mm f4 + TC 1.4

the weight difference is huge!

the Olympus is less good at high iso

but in good light it can be stellar! The effective fl is 840mm, and the stabilisation can improve keep rate, provided damn subject stay still!

see this...(below) and more waxwings on the website below...

Rob





--
See my wildlife pics on http://rjbwild.smugmug.com

 

[DuckyAB]

Very nice BIF shots, thanks for sharing your experiences.

 

[DuckyAB]

Wow, talk about sharp. Thanks for sharing, really appreciate your input.

 

[dwa1]

My 2 cents...

I suggest that you invest in 2 "rigs" - (A below) - one for hiking / lightweight, casual use and another (B below) for planned, more serious action / BIF / quality reach in low light outings.

This is mainly due to the real-time viewfinder and the high ISO performance. These are very important for wildlife. I tried a few of the "compact" rigs and was not pleased at all. I tried the Canon SX50 IS and the Nikon 1 V2. The DSLRs allow you to be prepared to instantly go from "sitting / posing" subjects to shooting BIF. Birds are seldom really "sitting still". There is always some movement. Even with "sitting" birds you still need good shutter speeds. This is due to the distances and the long FLs. In addition. the high pixel density sensors (like 24mp) require much faster shutter speeds than did the 6mp and 12mp bodies. The old "one over the focal length rule" no longer works.

Perhaps consider these "kits"...

A... Get one of Nikon 's small DSLR's (D3400, D5500 or even a D7200). Combine that with the new DX 70-300 AF-P VR lens. Add a lightweight "landscape" zoom lens later if needed. The advantage of the D7200 (which is a lightweight body) over the other two is that the D7200 gives you the AF Fine Tune feature to match your lenses to the body.

B - Nikon D500 or D750 (FF). Then get either the Nikon 200-500 VR or the Sigma 150-600 OS Sports (can use their latest / best 1.4xTC with the Sigma). Although the D500 has very good ISO performance for an APS-C body, the D750 (full frame) will give you excellent high ISO performance with excellent IQ.

Good luck with your decision and I hope this helps in some way.

Wayne

 

[wolfie]

A lot of trash talk by people who haven't used the camera, let alone the format I'd bet.

These look pretty good ...

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58954162

Oops - the camera was a Mk 1 , not Mk 2.

Anyway, not everyone shares the POV than a 35mm sensor is the pinnacle of photography. Get over yourselves!