Nikon 200-500 vs. Olympus 100-400 - 2 system dilemma

[Sarawoot]

Where are you at in Indonesia? I used to live in Bandung. My wife is from Solo. I the covid thing ever ends will be nice to travel back to Indonesia again. So many thing to photograph there.

DA

Hi! i am from thailand and work in Jakarta for a couple of year. Love this countries. Gunung di mana mana

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

On a FF sensor a 50 mm f2 lens or a 100 f2 lens gathers the same amount of light, right? If you reduce the sensor size for example when using the 50 mm f2 lens the total amount of light hitting the sensor is less although the intensity (amount per unit area) is the same, if pixels are smaller on the MFT sensor (assuming same pixel count) the amount of light that hits each pixel is less.

Yes but - you are looking at only one aspect in isolation.

If - as can be the case - the crop sensor has 90% of the efficiency of the larger sensor despite smaller individual pixels - any difference is often minor.

If using the crop sensor at a wider aperture to equalise dof the crop sensor receives a lot more light intensity at its wider aperture.

 

[rz350]

I have a Z6 with a Sigma 150-600 s. I had and sold a D500. The reason I sold the D500 was that I bought an Olympus em1-mk2 and the 100-400. Additionally i bought the TC1.4. I have not found it to be detrimental other than in ISO. The way that Olympus lets me set up the em1-mk2 is infinitely better than the Nikon. The AF after a learning curve is easier to set up. However, proviso, I am still learning with the Nikon. The weight and size of the Olympus is the winning factor. I just wish that Nikon had allowed Z AF to be set up in the same way as the D500.

There is a quantifiable difference in AF speed of acquisition between the Z6, the D500 and the em1-mk2. Frame rates and viewfinders are substantially different with the Z6. The em1-mk2 is very fast.

 

[rick in vegas]

200-500 is a big heavy beast. I just take a Panasonic super zoom with me

 

[Sarawoot]

I am using 2 systems, i.e., Olympus EM1Mk2 for Macro only and Nikon Z (Z6ii and Z7) for hiking and everything else.

I'd like to get the long tele-zoom--lens and come to dilemma

I would not buy any one of these lenses for hiking. They are too heavy. If you are looking for a versatile lens for travel buy the Nikon 24-200 or Olympus 12-100 instead.

If you want to practice wildlife/bird photography seriously you will have to use hideouts. When you use a hideout the weight of the lens doesn't play a big role. Therefore, in my opinion, the weight of the lens shouldn't be your main consideration point.

The Nikon 200-500 is an F5.6 lens. The Olympus 100-400 is equivalent to 200 - 800 F10 - F12.6. If you pair the Nikon 200-500 with the Z7 and use the DX mode (X1.5 crop, 20mp files) the Nikon will become 300mm - 750mm constant F8.4. (About 1 - 1.5 stops faster) If you don't use crop mode the Nikon is 2.5 stops faster. This is a huge difference.

Very good logic. I didn’t realize that point. Agree to hide

 

[cali92rs]

I had the 200-500mm on my Z50. The IQ was pretty darn good. Sold it in a month. It was just too big and not fun. Now that I have a Z6, I still wouldn’t get it again. If I was a paid professional, I would lug it around. But as an amateur, I have settled on the 70-300 AF-P and it is long enough 85% of the time. If I need anything longer, I would rent it.

As I get older my tolerance is getting lower and lower and am willing to crop more, even if it compromises image quality.

 

[LASR]

On a FF sensor a 50 mm f2 lens or a 100 f2 lens gathers the same amount of light, right? If you reduce the sensor size for example when using the 50 mm f2 lens the total amount of light hitting the sensor is less although the intensity (amount per unit area) is the same, if pixels are smaller on the MFT sensor (assuming same pixel count) the amount of light that hits each pixel is less.

Yes but - you are looking at only one aspect in isolation.

If - as can be the case - the crop sensor has 90% of the efficiency of the larger sensor despite smaller individual pixels - any difference is often minor.

If using the crop sensor at a wider aperture to equalise dof the crop sensor receives a lot more light intensity at its wider aperture.

Quantum efficiency on the smaller pixel can be higher than on the larger pixel but it's approximately the same for the same sensor technology. However, the signal depends not only on the QE but also on the pixel size squared.

 

[andyc61]

The thing that’s always held me back from seriously considering m43 is the format. Looking at most of my favourite images they are nearly all 3:2 not 4:3after any post processing. Of course you can crop to taste but 4:3 just doesn’t seem to be the way I see images. It’s always seemed Olympus is my favourite brand that doesn’t somehow fit my photography even though it brings many benefits.

 

[YordanRhapsody]

I have the same dilemma, similar at least

On my em1.2 I have only 40-150 with mc14 as longest lens; I can live with fuzzy bokeh rendering (it's not always possible to frame in a way where background is less disturbing and this lens accentuates it a lot), but when shooting in less than ideal light conditions and not too close subjects the contrast is too poor (because of high ISO) and I need to spend too much time in front of a PC to get reasonable result (still not overwhelming)

With less challenging situations, the compactness of mft, the stabilization, sharpness and last but not least close focusing ability are all great plus for mft system, because of this I'm considering addition of 100-400 that will unlock new situation because of longer FL, at the same time for the aforementioned cons I'm thinking to add Nikon 80-400 to my z6 to achieve a better result where 40-150 and(or should I say mostly) em1.2 cannot deliver what I need

I'm really hoping for this wow camera to be a little bit better in those regards, especially AF, I don't like to always rely (and pray) on Pro capture. I hope it will give a little bit better IQ in low light and better AF

 

[MrPhotoBob]

I have the same dilemma, similar at least

On my em1.2 I have only 40-150 with mc14 as longest lens; I can live with fuzzy bokeh rendering (it's not always possible to frame in a way where background is less disturbing and this lens accentuates it a lot), but when shooting in less than ideal light conditions and not too close subjects the contrast is too poor (because of high ISO) and I need to spend too much time in front of a PC to get reasonable result (still not overwhelming)

With less challenging situations, the compactness of mft, the stabilization, sharpness and last but not least close focusing ability are all great plus for mft system, because of this I'm considering addition of 100-400 that will unlock new situation because of longer FL, at the same time for the aforementioned cons I'm thinking to add Nikon 80-400 to my z6 to achieve a better result where 40-150 and(or should I say mostly) em1.2 cannot deliver what I need

I'm really hoping for this wow camera to be a little bit better in those regards, especially AF, I don't like to always rely (and pray) on Pro capture. I hope it will give a little bit better IQ in low light and better AF

Because of the compact size and less weight for such a telephoto, I went with the Olympus 100-400.

 

[YordanRhapsody]

I had a very good opportunity on Nikon 80-400G and 200-500 (purchased both for same price of 80-400 alone)

200-500 is big, really really big, but a pleasure to use and together with high iso capabilities of Z6 (by the way, new fw 3.4 really improved camera AF) I believe they can provide a good combo for bif, wildlife, or animals in not so good light conditions

I'm waiting next omd camera and see if that improves a lot over my em1.2, if not I can think to sell all my m43 equipment and stick with nikon only or keep my oly gear for daylight or travel

in any case I still like to test first hand the oly 100-400, but in my area it's not so easy