I’m stuck with deciding on travel, hiking, and wildlife gear!

[Captive18]

Given the bolded conditions below, I’m looking for a lightweight travel and hiking setup. When I’m traveling or hiking, I would shoot mainly landscape, nature, and wildlife. Every so often would have a lifestyle or portrait image.

I keep ruminating on getting an OM-1, OM 12-40mm f2.8 PRO II, OLY 40-150 f2.8 PRO, and OLY 1.4x TC for travel. (Total weight is 4.11 lbs….or 3.7 lbs without the TC).

I currently have Canon R system. I can pack my R5, RF 24-105 L, and RF 100-400 to obtain similar FOV (Total weight would be 3.37 lbs). I can even pack the RF 1.4 Extender for 560mm FOV (and also use the 1.6x in-camera crop to get 896 FOV @ 17mp) at a total weight of 3.86 lbs.

1). Full frame f4 bokeh is important to me: (I like the separation that f4 provides). The OM gear gets me a constant f5.6 equiv Bokeh (very close to f4 bokeh) at any given photographer/subject/background distance. The RF 100-400 doesn’t get me that f4 look, but if I put the OLY 1.4 TC on the 40-150mm PRO (to get a 420 equiv. FOV), I have an f8 bokeh equiv…which the RF 100-400 basically has at 300mm +.

2). Weather-sealing is important to me: OM gear gets me IP53 weather-sealing with all the gear mentioned above. Canon gear gets me non-rated (but still probably pretty good in most cases) weather-sealing with the R5/24-105L combo. However, with even a light drizzle, the RF 100-400mm would stay in the bag (or I’d be getting out a rain cover).

3). The computational features of the OM-System are very convenient: LIVE ND is fun, Pro Capture is very convenient, Live Composite and Starry AF would be nice to have on occasion, etc.). However, I can bring ND filters for the Canon gear (without much weight penalty) and, with good technique, can handhold pretty slow shutter speeds with the 24-105L. I’d need a tripod (pretty significant weight penalty) to get any shots similar to what Live Composite can provide. With the Canon gear, I wouldn’t really try Astro (not really an Astro photographer…so that’s out of the picture…no pun intended). With the Canon gear, Pro Capture similar images would be reliant on reaction time (most likely would miss shots).

4). Good AF tracking and control is important to me: The Intelligent AF on both cameras is good...if not great on the R5! I can set up back-button focusing with the R5 for pretty good control so that I can either use single point AF or Animal tracking AF, dependent on which button I push (shutter or designated AF back button). With OM gear, I’m pretty sure I can set up a custom button to turn on/off Intelligent AF, but I’m not sure how much control I can have of the AF point (for example if I have to focus on one animal in a herd of many).

5). IBIS is important to me: This saves weight on bringing a tripod. Given the lenses mentioned above, both cameras seem to have IBIS that is on-par with each other.

6). Goes without saying, but weight savings is important to me: See sentences above with total weights of each kit.

The Full-Frame R5 gets me better image quality and better low light capabilities. The OM gear gets me really good image quality and more computational/fun features. With the gear mentioned, both systems weigh about the same. I’d like to NOT have two systems with such similar specs.

Has anyone else been in this predicament? Anyone have any insights on what to do?

Should I commit to Canon RF or get the OM gear? If I should just commit to my RF gear, why can’t I stop thinking about the OM gear? (I don’t think I have GAS???)

Of note: not included in this discussion, but when I look at longer telephotos (e.g. the OLY 150-400mm f4.5 PRO vs the RF 100-500mm L w/ 1.4 extender), the difficulty in choice continues.

 

[Captive18]

Given the bolded conditions below, I’m looking for a lightweight travel and hiking setup. When I’m traveling or hiking, I would shoot mainly landscape, nature, and wildlife. Every so often would have a lifestyle or portrait image.

I keep ruminating on getting an OM-1, OM 12-40mm f2.8 PRO II, OLY 40-150 f2.8 PRO, and OLY 1.4x TC for travel. (Total weight is 4.11 lbs….or 3.7 lbs without the TC).

I currently have Canon R system. I can pack my R5, RF 24-105 L, and RF 100-400 to obtain similar FOV (Total weight would be 3.37 lbs). I can even pack the RF 1.4 Extender for 560mm FOV (and also use the 1.6x in-camera crop to get 896 FOV @ 17mp) at a total weight of 3.86 lbs.

Of note: not included in this discussion, but when I look at longer telephotos (e.g. the OLY 150-400mm f4.5 PRO vs the RF 100-500mm L w/ 1.4 extender), the difficulty in choice continues.

I'm never quite sure what people mean when they use the term "wildlife". Does that mean mostly big mammals: deer, bison, giraffe - or smaller ones pica, fox, and squirrels - or amphibians and reptiles, or insects or small fast birds or big slow ones, or . . . ?

Sorry for not specifying. Mainly bigger mammals. I will photograph smaller animals as well…but gravitate more towards the megafauna. Photographing birds is super fun as well…and I like some shots I’ve taken. I am not as passionate about bird photography and mainly use photography of birds for practice. That being said, if I take the trip the trip to Costa Rica I’ve been planning, you can guarantee I’m going to be trying to get images of birds! …. Maybe I’m a “blossoming” birder.

Based on some of your comments, I'd suggest a look at the Oly 300mm f/4.

Yeah, I have looked into this lens. While I wouldn’t get the FF f4 OOF rendering out of the longer focal lengths, I could pair it with the OLY 12-100 f4 PRO and have Sync-IS with two lenses.

Personally, I never cared about the weight of the gear, I cared about the quality of the shot - and most of that is on the photog, not what gear they are using.

Good point. Hiking/traveling with 6+ lbs of gear kinda takes the fun out of it for me though.

 

[WileEC_ID]

I'm not grasping at straws, just giving an opinion - same as you did.

My comments are based on my own systems and shooting - from current gear - and better quality gear. I can't comment exactly about the specific FF gear and brand - I didn't use it - and I consider the longer lens mentioned a consumer zoom, not a pro zoom - while the Oly zooms mentioned were at the higher end.

Bottom line - I understand that FF mirrorless have made some real jumps in the last two or three years. That's good.

You and I see the differences differently - that's human and that's the benefit of a forum - each person can share their thoughts - from their perspective. None of this is binary, that is, one way or the other, so each of us can choose differently and that is okay. i'm not so insecure that I need others to reinforce my preference.

You and Funkmon both bring up good points and I appreciate both points of view.

I would consider the RF 100-500 L nothing short of a prosumer lens…could possibly make the case that it is a pro zoom as well though with its quality. Just wish it was faster and at the same size (or smaller)

We would see differently here - this zoom is far too slow, in terms of aperture for pro work. In terms of light gathering and in terms of subject separation. There is a reason most pro photogs are shooting f/2.8 and f/4 long primes - it is both for speed and for subject separation. These are critical and at that level, the weight is just accepted. In my experience, for small subjects especially, the Oly 300mm f/4 is a very good lens, as is the Oly 40-150 f/2.8. And, FWIW, I did a ton of shooting my top FF Nikon bodies with the 600mm f/4 side by side with the Oly 300mm f/4 on good tripods and can easily get comparable IQ.

The RF 100-400 I also have, I would consider a “Consumer Zoom.” It lacks weather-sealing, has a lot of plastic, has significant AF restrictions with extenders and is pretty slow (though not much slower than the 100-500. With that said, it is 2 lbs lighter!!! (Which is the reason I bought it).

This weight savings is huge for me with my desires for gear. With the lens being 1 lbs. and having a very similar aperture range to then 100-500 I would be more willing to carry/bring the RF 100-400, rather than the RF 100-500. I’m sacrificing image quality and weather-sealing though with this option (and the latter could really risk my R5 in more inclement conditions)

This is honestly one of the main reasons I’m considering switching. I could get up to 420mm FOV with more weather-sealed gear and not lose anything with OOF rendering at the telephoto end with the OM gear I mentioned.

One thing that some people are making a big deal about - pixel quantity. In my experience, most making a big deal about this, tend to crop a lot - or are insecure and it is an academic point. Unless you are printing BIG - the extra pixels are just not that big of a deal, especially once you go to print. People fail to remember that Pros were shooting a fraction of the pixel quantity any of the current m43 cameras have and getting RESULTS they were good with, having come from decades of shooting film and know what it was capable of. Shooting 40-50 megapixels just means your files are bigger. I'm not arguing there isn't potentially more detail in the file - certainly that is possible IF you have the lens to resolve it AND the skill to shoot it. That said, once you squash it down for a web file, or even an 8x10 print - it's pretty well been compressed away. But, if the shot was a bit soft at 1:1 with all those pixels, then compressed down it will look a lot better - so there is that.

Bottom line - photog process and skill trumps gear almost every time. Most shooters, regardless of platform choose not to use tripods. I respect that choice, but would also suggest their images often reflect that choice - in a handful of ways. But, as in all areas, we each have our preferences and priorities. It's a free world, so be secure in your own choices, respecting others that have their own.

 

[WileEC_ID]

Given the bolded conditions below, I’m looking for a lightweight travel and hiking setup. When I’m traveling or hiking, I would shoot mainly landscape, nature, and wildlife. Every so often would have a lifestyle or portrait image.

I keep ruminating on getting an OM-1, OM 12-40mm f2.8 PRO II, OLY 40-150 f2.8 PRO, and OLY 1.4x TC for travel. (Total weight is 4.11 lbs….or 3.7 lbs without the TC).

I currently have Canon R system. I can pack my R5, RF 24-105 L, and RF 100-400 to obtain similar FOV (Total weight would be 3.37 lbs). I can even pack the RF 1.4 Extender for 560mm FOV (and also use the 1.6x in-camera crop to get 896 FOV @ 17mp) at a total weight of 3.86 lbs.

Of note: not included in this discussion, but when I look at longer telephotos (e.g. the OLY 150-400mm f4.5 PRO vs the RF 100-500mm L w/ 1.4 extender), the difficulty in choice continues.

I'm never quite sure what people mean when they use the term "wildlife". Does that mean mostly big mammals: deer, bison, giraffe - or smaller ones pica, fox, and squirrels - or amphibians and reptiles, or insects or small fast birds or big slow ones, or . . . ?

Sorry for not specifying. Mainly bigger mammals. I will photograph smaller animals as well…but gravitate more towards the megafauna. Photographing birds is super fun as well…and I like some shots I’ve taken. I am not as passionate about bird photography and mainly use photography of birds for practice. That being said, if I take the trip the trip to Costa Rica I’ve been planning, you can guarantee I’m going to be trying to get images of birds! …. Maybe I’m a “blossoming” birder.

Based on some of your comments, I'd suggest a look at the Oly 300mm f/4.

Yeah, I have looked into this lens. While I wouldn’t get the FF f4 OOF rendering out of the longer focal lengths, I could pair it with the OLY 12-100 f4 PRO and have Sync-IS with two lenses.

Personally, I never cared about the weight of the gear, I cared about the quality of the shot - and most of that is on the photog, not what gear they are using.

Good point. Hiking/traveling with 6+ lbs of gear kinda takes the fun out of it for me though.

I can appreciate that. That said, I was used to hiking with one lens that was well over that, plus the other lens or two, camera, tripod, etc. So - that is where each of us chooses what will best serve our own priorities and preferences.

 

[Captive18]

I would consider the RF 100-500 L nothing short of a prosumer lens…could possibly make the case that it is a pro zoom as well though with its quality. Just wish it was faster and at the same size (or smaller)

We would see differently here - this zoom is far too slow, in terms of aperture for pro work. In terms of light gathering and in terms of subject separation. There is a reason most pro photogs are shooting f/2.8 and f/4 long primes - it is both for speed and for subject separation.

With all due respect, (and not trying to get into any arguments here) isn’t the OLY 40-150 f2.8 PRO similar with aperture when it comes to the look of the OOF rendering of any photograph? Especially with the 1.4x TC you are getting the equivalent OOF rendering of a FF f8 (the RF 100-500 is f7.1). What am I missing with your statement?

These are critical and at that level, the weight is just accepted. In my experience, for small subjects especially, the Oly 300mm f/4 is a very good lens, as is the Oly 40-150 f/2.8. And, FWIW, I did a ton of shooting my top FF Nikon bodies with the 600mm f/4 side by side with the Oly 300mm f/4 on good tripods and can easily get comparable IQ.

Seems like the OLY 300 is a gold-standard lens!

The RF 100-400 I also have, I would consider a “Consumer Zoom.” It lacks weather-sealing, has a lot of plastic, has significant AF restrictions with extenders and is pretty slow (though not much slower than the 100-500. With that said, it is 2 lbs lighter!!! (Which is the reason I bought it).

This weight savings is huge for me with my desires for gear. With the lens being 1 lbs. and having a very similar aperture range to then 100-500 I would be more willing to carry/bring the RF 100-400, rather than the RF 100-500. I’m sacrificing image quality and weather-sealing though with this option (and the latter could really risk my R5 in more inclement conditions)

This is honestly one of the main reasons I’m considering switching. I could get up to 420mm FOV with more weather-sealed gear and not lose anything with OOF rendering at the telephoto end with the OM gear I mentioned.

One thing that some people are making a big deal about - pixel quantity. In my experience, most making a big deal about this, tend to crop a lot - or are insecure and it is an academic point. Unless you are printing BIG - the extra pixels are just not that big of a deal, especially once you go to print. People fail to remember that Pros were shooting a fraction of the pixel quantity any of the current m43 cameras have and getting RESULTS they were good with, having come from decades of shooting film and know what it was capable of. Shooting 40-50 megapixels just means your files are bigger. I'm not arguing there isn't potentially more detail in the file - certainly that is possible IF you have the lens to resolve it AND the skill to shoot it. That said, once you squash it down for a web file, or even an 8x10 print - it's pretty well been compressed away. But, if the shot was a bit soft at 1:1 with all those pixels, then compressed down it will look a lot better - so there is that.

I’m not too concerned about pixels. 20mp is enough. However, I do like having more for the ability to crop in. When it is needed, it is helpful in order to get the shot.

 

[Captive18]

I can appreciate that. That said, I was used to hiking with one lens that was well over that, plus the other lens or two, camera, tripod, etc. So - that is where each of us chooses what will best serve our own priorities and preferences.

Yeah, if I was hired for professional work, I wouldn’t balk at carrying heavy gear. For personal use…it’s a different story…for me…

 

[ahaslett]

The tripod ring is 120g. The DR-66 is a bit of light plastic.



If you are doing a weight audit, don’t forget to weigh your QR plate, spare battery etc.

For me, the OM1 is an entirely handheld kit. Anything out of the ordinary with filters, TS lenses, serious macro, long exposure (>10s) etc would need a tripod and probably use the Sony kit.

That means my various MFT bodies get used more often than the Sony.

A great advantage of MFT is that it has been around so long that there is a big selection of used gear. If you want to mix and match bodies and lenses, you can cover a wide range of sizes and shooting envelope relatively cheaply. Also, OMDS regularly have the top level kit on sale, typically £175 off list price. You just have to wait two or three months until it happens again.

The OM1 is a fast readout stacked sensor with Quad Bayer array and a huge number of PDAF points. You can shoot with CAF on the top lenses at 50fps ProCapture. I find 25fps fast enough but 50fps is there if needed. You can shoot 120fps with AF locked on the first frame. Remember that you need electronic shutter to shoot that fast and you get subject distortion without a fast readout sensor. In some ways the OM1 is a mini Sony A9ii, with some better and some worse aspects, but a lot more functionality at a price below Sony’s current base level FF body (A7iv).

I’m not familiar with Canon’s mirrorless range, but you are.

The OM1 can charge its battery in camera from any 27W USBC PD power supply, including battery packs. I have a tiny 30W PD wall plug that covers my phone, iPad and camera. USBC cable shared with phone. I prefer using the external charger, but it’s good to have the option.

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[WileEC_ID]

I would consider the RF 100-500 L nothing short of a prosumer lens…could possibly make the case that it is a pro zoom as well though with its quality. Just wish it was faster and at the same size (or smaller)

We would see differently here - this zoom is far too slow, in terms of aperture for pro work. In terms of light gathering and in terms of subject separation. There is a reason most pro photogs are shooting f/2.8 and f/4 long primes - it is both for speed and for subject separation.

With all due respect, (and not trying to get into any arguments here) isn’t the OLY 40-150 f2.8 PRO similar with aperture when it comes to the look of the OOF rendering of any photograph? Especially with the 1.4x TC you are getting the equivalent OOF rendering of a FF f8 (the RF 100-500 is f7.1). What am I missing with your statement?

The comments you're responding to are about a zoom lens with f/4.5 at the low end to f/7.1 at the high end. How the OOF areas are rendered on that lens will vary greatly from how the Oly 40-150m f/2.8 renders OOF areas especially if shot at f/2.8. That said, as I have pointed out in other areas. Bokeh, or OOF rendering is also influenced by the quality of the gear AND especially the distance to subject and subject to background distances. ANY lens can yield decent results if the background is simple and worlds away from the subject.

I almost never use the 40-150 with a teleconverter, though I know others might. That's my own discipline. If I wanted a lighter option and F/4 was okay, I would have chosen the 40-150mm f/4 lens. I did not - to serve my own preferences and priorities. No right or wrong choice here.

These are critical and at that level, the weight is just accepted. In my experience, for small subjects especially, the Oly 300mm f/4 is a very good lens, as is the Oly 40-150 f/2.8. And, FWIW, I did a ton of shooting my top FF Nikon bodies with the 600mm f/4 side by side with the Oly 300mm f/4 on good tripods and can easily get comparable IQ.

Seems like the OLY 300 is a gold-standard lens!

Yes and no - in the m43 world, it is one of the best long primes. In FF land the 300mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/2.8 lenses are the gold standard. They almost create light and are capable of sharpness you will not find in any zoom, and few very good primes. I am fortunate to own both and the 400mm was my first long prime - and it took me a long time to get my skills up to what it was capable of.

 

[Captive18]

The tripod ring is 120g. The DR-66 is a bit of light plastic.



If you are doing a weight audit, don’t forget to weigh your QR plate, spare battery etc.

Thank you! That brings the weight of the OLY 40-150 f2.8 PRO to 1.4 lbs.

For me, the OM1 is an entirely handheld kit. Anything out of the ordinary with filters, TS lenses, serious macro, long exposure (>10s) etc would need a tripod and probably use the Sony kit.

That means my various MFT bodies get used more often than the Sony.

A great advantage of MFT is that it has been around so long that there is a big selection of used gear. If you want to mix and match bodies and lenses, you can cover a wide range of sizes and shooting envelope relatively cheaply. Also, OMDS regularly have the top level kit on sale, typically £175 off list price. You just have to wait two or three months until it happens again.

The OM1 is a fast readout stacked sensor with Quad Bayer array and a huge number of PDAF points. You can shoot with CAF on the top lenses at 50fps ProCapture. I find 25fps fast enough but 50fps is there if needed. You can shoot 120fps with AF locked on the first frame. Remember that you need electronic shutter to shoot that fast and you get subject distortion without a fast readout sensor. In some ways the OM1 is a mini Sony A9ii, with some better and some worse aspects, but a lot more functionality at a price below Sony’s current base level FF body (A7iv).

I’m not familiar with Canon’s mirrorless range, but you are.

The OM1 can charge its battery in camera from any 27W USBC PD power supply, including battery packs.

It’s nice that it has USB-C charging, I can pack less “charging” gear and cables.

I have a tiny 30W PD wall plug that covers my phone, iPad and camera.

Would you be willing to list a link to this wall plug? I’m curious. It’s an all in one setup?

USBC cable shared with phone. I prefer using the external charger, but it’s good to have the option.

Andrew

 

[ahaslett]

https://www.amazon.co.uk/INIU-Charger-Adapter-Compatible-Samsung-Black/dp/B09CYJZRV9

Check the reviews before you decide.

There are lots of small PD chargers available. Sadly, I lost the one that came with my Samsung phone.

I’ve just found a source for Samsung chargers that might be a better bet in terms of safety https://www.mobilefun.co.uk/chargers/mains-chargers/usb-c-mains-chargers

The OMD battery charger comes with a separate small PD unit, but it needs an IEEE standard 2 pin mains power lead. I have several short leads, but there are times you don’t want to carry one. If you are travelling to a country with different sockets, you can buy an IEEE lead locally, which also works. My US colleagues were always amazed that I carried local leads for my laptop charger.

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[Captive18]

I would consider the RF 100-500 L nothing short of a prosumer lens…could possibly make the case that it is a pro zoom as well though with its quality. Just wish it was faster and at the same size (or smaller)

We would see differently here - this zoom is far too slow, in terms of aperture for pro work. In terms of light gathering and in terms of subject separation. There is a reason most pro photogs are shooting f/2.8 and f/4 long primes - it is both for speed and for subject separation.

With all due respect, (and not trying to get into any arguments here) isn’t the OLY 40-150 f2.8 PRO similar with aperture when it comes to the look of the OOF rendering of any photograph? Especially with the 1.4x TC you are getting the equivalent OOF rendering of a FF f8 (the RF 100-500 is f7.1). What am I missing with your statement?

The comments you're responding to are about a zoom lens with f/4.5 at the low end to f/7.1 at the high end. How the OOF areas are rendered on that lens will vary greatly from how the Oly 40-150m f/2.8 renders OOF areas especially if shot at f/2.8.

Ah, yes…that is correct…forgot about constant aperture when comparing the two. The constant aperture of the OLY is nice. 80-300 Full-frame FOV at f5.6 full-frame OOF rendering. The Canon RF is f5.6 up to 363mm. https://www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-100-500mm-f4-5-7-1l-is-usm-review/).

That said, as I have pointed out in other areas. Bokeh, or OOF rendering is also influenced by the quality of the gear AND especially the distance to subject and subject to background distances. ANY lens can yield decent results if the background is simple and worlds away from the subject.

I understand these concepts about the subject/background/photographer distances.

What I’m trying to explore is that, at any given distance of those three variables, the OOF rendering should be very similar at 300mm FOV with both lenses.

With the 1.4x TC on the OLY the f4 OOF rendering should be very similar to f7.1 OOF rendering of the RF 100-500 @ 500mm. However, looking at the aperture range of that lens, the RF 100-500 doesn’t stop down to f7.1 until 472mm…(https://www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-100-500mm-f4-5-7-1l-is-usm-review/).

Therefore, at any given distances of the three variables above, the OLY 40-150 f2.8 PRO with 1.4x TC would have a 112-420mm FOV @ a constant OOF full-frame rendering of f8. Comparably, the RF 100-500 L would have OOF rendering of f6.3 from 363 - 472mm FOV and more OOF rendering at short focal lengths.

All that to say, I’m just trying to understand your comment above about the RF 100-500 being “too slow.” I’m not trying to defend my gear or argue….From my understanding, they are getting “relatively” the same light and have very equal “speed.” If we are discussing OOF rendering (again at any given distances of the three variables above), the RF is getting more OOF rendering.
The RF 100-400 is a slightly different story and I’m sure the OLY 40-150 f2.8 PRO (even with TC’s) is a better lens and will get better results than the RF 100-400.

All that to say, I feel like I’m missing an important piece of information you are trying to communicate.

I almost never use the 40-150 with a teleconverter, though I know others might. That's my own discipline. If I wanted a lighter option and F/4 was okay, I would have chosen the 40-150mm f/4 lens. I did not - to serve my own preferences and priorities. No right or wrong choice here.

I would really only use the TC’s to achieve more reach.

These are critical and at that level, the weight is just accepted. In my experience, for small subjects especially, the Oly 300mm f/4 is a very good lens, as is the Oly 40-150 f/2.8. And, FWIW, I did a ton of shooting my top FF Nikon bodies with the 600mm f/4 side by side with the Oly 300mm f/4 on good tripods and can easily get comparable IQ.

Seems like the OLY 300 is a gold-standard lens!

Yes and no - in the m43 world, it is one of the best long primes. In FF land the 300mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/2.8 lenses are the gold standard. They almost create light and are capable of sharpness you will not find in any zoom, and few very good primes. I am fortunate to own both and the 400mm was my first long prime - and it took me a long time to get my skills up to what it was capable of.

A 400mm f2.8 would be great! Though heavy!!

 

[gaul]

Given the bolded conditions below, I’m looking for a lightweight travel and hiking setup. When I’m traveling or hiking, I would shoot mainly landscape, nature, and wildlife. Every so often would have a lifestyle or portrait image.

I keep ruminating on getting an OM-1, OM 12-40mm f2.8 PRO II, OLY 40-150 f2.8 PRO, and OLY 1.4x TC for travel. (Total weight is 4.11 lbs….or 3.7 lbs without the TC).

I currently have Canon R system. I can pack my R5, RF 24-105 L, and RF 100-400 to obtain similar FOV (Total weight would be 3.37 lbs). I can even pack the RF 1.4 Extender for 560mm FOV (and also use the 1.6x in-camera crop to get 896 FOV @ 17mp) at a total weight of 3.86 lbs.

1). Full frame f4 bokeh is important to me: (I like the separation that f4 provides). The OM gear gets me a constant f5.6 equiv Bokeh (very close to f4 bokeh) at any given photographer/subject/background distance. The RF 100-400 doesn’t get me that f4 look, but if I put the OLY 1.4 TC on the 40-150mm PRO (to get a 420 equiv. FOV), I have an f8 bokeh equiv…which the RF 100-400 basically has at 300mm +.

2). Weather-sealing is important to me: OM gear gets me IP53 weather-sealing with all the gear mentioned above. Canon gear gets me non-rated (but still probably pretty good in most cases) weather-sealing with the R5/24-105L combo. However, with even a light drizzle, the RF 100-400mm would stay in the bag (or I’d be getting out a rain cover).

3). The computational features of the OM-System are very convenient: LIVE ND is fun, Pro Capture is very convenient, Live Composite and Starry AF would be nice to have on occasion, etc.). However, I can bring ND filters for the Canon gear (without much weight penalty) and, with good technique, can handhold pretty slow shutter speeds with the 24-105L. I’d need a tripod (pretty significant weight penalty) to get any shots similar to what Live Composite can provide. With the Canon gear, I wouldn’t really try Astro (not really an Astro photographer…so that’s out of the picture…no pun intended). With the Canon gear, Pro Capture similar images would be reliant on reaction time (most likely would miss shots).

4). Good AF tracking and control is important to me: The Intelligent AF on both cameras is good...if not great on the R5! I can set up back-button focusing with the R5 for pretty good control so that I can either use single point AF or Animal tracking AF, dependent on which button I push (shutter or designated AF back button). With OM gear, I’m pretty sure I can set up a custom button to turn on/off Intelligent AF, but I’m not sure how much control I can have of the AF point (for example if I have to focus on one animal in a herd of many).

5). IBIS is important to me: This saves weight on bringing a tripod. Given the lenses mentioned above, both cameras seem to have IBIS that is on-par with each other.

6). Goes without saying, but weight savings is important to me: See sentences above with total weights of each kit.

The Full-Frame R5 gets me better image quality and better low light capabilities. The OM gear gets me really good image quality and more computational/fun features. With the gear mentioned, both systems weigh about the same. I’d like to NOT have two systems with such similar specs.

Has anyone else been in this predicament? Anyone have any insights on what to do?

Should I commit to Canon RF or get the OM gear? If I should just commit to my RF gear, why can’t I stop thinking about the OM gear? (I don’t think I have GAS???)

Of note: not included in this discussion, but when I look at longer telephotos (e.g. the OLY 150-400mm f4.5 PRO vs the RF 100-500mm L w/ 1.4 extender), the difficulty in choice continues.

Hello

Another Canon loyal user for decades now adding M4/3 as miniature 2nd system

I don’t plan on selling my Canon FF kit or lenses

Just bought a GM-5 as an alternative to a compact camera

let’s see how it works

For hiking or back-country ski it will be the M4/3

For portraits, family events.. it will be my old faithful Canon and my old and trusty EF lenses

Gaul

 

[Bluephotons]

"I keep ruminating on getting an OM-1, OM 12-40mm f2.8 PRO II, OLY 40-150 f2.8 PRO, and OLY 1.4x TC for travel. (Total weight is 4.11 lbs….or 3.7 lbs without the TC)."

That will be my recommendation.

 

[tedolf]

If you start off with false premises, you are likely to get bad results.

Given the bolded conditions below, I’m looking for a lightweight travel and hiking setup.

Good set of initial premises

When I’m traveling or hiking, I would shoot mainly landscape, nature, and wildlife. Every so often would have a lifestyle or portrait image.

OK

I keep ruminating on getting an OM-1, OM 12-40mm f2.8 PRO II, OLY 40-150 f2.8 PRO, and OLY 1.4x TC for travel. (Total weight is 4.11 lbs….or 3.7 lbs without the TC).

Way overkill for what you want to do.

I currently have Canon R system. I can pack my R5, RF 24-105 L, and RF 100-400 to obtain similar FOV (Total weight would be 3.37 lbs). I can even pack the RF 1.4 Extender for 560mm FOV (and also use the 1.6x in-camera crop to get 896 FOV @ 17mp) at a total weight of 3.86 lbs.

You can do a lot better than that for travel.

1). Full frame f4 bokeh is important to me

2). Weather-sealing is important to me:

3). The computational features of the OM-System are very convenient:

4). Good AF tracking and control is important to me:

5). IBIS is important to me:

6). Goes without saying, but weight savings is important to me: See sentences above with total weights of each kit.

Regarding 1.) If you want Full Frame DOF and Bokeh you really should be looking at m4/3 primes in the f/1.7-f/2 range. Maybe add one long zoom for reach.

Regarding 2.). For most people, weather sealing is unnecessary. Photographers went into the mountains, etc. for 100 years without weather sealing and did fine. The fact of the matter is that modern digital ILC cameras are pretty well sealed. They will handle damp conditions and brief light rain exposure just fine. You can't take any photo's anyway once the front element gets wet so the camera is going to be put away at that point. Just keep it under your jacket when it rains.

Regarding 3.) Lots of m4/3 cameras other than the OM-1 have computational features.

Regarding 4.) Why is tracking necessary for travel photography at all? Fast rickshaws?

Regarding 5.) IBIS is good on all m4/3 cameras.

Regarding 6.) This is the most important feature for travel photography. That is why an OM-10 (or the Panny equivalent), one fast prime and maybe two zooms is all you need. Probably the Panny 15mm f/1.7 and the plastic Oly 40-150 are all you would need. If you really need more reach, the plastic 70-300 might work but unless you are doing wildlife in the mountains I don't know why you need that kind of reach for "travel". Maybe throw in a Raynox macro adapter for the telephoto zoom for close ups of flowers, etc.

TEdolph

 

[Bassam Guy]

Primarily this.

If you ignore image stabilization, then also low light. You can safely get an extra stop or two of low light performance. In landscape that is countered by you being able to handhold for a calendar year, but if you need to freeze motion, the Canon can do it better than the Olympus with a cleaner image.

Theoretically also dynamic range and highlight recovery.

You know where the OM beats the Canon - virtually everywhere else from pro capture to animal detect to live ND to live composite and starry sky as f_ck.

Maybe rent the gear from lensrentals.com and see if you like it enough to buy.

If you are interested in having the depth of field flexibility on micro four thirds, we have tons of tiny little cheap prime lenses at 1.8 and faster, few of which are weather sealed, but it's an option too.

BTW: None of the O. f1.8 primes are weather sealed except the 8mm 1.8 fisheye - and that is not cheap by any measure. I don't think that any of the 1.7 P/PL primes are weather sealed but I am not 100% certain.

 

[Captive18]

If you start off with false premises, you are likely to get bad results.

uh…ok….

Given the bolded conditions below, I’m looking for a lightweight travel and hiking setup.

Good set of initial premises

Thanks. Trying to fulfill them all with one system…or as get as close as I can.

When I’m traveling or hiking, I would shoot mainly landscape, nature, and wildlife. Every so often would have a lifestyle or portrait image.

OK

I keep ruminating on getting an OM-1, OM 12-40mm f2.8 PRO II, OLY 40-150 f2.8 PRO, and OLY 1.4x TC for travel. (Total weight is 4.11 lbs….or 3.7 lbs without the TC).

Way overkill for what you want to do.

Taking into consideration ALL my important points?

I currently have Canon R system. I can pack my R5, RF 24-105 L, and RF 100-400 to obtain similar FOV (Total weight would be 3.37 lbs). I can even pack the RF 1.4 Extender for 560mm FOV (and also use the 1.6x in-camera crop to get 896 FOV @ 17mp) at a total weight of 3.86 lbs.

You can do a lot better than that for travel.

Taking all my important points together?

1). Full frame f4 bokeh is important to me

2). Weather-sealing is important to me:

3). The computational features of the OM-System are very convenient:

4). Good AF tracking and control is important to me:

5). IBIS is important to me:

6). Goes without saying, but weight savings is important to me: See sentences above with total weights of each kit.

Regarding 1.) If you want Full Frame DOF and Bokeh you really should be looking at m4/3 primes in the f/1.7-f/2 range. Maybe add one long zoom for reach.

Yeah, I’m considering this as well. Would ideally have an IP53 rated fast prime.

Regarding 2.). For most people, weather sealing is unnecessary. Photographers went into the mountains, etc. for 100 years without weather sealing and did fine. The fact of the matter is that modern digital ILC cameras are pretty well sealed. They will handle damp conditions and brief light rain exposure just fine. You can't take any photo's anyway once the front element gets wet so the camera is going to be put away at that point. Just keep it under your jacket when it rains.

Sure, but I have a heck of a lot more confidence knowing there is a rated IP53 lens/body combo versus a non-rated pairing.

Regarding 3.) Lots of m4/3 cameras other than the OM-1 have computational features.

I specifically like LIVE ND. If other brands have that, please let me know. I’m waiting patiently for Canon to add it.

Regarding 4.) Why is tracking necessary for travel photography at all? Fast rickshaws?

wildlife and birding opportunities.

Regarding 5.) IBIS is good on all m4/3 cameras.

OK It’s also good on my R5.

Regarding 6.) This is the most important feature for travel photography. That is why an OM-10 (or the Panny equivalent), one fast prime and maybe two zooms is all you need. Probably the Panny 15mm f/1.7 and the plastic Oly 40-150 are all you would need. If you really need more reach, the plastic 70-300 might work but unless you are doing wildlife in the mountains I don't know why you need that kind of reach for "travel". Maybe throw in a Raynox macro adapter for the telephoto zoom for close ups of flowers, etc.

TEdolph

Yes, if you take any one of the important points on my list alone, I can come up with smaller kit. However, I’m attempting to take all the points I listed into consideration.

 

[Bassam Guy]

I'm not grasping at straws, just giving an opinion - same as you did.

My comments are based on my own systems and shooting - from current gear - and better quality gear. I can't comment exactly about the specific FF gear and brand - I didn't use it - and I consider the longer lens mentioned a consumer zoom, not a pro zoom - while the Oly zooms mentioned were at the higher end.

Bottom line - I understand that FF mirrorless have made some real jumps in the last two or three years. That's good.

You and I see the differences differently - that's human and that's the benefit of a forum - each person can share their thoughts - from their perspective. None of this is binary, that is, one way or the other, so each of us can choose differently and that is okay. i'm not so insecure that I need others to reinforce my preference.

You and Funkmon both bring up good points and I appreciate both points of view.

I would consider the RF 100-500 L nothing short of a prosumer lens…could possibly make the case that it is a pro zoom as well though with its quality. Just wish it was faster and at the same size (or smaller)

We would see differently here - this zoom is far too slow, in terms of aperture for pro work. In terms of light gathering and in terms of subject separation. There is a reason most pro photogs are shooting f/2.8 and f/4 long primes - it is both for speed and for subject separation. These are critical and at that level, the weight is just accepted. In my experience, for small subjects especially, the Oly 300mm f/4 is a very good lens, as is the Oly 40-150 f/2.8. And, FWIW, I did a ton of shooting my top FF Nikon bodies with the 600mm f/4 side by side with the Oly 300mm f/4 on good tripods and can easily get comparable IQ.

The RF 100-400 I also have, I would consider a “Consumer Zoom.” It lacks weather-sealing, has a lot of plastic, has significant AF restrictions with extenders and is pretty slow (though not much slower than the 100-500. With that said, it is 2 lbs lighter!!! (Which is the reason I bought it).

This weight savings is huge for me with my desires for gear. With the lens being 1 lbs. and having a very similar aperture range to then 100-500 I would be more willing to carry/bring the RF 100-400, rather than the RF 100-500. I’m sacrificing image quality and weather-sealing though with this option (and the latter could really risk my R5 in more inclement conditions)

This is honestly one of the main reasons I’m considering switching. I could get up to 420mm FOV with more weather-sealed gear and not lose anything with OOF rendering at the telephoto end with the OM gear I mentioned.

One thing that some people are making a big deal about - pixel quantity. In my experience, most making a big deal about this, tend to crop a lot - or are insecure and it is an academic point. Unless you are printing BIG - the extra pixels are just not that big of a deal...

12MP are more than enough to print any size, even billboard, when considering viewing distance. There are a number of videos and forum threads on this.

...especially once you go to print. People fail to remember that Pros were shooting a fraction of the pixel quantity any of the current m43 cameras have and getting RESULTS they were good with, having come from decades of shooting film and know what it was capable of. Shooting 40-50 megapixels just means your files are bigger. I'm not arguing there isn't potentially more detail in the file - certainly that is possible IF you have the lens to resolve it AND the skill to shoot it. That said, once you squash it down for a web file, or even an 8x10 print - it's pretty well been compressed away. But, if the shot was a bit soft at 1:1 with all those pixels, then compressed down it will look a lot better - so there is that.

Bottom line - photog process and skill trumps gear almost every time. Most shooters, regardless of platform choose not to use tripods. I respect that choice, but would also suggest their images often reflect that choice - in a handful of ways. But, as in all areas, we each have our preferences and priorities. It's a free world, so be secure in your own choices, respecting others that have their own.

 

[Captive18]

12MP are more than enough to print any size, even billboard, when considering viewing distance. There are a number of videos and forum threads on this.

I’m not worried about MP at all.

 

[Bassam Guy]

I would consider the RF 100-500 L nothing short of a prosumer lens…could possibly make the case that it is a pro zoom as well though with its quality. Just wish it was faster and at the same size (or smaller)

We would see differently here - this zoom is far too slow, in terms of aperture for pro work. In terms of light gathering and in terms of subject separation. There is a reason most pro photogs are shooting f/2.8 and f/4 long primes - it is both for speed and for subject separation.

With all due respect, (and not trying to get into any arguments here) isn’t the OLY 40-150 f2.8 PRO similar with aperture when it comes to the look of the OOF rendering of any photograph? Especially with the 1.4x TC you are getting the equivalent OOF rendering of a FF f8 (the RF 100-500 is f7.1). What am I missing with your statement?

The DOF conversion factor is 0.5 or 2 depending on how you look at it.

DOF for MFT aperture X 2 = DOF for FF

DOF for FF aperture / 2 = DOF for MFT

So, MFT f4 has the same DOF as FF f8. FF f4 has the same DOF as f2 MFT.

You are missing nothing, although I am admittedly somewhat confused by Captive18's "with all due respect..." sentence.

These are critical and at that level, the weight is just accepted. In my experience, for small subjects especially, the Oly 300mm f/4 is a very good lens, as is the Oly 40-150 f/2.8. And, FWIW, I did a ton of shooting my top FF Nikon bodies with the 600mm f/4 side by side with the Oly 300mm f/4 on good tripods and can easily get comparable IQ.

Seems like the OLY 300 is a gold-standard lens!

The RF 100-400 I also have, I would consider a “Consumer Zoom.” It lacks weather-sealing, has a lot of plastic, has significant AF restrictions with extenders and is pretty slow (though not much slower than the 100-500. With that said, it is 2 lbs lighter!!! (Which is the reason I bought it).

This weight savings is huge for me with my desires for gear. With the lens being 1 lbs. and having a very similar aperture range to then 100-500 I would be more willing to carry/bring the RF 100-400, rather than the RF 100-500. I’m sacrificing image quality and weather-sealing though with this option (and the latter could really risk my R5 in more inclement conditions)

This is honestly one of the main reasons I’m considering switching. I could get up to 420mm FOV with more weather-sealed gear and not lose anything with OOF rendering at the telephoto end with the OM gear I mentioned.

One thing that some people are making a big deal about - pixel quantity. In my experience, most making a big deal about this, tend to crop a lot - or are insecure and it is an academic point. Unless you are printing BIG - the extra pixels are just not that big of a deal, especially once you go to print. People fail to remember that Pros were shooting a fraction of the pixel quantity any of the current m43 cameras have and getting RESULTS they were good with, having come from decades of shooting film and know what it was capable of. Shooting 40-50 megapixels just means your files are bigger. I'm not arguing there isn't potentially more detail in the file - certainly that is possible IF you have the lens to resolve it AND the skill to shoot it. That said, once you squash it down for a web file, or even an 8x10 print - it's pretty well been compressed away. But, if the shot was a bit soft at 1:1 with all those pixels, then compressed down it will look a lot better - so there is that.

I’m not too concerned about pixels. 20mp is enough. However, I do like having more for the ability to crop in. When it is needed, it is helpful in order to get the shot.

 

[Captive18]

I would consider the RF 100-500 L nothing short of a prosumer lens…could possibly make the case that it is a pro zoom as well though with its quality. Just wish it was faster and at the same size (or smaller)

We would see differently here - this zoom is far too slow, in terms of aperture for pro work. In terms of light gathering and in terms of subject separation. There is a reason most pro photogs are shooting f/2.8 and f/4 long primes - it is both for speed and for subject separation.

With all due respect, (and not trying to get into any arguments here) isn’t the OLY 40-150 f2.8 PRO similar with aperture when it comes to the look of the OOF rendering of any photograph? Especially with the 1.4x TC you are getting the equivalent OOF rendering of a FF f8 (the RF 100-500 is f7.1). What am I missing with your statement?

The DOF conversion factor is 0.5 or 2 depending on how you look at it.

DOF for MFT aperture X 2 = DOF for FF

DOF for FF aperture / 2 = DOF for MFT

So, MFT f4 has the same DOF as FF f8. FF f4 has the same DOF as f2 MFT.

You are missing nothing, although I am admittedly somewhat confused by Captive18's "with all due respect..." sentence.

I’ve seen how these conversations devolve and I’m legitimately curious if there is something I’m missing in regard to OOF rendering.

 

[toomix]

eh, no. If you use FF gear you need to stop down to f5,6 at least to have normal depth of field, therefore you need to increase ISO to get the same shutter speed as you wild get on the olympus f2,8 lens, therefore you loose noise or dynamic range advantage.

one should really try both worlds to choose system based on own experience