The Ultimate Comparison

[the bluesman]

This is a long video but defiantly worth a look especially if your considering the new 50-200mm or jumping ship to either system, I think I'll stay right here as I've been thinking full frame a bit lately

 

[ikolbyi]

This is a long video but defiantly worth a look especially if your considering the new 50-200mm or jumping ship to either system, I think I'll stay right here as I've been thinking full frame a bit lately

Comparing a FF 300-600mm vs MFT 50-200mm (100-400) is not in the same category of comparison. Need to have like-for-like lens focal lengths.

His video feels more like a paid promotion for OM.

 

[Day Hiker]

This is a long video but defiantly worth a look especially if your considering the new 50-200mm or jumping ship to either system, I think I'll stay right here as I've been thinking full frame a bit lately

Comparing a FF 300-600mm vs MFT 50-200mm (100-400) is not in the same category of comparison. Need to have like-for-like lens focal lengths.

His video feels more like a paid promotion for OM.

No rule says a comparison has to be "fair." Most of the time, I'm far more interested if the comparison is entertaining, not necessarily "fair." :-D


James

 

[ikolbyi]

This is a long video but defiantly worth a look especially if your considering the new 50-200mm or jumping ship to either system, I think I'll stay right here as I've been thinking full frame a bit lately

Comparing a FF 300-600mm vs MFT 50-200mm (100-400) is not in the same category of comparison. Need to have like-for-like lens focal lengths.

His video feels more like a paid promotion for OM.

No rule says a comparison has to be "fair." Most of the time, I'm far more interested if the comparison is entertaining, not necessarily "fair." :-D

James

If I want to spend my time being entertained, I will watch the marketing videos directly from the manufacture, they do a far better job with 'eye candy'.

 

[TheRealYeats]

Seems fair.

Back in my Pentax daze, I had both a 400/5.6 and 400/4, with the latter lens being twice the weight of the former. Some days I really want my "best", other days I wanted more convenience.

 

[ikolbyi]

Seems fair.

Back in my Pentax daze, I had both a 400/5.6 and 400/4, with the latter lens being twice the weight of the former. Some days I really want my "best", other days I wanted more convenience.

If we use that comparison logic, then the review should have been the FF 300-600mm vs MFT 150-400mm as the 50-200mm is not the best choice for wildlife while the FF 300-600mm is.

 

[the bluesman]

Seems fair.

Back in my Pentax daze, I had both a 400/5.6 and 400/4, with the latter lens being twice the weight of the former. Some days I really want my "best", other days I wanted more convenience.

If we use that comparison logic, then the review should have been the FF 300-600mm vs MFT 150-400mm as the 50-200mm is not the best choice for wildlife while the FF 300-600mm is.

It is fair enough, all photos were taken at the same focal length etc, I don't think it is sponsored by OM Systems and the feller seems like a good genuine person as well

 

[tdekany]

Seems fair.

Back in my Pentax daze, I had both a 400/5.6 and 400/4, with the latter lens being twice the weight of the former. Some days I really want my "best", other days I wanted more convenience.

If we use that comparison logic, then the review should have been the FF 300-600mm vs MFT 150-400mm as the 50-200mm is not the best choice for wildlife while the FF 300-600mm is.

It is fair enough, all photos were taken at the same focal length etc, I don't think it is sponsored by OM Systems and the feller seems like a good genuine person as well

I enjoyed the video, but I have 2 observations. The noise in high iso shots are a non issue anymore, thanks to AI NR. Like why not show the results afterwards? IS there anyone out there not using AI NR, especially on high iso images? Anyway. The other "mistake" was to not use the Sony 200-600 instead. Of course the 3rd party lens isn't going to focus as well as a native lens.

 

[ikolbyi]

Seems fair.

Back in my Pentax daze, I had both a 400/5.6 and 400/4, with the latter lens being twice the weight of the former. Some days I really want my "best", other days I wanted more convenience.

If we use that comparison logic, then the review should have been the FF 300-600mm vs MFT 150-400mm as the 50-200mm is not the best choice for wildlife while the FF 300-600mm is.

It is fair enough, all photos were taken at the same focal length etc, I don't think it is sponsored by OM Systems and the feller seems like a good genuine person as well

I enjoyed the video, but I have 2 observations. The noise in high iso shots are a non issue anymore, thanks to AI NR. Like why not show the results afterwards? IS there anyone out there not using AI NR, especially on high iso images? Anyway. The other "mistake" was to not use the Sony 200-600 instead. Of course the 3rd party lens isn't going to focus as well as a native lens.

--
Amateur photographers worry about equipment, professional photographers worry about money, masters worry about light

To this point, I find DXO AI NR superior for OM-1.1 over G9.2.

But that benefit has more to do with how well software packages deal with sensor performance more than sensor size.

 

[tdekany]

Seems fair.

Back in my Pentax daze, I had both a 400/5.6 and 400/4, with the latter lens being twice the weight of the former. Some days I really want my "best", other days I wanted more convenience.

If we use that comparison logic, then the review should have been the FF 300-600mm vs MFT 150-400mm as the 50-200mm is not the best choice for wildlife while the FF 300-600mm is.

It is fair enough, all photos were taken at the same focal length etc, I don't think it is sponsored by OM Systems and the feller seems like a good genuine person as well

I enjoyed the video, but I have 2 observations. The noise in high iso shots are a non issue anymore, thanks to AI NR. Like why not show the results afterwards? IS there anyone out there not using AI NR, especially on high iso images? Anyway. The other "mistake" was to not use the Sony 200-600 instead. Of course the 3rd party lens isn't going to focus as well as a native lens.

To this point, I find DXO AI NR superior for OM-1.1 over G9.2.

But that benefit has more to do with how well software packages deal with sensor performance more than sensor size.

I use an em1x and an em em1 mark 2 and LR AI Dows wonders for both.

 

[TheRealYeats]

Seems fair.

Back in my Pentax daze, I had both a 400/5.6 and 400/4, with the latter lens being twice the weight of the former. Some days I really want my "best", other days I wanted more convenience.

If we use that comparison logic, then the review should have been the FF 300-600mm vs MFT 150-400mm as the 50-200mm is not the best choice for wildlife while the FF 300-600mm is.

It is an imperfect comparison, but my point - and the point of the video, I think - is that you can make certain concessions with your gear but still have good results and a more relaxed photographic experience.

Add the MC-14 to that OM 50-200 and you will get a similar angle of view as the Sigma on the long end.

 

[BryanHL]

Comparing a FF 300-600mm vs MFT 50-200mm (100-400) is not in the same category of comparison. Need to have like-for-like lens focal lengths.

His video feels more like a paid promotion for OM.

But he did tape the sigma at 400mm - did you miss that?

 

[BryanHL]

When explaining how he noticed different exposures he said the OM1 is dual gain?

 

[nzmacro]

That's a bit daft for a comparison.



Sony A7RIV and 200-600 on the right. Olympus EM1 MKII on left and that's without the two hoods. I was out this morning with the Oly and 500mm.



Oly EM-10



Panasonic just got eaten.



Panasonic

Now what !!

Danny.

--
------------
https://www.flickr.com/photos/194823742@N03/
-----------------
Theorists. Looks good on paper, just not photographic printing paper.

 

[BryanHL]

Right towards the very end when comparing the pros and cons between the two systems he said "Maybe we have reached the point of Diminishing Returns" - or words to that effect.

That's why I feel m43 certainly has a place. Maybe not much sales volume but as long as there's enough to keep it going...

 

[ahaslett]

Well I bought a used 300/4 for my OM1 rather than new Sony 200-600G for my A7Riv. The Sony gathers a wee bit more light and was a lot cheaper than a used 300/4 (a lot). However, the 300/4 is a lot lighter. More pixels on the subject vs subject detection, sort of a choice.

Amusing that someone compares a 200-600mm taped at 400mm vs a 50-200mm! There are 100-400mm FF lenses, Sigma make one. I have the Sony (which is cheaper than the OM).

I could post a video with a 50-200mm taped at 50mm vs my Samyang 100mm T2.3 (all 280g of it), also the SY is just a bit cheaper, well actually £2,560 cheaper.

I liked Danny’s comparisons more.

A

 

[Cafe Racer]

Seems fair.

Back in my Pentax daze, I had both a 400/5.6 and 400/4, with the latter lens being twice the weight of the former. Some days I really want my "best", other days I wanted more convenience.

If we use that comparison logic, then the review should have been the FF 300-600mm vs MFT 150-400mm as the 50-200mm is not the best choice for wildlife while the FF 300-600mm is.

It is fair enough, all photos were taken at the same focal length etc, I don't think it is sponsored by OM Systems and the feller seems like a good genuine person as well

I enjoyed the video, but I have 2 observations. The noise in high iso shots are a non issue anymore, thanks to AI NR.

Not related to wildlife but when I've tried out AI NR (Topaz & DxO) on m4/3 images, I found they could not restore facial detail ruined by noise at high ISO (night shots), where the faces were not in the foreground. So for this reason I concluded that AI NR did not represent a total solution. Do you know if these AI NR software programs have been improved to make this now a non issue?

Like why not show the results afterwards? IS there anyone out there not using AI NR, especially on high iso images? Anyway. The other "mistake" was to not use the Sony 200-600 instead. Of course the 3rd party lens isn't going to focus as well as a native lens.

--
Amateur photographers worry about equipment, professional photographers worry about money, masters worry about light

 

[SonyX]

Well I bought a used 300/4 for my OM1 rather than new Sony 200-600G for my A7Riv. The Sony gathers a wee bit more light and was a lot cheaper than a used 300/4 (a lot). However, the 300/4 is a lot lighter. More pixels on the subject vs subject detection, sort of a choice.

just as a choice between 200-"900"mm vs 600mm only

Amusing that someone compares a 200-600mm taped at 400mm vs a 50-200mm!

maybe it wasn't a direct comparison of lenses or lens choices, but of formats?

There are 100-400mm FF lenses, Sigma make one. I have the Sony (which is cheaper than the OM).

I could post a video with a 50-200mm taped at 50mm vs my Samyang 100mm T2.3 (all 280g of it), also the SY is just a bit cheaper, well actually £2,560 cheaper.

I liked Danny’s comparisons more.

A

 

[BryanHL]

I enjoyed the video, but I have 2 observations. The noise in high iso shots are a non issue anymore, thanks to AI NR.

Not related to wildlife but when I've tried out AI NR (Topaz & DxO) on m4/3 images, I found they could not restore facial detail ruined by noise at high ISO (night shots), where the faces were not in the foreground. So for this reason I concluded that AI NR did not represent a total solution. Do you know if these AI NR software programs have been improved to make this now a non issue?

My limited experience is generally ok but some circumstances it makes a mess. The worst was a bird where it merged some fine feathers together into one surface making them look like plastic leaves...

 

[Cafe Racer]

I enjoyed the video, but I have 2 observations. The noise in high iso shots are a non issue anymore, thanks to AI NR.

Not related to wildlife but when I've tried out AI NR (Topaz & DxO) on m4/3 images, I found they could not restore facial detail ruined by noise at high ISO (night shots), where the faces were not in the foreground. So for this reason I concluded that AI NR did not represent a total solution. Do you know if these AI NR software programs have been improved to make this now a non issue?

My limited experience is generally ok but some circumstances it makes a mess.

Yeah, it doesn't always work. That's why when I hear people say that high ISO noise is no longer an issue for m4/3 because of AI NR, I tend not to agree. It hasn't got there yet AFAIK.

The worst was a bird where it merged some fine feathers together into one surface making them look like plastic leaves...

Yikes!

--
G.A.S. doesn't take photos...