In a dilemma....

Sootchucker

Sootchucker

Messages
2,494
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
As some of you may know, I've been running a dual system for sometime now (Nikon Z and Olympus M4/3). To that end I have each of their respective pro bodies - the Nikon Z9 and the Olympus OM-1.

For some time now I've been lusting after the Olympus 150-400 F4.5 TC Pro lens, but it's been like the proverbial Unicorn (i.e. rare as hens teeth). Aside from that it would have been the single most expensive piece of photo equipment I would have ever purchased, but it would be the ultimate wildlife lens for the OM-1 system (and many that have the lens absolutely swear by it). I'd consigned myself to the fact that it would never be in stock - so I'd never need to worry.

Fast forward to yesterday, and would you believe TP member mazdaman, found one in the UK for sale over on another forum, at nearly £600 off new price (in absolutely mint condition). Rather than pounce on it, I slept on it and in the cold light of day, (whilst it would be a nice to have), at £6k it's an awful lot of money for a M4/3 lens (and don't get me wrong I love my OM-1 and it's a brilliant image making tool), but since they took over from Olympus, OM-Systems track record on firmware updates, new bodies (that weren't re-hashed and re-badged Olympus models), and new lens launches hasn't exactly been stellar. So is dropping £6k on a lens sensible ?

Then there's the Z9. I already have that and whilst not better par-se in the actual wildlife shooting experience than the OM-1, obviously has 45mp vs 20mp, and just as good AF and fast enough frame rates to suit me. Couple that with the imminent release of the new Nikon 180-600mm Lens, it got me wondering if that's the way to go. It would be £1.7k vs £6k for a start, and obviously would "only" be 600mm in bare form vs 800mm from the Olympus, however step down to DX mode on the Z9 (still at 20mp) and you then have a 270-900mm lens. Yes, the Olympus is a stop brighter (F4.5 vs F6.3), but then again its a M4/3 sensor vs a FF or DX sensor so they should equalize out ? Yes the OM-1 system is slightly smaller and lighter (although I exclusively use the OM-1 with a battery grip and extra battery), so it would be approx. 2,960g (OM-1 with grip & second battery) vs 3,290g (Nikon) - and yes I know I'm comparing a 100% pro lens in the Olympus to a non-pro lens on the Nikon (but that's reflected in the price), but the Z lenses so far have been stellar.

I've been going back and forth on this, and can't seem to make a decision. :D :D

Anyone with the 150-400 Olympus like to chime in as well as Z9 / Z8 owners too ?
 
took me ages to think and write the above Steve, and your 3 word answer pretty much sums up what my brain is saying (although my heart still would like the Olympus) :D :D
 
In your shoes it would be option 2. Maybe not as ideal as the OM lens but your on safer ground regarding updates and future proofing (I think) and I doubt theres any serious quality difference. And you trouser 4k.
 
The other consideration is size and weight. For your type of trips, would you feel comfortable shlepping the FX outfit around or will the smaller Micro four thirds make a difference?
 
I used to use M43, but I have a lot of doubts about the future of the OM system. The OM1 and OM5 are projects considering lead in times inherited from Olympus. I would be very wary about spending so much on a lens for this system. The OM5 in particular was mostly just a name change on the "prism bulge"

I believe Nikon is the safer bet. In crop mode the Z9 will still give you better image quality than the aging M43 sensor.
 
To be fair the sensor in the OM-1 whilst "only" 20mp (and it seems M43 has been stuck at that point for years except for the GH6), punches well above it's weight. Now if I knew that OM Systems was committed to further developing the system with newer sensors and pro bodies then I think it might swing it for the Olympus (to be fair the OM-1 is only 18 months into it's life cycle), however there's nothing being said about that at all on the internet. It seems like a few more pro telephoto zooms might be announced this year from OM-Systems (if you believe the rumour sites), but that's about all ?

I have to say to being very impressed not only with the Nikon mirrorless ecosystem, but applaud them considering they have only been in the mirrorless game since Summer 2018 (one of the last players to enter this market) , and now they have currently no less than 8 bodies (Z50, Z30, ZFc, Z8, Z9, Z6 II, Z7 II, Z5) as well as 32 lenses in such a short time. I think therefore that I'm coming down on the side of Nikon in this particular instance. Yes I know the Nikon combo will be approx. 30mm longer and weigh about 330g more, but that's not exactly a deal breaker.

I still think the OM-System has great potential, and the OM-1 was the first pro body who's AF could match those from Sony, Canon and Nikon (and it does), and the system has some really excellent computational features not found anywhere else in one body (i.e. Live ND, In Camera High Res (both hand held and Tripod based), Live Composite, Live Time, Keystone correction, Pro-capture with Raw files as well as Jpg for instance). Also ergonomically it's one of the best handling (non integrated grip bodies) I've ever handled. I just need the confidence before splashing out that much for a lens that the system is still going to be around in 5 years time. I think for the time being I'll stick to the OM-1 with my 300mm (600mm effective) F4 lens with / without teleconverters to get to 600mm F4, 840mm F5.6 or 1,200mm F8 if needed.

For £6k I guess I could purchase not only the new 180-600 but if I wanted to go smaller and lighter than the Z9, could add a Z8, and still have £800 change !
 
I'd choose the 180-600mm out of those choices. Yes it's got less light gathering, but as you say the Z9 is easily going to compensate for that with its ability to handle noise, and you're going to have a very similar DOF on both (Olly a smidge shallower). There's not much in it weight wise either. I think it's hard to justify the cost of the Olly lens based on this.
 
I’d rather use the same cash to get the Z800 f6.3 for the Nikon which will give you a much nicer render vs the equivalent Olympus Len’s due to the sensor size difference and the aperture difference is muted due to the ISO performance difference between the Z9 and OM1 anyway.

I’d then continue to save after buying one of those lenses second hand and pick up the Z400 f4.5 to have the best of both worlds.

Having owned the Z9 and put around 40k photos through it, it would be my go to in this situation.
 
I use a multitude of gear and :olympus: but £6K on an Olympus lens plus it is not a true 800mm it is only the field of view due to the crop factor.

If I had the Nikon Z system then the 180-600 would be my choice as Nikon will certainly be supporting their system better than I think Olympus will be.

Personally, as much as I love Olympus and use a couple of their machines I think their days are sadly numbered.
 
I only use M43 now, but Panasonic, Olympus does not suit me.

I have to wonder what that £6000 lens does that would make me want to buy it over the 100-400?
The answer in my case is simple, nothing. The term "pro" indicates it is used to make money, and that is not the aim of my photography, maybe in pro circles it could be justified, however I fully agree with yours and others reasoning for going the Nikon route, which does indicate there is an alternative, and I would think that for £6000 there would have to be no alternative for it to be considered :)
 
For one I’m sticking with olympus ..or OMS you fully know as well as me how good the repair facility in Portugal is .. if the system had no future that would have been the first thing to go .. they now seem to have gotten turn round times Brexit problems sorted to .. .. personally I can’t justify the price of the big white lens and think they have overpriced it … but the 300mm f4 plus tc’s is a formidable bit of kit … and will you get any better results from a yet untested Nikon zoom ? We have all fallen foul of g.a.s .
As you also know I’m wary of the OM1 and hope that a mkii will appear soon ..
and finally if I was looking at another system it would definetly be Sony they are the real innovators
 
I have very fond memories of my time with Olympus but it’s strength ms are that it’s small and budget orientated. So spending £6k on a lens that’s relatively huge in my mind at least would be questionable.

I know the quality of M4/3 but however you spin it it’s always 2 stops behind full frame. All the tricks that you say make the sensor punch above its weight can also be (and have been) applied to full frame sensors.

Whilst the F4.5 lens appears nice simply set the Z full frame lens to F9, raise the iso by 2 stops and you’ll match it!
 
I am just about to upgrade from my D500 and 500 f4 prime, to a Z9 and 180-600.

It will be interesting to see how the 180-600, compares to my old 500 f4 prime? - I have a feeling that for my use (purely wildlife and frequently low light), I will still be using the old 'prime' on the Z9 with the 'FTZ' adapter!

Without wishing to hijack the thread, has anyone on here made that comparison and have any feedback?
 
Brazo said:
I have very fond memories of my time with Olympus but it’s strength ms are that it’s small and budget orientated. So spending £6k on a lens that’s relatively huge in my mind at least would be questionable.

I know the quality of M4/3 but however you spin it it’s always 2 stops behind full frame. All the tricks that you say make the sensor punch above its weight can also be (and have been) applied to full frame sensors.

Whilst the F4.5 lens appears nice simply set the Z full frame lens to F9, raise the iso by 2 stops and you’ll match it!
Click to expand...
Not sure where you’re coming from on this I.e set the full frame lens to f9 .. doesn’t really matter what you use FF , a-p.s.c or MFT a F2.8 lens is always a F2.8 . You simply cannot double the apeture due to the sensor . Likewise the i.s.o value is a measure of light it matters not one iota what format it’s applied to .
The only real difference between Nikon,canon,Sony and Olympus and Panasonic is that mft lenses and bodies are generally smaller ,lighter and definitely cheaper and that is factual
 
Vintage Racer said:
I am just about to upgrade from my D500 and 500 f4 prime, to a Z9 and 180-600.

It will be interesting to see how the 180-600, compares to my old 500 f4 prime? - I have a feeling that for my use (purely wildlife and frequently low light), I will still be using the old 'prime' on the Z9 with the 'FTZ' adapter!

Without wishing to hijack the thread, has anyone on here made that comparison and have any feedback?
Click to expand...
The 180-600 hasn’t started shipping yet. I’ve seen no reviews other than “first look.”
 
the black fox said:
The only real difference between Nikon,canon,Sony and Olympus and Panasonic is that mft lenses and bodies are generally smaller ,lighter and definitely cheaper and that is factual
Click to expand...
I agree.

In the days when film was the only game in town, there were big differences in what you could get out of cameras using different formats. These days, there are minor differences between the digital formats in general use. If you're going to print to A0, for images that will be studied with a magnifier, then you might be advised to use one of the "medium format" cameras but how many people are doing that?
 
the black fox said:
Not sure where you’re coming from on this I.e set the full frame lens to f9 .. doesn’t really matter what you use FF , a-p.s.c or MFT a F2.8 lens is always a F2.8 . You simply cannot double the apeture due to the sensor . Likewise the i.s.o value is a measure of light it matters not one iota what format it’s applied to .
The only real difference between Nikon,canon,Sony and Olympus and Panasonic is that mft lenses and bodies are generally smaller ,lighter and definitely cheaper and that is factual
Click to expand...
Of course in terms of light gathering ability a 2.8 lens is a 2.8 on MFT that’s physics but if you wish to recreate the same image quality on full frame along with the same (or very similar) depth of field then simply use an F5.6 lens on full frame and hike the iso by two stops. E.G

MFT

Iso 100 F2.8 and shutter speed of 1/500

will give the same final image quality and shutter speed as FF.

FF
Iso 400 F5.6 and shutter speed of 1/500
 
Last edited:
the black fox said:
The only real difference between Nikon,canon,Sony and Olympus and Panasonic is that mft lenses and bodies are generally smaller ,lighter and definitely cheaper and that is factual
Click to expand...
The smaller, lighter and cheaper is often true (not always) but your statement about "the only real difference" being these things is not factual. DIfferences in dynamic range and noise levels spring to mind (y)
 
Brazo said:
Of course in terms of light gathering ability a 2.8 lens is a 2.8 on MFT that’s physics but if you wish to recreate the same image quality on full frame along with the same (or very similar) depth of field then simply use an F5.6 lens on full frame and hike the iso by two stops. E.G

MFT

Iso 100 F2.8 and shutter speed of 1/500

will give the same final image quality and shutter speed as FF.

FF
Iso 400 F5.6 and shutter speed of 1/500
Click to expand...
Similar but not the same image quality. FF 2.8 vs MFT 2.8 photos have a different depth of field which is noticeable in the bokeh render. Due to this, especially on wildlife photography, can really change a look of a photo depending on what you are shooting.
 
If I was going to drop 6k it would be the Nikon pf 800 I had a hold of one yesterday and it was lovely felt really light . and would knock spots of the olympus

If the Nikon 180-600. is going to be as good as the Sony 200-600 id also consider that ,mike lane compared the Sony to the Olympus and there was no difference in iq

I watch a wildlife guy on YouTube , who shot Nikon. and he swapped to Olympus with the 150-400 and was singing its praises . few weeks later he swapped back to Nikon with a z9
 
snerkler said:
The smaller, lighter and cheaper is often true (not always) but your statement about "the only real difference" being these things is not factual. DIfferences in dynamic range and noise levels spring to mind (y)
Click to expand...
There's always the vexed question of how good does image quality have to be to be good enough.

As someone who uses sensors from 1/2.5" to full frame, the results are all good enough for my needs. For those producing images for technical or scientific purposes, it's quite possible that none of those sensors would be acceptable. Before we can say that something makes a difference we should probably ask the question: "For what purpose do you want this camera"?
 
mav said:
If I was going to drop 6k it would be the Nikon pf 800 I had a hold of one yesterday and it was lovely felt really light . and would knock spots of the olympus

If the Nikon 180-600. is going to be as good as the Sony 200-600 id also consider that ,mike lane compared the Sony to the Olympus and there was no difference in iq
Click to expand...
Same here.
There was a guy in a hide a couple of months ago who let me hold his Z9 + 800PF.
I don't like too much weight but this felt well balanced and hand holdable(for me) for short bursts.

It's too early to judge the new zoom.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
There's always the vexed question of how good does image quality have to be to be good enough.

As someone who uses sensors from 1/2.5" to full frame, the results are all good enough for my needs. For those producing images for technical or scientific purposes, it's quite possible that none of those sensors would be acceptable. Before we can say that something makes a difference we should probably ask the question: "For what purpose do you want this camera"?
Click to expand...
I don’t think so in this context, it was a ‘factual’ statement that was being discussed therefore needs (imo) to be discussed in absolutes, not subjectiveness (y)
 
snerkler said:
I don’t think so in this context, it was a ‘factual’ statement that was being discussed therefore needs (imo) to be discussed in absolutes, not subjectiveness (y)
Click to expand...
If it was factual, surely there'd have been figures for resolution, contrast and so on?

In their absence, I take it to be very much about subjective assessment, hence my comment.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
If it was factual, surely there'd have been figures for resolution, contrast and so on?

In their absence, I take it to be very much about subjective assessment, hence my comment.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to list every sensor scores, but it's common knowledge that larger sensors have better dynamic range and low light high ISO performance for similar age sensor tech. It's not subjective, it fact and physics.
 
snerkler said:
I'm not going to list every sensor scores, but it's common knowledge that larger sensors have better dynamic range and low light high ISO performance for similar age sensor tech. It's not subjective, it fact and physics.
Click to expand...
Common knowledge often turns out to be common error.

If you wish to claim that your contribution is factual, you hurt your argument if you do not provide the proof in some form or other. If you will not or cannot, then your contribution is opinion and there's nothing wrong with opinion, provided you don't mix it up with fact.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Common knowledge often turns out to be common error.

If you wish to claim that your contribution is factual, you hurt your argument if you do not provide the proof in some form or other. If you will not or cannot, then your contribution is opinion and there's nothing wrong with opinion, provided you don't mix it up with fact.
Click to expand...
One example of many.

Screenshot 2023-08-05 at 16.19.11.jpg
 
I just bought a brand new Z800mm f6.3 PF for UK equivalent £4370 in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia. I actually paid my mate to fly from KL to Phuket where I live and hand carry the lens for me. If you're paying £6k in the UK it's worth flying to KL for a wee holiday and hand carry your new lens back home all for less than £6K ........just a thought
 
An old thread I know, but I just come across this from a web search so thought I'd tidy it up with my conclusion and ultimate decision.

In the end I went with the Nikon 180-600 (had to get 2 copies to get a good sharp one), and added a Z8 to the mix, so when out shooting where I need to carry the gear for some extended periods I usually use the Z8 with the 180-600. It's not made a massive difference to the overall weight (now 2,860g vs 3290g for the Z9 combo). Still at 2,960g for the OM-1 combo with the battery grip or 2,474g without the battery pack, it makes the Z8 combo only 386g heavier overall (if I use the OM-1 without the battery grip which I do with the Z8).

I've now got a nice sharp copy of the 180-600 and I'm really happy with the image quality it's delivering, and actually very nice Bokeh rendering. Plus at the new price of the Olympus 150-400 lens today (£6,700), I've saved £5,000, which went a long way to pay for the Z8 body which I got from Panamoz for only £2,900 so still saving me over 2 grand. Considering the Nikon lens isn't an S line lens, it still has pretty decent build quality, and excellent VR which combined with the Z8 or Z9, allows sharp images down to 1/80-1/100 at 600mm if I use proper holding techniques. The VR and IBIS still isn't a match for that of the Olympus combo (which is rated at 8 stops), which I knew before getting them, (Olympus has spoiled me on that front), and obviously with the 150-400's 1.25x Converter engaged, it's affectively a 1000mm F5.6 lens. The Nikon combo can get pretty close in DX mode though at 900mm @ F6.3, but it's still 100mm short (and of course without the TC engaged, the Olympus is an 800mm F4.5 lens where as the 180-600 @ 600mm is 2/3 stop slower at F6.3.

Overall though, despite the spec advantages of the Olympus lens, when you couple in the fact that I've started shooting more and more video, and that in that case the Nikon's are on a different planet with regards resolution and framerate options (and with AF-C and tracking in video that actually works), then overall I'm still happy with my decision. The OM-1 and my current longest lens (the 300mm F4 Pro (so 600mm equivalent), won't be going anywhere, but overall, I think I'm starting to enjoy the Nikon experience more.
 
Acknowledging you own the z9, how would you compare the size of the z8 to the Olympus during prolonged use? Do you ever carry it on a rucksack clip?
 
Last edited:
To be honest after using my Z6 II (now gone) and Z7 II for a few years, which weren't all that much bigger and heavier than the OM-1, I was a little concerned that the Z8 was going to be a really big and heavy beast, but I've been pleasantly surprised. Sure it is bigger and heavier (599g vs 910g body only), however with either the 24-200 or 24-120 lens on it really doesn't feel that much bigger or heavier than my OM-1 with my most used lens the venerable 12-100 F4 Pro. Taking the 24-200 combo it's "only" 320g heavier as a combo or 380g for the 24-120 combo, but adds an awful lot in for that extra 320-380g. Like the OM-1 it also feels great in the hand and belies it's weight.

I carry all my cameras either via Peak Design Cuff wrist strap for short periods, or for longer periods on their slide lite neck strap via the PD quick release connectors (which are on all my cameras). Don't get me wrong, I love my OM-1 and the 12-100 F4 Pro is one of the very best superzooms ever made in my opinion, but there's just something about those Z8 files and it's Video capabilities that keeps drawing me back to it.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top