I recently moved from Canon to Olympus and it’s the most fun I’ve had with photography and videography in a long time, mainly because the MFT system is able to be taken almost anywhere. Weather sealing is incredible, stabilisation is industry leading, and the pro lenses are generally tack sharp in terms of image quality. The cost of the lenses is also smaller compared to the competition.
I love my Olympus gear. My canon is rarely used nowadays. It's so much fun carrying a lightweight and really good camera versus worrying about the hernia I got carrying my heavyweight canon and lens combination into the woods. Those huge lenses just seem to be in conflict with nature and wildlife.
I know I'm 3 years late to the party, but for anyone who's watching this now to help make a purchase decision, let me assure you that that the Olympus 300mm can produce MUCH sharper results that what is shown here. I won't even venture a guess as to the cause for the poor performance on these test shots, but the 300mm is fantastically sharp. Would full-frame still be better if you can afford it? Absolutely. But if you're already invested in M43 bodies, seek out more videos to see what this lens is capable of.
Agreed. I’m late to this too. But at loss to see why sharpness is his bugbear. This is a very sharp lens even at F4. It also has better IS than my canon 400 and decent continuous AF on my OM5. I suspect sponsonship bias here? No axe to grind myself owning both. Just honest opinion based on usage for some time now. My back really likes the MFT option…
Also wondering, why the pics made with 300/4 look SO bad here.. They look like they are zoomed in to 200-300%, probably to compensate the dieeference in the resolution. If so, it's the wrong way to compare the systems..
it is incredible. i have both the 150-400 f/4.5 and 300 f/4 and the image quality is about the same - better than any full frame lens i've used. but to be fair, i've never used a $12,000 lens because i feel like i'd have to have a body guard with me carrying around that much money. another thing i would not do is carry around a lens over 6 pounds. both my lenses are 3 - 4 pounds. perfect.
@@darinl848 I agree with you like yourself I have both lenses. How he managed to take such an out of Focus shot with the 300 mm F4 is one of the mysteries of the universe. We have three of the very best wildlife photographers in the UK have switched to Olympus. If North drop was to walk in your house and say it’s pouring rain outside you have to walk out and have a look for yourself because you can’t believe a Word that man says. 👍
He didn't say it's not sharp. It's just that relative to a "full frame" (I hate that term) camera, it's not going to be as sharp because the image has to be enlarged more. It's just science. Everything is is a compromise. "Full frame" cameras can't touch the image quality of a large format camera. Hell, I'm never going to be able justify purchasing a 400 f/2 or 600 f/4 and I wouldn't want to carry either one around. That 300mm f/4 or the 150-400mm are very appealing to me.
I have been shooting Canon as a Wildlife Pro for 25years. The potential weight savings drove me to look at the Olympus OMDEm1x and 300mm f4 Pro. I still have my Canon 500mm f4 but I haven't used it since I bought the Olympus. I cannot replicate your lab tests on the 300mm f4, I have done similar comparisons with the 500mm Canon on a 5Dmkiii and the 300mm Olympus and the results were near identical in good light. I would say that the 300mm f4 pro is the sharpest lens I have ever owned. It focuses to just 1.4m too which makes it great for butterflies. I have only found two areas where the Canon full frame system beat the Olympus and that is when shooting in poor light at higher ISO and the shallower dof can be an advantage, but not if you are shooting close up. Shooting to the right of the histogram rather than going by the viewfinder brightness yields very acceptable noise performance up to 3200 iso. The image stabilisation is world class and usually negates the need for a tripod. If I was shooting from a hide (blind) or from a car in low light I would prefer to use my Canon kit, but when hiking, the weight advantage of the Olympus is so extreme that my Canon remains at home.
@@leonphotography1009 practice, practice, practice. Look at other photographers work, but the most important thing is get out and shoot, look at your own work and ask how can I improve. Wildlife photography I believe is the hardest photography, apart from lugging the gear around, unlike a studio you have to find the subject then get in close, to do that you need to know a bit about the animal and hope he turns up on the day you're there. My uncle was a wildlife ranger and could take me anywhere and find what ever I was looking for in the middle of nowhere. He had 30 plus years of studying 7 days a week.
Actually I do the opposite. If there is something I have not used in a while, I'll go watch some reviews and get re-inspired to use it. Something I've noticed with my experience satisfing my GAS: Its the best (most expensive) way to learn what different equipment does. After I have bought say, a dozen or so lens, I find myself using certain ones more then others. I have reasons for that that I could not have discovered if I had not had the options. But this is a very expensive way to learn! Some could say you should rent before you buy. If that option is available, then I would sort of agree. Problem is, can you really test a lens in a day or a weekend? I like to test it over months in different situations, and that would be too steep of a lens rental for me. I would rather use a lens for 6 months, really test it out, and then sell it. Maybe I get half my money back. But that's still cheaper then renting and I have more experience to know why I'm selling or keeping it.
I would argue the point you make about substantially sharper results from the D500 + Nikkor 200 - 500mm f5.6, over those achieved using an Olympus EM1 mark II + Oly 300mm f4. I owned both cameras and lenses for 18 months and shot them side by side (I always carry two cameras for wildlife). When viewing the images I shot over that period, I still have difficulty identifying which image was taken on which camera/lens combination. Occasionally, I would shoot as close to identical images as possible - just to see what difference there may be: In the main, I believe it is a perceived difference. Though I rated my D500 as a brilliant camera, I actually prefered my Em1 mark II. When I carried out tests between my Nikkor 300mm f4 PF ED VR, Oly 300mm f4 and PanaLeica 100 - 400mm, I saw virtually no difference between the Nikkor and the Oly. These were real world tests carried out using an exceptionally hairy cuddly toy at a distance of 20 metres. I may well be wrong, but I doubt most people would be able to tell the difference in the quality of images in a blind test.
I love blind testing people who are FF die hards with m43 inages. I have even had someone ask if I was shooting on medium format before and that was a laugh.
If you look at ephotozine, the results are completely different. The Zuiko 300mm f4 beats both, the 200-500mm and the 600mm f4 from Nikon. Especially in sharpness and more in edge sharpness. I feel, that everyone should us the gear they want or need, but this MFT bashing on this channel is just purely unjustified and unqualified.
@@AramKaptein NOPE, but I hate it when people make unjustified claims. I don't even have this lens, but all Zuiko Pros are known to be extremly sharp. Tony is just hating MFT and makes completely unjustified claims. He is obviously really unprofessional in his approach.
I appreciate the video. Some of your finding don’t match with my experience but that’s no big deal. Here’s my position on the topic. I was shooting a for a Ranch down in Texas. They have trophy deer and needed unique shots of them that weren’t from trail cams. They would drop me off in the early morning and pick me up when I called in. I was shooting my 7dii and 500f4 for most of it. I didn’t like the compositions I was getting from the ground blinds they had so I moved into the thickets. I simply couldn’t get the shots. When I switched to my em1ii and 300 it was night and day different and I was able to double my keepers. It’s was a real lesson about compositions and mobility. Hands down the m43 won the battle of keeper photos. This has carried over into most scenarios. When I’m shooting clients in the duck blind, laying in my stomach getting turkey strutting, or kneeling in the river catching the elk crossing I am simply going to get better images with the more mobile gear. Of course there are trade offs but I have massive prints of wildlife hanging in offices, hunting clubs, and homes that are from m43. I attribute that to the compositions and unique perspectives I was able to capture more than anything. Fact: All cameras are amazing. I want to own every camera, I live to shoot every camera and I appreciate your vids 😀
The best gear in the world isn't any good if it is so ponderous you consider not taking it on your outdoor adventures. I am thrilled with the portability of my Olympus m43 system and quite content with the image quality. I'm always amazed at people examining images at this level of detail and saying A is better than B because the fonts on a book sleeve in their home look sharper. Environmental conditions are what usually ruin images, not sensor size or noise at higher ISO. Also, unless you are cropping a lot and printing large prints, its all utter nonsense.
What works for some may not work best for others. I use a huge, heavy Sigma 300-800mm as my primary wildlife lens. I actually find it to be rather mobil, despite the fact that I only use it on a tripod. I can carry the tripod-mounted camera and lens around all day and set it up wherever I want to. I'm definitely not limited to blinds with that rig, even though it weighs in at over 24 pounds. Is it comfortable to carry? Heck no! Do I feel good at the end of the day? No - I am sore as can be! But that doesn't keep me from using it anyway, because comfort doesn't really matter to me, but getting the highest quality wildlife images certainly does matter. Anyway, I am saying that this is what often works best for me, but I realize that it would not be the best setup for everyone. Use what works for you, but don't hesitate to use a big, heavy rig if you are physically capable of carrying it around and being mobil with it.
Tom Reichner did you try mft? Like G9 + Leica 200mm f2.8 (Maybe TC 1.4)? Or em1 + 300mm f4? Or even G9 Or em1 + Leica 100-400? You should try. after 30 years usina dslr and ff I feel so much more than happy to have migrated to mft! the results are amazing! highest quality! and I'm much more pleased to photograph. My recommendation is that you try the equipment and not just rely on controlled environment reviews and weekend photographers who profit from equipment sales commissions. But of course it all depends on your type of work and where you shoot. I keep my old equipment and use it in some (Rare) situations.
Tony, you have a shutter shock issue with that 300. Retry some test shots using silent mode on the Olympus. The stabilization makes it prone to blurring images from shutter shock. It is every bit as good as the lenses you're comparing it to in terms of sharpness.
One thing that Tony doesn't really talk about the difference between the weather sealing. That Nikon 200-500 isn't weather sealed at all. The Sony 200-600 is a "Dust & moisture resistant design", which means (if you click on the disclaimer) "Not guaranteed to be 100% dust and moisture-proof." As a Sony owner, I've never been overwhelmed by the quality of their weather sealing... and pairing it with the A6400 as Tony suggests... well, that camera has no weather sealing at all. Weather sealing for nature photography is a BIG DEAL, it doesn't matter how sharp your lens is if it and the camera become bricks because you get caught in a rain storm. That Olympus combo shown (or even the combo of that lens & the E-M1mk2 or mk1, The E-M5's series, etc.) have "put it under a water faucet and wash it off" kind of sealing. Just something to consider.
@@weareyesyesyes I shoot a lot of motorsports (dirt track racing, motorcross) in very, very dusty environments. After pulling my hair out cleaning the interior of my A7II & 70-200 F/4 time and again, I decided to buy an Olympus E-M5mk2 and an Olympus 40-150 f/2.8. The difference was night and day in the dust sealing. And yes, my E-M5mk2 was so covered in mud once that I washed it off in my sink while it was wearing a 14-150. I've rinsed it with puddle water poured over it several times when it got too muddy. I would never, ever do that with my A7iii or A7Riii and any Sony lens.
@@wcgdenmasterken3431 I'm glad someone is talking from experience. I previously owned a canon 1dx and have done the same under a tap. I also wouldn't try that with my current Sony gear. With that said, I have used my Sony gear in plenty of rainy conditions shooting wildlife, and have yet to see any negative effects. You are shooting a niche that I believe is a step above in the needs of weather sealing, that many don't need.
I had to move to a smaller system due to my old Army body wearing down. Oly changed my life, not only physically, but inventively as well. Oly outshines any other camera system I've ever used. Their firmware updates keep my cameras AND lenses on the cutting edge.
@@youknowwho9247 it may be, but the camera weighs a lot more and the rest of the Oly lineup is considerably lighter than anything Nikon or Canon. I've been mirrorless for for years while those two were still trying to figure out if the trend was real. My in body stabilizer makes the weight of the lenses a non issue.
Tony - This review starts well and fair for the Olympus 300 f4, but then you give screwy opinions about comparative sharpness. The Olympus OM-D 1-II has a 20 MP sensor as does the Nikon D500 and D5. You assert that the Nikon 200-500mm lens is sharper than the Olympus 300mm f/4. This is certainly not true unless you mistakenly compare (as you did) the images from the Olympus 20 MP sensor to the 46 MP sensor of the Nikon D850. The appropriate comparison would have used the D500. I have owned and used both the Nikon D500 +200-500 lens and Olympus M1-2 + 300 f/4 lens for wildlife photography on seven continents. The results are sharper with the Olympus gear even with raw 1.4x added. Thus, I sold my Nikon gear.
I'm not saying you're wrong and i don't have any of these lenses to compare, but to be fair he did compare it to the a6400 as well which has a similar resolution and was clearly much sharper.
I've tried both combinations, and the Nikon combination is much, much sharper than the Olympus, even using the lower res D500. Your results sound like user error to me.
No point in arguing with Tony. They are pretty biased and they get paid to promote other Companies such as Canon Or Nikon. I stopped following them 2 years ago. This video happy to pop up. 🤔
This is really interesting. I suppose the definitive proof would be to adapt all these lenses to mft and test on one consistent mft body. I actually had a similar feeling, and started to wonder what a high-res raw from olympus bodies would look like next to the Nikon shots of those bookshelves. I bet it would be a lot more competitive than Tony indicates. All that said, if your priority is wildlife photography, he's probably got a point; your images will look sharper on other systems because mft will probably never get a truly high resolution sensor, hence the kit can't compete (assuming out-of-camera sharpness is your only concern, which is debatable). Unfortunately I don't even think we'll ever see 24 MP on mft, though I'm definitely rooting for it.
Just stumbled over this video and with all the negatives you get with MFT there is one big plus for me: Opportunity. Back in my full frame mirror days I just couldn't carry all the gear to cover all situations and missed so many nice shots, with MFT I can bring everything easily in a small package.
I agree that you can get better results (in some circumstances) from a 600mm f4 and a camera with a larger sensor than from an Olympus 300mm f4, particularly when you need to crop severely, as for a distant bird. I am stunned, however, that Tony finds he gets "much" better results with a 200-500mm zoom than from the Olympus 300 f4. I have absolutely NOT found this to be true. Even using the 300f4 with the 1.4x teleconverter from Olympus provides superb results in an amazingly small package. The Olympus 300 is very, very, very sharp; to compare its "sharpness" to the full-frame 600mm and find it lacking is nitpicking at best. "Massive difference?" No. I would say that the main disadvantage to M43 is that it about a stop noisier once you go above about ISO 400. I will also mention that in these days of increasingly restrictive baggage limits in air travel, the M43 rig is quite a bit more convenient than toting a 600m f4 rig as a carry-on. Tony is clearly biased against the M43 format.
I own both that 250-500 for Nikon and an Olympus $200 slow, TINY 75-300 and the sharpness is pretty close. So I imagine the 300 f4 is way sharper as you said. He also didn’t extend the barrel of the Nikon lens to show how massive it is. I always use my Olympus gear because it’s practical and I’m not being paid to lug stuff around. But I have good technique to get the results I need for my needs.
I do believe the Nikon 600mm is sharper with the body of the D850 (i've used this combo it is epic) however you were comparing a 45.7mp sensor on the Nikon to 20.4mp on the Olympus at full zoom, your at this point comparing the resolution factor of the sensor not the Resolving ability of the lens. Example you take a Schneider that can resolve up to a reported 200mp (test 150mp) and stick it on a body with a 50mp then compare the photos to the 150mp, the 150mp will be sharper. You also had the Teleconverter on the Olympus to give it the equivalent focal range of the native crop sensor of the Sony, which was not made clear on the video without looking at the Lightroom information this will reduce sharpness to some degree. As you might have guessed I am a Nikon full frame shooter and you are right in the Nikon D850 with the 600mm is sharper, in this video you are also being a purposely misleading. At the end of the day grab what ever gear you have and go shoot something, Olympus are doing amazing things right now we should be cheering them on for making something no-one else is, a compact system that can be used on the pro stage.
What does it matter? You can't get away from the sensor relationship. Wildlife means...cropping. The higher MP camera with the same lens...will do better.
@@JACKnJESUS agreed cropping is important in WL photography so the limited factor here is the sensor not the lens? I feel you miss the point of my comment, in this the comparison is Apple to pears, both fruit both grow on trees so can you you use them both to make a apple pie? This video was aimed to review the lens and comparing a mft camera to a full frame. The comparison was miss leading from the start, not only did Tony forget to mention he was using a teleconverter on the Olympus he failed to compare equivalent sensors skewing the results from the start to favour the higher mp camera. And oddly enough my higher mp Nikon does give more detail and appear sharper at 200% zoom ... as more amazing there is more data to be shown. Since making this original comment I have now purchased an Olympus om1 m3 to use along side my Nikon Z7 ii , if I know I will be cropping I will involved high MP Z7, if however I know I won’t need to crop the OM lenses still resolve brilliantly, but I also know I’m limited by MP. Two camera systems for two jobs. I will admit my z7 produces sharper images at 200% zoom because it has a larger sensor with more MP resulting in more data gathered. Unless I use High MP mode on the OM1 then that results a sharper image at 200%. I’m not brand loyal never have been I will shoot with what is best for me at the time, I do however get annoyed at miss leading videos that are designed to be objective.
@@johndavies7282 I get what you are trying to say, and yes Tony did use the teleconverter on some of the images shown. that's because you are going to need it to shoot wildlife. 300mm is on the short side for that. At 8:31 he does show how the Nikon is obviously shaper against the Oly sans the tele. It begs the question when a cheaper zoom beats a dedicated prime...why endorse it? I wouldn't. I shoot wildlife myself and decided to put aside my Sony A-mount gear and start over. I looked at everything very carefully...Oly lost out pretty quickly. Oly was always meant for street photography but got pushed out by cellphones. I think the shorter lenses work better on a tiny sensor. But Oly had nowhere to go but long. It couldn't compete against the bigger sensors...physics is a b*tch that way. If Oly had gone FF when Pan did...they might still be around. That last boondoggle of a lens ($7500 bucks) was just a last slap in the face. Hard to believe anyone is naive enough to buy that lens. Not when you could buy a killer Sony or Canon body and a sharper lens for less money. A road to the future.
At the end of the day, you can't buy >20MP on M43, and M43 isn't likely to survive/receive the R&D to hit 40MP, let alone 60-100MP. But stop and think: How would Olympus squeeze similar reach and resolution out of a much smaller lens with a smaller R&D budget? The most likely answer is that they haven't. To put this question to rest a reviewer could shoot the Olympus in multi-shot to achieve higher resolution, but you probably don't want them to do that!
@@HappyHubris actually they have solved it. High-end Olympus cameras can produce in-camera 50MP handheld shots and up to 80MP tripod shots via their electromagnetic IS system Considering that the body needs a few moments to adjust sensor position, I'd think that perhaps it wouldn't be the best option for flying objects, though I still have to test it. For still wildlife, this is a simple, elegant and effective solution.
Please return this 300mm Oly and get a decent copy. If these are the best results you can get out of this lens there is something wrong with your copy. The result at 4:50 is a joke. Recently I had the opportunity to shoot the 300mm Olympus + E-M1ii, the 200-500mm + D500, the Sigma 150-600 sport, the new Sigma 60-600mm and the Sony 100-400 along side. Only the Sony was just as good as the Olympus 300mm and the 200-500 comes pretty close. The others ware clearly not as sharp. And that is the problem I have with this video. All of the points you make are excellent except for the sharpness bit. Yes you only get an F8-like DoF. Yes you get 2 stops less light / ISO performance. Indeed tracking (or even finding) a subject with a fixed 600mm (equiv) lens is harder than people might realize. But if all these previous compromises are fine for your style of shooting this is an excellent lens for you. Which will give very good and sharp results. I shoot both M43 and the A7. If I want the best image quality for landscape or architecture I grab the A7. But if I need portability or great telephoto reach a quality without looking like a pro wildlife photographer I use my M43 gear. I don't own this lens (yet) and am in doubt between this one and the Sony 200-600. The Sony is pretty good value for money and very tempting.
Just wondering: All of the comparisons you were showing in the studio showed you had the 1.4x tele-converter on the olympus. Yet a couple of videos back you noticed yourself that tele-converters tend to ruin lens sharpness (I think you tested it on the sony 200-600)... Can we maybe see studio comparisons between all of these lenses without tele-converter on the olympus? In my experience M4/3 lenses are usually super sharp, especially primes (the only non sharp m43 lens I own is ironically the Olympus 17mm 1.8). Can't imagine the olympus underperforming this much. Cheers!
FYI, Imaging Resource found that the Olympus 300mm F4 Pro is susceptible to shutter shock when mounted to a tripod. It should only be use with the electronic shutter in that situation. Also, if comparing the Nikor 200-500 on a full frame sensor camera against the Olympus 300mm F4 Pro did you take the photos from the same distance? Since 90% of the time you are likely to crop wildlife photos, distance to subject, size of lens and IQ should all be considered.
@@Jay19876 Great find on the imaging resource article. The shuttershock really makes quite a difference. I do believe Tony has a point, that a full-frame 600mm f4 is providing better quality than a m43 300mm f4 BUT not to the extend shown in the videos. This really does not even come close to my experience with the system. A 20 MP m43 sensor with a pro-grade m43-prime should not resolve this softly.
What a joke. I have Sony A9 + 100-400GM +TC1.4 and Oly EM1X + 300mm and Oly combo is much sharper , stabilization is alike another world. Sony water proof and ergonomic is joke. AF is only plus for Sony.
If you’re shooting fast paced wildlife, does stabilisation matter, given the need to use higher shutter speed? How does the Oly compare to the Sony in poor lighting ?
Yeah, sounds like you're not making that up at all. Very plausible that you'd invest about 6000 bucks into Sony gear just to leave it on the shelf and hate on it on RUclips. Pretty hilarious.
Different websites measured the Olympus at MTF50 with 60lp in the edges, the Sony and Nikon only with 40lp. What exactly are you trying to influence here?
As an owner of both systems I should say it's true that there is slight advantage in picture quality with full frame but there are tons of advantage with m43 over ff and the image quality getting very close with the latest m43 cameras. For me it's the matter of being able to go out and get the shot and enjoy doing it versus not being able to go out at all due to the heavy bulk and back pain. BTW, you can not raise the aperture in ff to get the same depth of field as m43 because then you have to raise the iso too ...at which point I would argue m43 would deliver cleaner results.
Tony, If I’m honest, your sharpness test results left me flabbergasted. I own a copy of this lens, and If it ever lacked anything, it wasn’t the sharpness. Of course, I have not done studio comparisons, but I frequently use it with a 1.4x teleconverter and even than, the sharpness is great. What’s more, this was one of the reasons I sold-off a full-frame Pentax system that I owned before - I compared my results to the ones I was getting with a K-1 + D-FA 150-450/4.5-5.6, and while I saw some tradeoffs (higher ISO noise, less freedom in the DOF department), the change has made my wildlife photography better - mosty because I’m getting shots I wouldn’t get with the Pentax. It may be due to my style of shooting (Hiking or kayaking into a location, no tripod - a kind of run-and-gun thing) - I can hike to better, more remote locations, stay out longer, not worry about the weather, catch the right moments (Pro Capture absolutely rules)... This lens paired with a gripped EM-1II gives me awesome image quality and is a pleasure to shoot (ergonomics and all that). And as you said, it is most important to enjoy the time you spend in the outdoors - I agree with that part of your video completely :) Full disclosure, I did preorder the Sony 200-600... I realize that m4/3 has it’s limitations, and for some tasks FF is better - just as m4/3 is better for others 😁 so I jumped on the Sony bandwagon. And while I hate the ergonomics of my A7RIII, If I put a battery grip on it, it’s managable. And I love the results... I know it’s no A9 in terms of autofocus, but I think it will be enough for the more stationary style of wildlife shooting I plan to do with it.
It's all relative, even if you think it's sharp, it's still less sharp than some other setups, so that's why he's showing crops and digitally zoomed images. And even those "sharp setups" will be compared in the future against other sharper setups and again, will look blurry in comparison. That's just how technology works.
youuuuuuuuuuutube Word :) so than we should put even more emphasis on the „enjoyment” side of wildlife photography, and that is what my oly 300/4+EM1II combo excels at. Moreover, what I’m certain about, is that I have several 40’x30’ prints on my walls made by exactly this setup. The sharpness and resolution proved to be sufficient for that, even factoring in the variables of subjects moving, autofocus variances, 99,9% of shots taken handheld... Hence my astonishment by the poor results of testing that Tony’s showing in the video. I know that there are tradeoffs in using m4/3 compared to bigger sensors (and the other way around 😉), but with good quality lenses I never had a problem with sharpness.
@@Khotoo You're right that this enjoyment is more important than anything, however it's not easy to quantify, and it's subjective too ... that's why I think it's good to tell facts in such videos, and of course people should rent and test the gear and then see how they liked the shooting experience.
@@youuuuuuuuuuutube I agree. It's just... In this case the test results are so far from my hands-on experience, that I can't help to question them. Tony's human, he might have missed something. Mind you, I apply the same principle to myself. I never shot with 600mm/4 on FF, though I had a great quality 150-450/4.5-5.6 Pentax lens, which was as sharp as they come. I clung to it untill I found out that this Olympus gives me same sharpness, also great color balance, also beautiful bokeh rendering... It was a concious choice, based on my own experience. I would never make the switch if it would be as big a difference as we can see here.
@@Khotoo Okay, so you managed to do the same comparison as he did, side to side? If yes, then you could prove he made a mistake. Indeed he and Chelsea are humans and they have mistakes multiple times in their videos, which is fine, as long as they can correct those mistakes by either making a new video or adding annotations. I'm all for the facts.
I’ve got a full frame, medium format, and m43 setup and I’ve never had images that comparably different in sharpness from the Olympus. I have all three, and more often than not I choose to use m43 because of the efficiency in working with the system. In your video those bookshelf images looked like a lens of mine that got damaged and needed realignment. I wonder if you need that 300 serviced. At the end of the day, there are also system as a whole benefits and abilities that cater to different people. Not nearly as much is given up in real world use as a lot of people make it seem by going m43.
@@jeepjoseph9036 And just to be clear... there is a difference in fine detail rendered obviously the MF sensor is 49mm...but overall sharpness and end output....are not as different as one would think. Especially when you remove file dimensions from the equation and match sizing.
Olympus has a brilliant piece of equipment to go with that lens . It is called the EE-1 dot sight finder to go on the camera flash shoe . It is much easier to find your target before looking at the camera viewer . If would not get that 300mm without it.
I tried the Olympus 300mm lens with an EM1 last year for a couple of weeks and loved it for the M43 system. I even managed to take a picture that won a national competition (non wildlife though). The stabilisation of the Olympus system is superb, and paired with this lens I was able to take pictures at much lower shutter speeds than I would dare with other systems. However as Tony says, the moment the light starts getting low then the problem of a smaller sensor size starts to show. I would buy the Olympus system in an instant if it was full frame, but the smaller size of lenses that smaller sensors allow has that trade off with noise at low light and that is why I ultimately didn't invest in any more Olympus gear (I have the EM5 mkii and love it as a light travel camera)
@@ammadoux Yes. I've tried it and tested it against several other options. The glass itself is ok (albeit not worth the ridiculous price) but the real problem is that it needs to go on an MFT camera and there just aren't any MFT bodies that can hang with the competition at the same price point for wildlife shooting. The E-M1 II costs as much as a D500 while delivering the af performance of an entry level DSLR. The E-M1X is a 20 mpix camera that costs as much as a D850 or a7r III. My main problem with MFT isn't its limitations in terms of iq, it's how ridiculously overpriced everything in the system is. If they priced their stuff according to the consumer grade results it delivers, that'd be fine. But they insist on calling things 'pro' and charging a premium when virtually no professional actually shoots MFT. It's a system for consumers and the costs should reflect that.
I'm an m43 shooter and I shoot too its advantages and try not to make it do what its not good at. When I focus in on its strengths, I get pictures that the bigger FF setups cant get. There's a lot of opportunities the FF guys miss that I sang up and people love my work because of it. Long Live m43!
And this is why I cannot trust any reviews by Tony & Chelsea: claiming that the Olympus 300mm is not sharp, based on obvious USER ERROR. Tony, you're doing something wrong when everyone else gets TACK SHARP images with this lens, the lens performs extremely well in controlled lab tests and so on. It's you, it's not the lens.
I think there’s other factors to think about here too. Going out for a stroll shooting with a large ff lens is a lot different than hiking into a backcountry location where not only do you need to carry in your photo gear, but all your food and supplies and tent, etc.
rendezvous009 Because he’s an influencer, and people listen to him. If he’s got a bad copy of the lens, or he’s not using it in a way which gives the expected results, he should be called out on it.
great review. i side-graded from a sony a1 with 200-600 back to OM-1 (mk 2 this time) mainly for the procapture feature. highly underrated. i also like how i can do 50MP high res wildlife shots of semi-static sitting wildlife, handheld. you have some great points when comparing full-frame to m4/3 and seem unbiased. good job.
You mention being able to increase depth of field on the Nikon by using double the f stop. While that does get equal depth of field, it also cuts your light in half.
m4/3s shooter here. No offence taken. I agree if I wanted the best IQ I would shoot full frame, BUT I don't want to haul a 600mm full frame lens around with me. Which sort of brings up the question, for all your portrait / fashion shoots why don't you shoot medium format?. You do want the very best IQ regardless of cost or inconvenience right? All the advantages of full frame over 4/3s apply to medium format over full frame no?
Check our reviews of the Hasselblad X-1D and Fujifilm GFX 50R. It's never just about sensor size, but sensor size + available lenses + focusing capabilities and other features.
I love the comments all confirming that the M. Zuiko 300mm PRO f4 is sharper or equal to the Nikkor 100-500, all on the contrary of what Tony said. Kudos to you, photographers.
other than stabilization the Olympus is not the best at anything. Period. BUT ..its the greatest fun Ive ever had .Its the most versatile camera I've ever had and has got me pictures not possible with FF Canons and Sonys Ive previously owned. So yes....it is limited in many ways. But in its pluses it is liberating. The lens qualities of the Olympus range negate some of the sensor size issues ( grain is attractive and the glass adds good sharpness) .The IS then adds more possibilities to image making not available to other FF cameras. I sold my Sony A7r mk2 to buy the 300mm and i only think of the Sony once a year ( yes that Sony sensor is still sensational..shame about the body) but i never ever regret the swap. Never think about the Sony. Olympus rocks. It is weapons grade 'fun'.
I’ve owned this lens for just two months now. I love it so far, because I can do a bird hike for 6 1/2 hours and I’m not sore the next day. For an enthusiast, it’s great. I guess I only watched this review because Tony proclaimed m43 as dead, so I wanted to see why he would even review gear for dead cameras.
Hey Tony, Chelsea... wondering if you'd consider doing an update of this, with the new OM-1 (when available) and the 150-400 f4.5 with 1.25x internal teleconverter? Lense price is more comparable versus the big glass from Canon and Nikon, which has me wondering if the sensor advancements in the OM-1, along with a truly pro telephoto lense, has closed the gap vs full-frame enough to make the systems more comparable. Thoughts?
yyeah, your review contradicts every review of that lens out there. so either you got a bad copy or your method is bad and you're spreading misinformation.
Your lens tests shooting plastic covered book spines are hardly scientific optical bench tests! also comparing the Nikon 600 mounted to a very high 47.5 megapixel resolution D850 against the Olympus 300 mounted to a 20 megapixel camera is ridiculous!
@@terrycullinane9437 it's not ridiculous. I have an a7riii as well as a couple of m43 cameras. I'd like to get into wildlife photography. I was actually considering if I may be better off getting the Olympus 300 f4 instead of a Sony 200-600 which is similarly priced, due to all the hype around how sharp the Olympus lens is. I've used crappy zooms on a FF that performed worse than good primes on a m43, so the idea was not that crazy. This video answered my question.
I think as a comparison video yes it's good in terms of letting someone know what the best can do compared with the Olympus but everyone has their own reason for buying the kit that appeals to them. As a canon shooter looking for answers olympus all of my questions in one go. I mean who has the time to research every camera on the market. What made me change to m43 and olympus are 4 things. Price, weight, weather sealing and reach. Now just for clarity I dont have the 300mm but do have the 40-150mm, and 12-40mm along with the omd em1x and for the price of the nikon 600mm I could have bought my kit twice and paid for a nice trip to test it on. The weight is a big factor for me, I would rather stay at home then drag a 600mm out In the wild, so i needed something that wouldn't give me an excuse to stay at home. I have tested the 300mm with the em1x and held it with one hand and shot. Not saying you could do it all day but certainly if you needed to now and again it can be done. Also weather sealing was a big issue (not comparing it to the top of the range canon or nikon gear but the more affordable smaller gear out there) how many times have I left the camera behind because of rain? a lot I live in Ireland. Like many the reach on m43 was very impressive considering the size of the system. If I was paid to produce photos or made my living from photography then yes the bigger size would need to be considered but seeing pros carrying around 2 massive lenses would put me off. Not to mention getting onto a plane. If those of us who like photography, and remember there are some excellent photographers out there that are not pro, got paid a fair price from the stock agencies then we might justify the cost of a pro FF system, but 20k you could buy enough of your favourite signed photographs to decorate every wall in your house. Tony I can only imagine that most of your income is made from teaching or your courses/books and that's all aimed at the photographer who is learning, by implying the only way you can get the best results is by getting the best gear, is I imagine very off putting for your potential customers. Those who have the pro kits have them for a reason and know what they can do. What's that saying the best camera is the one you have with you. Since getting involved with m43 I've heard alot of negative things but I've equally heard great things, but what really stood out was speaking with 2 Olympus omd owners who both said you will be so happy with the omd system. I think if people are on the fence about the m43 system then join one of the many olympus facebook groups and look at what's been posted by Olympus users. See what's been written about the system.
Not comparing apples with apples again Tony, M43 is it's own thing as is full frame. No comparison needs to be made, pick one to suit your needs and pocket, go out, shoot and have fun.
Wildlife photography : 1- long range 2- sharpness 3- stability 1&3 (and the small size factor which is a BIG thing in wildlife) are checked with oly Now , With the 2x tele convertor in oly u can get 1200mm with that 600mm !!! (And with the “pre-capture” mode ull NEVER miss the shots ) And with amazing 60fps (digital) And the Amazing hands down water/dust/freeze proof with oly And all the great features and custom buttons... And Battery Life And prize ... And... Did i mentioned the Size ?! I think We have a clear winner here Im enjoying my em1 mkii with 40-150mm (80-300mm) and cant wait to get my hands on this beast lens
This video shows us some differences between FF and MFT for Wildlife photography, but it also shows the big difference between a youtuber and a PRO wildlife photographer. But there is a difference between the systems and advantages and disadvantages in each. The important thing is the commitment and the right instrument for each use. Not everyone drives in air conditioning to a national park with well-made and signposted paths and huge structure. Those who travel the world photographing or filming, depending on tens of kilometers of walks to reach the desired place, will surely have different needs. It is great to have alternatives in the market and this is another very important lesson! Right instrumental for your activity, instead of comparing details that are not so relevant to the true progression of photography! Important is the story that is told and the context involved.
Thanks for the review Tony and sharing your thoughts. This Olympus body and 300mm lens is currently being used by professional wild life photographer Andy Rouse @wildmanrouse. He is very happy with the system and is getting excellent results. He’s not a gear specialist but has been an ambassador for both Nikon and Canon and has shot with both of their professional level equipment over a number of years, so I feel knows how to use the kit and get excellent results. 😀
Scott Bourne is another Olympus Ambassador whose bird photographs are drool-worthy. Scott toted a DSLR until his shoulder doc told him the jig was up and if he kept it up, there wouldn’t be anything left to operate on. He switched to Olympus and never looked back.
I already have this lens and love it. The only downside is that it's not a zoom, but otherwise it reaches out for superb photos of far-away birds. And I find that the depth of field is still rather shallow in practice (shooting with the lens wide open most of the time). So I am not sure that I notice the lack of a shallow depth of field.
@Tony & Chelsea Northrup If you are serious about professional photography, then you need a serious understanding of the output specifications you are shooting for. It would be useful to know from you, where this lens falls short on sharpness in relation to output spec (be that 200px, 2000px, 20,000px, 20", 30", 40" etc). It would seem looking at the results on Flickr etc, that the level this lens can achieve is far beyond the requirements of digital publishing, TV, and typical high-end magazine printing. Are you coming from the perspective of a stock photographer solely? That appears to be where you are coming from. M43 photographs often struggle to meet Shutterstock requirements for noise in less than ideal lighting, though it's the same for APS-C and FF cameras with slower lenses. Maybe you should consider which sort of serious photography you are pertaining to when giving your review. Otherwise your advice could lead photographers to purchase equipment far more expensive and bulky than is required for their needs.
Thank you. You summed up in a short video what I came to understand over 5-6 years of shooting multiple camera systems. You sure are a man with experience. I have subscribed.
Tony, how slow can you shoot with Olympus setup compared to say the Nikon setup? - 2 stops? I'm a mountain hiker, every gram counts, M43 is a good compromise for weight, size and functionality. I think your message is beating the same dead horse, yes a Rolls Royce is more comfortable then a Toyota starlet, most people have no trouble accepting that given the size, weight and price. More interestingly would be examine the question how does this compare the other M43 lenses and system combinations. And if you want to compare systems, with different sensor sizes and compare 1"2/3", 1", M43, APC, 35mm, Medium format, and help people choose how much quality they actually want.I'm watching my work on a 43"4k IPS screen and I think my M43 camera does a good enough job for this size display. As Hugh Brownstone says, your mileage may vary. I hear that you like challenges, how about testing system ergonomics? How much time does one need to set it up? How fast can you work with default settings and tweaked settings? What settings are actually useful? - I feel companies often make camera's needlessly too complex, promoting marginal software tricks, retaining outdated functions. What adjustments would your ideal camera offer? With 3d printing in mind I think it's time to build our own design camera, like we build our own PC's. A camera is just a smaller box. But I would love to choosing dials, buttons, grip size, battery, card slots, IBIS, screen, viewfinder, flash, mount, cable ports etc. I think I like concept Sigma recently is showing off with their new FF camera.
A D850 with their 300pf and a 1.4x tc is cheaper, lighter and smaller than that Olympus setup and produces better quality results. MFT is simply obsolete in a world with that kind of competition.
The Olympus setup is lighter and smaller than the Nikon setup, but not cheaper and with inferior IQ. The a6400 + 100-400gm setup of the Sony has similar IQ, weight and size as the Olympus, but is cheaper. So yeah, it seems like the m43 is not the best solution, but again, if you already have it, then please keep using it.
@@youknowwho9247 I'm a long time GH5 user and if photography was my primary use, especially anything beyond the 200mm (400mm FF) mark, then I just don't see M43 being the best tool for the job. I still think M43 has really significant advantages in the sub $2k camera market when it comes to 4k video which I don't see changing anytime soon. M43 is not obsolete, just best use case is not extreme telephoto unless extreme weather sealing and class leading image stabilisation is priority. Also, I think a better comparison would be the OM-D E-M1 Mark II rather than the OM-D E-M1X (unless you were going to add the battery grip option to the D850). In the OM-D E-M1 Mark II scenario the price gap is around $1500 in favour of the Olympus, weight and bulk wise however there is still no distinct advantage. I'd still take the D850 first, but ultimately I would take neither for serious hiking and probably opt for a super compact M43 body with the Panasonic 100-300mm or even the Sony DSC-RX10 IV for around the 1kg mark total. Anyway, I like Kars idea of doing a solid comparison across the sensor sizes. There is a lot more to choosing a camera platform than just outright optical performance.
I would argue that you are getting to a point in which the law of diminishing returns makes the micro 4/3 lens the best option for 80 or 90% of the cases. Some additional sharpness from a $12000 lens VS a $2400 lens may not be worthwhile for most photographers, specially if you consider the huge difference in weight, size and price. Many say that the best camera is the one that you carry with you most or all the time. That’s why smartphone cameras are so valuable. You can go on a long hike with an Olympus or a Panasonic body and the 300 f4 prime, plus a few more lenses, and you’ll get great results. I bet that most photographers would leave the big full frame 400 and 600 prime telephoto lenses at home or in their cars, if they had to carry them in their backs for several miles.
How did you get so soft&pixelized images with Olympus and 300mm ? I can get much better pictures with the kit lens or with the mobile lens. Maybe you digitally upsized it. If Yes, why ?
I am not a brand Loyalist. I am a former Pentax user who converted to Olympus Em1X. Some of the wildlife I have photographed has come out much much nicer and wayyy wayyyyyy sharper than anything you've shown here from an Olympus system. I can tell you from personal experience that the EM1X has completely oblliterated any other system I have ever put my hands on. I regularly compete with full frame k1II's and those users are sometimes stunned by what I have done with MFT and the Olympus system. Technically, you are dead wrong about the canon or nikon lenses being sharper. This has been proven. The reverse is true.
Those who have shot with M43 with long zoom, would easily figure out, what sheer power is needed to hand hold a full frame long zoom of several pounds and over three feet length ;-) with decade behind sensor's and lenses' stabilizer. Especially when full frames try to play catch up with larger and larger opening.
@@terrycullinane9437 Yeah, and those two pieces of glass aren't comparable. The Canon produces worlds better results. The Olympus is a 600mm f/8 full frame equivalent. It competes with lenses like the Tamron 150-600 or Nikon 200-500. Those deliver better image quality for less money than the 300 f/4.
But, why not compared with the Panasonic Leica DG Elmarit 200 mm f/2.8 POWER O.I.S. ? That lens is tack sharp compared to the Oly 300! It also have the 1.4//2 times teleconverters! I just don’t understand your negativity with the M43 system...
Spot on with pretty much everything, especially Olympus' questionable marketing and I say that as a m43 shooter using an E-M1X and PL 200. I will say though that I'm surprised by how soft that shot of the book spine is and am wondering how you focused the lens. Was it manual focus or autofocus? If autofocus, have you microadjusted the lens? I know there's a lot of claims that mirrorless completely eliminates the need for microadjustment, but it can definitely help with that combination especially when attaching the MC-14. I definitely wouldn't expect it to be as sharp as the 600mm + D850 combination, but I'm just a little skeptical that it's such a large difference from the A6500 + 200-600.
Everybody knows that the quality of a ff sensor is higher .... and bla bla ... but I would to see a real comparison in a real session of shooting without doing pixel peeping above books ... in my opinion this is another “scandal video” related to m43 that produce a lot of views .... during the video you show many times a bad picture of a bird taken with M1X compared to great shoots taken with other cameras ... I think that in the “real life” your message is wrong... and the difference is not so important, almost invisible, and the chosen between these different systems is not so simple ... I invite you, important journalist and photographer, to do a real comparison of systems from the shoot to the print using the same price tag products ...
That's what exactly I felt after watching this video. I feel like it's something that you are comparing a cheap 50 1.8mm with a 50 1. 2L and is telling me how good the 1.2L is. It's so ridiculous.
If you want to see what the Olympus is able to do, look up Scott Bourne. He has AMAZING pin sharp birds in flight pictures with this lens and Olympus bodies. I have to wonder if they shot the book case on a tripod, and if so, did they turn off all the image stabilization? Sadly I do not have this lens, so my small bird photos are NOT all pin sharp (the ones that are far away), but I can crop the images over 100% and they are suitable for social media or up to 8x10 prints.
Hi Tony, Please explain why these two 600mm f4 equivalent lenses gather different light? I appreciate the DOF will be different, but not the exposure. (I'm mainly a Nikon shooter, but during lockdown I purchased some Olympus gear and enjoyed some lightweight wildlife photography. This lens review compared the 46Mpix D850 with the 20Mpix M1x...not very fair!)
On large photo (had to stop the video few times ) it is clearly seen that for "sharpness" comparesement Olympus lens is out of focus to the book you are then zooming in difference to other lenses. Was it intentional?
I have an M43 setup built around the Panasonic 100-400mm f/4.0-6.3. So not as bright but still a capable lens. I didn't realize when I originally went down that path just how difficult it would be to get what I wanted with this combination in anything but great light. Those birds in the undergrowth are a good example. I live in an old growth forest in the Pacific Northwest and see plenty of others. I still carry the M43 gear for longer mid-day hikes (especially above treeline) and in situations where I expect significant weather, but I'm transitioning to full frame gear for anything else. I'm seeing what I've been missing. As you point out so clearly here it's just not the same. One thing that really opened my eyes to the importance of light for M43 was taking a vacation last fall to a desert location that's 1300 miles closer to the equator than where I live. The sun was so bright! The results were so much better! Wow. But that's not where I live or normally shoot and I can't count on the landscapes or wildlife being there either.
This is strange, I’ve gotten sharper images out of the Olympus 100-400 which is nowhere near as sharp as the 300. It’s no secret that Tony isn’t a MFT fan but goddamn this is just embarrassing.
I would argue that it’s more about the photographer. Andy Rouse is no slouch as a wildlife photographer and he produces great images with Olympus gear. He puts it down to its lightness and speed of response. Yes, you can get sharper images of birds flying or sitting on a branch with full frame but a great photograph has to have more!
Tony is a crop sensor hater. He is entitled to his opinion though. I shoot FF Canon and M43 OM-1 and the difference in IQ is there but it’s not huge. I have a chronically sore right shoulder so no amount of carrying large lenses around is going to help me “get used to it”. I like that we have lightweight choices that work well. Of course when this video was made AI noise reduction software wasn’t what it is now in 2023.
There really is not much to compare here in my opinion. Olympus is the obvious winner, especially for anyone needing extreme telephoto for wildlife or sports. Anyone who would want to pay the insane price for the HUGE bazooka Nikon lens, and carry that beast around all day- more power to ya! In the vast majority of prints- you will not see the difference. Anyone preferring one or the other is clearly based on personal preferences. Not to mention Olympus is the forerunner of image stabilization in the industry. But as with any gear choice- pick what brings you joy!
well when someone pays 12k for a lens they are obviously gonna be defensive about how good it is and shit one anything else that isn't 12 thousand dollars
As a M43 shooter I had this lens (300 F4) and also have the Panasonic Leica 100-400. In reality I found myself reaching again and again to the 100-400 due to the zoom. My main problem as a casual wild life shooter and sport shooter was the poor focus tracking (before last version 3.0 that I have not tested yet) I also soot with sony A7III mostly things that involve people and portraits. I hate the humen interface of this camera and sony compared to Olympus but love the autofocus system and the final results (beside autobwhite balance that sucks especially with Flash). I decided to use M43 more for landscape and sony for sport and portraits and sold most of my M43 zoom lense as the 300 F4, 40-150mm F 2.8, etc.
Look up Daniel J. Cox's RUclips video shooting wildlife with Olympus from a kayak. That will give you an idea about the Olympus image stabilization. Not that I would risk tipping over with my gear, but geez, that stabilization is amazing.
I also have the Olympus 300mm f4 Pro and mine is extremely sharp. I think the tested 300 was defective. I have never had such results with my 300. I'm not surprised that Olympus is being maligned here again. Mr. Northrup makes no secret of the fact that mFT supposedly can't do anything
Update....Be interesting to see how it does on the OM-1 in your opinion. I bought the OM-1 and the 300 f/4 in lieu of the RF 600 f/4 due to weight. (African bush planes limit weight) and pair the OM stuff with my R5 kit. I find the 300 f/4 to be as sharp as the RF 100-500 at 500mm at f/7.1 and I find the OM with the 1.4ex to be sharper than the RF 100-500 with the RF 2ex. So I pull out the OM stuff when I need reach at lower light (f/4 vs f/10) but shoot the R5 for about everything else. DxO cleans up the extra noise well. The only other lens I would get for the OM is the 150-400 f/4.5 with the 1.25ex built in. Would love to see a review of that. Also I got 600mm (FF equiv) f/4 and OM-1 for a third of the cost of the RF 600 alone. And my shoulders than me (I'm 76)..
The Pany 200/2.8 with the 1.4 is sharper than the 300/4 when I compared them. Although there may be a sample variation, since I rent these lens when I need them I have a few to compare. The only time I will rent the 300 now is with the 2X for macro work with shy subjects. The light gathering is often more important than depth of field and in the evening, the extra depth of field can be a benefit I appreciate. Perhaps compare the 200/2.8 with the 1.4X and 2X against the ff equivalents. I would like to know the results if you tested the sharper lens. Also, silent shutter sharpens up the Oly in real world use. Not quite sure how you used it.
I don't understand how the images from the Oly 300mm could be so soft. I used to own that lens (sold it because I wanted the flexibility of a zoom) and it was incredibly sharp. I wonder if there was something seriously wrong with the copy used in the review or that shutter shock was a factor.
If only I could carry one of those big lenses and cameras, I would! Definitely sharper says this oly user (and advocate!). 5 foot 3 inches and arthritis makes that only a dream. Still, oly system is small and I can hike up mountains with all my gear on my back so I get lots of opportunity to shoot my slightly less than tack sharp wildlife.
Currently using a Lumix G80 and 100-400 and I absolutely cannot complain about image quality at any focal length or aperture in the real world. However the autofocus for birds in flight is truly horrendous! Just got back from photographing puffins and I lost so many shots due to the dreadful AF. With that said I still got the epic shots I was after so on the whole I am happy. One other thing to note is that landscape shots taken on my partnering GX80 were so easy as I could be at F9 and get the equivalent depth of field of F18 while also having a decent shutter speed and not using a tripod. As a system m43 makes so much sense to me. Moving forwards the phase detect EM1 Mk2 is starting to take my interest at its price point although the G9 was my original plan. With regards to the pricing those huge expensive lenses in my opinion are only for the very successful top tier wildlife shooters making hundreds or thousands of pounds with their images. Joe public really doesnt need them in the same way as those supercar owners that rev their engines at 30mph in city centres.
Very helpful comparison, Tony. Thanks a lot. I am planning to buy a new gear and was comparing Sony a6400+ Sony 200-600 vs. Olympus omd em1 mark iii with the new 100-400/6.5. Sony gear is heavier by 900 g but costs much less and provides more reach. If I pair it with Sony 100-400/5.6, then there is no weight difference and no cost difference. Which would be better for bird photography while travelling? Thanks.
does the olympus system is more profitable????? yessss because this 1 less money to spend and will be payed the same 2 the image is acceptable from the buyer and never ask which system is used 3 can carry more than one camera and different lenses 4 the small size and strong stabilization and make you get any angle you need which can help for better composition than heavy system 5 in shotting sports you can move from point A to point B faster and be in the action 6 better focusing due to the the motor inside the lens working more faster because moving lighter glass ,FF have big heavy elements MFT IS STRONG SYSTEM , have benefits not in full frame
I agree completely having shot with FF Nikon and the 200-500mm and then moving to M43 with the 300mm f/4. My only complaint about this video is you compared sharpness between a 20mp sensor and a 47mp sensor. You should have used a Z6 or a D750 instead of the D850.
I can't believe how blurry the shots from the Olympus 300mm are. It's a prime ... for over 2k ... There HAS to be something wrong with your unit, right? It can't be that bad. The Panasonic Lumix Leica 100-400mm is sharper than that, right? Please do some comparisons.
I have the 300mm and Leica 100-400 and have also noticed that the 300mm is not only much sharper than the 100-400, but it also seems sharper than what Tony got in his video in my experience. That said, I have not yet shot with any of the other lenses he used so I don't really have a great basis for comparison. @marcusbirding on insta for examples.
I tested the Pana 100-400 vs the Oly 300 (and also the Oly 100-300) in the shop, same light same motive, and the Oly 300 was sharper, not by miles but visibly. In that comparison: You get what you pay for :). And don't forget, the Pana at 300mm is f 5.7 (though they did't agree on how 300mm should look like, the pana was longer, so i would say f 5.6 is probably right): It collects only half the amount of light compared the the Oly 300!
@@fellowcitizen .....and switch lens and camera IBIS off! On the MFT forums. there are a number of close ups of dragonflies, butterflies etc shot with that lens. They are pin sharp (and mostly hand-held). I rented one last year - quality was really very good. Some lenses need the autofocus to be fine tuned (feature is built in to your camera). In any event, Mr N's pictures are poor compared to my own results.
I love your videos and books and have learned so much from you guys. This video though is a bit like comparing apples and oranges and stressing the negatives. All camera systems have strengths and weaknesses and are great depending on your requirements. To pitch them against each other in this way is divisive as is so much going on these days. Embrace the positives I say!
The comparison between the Sony 6400 and the M1X is rather lopsided because the M1X has a1.4x teleconverter attached. Tony you did a video about the negative effects of using teleconverters! Oh boy when I go hiking a few miles I like to take things like water, some food, a first aid kit, and depending on the weather maybe an extra layer. Carrying those 600mm Nikon lenses is fine if a couple of Sherpas are going on the trip to carry the extra gear. Viewing the photos in the video on my Eizo monitor doesn't reveal an earth shattering magnitude of difference in quality. Considering size, weight, and cost of the 600mm Nikon attached to a FF camera compared to the Olympus 300mm attached to the M1 MKII one would be hard put to justify carrying such a beast on a long trek. As always beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and so are cameras.
A D850 with a 300 pf and 1.4x tc is just about the same price, lighter and smaller than that Olympus setup and gets much better image quality. Invest a few extra bucks and you get the 500pf, which blows the MFT completely out of the water by a mile at about the same size and weight.
@@youknowwho9247 Your setup is almost $900 USD more than the Olympus and is 420mm (1.4 x 300 = 420). On top of that the TC no doubt degrades the image. The setup is a 420mm f/5.6 for the Nikon while the Olympus is 600mm f/4 (not speaking of DOF). This hardly blows the Olympus out of the water.
It's a pretty good review with some interesting test shots, but this is the same person that told everyone M4/3 was dead, so I have issues taking him seriously since he's already knocked the entire format. There's a bit of a conflict telling us that a Micro 4/3 lens on a soon to be dead platform is better than some other piece of glass. I do agree that it's a bad bet to compare a two thousand dollar lens with a 12 thousand dollar piece of glass. There is no escaping the fact that you get what you pay for. But I've seen stunning wildlife shots from Olympus photographers and with the advent of AI based sharpening and noise reduction, the playing field is leveling. Keep snapping!
I have both apsc and m43 ... both systems are very capable of excellent results. Usually I am the limiting factor! That said, your comparisons here have a lot of variables and compromises mixed into the analyses. As an older shooter, I have to gravitate to smaller kits and limit my travels and self-assignments. You & Chelsea have fun and thanks for the glimpses thru the big glass!
Absolutely. Want to get one of those ... still can't decide, which one though. >.< 100-300mm is also very attractive to me because of the weight. But I am not sure, if the better IQ and 100mm more reach might be worth the higher weight (and price).
Yeah, quite a few people have reported that the 100-300mm comes close to the 100-400, and that that Leica is not quite as highly regarded as the other Leicas (though, clearly plenty of happy users). I think Terry Lane had a video covering it.
@@uhu4677 i have the 100-300 mkII . That second version has dual is 2 on Pana bodies like G85 and up and also is wr . I just love it as i find the 200-300 more usefull than expected and rarely miss above 300 . The 100-400 is only slightly better and is more a specialty lens less practical to carry around , especially hand-held . The 5 feet minimum distance is also very handy to shoot shy dragonflies handhelp as challenging as it might sound.
While the Olympus 300mm isn't as good as a FF 600mm, I've still seen incredible images shot with it, which are more than sharp enough. So yeah, while FF is always going to be better, the Olympus is still an incredible option.
@@BobK58 In terms of raw image quality potential, yes a larger sensor with the potential of more megapixels and dynamic range will always be better (if capitalized on that potential).You wont beat or match the FF Sony sensor in the A7R3 with a smaller sensor. But Image quality isn't the end all factor, otherwise everybody would use Fujifilms new 100mp medium format camera haha.
Tony I have Nikon D7200 . I used to have the sigma 150-500mm but sold it as I could never get a shot in focus. I was then advised to maybe try a monopod, had a go with my hubbys, wow in focus shots. What I'm wondering what super zoom lens would you recommend for my body. Roughly got about £2000 I could spend but don't know whether to go for the The AF‑S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR ( split the cost with hubby and share it ) or the sigma 150-500 F5 contemporary or the tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 VC USD G2 . Read reviews but totally getting confused with it all. Hope you can help .
That was a good and useful review; as you say, you can produce stellar results even with less than "the perfect" gear but if I'm spending my money I would like to know BEFORE I spend my money what is the most optimal outlay for my budget.
So currently i own an D5600 with and 70-300mm and im planning on upgrading to either an Z7II or an Z8 whats your toughts? And should i get a prime lens like the 300 mm with an 2x converter or should i get the 180-600?
No serious cinema cameras have IBIS, IBIS is not a must for video at all. Faster sensor readoff (and thus lower rolling shutter) is way more important to get good looking motion in handheld video
@@Made_by_Matthew Rubbish, fast sensor readoff is important in some cases, sure - but not for wildlife you're filming at 600mm equivalent. Cinema cameras don't have IBIS because they're used on rigs - which weigh a fuckton and are entirely impractical to carry around if you don't have an actual TEAM of people to operate the cameras. Cinema cameras are dumb if you're not producing an actual movie for money.
I recently moved from Canon to Olympus and it’s the most fun I’ve had with photography and videography in a long time, mainly because the MFT system is able to be taken almost anywhere. Weather sealing is incredible, stabilisation is industry leading, and the pro lenses are generally tack sharp in terms of image quality. The cost of the lenses is also smaller compared to the competition.
I love my Olympus gear. My canon is rarely used nowadays. It's so much fun carrying a lightweight and really good camera versus worrying about the hernia I got carrying my heavyweight canon and lens combination into the woods. Those huge lenses just seem to be in conflict with nature and wildlife.
Totally agree. My FF gear sits around. Even my EM1mkiii gets used 10x more than my Leica FF.
I know I'm 3 years late to the party, but for anyone who's watching this now to help make a purchase decision, let me assure you that that the Olympus 300mm can produce MUCH sharper results that what is shown here. I won't even venture a guess as to the cause for the poor performance on these test shots, but the 300mm is fantastically sharp. Would full-frame still be better if you can afford it? Absolutely. But if you're already invested in M43 bodies, seek out more videos to see what this lens is capable of.
Agreed. I’m late to this too. But at loss to see why sharpness is his bugbear. This is a very sharp lens even at F4. It also has better IS than my canon 400 and decent continuous AF on my OM5. I suspect sponsonship bias here? No axe to grind myself owning both. Just honest opinion based on usage for some time now. My back really likes the MFT option…
Also wondering, why the pics made with 300/4 look SO bad here.. They look like they are zoomed in to 200-300%, probably to compensate the dieeference in the resolution. If so, it's the wrong way to compare the systems..
it is incredible. i have both the 150-400 f/4.5 and 300 f/4 and the image quality is about the same - better than any full frame lens i've used. but to be fair, i've never used a $12,000 lens because i feel like i'd have to have a body guard with me carrying around that much money. another thing i would not do is carry around a lens over 6 pounds. both my lenses are 3 - 4 pounds. perfect.
@@darinl848
I agree with you like yourself I have both lenses. How he managed to take such an out of Focus shot with the 300 mm F4 is one of the mysteries of the universe. We have three of the very best wildlife photographers in the UK have switched to Olympus. If North drop was to walk in your house and say it’s pouring rain outside you have to walk out and have a look for yourself because you can’t believe a Word that man says. 👍
He didn't say it's not sharp. It's just that relative to a "full frame" (I hate that term) camera, it's not going to be as sharp because the image has to be enlarged more. It's just science. Everything is is a compromise. "Full frame" cameras can't touch the image quality of a large format camera. Hell, I'm never going to be able justify purchasing a 400 f/2 or 600 f/4 and I wouldn't want to carry either one around. That 300mm f/4 or the 150-400mm are very appealing to me.
I have been shooting Canon as a Wildlife Pro for 25years. The potential weight savings drove me to look at the Olympus OMDEm1x and 300mm f4 Pro. I still have my Canon 500mm f4 but I haven't used it since I bought the Olympus. I cannot replicate your lab tests on the 300mm f4, I have done similar comparisons with the 500mm Canon on a 5Dmkiii and the 300mm Olympus and the results were near identical in good light. I would say that the 300mm f4 pro is the sharpest lens I have ever owned. It focuses to just 1.4m too which makes it great for butterflies. I have only found two areas where the Canon full frame system beat the Olympus and that is when shooting in poor light at higher ISO and the shallower dof can be an advantage, but not if you are shooting close up. Shooting to the right of the histogram rather than going by the viewfinder brightness yields very acceptable noise performance up to 3200 iso.
The image stabilisation is world class and usually negates the need for a tripod. If I was shooting from a hide (blind) or from a car in low light I would prefer to use my Canon kit, but when hiking, the weight advantage of the Olympus is so extreme that my Canon remains at home.
Lots of confirmation bias in that comment.
Thanks for sharing your real world experience. Many on YT comment based on a spec sheet without ever having used the equipment.
FYI you can use your wonderful canon 500/4 with a speedboster adapter :)
Please how can I be successful as a wild life bird photographer. Please can you team me how to make money from it ?
@@leonphotography1009 practice, practice, practice. Look at other photographers work, but the most important thing is get out and shoot, look at your own work and ask how can I improve. Wildlife photography I believe is the hardest photography, apart from lugging the gear around, unlike a studio you have to find the subject then get in close, to do that you need to know a bit about the animal and hope he turns up on the day you're there. My uncle was a wildlife ranger and could take me anywhere and find what ever I was looking for in the middle of nowhere. He had 30 plus years of studying 7 days a week.
"Don't watch reviews for stuff you already own, just go out and shoot with it and enjoy it..."
That's golden, Tony.
I just watch everything from these two...lol.
Actually I do the opposite. If there is something I have not used in a while, I'll go watch some reviews and get re-inspired to use it.
Something I've noticed with my experience satisfing my GAS: Its the best (most expensive) way to learn what different equipment does. After I have bought say, a dozen or so lens, I find myself using certain ones more then others. I have reasons for that that I could not have discovered if I had not had the options. But this is a very expensive way to learn!
Some could say you should rent before you buy. If that option is available, then I would sort of agree. Problem is, can you really test a lens in a day or a weekend? I like to test it over months in different situations, and that would be too steep of a lens rental for me. I would rather use a lens for 6 months, really test it out, and then sell it. Maybe I get half my money back. But that's still cheaper then renting and I have more experience to know why I'm selling or keeping it.
@@danieljohnston5306 Me too lol They are awesome
Haha, unless you are in quarantine and have nothing better to do.
Don't watch review for stuff you already own, because you will find I lied...
I would argue the point you make about substantially sharper results from the D500 + Nikkor 200 - 500mm f5.6, over those achieved using an Olympus EM1 mark II + Oly 300mm f4. I owned both cameras and lenses for 18 months and shot them side by side (I always carry two cameras for wildlife). When viewing the images I shot over that period, I still have difficulty identifying which image was taken on which camera/lens combination. Occasionally, I would shoot as close to identical images as possible - just to see what difference there may be: In the main, I believe it is a perceived difference. Though I rated my D500 as a brilliant camera, I actually prefered my Em1 mark II. When I carried out tests between my Nikkor 300mm f4 PF ED VR, Oly 300mm f4 and PanaLeica 100 - 400mm, I saw virtually no difference between the Nikkor and the Oly. These were real world tests carried out using an exceptionally hairy cuddly toy at a distance of 20 metres. I may well be wrong, but I doubt most people would be able to tell the difference in the quality of images in a blind test.
I call BS on this.
I love blind testing people who are FF die hards with m43 inages. I have even had someone ask if I was shooting on medium format before and that was a laugh.
@@megnatarnorth2879 I call BS on your BS no BS backs! lol
You need to take a larger print to see the difference in sharpness. 200-500 is much sharper and cleaner than 300mm f4. But 300mm f4 has awesome IS
If you look at ephotozine, the results are completely different. The Zuiko 300mm f4 beats both, the 200-500mm and the 600mm f4 from Nikon. Especially in sharpness and more in edge sharpness. I feel, that everyone should us the gear they want or need, but this MFT bashing on this channel is just purely unjustified and unqualified.
I'd say if you can't see the difference then you don't need it, be happy with what you've got.
You are this person who takes it personal 😉 just enjoy what you have.
@@AramKaptein NOPE, but I hate it when people make unjustified claims. I don't even have this lens, but all Zuiko Pros are known to be extremly sharp. Tony is just hating MFT and makes completely unjustified claims. He is obviously really unprofessional in his approach.
@Ziggi Mon Proof?
@Ziggi Mon So you cannot justify your statement with any facts?
I appreciate the video. Some of your finding don’t match with my experience but that’s no big deal. Here’s my position on the topic. I was shooting a for a Ranch down in Texas. They have trophy deer and needed unique shots of them that weren’t from trail cams. They would drop me off in the early morning and pick me up when I called in. I was shooting my 7dii and 500f4 for most of it. I didn’t like the compositions I was getting from the ground blinds they had so I moved into the thickets. I simply couldn’t get the shots. When I switched to my em1ii and 300 it was night and day different and I was able to double my keepers. It’s was a real lesson about compositions and mobility. Hands down the m43 won the battle of keeper photos. This has carried over into most scenarios. When I’m shooting clients in the duck blind, laying in my stomach getting turkey strutting, or kneeling in the river catching the elk crossing I am simply going to get better images with the more mobile gear. Of course there are trade offs but I have massive prints of wildlife hanging in offices, hunting clubs, and homes that are from m43. I attribute that to the compositions and unique perspectives I was able to capture more than anything.
Fact: All cameras are amazing. I want to own every camera, I live to shoot every camera and I appreciate your vids 😀
If I got on my stomach to take photos, I’d be the walruses in this video. lol
Daniel Johnston oh don’t think I’m not! Lol I’m sure I’m on some kids insta story
The best gear in the world isn't any good if it is so ponderous you consider not taking it on your outdoor adventures. I am thrilled with the portability of my Olympus m43 system and quite content with the image quality. I'm always amazed at people examining images at this level of detail and saying A is better than B because the fonts on a book sleeve in their home look sharper. Environmental conditions are what usually ruin images, not sensor size or noise at higher ISO. Also, unless you are cropping a lot and printing large prints, its all utter nonsense.
What works for some may not work best for others. I use a huge, heavy Sigma 300-800mm as my primary wildlife lens. I actually find it to be rather mobil, despite the fact that I only use it on a tripod. I can carry the tripod-mounted camera and lens around all day and set it up wherever I want to. I'm definitely not limited to blinds with that rig, even though it weighs in at over 24 pounds. Is it comfortable to carry? Heck no! Do I feel good at the end of the day? No - I am sore as can be! But that doesn't keep me from using it anyway, because comfort doesn't really matter to me, but getting the highest quality wildlife images certainly does matter. Anyway, I am saying that this is what often works best for me, but I realize that it would not be the best setup for everyone. Use what works for you, but don't hesitate to use a big, heavy rig if you are physically capable of carrying it around and being mobil with it.
Tom Reichner did you try mft? Like G9 + Leica 200mm f2.8 (Maybe TC 1.4)? Or em1 + 300mm f4? Or even G9 Or em1 + Leica 100-400? You should try. after 30 years usina dslr and ff I feel so much more than happy to have migrated to mft! the results are amazing! highest quality! and I'm much more pleased to photograph. My recommendation is that you try the equipment and not just rely on controlled environment reviews and weekend photographers who profit from equipment sales commissions. But of course it all depends on your type of work and where you shoot. I keep my old equipment and use it in some (Rare) situations.
Tony, you have a shutter shock issue with that 300. Retry some test shots using silent mode on the Olympus. The stabilization makes it prone to blurring images from shutter shock. It is every bit as good as the lenses you're comparing it to in terms of sharpness.
And make sure to select 'IS priority' rather than 'FPS Priority'.
One thing that Tony doesn't really talk about the difference between the weather sealing. That Nikon 200-500 isn't weather sealed at all. The Sony 200-600 is a "Dust & moisture resistant design", which means (if you click on the disclaimer) "Not guaranteed to be 100% dust and moisture-proof." As a Sony owner, I've never been overwhelmed by the quality of their weather sealing... and pairing it with the A6400 as Tony suggests... well, that camera has no weather sealing at all. Weather sealing for nature photography is a BIG DEAL, it doesn't matter how sharp your lens is if it and the camera become bricks because you get caught in a rain storm. That Olympus combo shown (or even the combo of that lens & the E-M1mk2 or mk1, The E-M5's series, etc.) have "put it under a water faucet and wash it off" kind of sealing. Just something to consider.
have you had bad experience with sony cameras in bad weather? Have you put an olympus under a water faucet it wash it off?
@@weareyesyesyes I shoot a lot of motorsports (dirt track racing, motorcross) in very, very dusty environments. After pulling my hair out cleaning the interior of my A7II & 70-200 F/4 time and again, I decided to buy an Olympus E-M5mk2 and an Olympus 40-150 f/2.8. The difference was night and day in the dust sealing. And yes, my E-M5mk2 was so covered in mud once that I washed it off in my sink while it was wearing a 14-150. I've rinsed it with puddle water poured over it several times when it got too muddy. I would never, ever do that with my A7iii or A7Riii and any Sony lens.
@@wcgdenmasterken3431 I'm glad someone is talking from experience. I previously owned a canon 1dx and have done the same under a tap. I also wouldn't try that with my current Sony gear. With that said, I have used my Sony gear in plenty of rainy conditions shooting wildlife, and have yet to see any negative effects. You are shooting a niche that I believe is a step above in the needs of weather sealing, that many don't need.
weareyesyesyes I’m not ashamed to say that if it’s too foul for my Oly, it’s too foul for me. Ditto for Sony + plastic bag. Time to head back!
@@wcgdenmasterken3431 ok we get it you don't like Sony. Just get the gear that works for you
I had to move to a smaller system due to my old Army body wearing down. Oly changed my life, not only physically, but inventively as well. Oly outshines any other camera system I've ever used. Their firmware updates keep my cameras AND lenses on the cutting edge.
A Nikon 300 pf is lighter, smaller and cheaper than that Olympus lens...
@@youknowwho9247 it may be, but the camera weighs a lot more and the rest of the Oly lineup is considerably lighter than anything Nikon or Canon. I've been mirrorless for for years while those two were still trying to figure out if the trend was real. My in body stabilizer makes the weight of the lenses a non issue.
@Landscope 360 Only $300 cheaper but the Nikon only has half the reach!
I'm with you Ron. I am never tempted to revert to my Canon gear after switching over to Olympus.
Tony - This review starts well and fair for the Olympus 300 f4, but then you give screwy opinions about comparative sharpness. The Olympus OM-D 1-II has a 20 MP sensor as does the Nikon D500 and D5. You assert that the Nikon 200-500mm lens is sharper than the Olympus 300mm f/4. This is certainly not true unless you mistakenly compare (as you did) the images from the Olympus 20 MP sensor to the 46 MP sensor of the Nikon D850. The appropriate comparison would have used the D500. I have owned and used both the Nikon D500 +200-500 lens and Olympus M1-2 + 300 f/4 lens for wildlife photography on seven continents. The results are sharper with the Olympus gear even with raw 1.4x added. Thus, I sold my Nikon gear.
I'm not saying you're wrong and i don't have any of these lenses to compare, but to be fair he did compare it to the a6400 as well which has a similar resolution and was clearly much sharper.
@@willj476 Which is also slightly higher res and the 300 had a TC attached.
I've tried both combinations, and the Nikon combination is much, much sharper than the Olympus, even using the lower res D500. Your results sound like user error to me.
No point in arguing with Tony. They are pretty biased and they get paid to promote other Companies such as Canon Or Nikon. I stopped following them 2 years ago. This video happy to pop up. 🤔
This is really interesting. I suppose the definitive proof would be to adapt all these lenses to mft and test on one consistent mft body. I actually had a similar feeling, and started to wonder what a high-res raw from olympus bodies would look like next to the Nikon shots of those bookshelves. I bet it would be a lot more competitive than Tony indicates.
All that said, if your priority is wildlife photography, he's probably got a point; your images will look sharper on other systems because mft will probably never get a truly high resolution sensor, hence the kit can't compete (assuming out-of-camera sharpness is your only concern, which is debatable). Unfortunately I don't even think we'll ever see 24 MP on mft, though I'm definitely rooting for it.
Just stumbled over this video and with all the negatives you get with MFT there is one big plus for me: Opportunity. Back in my full frame mirror days I just couldn't carry all the gear to cover all situations and missed so many nice shots, with MFT I can bring everything easily in a small package.
I agree that you can get better results (in some circumstances) from a 600mm f4 and a camera with a larger sensor than from an Olympus 300mm f4, particularly when you need to crop severely, as for a distant bird. I am stunned, however, that Tony finds he gets "much" better results with a 200-500mm zoom than from the Olympus 300 f4. I have absolutely NOT found this to be true. Even using the 300f4 with the 1.4x teleconverter from Olympus provides superb results in an amazingly small package. The Olympus 300 is very, very, very sharp; to compare its "sharpness" to the full-frame 600mm and find it lacking is nitpicking at best. "Massive difference?" No. I would say that the main disadvantage to M43 is that it about a stop noisier once you go above about ISO 400. I will also mention that in these days of increasingly restrictive baggage limits in air travel, the M43 rig is quite a bit more convenient than toting a 600m f4 rig as a carry-on. Tony is clearly biased against the M43 format.
I own both that 250-500 for Nikon and an Olympus $200 slow, TINY 75-300 and the sharpness is pretty close. So I imagine the 300 f4 is way sharper as you said. He also didn’t extend the barrel of the Nikon lens to show how massive it is. I always use my Olympus gear because it’s practical and I’m not being paid to lug stuff around. But I have good technique to get the results I need for my needs.
I do believe the Nikon 600mm is sharper with the body of the D850 (i've used this combo it is epic) however you were comparing a 45.7mp sensor on the Nikon to 20.4mp on the Olympus at full zoom, your at this point comparing the resolution factor of the sensor not the Resolving ability of the lens. Example you take a Schneider that can resolve up to a reported 200mp (test 150mp) and stick it on a body with a 50mp then compare the photos to the 150mp, the 150mp will be sharper.
You also had the Teleconverter on the Olympus to give it the equivalent focal range of the native crop sensor of the Sony, which was not made clear on the video without looking at the Lightroom information this will reduce sharpness to some degree. As you might have guessed I am a Nikon full frame shooter and you are right in the Nikon D850 with the 600mm is sharper, in this video you are also being a purposely misleading. At the end of the day grab what ever gear you have and go shoot something, Olympus are doing amazing things right now we should be cheering them on for making something no-one else is, a compact system that can be used on the pro stage.
What does it matter? You can't get away from the sensor relationship. Wildlife means...cropping. The higher MP camera with the same lens...will do better.
@@JACKnJESUS agreed cropping is important in WL photography so the limited factor here is the sensor not the lens?
I feel you miss the point of my comment, in this the comparison is Apple to pears, both fruit both grow on trees so can you you use them both to make a apple pie?
This video was aimed to review the lens and comparing a mft camera to a full frame. The comparison was miss leading from the start, not only did Tony forget to mention he was using a teleconverter on the Olympus he failed to compare equivalent sensors skewing the results from the start to favour the higher mp camera. And oddly enough my higher mp Nikon does give more detail and appear sharper at 200% zoom ... as more amazing there is more data to be shown.
Since making this original comment I have now purchased an Olympus om1 m3 to use along side my Nikon Z7 ii , if I know I will be cropping I will involved high MP Z7, if however I know I won’t need to crop the OM lenses still resolve brilliantly, but I also know I’m limited by MP. Two camera systems for two jobs. I will admit my z7 produces sharper images at 200% zoom because it has a larger sensor with more MP resulting in more data gathered. Unless I use High MP mode on the OM1 then that results a sharper image at 200%.
I’m not brand loyal never have been I will shoot with what is best for me at the time, I do however get annoyed at miss leading videos that are designed to be objective.
@@johndavies7282 I get what you are trying to say, and yes Tony did use the teleconverter on some of the images shown. that's because you are going to need it to shoot wildlife. 300mm is on the short side for that. At 8:31 he does show how the Nikon is obviously shaper against the Oly sans the tele. It begs the question when a cheaper zoom beats a dedicated prime...why endorse it? I wouldn't. I shoot wildlife myself and decided to put aside my Sony A-mount gear and start over. I looked at everything very carefully...Oly lost out pretty quickly. Oly was always meant for street photography but got pushed out by cellphones. I think the shorter lenses work better on a tiny sensor. But Oly had nowhere to go but long. It couldn't compete against the bigger sensors...physics is a b*tch that way. If Oly had gone FF when Pan did...they might still be around. That last boondoggle of a lens ($7500 bucks) was just a last slap in the face. Hard to believe anyone is naive enough to buy that lens. Not when you could buy a killer Sony or Canon body and a sharper lens for less money. A road to the future.
At the end of the day, you can't buy >20MP on M43, and M43 isn't likely to survive/receive the R&D to hit 40MP, let alone 60-100MP. But stop and think: How would Olympus squeeze similar reach and resolution out of a much smaller lens with a smaller R&D budget? The most likely answer is that they haven't.
To put this question to rest a reviewer could shoot the Olympus in multi-shot to achieve higher resolution, but you probably don't want them to do that!
@@HappyHubris actually they have solved it.
High-end Olympus cameras can produce in-camera 50MP handheld shots and up to 80MP tripod shots via their electromagnetic IS system
Considering that the body needs a few moments to adjust sensor position, I'd think that perhaps it wouldn't be the best option for flying objects, though I still have to test it. For still wildlife, this is a simple, elegant and effective solution.
Please return this 300mm Oly and get a decent copy. If these are the best results you can get out of this lens there is something wrong with your copy. The result at 4:50 is a joke.
Recently I had the opportunity to shoot the 300mm Olympus + E-M1ii, the 200-500mm + D500, the Sigma 150-600 sport, the new Sigma 60-600mm and the Sony 100-400 along side. Only the Sony was just as good as the Olympus 300mm and the 200-500 comes pretty close. The others ware clearly not as sharp.
And that is the problem I have with this video. All of the points you make are excellent except for the sharpness bit. Yes you only get an F8-like DoF. Yes you get 2 stops less light / ISO performance. Indeed tracking (or even finding) a subject with a fixed 600mm (equiv) lens is harder than people might realize.
But if all these previous compromises are fine for your style of shooting this is an excellent lens for you. Which will give very good and sharp results.
I shoot both M43 and the A7. If I want the best image quality for landscape or architecture I grab the A7. But if I need portability or great telephoto reach a quality without looking like a pro wildlife photographer I use my M43 gear. I don't own this lens (yet) and am in doubt between this one and the Sony 200-600. The Sony is pretty good value for money and very tempting.
Gijsbert Peijs m
True silent shooting on the Olympus was a factor in me switching from Nikon (vs. D500), and so far my experience bears that out.
Just wondering: All of the comparisons you were showing in the studio showed you had the 1.4x tele-converter on the olympus. Yet a couple of videos back you noticed yourself that tele-converters tend to ruin lens sharpness (I think you tested it on the sony 200-600)...
Can we maybe see studio comparisons between all of these lenses without tele-converter on the olympus? In my experience M4/3 lenses are usually super sharp, especially primes (the only non sharp m43 lens I own is ironically the Olympus 17mm 1.8). Can't imagine the olympus underperforming this much.
Cheers!
Results were similar without the TC
FYI, Imaging Resource found that the Olympus 300mm F4 Pro is susceptible to shutter shock when mounted to a tripod. It should only be use with the electronic shutter in that situation.
Also, if comparing the Nikor 200-500 on a full frame sensor camera against the Olympus 300mm F4 Pro did you take the photos from the same distance? Since 90% of the time you are likely to crop wildlife photos, distance to subject, size of lens and IQ should all be considered.
@@Jay19876 Great find on the imaging resource article. The shuttershock really makes quite a difference. I do believe Tony has a point, that a full-frame 600mm f4 is providing better quality than a m43 300mm f4 BUT not to the extend shown in the videos. This really does not even come close to my experience with the system. A 20 MP m43 sensor with a pro-grade m43-prime should not resolve this softly.
Different websites measure the Oly alot sharper then the Sony and Nikon Zooms. Don't know what is going on here.
weizenobst müsli everybody knows!! Tony hates mft!
What a joke. I have Sony A9 + 100-400GM +TC1.4 and Oly EM1X + 300mm and Oly combo is much sharper , stabilization is alike another world. Sony water proof and ergonomic is joke. AF is only plus for Sony.
Are you serious?
If you’re shooting fast paced wildlife, does stabilisation matter, given the need to use higher shutter speed? How does the Oly compare to the Sony in poor lighting ?
Yeah, sounds like you're not making that up at all. Very plausible that you'd invest about 6000 bucks into Sony gear just to leave it on the shelf and hate on it on RUclips.
Pretty hilarious.
Different websites measured the Olympus at MTF50 with 60lp in the edges, the Sony and Nikon only with 40lp. What exactly are you trying to influence here?
weizenobst müsli that olympus did not pay him enough.
You realize that MTF charts have absolutely no bearing on real world performance, right? Ah, you don't. That explains your clueless comment.
As an owner of both systems I should say it's true that there is slight advantage in picture quality with full frame but there are tons of advantage with m43 over ff and the image quality getting very close with the latest m43 cameras. For me it's the matter of being able to go out and get the shot and enjoy doing it versus not being able to go out at all due to the heavy bulk and back pain. BTW, you can not raise the aperture in ff to get the same depth of field as m43 because then you have to raise the iso too ...at which point I would argue m43 would deliver cleaner results.
Tony, If I’m honest, your sharpness test results left me flabbergasted. I own a copy of this lens, and If it ever lacked anything, it wasn’t the sharpness. Of course, I have not done studio comparisons, but I frequently use it with a 1.4x teleconverter and even than, the sharpness is great. What’s more, this was one of the reasons I sold-off a full-frame Pentax system that I owned before - I compared my results to the ones I was getting with a K-1 + D-FA 150-450/4.5-5.6, and while I saw some tradeoffs (higher ISO noise, less freedom in the DOF department), the change has made my wildlife photography better - mosty because I’m getting shots I wouldn’t get with the Pentax.
It may be due to my style of shooting (Hiking or kayaking into a location, no tripod - a kind of run-and-gun thing) - I can hike to better, more remote locations, stay out longer, not worry about the weather, catch the right moments (Pro Capture absolutely rules)... This lens paired with a gripped EM-1II gives me awesome image quality and is a pleasure to shoot (ergonomics and all that). And as you said, it is most important to enjoy the time you spend in the outdoors - I agree with that part of your video completely :)
Full disclosure, I did preorder the Sony 200-600... I realize that m4/3 has it’s limitations, and for some tasks FF is better - just as m4/3 is better for others 😁 so I jumped on the Sony bandwagon. And while I hate the ergonomics of my A7RIII, If I put a battery grip on it, it’s managable. And I love the results... I know it’s no A9 in terms of autofocus, but I think it will be enough for the more stationary style of wildlife shooting I plan to do with it.
It's all relative, even if you think it's sharp, it's still less sharp than some other setups, so that's why he's showing crops and digitally zoomed images. And even those "sharp setups" will be compared in the future against other sharper setups and again, will look blurry in comparison. That's just how technology works.
youuuuuuuuuuutube Word :) so than we should put even more emphasis on the „enjoyment” side of wildlife photography, and that is what my oly 300/4+EM1II combo excels at.
Moreover, what I’m certain about, is that I have several 40’x30’ prints on my walls made by exactly this setup. The sharpness and resolution proved to be sufficient for that, even factoring in the variables of subjects moving, autofocus variances, 99,9% of shots taken handheld... Hence my astonishment by the poor results of testing that Tony’s showing in the video.
I know that there are tradeoffs in using m4/3 compared to bigger sensors (and the other way around 😉), but with good quality lenses I never had a problem with sharpness.
@@Khotoo You're right that this enjoyment is more important than anything, however it's not easy to quantify, and it's subjective too ... that's why I think it's good to tell facts in such videos, and of course people should rent and test the gear and then see how they liked the shooting experience.
@@youuuuuuuuuuutube I agree. It's just... In this case the test results are so far from my hands-on experience, that I can't help to question them. Tony's human, he might have missed something. Mind you, I apply the same principle to myself. I never shot with 600mm/4 on FF, though I had a great quality 150-450/4.5-5.6 Pentax lens, which was as sharp as they come. I clung to it untill I found out that this Olympus gives me same sharpness, also great color balance, also beautiful bokeh rendering... It was a concious choice, based on my own experience. I would never make the switch if it would be as big a difference as we can see here.
@@Khotoo Okay, so you managed to do the same comparison as he did, side to side? If yes, then you could prove he made a mistake. Indeed he and Chelsea are humans and they have mistakes multiple times in their videos, which is fine, as long as they can correct those mistakes by either making a new video or adding annotations. I'm all for the facts.
I’ve got a full frame, medium format, and m43 setup and I’ve never had images that comparably different in sharpness from the Olympus. I have all three, and more often than not I choose to use m43 because of the efficiency in working with the system. In your video those bookshelf images looked like a lens of mine that got damaged and needed realignment. I wonder if you need that 300 serviced. At the end of the day, there are also system as a whole benefits and abilities that cater to different people. Not nearly as much is given up in real world use as a lot of people make it seem by going m43.
What medium format?
@@jeepjoseph9036 Phase One P45+.
@@jeepjoseph9036 And just to be clear... there is a difference in fine detail rendered obviously the MF sensor is 49mm...but overall sharpness and end output....are not as different as one would think. Especially when you remove file dimensions from the equation and match sizing.
@@AncientCityPhoto h6d-400c
@@AncientCityPhoto even a d850 isn't up to the image quality of some medium format cameras and its the best dslr
Olympus has a brilliant piece of equipment to go with that lens . It is called the EE-1 dot sight finder to go on the camera flash shoe . It is much easier to find your target before looking at the camera viewer . If would not get that 300mm without it.
I tried the Olympus 300mm lens with an EM1 last year for a couple of weeks and loved it for the M43 system. I even managed to take a picture that won a national competition (non wildlife though). The stabilisation of the Olympus system is superb, and paired with this lens I was able to take pictures at much lower shutter speeds than I would dare with other systems.
However as Tony says, the moment the light starts getting low then the problem of a smaller sensor size starts to show. I would buy the Olympus system in an instant if it was full frame, but the smaller size of lenses that smaller sensors allow has that trade off with noise at low light and that is why I ultimately didn't invest in any more Olympus gear (I have the EM5 mkii and love it as a light travel camera)
Strange, all I have heard was that the Olympus 300 is insanely sharp.. and now it isn't.
EnGnuttaFredrik it is check my channel.
It's only sharp by comparison to other MFT glass, which is fairly low quality on the whole. It certainly can't hang with full frame options.
Landscope 360 have you ever used it ?
@@ammadoux Yes. I've tried it and tested it against several other options. The glass itself is ok (albeit not worth the ridiculous price) but the real problem is that it needs to go on an MFT camera and there just aren't any MFT bodies that can hang with the competition at the same price point for wildlife shooting. The E-M1 II costs as much as a D500 while delivering the af performance of an entry level DSLR. The E-M1X is a 20 mpix camera that costs as much as a D850 or a7r III. My main problem with MFT isn't its limitations in terms of iq, it's how ridiculously overpriced everything in the system is. If they priced their stuff according to the consumer grade results it delivers, that'd be fine. But they insist on calling things 'pro' and charging a premium when virtually no professional actually shoots MFT. It's a system for consumers and the costs should reflect that.
Landscope 360 you mean to say that all the pro wildlife photographers announced that they will not use mft or did they just told you that in pm.
I'm an m43 shooter and I shoot too its advantages and try not to make it do what its not good at. When I focus in on its strengths, I get pictures that the bigger FF setups cant get. There's a lot of opportunities the FF guys miss that I sang up and people love my work because of it.
Long Live m43!
And this is why I cannot trust any reviews by Tony & Chelsea: claiming that the Olympus 300mm is not sharp, based on obvious USER ERROR. Tony, you're doing something wrong when everyone else gets TACK SHARP images with this lens, the lens performs extremely well in controlled lab tests and so on. It's you, it's not the lens.
Sound like you're speaking from the toilet next to mine 😀. Anyway, love the video.And the lens too.
...sorry, that was me. I tried to be discreet...
Loved your comment!!!!
It's a little mind-blowin' (or at least puzzlin') how bad the audio is here. Usually their stuff has great production quality.
WHO DOES #2 WORK FOR?!?!
I think there’s other factors to think about here too. Going out for a stroll shooting with a large ff lens is a lot different than hiking into a backcountry location where not only do you need to carry in your photo gear, but all your food and supplies and tent, etc.
Those Oly 300mm example shots you used are terrible, and not representative of what the lens can do. Shutter shock? Bad copy?
Crap weather conditions more like.
He even has sharpness examples with a teleconverter that he forgot to mention. I usually like T&C, but this is just misleading.
rendezvous009 Because he’s an influencer, and people listen to him. If he’s got a bad copy of the lens, or he’s not using it in a way which gives the expected results, he should be called out on it.
What kind of truck and crane you recommend for transporting your full frame gear?
great review. i side-graded from a sony a1 with 200-600 back to OM-1 (mk 2 this time) mainly for the procapture feature. highly underrated. i also like how i can do 50MP high res wildlife shots of semi-static sitting wildlife, handheld. you have some great points when comparing full-frame to m4/3 and seem unbiased. good job.
You mention being able to increase depth of field on the Nikon by using double the f stop. While that does get equal depth of field, it also cuts your light in half.
m4/3s shooter here. No offence taken. I agree if I wanted the best IQ I would shoot full frame, BUT I don't want to haul a 600mm full frame lens around with me. Which sort of brings up the question, for all your portrait / fashion shoots why don't you shoot medium format?. You do want the very best IQ regardless of cost or inconvenience right? All the advantages of full frame over 4/3s apply to medium format over full frame no?
Check our reviews of the Hasselblad X-1D and Fujifilm GFX 50R. It's never just about sensor size, but sensor size + available lenses + focusing capabilities and other features.
I love the comments all confirming that the M. Zuiko 300mm PRO f4 is sharper or equal to the Nikkor 100-500, all on the contrary of what Tony said. Kudos to you, photographers.
other than stabilization the Olympus is not the best at anything. Period. BUT ..its the greatest fun Ive ever had .Its the most versatile camera I've ever had and has got me pictures not possible with FF Canons and Sonys Ive previously owned. So yes....it is limited in many ways. But in its pluses it is liberating. The lens qualities of the Olympus range negate some of the sensor size issues ( grain is attractive and the glass adds good sharpness) .The IS then adds more possibilities to image making not available to other FF cameras. I sold my Sony A7r mk2 to buy the 300mm and i only think of the Sony once a year ( yes that Sony sensor is still sensational..shame about the body) but i never ever regret the swap. Never think about the Sony. Olympus rocks. It is weapons grade 'fun'.
sealing and protection against freezing, impact and abuse resistance.
Therefore quality / cost, both image quality and quality in the equipment.
Puh, subtile influencer marketing at its best. The only thing missing is Chelsea with comments like: Really, thats awesome.
Olympus or Panasonic must have slept with Tony's mom or something...this dude is completely incompetent when it comes to MFT gear.
I’ve owned this lens for just two months now. I love it so far, because I can do a bird hike for 6 1/2 hours and I’m not sore the next day. For an enthusiast, it’s great. I guess I only watched this review because Tony proclaimed m43 as dead, so I wanted to see why he would even review gear for dead cameras.
Maybe FF will become dead, to be squeezed out between M43 (for portability) and medium format (for ultimate quality)
@@rcsor3 Sharp announced 8K for MFT, manufacturers are investing (not dumping) into MFT.
Hey Tony, Chelsea... wondering if you'd consider doing an update of this, with the new OM-1 (when available) and the 150-400 f4.5 with 1.25x internal teleconverter? Lense price is more comparable versus the big glass from Canon and Nikon, which has me wondering if the sensor advancements in the OM-1, along with a truly pro telephoto lense, has closed the gap vs full-frame enough to make the systems more comparable. Thoughts?
yyeah, your review contradicts every review of that lens out there. so either you got a bad copy or your method is bad and you're spreading misinformation.
We tested two copies. Which comparison review are you referring to? Who else has done side by side comparisons?
Your lens tests shooting plastic covered book spines are hardly scientific optical bench tests! also comparing the Nikon 600 mounted to a very high 47.5 megapixel resolution D850 against the Olympus 300 mounted to a 20 megapixel camera is ridiculous!
@@terrycullinane9437 it's not ridiculous. I have an a7riii as well as a couple of m43 cameras. I'd like to get into wildlife photography. I was actually considering if I may be better off getting the Olympus 300 f4 instead of a Sony 200-600 which is similarly priced, due to all the hype around how sharp the Olympus lens is. I've used crappy zooms on a FF that performed worse than good primes on a m43, so the idea was not that crazy. This video answered my question.
I think as a comparison video yes it's good in terms of letting someone know what the best can do compared with the Olympus but everyone has their own reason for buying the kit that appeals to them. As a canon shooter looking for answers olympus all of my questions in one go. I mean who has the time to research every camera on the market.
What made me change to m43 and olympus are 4 things. Price, weight, weather sealing and reach. Now just for clarity I dont have the 300mm but do have the 40-150mm, and 12-40mm along with the omd em1x and for the price of the nikon 600mm I could have bought my kit twice and paid for a nice trip to test it on.
The weight is a big factor for me, I would rather stay at home then drag a 600mm out In the wild, so i needed something that wouldn't give me an excuse to stay at home. I have tested the 300mm with the em1x and held it with one hand and shot. Not saying you could do it all day but certainly if you needed to now and again it can be done.
Also weather sealing was a big issue (not comparing it to the top of the range canon or nikon gear but the more affordable smaller gear out there) how many times have I left the camera behind because of rain? a lot I live in Ireland.
Like many the reach on m43 was very impressive considering the size of the system.
If I was paid to produce photos or made my living from photography then yes the bigger size would need to be considered but seeing pros carrying around 2 massive lenses would put me off. Not to mention getting onto a plane.
If those of us who like photography, and remember there are some excellent photographers out there that are not pro, got paid a fair price from the stock agencies then we might justify the cost of a pro FF system, but 20k you could buy enough of your favourite signed photographs to decorate every wall in your house.
Tony I can only imagine that most of your income is made from teaching or your courses/books and that's all aimed at the photographer who is learning, by implying the only way you can get the best results is by getting the best gear, is I imagine very off putting for your potential customers.
Those who have the pro kits have them for a reason and know what they can do.
What's that saying the best camera is the one you have with you.
Since getting involved with m43 I've heard alot of negative things but I've equally heard great things, but what really stood out was speaking with 2 Olympus omd owners who both said you will be so happy with the omd system.
I think if people are on the fence about the m43 system then join one of the many olympus facebook groups and look at what's been posted by Olympus users. See what's been written about the system.
Not comparing apples with apples again Tony, M43 is it's own thing as is full frame. No comparison needs to be made, pick one to suit your needs and pocket, go out, shoot and have fun.
Wildlife photography :
1- long range
2- sharpness
3- stability
1&3 (and the small size factor which is a BIG thing in wildlife) are checked with oly
Now ,
With the 2x tele convertor in oly u can get 1200mm with that 600mm !!!
(And with the “pre-capture” mode ull NEVER miss the shots )
And with amazing 60fps (digital)
And the Amazing hands down water/dust/freeze proof with oly
And all the great features and custom buttons...
And Battery Life
And prize ...
And... Did i mentioned the Size ?!
I think We have a clear winner here
Im enjoying my em1 mkii with 40-150mm (80-300mm) and cant wait to get my hands on this beast lens
Is this an Olympus review or Canon and Nikon review?
It’s a typical Nikon/Canon full frame is superior to Olympus bashing....from the Olympus is Dead man!
This video shows us some differences between FF and MFT for Wildlife photography, but it also shows the big difference between a youtuber and a PRO wildlife photographer. But there is a difference between the systems and advantages and disadvantages in each. The important thing is the commitment and the right instrument for each use. Not everyone drives in air conditioning to a national park with well-made and signposted paths and huge structure. Those who travel the world photographing or filming, depending on tens of kilometers of walks to reach the desired place, will surely have different needs. It is great to have alternatives in the market and this is another very important lesson! Right instrumental for your activity, instead of comparing details that are not so relevant to the true progression of photography! Important is the story that is told and the context involved.
Thanks for the review Tony and sharing your thoughts. This Olympus body and 300mm lens is currently being used by professional wild life photographer Andy Rouse @wildmanrouse. He is very happy with the system and is getting excellent results. He’s not a gear specialist but has been an ambassador for both Nikon and Canon and has shot with both of their professional level equipment over a number of years, so I feel knows how to use the kit and get excellent results. 😀
Petr Bambousek is another example of a pro using the Olympus system and achieving stunning results.
Scott Bourne is another Olympus Ambassador whose bird photographs are drool-worthy. Scott toted a DSLR until his shoulder doc told him the jig was up and if he kept it up, there wouldn’t be anything left to operate on. He switched to Olympus and never looked back.
@@Atomicunderware Stunning isn't the word for it. In fact, words fail me when I see his stuff.
I already have this lens and love it. The only downside is that it's not a zoom, but otherwise it reaches out for superb photos of far-away birds. And I find that the depth of field is still rather shallow in practice (shooting with the lens wide open most of the time). So I am not sure that I notice the lack of a shallow depth of field.
@Tony & Chelsea Northrup If you are serious about professional photography, then you need a serious understanding of the output specifications you are shooting for. It would be useful to know from you, where this lens falls short on sharpness in relation to output spec (be that 200px, 2000px, 20,000px, 20", 30", 40" etc).
It would seem looking at the results on Flickr etc, that the level this lens can achieve is far beyond the requirements of digital publishing, TV, and typical high-end magazine printing. Are you coming from the perspective of a stock photographer solely? That appears to be where you are coming from. M43 photographs often struggle to meet Shutterstock requirements for noise in less than ideal lighting, though it's the same for APS-C and FF cameras with slower lenses. Maybe you should consider which sort of serious photography you are pertaining to when giving your review. Otherwise your advice could lead photographers to purchase equipment far more expensive and bulky than is required for their needs.
Thank you. You summed up in a short video what I came to understand over 5-6 years of shooting multiple camera systems. You sure are a man with experience. I have subscribed.
Tony, how slow can you shoot with Olympus setup compared to say the Nikon setup? - 2 stops?
I'm a mountain hiker, every gram counts, M43 is a good compromise for weight, size and functionality. I think your message is beating the same dead horse, yes a Rolls Royce is more comfortable then a Toyota starlet, most people have no trouble accepting that given the size, weight and price. More interestingly would be examine the question how does this compare the other M43 lenses and system combinations. And if you want to compare systems, with different sensor sizes and compare 1"2/3", 1", M43, APC, 35mm, Medium format, and help people choose how much quality they actually want.I'm watching my work on a 43"4k IPS screen and I think my M43 camera does a good enough job for this size display. As Hugh Brownstone says, your mileage may vary.
I hear that you like challenges, how about testing system ergonomics? How much time does one need to set it up? How fast can you work with default settings and tweaked settings? What settings are actually useful? - I feel companies often make camera's needlessly too complex, promoting marginal software tricks, retaining outdated functions. What adjustments would your ideal camera offer? With 3d printing in mind I think it's time to build our own design camera, like we build our own PC's. A camera is just a smaller box. But I would love to choosing dials, buttons, grip size, battery, card slots, IBIS, screen, viewfinder, flash, mount, cable ports etc. I think I like concept Sigma recently is showing off with their new FF camera.
A D850 with their 300pf and a 1.4x tc is cheaper, lighter and smaller than that Olympus setup and produces better quality results. MFT is simply obsolete in a world with that kind of competition.
The Olympus setup is lighter and smaller than the Nikon setup, but not cheaper and with inferior IQ.
The a6400 + 100-400gm setup of the Sony has similar IQ, weight and size as the Olympus, but is cheaper.
So yeah, it seems like the m43 is not the best solution, but again, if you already have it, then please keep using it.
@@youknowwho9247 I'm a long time GH5 user and if photography was my primary use, especially anything beyond the 200mm (400mm FF) mark, then I just don't see M43 being the best tool for the job. I still think M43 has really significant advantages in the sub $2k camera market when it comes to 4k video which I don't see changing anytime soon. M43 is not obsolete, just best use case is not extreme telephoto unless extreme weather sealing and class leading image stabilisation is priority. Also, I think a better comparison would be the OM-D E-M1 Mark II rather than the OM-D E-M1X (unless you were going to add the battery grip option to the D850). In the OM-D E-M1 Mark II scenario the price gap is around $1500 in favour of the Olympus, weight and bulk wise however there is still no distinct advantage. I'd still take the D850 first, but ultimately I would take neither for serious hiking and probably opt for a super compact M43 body with the Panasonic 100-300mm or even the Sony DSC-RX10 IV for around the 1kg mark total.
Anyway, I like Kars idea of doing a solid comparison across the sensor sizes. There is a lot more to choosing a camera platform than just outright optical performance.
I would argue that you are getting to a point in which the law of diminishing returns makes the micro 4/3 lens the best option for 80 or 90% of the cases. Some additional sharpness from a $12000 lens VS a $2400 lens may not be worthwhile for most photographers, specially if you consider the huge difference in weight, size and price. Many say that the best camera is the one that you carry with you most or all the time. That’s why smartphone cameras are so valuable. You can go on a long hike with an Olympus or a Panasonic body and the 300 f4 prime, plus a few more lenses, and you’ll get great results. I bet that most photographers would leave the big full frame 400 and 600 prime telephoto lenses at home or in their cars, if they had to carry them in their backs for several miles.
How did you get so soft&pixelized images with Olympus and 300mm ? I can get much better pictures with the kit lens or with the mobile lens.
Maybe you digitally upsized it. If Yes, why ?
I am not a brand Loyalist. I am a former Pentax user who converted to Olympus Em1X. Some of the wildlife I have photographed has come out much much nicer and wayyy wayyyyyy sharper than anything you've shown here from an Olympus system. I can tell you from personal experience that the EM1X has completely oblliterated any other system I have ever put my hands on. I regularly compete with full frame k1II's and those users are sometimes stunned by what I have done with MFT and the Olympus system. Technically, you are dead wrong about the canon or nikon lenses being sharper. This has been proven. The reverse is true.
Very good honest opinion. M43 is good enough for me
its good for 99% of any one who shots. an average eye on an average media - you will never know what / who.
Those who have shot with M43 with long zoom, would easily figure out, what sheer power is needed to hand hold a full frame long zoom of several pounds and over three feet length ;-) with decade behind sensor's and lenses' stabilizer. Especially when full frames try to play catch up with larger and larger opening.
'Good enough' is a bad reason to buy gear, especially when better options cost less. MFT is just way overpriced for what it does.
@Landsope 360 Not correct ....Canon 600 f4 $16000 Australian vs $3000 for Olympus 300 f4!!!!!
@@terrycullinane9437 Yeah, and those two pieces of glass aren't comparable. The Canon produces worlds better results. The Olympus is a 600mm f/8 full frame equivalent. It competes with lenses like the Tamron 150-600 or Nikon 200-500. Those deliver better image quality for less money than the 300 f/4.
But, why not compared with the Panasonic Leica DG Elmarit 200 mm f/2.8 POWER O.I.S. ? That lens is tack sharp compared to the Oly 300! It also have the 1.4//2 times teleconverters! I just don’t understand your negativity with the M43 system...
Spot on with pretty much everything, especially Olympus' questionable marketing and I say that as a m43 shooter using an E-M1X and PL 200. I will say though that I'm surprised by how soft that shot of the book spine is and am wondering how you focused the lens. Was it manual focus or autofocus? If autofocus, have you microadjusted the lens? I know there's a lot of claims that mirrorless completely eliminates the need for microadjustment, but it can definitely help with that combination especially when attaching the MC-14. I definitely wouldn't expect it to be as sharp as the 600mm + D850 combination, but I'm just a little skeptical that it's such a large difference from the A6500 + 200-600.
Who is not sceptical with Tonys "findings"?
Everybody knows that the quality of a ff sensor is higher .... and bla bla ... but I would to see a real comparison in a real session of shooting without doing pixel peeping above books ... in my opinion this is another “scandal video” related to m43 that produce a lot of views .... during the video you show many times a bad picture of a bird taken with M1X compared to great shoots taken with other cameras ... I think that in the “real life” your message is wrong... and the difference is not so important, almost invisible, and the chosen between these different systems is not so simple ... I invite you, important journalist and photographer, to do a real comparison of systems from the shoot to the print using the same price tag products ...
Fully agree with you.
That's what exactly I felt after watching this video. I feel like it's something that you are comparing a cheap 50 1.8mm with a 50 1. 2L and is telling me how good the 1.2L is. It's so ridiculous.
If you want to see what the Olympus is able to do, look up Scott Bourne. He has AMAZING pin sharp birds in flight pictures with this lens and Olympus bodies. I have to wonder if they shot the book case on a tripod, and if so, did they turn off all the image stabilization? Sadly I do not have this lens, so my small bird photos are NOT all pin sharp (the ones that are far away), but I can crop the images over 100% and they are suitable for social media or up to 8x10 prints.
On the tripod, turn off stabilization in Olympus !!!
Hi Tony, Please explain why these two 600mm f4 equivalent lenses gather different light? I appreciate the DOF will be different, but not the exposure. (I'm mainly a Nikon shooter, but during lockdown I purchased some Olympus gear and enjoyed some lightweight wildlife photography. This lens review compared the 46Mpix D850 with the 20Mpix M1x...not very fair!)
On large photo (had to stop the video few times ) it is clearly seen that for "sharpness" comparesement Olympus lens is out of focus to the book you are then zooming in difference to other lenses.
Was it intentional?
I have an M43 setup built around the Panasonic 100-400mm f/4.0-6.3. So not as bright but still a capable lens. I didn't realize when I originally went down that path just how difficult it would be to get what I wanted with this combination in anything but great light. Those birds in the undergrowth are a good example. I live in an old growth forest in the Pacific Northwest and see plenty of others. I still carry the M43 gear for longer mid-day hikes (especially above treeline) and in situations where I expect significant weather, but I'm transitioning to full frame gear for anything else. I'm seeing what I've been missing. As you point out so clearly here it's just not the same.
One thing that really opened my eyes to the importance of light for M43 was taking a vacation last fall to a desert location that's 1300 miles closer to the equator than where I live. The sun was so bright! The results were so much better! Wow. But that's not where I live or normally shoot and I can't count on the landscapes or wildlife being there either.
This is strange, I’ve gotten sharper images out of the Olympus 100-400 which is nowhere near as sharp as the 300. It’s no secret that Tony isn’t a MFT fan but goddamn this is just embarrassing.
Thanks for your honest opinions on this subject,appreciated!
I would argue that it’s more about the photographer. Andy Rouse is no slouch as a wildlife photographer and he produces great images with Olympus gear. He puts it down to its lightness and speed of response. Yes, you can get sharper images of birds flying or sitting on a branch with full frame but a great photograph has to have more!
Tony is a crop sensor hater. He is entitled to his opinion though. I shoot FF Canon and M43 OM-1 and the difference in IQ is there but it’s not huge. I have a chronically sore right shoulder so no amount of carrying large lenses around is going to help me “get used to it”. I like that we have lightweight choices that work well. Of course when this video was made AI noise reduction software wasn’t what it is now in 2023.
"Micro four thirds is dead" - Tony Northup 31 October 2018.
However, on All-Hallow's Eve the dead can cross into the realm of the living
There really is not much to compare here in my opinion. Olympus is the obvious winner, especially for anyone needing extreme telephoto for wildlife or sports. Anyone who would want to pay the insane price for the HUGE bazooka Nikon lens, and carry that beast around all day- more power to ya! In the vast majority of prints- you will not see the difference. Anyone preferring one or the other is clearly based on personal preferences. Not to mention Olympus is the forerunner of image stabilization in the industry. But as with any gear choice- pick what brings you joy!
well when someone pays 12k for a lens they are obviously gonna be defensive about how good it is and shit one anything else that isn't 12 thousand dollars
As a M43 shooter I had this lens (300 F4) and also have the Panasonic Leica 100-400. In reality I found myself reaching again and again to the 100-400 due to the zoom. My main problem as a casual wild life shooter and sport shooter was the poor focus tracking (before last version 3.0 that I have not tested yet)
I also soot with sony A7III mostly things that involve people and portraits. I hate the humen interface of this camera and sony compared to Olympus but love the autofocus system and the final results (beside autobwhite balance that sucks especially with Flash).
I decided to use M43 more for landscape and sony for sport and portraits and sold most of my M43 zoom lense as the 300 F4, 40-150mm F 2.8, etc.
I agree; that's why i still use my 5DSR when i really need nice depth of field; but most of the time i use the EM1 II
Look up Daniel J. Cox's RUclips video shooting wildlife with Olympus from a kayak. That will give you an idea about the Olympus image stabilization. Not that I would risk tipping over with my gear, but geez, that stabilization is amazing.
I also have the Olympus 300mm f4 Pro and mine is extremely sharp. I think the tested 300 was defective. I have never had such results with my 300. I'm not surprised that Olympus is being maligned here again. Mr. Northrup makes no secret of the fact that mFT supposedly can't do anything
The first shot is on a 42MP Nikon sensor too and the second shot just seems out of focus AND it has the 1.4x teleconverter on.
Update....Be interesting to see how it does on the OM-1 in your opinion. I bought the OM-1 and the 300 f/4 in lieu of the RF 600 f/4 due to weight. (African bush planes limit weight) and pair the OM stuff with my R5 kit. I find the 300 f/4 to be as sharp as the RF 100-500 at 500mm at f/7.1 and I find the OM with the 1.4ex to be sharper than the RF 100-500 with the RF 2ex. So I pull out the OM stuff when I need reach at lower light (f/4 vs f/10) but shoot the R5 for about everything else. DxO cleans up the extra noise well. The only other lens I would get for the OM is the 150-400 f/4.5 with the 1.25ex built in. Would love to see a review of that. Also I got 600mm (FF equiv) f/4 and OM-1 for a third of the cost of the RF 600 alone. And my shoulders than me (I'm 76)..
The great wildlife photographer fails taking a sharp picture of a book on a shelf, thats what i call funny.
That’s what I call amateurish unscientific testing!
The Pany 200/2.8 with the 1.4 is sharper than the 300/4 when I compared them. Although there may be a sample variation, since I rent these lens when I need them I have a few to compare. The only time I will rent the 300 now is with the 2X for macro work with shy subjects. The light gathering is often more important than depth of field and in the evening, the extra depth of field can be a benefit I appreciate. Perhaps compare the 200/2.8 with the 1.4X and 2X against the ff equivalents. I would like to know the results if you tested the sharper lens. Also, silent shutter sharpens up the Oly in real world use. Not quite sure how you used it.
Another incompetent review of MFT gear.
Inconvenient, not incompetent.
I don't understand how the images from the Oly 300mm could be so soft. I used to own that lens (sold it because I wanted the flexibility of a zoom) and it was incredibly sharp. I wonder if there was something seriously wrong with the copy used in the review or that shutter shock was a factor.
If only I could carry one of those big lenses and cameras, I would! Definitely sharper says this oly user (and advocate!). 5 foot 3 inches and arthritis makes that only a dream. Still, oly system is small and I can hike up mountains with all my gear on my back so I get lots of opportunity to shoot my slightly less than tack sharp wildlife.
Currently using a Lumix G80 and 100-400 and I absolutely cannot complain about image quality at any focal length or aperture in the real world. However the autofocus for birds in flight is truly horrendous! Just got back from photographing puffins and I lost so many shots due to the dreadful AF. With that said I still got the epic shots I was after so on the whole I am happy. One other thing to note is that landscape shots taken on my partnering GX80 were so easy as I could be at F9 and get the equivalent depth of field of F18 while also having a decent shutter speed and not using a tripod. As a system m43 makes so much sense to me. Moving forwards the phase detect EM1 Mk2 is starting to take my interest at its price point although the G9 was my original plan.
With regards to the pricing those huge expensive lenses in my opinion are only for the very successful top tier wildlife shooters making hundreds or thousands of pounds with their images. Joe public really doesnt need them in the same way as those supercar owners that rev their engines at 30mph in city centres.
I know this comment is very old but the G9 is much better at capturing birds in flight.
@@overnightdelivery I'm using the G9 now and it's good when it works for BIF but it mostly doesn't.
Sharp shots at 1/4s handheld with the 600 mm f/4 - have you got any Tony ?
Of what? A statue?
Animals freeze, do you ever shoot wildlife ?
@@RichardHolding road kill is stationary
@@GB-ez6ge Get out of the car and start exploring nature - if an animal is in alert mode, it will freeze
@@GB-ez6ge Funniest comment l've read this week. Do you have a wildlife portfolio full of roadkill pics?
Very helpful comparison, Tony. Thanks a lot. I am planning to buy a new gear and was comparing Sony a6400+ Sony 200-600 vs. Olympus omd em1 mark iii with the new 100-400/6.5. Sony gear is heavier by 900 g but costs much less and provides more reach. If I pair it with Sony 100-400/5.6, then there is no weight difference and no cost difference. Which would be better for bird photography while travelling?
Thanks.
does the olympus system is more profitable????? yessss because this
1 less money to spend and will be payed the same
2 the image is acceptable from the buyer and never ask which system is used
3 can carry more than one camera and different lenses
4 the small size and strong stabilization and make you get any angle you need which can help for better composition than heavy system
5 in shotting sports you can move from point A to point B faster and be in the action
6 better focusing due to the the motor inside the lens working more faster because moving lighter glass ,FF have big heavy elements
MFT IS STRONG SYSTEM , have benefits not in full frame
I agree completely having shot with FF Nikon and the 200-500mm and then moving to M43 with the 300mm f/4. My only complaint about this video is you compared sharpness between a 20mp sensor and a 47mp sensor. You should have used a Z6 or a D750 instead of the D850.
I can't believe how blurry the shots from the Olympus 300mm are.
It's a prime ... for over 2k ...
There HAS to be something wrong with your unit, right? It can't be that bad.
The Panasonic Lumix Leica 100-400mm is sharper than that, right? Please do some comparisons.
I have the 300mm and Leica 100-400 and have also noticed that the 300mm is not only much sharper than the 100-400, but it also seems sharper than what Tony got in his video in my experience. That said, I have not yet shot with any of the other lenses he used so I don't really have a great basis for comparison. @marcusbirding on insta for examples.
I tested the Pana 100-400 vs the Oly 300 (and also the Oly 100-300) in the shop, same light same motive, and the Oly 300 was sharper, not by miles but visibly. In that comparison: You get what you pay for :). And don't forget, the Pana at 300mm is f 5.7 (though they did't agree on how 300mm should look like, the pana was longer, so i would say f 5.6 is probably right): It collects only half the amount of light compared the the Oly 300!
Picture my surprise buying this lens exactly a day before the video comes out. Much appreciated for the insightful review!
Don't worry. You'll get super results if you don't shoot in the rain and fog.
From what I've gleaned of the comments: use E-shutter with tripod shots to avoid shuttershock
@@fellowcitizen .....and switch lens and camera IBIS off!
On the MFT forums. there are a number of close ups of dragonflies, butterflies etc shot with that lens. They are pin sharp (and mostly hand-held).
I rented one last year - quality was really very good. Some lenses need the autofocus to be fine tuned (feature is built in to your camera). In any event, Mr N's pictures are poor compared to my own results.
I love your videos and books and have learned so much from you guys. This video though is a bit like comparing apples and oranges and stressing the negatives. All camera systems have strengths and weaknesses and are great depending on your requirements. To pitch them against each other in this way is divisive as is so much going on these days. Embrace the positives I say!
Some bloke on youtube saying stuff does not mean its true,its just yet another opinion among a vast amount of opinions.
The comparison between the Sony 6400 and the M1X is rather lopsided because the M1X has a1.4x teleconverter attached. Tony you did a video about the negative effects of using teleconverters! Oh boy when I go hiking a few miles I like to take things like water, some food, a first aid kit, and depending on the weather maybe an extra layer. Carrying those 600mm Nikon lenses is fine if a couple of Sherpas are going on the trip to carry the extra gear. Viewing the photos in the video on my Eizo monitor doesn't reveal an earth shattering magnitude of difference in quality. Considering size, weight, and cost of the 600mm Nikon attached to a FF camera compared to the Olympus 300mm attached to the M1 MKII one would be hard put to justify carrying such a beast on a long trek. As always beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and so are cameras.
A D850 with a 300 pf and 1.4x tc is just about the same price, lighter and smaller than that Olympus setup and gets much better image quality. Invest a few extra bucks and you get the 500pf, which blows the MFT completely out of the water by a mile at about the same size and weight.
Also tested without the TC and the results were similar. Just chose to show that example because the focal length was most similar.
@@youknowwho9247 Your setup is almost $900 USD more than the Olympus and is 420mm (1.4 x 300 = 420). On top of that the TC no doubt degrades the image. The setup is a 420mm f/5.6 for the Nikon while the Olympus is 600mm f/4 (not speaking of DOF). This hardly blows the Olympus out of the water.
@@TonyAndChelsea I can't find your video saying image quality is similar with and without a teleconverter. Please provide a link.
Worth reviewing the OM1 with 150-400 TC1.4 when available? I’d be interested to see how it compares to a Z9 with a 500/600mm prime
It's a pretty good review with some interesting test shots, but this is the same person that told everyone M4/3 was dead, so I have issues taking him seriously since he's already knocked the entire format. There's a bit of a conflict telling us that a Micro 4/3 lens on a soon to be dead platform is better than some other piece of glass. I do agree that it's a bad bet to compare a two thousand dollar lens with a 12 thousand dollar piece of glass. There is no escaping the fact that you get what you pay for. But I've seen stunning wildlife shots from Olympus photographers and with the advent of AI based sharpening and noise reduction, the playing field is leveling. Keep snapping!
I have both apsc and m43 ... both systems are very capable of excellent results. Usually I am the limiting factor! That said, your comparisons here have a lot of variables and compromises mixed into the analyses. As an older shooter, I have to gravitate to smaller kits and limit my travels and self-assignments. You & Chelsea have fun and thanks for the glimpses thru the big glass!
Panasonic lecia 100-400 is a great wildlife lens, very versatile especially as beginner, if your on a budget buy the Panasonic 100-300mm.
Absolutely. Want to get one of those ... still can't decide, which one though. >.<
100-300mm is also very attractive to me because of the weight. But I am not sure, if the better IQ and 100mm more reach might be worth the higher weight (and price).
Yeah, quite a few people have reported that the 100-300mm comes close to the 100-400, and that that Leica is not quite as highly regarded as the other Leicas (though, clearly plenty of happy users). I think Terry Lane had a video covering it.
@@uhu4677 i have the 100-300 mkII . That second version has dual is 2 on Pana bodies like G85 and up and also is wr . I just love it as i find the 200-300 more usefull than expected and rarely miss above 300 . The 100-400 is only slightly better and is more a specialty lens less practical to carry around , especially hand-held . The 5 feet minimum distance is also very handy to shoot shy dragonflies handhelp as challenging as it might sound.
At least two of those comparison tests were done with a 1.4 TeleConverter attached to the Olympus 300mm.
Why?
While the Olympus 300mm isn't as good as a FF 600mm, I've still seen incredible images shot with it, which are more than sharp enough.
So yeah, while FF is always going to be better, the Olympus is still an incredible option.
Always better?
@@BobK58 In terms of raw image quality potential, yes a larger sensor with the potential of more megapixels and dynamic range will always be better (if capitalized on that potential).You wont beat or match the FF Sony sensor in the A7R3 with a smaller sensor. But Image quality isn't the end all factor, otherwise everybody would use Fujifilms new 100mp medium format camera haha.
Tony I have Nikon D7200 . I used to have the sigma 150-500mm but sold it as I could never get a shot in focus. I was then advised to maybe try a monopod, had a go with my hubbys, wow in focus shots. What I'm wondering what super zoom lens would you recommend for my body. Roughly got about £2000 I could spend but don't know whether to go for the The AF‑S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR ( split the cost with hubby and share it ) or the sigma 150-500 F5 contemporary or the tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 VC USD G2 . Read reviews but totally getting confused with it all. Hope you can help .
Well, you can use the Nikon 300 PF with a 1.4 TC on a DX body to match the weight + reach of the Olympus system (since you said that doesn't exist).
The Nikon 300mm PF f/4 is a really nice lens. Think hard before dismissing it.
Hey Tony. Do you have any shots from the Olympus 300mm f4 that were taken when it wasn't pissing down with rain?
Yeah, they're in the video.
I thought M43 was dead Tony?
...looks like he's still beating it, like the proverbial horse...
That was a good and useful review; as you say, you can produce stellar results even with less than "the perfect" gear but if I'm spending my money I would like to know BEFORE I spend my money what is the most optimal outlay for my budget.
Tony the Nikon 300mm pf would a been a nice comparison to the olympus
Yeah i've read it's a great lens
So currently i own an D5600 with and 70-300mm and im planning on upgrading to either an Z7II or an Z8 whats your toughts? And should i get a prime lens like the 300 mm with an 2x converter or should i get the 180-600?
IBIS is NOT only for photos.... IBIS IS A MUST FOR VIDEO.... FOR VIDEO WILDLIFE, YOU CAN'T GO WRONG WITH THIS OLYMPUS!!!
No serious cinema cameras have IBIS, IBIS is not a must for video at all. Faster sensor readoff (and thus lower rolling shutter) is way more important to get good looking motion in handheld video
@@Made_by_Matthew Rubbish, fast sensor readoff is important in some cases, sure - but not for wildlife you're filming at 600mm equivalent. Cinema cameras don't have IBIS because they're used on rigs - which weigh a fuckton and are entirely impractical to carry around if you don't have an actual TEAM of people to operate the cameras. Cinema cameras are dumb if you're not producing an actual movie for money.
300mm f/4 should be compared to 600mm f/8. Then the lenses have the same aperture of 75mm.