The OM-1 shoots 25FPS with no black out in SH2. (with specific lenses, it does 50FPS, but with the 100-400 that you tested, 25FPS). You got 20 because you were not using SH2. You were using the slower burst electronic shutter with black outs. Please pin this comment so your viewers will not be misinformed. SH1 = 120FPS, S-AF, no blackout SH2 = 25FPS or 50FPS (depending on your lens), C-AF, no blackout High Speed Sequential = 20FPS (what you were using), C-AF, yes blackout
We got 13 FPS because AF performance was limited by the lens. But you're right that the theoretical maximum with that lens is 25, rather than 20. Regardless, that combo was unable to achieve it in our testing.
I have just moved from Nikon (D6 &D850) to OM mainly due to the weight of the FF gear and getting older. I have to say I have been pleasantly surprised and will be getting the OM-1 mkii in a few days. The lens quality is excellent and I can now carry all the lenses Andes bodies in one backpack.
Then why not to take a smaller camera from Olympus (OM-5) and a smaller lens (Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7) which is actually a better equivalent to Canon 100-400mm F/5.6-8.0 ? Or perhaps Panasonic 100-300mm F/4.5-5.6 coul[d be considered too.
Pro Capture should have been mentioned. It can almost guarantee the right moment vs much less likely without it. I wouldn’t have glossed over the weather sealing so quickly. The OM1 is built like a tank and sealed up well. This can really matter at times. As for weight, the OM1 with the 75-300 II is 225g lighter (it’s smaller too) than the R7+100-400 and the reach is the same; price wise the Olympus kit is only $350 more. The Olympus setup does cost more but that’s because they put so much into the OM1: Hand Held High Resolution Mode, Starry AF, Live ND, Pro Capture, Stacked Sensor coupled with a very fast processor, IP53 rated weather sealing, 50fps with AF, and more.
Exactly, the OM1 is their flagship, while the r7 is Canon’s lure for budget conscious wildlife enthusiasts. There’s a big difference between what both cameras are designed to be, so which one you choose might come down to how many of those OM1 features you will need or want. Weather sealing for wildlife is very important, I accidentally got mud sprayed all over my oly 100-400 on a walk once. When I got home I ran it under the tap briefly, dried it extended, no worries. That said you can get lens rain covers pretty cheap so that’s another option.
@@12symmo This is the most important fact when discussing this video comparison. They are chalk and cheese, why they are even being compared is beyond me! I have the OM-1ii having come from an R5 and R7 and the R7 is a significantly inferior camera which the price reflects.
@@djbuknard ...People are buying and making choices. I'd say get whichever one you want. I have both and use both. The real differences would be noticeably better auto-focus on the Olympus, it's waterproof with an adjustable pro-capture vs. 30 extra minutes of shooting at sunrise and dusk, the ability to shoot on dreary days, and a crippled, but usable, "pro-capture" for the R7. Per image battery use is about the same.
The 300m is an absolute monster, also in terms of sharpness. Even with the MC20 converter, the results are super sharp. Only the subject is a bit harder to get into the view since we're talking about 1200mm full-frame equivalent 😄
Olympus 100-400 does not support synchronized stabilization like 300mm f4,. 100-400mm is practically using only IBIS alone which is not very good at long focal lengths. That's probably reason for this result.
I have been using micro four thirds since it was four thirds… I have tried so many other cameras in that time. I have wasted so much money doing so. And I always, always come back to the Olympus. Now it’s an OM1 om systems. I have the 300mm lens and love it. I always return to it. It’s my go to camera. Always. I think it’s highly underrated. I don’t have any noise issues ever…. One thing the latest one has changed Is the control dials being recessed, and are significantly harder to use than they used to be. It’s nice to see you being objective with the OM-1, OM Systems camera. Olympus is no more. And am sad about the brand name going, but pleased it’s going to be kept going…
Many non photographic snobs are, still, very content with the OM1, or lesser models, and the long legged glass, particularly for "birding". I prefer wider angle landscape type shots and there's certainly less glass to choose from, however enough for my needs.
@@robertcudlipp3426I’d probably pay for a longer prime than the 300mm. I Was thinking of that expense telephoto one they released recently… but I won’t go there I don’t think. I am Considering the Panasonic 10-25mm for night skies and wide angle. But it’s so huge… I am After an Astro lens and really haven’t settled on one yet. Perhaps the 12 mm f1.4
G9II and Panasonic 100-400mm II would beat both. Or maybe the OM-1 with the Panasonic 100-400mm II (which is smaller, lighter, faster, cheaper than the Oly) would be a great choice too
I love to see some Micro four-thirds love. The OM-1 is such a great camera. I love the live comp, ND filters, and focus bracketing just to name a few. In your testing, I think the Canon was better on IBIS because the Olympus 100-400 is not a PRO lens and you are unable to use both in-camera and lens dual image stabilization. Many bird photographers have noted that choosing the lens IBIS rather than the in body IBIS in the menu system resulted in sharper images at lower shutter speeds. When the new Panasonic G9 II is released, it would be great to revisit this comparison as the Panasonic 100-400 II has OIS that allows the G9 II to have dual IBIS. It also has 60fps with focusing. Great review.
As an owner of both cameras I found this to be a totally fair review. It sounds like Tony has finally forgiven Olympus for claiming its 300 f4 to be the equivalent of the Canon 600 f4. I did buy the 300 anyway and love it. It also stabilizes better than the 100-400 I believe.
My husband is about to buy OM-1 and 300 mm F4. He is convinced this combination is almost professional like. At present, he shoots Pentax with 1.4TCx300 mm, which is perhaps upwards of 600mm equiv on full frame. So he is use to 300 mm already.
The 300 has better stabilization, focuses faster and outresolves the 100-400. it is in all criteria a better lens, but much more expensive and no zoom. If you want a zoom with the same or even better performance, there is only the even more expensive 150-400…
@@HusbandnWifeDuo I have recently change to OM-1 and EM1x with 3 lenses inclusding the 300f4. I cam from Using Nikon FF and Sony A1 and been a wildlife photographer for 30 yrs. The OM system is a full professional system. The fact that is uses a M43 sensor freaks people out as they believe you cannot produce professional quality images with the sensor. Well the OM-1 has specs that you do not find in the A1 or the Z9/Z8 or Canon R3. the 300 f4 and 40-150 and the 150-400f4.5 can compete with the best lenses on the market. So why M34? The image sensor is good enough and produce fantastic detail and IQ. Beter then what most photographers would ever need. It is light, fast and from a cost point, well ir is not even a debate. I still have a Z8 and 400 f4.5 for "just in Case". well the last 4 months, it has not made any trips including 10 days to Botswana. Dir I ever miss the camera or lens? no... So comparing the R7 to the OM-1.. Yes the Canon is great is you want a lower cost camera that will perform fine.
The OM System lens‘ lens hood is funny. I have this lens in the Olympus version. That has a separate, classic lens hood which can be mounted reversed. It is much deeper. The OM 100-400 is the most affordable “serious” super telephoto for MFT, so the appropriate choice for this comparison. Of course, the Canon combo could also be approached from the other direction with an OM-5 and the 75-300mm. I believe that that’s still better than the Canon 100-400.
as someone who has used Olympus omdem1 mk11 for over seven years. I worked in a garden centre and another member of staff gave me a tub of out-of-date ice cream (staff perk_) this was put in the top of my mind-shift camera bag. when I was home the next day I could smell mint choc? to my horror it had all melted and gone down and over my camera and pro lens they were covered ..... after my 10th attempt at cleaning I ran the camera and pro lens under the tap for 10 minutes and put the bag through the washing machine 100k of photos and five years later camera lens bag are still great. Would a canon have been up to this ?
I shoot with both the Sony A7IV and the OM-1. Living in Michigan I have had my Olympus gear in some tough weather. I did a beach shoot on Lake Michigan laying on my side in the water. I've had my Olympus gear in snow, sleet, downpours, freezing rain. The best camera for wild life is the one you can have with you ANYWHERE. I would never bother taking my Sony out in those kind of weather conditions. It's strictly a portrait lens because so many people are brainwashed Bokeh makes an portrait better. Seriously on the fence about just going back to a single system and it won't be the sony. I really hope to be able to do my trip to Isle Royal next year. A back injury made me cancel this year. The OM-1 will be going with me.
Todays drinking game. 1. mention of 'crop factor' - CHUG 2. BMW in the shot somehow - drink 3. apple watch in shot - sip 4. background bokeh - top up 5. in video advertisement - eat a pretzel
Can you add the Sony A6700 with the 70-350mm to the comparison? I would argue it's just as capable as these, while at the same time both smaller and lighter.
I couldn't believe they compare photos from the Canon and the Olympus, and then say that the poorer quality of the Canon photos is because there was no lens hood on the Canon, and then recommend buying a lens hood? They're supposed to be knowledgeable, experienced photo reviewers? Chelsea then goes on to say that it was fortunate that the Olympus lens has a built-in lens hood? Well, I own one and can say with certainty that it does not have a built-in, slide-out lens hood. It comes with a bayonet mountable hood and I never shoot it without the lens hood mounted. You don't see them using either lens with their respective manufacturer's lens hoods. Good grief. This video is a joke.
I've been shooting wildlife on an EM1 Mk II for a while and have considered switching to a Sony or Cannon, but the tradeoffs haven't quite seemed worth it. Glad to see Y'all review the OM-1 and mostly validate my perspective. Seems like I'm not losing *too* much staying with the system I have.
@@AnastasTarpanov oh I know it's not the same. I am just glad that the Olympus m4/3s ecosystem is still competitive. I'm obviously a few years behind, but there's only so many thousands I'm willing to put into this hobby.
The om-1 with that lens can burst as fast as 20fps. With select lenses as fast as 50fps with full af - with from my use has highly reliable and super fast af. Depending on if the settings are set to Detail Priority vs. Drive Priority will affect the actual fps. By reducing the af box to smallest / pinpoint will fix focusing in busy background / foreground situations. Regarding silent shutter: OM1 sensor readout speed is approximately 8 to 8.8 milliseconds and the canon is about 15 to 30 milliseconds depending what mode youre in. Canon R5 readout speed is approximately 9 to 15 milliseconds, and body costs more than the OM1 So the price of each is right for what youre paying for.
I have the OM-1 with the 150-400mm F4.5. I often add the 1.4x teleconverter. With the built in 1.25x teleconverter I get a ridiculous equivalent focal length of 1400mm. And, if I set it up at 2X, I can capture a RAW and high resolution JPEG at the same time. The RAW file doesn’t change but the high resolution JPEG is actually 2X! This produces incredible bird portraits. When set just to RAW the kit captures 50fps with the electronic shutter. Yes, Pro capture is great for capturing little birds taking off. This is a great kit for birds.
A vídeo that I asked to be made, Canon R 7 and OM-1. Comparing the burst rate, buffer and CAF with subject detection and lens selection. OM System is fully committed to wildlife.
The Olympus offers a SH (SuperHigh) setting with 25/50 frames per second (50 only for selected lenses, not including the 100-400) and up to 120 frames/s without AF. It also offer a precapture mode with the same values which is one of the biggest features for wildlife!
Note that we could only produce 13 FPS with the Oly when tracking AF. Both the cameras have a pro-capture/pre-shooting mode, but we honestly don't find it to be that useful. I wish there was a way to more instantly select it, like a separate shutter button, because when it's on you end up capturing hundreds of frames you didn't need, like out-of-focus frames when you were still lining up the shot.
I explained why you are wrong w fps in a different comment. As far as pre capture, you can configure it for a custom mode and assign a button to trigger it.
I have that same Canon combination and I have been able to get some amazing pictures. However, the lens flare/distortion/etc is a real issue, I’m amazed how clear and sharp the Olympus photos were! If I wasn’t so heavily invested in Canon’s ecosphere, I’d seriously consider switching to the Olympus system. One more thing, the R7 is weatherproofed, the 100-400, however, is not.
If you invest in a better quality lens like the 100-500 you will get much better results. Such an (expensive) lens will be good even for your next 1 or 2 bodies in the future, independent from APSC or FF
Another comparison: I have OM-1 with 300mm F4/1.4TLC and bought Canon R7 with RF100-500. To me, hands down the Boceh with the OM combo is is sometimes terrible. The Canon combo is just sharper, and less expensive and you have a lot more cropping power for birding. I've finally made the decision to move fully away from the OM platform and buy a used R5 MarkI as a second or primary body.
Seen great photos from both combos but I've never seen anything sharper than the 300 F4. Price wise they can both be had for around £3,000. I think it's much of a muchness really unless you get the 200-800 to use with the R7 and then the reach wins.
I think this is more of a market situation. In the current market, the 300mm f4 is too old of a lens to command that price. They knocked the price of the 40-150f2.8 down and it makes more sense at 1k (less than other system’s 70-200). But yeah if someone is going to pay 2700 for a lens, I would go for the rf 100-500. And I say this as an owner if many m43 pro lenses. If they sold the 300mmf4 at 1900 it would make way more sense.
Thanks yet again for an entertaining and interesting video! Just a small tech-comment: the area of the R7 sensor (22.2x14.8) is actually only 45% larger than the sensor in the OM-1 (17.4x13), not double! Regards Rikard
I have the OM 100-400mm and it never came with a built in hood, but a deeper traditional hood, that "small hood" you have on the lens looks like the Decoration Ring DR-79 that comes with the Olympus 300mm f/4 to cover the lens foot collar area when the foot is removed.
I think the biggest difference between the two systems is that the OM-1's stacked sensor makes the Pro Capture mode usable, whereas the R7's rolling shutter means that it might as well not have that feature in many circumstances. I often use that feature to capture birds in flight as they leave a feeder. My favorite photo that I have ever taken used the Pro Capture mode to capture an otter, jaws agape, with a fish in its mouth! In that frame, its eye was open and you could see all its teeth, which made it look really ferocious! Without Pro Capture, I would have probably filled up my buffer long before the decisive moment. The R7 is, by all accounts, a good camera, and paired with an old 500mm f/4, 400mm f/5.6, or 300mm f/2.8, I'm sure the results are outstanding for the price! However, the lack of a stacked sensor is a serious handicap compared to the OM-1.
Tony and Chelsea- the Olympus/OMSystem cameras are perhaps the most customizable mirrorless cameras and have been the leaders in computational features. As someone used to the Canon camera ecosystem, it is not surprising that you miss out on maximizing the performance of the OM-1. Your setup used SH-1 instead of SH-2 and got slower fps with continuous autofocus- the knock was on you not the camera. You also found Pro-Capture not useful, but it really is when you practice. BTW, Olympus pioneered this RAW buffering feature and prompted other manufacturers to include RAW Pre-focus features. I am quite surprised that you knocked the OM-1 IBS with the non-stabilized Olympus 100-400mm lens. This is a very well stabilized combo - but not quite up to the performance of the camera with either the Olympus 300mm f/4 of the 150-400 1.25x stabilized lenses synchronized with the camera’s IBIS. Perhaps when you set the Canon and Olympus lenses at 400mm, the effective resulting focal lengths due to the Canon 1.6x and Olympus 2x crop factors are 640mm vs 800mm. So make your comparisons at equivalent focal lengths.
I'd like to see a comparison with a Fuji X-T5 with the 70-300. I know it's not a wildlife specific set up but it is a fairly similar size to the cameras in this video and a bit cheaper. See if it can get away with some wildlife as a secondary use for it
Great video. Thank you for your recent OM-1 coverage. I love to see that camera in action and I'm saying this as a Nikon, Canon, and Sony shooter. I've heard its biggest strength is macro. Macro season is basically over here in the States but maybe you could try your luck with a good flash (godox V350) diffuser (Cygnustech) and macro lens (I think the OM 60mm is the one most OM-1 macro shooters use) next spring. I would love to get your opinion on this setup. They say you can focus stack with flash in camera with this setup unless you get a bad V350. Godox quality control is apparently pretty bad.
I moved from Nikon and Sony to OM after using Nikon for 30 yrs, Yes, it is great for Macro work even using the 40-150 f2.8 or 300 f4 at very close distances is amazing. But the AF system is very close to the Sony and Nikon systems on the Z8/9. Lens quality is stunning, people hit M43 for noise, well exposure is the key and has taken me back to film days. With Post Processing software, noise is not a problem any longer. It is an amazing system .
The price difference between the setups is so big... if you add that on the OM-1-setup, you'd get the R7 with the 100-500 and I'd like to see that matchup. In any case, you could have gotten the RF 100-400 a lens hood at that big price difference. It's a shame that it is not included, but for this comparison it would have benen necessary.
Maybe this could be a hint to Canon, to include lens hoods after decades to their „standard“ lenses and not only to the L-versions. To buy these additional lens hoods is a pain in the ass since I started with Canon in the 80s!
@@reinhardbecker284 It absolutely is a pain in the ass, butthe matchup here with a more than 1200 $ price difference AND lack of lens hood (which is far less than 1200 $) is quite uneven. This is a gripe about the video mainly :)
I put a third party JJC lens hood on my RF 100-400mm as soon as I got it. Readily available, fits perfectly and cost me around £10 at the time so not going to break the bank. I agree Canon should just throw a lens hood in with all of their lenses though.
Another candidate is the Sony RX10iv, giving f/4 with 20mp at a fov equivalent to 600mm in ff. It has decent AF and handling but the motorized zoom I've found difficult to precisely adjust. It's fully weather sealed and with its fixed lens mount the sensor remains clean. Added plus is that it's zoom covers a range going down to a ff fov of a 27mm. Weight is around 1.2 kg. Central sharpness of the lens is fine. F/4 at 600mm equiv is very handy for keeping ISO and shutter speed where we want them.
+1 to @arandomdudewithhobbies3318 and I'll add that by the time you crop to 800mm, you're down to 11 megapixels at 800mm f/14. But the RX10 is definitel a powerful telephoto!
@@arandomdudewithhobbies3318 But it’s roughly the same amount of light as these two cameras+lenses are gathering given that the lenses are slower. These two camera-lens combinations are definitely superior wildlife tools to the RX10 IV. If you know you’re only going to shoot within the narrow range these lenses cover, they’re better options. If you want to shoot something
Thanks for spending more time with cropped sensor cameras. I don't see them ever replacing the Z9's, R5's and Sony A1's of the world but they do offer worthy alternatives when there is a need to travel light or to tread lightly on one's bank account.
I got mud all up my oly 100-400 on a wildlife walk once where I didn’t realise how deep a muddy bit of ground would be. I rinsed it under the tap when I got home, dried it fully extended, no problems since (em1 mark 2). An advantage of the r7 is that you can easily adapt the newer sigma and tamron offerings if you want even more effective focal length. I find the Olympus lens offerings more limited, and being able to use the vast range of EF mount L lenses is one of my main reasons for moving away from m43 to canon and Sony.
I sold my R7 (working with a 100-500 L) to buy an OM-1, there is no comparison , far better results with the OM-1 (and i.m a 30 years Canon shooter). The AF and shutter of the R7 is terribly bad. Still using the 100-500 with a R5 and it's also a go to kit, but not the same price!
OM1: 50 fps with tracking and no finder blackout. You have to do your homework better! Watch Mike Lane, a supreme wildlive photographer from the UK. He knows a lot about the OM1.
The 100-400 theoretically supports 25 in SH2, but our testing produced only 13 FPS regardless of the mode. FPS can be limited by the autofocus performance of the lens; it takes some time between shots to keep the subject in focus.
The 40-150mm f/2.8 with the MC-20 teleconverter seems to focus much faster than the 100-400. I haven't tested it, but when I rented the 100-400, it did seem like the autofocus was slower and less reliable. Also, with the 40-150 + MC-20, you should be able to get 50 fps (at least theoretically).
5:18 "But that didn't necessarily mean it was always getting it -- YOU'RE GOING TO HIT YOUR HEAD -- but that didn't necessarily mean..." Well done, Chelsea! :)
Honestly, the best backpacking camera and lens combination I can think of is the Sony RX10 IV. Yes, it doesn't have as much resolution or telephoto reach as these options, but it is much lighter weight and every ounce counts when you have to carry it on your back all day! I wouldn't even consider going backpacking with a camera and lens combination that weighed more than 2.5 pounds! For a lighter weight and less expensive choice, you could go with the Panasonic RX330, but the autofocus leaves a lot to be desired. I suppose another choice would be an Olympus OM-5 with a Panasonic 100-300mm, a 12-32mm for landscapes, and a 20mm f/1.7 for environmental portraits.
That Sony RX10 IV is tempting. The most fun I've had with photography, if not the best results, was with a superzoom bridge camera. I just looked at some RX10 IV reviews and sample images, and it seems like a pretty good unit.
Great to see you guys venturing into crop/m4/3 sensor territory again... and great & fair comparison... Since you asked, this would be my wish: I think there's a lot of people that are wondering how OM-1 would compare against G9ii once it's released (both with their respective 100-400 lenses + TCs, and Oly 40-150 f2.8 / Leica 50-200 2.8-4.0... with TCs)...
Perfect video on helping me decide because these were the exact two options I was considering. Pro-capture is what keeps me with OM-SYSTEM. I had wondered about rolling shutter on the R7 and there is no way I'm using the preshutter electric burst with the R7.
I have to say I’m only a casual wildlife shooter and don’t make much use of pro capture for wildlife, but it’s great fun for taking photos of your pets pulling funny expressions 😅 Also great for capturing lightning and storms, although the 1/30 second lower limit can be challenging.
@@12symmo I definitely agree. I use it for events also for that reason. I've never done photos of lightening but I think Live Composite mode might be beneficial to use. You may already do so but that's the first thing I thought of.
@@RobShootPhotos I did try live comp, unfortunately it meant the imagine became ridiculously bright very quickly just from the ambient flashes. It’s possible I needed to experiment more to get the right settings, but pro capture was doing a good job so I stuck with it.
It would be interesting to compare the Panasonic LUMIX G9 II to these. I’ve got the Lumix G9 and the Canon R7. The G9 feel more like better built camera. I’m cautious about taking the R7 into rain or even fog without covering it up. Seriously considering selling the R7 and buying the G9 II.
Except for the 150-400 the G9ii is faster focusing then the OM1. So the Lumix is also a very good choice. Let‘s see wat the OM1 can do with a FW upgrade, which should be available in Feb…
Good video, but to be fair you didn't mention some of the OM-1's additional features of built in ND filter or high megapixel shots. Not that big a deal for wildlife but could come in handy for related photography.
I recently bought the Olympus 100-400 for my OM-1. But it doesn’t have a built in lens hood like yours; it came with a large hood that attaches bayonet style. Perhaps the UK stock has a different spec? My lens replaced a 300 F4 Pro, because I found the prime lens too restrictive. Surprisingly, my 100-400 lens is almost as sharp as the prime.
Interesting find about the stabilization. Wouldn't have guessed it, but it goes to show that for really long lenses, in-lens stabilization is just more effective.
By the time you crop to 800mm equivalent, this combo is down to 11 megapixels, which is pretty low for subjects like birds. But check out the Sony 200-600, which won our big lens comparison: ruclips.net/video/QWCt9QI4tJc/видео.html
My main stills cameras are Sony a6400 and Panasonic G85. I also have a couple of other Micro 4/3 bodies and a few lenses. One nice thing about Micro 4/3 is that I can step sideways into other equipment with (usually minor) differences that give me more optimum results for certain applications. For video, the Panasonics tend to be more optimal. For weather sealing, the Olympus. For stabilization, I'm not sure, but the latest Panasonics might be better. And the wide array of high quality lenses for M4/3, some of which can be found used can also help.
I have the r10 with 600 f11 and I think that's all I'd need for lightweight bird videography. With the 4k 60 crop and digital IS I get about 1700mm at 3 pounds total weight.
I thought the Olympus 100-400 wound be average but bought it anyway, im really pleased with the results, feels great on a E-M1X and easy to carry around the zoo. Theres an issue with some users reporting screws falling out on the lens where the hood goes on but you can watch out for that
I actually use the OM-1 with the Panasonic 100-400 lens, but I have never tested burst rate on this combination. I got the first Olympus E-M5 back in 2013, and have not switched system since that time. I am not sure what I had chosen today given that other APS-C and full frame systems now also have weather sealed lenses and good image stabilization.
Thank you for this - and respect to Tony who repeatedly said, MfT is dead and then bringing this review which kind of accepts that this was a misassumption (I know, you had about a month ago already some MFT gear). I like the gear you have chosen (I own the OM-1 with 100-400 by myself) but it is not the lightest you can get. If you take the OM-5 with the Olympus 75-300 or the Panasonic 100-300 MkII you are way below 1kg (under 2lbs). I would not recommend to go on a wildlife shoot with those. But I am a hiker, and I had that gear as a second camera when doing a tracking around Manaslu in Nepal. I had the OM-1 with the great 8-25 and the EM5 MkIII with the Panasonic 100-300II (same weight as the new OM-5). Hiking and photography is a bit of a tricky thing. You cannot really prepare, and you are not able to sit and wait for the right shot. You need to walk with open eyes and be prepared for any shot. And in the past I learned, that changing a lens is usually too slow. Birds or marmots are not waiting for such. In addition, you are often in harsh conditions (dust, rain) and you do not want to access your sensor to that. So it makes sense to having two bodies with respective lenses (robust, light and interchangeable).
There is a video that compares the R5 to the OM-1. Probably a little closer than an R7. The guy loved and was blown away by the OM-1 IQ. TG Photography. Glad to see you guys offer a hint of praise to OM. But I still question some features you did not seem to use.
I do like the R5 better than the R7, but it has a lower pixel density and would be at 11 megapixels by the time you cropped to 800mm. However, the R5 with the 100-500 did extremely well in our bigger comparison: ruclips.net/video/QWCt9QI4tJc/видео.html
Some of the limitations, particularly sharpness and IS, might be lens-dependent. I'd love to see a comparison of these two cameras using the best available lenses, the 300mm F4 for the OM-1 versus..whatever you can buy for the R7 that's really good.
I bought the R7 last January. People should be advised about the autofocus problems too. I don't know about other brands, but after paying $2000 CDN for a camera, I could have done without rolling shutter and autofocus problems. Shame Canon is turning a deaf ear to customer complaints.
If you want something even smaller and lighter, you could go with the Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6 on either a G9 II or an OM-1. It's not as sharp as the 100-400, but when I'm going on a long hike and weight is more important than sharpness, that's my telephoto lens of choice. I usually end up keeping that on my camera when I'm planning to take some landscape photos, but I want to be prepared just in case I encounter a moose or a bear or a fisher or some other elusive wildlife on the trail.
I have both the OM-1 and the R7 (as well as a R5). You should try the OMS 40-150 f/2.8 Pro with the 1.4x extender. Gives you a 128-420mm FFE @f/4.0)( The OMS 100-400 is known to be a little soft.) I am in the process of comparing the R7 with the RF 100-500 to the OM-1 with the OMS 150-400 f/4.5. (yeah big price difference) at the 800mm equivalent. Results are mixed so far noise wise, but the OM-1 combo appears sharper...we'll see. More testing when i get some decent weather.
I have the Oly OM-1 and the 40-150 f2.8 + 1.4 extender, and I absolutely love it. Had the Oly 100-400 and took over 40,000 images, which I really enjoyed using and images were great but traded it in for the Oly 150-400 f4. It is incredible, I crave getting outdoors amongst the wildlife with it. It is an absolute joyful combo.
Thanks! Please also do a full review of the OM-1 including its computational features - built in ND, focus stacking, high res, etc. make it a great travel and adventure camera. This seems to be a great compromise between a phone camera and a traditional mirrorless camera.
Yeah I picked it because of the pixel density for macro, as well as the computational photography features. Live composite was designed for me since I do long exposure fire spinning photos.
With the 100-400, SH2 is limited to 25 FPS. In our testing, it produced only 13 FPS. Performance is limited by the time the lens takes to focus between frames.
Thanks a lot for this detailed comparison. I am puzzled by the comment at 7:35 regarding the low light performance. The sensor shouldn't have anything to do with it. The important element is how much light illuminates the sensor. Both cameras are 100-400, so that makes the comparison easier. The canon is f5.6-8 but it is a full frame lens so half the light falls outside the sensor, so effectively the sensor collects as much light as from an f8-11 lens. The Olympus is f5-6.3 and a dedicated M43 lens so all the light falls on the sensor. With these numbers, I would expect the canon combination to perform noticeably worse than the olympus. What am I missing?
I do show this on the chalkboard slide. When you're zoomed/cropped to 800mm, the OM is about a stop faster, so it's gathering more light. But at wider angles (even 600mm) it's much closer. Regardless, we do our assessments in this test based on real-world results rather than metrics.
f/ stop is a ratio of the focal length of the lens to the diameter of the opening through which light passes. The size of the sensor does not change the f/ stop. If you adapt a Canon 300mm f/2.8 and an Olympus 300mm f/2.8 to the same camera body, you get the same amount of light hitting the sensor, even though the Canon is designed for a full frame sensor and the Olympus is designed for a four thirds sensor because the diameter of the opening and the focal length are equal. However, the fact that the Canon lens is meant for a larger sensor means that you can use a speed booster or other focal reducer to essentially do the inverse of what a teleconverter does. Such devices shorten the focal length and brighten the aperture, but they can only be used if the image circle of the lens is significantly larger than the sensor. Also, keep in mind that for as long as I can remember, Sony sensors have outperformed Canon sensors in low light, while Canon has usually had the edge in pixel count. Since Olympus cameras use Sony sensors, it is not surprising that the Olympus offers superior low light performance. Another factor to consider is light transmission. The t/stop of a lens is usually about a third of a stop slower than its f/ stop because some of the light that hits the front element will be absorbed or reflected by the glass, but the exact amount varies from one lens to another, so a lens's f/ stop only gives us a rough approximation of the actual amount of light hitting the sensor. Sometimes that can be at least partially attributable to a manufacturer overstating the aperture of their lens by a fraction of a stop. (They might call a lens an f/4 when it is actually f/4.3, for instance.)
@@TonyAndChelsea I use HHHR all the time shooting owls perched on trees. It really depends on the subject. If you shoot wildlife, you'd know how still they are. It's very easy to get a sharp shot. The color fidelity, noise performance and detail are significantly better with HHHR. It is particularly useful shooting perched owls in low light. Of course, it would be useless shooting BIFs, but not all wildlife is BIF. Likewise, not all wildlife shooting would require framerates like 25FPS+, yet, they are features you compare and discuss about. Perhaps you should give HHHR a try shooting perched subjects. It's a feature I often use. I can share results if you'd like.
@@TonyAndChelseawhat? Procapture is like the most useful feature on the om1 for wildlife, next time try it with those kingfishers and you will be mindblown how easy is getting the perfect shot when it takes off from the perch or for landing shots, or any sudden action, by the way, Om1 is capable of 50fps with pro lenses (for wildlife = 40-150,300, and 150-400) with the later 2 you will also get sync is,which will destroy stabilization on the r7, also that stabilization lens was not a real test here, the r7 was at an equivalent 640mm and the Om1 at 800mm, try again that test zooming the olympus 100-400 at 320mm (640mm equiv.) And lets see which one wins in the stabilization lens 😉, and I can keep going with the list.
Keep in mind that @TonyAndChelsea value their wildlife photos by how shallow the depth of field is, not by whether or not they actually managed to capture an image of an animal doing anything interesting! You never see them traveling to remote areas in search of illusive wildlife, attempting to capture hunting behavior or other decisive moments because they aren't making money selling their photographs. They make their money by selling books and getting kickbacks from their sponsors, so the more you spend at KEH or Adorama or one of their other sponsors, the more money they make. Consequently, their idea of wildlife photography is taking boring shots of common birds like ospreys in flight or perhaps a songbird perched on a bird feeder because it requires little cost or effort and they can show off how spending more money can get you better results in that particular circumstance. Real wildlife photographers like Andy Rouse and Mike Lane recognize the value of a pre burst function because they use it for their professional work on a daily basis. I think the R7 has some sort of pre burst function, but its usefulness is limited by the rolling shutter.
@@keithholland9401 do they have a website or something where I can see their wildlife photos? I didn't even know they shoot wildlife (outside of review purposes).
Just remember folks people use to shoot wildlife with film cameras so get out there and shoot with whatever you got! haha But I'm voting for the Olympus, that OM1 is full some awesome features such as live ND and handheld highres shot mode. Not to mention the awesome IBIS that will help with shooting video of your wildlife handheld.
I use OMD E5 bodies and a ZUIKO 75-300 4.8-6.7 lens (and plenty of other lenses). This weighs 1Kg is much shorter than what you are waving around and is the equivalent of a 150-600 zoom at 35mm. 600mm handheld even with stabilisation is pushing it. I can tell you Elephants, Gorillas, Kingfishers do not sit still while you set up a tripod. That lens cost 295$, It's not plastic, any ZUIKO lens works damn good only a pixel picker might be able to tell the difference. What surprises me is the Cost of the OM body. I am fairly sure my E5 bodies cost 500$ new and 145$ Second hand. Now Weatherproofing I can answer perhaps. The E5 was explicitly weatherproof. You can pour a pint of beer over it, gently rinse it in tepid water, dry gently AND in the morning it still works
You will get many more keepers if you pair the OM1 with a Pro-class telephoto lens from OM Systems. Their AF mechanisms are significantly faster than the consumer grade 100-400 you tested the camera with.
But then you would also get more and better quality if you pair the R7 with the superb RF 100-500mm L lens but you are going up significantly in price in both cases.
Tony, have you done or will you do a complete walk-through of the OM-1 Mark II like you did the EM-1 Mark II? That video was a HUGE help to me getting started in Olympus digital!
Not considering price but ony weight, the Nikon 400mm F4.5 & 600mm F6.3 along with Z8 is still pretty lightweight and has definite advantages. Please if you guys can make a comparison video of the Nikon 400mm f4.5, 600mm f6.3 & 180-600mm f6.3 🙏🏽
Never any love for the R7. I have the R7 and the RF 100-500... and I'm here to tell you that is one fantastic combination. I took it to Yellowstone over the Memorial Day week in 2023 and got stunning images.
Love from Mississauga, Ontario! We both watched this video on our TV a few hours ago and liked it a lot. We both thought that overall features wise OM-1 is far better. For example, it has pro-capture and built in ND filters that can render beautiful slow shutter flowing water and waterfalls shots. The camera itself is lighter than Canon R7. My husband has eyes on it and he keeps telling family members about its features. (As enthusiasts, husband is a Pentax and Canon RP (for home use) shooter and I am a Nikon Z-6ii shooter. Our children use whatever camera they can lay their hands on (mostly Pentax KP and Canon RP)).
@@TonyAndChelsea Knowing the behavior of the wildlife you are attempting to photograph is often more important than the equipment you're using. Pro Capture/Pre Capture is useful because if you know the behavior of the animal you are photographing, you can anticipate decisive moments and capture them without filling up your buffer as you wait for the action to take place. For instance, if you see a woodpecker making its way up the trunk of a dead tree, you know it will fly once it reaches the top, so you set the camera to Pro Capture/Pre Capture, and half depress the shutter as you wait for it to fly. It works great for capturing a heron or egret striking its beak into the water to grab a fish or for capturing a bird in flight as it leaves a feeder or nest or even for simply capturing a squirrel when it is jumping instead of sitting still. I used that feature a lot when a pair of river otters showed up at a local cemetery and people from all over New England came to photograph them. I got a great shot of one of them with its mouth wide open and a fish tail sticking out. You could see all its teeth and in that frame, its eye was open. Without a pre burst mode, my buffer would have probably filled up long before I got that shot. I often find myself half depressing the shutter anticipating some possible action and then releasing it because nothing happens. Ultimately, photography is about light, composition, and moment, and Pro Capture/Pre Capture are just as revolutionary for capturing decisive moments as autofocus was in the 1980s.
I've had a couple of talented wildlife shooters add the R7 and 100-500 to their kit and both has sold them after a year and are sticking with their OM-1 setups because overall, the OM is just a better system for everything unpredictable. I also have Sony FF and super telephotos and 90% of the time I'm using the OM gear as it's just more capable with the unpredictability in nature/wildlife situations. In predictable situation, the playing field sometimes favors the other guys, but I think there's still, unfortunately, nobody really doing the computational work OM does. Use what works but for the money, those of use using multiple systems go back to OM for this genre, most of the time. Now I don't like the 100-400 and sold mine after using it a couple of years. Probably the heavier 150-600 customized to suit OM-1 would perform better, having syncIS, especially for handheld and video clips of wildlife, but I think cost wise and weight wise, I'd rather get closer to the subject if possible and safe and use better glass like the 40-150 and 300. If someone wants to really get into nature photography, OM is a very good system for the money, to become expert in the genre; perhaps the best system out there unless they have tens of thousands of dollars to dispose of and can afford anything and everything. Still, the computational features in OM surpass every other system available... so far.
I still haven't found a reasonable FF replacement for OM-1 + 300/4. Anyone who has used this combo knows what I mean - razor sharp, no aberrations, 50fps pre-capture with AF, and that sweet stacked sensor. And stabilization that allows you to go as low as 1/10s.
Interesting review guys but you've missed so much the OM 1 mk2 does- apart from the 8 stops of stabilisation the ffs shooting gives in addition to 20 you mention 50 and even 120 in pro capture mode, astro photography, 50 and 80 mp shots, live composite ,focus stacking etc etc putting all this together you get a lot for your money and in a v neat compact body. Have hardly scratched the surface over what it can do -highly recommended
I want Nikon to bring out a professional grade Z90 with a 28 or 34 megapixel BSI stacked sensor with the current image processor that’s in the Z8 & Z9.
Wow you have a real problem with OM Systems your incomplete comments of OM-1 are misleading. What is the point of FF? You can crop down to 20 mbs, nice advantage. Competent photographers frame on the fly. When I train for long distance hiking (rucking) I don't bother with bricks in my backpack I grab a friends Canon gear and off I go. What a great work out and my friend is still paying for the ballast.
A little late to the party on this one. Never shot with Cannon so I don't know much about this camera. I do shoot OM-1 and it is a great camera. The one thing that was not discussed is what happens when you move up to more professional lenses and is there a bigger weight penalty with Cannon? Price seemed to be a factor in designing the two set ups for testing which is totally appropriate for the comparison. One thing that holds OM back is the price of their lenses. The 100-400 should be priced closer to $1000 and the 150-400 seems like it should be priced around 4.5 to 5K. A lot of threads reference the Oly 300 F4. It is a much better lens than the 100-400, except that the zoom is with your feet. It also cost a lot more than the 100-400. But this comparison doesn't change the most important maxim in photography, learn the camera in your hand and take great pictures.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
The OM-1 shoots 25FPS with no black out in SH2. (with specific lenses, it does 50FPS, but with the 100-400 that you tested, 25FPS). You got 20 because you were not using SH2. You were using the slower burst electronic shutter with black outs. Please pin this comment so your viewers will not be misinformed.
SH1 = 120FPS, S-AF, no blackout
SH2 = 25FPS or 50FPS (depending on your lens), C-AF, no blackout
High Speed Sequential = 20FPS (what you were using), C-AF, yes blackout
Yes, but it's an OM-1 and m43 so ...
Nice! OM-1 is the best and clear winner.
@@formermpc10 so...
@@formermpc10 so what?
We got 13 FPS because AF performance was limited by the lens. But you're right that the theoretical maximum with that lens is 25, rather than 20. Regardless, that combo was unable to achieve it in our testing.
I have just moved from Nikon (D6 &D850) to OM mainly due to the weight of the FF gear and getting older. I have to say I have been pleasantly surprised and will be getting the OM-1 mkii in a few days. The lens quality is excellent and I can now carry all the lenses Andes bodies in one backpack.
You can not miss pro-capture feature on OM-1. That makes bird action photography so much better.
Canon has added a similar feature on the R7!
Of course the OM1 is more expensive, it has a ton more features than that Canon camera that’s not mentioned here.
I believe the point of this video was comparing two smaller capable wildlife setups, and not a which camera has more all around features comparison.
Then why not to take a smaller camera from Olympus (OM-5) and a smaller lens (Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7) which is actually a better equivalent to Canon 100-400mm F/5.6-8.0 ? Or perhaps Panasonic 100-300mm F/4.5-5.6 coul[d be considered too.
Pro Capture should have been mentioned. It can almost guarantee the right moment vs much less likely without it. I wouldn’t have glossed over the weather sealing so quickly. The OM1 is built like a tank and sealed up well. This can really matter at times. As for weight, the OM1 with the 75-300 II is 225g lighter (it’s smaller too) than the R7+100-400 and the reach is the same; price wise the Olympus kit is only $350 more. The Olympus setup does cost more but that’s because they put so much into the OM1: Hand Held High Resolution Mode, Starry AF, Live ND, Pro Capture, Stacked Sensor coupled with a very fast processor, IP53 rated weather sealing, 50fps with AF, and more.
Exactly, the OM1 is their flagship, while the r7 is Canon’s lure for budget conscious wildlife enthusiasts. There’s a big difference between what both cameras are designed to be, so which one you choose might come down to how many of those OM1 features you will need or want.
Weather sealing for wildlife is very important, I accidentally got mud sprayed all over my oly 100-400 on a walk once. When I got home I ran it under the tap briefly, dried it extended, no worries. That said you can get lens rain covers pretty cheap so that’s another option.
@@12symmo This is the most important fact when discussing this video comparison. They are chalk and cheese, why they are even being compared is beyond me! I have the OM-1ii having come from an R5 and R7 and the R7 is a significantly inferior camera which the price reflects.
@@djbuknard ...People are buying and making choices. I'd say get whichever one you want. I have both and use both. The real differences would be noticeably better auto-focus on the Olympus, it's waterproof with an adjustable pro-capture vs. 30 extra minutes of shooting at sunrise and dusk, the ability to shoot on dreary days, and a crippled, but usable, "pro-capture" for the R7. Per image battery use is about the same.
I have om 1 and there is fantastic stabilization with 300 f4. And I will never believe that Canon is better
that`s right
The 300m is an absolute monster, also in terms of sharpness. Even with the MC20 converter, the results are super sharp. Only the subject is a bit harder to get into the view since we're talking about 1200mm full-frame equivalent 😄
Olympus 100-400 does not support synchronized stabilization like 300mm f4,. 100-400mm is practically using only IBIS alone which is not very good at long focal lengths. That's probably reason for this result.
I'm thinking about the 300F4 for a burning man lens. Anything that zooms will suck dust in so I need a prime.
I get sharp 2 to 4 second handheld exposures with the R7 and the 24mm 1.8 lens. The stabilization is extraordinary.
I have been using micro four thirds since it was four thirds… I have tried so many other cameras in that time. I have wasted so much money doing so. And I always, always come back to the Olympus. Now it’s an OM1 om systems. I have the 300mm lens and love it.
I always return to it. It’s my go to camera. Always. I think it’s highly underrated. I don’t have any noise issues ever…. One thing the latest one has changed
Is the control dials being recessed, and are significantly harder to use than they used to be.
It’s nice to see you being objective with the OM-1, OM Systems camera. Olympus is no more. And am sad about the brand name going, but pleased it’s going to be kept going…
Many non photographic snobs are, still, very content with the OM1, or lesser models, and the long legged glass, particularly for "birding".
I prefer wider angle landscape type shots and there's certainly less glass to choose from, however enough for my needs.
@@robertcudlipp3426I’d probably pay for a longer prime than the 300mm. I
Was thinking of that expense telephoto one they released recently… but I won’t go there I don’t think.
I am Considering the Panasonic 10-25mm for night skies and wide angle. But it’s so huge… I am
After an Astro lens and really haven’t settled on one yet. Perhaps the 12 mm f1.4
I think it’s because we hear that low light performance thing a lot, but in reality I find that more solved by the lens than the camera.
G9II and Panasonic 100-400mm II would beat both. Or maybe the OM-1 with the Panasonic 100-400mm II (which is smaller, lighter, faster, cheaper than the Oly) would be a great choice too
Good to see OM/Olympus getting a go 👍
I love to see some Micro four-thirds love. The OM-1 is such a great camera. I love the live comp, ND filters, and focus bracketing just to name a few. In your testing, I think the Canon was better on IBIS because the Olympus 100-400 is not a PRO lens and you are unable to use both in-camera and lens dual image stabilization. Many bird photographers have noted that choosing the lens IBIS rather than the in body IBIS in the menu system resulted in sharper images at lower shutter speeds. When the new Panasonic G9 II is released, it would be great to revisit this comparison as the Panasonic 100-400 II has OIS that allows the G9 II to have dual IBIS. It also has 60fps with focusing. Great review.
As an owner of both cameras I found this to be a totally fair review. It sounds like Tony has finally forgiven Olympus for claiming its 300 f4 to be the equivalent of the Canon 600 f4. I did buy the 300 anyway and love it. It also stabilizes better than the 100-400 I believe.
My husband is about to buy OM-1 and 300 mm F4. He is convinced this combination is almost professional like. At present, he shoots Pentax with 1.4TCx300 mm, which is perhaps upwards of 600mm equiv on full frame. So he is use to 300 mm already.
The 300 has better stabilization, focuses faster and outresolves the 100-400. it is in all criteria a better lens, but much more expensive and no zoom. If you want a zoom with the same or even better performance, there is only the even more expensive 150-400…
The 300 uses full sync IS, so it's considerably more stable.
@@HusbandnWifeDuo I have recently change to OM-1 and EM1x with 3 lenses inclusding the 300f4. I cam from Using Nikon FF and Sony A1 and been a wildlife photographer for 30 yrs. The OM system is a full professional system. The fact that is uses a M43 sensor freaks people out as they believe you cannot produce professional quality images with the sensor. Well the OM-1 has specs that you do not find in the A1 or the Z9/Z8 or Canon R3. the 300 f4 and 40-150 and the 150-400f4.5 can compete with the best lenses on the market. So why M34? The image sensor is good enough and produce fantastic detail and IQ. Beter then what most photographers would ever need. It is light, fast and from a cost point, well ir is not even a debate. I still have a Z8 and 400 f4.5 for "just in Case". well the last 4 months, it has not made any trips including 10 days to Botswana. Dir I ever miss the camera or lens? no... So comparing the R7 to the OM-1.. Yes the Canon is great is you want a lower cost camera that will perform fine.
The OM System lens‘ lens hood is funny. I have this lens in the Olympus version. That has a separate, classic lens hood which can be mounted reversed. It is much deeper. The OM 100-400 is the most affordable “serious” super telephoto for MFT, so the appropriate choice for this comparison. Of course, the Canon combo could also be approached from the other direction with an OM-5 and the 75-300mm. I believe that that’s still better than the Canon 100-400.
I picked up on the lens hood, too. Like you, my lens has the classic bayonet fitting hood.
What is that "built in lens hood" in the Olympus 100-400mm? Last time I checked, the 100-400mm uses LH-76D..
I think they just mean that the hood comes with the lens, not as a separate purchase.
as someone who has used Olympus omdem1 mk11 for over seven years. I worked in a garden centre and another member of staff gave me a tub of out-of-date ice cream (staff perk_)
this was put in the top of my mind-shift camera bag. when I was home the next day I could smell mint choc? to my horror it had all melted and gone down and over my camera and pro lens they were covered ..... after my 10th attempt at cleaning I ran the camera and pro lens under the tap for 10 minutes and put the bag through the washing machine 100k of photos and five years later camera lens bag are still great.
Would a canon have been up to this ?
Well.. Did you do it again?
I mean.. put icecream om top og your camera?
I hope not. Because I think that it deserves a more loving home if you did..
Every repair of the OM-1 costs 724€ in germany. Regardless what issue.
I shoot with both the Sony A7IV and the OM-1. Living in Michigan I have had my Olympus gear in some tough weather. I did a beach shoot on Lake Michigan laying on my side in the water. I've had my Olympus gear in snow, sleet, downpours, freezing rain. The best camera for wild life is the one you can have with you ANYWHERE. I would never bother taking my Sony out in those kind of weather conditions. It's strictly a portrait lens because so many people are brainwashed Bokeh makes an portrait better. Seriously on the fence about just going back to a single system and it won't be the sony. I really hope to be able to do my trip to Isle Royal next year. A back injury made me cancel this year. The OM-1 will be going with me.
Todays drinking game.
1. mention of 'crop factor' - CHUG
2. BMW in the shot somehow - drink
3. apple watch in shot - sip
4. background bokeh - top up
5. in video advertisement - eat a pretzel
Can you add the Sony A6700 with the 70-350mm to the comparison? I would argue it's just as capable as these, while at the same time both smaller and lighter.
Exactly also better autofocus 😊
It was excluded from this comparison because it would be about 11 megapixels at 800mm.
I couldn't believe they compare photos from the Canon and the Olympus, and then say that the poorer quality of the Canon photos is because there was no lens hood on the Canon, and then recommend buying a lens hood? They're supposed to be knowledgeable, experienced photo reviewers? Chelsea then goes on to say that it was fortunate that the Olympus lens has a built-in lens hood? Well, I own one and can say with certainty that it does not have a built-in, slide-out lens hood. It comes with a bayonet mountable hood and I never shoot it without the lens hood mounted. You don't see them using either lens with their respective manufacturer's lens hoods. Good grief. This video is a joke.
I've been shooting wildlife on an EM1 Mk II for a while and have considered switching to a Sony or Cannon, but the tradeoffs haven't quite seemed worth it. Glad to see Y'all review the OM-1 and mostly validate my perspective. Seems like I'm not losing *too* much staying with the system I have.
OM-1 it's completely different camera. I'm using both of them and I hate when I need to use the E-M1 Mark II.
OM-1 is a revelation. You are missing out just to save a buck. awesome combo with the 150-400. life is short
@@godsinbox I'm not so much into wildlife, but I'll take 150-400 now if I had an opportunity!
Well, it does depend on your budget and weight requirements. You might want to check out this video: ruclips.net/video/QWCt9QI4tJc/видео.html
@@AnastasTarpanov oh I know it's not the same. I am just glad that the Olympus m4/3s ecosystem is still competitive. I'm obviously a few years behind, but there's only so many thousands I'm willing to put into this hobby.
The om-1 with that lens can burst as fast as 20fps. With select lenses as fast as 50fps with full af - with from my use has highly reliable and super fast af. Depending on if the settings are set to Detail Priority vs. Drive Priority will affect the actual fps.
By reducing the af box to smallest / pinpoint will fix focusing in busy background / foreground situations.
Regarding silent shutter: OM1 sensor readout speed is approximately 8 to 8.8 milliseconds and the canon is about 15 to 30 milliseconds depending what mode youre in. Canon R5 readout speed is approximately 9 to 15 milliseconds, and body costs more than the OM1 So the price of each is right for what youre paying for.
I have the OM-1 with the 150-400mm F4.5. I often add the 1.4x teleconverter. With the built in 1.25x teleconverter I get a ridiculous equivalent focal length of 1400mm. And, if I set it up at 2X, I can capture a RAW and high resolution JPEG at the same time. The RAW file doesn’t change but the high resolution JPEG is actually 2X! This produces incredible bird portraits. When set just to RAW the kit captures 50fps with the electronic shutter. Yes, Pro capture is great for capturing little birds taking off. This is a great kit for birds.
A vídeo that I asked to be made, Canon R 7 and OM-1. Comparing the burst rate, buffer and CAF with subject detection and lens selection. OM System is fully committed to wildlife.
Here ya go!
The Olympus offers a SH (SuperHigh) setting with 25/50 frames per second (50 only for selected lenses, not including the 100-400) and up to 120 frames/s without AF. It also offer a precapture mode with the same values which is one of the biggest features for wildlife!
Note that we could only produce 13 FPS with the Oly when tracking AF. Both the cameras have a pro-capture/pre-shooting mode, but we honestly don't find it to be that useful. I wish there was a way to more instantly select it, like a separate shutter button, because when it's on you end up capturing hundreds of frames you didn't need, like out-of-focus frames when you were still lining up the shot.
I explained why you are wrong w fps in a different comment. As far as pre capture, you can configure it for a custom mode and assign a button to trigger it.
I have that same Canon combination and I have been able to get some amazing pictures. However, the lens flare/distortion/etc is a real issue, I’m amazed how clear and sharp the Olympus photos were! If I wasn’t so heavily invested in Canon’s ecosphere, I’d seriously consider switching to the Olympus system.
One more thing, the R7 is weatherproofed, the 100-400, however, is not.
Before you switch over, consider getting a better lens?
The problem is the lenses are overpriced for what they are. The bodies are a good deal though, thats how they hook you.
If you invest in a better quality lens like the 100-500 you will get much better results. Such an (expensive) lens will be good even for your next 1 or 2 bodies in the future, independent from APSC or FF
Enjoyed the review. Tony, would love to see a comparison to the Sony A6700 with the Sony 70-350 4.5-6.3 lens !
Another comparison: I have OM-1 with 300mm F4/1.4TLC and bought Canon R7 with RF100-500.
To me, hands down the Boceh with the OM combo is is sometimes terrible. The Canon combo is just sharper, and less expensive and you have a lot more cropping power for birding.
I've finally made the decision to move fully away from the OM platform and buy a used R5 MarkI as a second or primary body.
Seen great photos from both combos but I've never seen anything sharper than the 300 F4.
Price wise they can both be had for around £3,000.
I think it's much of a muchness really unless you get the 200-800 to use with the R7 and then the reach wins.
I think this is more of a market situation. In the current market, the 300mm f4 is too old of a lens to command that price. They knocked the price of the 40-150f2.8 down and it makes more sense at 1k (less than other system’s 70-200). But yeah if someone is going to pay 2700 for a lens, I would go for the rf 100-500. And I say this as an owner if many m43 pro lenses.
If they sold the 300mmf4 at 1900 it would make way more sense.
Thanks yet again for an entertaining and interesting video! Just a small tech-comment: the area of the R7 sensor (22.2x14.8) is actually only 45% larger than the sensor in the OM-1 (17.4x13), not double! Regards Rikard
Valid point, my mistake! I'm accustomed to comparing everything to full-frame so I did some math in my head that was incorrect.
@@TonyAndChelsea Thank you! Regards!
I have the OM 100-400mm and it never came with a built in hood, but a deeper traditional hood, that "small hood" you have on the lens looks like the Decoration Ring DR-79 that comes with the Olympus 300mm f/4 to cover the lens foot collar area when the foot is removed.
I think the biggest difference between the two systems is that the OM-1's stacked sensor makes the Pro Capture mode usable, whereas the R7's rolling shutter means that it might as well not have that feature in many circumstances. I often use that feature to capture birds in flight as they leave a feeder. My favorite photo that I have ever taken used the Pro Capture mode to capture an otter, jaws agape, with a fish in its mouth! In that frame, its eye was open and you could see all its teeth, which made it look really ferocious! Without Pro Capture, I would have probably filled up my buffer long before the decisive moment.
The R7 is, by all accounts, a good camera, and paired with an old 500mm f/4, 400mm f/5.6, or 300mm f/2.8, I'm sure the results are outstanding for the price! However, the lack of a stacked sensor is a serious handicap compared to the OM-1.
You should have used the Canon 100-500 L lens for fair comparison.
Tony and Chelsea- the Olympus/OMSystem cameras are perhaps the most customizable mirrorless cameras and have been the leaders in computational features. As someone used to the Canon camera ecosystem, it is not surprising that you miss out on maximizing the performance of the OM-1. Your setup used SH-1 instead of SH-2 and got slower fps with continuous autofocus- the knock was on you not the camera. You also found Pro-Capture not useful, but it really is when you practice. BTW, Olympus pioneered this RAW buffering feature and prompted other manufacturers to include RAW Pre-focus features. I am quite surprised that you knocked the OM-1 IBS with the non-stabilized Olympus 100-400mm lens. This is a very well stabilized combo - but not quite up to the performance of the camera with either the Olympus 300mm f/4 of the 150-400 1.25x stabilized lenses synchronized with the camera’s IBIS. Perhaps when you set the Canon and Olympus lenses at 400mm, the effective resulting focal lengths due to the Canon 1.6x and Olympus 2x crop factors are 640mm vs 800mm. So make your comparisons at equivalent focal lengths.
I'd like to see a comparison with a Fuji X-T5 with the 70-300. I know it's not a wildlife specific set up but it is a fairly similar size to the cameras in this video and a bit cheaper. See if it can get away with some wildlife as a secondary use for it
Great video. Thank you for your recent OM-1 coverage. I love to see that camera in action and I'm saying this as a Nikon, Canon, and Sony shooter. I've heard its biggest strength is macro. Macro season is basically over here in the States but maybe you could try your luck with a good flash (godox V350) diffuser (Cygnustech) and macro lens (I think the OM 60mm is the one most OM-1 macro shooters use) next spring. I would love to get your opinion on this setup. They say you can focus stack with flash in camera with this setup unless you get a bad V350. Godox quality control is apparently pretty bad.
I bought the EM1M2 specifically for macro work.
I moved from Nikon and Sony to OM after using Nikon for 30 yrs, Yes, it is great for Macro work even using the 40-150 f2.8 or 300 f4 at very close distances is amazing. But the AF system is very close to the Sony and Nikon systems on the Z8/9. Lens quality is stunning, people hit M43 for noise, well exposure is the key and has taken me back to film days. With Post Processing software, noise is not a problem any longer. It is an amazing system .
Have you ever tested the Fujifilm X-T5 with the 150-600. A bit heavier and a bit more expensive? I’m curious how it compares?
Here ya go: ruclips.net/video/QWCt9QI4tJc/видео.html
Great review and thank you for taking the time and producing these comparison videos.
My pleasure!
The price difference between the setups is so big... if you add that on the OM-1-setup, you'd get the R7 with the 100-500 and I'd like to see that matchup.
In any case, you could have gotten the RF 100-400 a lens hood at that big price difference. It's a shame that it is not included, but for this comparison it would have benen necessary.
Maybe this could be a hint to Canon, to include lens hoods after decades to their „standard“ lenses and not only to the L-versions. To buy these additional lens hoods is a pain in the ass since I started with Canon in the 80s!
@@reinhardbecker284 It absolutely is a pain in the ass, butthe matchup here with a more than 1200 $ price difference AND lack of lens hood (which is far less than 1200 $) is quite uneven. This is a gripe about the video mainly :)
Canon should definitely include the lens hood. Unfortunately it's not even in stock anywhere so buying it isn't even an option.
I put a third party JJC lens hood on my RF 100-400mm as soon as I got it. Readily available, fits perfectly and cost me around £10 at the time so not going to break the bank. I agree Canon should just throw a lens hood in with all of their lenses though.
R7 have electronic first curtain shutter that works perfect. 1 year R7 owner. Best camera I have owned in 50 years with this photography hobby.
You're killing me. I switched from the Olympus OM-1 to the Canon R7 based on your recommendation. lol
lol
Another candidate is the Sony RX10iv, giving f/4 with 20mp at a fov equivalent to 600mm in ff. It has decent AF and handling but the motorized zoom I've found difficult to precisely adjust. It's fully weather sealed and with its fixed lens mount the sensor remains clean. Added plus is that it's zoom covers a range going down to a ff fov of a 27mm. Weight is around 1.2 kg. Central sharpness of the lens is fine. F/4 at 600mm equiv is very handy for keeping ISO and shutter speed where we want them.
f/4 at 600mm is not what you think. its 1inch sensor means it is closer optically to f4*2.7 and actually f11 or something.
+1 to @arandomdudewithhobbies3318 and I'll add that by the time you crop to 800mm, you're down to 11 megapixels at 800mm f/14. But the RX10 is definitel a powerful telephoto!
It's forgotten because it's not a new shiny tool. For most photography, you really don't need more than a 1" sensor.
@@TonyAndChelsea
@@arandomdudewithhobbies3318 But it’s roughly the same amount of light as these two cameras+lenses are gathering given that the lenses are slower. These two camera-lens combinations are definitely superior wildlife tools to the RX10 IV. If you know you’re only going to shoot within the narrow range these lenses cover, they’re better options. If you want to shoot something
@@arandomdudewithhobbies3318 Correct regarding s/n ratio and dynamic range, but f/4 is f/4 when shutter speed counts.
Thanks for spending more time with cropped sensor cameras. I don't see them ever replacing the Z9's, R5's and Sony A1's of the world but they do offer worthy alternatives when there is a need to travel light or to tread lightly on one's bank account.
I got mud all up my oly 100-400 on a wildlife walk once where I didn’t realise how deep a muddy bit of ground would be. I rinsed it under the tap when I got home, dried it fully extended, no problems since (em1 mark 2).
An advantage of the r7 is that you can easily adapt the newer sigma and tamron offerings if you want even more effective focal length. I find the Olympus lens offerings more limited, and being able to use the vast range of EF mount L lenses is one of my main reasons for moving away from m43 to canon and Sony.
I sold my R7 (working with a 100-500 L) to buy an OM-1, there is no comparison , far better results with the OM-1 (and i.m a 30 years Canon shooter). The AF and shutter of the R7 is terribly bad. Still using the 100-500 with a R5 and it's also a go to kit, but not the same price!
Canon R7 sensor is not twice as big. It is only 56% bigger.
Yes, valid. I mis-mathed.
To be precise, 48% larger (by area), using the actual active areas of both sensors
OM1: 50 fps with tracking and no finder blackout. You have to do your homework better!
Watch Mike Lane, a supreme wildlive photographer from the UK. He knows a lot about the OM1.
Only with a pro lens, they were not using a pro lens, they should have got 25fps in sh2 though
The 100-400 theoretically supports 25 in SH2, but our testing produced only 13 FPS regardless of the mode. FPS can be limited by the autofocus performance of the lens; it takes some time between shots to keep the subject in focus.
The 40-150mm f/2.8 with the MC-20 teleconverter seems to focus much faster than the 100-400. I haven't tested it, but when I rented the 100-400, it did seem like the autofocus was slower and less reliable. Also, with the 40-150 + MC-20, you should be able to get 50 fps (at least theoretically).
If you’d like to have even more fun, try the OM1 with the 40-150mm f4 pro and a small prime for an extraordinarily capable and compact kit
5:18 "But that didn't necessarily mean it was always getting it -- YOU'RE GOING TO HIT YOUR HEAD -- but that didn't necessarily mean..."
Well done, Chelsea! :)
Honestly, the best backpacking camera and lens combination I can think of is the Sony RX10 IV. Yes, it doesn't have as much resolution or telephoto reach as these options, but it is much lighter weight and every ounce counts when you have to carry it on your back all day! I wouldn't even consider going backpacking with a camera and lens combination that weighed more than 2.5 pounds! For a lighter weight and less expensive choice, you could go with the Panasonic RX330, but the autofocus leaves a lot to be desired. I suppose another choice would be an Olympus OM-5 with a Panasonic 100-300mm, a 12-32mm for landscapes, and a 20mm f/1.7 for environmental portraits.
That Sony RX10 IV is tempting. The most fun I've had with photography, if not the best results, was with a superzoom bridge camera. I just looked at some RX10 IV reviews and sample images, and it seems like a pretty good unit.
Great to see you guys venturing into crop/m4/3 sensor territory again... and great & fair comparison...
Since you asked, this would be my wish: I think there's a lot of people that are wondering how OM-1 would compare against G9ii once it's released (both with their respective 100-400 lenses + TCs, and Oly 40-150 f2.8 / Leica 50-200 2.8-4.0... with TCs)...
Perfect video on helping me decide because these were the exact two options I was considering. Pro-capture is what keeps me with OM-SYSTEM. I had wondered about rolling shutter on the R7 and there is no way I'm using the preshutter electric burst with the R7.
I have to say I’m only a casual wildlife shooter and don’t make much use of pro capture for wildlife, but it’s great fun for taking photos of your pets pulling funny expressions 😅 Also great for capturing lightning and storms, although the 1/30 second lower limit can be challenging.
@@12symmo I definitely agree. I use it for events also for that reason. I've never done photos of lightening but I think Live Composite mode might be beneficial to use. You may already do so but that's the first thing I thought of.
@@RobShootPhotos I did try live comp, unfortunately it meant the imagine became ridiculously bright very quickly just from the ambient flashes. It’s possible I needed to experiment more to get the right settings, but pro capture was doing a good job so I stuck with it.
Thank you for this video. Please compare Fuji Xh2s and OM 1 both stack sensors.
It would be interesting to compare the Panasonic LUMIX G9 II to these. I’ve got the Lumix G9 and the Canon R7. The G9 feel more like better built camera. I’m cautious about taking the R7 into rain or even fog without covering it up. Seriously considering selling the R7 and buying the G9 II.
Except for the 150-400 the G9ii is faster focusing then the OM1. So the Lumix is also a very good choice. Let‘s see wat the OM1 can do with a FW upgrade, which should be available in Feb…
We did compare the G9 II here: ruclips.net/video/QWCt9QI4tJc/видео.html
For wildlife we found the OM-1 was superior.
Good video, but to be fair you didn't mention some of the OM-1's additional features of built in ND filter or high megapixel shots. Not that big a deal for wildlife but could come in handy for related photography.
Yeah, exactly, it's not a full review of the OM-1, and those features aren't useful for wildlife.
i love my canon r7 with the RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM absolutely awesome .. 👍 perfect for my needs ...
Yeah the RF 100-500 is an amazing lens, as this test showed: ruclips.net/video/QWCt9QI4tJc/видео.html
I recently bought the Olympus 100-400 for my OM-1. But it doesn’t have a built in lens hood like yours; it came with a large hood that attaches bayonet style. Perhaps the UK stock has a different spec? My lens replaced a 300 F4 Pro, because I found the prime lens too restrictive. Surprisingly, my 100-400 lens is almost as sharp as the prime.
Interesting find about the stabilization. Wouldn't have guessed it, but it goes to show that for really long lenses, in-lens stabilization is just more effective.
I love to see Sony A6700 with 70-350 lens combined. it's similarly priced as R7 combo and capabilities
By the time you crop to 800mm equivalent, this combo is down to 11 megapixels, which is pretty low for subjects like birds. But check out the Sony 200-600, which won our big lens comparison: ruclips.net/video/QWCt9QI4tJc/видео.html
My main stills cameras are Sony a6400 and Panasonic G85. I also have a couple of other Micro 4/3 bodies and a few lenses. One nice thing about Micro 4/3 is that I can step sideways into other equipment with (usually minor) differences that give me more optimum results for certain applications. For video, the Panasonics tend to be more optimal. For weather sealing, the Olympus. For stabilization, I'm not sure, but the latest Panasonics might be better. And the wide array of high quality lenses for M4/3, some of which can be found used can also help.
I have the r10 with 600 f11 and I think that's all I'd need for lightweight bird videography. With the 4k 60 crop and digital IS I get about 1700mm at 3 pounds total weight.
I thought the Olympus 100-400 wound be average but bought it anyway, im really pleased with the results, feels great on a E-M1X and easy to carry around the zoo. Theres an issue with some users reporting screws falling out on the lens where the hood goes on but you can watch out for that
I actually use the OM-1 with the Panasonic 100-400 lens, but I have never tested burst rate on this combination. I got the first Olympus E-M5 back in 2013, and have not switched system since that time. I am not sure what I had chosen today given that other APS-C and full frame systems now also have weather sealed lenses and good image stabilization.
Thank you for this - and respect to Tony who repeatedly said, MfT is dead and then bringing this review which kind of accepts that this was a misassumption (I know, you had about a month ago already some MFT gear). I like the gear you have chosen (I own the OM-1 with 100-400 by myself) but it is not the lightest you can get. If you take the OM-5 with the Olympus 75-300 or the Panasonic 100-300 MkII you are way below 1kg (under 2lbs). I would not recommend to go on a wildlife shoot with those. But I am a hiker, and I had that gear as a second camera when doing a tracking around Manaslu in Nepal. I had the OM-1 with the great 8-25 and the EM5 MkIII with the Panasonic 100-300II (same weight as the new OM-5). Hiking and photography is a bit of a tricky thing. You cannot really prepare, and you are not able to sit and wait for the right shot. You need to walk with open eyes and be prepared for any shot. And in the past I learned, that changing a lens is usually too slow. Birds or marmots are not waiting for such. In addition, you are often in harsh conditions (dust, rain) and you do not want to access your sensor to that. So it makes sense to having two bodies with respective lenses (robust, light and interchangeable).
There is a video that compares the R5 to the OM-1. Probably a little closer than an R7. The guy loved and was blown away by the OM-1 IQ. TG Photography. Glad to see you guys offer a hint of praise to OM. But I still question some features you did not seem to use.
I do like the R5 better than the R7, but it has a lower pixel density and would be at 11 megapixels by the time you cropped to 800mm. However, the R5 with the 100-500 did extremely well in our bigger comparison: ruclips.net/video/QWCt9QI4tJc/видео.html
Can't find it, dou you have the link ?
Some of the limitations, particularly sharpness and IS, might be lens-dependent. I'd love to see a comparison of these two cameras using the best available lenses, the 300mm F4 for the OM-1 versus..whatever you can buy for the R7 that's really good.
I bought the R7 last January. People should be advised about the autofocus problems too. I don't know about other brands, but after paying $2000 CDN for a camera, I could have done without rolling shutter and autofocus problems. Shame Canon is turning a deaf ear to customer complaints.
What camera at under $1400 has better autofocus?
If you want something even smaller and lighter, you could go with the Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6 on either a G9 II or an OM-1. It's not as sharp as the 100-400, but when I'm going on a long hike and weight is more important than sharpness, that's my telephoto lens of choice. I usually end up keeping that on my camera when I'm planning to take some landscape photos, but I want to be prepared just in case I encounter a moose or a bear or a fisher or some other elusive wildlife on the trail.
I have both the OM-1 and the R7 (as well as a R5). You should try the OMS 40-150 f/2.8 Pro with the 1.4x extender. Gives you a 128-420mm FFE @f/4.0)( The OMS 100-400 is known to be a little soft.) I am in the process of comparing the R7 with the RF 100-500 to the OM-1 with the OMS 150-400 f/4.5. (yeah big price difference) at the 800mm equivalent. Results are mixed so far noise wise, but the OM-1 combo appears sharper...we'll see. More testing when i get some decent weather.
ps: Functionally the OM-1 has a very rich feature set and the Procapture is awesome.
I have the 40-150 2.8 mc-14 combo. Absolutely love it.
I have the Oly OM-1 and the 40-150 f2.8 + 1.4 extender, and I absolutely love it. Had the Oly 100-400 and took over 40,000 images, which I really enjoyed using and images were great but traded it in for the Oly 150-400 f4. It is incredible, I crave getting outdoors amongst the wildlife with it. It is an absolute joyful combo.
You really think the 40-150 with a 1.4x will be sharper than the 100-400 @ 400mm?
Yep. Have tested.@@HokKan
Thanks! Please also do a full review of the OM-1 including its computational features - built in ND, focus stacking, high res, etc. make it a great travel and adventure camera. This seems to be a great compromise between a phone camera and a traditional mirrorless camera.
Yeah I picked it because of the pixel density for macro, as well as the computational photography features. Live composite was designed for me since I do long exposure fire spinning photos.
Thanks - really useful comparison. The rolling shutter on the R7 makes this a non starter for me.
R7 has both rolling shutter and also autofocus problems.
OM1 can shoot 50 FPS. with the electronic shutter.
Only with m.zuiko Pro lenses, 100-400mm is not one of them.
@@heikkivalkonen1075not completely true. Only specific pro lenses support the faster burst rates.
With the 100-400, SH2 is limited to 25 FPS. In our testing, it produced only 13 FPS. Performance is limited by the time the lens takes to focus between frames.
@@heikkivalkonen1075 Okay. I use OM1 with 300mm. F4 and wasn't aware of that limitation with the 100-400mm.
@@HokKan Okay. I use OM1 with 300mm. F4 and wasn't aware of that limitation with the 100-400mm.
Thanks a lot for this detailed comparison. I am puzzled by the comment at 7:35 regarding the low light performance. The sensor shouldn't have anything to do with it. The important element is how much light illuminates the sensor. Both cameras are 100-400, so that makes the comparison easier. The canon is f5.6-8 but it is a full frame lens so half the light falls outside the sensor, so effectively the sensor collects as much light as from an f8-11 lens. The Olympus is f5-6.3 and a dedicated M43 lens so all the light falls on the sensor. With these numbers, I would expect the canon combination to perform noticeably worse than the olympus. What am I missing?
I do show this on the chalkboard slide. When you're zoomed/cropped to 800mm, the OM is about a stop faster, so it's gathering more light. But at wider angles (even 600mm) it's much closer. Regardless, we do our assessments in this test based on real-world results rather than metrics.
f/ stop is a ratio of the focal length of the lens to the diameter of the opening through which light passes. The size of the sensor does not change the f/ stop. If you adapt a Canon 300mm f/2.8 and an Olympus 300mm f/2.8 to the same camera body, you get the same amount of light hitting the sensor, even though the Canon is designed for a full frame sensor and the Olympus is designed for a four thirds sensor because the diameter of the opening and the focal length are equal. However, the fact that the Canon lens is meant for a larger sensor means that you can use a speed booster or other focal reducer to essentially do the inverse of what a teleconverter does. Such devices shorten the focal length and brighten the aperture, but they can only be used if the image circle of the lens is significantly larger than the sensor.
Also, keep in mind that for as long as I can remember, Sony sensors have outperformed Canon sensors in low light, while Canon has usually had the edge in pixel count. Since Olympus cameras use Sony sensors, it is not surprising that the Olympus offers superior low light performance.
Another factor to consider is light transmission. The t/stop of a lens is usually about a third of a stop slower than its f/ stop because some of the light that hits the front element will be absorbed or reflected by the glass, but the exact amount varies from one lens to another, so a lens's f/ stop only gives us a rough approximation of the actual amount of light hitting the sensor. Sometimes that can be at least partially attributable to a manufacturer overstating the aperture of their lens by a fraction of a stop. (They might call a lens an f/4 when it is actually f/4.3, for instance.)
Great shot of the cormorant unloading excess weight! About 5:16
You also forgot about Pro Capture and Handheld High Resolution shot.
They both have a pre-release capture feature, but we don't find it especially useful for wildlife. Handheld high resolution isn't useful for wildlife.
@@TonyAndChelsea I use HHHR all the time shooting owls perched on trees. It really depends on the subject. If you shoot wildlife, you'd know how still they are. It's very easy to get a sharp shot. The color fidelity, noise performance and detail are significantly better with HHHR. It is particularly useful shooting perched owls in low light. Of course, it would be useless shooting BIFs, but not all wildlife is BIF. Likewise, not all wildlife shooting would require framerates like 25FPS+, yet, they are features you compare and discuss about.
Perhaps you should give HHHR a try shooting perched subjects. It's a feature I often use. I can share results if you'd like.
@@TonyAndChelseawhat? Procapture is like the most useful feature on the om1 for wildlife, next time try it with those kingfishers and you will be mindblown how easy is getting the perfect shot when it takes off from the perch or for landing shots, or any sudden action, by the way, Om1 is capable of 50fps with pro lenses (for wildlife = 40-150,300, and 150-400) with the later 2 you will also get sync is,which will destroy stabilization on the r7, also that stabilization lens was not a real test here, the r7 was at an equivalent 640mm and the Om1 at 800mm, try again that test zooming the olympus 100-400 at 320mm (640mm equiv.) And lets see which one wins in the stabilization lens 😉, and I can keep going with the list.
Keep in mind that @TonyAndChelsea value their wildlife photos by how shallow the depth of field is, not by whether or not they actually managed to capture an image of an animal doing anything interesting! You never see them traveling to remote areas in search of illusive wildlife, attempting to capture hunting behavior or other decisive moments because they aren't making money selling their photographs. They make their money by selling books and getting kickbacks from their sponsors, so the more you spend at KEH or Adorama or one of their other sponsors, the more money they make. Consequently, their idea of wildlife photography is taking boring shots of common birds like ospreys in flight or perhaps a songbird perched on a bird feeder because it requires little cost or effort and they can show off how spending more money can get you better results in that particular circumstance. Real wildlife photographers like Andy Rouse and Mike Lane recognize the value of a pre burst function because they use it for their professional work on a daily basis.
I think the R7 has some sort of pre burst function, but its usefulness is limited by the rolling shutter.
@@keithholland9401 do they have a website or something where I can see their wildlife photos? I didn't even know they shoot wildlife (outside of review purposes).
I have the Olympus 100-400, but use it on Lumix cameras. I love that lens. Sharp and useful. I have never regretted that big cost for the lens.
Just remember folks people use to shoot wildlife with film cameras so get out there and shoot with whatever you got! haha But I'm voting for the Olympus, that OM1 is full some awesome features such as live ND and handheld highres shot mode. Not to mention the awesome IBIS that will help with shooting video of your wildlife handheld.
Would be nice to add Sony A6700 to the mix, great video!
Interesting the sound on this production was far better than your Podcasts which is far less stable, great video thank you
I use OMD E5 bodies and a ZUIKO 75-300 4.8-6.7 lens (and plenty of other lenses). This weighs 1Kg is much shorter than what you are waving around and is the equivalent of a 150-600 zoom at 35mm. 600mm handheld even with stabilisation is pushing it. I can tell you Elephants, Gorillas, Kingfishers do not sit still while you set up a tripod. That lens cost 295$, It's not plastic, any ZUIKO lens works damn good only a pixel picker might be able to tell the difference. What surprises me is the Cost of the OM body. I am fairly sure my E5 bodies cost 500$ new and 145$ Second hand. Now Weatherproofing I can answer perhaps. The E5 was explicitly weatherproof. You can pour a pint of beer over it, gently rinse it in tepid water, dry gently AND in the morning it still works
Om-1 is a clear winner in every metric.
Enjoyed your comments on Olympus. Very useful.
You will get many more keepers if you pair the OM1 with a Pro-class telephoto lens from OM Systems. Their AF mechanisms are significantly faster than the consumer grade 100-400 you tested the camera with.
But then you would also get more and better quality if you pair the R7 with the superb RF 100-500mm L lens but you are going up significantly in price in both cases.
Tony, have you done or will you do a complete walk-through of the OM-1 Mark II like you did the EM-1 Mark II? That video was a HUGE help to me getting started in Olympus digital!
Why didn't you try the Canon with a good lens? Come on!
Not considering price but ony weight, the Nikon 400mm F4.5 & 600mm F6.3 along with Z8 is still pretty lightweight and has definite advantages.
Please if you guys can make a comparison video of the Nikon 400mm f4.5, 600mm f6.3 & 180-600mm f6.3
🙏🏽
Yes, as soon as those lenses are available for rent, we're going to do a comparison of the full Nikon wildlife lineup.
Olympus System is the winner, save for the extra money. More sales will also help bring the prices down.
How would the r7 compare if using an older adapted ef lens that was faster?
Never any love for the R7. I have the R7 and the RF 100-500... and I'm here to tell you that is one fantastic combination. I took it to Yellowstone over the Memorial Day week in 2023 and got stunning images.
We definitely love the R7! That's the reason we picked it for this comparison.
Love from Mississauga, Ontario! We both watched this video on our TV a few hours ago and liked it a lot. We both thought that overall features wise OM-1 is far better. For example, it has pro-capture and built in ND filters that can render beautiful slow shutter flowing water and waterfalls shots. The camera itself is lighter than Canon R7. My husband has eyes on it and he keeps telling family members about its features. (As enthusiasts, husband is a Pentax and Canon RP (for home use) shooter and I am a Nikon Z-6ii shooter. Our children use whatever camera they can lay their hands on (mostly Pentax KP and Canon RP)).
The R7 has pre-capture also, but we don't find ourselves using the feature for wildlife.
@@TonyAndChelsea Knowing the behavior of the wildlife you are attempting to photograph is often more important than the equipment you're using. Pro Capture/Pre Capture is useful because if you know the behavior of the animal you are photographing, you can anticipate decisive moments and capture them without filling up your buffer as you wait for the action to take place. For instance, if you see a woodpecker making its way up the trunk of a dead tree, you know it will fly once it reaches the top, so you set the camera to Pro Capture/Pre Capture, and half depress the shutter as you wait for it to fly. It works great for capturing a heron or egret striking its beak into the water to grab a fish or for capturing a bird in flight as it leaves a feeder or nest or even for simply capturing a squirrel when it is jumping instead of sitting still. I used that feature a lot when a pair of river otters showed up at a local cemetery and people from all over New England came to photograph them. I got a great shot of one of them with its mouth wide open and a fish tail sticking out. You could see all its teeth and in that frame, its eye was open. Without a pre burst mode, my buffer would have probably filled up long before I got that shot. I often find myself half depressing the shutter anticipating some possible action and then releasing it because nothing happens. Ultimately, photography is about light, composition, and moment, and Pro Capture/Pre Capture are just as revolutionary for capturing decisive moments as autofocus was in the 1980s.
@@keithholland9401 I am sure Tony and Chelsea know all about it, but I have never seen them using this feature or talk about it.
I've had a couple of talented wildlife shooters add the R7 and 100-500 to their kit and both has sold them after a year and are sticking with their OM-1 setups because overall, the OM is just a better system for everything unpredictable. I also have Sony FF and super telephotos and 90% of the time I'm using the OM gear as it's just more capable with the unpredictability in nature/wildlife situations. In predictable situation, the playing field sometimes favors the other guys, but I think there's still, unfortunately, nobody really doing the computational work OM does. Use what works but for the money, those of use using multiple systems go back to OM for this genre, most of the time. Now I don't like the 100-400 and sold mine after using it a couple of years. Probably the heavier 150-600 customized to suit OM-1 would perform better, having syncIS, especially for handheld and video clips of wildlife, but I think cost wise and weight wise, I'd rather get closer to the subject if possible and safe and use better glass like the 40-150 and 300. If someone wants to really get into nature photography, OM is a very good system for the money, to become expert in the genre; perhaps the best system out there unless they have tens of thousands of dollars to dispose of and can afford anything and everything. Still, the computational features in OM surpass every other system available... so far.
Very informative. I really enjoy these comparison videos. Thanks for all you do to educate and inform!
Thanks!
Thanks for covering om
I still haven't found a reasonable FF replacement for OM-1 + 300/4. Anyone who has used this combo knows what I mean - razor sharp, no aberrations, 50fps pre-capture with AF, and that sweet stacked sensor.
And stabilization that allows you to go as low as 1/10s.
Great Video and I love to see more MFT/OM Content from you ❤
Interesting review guys but you've missed so much the OM 1 mk2 does- apart from the 8 stops of stabilisation the ffs shooting gives in addition to 20 you mention 50 and even 120 in pro capture mode, astro photography, 50 and 80 mp shots, live composite ,focus stacking etc etc putting all this together you get a lot for your money and in a v neat compact body. Have hardly scratched the surface over what it can do -highly recommended
I want Nikon to bring out a professional grade Z90 with a 28 or 34 megapixel BSI stacked sensor with the current image processor that’s in the Z8 & Z9.
Yeah, me too!
Does it make a difference with the R7 whether you have the camera in portrait or landscape position for rolling shutter?
"Mentally I'm tired, but physically ... I'm also tired." lol so relatable!
Wow you have a real problem with OM Systems your incomplete comments of OM-1 are misleading. What is the point of FF? You can crop down to 20 mbs, nice advantage. Competent photographers frame on the fly. When I train for long distance hiking (rucking) I don't bother with bricks in my backpack I grab a friends Canon gear and off I go. What a great work out and my friend is still paying for the ballast.
A little late to the party on this one. Never shot with Cannon so I don't know much about this camera. I do shoot OM-1 and it is a great camera. The one thing that was not discussed is what happens when you move up to more professional lenses and is there a bigger weight penalty with Cannon? Price seemed to be a factor in designing the two set ups for testing which is totally appropriate for the comparison. One thing that holds OM back is the price of their lenses. The 100-400 should be priced closer to $1000 and the 150-400 seems like it should be priced around 4.5 to 5K. A lot of threads reference the Oly 300 F4. It is a much better lens than the 100-400, except that the zoom is with your feet. It also cost a lot more than the 100-400. But this comparison doesn't change the most important maxim in photography, learn the camera in your hand and take great pictures.