OM-1 vs Canon R7 both w/100-400 (1 Viewer)

[JWalck]

I currently use a Canon SX70 and enjoy it for its size/weight but not IQ. My main purpose is documentation of rare birds and the SX70 does fine, but it struggles, for example, with passerines and birds in flight like gulls at a landfill. I’ll like to purchase a camera without increasing the size/weight too much but increasing overall capabilities. I tried a Canon R7 w/RF 100-500, and it was too large/heavy for me to enjoy. I have narrowed my choices down to two, and might purchase used equipment:

OM-1 mark i w/Panasonic 100-400 mark ii

Canon R7 w/RF 100-400.

Which one might you suggest?

Thanks.

 

[punta]

I am in the same boat as you. I have the SX50 not the 70. The thing is with the two set ups you mention, we will lose the fantastic reach of our Bridge cameras for ID purposes.

 

[Peter.home]

I am in the same boat as you. I have the SX50 not the 70. The thing is with the two set ups you mention, we will lose the fantastic reach of our Bridge cameras for ID purposes.

You don't have to lose that though..

Notes for video below: "Great White Egret at Fishlake.Experimenting with Teleconvertors and software.OM-1 with 100-400mm lens, plus 1.4 Teleconvertor, and 1.4 in camera teleconverter. Plus 3x scale up in Openshot video editor. This is 4700mm equivalent! or 117x!! Bird was 153m away"
If it was a Crake in the reeds (I wish), it would have been identifiable

Plus, I'm finding I can crop a lot more with an OM-1 than bridge cameras, and still get feather detail.

What I will add though, the photos from my OM-1 only really come to life after they have been edited and (often) denoised in Lightroom.
I don't have any experience with the Canon

 

[njlarsen]

I currently use a Canon SX70 and enjoy it for its size/weight but not IQ. My main purpose is documentation of rare birds and the SX70 does fine, but it struggles, for example, with passerines and birds in flight like gulls at a landfill. I’ll like to purchase a camera without increasing the size/weight too much but increasing overall capabilities. I tried a Canon R7 w/RF 100-500, and it was too large/heavy for me to enjoy. I have narrowed my choices down to two, and might purchase used equipment:

OM-1 mark i w/Panasonic 100-400 mark ii

Canon R7 w/RF 100-400.

Which one might you suggest?

Thanks.

One observation: there is less reach in the canon than in the om1 combo because of the different crop factor. As I have never tried the canon setup, I don’t know if there is more options for crop in post with that camera. I am using the mk2 version of the
OM setup and I am a happy camper.

AF in between your current setup and those you list can be found in the Sony rx 10-iv, which has been rumored as doing well with birds in flight, but has less reach than the om setup.
Niels
Edit: if the setup being waterproof is important for you, then you may need to check on the canon 100-400 lens?

 

[MiketheBirder]

I use the OM Systems OM1 Mk2 but mainly use it with the 150-400mm pro zoom which is a terrific set up for birds and other wildlife. If I want to travel even lighter I use the 300mm pro which is a razor sharp lens even with the 1.4 teleconverter attached. The pics are great and there are lots of videos on YouTube to help set the camera up with optimum settings. I carry a scope and bins as well so am grateful for the lower weight.

 

[punta]

Thanks for the info - going to check out the Olympus now.

 

[sullybirder]

I was debating the two set ups as well. Ended up purchasing a third option - Sony A6700 with Sony 70-350mm lens (525mm equivalent reach). Love it. It’s the same size or smaller than the Nikon P950 and weighs 2 pounds. We are loving the bird-eye autofocus. It’s not a perfect set up by any means, but we really wanted something light and small.

 

[Montereyman]

I currently use a Canon SX70 and enjoy it for its size/weight but not IQ. My main purpose is documentation of rare birds and the SX70 does fine, but it struggles, for example, with passerines and birds in flight like gulls at a landfill. I’ll like to purchase a camera without increasing the size/weight too much but increasing overall capabilities. I tried a Canon R7 w/RF 100-500, and it was too large/heavy for me to enjoy. I have narrowed my choices down to two, and might purchase used equipment:

OM-1 mark i w/Panasonic 100-400 mark ii

Canon R7 w/RF 100-400.

Which one might you suggest?

Thanks.

My wife has been using the Olympus MFT cameras and lenses for more than 10 years and her images are on par with most of mine taken with a full frame camera and telephoto lenses. My Nikon kit cost 3x as much and is twice the weight.

Olympus/OM-1 have been providing image stabilized mirrorless cameras for 20b years and have the technogy very well implemented. They also avoid have a large number of photosites and so there is less noise in images than with comparable MFT and smaller sensor cameras.

What is also great is that they provide a full line of f/2.8 constant aperture lenses and so 4x as much light can reach the sensor with improves autofocus performance and allows for a lower ISO setting.

 

[ChrisMc1957]

I currently use a Canon SX70 and enjoy it for its size/weight but not IQ. My main purpose is documentation of rare birds and the SX70 does fine, but it struggles, for example, with passerines and birds in flight like gulls at a landfill. I’ll like to purchase a camera without increasing the size/weight too much but increasing overall capabilities. I tried a Canon R7 w/RF 100-500, and it was too large/heavy for me to enjoy. I have narrowed my choices down to two, and might purchase used equipment:

OM-1 mark i w/Panasonic 100-400 mark ii

Canon R7 w/RF 100-400.

Which one might you suggest?

Thanks.

I use an Olympus OM1 with an OM SYSTEM M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-400mm f4.5 TC1.25x IS PRO Lens, however, before this lens I used the OM1 with the Panasonic 100-400 lens for a good while, for both lenses see some of my photos in my gallery here below, as you can see, they both work wonderfully with the OM1

Media added by ChrisMc1957

www.birdforum.net

 

[GHOV02]

I will recommend the Canon R7.

 

[njlarsen]

I will recommend the Canon R7.

Would you care to say why?
Niels

 

[Evan Atkinson]

As an R7 user, it is a fantastic piece of equipment and I have captured some excellent images with it and my EF 100-400 II. However if you are going to be wanting something lightweight, the OM-1 and the 300 f4 PRO is a really hard combination to beat. It is just so sharp and incredibly light, and because the OM-1's sensor essentially doubles the reach, it's more like a 600 f4 due to the crop factor. The OM-1 also has slightly better AF and I have found with my R7 that it will struggle occasionally to lock onto a subject properly. Hope this helps.

Evan

 

[HasseBF]

You don't have to lose that though..

Notes for video below: "Great White Egret at Fishlake.Experimenting with Teleconvertors and software.OM-1 with 100-400mm lens, plus 1.4 Teleconvertor, and 1.4 in camera teleconverter. Plus 3x scale up in Openshot video editor. This is 4700mm equivalent! or 117x!! Bird was 153m away"
If it was a Crake in the reeds (I wish), it would have been identifiable

Plus, I'm finding I can crop a lot more with an OM-1 than bridge cameras, and still get feather detail.

What I will add though, the photos from my OM-1 only really come to life after they have been edited and (often) denoised in Lightroom.
I don't have any experience with the Canon

Having now used the OM-1 for two years I can say that the Olympus/OM System 100-400 lens isn’t sharp enough to use with a teleconverter unless you’re only after a documentation picture. The older version of the Panasonic 100-400 furthermore doesn’t take converters and the OM zoom is generally considered to be a bit sharper than the Panasonic at the long end where it matters the most.
The 300 f4 is excellent in every regard, even with the 1.4 TC. Can’t say about the 2.0 TC since I’ve never used it.

 

[Peter.home]

Having now used the OM-1 for two years I can say that the Olympus/OM System 100-400 lens isn’t sharp enough to use with a teleconverter unless you’re only after a documentation picture. The older version of the Panasonic 100-400 furthermore doesn’t take converters and the OM zoom is generally considered to be a bit sharper than the Panasonic at the long end where it matters the most.
The 300 f4 is excellent in every regard, even with the 1.4 TC. Can’t say about the 2.0 TC since I’ve never used it.

yes, I should have been clearer. Although the TC works well in video for extreme reach, I wouldn't use it for stills with 100-400mm.
My last two paragraphs were talking without 1.4TC

 

[Montereyman]

The R7 camera needs to be considered along with the size, weight, and cost of the Canon lenses.

When migrating to a mirrorless camera I could have gone with Canon, Sony, or Nikon with the same costs involved. I chose Nikon as its PF lenses are unique and the 800mm PF for example is 5.2 lbs and the 600mm PF weighs only 3.24 lb or roughly the same as a full frame 70-200mm lens. The Olympus 300mm f/4 provides the view angle of a 600mm f/4 lens on a R7 or similar camera but weighs only 3.25 lb. With an f/4 lens the use of a 1.4x teleconverter does not significantly impact image quaility or autofocus performance.

Many posts on the internet by photographers trying to decide what to take on a trip and what to leave at home. With my wife's MFT Olympus based kit this is never a concern and she takes it all and it all fits in a 18L backpack.

 

[JWalck]

Thanks everyone for your input. I greatly appreciate your comments. I'm leaning towards the om-1 mark i along with the oly 100-400. This would save some money, be relatively light weight (though not as short and light as in PL100-400), and give me good equipment - perhaps not the best as would be with a oly 300 pro. I think staying with the mark i instead of getting a mark ii would also suit my needs just fine.

However, if anyone has concerns/comments about my current thinking - please tell me.

 

[Peter.home]

Thanks everyone for your input. I greatly appreciate your comments. I'm leaning towards the om-1 mark i along with the oly 100-400. This would save some money, be relatively light weight (though not as short and light as in PL100-400), and give me good equipment - perhaps not the best as would be with a oly 300 pro. I think staying with the mark i instead of getting a mark ii would also suit my needs just fine.

However, if anyone has concerns/comments about my current thinking - please tell me.

That's exactly what I have, and I love the set up.
BUT, I only really was impressed with the results after purchasing a lightroom subscription. I think most of the improvement in my photography comes from there.

Anyway, there's some photos from a recent trip, just from the car window or birding on foot

Western Cape, South Africa, 2024

Explore this photo album by Peter Jones on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[ChrisMc1957]

Thanks everyone for your input. I greatly appreciate your comments. I'm leaning towards the om-1 mark i along with the oly 100-400. This would save some money, be relatively light weight (though not as short and light as in PL100-400), and give me good equipment - perhaps not the best as would be with a oly 300 pro. I think staying with the mark i instead of getting a mark ii would also suit my needs just fine.

However, if anyone has concerns/comments about my current thinking - please tell me.

A good choice, I am sure you will be pleased with it

 

[njlarsen]

Best of luck with your new kit!
Niels

 

[luxBorealis–TerryMcDonald]

I’ve also made the switch from FF (Nikon) to OM-1 w/ M.Zuiko 100-400. The lens is actually much sharper than people give it credit for. You can see example images on my blog in the article about Finding the Sweet Spot in Photography (also on the Luminous-Landscape.com but it’s paywalled). I’ve attached a photo of Female Red-winged Blackbird with eggshell (Agelaius phoeniceus). It’s a crop from the OM-1 sensor and is still as sharp as a tack.
The ‘crop factor’ advantage is ideal for birding, not unlike the R7. The 100-400 has the identical reach (field of view) as a FF 200-800mm lens. This is huge! And, you still have 20mp of pixels—large enough for a 13x17” fine art print at 300ppi. I realize that’s more than you need for your work, but the fact that vertical crops from sensor still have plenty of pixels for sharp, fine feather details (see my photo of the Cordon-blue).
However, the Canon R7 is the most compelling of options out there, especially when paired with the Canon 200-800mm/6.3 to 9. It would provide 300-1200mm, though it would be a larger, heavier set-up with a poorer EVF (not insignificant when your staring through the viewfinder er for hours!). It’s also a little on the slow side, but at ISO3200 or 6400, paired with any of the denoise apps like Lightroom, DxO, ON1 and Topaz—I’ve tested them all with excellent results from all—you should have no trouble.
Best thing to do is try them both out. Consider renting them for a weekend.