I moved from Nikon FF - D6 and D850 - to OM Systems 9 months ago. I do not regret it! I have both the OM-1 and the Mkii. My lens line up includes the 150-400 f4.5 and I have to say I am very happy with the change. I do have a Nikon F5, but that’s another story.
Enjoyed your presentation and view of the 4 lenses. Yes I own and enjoy Olympus/OM System cameras and lenses. I hear a lot of people sating the 150-600 is too heavy and is a FF lens with a M4/3 mount slapped on the back of it. For that group of people, it is a 600mm lens, with the angle view of 1200mm FF at f6.3. I would love anyone to show me a FF lens that compares any where with that focal range on the current market, how big and heavy would it be along with the cost. The best camera you can ever own is the one you carry around and use. Once again great comparison of the lenses.
Thanks for watching and for sharing your thoughts! There’s a lot to be said for the practicality of Micro Four Thirds, especially when it comes to balancing reach, weight, and usability. The 150-600mm may seem hefty, but when you consider the equivalent 1200mm field of view on a full-frame setup, it’s hard to beat its compactness and cost-efficiency. As you said, it’s about the gear that’s accessible and ready to go. Glad you enjoyed the comparison!
Thank you. I find the teleconverters to be very good, but in addition to the light falloff, they also reduce the IBIS -just something to keep in mind when using. Glad you mentioned the close-up capabilities. The 40-150mm f/2.8 has incredible image quality for a zoom, and the internal focusing is brilliant.
When you describe the F number as being equivalent to full frame but without specifying that it only significantly changes the depth of field, then you might as well end the video there. If you tell people that their f2.8 pro lens is actually an f5.6, that’s all they’re going to hear. Their brains will turn off after that point, and it’s not as simple as that. From what I understand, a 150mm f2.8 MFT lens is going to be broadly similar in brightness to a 300mm f2.8 on full frame. That’s why they do f1.2 pro lenses. If you’re switching system and you do dark concert venue photography, and you buy an f1.2 lens and it doesn’t do broadly what you’d expect of a 1.2 prime, then you’d be annoyed. So of course it needs to be as similar as possible. Otherwise no one would use them and they wouldn’t be able to advertise its ability in low light. Also, why do people struggle saying OM System? Why do they seem to always put an extra S on the end?
First of all, thanks for watching. You've made some good points! The distinction between aperture and depth of field can definitely be confusing when comparing formats. And, you’re right that an MFT f2.8 lens is still very bright, and brands emphasise those differences so that photographers can make informed choices. Thanks for sharing your insight.
@@WexPhotoVideothe exposure (light gathering) is of prime importance to most photographers. That is the first use of the f stop #. So easy..unless you wish to make it complicated.
I'm a big fan of the 300mm f/4 - that's a cracking piece of glass. My only complaint being the focus clutch design, which tends to attract grit if shooting in the rain. That 150-600 totally-not-a-Sigma makes a lot more sense now it's going on sale around 2k. The original lens is really good, it was just the markup of the OM version that stung a bit. Nice to see some shots from Exmoor too! Lovely place for a walk.
Glad to hear you’re enjoying the 300mm f4! Completely understand the gripe with the focus clutch in wet conditions; that can be a bit tricky. Exmoor is such a beautiful spot. It's one of our favourites! Thanks for sharing :-)
I was always aware of the crop factor with this and aps-c regarding focal length, but didn’t know how it affects aperture. Is there an easy way to work out the difference? Great video. Thankyou
Glad you enjoyed the video! Yes, the crop factor affects not only the focal length equivalent but also the effective depth of field and light-gathering ability, which is where aperture comes into play. To get a full-frame equivalent aperture, you can multiply the lens’s f-stop by the crop factor (so on Micro Four Thirds, with a 2x crop, an f4 lens would give a depth of field similar to f8 on full-frame). That said, the actual light-gathering power doesn’t change, just how it looks in terms of depth and background blur. Hope that clears it up a bit!
@@WexPhotoVideo To clear this up even more, the light-gathering power of the LENS does not change. However, your sensor is smaller, so will receive less light. This explains why MFT camera's have more noise in their pictures.
The f-stop (aperture value) on an MFT lens works the same as on any other camera; it represents the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the aperture. However, the effective depth of field and light-gathering capability is influenced by the crop factor. For example, an f/2.8 aperture on an MFT lens will provide a depth of field similar to f/5.6 on a full-frame camera (doubled due to the crop factor). However, in terms of exposure, f/2.8 on MFT lets in the same amount of light as f/2.8 on any other system, so it’s only depth of field (and not exposure) that appears different.
The f-stop does indeed measure light entry consistently across systems, but the crop factor does affect the perceived depth of field. It’s great that you highlighted the distinction between exposure and depth of field, as it’s a common area of confusion. Understanding these nuances really helps when choosing lenses for different systems.
I really wish this wasn’t the case, but I have a really bad feeling that all the idiotic full frame supremacists online have made it virtually impossible for MFT to make a comeback, despite how great it is, and how it can meet pretty much anyone’s needs. And when I say pretty much anyone’s needs, I mean 99% of people. Unless society changes to be more sane and reasonable again. And I can’t see that happening any time soon.
What's more embarrassing is watching people feel like they have to justify their love for m43. I just use it. Couldn't give a shit what anyone else thinks of it
@@JoeMaranophotography If it wasn’t existential for the sensor format, I’d totally agree with you. But I don’t want something that is fundamentally a great thing be killed off by arguments akin to what we’ve seen in the console wars since the 90s. “Your choice of gaming system (or whatever else) is different from mine and therefore it should cease to exist”.
@@grantparnes I’m not so sure about that one. I think MFT will always be significantly cheaper than 35mm cameras and lenses. Especially for the top end models. But the prices are still going up (partly due to inflation I guess) but also because they want to extract more profit from the most loyal people. To keep the business going relatively strongly. I wish we had a different economic system, but under this broken one, we can’t really expect much different. Edit: Although I guess if you’re talking second hand then that’s probably true. Although prices on MPB when I looked didn’t exactly scream cheap. So yeah. Maybe.
I’ve recently invested in this system to use alongside my FF system. The OM 1 MkII rocks for wildlife and the like. The FF is my landscape beast. That said, I am testing out the pixel shift capabilities of the MFT to see how the large files the system can produce stack up.
I moved from Nikon FF - D6 and D850 - to OM Systems 9 months ago. I do not regret it! I have both the OM-1 and the Mkii. My lens line up includes the 150-400 f4.5 and I have to say I am very happy with the change. I do have a Nikon F5, but that’s another story.
Enjoyed your presentation and view of the 4 lenses. Yes I own and enjoy Olympus/OM System cameras and lenses. I hear a lot of people sating the 150-600 is too heavy and is a FF lens with a M4/3 mount slapped on the back of it. For that group of people, it is a 600mm lens, with the angle view of 1200mm FF at f6.3. I would love anyone to show me a FF lens that compares any where with that focal range on the current market, how big and heavy would it be along with the cost. The best camera you can ever own is the one you carry around and use. Once again great comparison of the lenses.
Thanks for watching and for sharing your thoughts! There’s a lot to be said for the practicality of Micro Four Thirds, especially when it comes to balancing reach, weight, and usability. The 150-600mm may seem hefty, but when you consider the equivalent 1200mm field of view on a full-frame setup, it’s hard to beat its compactness and cost-efficiency. As you said, it’s about the gear that’s accessible and ready to go. Glad you enjoyed the comparison!
Thanks so much, I appreciate this deep dive!
You're so welcome!
Thank you. I find the teleconverters to be very good, but in addition to the light falloff, they also reduce the IBIS -just something to keep in mind when using. Glad you mentioned the close-up capabilities. The 40-150mm f/2.8 has incredible image quality for a zoom, and the internal focusing is brilliant.
It's insights like that that help people make informed decisions. Thanks for sharing that :)
informative content thanks Wex.
When you describe the F number as being equivalent to full frame but without specifying that it only significantly changes the depth of field, then you might as well end the video there. If you tell people that their f2.8 pro lens is actually an f5.6, that’s all they’re going to hear. Their brains will turn off after that point, and it’s not as simple as that. From what I understand, a 150mm f2.8 MFT lens is going to be broadly similar in brightness to a 300mm f2.8 on full frame. That’s why they do f1.2 pro lenses. If you’re switching system and you do dark concert venue photography, and you buy an f1.2 lens and it doesn’t do broadly what you’d expect of a 1.2 prime, then you’d be annoyed. So of course it needs to be as similar as possible. Otherwise no one would use them and they wouldn’t be able to advertise its ability in low light.
Also, why do people struggle saying OM System? Why do they seem to always put an extra S on the end?
First of all, thanks for watching. You've made some good points! The distinction between aperture and depth of field can definitely be confusing when comparing formats. And, you’re right that an MFT f2.8 lens is still very bright, and brands emphasise those differences so that photographers can make informed choices. Thanks for sharing your insight.
@@WexPhotoVideothe exposure (light gathering) is of prime importance to most photographers. That is the first use of the f stop #. So easy..unless you wish to make it complicated.
I'm a big fan of the 300mm f/4 - that's a cracking piece of glass. My only complaint being the focus clutch design, which tends to attract grit if shooting in the rain. That 150-600 totally-not-a-Sigma makes a lot more sense now it's going on sale around 2k. The original lens is really good, it was just the markup of the OM version that stung a bit. Nice to see some shots from Exmoor too! Lovely place for a walk.
Glad to hear you’re enjoying the 300mm f4! Completely understand the gripe with the focus clutch in wet conditions; that can be a bit tricky. Exmoor is such a beautiful spot. It's one of our favourites! Thanks for sharing :-)
What camera version? Or did I miss it in the video ? Thx!
Hey - the camera in this vid is the OM SYSTEM OM-1 Mark II. You can learn more about it here, if you like: bit.ly/3YhQ5Jf
I was always aware of the crop factor with this and aps-c regarding focal length, but didn’t know how it affects aperture. Is there an easy way to work out the difference? Great video. Thankyou
Glad you enjoyed the video! Yes, the crop factor affects not only the focal length equivalent but also the effective depth of field and light-gathering ability, which is where aperture comes into play. To get a full-frame equivalent aperture, you can multiply the lens’s f-stop by the crop factor (so on Micro Four Thirds, with a 2x crop, an f4 lens would give a depth of field similar to f8 on full-frame). That said, the actual light-gathering power doesn’t change, just how it looks in terms of depth and background blur. Hope that clears it up a bit!
@@WexPhotoVideo To clear this up even more, the light-gathering power of the LENS does not change. However, your sensor is smaller, so will receive less light. This explains why MFT camera's have more noise in their pictures.
The f-stop (aperture value) on an MFT lens works the same as on any other camera; it represents the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the aperture. However, the effective depth of field and light-gathering capability is influenced by the crop factor. For example, an f/2.8 aperture on an MFT lens will provide a depth of field similar to f/5.6 on a full-frame camera (doubled due to the crop factor). However, in terms of exposure, f/2.8 on MFT lets in the same amount of light as f/2.8 on any other system, so it’s only depth of field (and not exposure) that appears different.
The f-stop does indeed measure light entry consistently across systems, but the crop factor does affect the perceived depth of field. It’s great that you highlighted the distinction between exposure and depth of field, as it’s a common area of confusion. Understanding these nuances really helps when choosing lenses for different systems.
Isn't DOF with 5.6 etc the same on any format ie 5x4 to 110?
Yes, it does let in the same amount of light. But the sensor is smaller and will be able to pick up less light, so more noise.
I really wish this wasn’t the case, but I have a really bad feeling that all the idiotic full frame supremacists online have made it virtually impossible for MFT to make a comeback, despite how great it is, and how it can meet pretty much anyone’s needs. And when I say pretty much anyone’s needs, I mean 99% of people. Unless society changes to be more sane and reasonable again. And I can’t see that happening any time soon.
What's more embarrassing is watching people feel like they have to justify their love for m43.
I just use it. Couldn't give a shit what anyone else thinks of it
@@JoeMaranophotography If it wasn’t existential for the sensor format, I’d totally agree with you. But I don’t want something that is fundamentally a great thing be killed off by arguments akin to what we’ve seen in the console wars since the 90s. “Your choice of gaming system (or whatever else) is different from mine and therefore it should cease to exist”.
Shhhhhh, if too many people figure it out, up goes prices on gear.
@@grantparnes I’m not so sure about that one. I think MFT will always be significantly cheaper than 35mm cameras and lenses. Especially for the top end models. But the prices are still going up (partly due to inflation I guess) but also because they want to extract more profit from the most loyal people. To keep the business going relatively strongly. I wish we had a different economic system, but under this broken one, we can’t really expect much different.
Edit: Although I guess if you’re talking second hand then that’s probably true. Although prices on MPB when I looked didn’t exactly scream cheap. So yeah. Maybe.
I’ve recently invested in this system to use alongside my FF system. The OM 1 MkII rocks for wildlife and the like. The FF is my landscape beast. That said, I am testing out the pixel shift capabilities of the MFT to see how the large files the system can produce stack up.
Review new lens …. I see where this is going ….