Thanks for all your comment on the video 🙂 both for and against! i just made it because i can and i have both systems ATM and to satisfy my own curiosity. So i just shared what i would do anyway for my own fun 🙂 I love and use both systems!
I had the OM system for 3 years and then when the Z8 / 180-600 came out, I went for it as I have always loved the Nikon system and thought this was it. It's a superb combo!! however, I have serious rotator cuff / shoulder issues and after a year of serious use, had to give it up. I sold off all the Nikon gear and bought the great Gandalf of lenses (150-400 PRO) and it has been amazing. SHARP!!! WOW!!! I am now pain-free and enjoying my nature/wildlife photography once again. Both systems have pros / cons, but I can say from a person who feels every gram in their shoulder, the pro of the OM-1 / 150-400 PRO combo is the perfect solution.
Thank you so much for this video. It was shot from a non pro point of view and not only was it informative, you have saved me a lot of money by NOT buying into the om system and staying with my Nikon
Nikon System in US currency $19,493.90 - OM System $9899.98 from B&H Photo in NYC. That makes the Nikon $9593.92 more than the OM System! Quite a difference so is the Nikon $9593.95 better the the OM? The AI photo software these days is excellent and can level the field even more a trend that will continue to improve. It's all down to personal preference and the deep pockets. Of course a pro sports or wildlife photog would always choose the Nikon System.
If i can do a comparison, i would do z9 with 300mm f4 or 180-600mm then crop it down to mft sensor size. Focal lenght is focal length, people always misunderstand that and make wrong comparisons. Then om-1 will give out more pixel on square space. Other then that, z9 with 400 600 ztc and 800mm f6.3 will be out performance the OM1. Different system, different useage.
It balances out a bit if you start being interested in wide angle lenses, portrait lenses, sports type lenses. You will get cheaper, brighter and sharper ones for FF. Eg take just one area - portrait lenses. F1.2 Olympus/Panasonic are crazy expensive, yet they deliver worse separation and worse sharpness wide open than some super cheap ff f1.8s will. I love my m43 for telephoto compactness, but when it comes to other purpose lenses it becomes a financial headache. Ofc unless photos indistinguishable from smartphone are one's optimal results.
Interesting and practical look at both systems. As they say 'It is what it is.' Bokeh, sharpness and digital noise , quality in low light and impact on sharpness - it tells us what we already know and the evidence is clear! Which system you shoot with is simply down to budget, portability and personal preference on how far to go to see image quality. I have shot with Canon top spec gear and M 4/3 G9 - and each system has its place. Great video!
Impressive test of both systems, well done. Concerning the bokeh, I like the om1 during the football match because with less background blur it better situates the action, personal opinion.
I use the om-1 and the 300mm f4 lens ,if i used the massive nikon lens i simply would not get the shots because my reaction to situations would be not be quick enough. i also live in the viewfinder and what i mean by this is i dislike a small image in the finder but then crop and get away with it because of sensor size , i prefer the bird large in my EVF. Depth of field is an advantage on full frame but only at certain times and if you used medium format then you get less depth of field again though its not good for wildlife. I am a pretty fit 65 year old but i see a lot of people trudging around with massive full frame gear that they can barely carry let alone take images with so the realistic option for me is micro four thirds for birds/wildlife.
The issue, is that you need to putz with the Nikon, with the OM system, boom, you get the shot "YOU" want while my Nikon collagues arw still playing and setting up. Banks are for engineers, non field photographers and masochists. [U1,2,3] or [C1,C2,C#] are for photographers. Nikon, the more pain in getting that shot must translate to better captures ....
Thanks for this comparison. I work with both systems (no birds), and in most cases you don’t notice major differences. Obviously the bokeh effect in FF is more noticeable, but even with noise both system do a great job.
I have both systems and use the Z8 for shore birds, song birds street and landscape in the UK winter. For the warmer months I bring out the mini powerhouse, the OM-1 1.4TC, 300mm and 90mm macro. I shoot insects, bees, butterflies in flight and maco/extreme macro. Oh, also birds and wildlife. It also shoots great landscape but full frame files are better. Nikon Z8 files have more saturation, contrast and blurr. However the OM-1 can do so much more than the full frame Z8 and it is sharp as a Razor. Because I do such a wide range of photography if I were to choose only one system it would be the mico 4/3 OM-1. I am luck I do not have too.
THANK YOU! I have both the Z9, but only the 500mm F lens (for nature for personal enjoyment), and OM-1 (with 150-600mm) for hiking almost exclusively, while my Z-bodies are primarily for weddings and events. I agree with your observations. I consider it a compromise as even with TC-20 teleconverter, my Nikon kit tops-out at 1000mm while my OM kit hits up to 2400mm with Olympus TC. Balance of cropping ability VS actual "reach". One thing I noticed immediately, is that the Z9 offers more forgiveness of dynamic range, but IF you nail the OM-1's exposure and CHOOSE YOUR LIGHT, you get rewarded with shots you can't get otherwise with "hand-carry" opportunistic shooting. I need at least a monopod for my Nikon load-out. Both have their places in my view.
Mistake using Capture and not Workspace, DXO and Topaz. Issue is whether large print m43 looks sharp, noisefree and saturated and answer is resounding yes. Comparing is not useful as both look worse than large format but only subtly, so it’s all down to versatility. I used Nikon and now Om 1mk 2 and still Em 1mk 2 and 3. Nobody, even in gallery sizes, ever referred to I should have done them in larger format as the images are beautiful in m43.
First of all the comparison is not apples to apples. Yet your comparison methods raises questions. For examples at 3:26 pause and watch the images. Look closely where the goal keeper stands. The Nikon image used shows the Goal Keeper stand much farther from the Goal post, which adds additional Blur (background is far from Subject) where as the OM1 the position of Goal Keeper is close to Goal post compared to Nikon photo. This is visible, if you look closer to the bottom of the Nikon image where you can see the Goal Keeper stands close to the third White line
I want to show the over all difference in these systems and not in each photo. Since the making of this video i have gone semi pro in photographing football and right now its winter and dark so i only have stadium lights to work with and the OM-1 is unusable for pro photos in this condition and also in generel the DOF is not shallow enought no matter where the goal keeper stands with MFT and my agency would let me "go" if i used the OM-1 in the pro matches 😉 here you can see results from Z9 + Z 400mm instagram.com/dhjfoto
In terms of image quality, the Nikon Z9 is a clear winner, but it could be fun to see how the new OM-1 Mark2 with the new autofocus compares to the OM-1, even if I don't think it's in the same class as the top models from Canon , Nikon and Sony .....
The comparison you made, Dennis, was interesting. Because you are a birder, this made it even more interesting. Shooting objects from the distance is very important in such reviews. Many reviewers are missing this part.
Nice comparison video Dennis. You've got two very nice setups there. The Z9 and that f2.8 400mm lens looks like a winning combo. I might have to mortgage the house for it, but very impressive. And a second mortgage would be taken for the 150-400mm Oly lens. I shoot m43 Olympus/OM Systems. As the old saying goes "You get what you pay for." I've been very impressed with the Nikon offerings the past couple years. If I had to switch, Nikon would get a very serious look.
On thing, the OM shots are taken with higher ISO and we know that afect sharpness and quality... the almost fair test would be the OM with 40-150mm f2.8... Great content!
Thanks foe sharing your shooting experiences on both side by side. The results based on how you shot those are to be expected. I am not surprise. Cheers.
Very informative video. It shows the trade offs, but allows me to take educated decisions. Stick the more affordable 180-600 mm on the Z8, now we have about the same system price and the advantages of background separation and low light performance of the full frame Nikon will be gone. I have been a Nikon D700 full frame shooter, sold the system when Nikon switched to mirrorless. The OM-1 impresses me.
Thanks for the comparison. Z9 combo w 400f2.8 definitely is more superior however the OM system combo is also a great package with good quality and value for money.
I happen to own both of these systems I have to see each has its own strengths and weaknesses and either wins out in all situations. For perched birds, the OM-1 with that 100-400 f4.5 lens win out any single day especially in dark forest where you can shoot at shutter speed down to 30th of a second and lower the iso as much as possible. Much harder to do with the Z9 especially when you don’t have a tripod. But for fast actions and moving birds in bad light, the better sensor Z9 will win out. For video also, the Z9 will win too.
Thanks for an objective review. I have used both systems but sold the OM as I don’t shoot birds as a main subject but shoot a lot in low light and bigger wildlife subjects. OM has a great system and I enjoy the smaller form factor. And the Z system is more expensive. I shoot the Z8 and 500 f5.6 pf. Size and weight is also amazing for a FF system.
Interesting comparison Dennis. I understand that it is not a competition but still I think both systems win 😀 Nikon because of the quality and the OM system because it manages to keep up with the Nikon system in many areas. Would love to have either...
Great video, keep up comparing "incomparable" things, as this an interesting format and nobody is doing similar comparisons. Here, Z9 looks like an obvious winner from the quality standpoint, however I think that it's pretty unfair that you shot with f2.8 aperture on Z9 - it exaggerated the difference in background separation and bokeh even more than it already is (m4/3 vs ff). In future videos, maybe it's a good idea to even the playing field as much as possible, so that at least physics of the systems stay close to each other. I would personally like to see all those shots you made with OM-1 and Z9 but with aperture set to f4.5 on Z9 - we then would see more clearly how ff and m4/3 compare in background separation and not "ff with an additional 1.33 stops of aperture" vs m4/3.
Thanks Dmytro :) the plan for this video was just to see what both could deliver wide open as i often shoot in dim light but thanks for your feedback and i will shoot with more different and equal settings next time i get a crazy idea like this 😂 have a great day
I owned an OM-1 and Pro glass for a year. I then moved to a Z9 with S glass. The S glass is the ONLY glass I've used equal to the Pro Olympus glass. However the viewfinder, build and plethora of customization on the Z9 is legions better. Not to mention the shear dynamic range to work with . The Mft stuff is limited in that area in particular. Subject tracking on the Z9 is also considerably more reliable, especially with humans.
This is very interesting, I have a Canon R5 and a OM1, and do similar tests. There is not much difference between them. I had older Olympus bodies which were a long way behind but the OM1 is a game changer for me.
Thank you very much for this comparison. I think it's a much more relevant take on these two systems than shooting charts in a basement on a tripod. The MFT system has some strengths and some weakness, but the 150-400mm is still an absolute gem! My only concern is that OM Systems won't be releasing other lenses like this one in the near future, while Nikon has been doing an amazing job when it comes to telephoto and supertelephoto lenses.
Dennis, thanks for this and your other videos. I love your "crazy" comparisons. I use OM-1 with Olympus 150-400 mm f4.5 TC lens and fall in love with that setup for portability and travel. The lens is amazing. Since I have it my Sony setup with 200-600 mm is sitting on the shelf...OM System just introduced the OM-1 Mark 2. I would love to see if the claimed auto-focus improvements by OM ambassadors, particularly in video, are real (I am very skeptical). I would also love to see a comparison of the OM-1 setup with the Nikon setup with the very portable new 600 mm f6.3 lens. That lens combined with Z8 or even Z9 looks like a great portable combo.
As an MFT shooter, I have zero qualms in admitting the superiority of the Z9. Absolutely lovely files! I must admit, the 'bokeh' doesn't really hold that much of a charm in my eyes. But the damn are the Z9 files super sharp! I dream of owning that combo one day
Hello Dennis, Jose from Puerto Rico. I currently own the original Olympus OM-1 Mark I. Even though the new OM-1 Mark II came up shortly after the original, I decided not to upgrade. I would like to have your input on the original vs the newer model named OM System if you have upgraded. Would there be a need to upgrade? Having said that, I would like to see if it is possible you can make a video showing the ideal settings you prefer on the original OM-1 and how to set them up. By the way, I subscribed to your channel. My dream camera is of course the Z9, but it is not feasible for me at this moment.
Hi Jose, personally i dont think its worth the upgrade. So im keeping the mark 1 and see what happens in the future 😁 maybe i will do a settings episode some day 🤔 Thanks for your comment 🙏🏻
Is this the Nikon Z lens that sells for $14,000? Just curious. With a camera body that is over twice the cost of the OM-1, I would expect that the Nikon set up would win this comparison. It's an interesting comparison though.
Yes it is and the OM-1 and 150-400 is a very good setup and delivers great results. That said the Z9 is better and faster but i am happy with the OM-1 for sure
Nice work mate, well done. Thanks for doing it. I have the Nik D6 which is amazing, but still keep the Nik D750 and D700. At the same time I use Lumix G9 MFT for some reasons :). All the best!
3:55 Two footie photo's. The background on the OMphoto has more sharpness/contrast, but therefor it is more realistic and more in balance with how human eyes see reality, I think. 5:50 Two birds comparison. Nikon's bird unrealisticly seems to 'swim' in featureless space, OM's birds at least tells us that the bird is a real animal existing in a realistic habitat. If "smoothie slicky photo's" are your thing (Flickr) OM/Panny/mFT is not for you.
Thank you Dennis for another interesting video. Yesterday I ordered the OM-1 mark ii with the 150-400. I hope you can get your hands on the mark ii. OM ambassadors praise this updated body, that is no news but I prefer to know your opinion especially regarding the presumably better AF in the mark ii in stills and video. Cheers Ron.😀👍
Im sure you will love the gear and no doubt the Mark II is better .. but i dont think its worth an upgrade if you already have the OM-1 Mark I from what i have seen and heard. So im not purchasing it, would love to try it out thou :) Thanks for your comment Ron :)
@@DennisJacobsenWildlife The buffer on the Mark II has been greatly improved with double the the amount of shots before buffering happens but from the reviews I've seen picture quality has not changed. This would be a big plus for wildlife guys. Great comparison.
@@DennisJacobsenWildlife For birds, there are two things the OM1 Mark II has that would be nice. Apparently the Mark II can pick out a bird in a tree as long as it can see the head. That would be great. (although I read from real people and NOT propaganda ambassadors, that the bird tracking on the Mark II is not as good as the Mark 1) Also, when doing continues shooting or pro-capture the buffer does not have to clear to start shooing again. These seem like small issues but often make the difference between getting or missing a shot. Oh, the new buffer size would also help a bit.
@@earlteigrob9211 I haven`t really read anything about the M2 but would love to test it out ( but wont buy it to test it) head to head against the M1! i looks like there will be a firmware for the M1 this autumn improving the AF so i am really exited to see if that happens.
Nice! I like this comparison! Z9: $5,496 Nikon 400mm f/2.8: $13,996 (f/4.5: $2,996 w/o built-in TC) OM-1: $1,999 (Mark II: $2,399) 150-400mm: $7,499 Something else: Pana-Leica 200mm f/2.8: $2,997 (I really would like this one added to the comparison)
Nice to see comparisons about how someone would actually shoot with these camera/lens combinations, instead of something rigged to be supposedly 'fair'. The killer lens for the Z9 for this kind of shot is the 800/6.3, which whilst not exactly cheap is less eye-watering than might be expected.
A Prime vs a Zoom? Good comparison and very informative. Amazing how closely they compare!!! I have the 300F4 and from what I have read, it is lightly sharper then the Big White. For most types of professional shooting I would probably go full frame but for hiking mountains and shooting for fun, the MFT is more than good enough. In fact, since I started using DXO PureRaw I have yet to find a picture that I wish I would have shot it in FF. For shooting birds and BIF, the 1.4x TC lives on the 300 except in very low light conditions. Also, the OM1 has so many features that are perfectly geared for my type of shooting. I use many of the bracketing and computation features on a regular basis.
Thanks, an interesting comparison! I had to go look up prices as I had no idea of the prices of the Nikon gear, that is expensive! I used to shoot Nikon for work though rarely demanding telephoto and no wildlife. I have gone Olympus / OMDS as my personal camera road. I was a little disappointed with the first shots where you blamed the OM-1 focus system, but I will accept them assuming that you have the right settings to get optimum focus. It did seem that your birding pictures especially were specifically forcing the OM-1 into much higher ISO usage, where with fairly static shots the stabilization might have allowed to grab back those couple of stops. And if you're looking for "best" in the telephoto landscape shots, then the Hi-Res computational modes can grab back most if not all of the extra resolution, bit depth, and color noise and compare closely to the larger Nikon sensor. For these cases that are at the edge of the capablities, I would be surprised if Nikon did not win most of the time. And using the Oly 300mm f/4 and the 1.4 teleconverter might still end up with closer competition as others have noted. Each system has strengths, and price/performance is one where OMDS is competitive, but the Nikon is a beautiful top drawer system.
Just got my own and will test it with the 500mm pf against the om-1 with 150-400mm pro at 500mm f5.6 to make the comparison as close as possible. In theory the om-1 images uncropped vs Z9 cropped should be sharper than the Z9, no?
My findings are Z9 + 400mm are sharper if not CRAZY cropped and with internal TC around the same and with 2xTC the OM-1 + 150-400mm are sharper on static subjects .. but like in the video it is compared with "casual" shooting and are not Scientific in any way 😁 just my opinion.
@@DennisJacobsenWildlife I must say that after doing some testing myself today, namely, with the nikon Z9 and nikkor 500mm pf f5.6 vs OM-1 and the 150-400mm f4.5 pro at 500mm and f5.6. Both at iso 2500. I photographed a 10x10 cm subject at aprox 9 meters away. Same light, same place on a tripod. And as I can see, the OM-1 is sharper! No question, I would choose the 150-400mm pro all day.
@@DennisJacobsenWildlife yes i agree, if it hadn't been for this lens alone, I would never gone the mft road. Happy I did 😄 still love my Nikons though 😊
Many thanks for the comparison! I was hoping you would do it :-). Please, make an additionally comparison using noise reduction software such as Dxo PureRaw (for the files from both systems). I think that then the difference will become negligible.
Super Thanks Four this video! The 400 2.8 Nikkor is probably the best Lens one the market now, optically and the Z9 is one of the best outdoor and WL cameras. So no surprise here. However, as I have the OM1 and 150-400 and badly waiting for an OM1X, I have to say some photos do not look right, respectively not sharp enough. The OM1 focussing system while great, is sometimes a pain and can create some issues but from my experience it does not look right. You might want to send both to service for checking…. One thing I have to say that especially with the OM1 Files Topaz DeNoise and Sharpen work wonders (far better then with the older Olympus Cameras).
I agree, did some testing myself with the z9, 500mm pf lens and the OM-1 with the 150-400mm at 500mm. at least on my end the OM-1 combo blows the Z9 + 500mm pf out of the water. the sharpness edge of the OM-1 combo is imminent. I have been shooting with nikon since 2008 using some exotic lenses like 300mm f2.8 and 500mm f4 to name a few, and the best camera i've used so far, is the OM-1 hands down.
The shot at 1:20 vs 1:30 for the OM-1, why does the shot with the built in TC resolve fewer details? Shouldn't the TC improve the details? The 800mm photo looks more detailed than the 1000mm photo, despite it having fewer pixels on the subject. Can you please explain this outcome? Is the built in TC on the 150-400 useless? Useless in that, you're better off cropping in post to get more reach, rather than activating the TC for more reach.
Do you mind sharing the OM-1 raw files for the two chimney photos at 2:00 (800mm) and 2:10 (1000mm). I would like to examine them closely to see if the built in TC on the 150-400 actually provides any additional details vs. just cropping at 800mm. I have heard from a few people who own the lens who claim the TC adds no benefit whatsoever in terms of resolving more details. The examples shown here appear to support that claim, but I would like to see the raw files to judge for myself. Alternatively, if you don't mind, could you please do a video comparing cropping a 800mm photo to 1000mm, vs using the 1.25x TC to get 1000mm in camera? If the theory is true, then I think a lot of your viewers would be interested to hear, as this is something that very few people (but the most critical of image quality) have spoke up about.
There are times where one system is preferred over another but both MFT and FF has its place in this world for sure :) thanks for your comment. BTW do you have a portfolio you can link to and share with me and the people following this channel?
...and also stop down your Nikon lens to f8, shooting at the same distance and then, make a comparison between the two lenses, you´ll be surprised that your creamy bokehlicious background will dissapear just like that.
choices choices I do not have the cash for Nikon and would rather use that cash if in reach for travel that for probably the small difference in bookeh . Next it the weight and the portability during trips ... (in aircraft) @@remusmoise8836
I have the money for either a second hand Sony 400mm F/2.8 or an OM 150-400mm f4.5 and I'm agonising over the choice right now 😅 I mostly do bird photography and it's a versatility and range Vs quality and low light performance arguement. This video is a great example.
You will get far shaper images with more micro contrast, better noise performance and unsurpassed colour if you process the OM files with OM Workspace - for some reason third party software does not process OM/Olympus images very well (they all seem optimised for Canikon/Sony).
I've not had the pleasure of using any Nikon Z camera, but I have two D810 bodies (with battery packs) that replaced D4s bodies and an OM-D E-M1 MkII with battery grip. I shoot B2B events (conferences & exhibitions), fashion events (such as London Fashion Week) and live music (from unknown bands in dingy pubs & clubs to the Rolling Stones at Glastonbury). For live music it will always be the Nikons, but for the fashion shows the Olympus with the 40-150mm is around half the weight of the Nikon with a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 My back and shoulders thank me. Image quality wise - given most images end up in newspapers or newspaper web sites - there's very little in it between full frame and MFT. You only really notice a difference if you're doing exhibition size prints or larger, which I'm not. I also use the Olympus at B2B events as, again, it's much lighter when carrying gear around all day (9am-5.30pm or beyond) without much of a break.
I loved this comparison but would love to see it with both cameras using the most equivalent comparable lenses: i.e. the Olympus 300 f4 pro and Nikon 600 f4 both shot wide open.
I posted that this video is "interesting." That is an understatement. Too many people think the Nikon Z and OM System are incomparable. That suggestion ignores the elephant in the room. MANY photographers do not understand why iPhone and Galaxy phones can manage solid photos in a microscopic "photographic package" but "pro systems" are still too expensive and too heavy to lug around in many situations. Dennis understands that the real battleground is quality vs. size. I wish he would throw in some Galaxy or iPhone shots and compare those even more incomparable "photo systems." I was a Nikon / Leica photographer. The Leica was a small and perfect tool. The Nikon was amazing and large. Leica did not survive the digital age. Leica glass is great. Leica tech can't keep up with anyone but is more expensive than everyone. Oly micro 4/3 could make better modern use of Leica glass than Leica. Oly and Nikon were different but great. Nikon Z changed that. The size / quality disparity wasn't there. Dennis lays it out: If you have the z and 400 2.8 for wildlife and hiking, the Z cropped will significantly outperform the OM System camera straight up. If you are choosing a system, the OM System is about $9K, the Nikon is $18k plus. The OLY is about 2/5ths lighter. The Nikon images are better... 2x the price and 2/5ths heavier...but I own it. It is worth lugging it.
If the Oly is 2/5 lighter, then the Nikon is 2/3 heavier. If the Nikon weighs 500 units, then the Oly at 2/5 lighter weighs 300 units. So the Nikon weighs 200 units more than the 300 unit Oly - i.e 2/3 heavier. Just my 2c .....
Hello Dennis ! This is Rahul Deshpande from India. Love your videos keep posting. I need your kind advice I currently use Nikon D500 - 300f4 -1.4 TC but I am planning to shift and confused/torn between below 2 1. OM-1 + Olympus 300 f4 (used) OR 2. Nikon ZF + Nikon Z 180-600 My budget is restricted to above. OM-1 has Procapture, stacked sensor, bird AF, better stabilisation sync with the 300pro lens Also it’s good for other types of photography like Astro, Macro etc. ZF is Full frame, also has Pre-release (limited kind of Procapture), may have better low light performance, has Bird eye AF, it can get smoother background and subject separation Cost wise both the almost same Kindly let me know your thoughts Other folks can also suggest and share their views Thank you!
Hi there and thanks for your comment 🙂 i dont know so much about the ZF but you do get better IQ, shallow DOF like you said with FF. If i only shoot photos i am more than satisfied with the OM-1 but i also do a lot of video and that why i also have Z9. But its really hard to give advice what to choose because i have both MFT and FF 😁 and love both systems. If a want to go light and shoot more static stuff, macro and so on i use the OM-1 and if shoot action, lowlight and video i grab the Z9.
@@godsinboxoh I think he was using 2x for the Nikon, and just bare lens at max zoom for the OM-1. In that case, the Nikon should have a significant megapixel advantage. I'm surprised how soft the photo turned out. The 2x TC on the Nikon must not be very good. That, or his copy is decentered.
Nikon 2xTC and OM full zoom here to match focal lenght in 35mm terms and yes the OM are sharper in this setup :) just remember this is a CRAZY large crop.
I have the Z9, the Z 800mm PF and the Z 180-600mm. Always looking for the OM-1 for the same reasons you have it. It would be nice to see how the OM-1 Mark II shoots AF tracking on BIF. I am torn apart between getting the Z 400mm 2.8 or the OM-1 II with the 150-400 Zuiko. I guess what kills the OM-1 II is the buffer, although it seems they increased the size it looks like very limiting yet.
I don't have the OM1 but the older EM1X , and bunch of full frame bodies including the Z9, from my own picture, I don't even need to zoom in to tell the difference between the picture I got from my Z9 and EM1X, it's really really easy to tell how much better the FF image is in terms of rendering and shadow background, so I pretty much abandoned the EM1X ( along with the 300 F4 and 100-400), I rather even go back to my really old 1Dx instead of the EM1X, I will probably try the Om-1 MK II some day to see how much improvement in the image quality, but I really don't have any expectation on the 20MP MFT sensor.
I think they are comparable, the tradeoff is like you said, reach. One number that changed perspectives for me is that to take a full frame picture and to crop into the same framing as a 20mp mft camera, you would need an 80megapixels camera. The other thing that won me over is the stabilization on video, you lose some sharpness when using dual stabilization, but then it allows me to shoot hand held video at 400mm cropped as if it was 800.
A brave comparison to make, but I think you nailed it. M43 isn’t so far away and the difference can be more down to practicalities and your own needs, not image quality.
hi Dennis The Nikon is slightly better, but the differences are not very big. I think if you had used the OM-1 Mark II, the differences would have been even smaller. it remains true that the much more expensive Nikon performs a little better. The Om -1 delivers a very good performance here, especially compared to a great camera like the Nikon Z9 with a top lens. nice comparison. thanks for the test😂😂
I love my OM-1 and 300 F4 plus 1.4 teleconverter and have got some great bird and Macro shots with this gear, now we have the OM 1 Mk II with better auto focus and many other internal mods like ram etc, extra stops of ibis but is the upgrade worth it ? and the cost of the 150-400 F 4.5 which i would love to own but the cost is over the top for me. I have just costed the Om-1 system with the 150-400 = $16300 NZ , The Nikon Z9 with the F4.5 Prime = $15850 NZ. Is the OM-1 Mk II and the 150-400 worth the money at $17000 ? I don't think so. Maybe time to try the Z8 as it seems like a great camera with great specs ! Cheers from New Zealand
It amuses me how so many of the OM fan boy comments below rationalize the clear advantages that the full format Nikon had in the comparison. I also own both combination compared here and find the Z9, especially even when using the much less expensive 600mm PF f/6.3 lens, produces far superior images under almost all telephoto situations. As such when seeking top performance, I reserve my usage of the OM-1 to normal and wider focal lengths when the light is good and objects are relatively still. I now have added the lighter z8 to my bag with additional benefits. The OM combination remains an excellent tool but just not a superior one.
A much belated happy new year and best wishes for the rest of the year to come. I’ll say straight away that I have used Olympus cameras and lenses since 2007 and I don’t use full frame, primarily because of the cost and latterly because the of the weight and the sheer size. I would also not take issue that in absolute terms full frame image output achieves higher quality then full frame when shooting in less then optimal light and or where you want to present a defused background to make the subject pop. Where I would take issue with tests of this kind - fun as they might be are: 1. No regard to cost. The Nikon kit here in the Uk is £17.000.00 which is more than twice the price of the OM / Olympus equipment. 2. The Nikon is an extremely fast dedicated prime lens whereas the Olympus lens is a zoom lens. 3. Zoom lenses are significantly more difficult to design and manufacture and one would never expect them to outperform a prime lens. 4. A much more objective comparison would have been to use the Olympus 300mm f4. In terms of absolute image quality I understand it outperforms the 150-400. I own the former but not the latter so cannot personally vouch for this but it would make sense for it to be the case. 5. The 150-400 is unique. No other system can provide the user with so much flexibility in a hand held lens and still achieve the quality it provides. It’s something of a super zoom without most of the limitations normally associated with them in terms of size, speed, or usability, weight, build quality and image quality. It would interesting if you repeated the experiment but this time replaced the 150-400 with the 300. Save for the unavailable difference in background blur I think you would be pleasantly surprised at how well the Olympus / OM system performs. Also, for a bit the of extra fun …. Hand hold the kit and shoot each at its base iso and then, to take away the advantage the significantly, faster Nikon 2.8 has, shoot it at f4. Yes, it will cripple its light gathering capabilities and force you to decrease the shutter speed and you will probably say, why would I spend all this money on it not to take advantage of its strengths, but in a way that’s exactly what you were doing with the Olympus / OM System kit in comparing a slower zoom lens on a sensor which does not perform as well in low light with a faster prime on a sensor that performs better in low light. The odds were always stacked in favour of the Nikon and the results something of a foregone conclusion. Level up the playing field and see what the margin of difference is and then look at the differentials in price, weight and size. Take care. Happy trails.
The other thing is it takes a lot of pixel peeping to notice any real differences. Only youtubers have both to compare and to see any differences in the fist place, and i still don't see the point other to make money from tube. They serve no real purpose to anyone
I think you may have just convinced me to get a Panasonic s-5 instead of an OM Systems OM1. Of course, it's unfair comparing the details to an astronomically expensive Z9, but the soft backgrounds are where full frames shine. I will say, however, that given the OM1 costs several times less (the price has dropped a lot lately), it performed very well!
Nikon quality certainly is better. I have Olympus and non pro 400mm lens. Main reason is cost, but also weight as I hike a lot and 2.5lb vs 6.5lb just comparing the lens is significant saving when carrying a camera for many miles. On Olympus I often find the captured background to be terrible
This is an interesting comparison. The poor performance of the Olympus seems to be more related to the ISO being too high, than anything else. In the first image comparison the Z9 is shooting at 900iso (if I am reading that correctly) and the Olympus is shooting at 6400 which is way beyond the useable range of a micro 4/3 sensor. Especially if you want to see the detail of the image. Maybe I am miss understanding the test, but these variables should have been accounted for. The premise of the video is pretty cool though.
I just wanted to show how they compared with settings i usually shoot with and what to expect 😁 Here in Denmark there are a lot of days with poor light so often i have to push up the ISO for BIF shots etc. but all in all they are both really good systems and still use both 📷🎥
Were you not comparing the Nikon Prime lens against the OM zoom. The Prime would always be sharper. I used to shoot Nikon ( loved the cameras and Lens ) but the weight got too much to be lugging around all day. Bought into Oly a few years ago , now have the OM-1.
I loved my MFT system, but as my interest in bird photography increased and I often found myself sitting in the woods an hour before dawn. I miss the size and weight of my old Lumix system, but the noise difference is night and day.
seems to me some of the initial photo comparisons make om-1 look worse due to the high ISO. I know this is expected as it has a higher f-stop, but it's being pushed to a territory where the small sensor suffers. I know personally I would not be zooming hard into iso 6400 or 10 000 photos. meanwhile later photo of the chimney - the most cropped photo - shows lesser of a difference as it is at iso640. I am noticing details take a big hit when iso goes up w m43. in the field - the great IBIS helps to partially bridge the gap in noise performance w steady subjects.
*and the differences in dof are interesting and clear. acc to online DOF calculators - the m34 at 400 4.5 should have lesser dof than FF at 400 2.8 if im not mistaken . obviously this is not true from your results.
Ha! This video came out just as OMS introduced the new OM1 mark II. I pre - ordered mine two days ago. To be honest, I enjoy comparison videos such as this. Though OMS produce a system I regard as near perfect for me, it is still interesting to see how my system compares to others. I used to use Nikon and still admire Nikon products. Additionally, having owned Sony A7II, A7III, A7R4 and A9 + 100 - 400mm, 200 - 600mm etc., I am more than familiar with FF gear.
Interesting comparison.... but at the end i would also have added the price tag.... 10k€ against 22k€.... zoom against prime lens ... would love to see the results with a Z9 + 100-400 and TC... then we are also at a similar pricepoint.
Dennis, If you use the z9 and the 400f2.8, then please don't use the 150-400 on the Om-1 for the soccer comparison, but the 40-150pro f2.8. That is more real.
150 (300mm) dosen´t cover the field good enough with 20mp in my opinion but yes 300 f/2.8 vs 300mm f/4.5 is the better option i agree 🙂 both would be optimal on a soccer field 🤔
Just made a quick comparison and at 200mm on the big white it has a more shallow depth of field than the 40-150mm see it here : drive.google.com/file/d/1o5cdSfZChGfaN0Mksh-rMcwvUPxtX07X/view?usp=sharing of course the ISO will creep up more on the f/4.5 in bad light but for subject separation the big white is better on a football field
A more practical comparison would be OM-1 with 150-400 vs Nikon Z8 with 180-600, closer in weight, reach, light-gathering capacity (per subject, as both lenses have the same 95mm entrance pupil), and Nikon system even less expensive than OM. I bet Nikon would still beat the OM handily, but the main advantage of Nikon would be the larger field of view and cropability making the photography of moving targets so much more easy.
it would not beat it, the Olympus 150-400 mm f4.5 TC lens is sharper than the Sony 200-600 mm, which is superior to Nikon 180-600 mm lens and you would need to use higher ISO with the Nikon lens, which would negate the sensor size benefits
@@palpacher1968 I am not saying that Nikon setup would give more light per subject, and I agree that the higher F number and larger sensor of Nikon would negate each other and produce about the same light for equivalent field of view (or per subject) as the OM setup (to say this, it is sufficient to know that the entrance pupil of the two lenses is the same). However, if we crop 600 mm of Nikon setup to the equivalent field of view of the OM at 400 mm, we would still get more pixels than the 20 Mp of the OM, meaning potentially better resolution. And before cropping, we still have a convenience of significantly larger field of view, so less danger to clip wings etc. - more keepers. In my experience, Sony 200-600 on a1 (50 Mp) is plenty sharp at the pixel level, and I read the reviews that Nikon 180-600 is very similar. Even if the OM 150-400 is marginally sharper (perceived sharpness may be also due to a smaller pixel number of the OM), this in my opinion is less important than the convenience of larger field of view. Above all, if one can get closer and fill the frame with the subject, then Nikon setup with 180-600 gathers twice as much light as OM (one stop less aperture, but 2 stops more sensor size). In other words, one would need to raise ISO by one stop, but one stop higher ISO on FF still looks better than MFT.
Hey Dennis, I really enjoy your comparisons videos (they're different and based on practice)... ...but, this comparison... even if you'd use two same Nikon Z9 setups, one at ISO 900 and other at ISO 6400 the iq and ''sharpness'' would be much worse on the one with iso 6400, right? ...There are other examples of major ISO differences in this video as well... ...so i have to give this comparison a ''bad verdict'' from the viewer-informative point of view, because it doesn't show the real difference, as i assume your goal was in the first place / to show the real difference, right? (?maybe there was a outside-lighting change, or there was different metering used? i don't know) i just know if you'd use two Nikon 400mm Z9 setups, with such a drastic ISO differences, the IQ would also be drastically different (but from this video we don't get to see the real difference shooting in the same circumstances), don't you agree? i love your content nonetheless... keep it fresh and different... best regards
Hi and thanks for sharing your thoughts 👍🏻😁 I shoot both setups wide open like what i mostly do photographing birds and to show them side by side in this config. Next time i make a comparison like this i also will compare exactly the same settings because you are not the first saying this 😁 thanks for your input 🙏🏻
I compared what to expect in best Aperture performance settings wide open as i use them most of the time and how it looks. Nothing scientific here just having some fun comparing 😉
I think Olympus and now OM System insist that their system is useful for photographing birds but it is definitely not ideal in terms of final quality. The advantages of weight and size are there but the small M43 sensor is a disadvantage when it comes to focusing and complicated if cropping is required. Definitely the only thing I have M43 for is to have a travel camera with a 12-40 where the great depth of field of the M43 in this case can be an advantage in landscape photography. Excellent content, very illustrative.
Eh the OM1 shots were taken with higher iso's so naturally they won't seem as sharp?! This seems more of an F stop test to be honest with obvious results.
![แฉกลโกงงานวัด 2024 [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.106 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/taC5dpP3HXA/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for all your comment on the video 🙂 both for and against! i just made it because i can and i have both systems ATM and to satisfy my own curiosity. So i just shared what i would do anyway for my own fun 🙂 I love and use both systems!
I had the OM system for 3 years and then when the Z8 / 180-600 came out, I went for it as I have always loved the Nikon system and thought this was it. It's a superb combo!! however, I have serious rotator cuff / shoulder issues and after a year of serious use, had to give it up. I sold off all the Nikon gear and bought the great Gandalf of lenses (150-400 PRO) and it has been amazing. SHARP!!! WOW!!!
I am now pain-free and enjoying my nature/wildlife photography once again.
Both systems have pros / cons, but I can say from a person who feels every gram in their shoulder, the pro of the OM-1 / 150-400 PRO combo is the perfect solution.
Yes it is a GREAT combo and super lightweight compared to the big FF systems 🙂 thanks for you comment.
Shhhh..... it's our secret. We get the shot, while the Z9'ers play with thei settings, banks, focus.
Thank you so much for this video. It was shot from a non pro point of view and not only was it informative, you have saved me a lot of money by NOT buying into the om system and staying with my Nikon
Nikon System in US currency $19,493.90 - OM System $9899.98 from B&H Photo in NYC. That makes the Nikon $9593.92 more than the OM System! Quite a difference so is the Nikon $9593.95 better the the OM? The AI photo software these days is excellent and can level the field even more a trend that will continue to improve. It's all down to personal preference and the deep pockets. Of course a pro sports or wildlife photog would always choose the Nikon System.
A better comparison would be vs 300mm f4. Prime vs prime. The cost that would be much less for the OM system.
There is also quite the difference in the photos. This difference will on grow when going towards conditions with less light
I can’t even afford the difference
If i can do a comparison, i would do z9 with 300mm f4 or 180-600mm then crop it down to mft sensor size. Focal lenght is focal length, people always misunderstand that and make wrong comparisons. Then om-1 will give out more pixel on square space. Other then that, z9 with 400 600 ztc and 800mm f6.3 will be out performance the OM1. Different system, different useage.
It balances out a bit if you start being interested in wide angle lenses, portrait lenses, sports type lenses. You will get cheaper, brighter and sharper ones for FF. Eg take just one area - portrait lenses. F1.2 Olympus/Panasonic are crazy expensive, yet they deliver worse separation and worse sharpness wide open than some super cheap ff f1.8s will.
I love my m43 for telephoto compactness, but when it comes to other purpose lenses it becomes a financial headache. Ofc unless photos indistinguishable from smartphone are one's optimal results.
Interesting and practical look at both systems. As they say 'It is what it is.' Bokeh, sharpness and digital noise , quality in low light and impact on sharpness - it tells us what we already know and the evidence is clear! Which system you shoot with is simply down to budget, portability and personal preference on how far to go to see image quality. I have shot with Canon top spec gear and M 4/3 G9 - and each system has its place. Great video!
Impressive test of both systems, well done. Concerning the bokeh, I like the om1 during the football match because with less background blur it better situates the action, personal opinion.
Love these comparisons, want more of these type of videos in the future comparing more systems!
I use the om-1 and the 300mm f4 lens ,if i used the massive nikon lens i simply would not get the shots because my reaction to situations would be not be quick enough. i also live in the viewfinder and what i mean by this is i dislike a small image in the finder but then crop and get away with it because of sensor size , i prefer the bird large in my EVF.
Depth of field is an advantage on full frame but only at certain times and if you used medium format then you get less depth of field again though its not good for wildlife.
I am a pretty fit 65 year old but i see a lot of people trudging around with massive full frame gear that they can barely carry let alone take images with so the realistic option for me is micro four thirds for birds/wildlife.
Thank you for commenting :)
Thanks for your comment and experience with MFT
The issue, is that you need to putz with the Nikon, with the OM system, boom, you get the shot "YOU" want while my Nikon collagues arw still playing and setting up. Banks are for engineers, non field photographers and masochists. [U1,2,3] or [C1,C2,C#] are for photographers. Nikon, the more pain in getting that shot must translate to better captures ....
Thanks for this comparison. I work with both systems (no birds), and in most cases you don’t notice major differences. Obviously the bokeh effect in FF is more noticeable, but even with noise both system do a great job.
I have both systems and use the Z8 for shore birds, song birds street and landscape in the UK winter. For the warmer months I bring out the mini powerhouse, the OM-1 1.4TC, 300mm and 90mm macro. I shoot insects, bees, butterflies in flight and maco/extreme macro. Oh, also birds and wildlife. It also shoots great landscape but full frame files are better.
Nikon Z8 files have more saturation, contrast and blurr. However the OM-1 can do so much more than the full frame Z8 and it is sharp as a Razor.
Because I do such a wide range of photography if I were to choose only one system it would be the mico 4/3 OM-1.
I am luck I do not have too.
Thanks for your comment 👍🏻😁
I really like your comparison videos. Well done. I like the comparison videos so much that I subscribed
Thanks 😁 appreciated
感謝Dennis影片分享，持續關注您的一切分享，我過去使用過OM1+150-400mm pro，它拍照沒有問題，但是錄影時，長焦段的對焦與追焦完全不行，但是使用到Nikon Z8+863，真的是讓我太滿意了。感謝感謝Dennis影片分享，祝福您!
Very interesting comparison Dennis. Your test plan was very thorough and interesting. Thank yoiu for yoiur test report. 👍 📷 😎 👋
THANK YOU! I have both the Z9, but only the 500mm F lens (for nature for personal enjoyment), and OM-1 (with 150-600mm) for hiking almost exclusively, while my Z-bodies are primarily for weddings and events. I agree with your observations. I consider it a compromise as even with TC-20 teleconverter, my Nikon kit tops-out at 1000mm while my OM kit hits up to 2400mm with Olympus TC. Balance of cropping ability VS actual "reach". One thing I noticed immediately, is that the Z9 offers more forgiveness of dynamic range, but IF you nail the OM-1's exposure and CHOOSE YOUR LIGHT, you get rewarded with shots you can't get otherwise with "hand-carry" opportunistic shooting. I need at least a monopod for my Nikon load-out. Both have their places in my view.
Thank you for the commentand your opinion :) i agree with what you say here 👍
Mistake using Capture and not Workspace, DXO and Topaz. Issue is whether large print m43 looks sharp, noisefree and saturated and answer is resounding yes. Comparing is not useful as both look worse than large format but only subtly, so it’s all down to versatility. I used Nikon and now Om 1mk 2 and still Em 1mk 2 and 3. Nobody, even in gallery sizes, ever referred to I should have done them in larger format as the images are beautiful in m43.
First of all the comparison is not apples to apples. Yet your comparison methods raises questions. For examples at 3:26 pause and watch the images. Look closely where the goal keeper stands. The Nikon image used shows the Goal Keeper stand much farther from the Goal post, which adds additional Blur (background is far from Subject) where as the OM1 the position of Goal Keeper is close to Goal post compared to Nikon photo. This is visible, if you look closer to the bottom of the Nikon image where you can see the Goal Keeper stands close to the third White line
I want to show the over all difference in these systems and not in each photo. Since the making of this video i have gone semi pro in photographing football and right now its winter and dark so i only have stadium lights to work with and the OM-1 is unusable for pro photos in this condition and also in generel the DOF is not shallow enought no matter where the goal keeper stands with MFT and my agency would let me "go" if i used the OM-1 in the pro matches 😉 here you can see results from Z9 + Z 400mm instagram.com/dhjfoto
In terms of image quality, the Nikon Z9 is a clear winner, but it could be fun to see how the new OM-1 Mark2 with the new autofocus compares to the OM-1, even if I don't think it's in the same class as the top models from Canon , Nikon and Sony .....
The comparison you made, Dennis, was interesting.
Because you are a birder, this made it even more interesting. Shooting objects from the distance is very important in such reviews. Many reviewers are missing this part.
Nicely done! A very realistic comparison.
Nice comparison video Dennis. You've got two very nice setups there. The Z9 and that f2.8 400mm lens looks like a winning combo. I might have to mortgage the house for it, but very impressive. And a second mortgage would be taken for the 150-400mm Oly lens. I shoot m43 Olympus/OM Systems. As the old saying goes "You get what you pay for." I've been very impressed with the Nikon offerings the past couple years. If I had to switch, Nikon would get a very serious look.
I think I would sell one of my kidney's for the OM System and the another one for the Nikon.
On thing, the OM shots are taken with higher ISO and we know that afect sharpness and quality... the almost fair test would be the OM with 40-150mm f2.8... Great content!
Thanks foe sharing your shooting experiences on both side by side. The results based on how you shot those are to be expected. I am not surprise. Cheers.
Very informative video. It shows the trade offs, but allows me to take educated decisions. Stick the more affordable 180-600 mm on the Z8, now we have about the same system price and the advantages of background separation and low light performance of the full frame Nikon will be gone. I have been a Nikon D700 full frame shooter, sold the system when Nikon switched to mirrorless. The OM-1 impresses me.
Thanks for the comparison. Z9 combo w 400f2.8 definitely is more superior however the OM system combo is also a great package with good quality and value for money.
My opinion to :) thanks for sharing
Very impressed with the OM System...think I'll get it now at less than half the price
It is a very good system 👍🏻📷😁
If you can live with a prime, the 300mm F4 is even sharper then the 150-400 and way less money.
I happen to own both of these systems I have to see each has its own strengths and weaknesses and either wins out in all situations. For perched birds, the OM-1 with that 100-400 f4.5 lens win out any single day especially in dark forest where you can shoot at shutter speed down to 30th of a second and lower the iso as much as possible. Much harder to do with the Z9 especially when you don’t have a tripod. But for fast actions and moving birds in bad light, the better sensor Z9 will win out. For video also, the Z9 will win too.
Thanks for an objective review. I have used both systems but sold the OM as I don’t shoot birds as a main subject but shoot a lot in low light and bigger wildlife subjects. OM has a great system and I enjoy the smaller form factor. And the Z system is more expensive. I shoot the Z8 and 500 f5.6 pf. Size and weight is also amazing for a FF system.
Interesting comparison Dennis. I understand that it is not a competition but still I think both systems win 😀 Nikon because of the quality and the OM system because it manages to keep up with the Nikon system in many areas. Would love to have either...
Thanks and you are right, both are very capable systems 🙂
Wow that Om1 is surprising. Fascinating comparison.
Great video, keep up comparing "incomparable" things, as this an interesting format and nobody is doing similar comparisons.
Here, Z9 looks like an obvious winner from the quality standpoint, however I think that it's pretty unfair that you shot with f2.8 aperture on Z9 - it exaggerated the difference in background separation and bokeh even more than it already is (m4/3 vs ff).
In future videos, maybe it's a good idea to even the playing field as much as possible, so that at least physics of the systems stay close to each other. I would personally like to see all those shots you made with OM-1 and Z9 but with aperture set to f4.5 on Z9 - we then would see more clearly how ff and m4/3 compare in background separation and not "ff with an additional 1.33 stops of aperture" vs m4/3.
Thanks Dmytro :) the plan for this video was just to see what both could deliver wide open as i often shoot in dim light but thanks for your feedback and i will shoot with more different and equal settings next time i get a crazy idea like this 😂 have a great day
I owned an OM-1 and Pro glass for a year. I then moved to a Z9 with S glass. The S glass is the ONLY glass I've used equal to the Pro Olympus glass. However the viewfinder, build and plethora of customization on the Z9 is legions better. Not to mention the shear dynamic range to work with . The Mft stuff is limited in that area in particular. Subject tracking on the Z9 is also considerably more reliable, especially with humans.
Precise my experience! 😁
This is very interesting, I have a Canon R5 and a OM1, and do similar tests. There is not much difference between them. I had older Olympus bodies which were a long way behind but the OM1 is a game changer for me.
It delivers relly amazing results for sure 😁
Thank you very much for this comparison. I think it's a much more relevant take on these two systems than shooting charts in a basement on a tripod. The MFT system has some strengths and some weakness, but the 150-400mm is still an absolute gem! My only concern is that OM Systems won't be releasing other lenses like this one in the near future, while Nikon has been doing an amazing job when it comes to telephoto and supertelephoto lenses.
Interesting format, and very cool picture gallery on the wall! Are those prints on glossy paper, or there is a glass/acryl on top of them?
Dennis, thanks for this and your other videos. I love your "crazy" comparisons. I use OM-1 with Olympus 150-400 mm f4.5 TC lens and fall in love with that setup for portability and travel. The lens is amazing. Since I have it my Sony setup with 200-600 mm is sitting on the shelf...OM System just introduced the OM-1 Mark 2. I would love to see if the claimed auto-focus improvements by OM ambassadors, particularly in video, are real (I am very skeptical). I would also love to see a comparison of the OM-1 setup with the Nikon setup with the very portable new 600 mm f6.3 lens. That lens combined with Z8 or even Z9 looks like a great portable combo.
As an MFT shooter, I have zero qualms in admitting the superiority of the Z9. Absolutely lovely files! I must admit, the 'bokeh' doesn't really hold that much of a charm in my eyes. But the damn are the Z9 files super sharp! I dream of owning that combo one day
Thanks for your comment :) i love both systems.
Hello Dennis, Jose from Puerto Rico. I currently own the original Olympus OM-1 Mark I. Even though the new OM-1 Mark II came up shortly after the original, I decided not to upgrade. I would like to have your input on the original vs the newer model named OM System if you have upgraded. Would there be a need to upgrade? Having said that, I would like to see if it is possible you can make a video showing the ideal settings you prefer on the original OM-1 and how to set them up. By the way, I subscribed to your channel. My dream camera is of course the Z9, but it is not feasible for me at this moment.
Hi Jose, personally i dont think its worth the upgrade. So im keeping the mark 1 and see what happens in the future 😁 maybe i will do a settings episode some day 🤔 Thanks for your comment 🙏🏻
Is this the Nikon Z lens that sells for $14,000? Just curious. With a camera body that is over twice the cost of the OM-1, I would expect that the Nikon set up would win this comparison. It's an interesting comparison though.
Yes it is and the OM-1 and 150-400 is a very good setup and delivers great results. That said the Z9 is better and faster but i am happy with the OM-1 for sure
Nice work mate, well done. Thanks for doing it. I have the Nik D6 which is amazing, but still keep the Nik D750 and D700. At the same time I use Lumix G9 MFT for some reasons :). All the best!
Thanks Cristian 😁 same to you!
3:55 Two footie photo's. The background on the OMphoto has more sharpness/contrast,
but therefor it is more realistic and more in balance with how human eyes see reality, I think.
5:50 Two birds comparison. Nikon's bird unrealisticly seems to 'swim' in featureless space,
OM's birds at least tells us that the bird is a real animal existing in a realistic habitat.
If "smoothie slicky photo's" are your thing (Flickr) OM/Panny/mFT is not for you.
You are right it give a more realistic look i guess. Thanks for your comment 🙂
Double the price and double the weight, expected there should be a 4 times better quality😂😂 Thanks for the comparison.
Thank you Dennis for another interesting video. Yesterday I ordered the OM-1 mark ii with the 150-400. I hope you can get your hands on the mark ii. OM ambassadors praise this updated body, that is no news but I prefer to know your opinion especially regarding the presumably better AF in the mark ii in stills and video. Cheers Ron.😀👍
Im sure you will love the gear and no doubt the Mark II is better .. but i dont think its worth an upgrade if you already have the OM-1 Mark I from what i have seen and heard. So im not purchasing it, would love to try it out thou :) Thanks for your comment Ron :)
@@DennisJacobsenWildlife The buffer on the Mark II has been greatly improved with double the the amount of shots before buffering happens but from the reviews I've seen picture quality has not changed. This would be a big plus for wildlife guys. Great comparison.
@@DennisJacobsenWildlife For birds, there are two things the OM1 Mark II has that would be nice. Apparently the Mark II can pick out a bird in a tree as long as it can see the head. That would be great. (although I read from real people and NOT propaganda ambassadors, that the bird tracking on the Mark II is not as good as the Mark 1) Also, when doing continues shooting or pro-capture the buffer does not have to clear to start shooing again. These seem like small issues but often make the difference between getting or missing a shot. Oh, the new buffer size would also help a bit.
@@earlteigrob9211 I haven`t really read anything about the M2 but would love to test it out ( but wont buy it to test it) head to head against the M1! i looks like there will be a firmware for the M1 this autumn improving the AF so i am really exited to see if that happens.
Nice! I like this comparison!
Z9: $5,496
Nikon 400mm f/2.8: $13,996 (f/4.5: $2,996 w/o built-in TC)
OM-1: $1,999 (Mark II: $2,399)
150-400mm: $7,499
Something else:
Pana-Leica 200mm f/2.8: $2,997 (I really would like this one added to the comparison)
For some reason the Pana-Leica 200mm f2.8 is just $1630 in my country. No idea why.
Nice to see comparisons about how someone would actually shoot with these camera/lens combinations, instead of something rigged to be supposedly 'fair'. The killer lens for the Z9 for this kind of shot is the 800/6.3, which whilst not exactly cheap is less eye-watering than might be expected.
Thank you so much for this informative video. Comparison photos and video were most helpful. Stay safe and be well. Namaste.
Same to you and thanks 🙏🏻
Composting a Zoom vs prime. A better comparison would be vs the Olympus 300mm f4.
Or the Pana Leica 200-2.8 as well
@@elkano7765 I never had much luck with the 200 f2.8 v 150-400. the PL would win under 5 metres of subject distance.
A Prime vs a Zoom? Good comparison and very informative. Amazing how closely they compare!!! I have the 300F4 and from what I have read, it is lightly sharper then the Big White. For most types of professional shooting I would probably go full frame but for hiking mountains and shooting for fun, the MFT is more than good enough. In fact, since I started using DXO PureRaw I have yet to find a picture that I wish I would have shot it in FF. For shooting birds and BIF, the 1.4x TC lives on the 300 except in very low light conditions. Also, the OM1 has so many features that are perfectly geared for my type of shooting. I use many of the bracketing and computation features on a regular basis.
Yes the MFT is actually relly good! but of course has its limits in difficult situations 🙂 i still have and use both setups!
No surprises Dennis. Both systems have their place. An interesting video so thank you.
Thanks, an interesting comparison! I had to go look up prices as I had no idea of the prices of the Nikon gear, that is expensive! I used to shoot Nikon for work though rarely demanding telephoto and no wildlife. I have gone Olympus / OMDS as my personal camera road.
I was a little disappointed with the first shots where you blamed the OM-1 focus system, but I will accept them assuming that you have the right settings to get optimum focus. It did seem that your birding pictures especially were specifically forcing the OM-1 into much higher ISO usage, where with fairly static shots the stabilization might have allowed to grab back those couple of stops. And if you're looking for "best" in the telephoto landscape shots, then the Hi-Res computational modes can grab back most if not all of the extra resolution, bit depth, and color noise and compare closely to the larger Nikon sensor.
For these cases that are at the edge of the capablities, I would be surprised if Nikon did not win most of the time. And using the Oly 300mm f/4 and the 1.4 teleconverter might still end up with closer competition as others have noted. Each system has strengths, and price/performance is one where OMDS is competitive, but the Nikon is a beautiful top drawer system.
Just got my own and will test it with the 500mm pf against the om-1 with 150-400mm pro at 500mm f5.6 to make the comparison as close as possible. In theory the om-1 images uncropped vs Z9 cropped should be sharper than the Z9, no?
My findings are Z9 + 400mm are sharper if not CRAZY cropped and with internal TC around the same and with 2xTC the OM-1 + 150-400mm are sharper on static subjects .. but like in the video it is compared with "casual" shooting and are not Scientific in any way 😁 just my opinion.
@@DennisJacobsenWildlife I must say that after doing some testing myself today, namely, with the nikon Z9 and nikkor 500mm pf f5.6 vs OM-1 and the 150-400mm f4.5 pro at 500mm and f5.6. Both at iso 2500. I photographed a 10x10 cm subject at aprox 9 meters away. Same light, same place on a tripod.
And as I can see, the OM-1 is sharper! No question, I would choose the 150-400mm pro all day.
@@johnnyb4011No doubt the 150-400mm is a fantastic lens 🙏🏻 Like i say in the video, that lens was the reason i got in to MFT 😁
@@DennisJacobsenWildlife yes i agree, if it hadn't been for this lens alone, I would never gone the mft road. Happy I did 😄 still love my Nikons though 😊
Many thanks for the comparison! I was hoping you would do it :-). Please, make an additionally comparison using noise reduction software such as Dxo PureRaw (for the files from both systems). I think that then the difference will become negligible.
Thanks for the great video. But here you can clearly see the advantage of full format:-)
Super Thanks Four this video! The 400 2.8 Nikkor is probably the best Lens one the market now, optically and the Z9 is one of the best outdoor and WL cameras. So no surprise here. However, as I have the OM1 and 150-400 and badly waiting for an OM1X, I have to say some photos do not look right, respectively not sharp enough. The OM1 focussing system while great, is sometimes a pain and can create some issues but from my experience it does not look right. You might want to send both to service for checking…. One thing I have to say that especially with the OM1 Files Topaz DeNoise and Sharpen work wonders (far better then with the older Olympus Cameras).
I agree, did some testing myself with the z9, 500mm pf lens and the OM-1 with the 150-400mm at 500mm. at least on my end the OM-1 combo blows the Z9 + 500mm pf out of the water. the sharpness edge of the OM-1 combo is imminent. I have been shooting with nikon since 2008 using some exotic lenses like 300mm f2.8 and 500mm f4 to name a few, and the best camera i've used so far, is the OM-1 hands down.
Thankyou for an interest video!
The shot at 1:20 vs 1:30 for the OM-1, why does the shot with the built in TC resolve fewer details? Shouldn't the TC improve the details? The 800mm photo looks more detailed than the 1000mm photo, despite it having fewer pixels on the subject.
Can you please explain this outcome? Is the built in TC on the 150-400 useless? Useless in that, you're better off cropping in post to get more reach, rather than activating the TC for more reach.
Do you mind sharing the OM-1 raw files for the two chimney photos at 2:00 (800mm) and 2:10 (1000mm). I would like to examine them closely to see if the built in TC on the 150-400 actually provides any additional details vs. just cropping at 800mm. I have heard from a few people who own the lens who claim the TC adds no benefit whatsoever in terms of resolving more details. The examples shown here appear to support that claim, but I would like to see the raw files to judge for myself. Alternatively, if you don't mind, could you please do a video comparing cropping a 800mm photo to 1000mm, vs using the 1.25x TC to get 1000mm in camera? If the theory is true, then I think a lot of your viewers would be interested to hear, as this is something that very few people (but the most critical of image quality) have spoke up about.
Can you respond please!
Helo
Helo
Dude, you need to keep the ISO the same for each camera!
I could ask if you drive a Lamborgini cause its so much faster but you dont
cause not in traffic is it? Same usecase for gallerie prints.
There are times where one system is preferred over another but both MFT and FF has its place in this world for sure :) thanks for your comment. BTW do you have a portfolio you can link to and share with me and the people following this channel?
You should compare the new OM-1II instead ....and use a fixed focus lens like the 300mm F4 .
...and also stop down your Nikon lens to f8, shooting at the same distance and then, make a comparison between the two lenses, you´ll be surprised that your creamy bokehlicious background will dissapear just like that.
choices choices I do not have the cash for Nikon and would rather use that cash if in reach for travel that for probably the small difference in bookeh . Next it the weight and the portability during trips ... (in aircraft) @@remusmoise8836
Hey Dennis. Guter Vergleich der beiden Kameras. Grüße Stefan
I have the money for either a second hand Sony 400mm F/2.8 or an OM 150-400mm f4.5 and I'm agonising over the choice right now 😅 I mostly do bird photography and it's a versatility and range Vs quality and low light performance arguement. This video is a great example.
You will get far shaper images with more micro contrast, better noise performance and unsurpassed colour if you process the OM files with OM Workspace - for some reason third party software does not process OM/Olympus images very well (they all seem optimised for Canikon/Sony).
Super tip .. i will try to compare to see what i find. I use Capture one to process my files normally
I've not had the pleasure of using any Nikon Z camera, but I have two D810 bodies (with battery packs) that replaced D4s bodies and an OM-D E-M1 MkII with battery grip. I shoot B2B events (conferences & exhibitions), fashion events (such as London Fashion Week) and live music (from unknown bands in dingy pubs & clubs to the Rolling Stones at Glastonbury). For live music it will always be the Nikons, but for the fashion shows the Olympus with the 40-150mm is around half the weight of the Nikon with a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 My back and shoulders thank me. Image quality wise - given most images end up in newspapers or newspaper web sites - there's very little in it between full frame and MFT. You only really notice a difference if you're doing exhibition size prints or larger, which I'm not. I also use the Olympus at B2B events as, again, it's much lighter when carrying gear around all day (9am-5.30pm or beyond) without much of a break.
You should have compare with the Leica 200mm f2.8 (with G9mkII) instead of the 150-400mm f4.5, to have comparable framings
Great comparison I have both systems and I'm happy;)
Thanks and me to! both perform super! have e great day.
I loved this comparison but would love to see it with both cameras using the most equivalent comparable lenses: i.e. the Olympus 300 f4 pro and Nikon 600 f4 both shot wide open.
Could be fun but here i compared the 2 system i prefer to use ATM 😊 Thanks for your comment
I have them both.
Like to know will you test the OM1 MK2. (which look like only software update) , but it fix all om-1 problems
I posted that this video is "interesting." That is an understatement. Too many people think the Nikon Z and OM System are incomparable. That suggestion ignores the elephant in the room. MANY photographers do not understand why iPhone and Galaxy phones can manage solid photos in a microscopic "photographic package" but "pro systems" are still too expensive and too heavy to lug around in many situations. Dennis understands that the real battleground is quality vs. size. I wish he would throw in some Galaxy or iPhone shots and compare those even more incomparable "photo systems." I was a Nikon / Leica photographer. The Leica was a small and perfect tool. The Nikon was amazing and large. Leica did not survive the digital age. Leica glass is great. Leica tech can't keep up with anyone but is more expensive than everyone. Oly micro 4/3 could make better modern use of Leica glass than Leica. Oly and Nikon were different but great. Nikon Z changed that. The size / quality disparity wasn't there. Dennis lays it out: If you have the z and 400 2.8 for wildlife and hiking, the Z cropped will significantly outperform the OM System camera straight up. If you are choosing a system, the OM System is about $9K, the Nikon is $18k plus. The OLY is about 2/5ths lighter. The Nikon images are better... 2x the price and 2/5ths heavier...but I own it. It is worth lugging it.
If the Oly is 2/5 lighter, then the Nikon is 2/3 heavier. If the Nikon weighs 500 units, then the Oly at 2/5 lighter weighs 300 units. So the Nikon weighs 200 units more than the 300 unit Oly - i.e 2/3 heavier. Just my 2c .....
Hello Dennis ! This is Rahul Deshpande from India. Love your videos keep posting.
I need your kind advice I currently use Nikon D500 - 300f4 -1.4 TC but I am planning to shift and confused/torn between below 2
1. OM-1 + Olympus 300 f4 (used)
OR
2. Nikon ZF + Nikon Z 180-600
My budget is restricted to above.
OM-1 has Procapture, stacked sensor, bird AF, better stabilisation sync with the 300pro lens
Also it’s good for other types of photography like Astro, Macro etc.
ZF is Full frame, also has Pre-release (limited kind of Procapture), may have better low light performance, has Bird eye AF, it can get smoother background and subject separation
Cost wise both the almost same
Kindly let me know your thoughts
Other folks can also suggest and share their views
Thank you!
Hi there and thanks for your comment 🙂 i dont know so much about the ZF but you do get better IQ, shallow DOF like you said with FF. If i only shoot photos i am more than satisfied with the OM-1 but i also do a lot of video and that why i also have Z9. But its really hard to give advice what to choose because i have both MFT and FF 😁 and love both systems. If a want to go light and shoot more static stuff, macro and so on i use the OM-1 and if shoot action, lowlight and video i grab the Z9.
@@DennisJacobsenWildlife Thank you for the prompt response.
6:58 - is the OM-1 shot using the 2x as well? 150-400 @ 400mm + 2x TC?
i think its a typo, he interchanges the equivalent focal length often with the real quite often.
@@godsinboxoh I think he was using 2x for the Nikon, and just bare lens at max zoom for the OM-1. In that case, the Nikon should have a significant megapixel advantage. I'm surprised how soft the photo turned out. The 2x TC on the Nikon must not be very good. That, or his copy is decentered.
Nikon 2xTC and OM full zoom here to match focal lenght in 35mm terms and yes the OM are sharper in this setup :) just remember this is a CRAZY large crop.
@@DennisJacobsenWildlifethanks for the confirmation
I have the Z9, the Z 800mm PF and the Z 180-600mm. Always looking for the OM-1 for the same reasons you have it. It would be nice to see how the OM-1 Mark II shoots AF tracking on BIF. I am torn apart between getting the Z 400mm 2.8 or the OM-1 II with the 150-400 Zuiko. I guess what kills the OM-1 II is the buffer, although it seems they increased the size it looks like very limiting yet.
I don't have the OM1 but the older EM1X , and bunch of full frame bodies including the Z9, from my own picture, I don't even need to zoom in to tell the difference between the picture I got from my Z9 and EM1X, it's really really easy to tell how much better the FF image is in terms of rendering and shadow background, so I pretty much abandoned the EM1X ( along with the 300 F4 and 100-400), I rather even go back to my really old 1Dx instead of the EM1X, I will probably try the Om-1 MK II some day to see how much improvement in the image quality, but I really don't have any expectation on the 20MP MFT sensor.
I think they are comparable, the tradeoff is like you said, reach. One number that changed perspectives for me is that to take a full frame picture and to crop into the same framing as a 20mp mft camera, you would need an 80megapixels camera. The other thing that won me over is the stabilization on video, you lose some sharpness when using dual stabilization, but then it allows me to shoot hand held video at 400mm cropped as if it was 800.
A brave comparison to make, but I think you nailed it. M43 isn’t so far away and the difference can be more down to practicalities and your own needs, not image quality.
I wonder how the result would be with same f value.. and would use prime lenses for both. Sure fixed 400 is sharper than a zoom lens
hi Dennis
The Nikon is slightly better, but the differences are not very big. I think if you had used the OM-1 Mark II, the differences would have been even smaller. it remains true that the much more expensive Nikon performs a little better. The Om -1 delivers a very good performance here, especially compared to a great camera like the Nikon Z9 with a top lens. nice comparison. thanks for the test😂😂
I love my OM-1 and 300 F4 plus 1.4 teleconverter and have got some great bird and Macro shots with this gear, now we have the OM 1 Mk II with better auto focus and many other internal mods like ram etc, extra stops of ibis but is the upgrade worth it ? and the cost of the 150-400 F 4.5 which i would love to own but the cost is over the top for me. I have just costed the Om-1 system with the 150-400 = $16300 NZ , The Nikon Z9 with the F4.5 Prime = $15850 NZ. Is the OM-1 Mk II and the 150-400 worth the money at $17000 ? I don't think so. Maybe time to try the Z8 as it seems like a great camera with great specs ! Cheers from New Zealand
It amuses me how so many of the OM fan boy comments below rationalize the clear advantages that the full format Nikon had in the comparison. I also own both combination compared here and find the Z9, especially even when using the much less expensive 600mm PF f/6.3 lens, produces far superior images under almost all telephoto situations. As such when seeking top performance, I reserve my usage of the OM-1 to normal and wider focal lengths when the light is good and objects are relatively still. I now have added the lighter z8 to my bag with additional benefits. The OM combination remains an excellent tool but just not a superior one.
cool comparison, would have loved to see an equal focal length comparison, say the om1 with the Leica 200mm f2.8
A much belated happy new year and best wishes for the rest of the year to come.
I’ll say straight away that I have used Olympus cameras and lenses since 2007 and I don’t use full frame, primarily because of the cost and latterly because the of the weight and the sheer size.
I would also not take issue that in absolute terms full frame image output achieves higher quality then full frame when shooting in less then optimal light and or where you want to present a defused background to make the subject pop.
Where I would take issue with tests of this kind - fun as they might be are:
1. No regard to cost. The Nikon kit here in the Uk is £17.000.00 which is more than twice the price of the OM / Olympus equipment.
2. The Nikon is an extremely fast dedicated prime lens whereas the Olympus lens is a zoom lens.
3. Zoom lenses are significantly more difficult to design and manufacture and one would never expect them to outperform a prime lens.
4. A much more objective comparison would have been to use the Olympus 300mm f4. In terms of absolute image quality I understand it outperforms the 150-400. I own the former but not the latter so cannot personally vouch for this but it would make sense for it to be the case.
5. The 150-400 is unique. No other system can provide the user with so much flexibility in a hand held lens and still achieve the quality it provides. It’s something of a super zoom without most of the limitations normally associated with them in terms of size, speed, or usability, weight, build quality and image quality.
It would interesting if you repeated the experiment but this time replaced the 150-400 with the 300. Save for the unavailable difference in background blur I think you would be pleasantly surprised at how well the Olympus / OM system performs.
Also, for a bit the of extra fun …. Hand hold the kit and shoot each at its base iso and then, to take away the advantage the significantly, faster Nikon 2.8 has, shoot it at f4. Yes, it will cripple its light gathering capabilities and force you to decrease the shutter speed and you will probably say, why would I spend all this money on it not to take advantage of its strengths, but in a way that’s exactly what you were doing with the Olympus / OM System kit in comparing a slower zoom lens on a sensor which does not perform as well in low light with a faster prime on a sensor that performs better in low light. The odds were always stacked in favour of the Nikon and the results something of a foregone conclusion.
Level up the playing field and see what the margin of difference is and then look at the differentials in price, weight and size.
Take care. Happy trails.
The other thing is it takes a lot of pixel peeping to notice any real differences. Only youtubers have both to compare and to see any differences in the fist place, and i still don't see the point other to make money from tube. They serve no real purpose to anyone
I think you may have just convinced me to get a Panasonic s-5 instead of an OM Systems OM1. Of course, it's unfair comparing the details to an astronomically expensive Z9, but the soft backgrounds are where full frames shine. I will say, however, that given the OM1 costs several times less (the price has dropped a lot lately), it performed very well!
Exactly how i also see it. But still have both as the MFT has it forces against FF 😁
Nikon quality certainly is better. I have Olympus and non pro 400mm lens. Main reason is cost, but also weight as I hike a lot and 2.5lb vs 6.5lb just comparing the lens is significant saving when carrying a camera for many miles. On Olympus I often find the captured background to be terrible
This is an interesting comparison. The poor performance of the Olympus seems to be more related to the ISO being too high, than anything else. In the first image comparison the Z9 is shooting at 900iso (if I am reading that correctly) and the Olympus is shooting at 6400 which is way beyond the useable range of a micro 4/3 sensor. Especially if you want to see the detail of the image. Maybe I am miss understanding the test, but these variables should have been accounted for.
The premise of the video is pretty cool though.
I just wanted to show how they compared with settings i usually shoot with and what to expect 😁 Here in Denmark there are a lot of days with poor light so often i have to push up the ISO for BIF shots etc. but all in all they are both really good systems and still use both 📷🎥
This is a lens review not a system review. Low contrast is the lens issue. F2.8 vs f 4.5 gives the Nikon a advantage.
Should be waiting to compare the OM-1 Mark II camera to the Z9.
Comparing a 400 mm f2.8 prime, vs a zoom lens, so not all the differences are just due to the body
Were you not comparing the Nikon Prime lens against the OM zoom. The Prime would always be sharper. I used to shoot Nikon ( loved the cameras and Lens ) but the weight got too much to be lugging around all day. Bought into Oly a few years ago , now have the OM-1.
I loved my MFT system, but as my interest in bird photography increased and I often found myself sitting in the woods an hour before dawn. I miss the size and weight of my old Lumix system, but the noise difference is night and day.
seems to me some of the initial photo comparisons make om-1 look worse due to the high ISO. I know this is expected as it has a higher f-stop, but it's being pushed to a territory where the small sensor suffers. I know personally I would not be zooming hard into iso 6400 or 10 000 photos. meanwhile later photo of the chimney - the most cropped photo - shows lesser of a difference as it is at iso640. I am noticing details take a big hit when iso goes up w m43. in the field - the great IBIS helps to partially bridge the gap in noise performance w steady subjects.
*and the differences in dof are interesting and clear. acc to online DOF calculators - the m34 at 400 4.5 should have lesser dof than FF at 400 2.8 if im not mistaken . obviously this is not true from your results.
Ha! This video came out just as OMS introduced the new OM1 mark II. I pre - ordered mine two days ago. To be honest, I enjoy comparison videos such as this. Though OMS produce a system I regard as near perfect for me, it is still interesting to see how my system compares to others. I used to use Nikon and still admire Nikon products. Additionally, having owned Sony A7II, A7III, A7R4 and A9 + 100 - 400mm, 200 - 600mm etc., I am more than familiar with FF gear.
thanks Dennis for sharing… really well explained!!!
Thanks Thomas :) i love to compare like this just to see what to exspect and i am often surpriced on how good the OM-1 + 150-400 performs!
Interesting comparison.... but at the end i would also have added the price tag.... 10k€ against 22k€.... zoom against prime lens ...
would love to see the results with a Z9 + 100-400 and TC... then we are also at a similar pricepoint.
Dennis, If you use the z9 and the 400f2.8, then please don't use the 150-400 on the Om-1 for the soccer comparison, but the 40-150pro f2.8.
That is more real.
150 (300mm) dosen´t cover the field good enough with 20mp in my opinion but yes 300 f/2.8 vs 300mm f/4.5 is the better option i agree 🙂 both would be optimal on a soccer field 🤔
Just made a quick comparison and at 200mm on the big white it has a more shallow depth of field than the 40-150mm see it here : drive.google.com/file/d/1o5cdSfZChGfaN0Mksh-rMcwvUPxtX07X/view?usp=sharing of course the ISO will creep up more on the f/4.5 in bad light but for subject separation the big white is better on a football field
Nice and honest review thanks.
A more practical comparison would be OM-1 with 150-400 vs Nikon Z8 with 180-600, closer in weight, reach, light-gathering capacity (per subject, as both lenses have the same 95mm entrance pupil), and Nikon system even less expensive than OM. I bet Nikon would still beat the OM handily, but the main advantage of Nikon would be the larger field of view and cropability making the photography of moving targets so much more easy.
it would not beat it, the Olympus 150-400 mm f4.5 TC lens is sharper than the Sony 200-600 mm, which is superior to Nikon 180-600 mm lens and you would need to use higher ISO with the Nikon lens, which would negate the sensor size benefits
@@palpacher1968 I am not saying that Nikon setup would give more light per subject, and I agree that the higher F number and larger sensor of Nikon would negate each other and produce about the same light for equivalent field of view (or per subject) as the OM setup (to say this, it is sufficient to know that the entrance pupil of the two lenses is the same). However, if we crop 600 mm of Nikon setup to the equivalent field of view of the OM at 400 mm, we would still get more pixels than the 20 Mp of the OM, meaning potentially better resolution. And before cropping, we still have a convenience of significantly larger field of view, so less danger to clip wings etc. - more keepers. In my experience, Sony 200-600 on a1 (50 Mp) is plenty sharp at the pixel level, and I read the reviews that Nikon 180-600 is very similar. Even if the OM 150-400 is marginally sharper (perceived sharpness may be also due to a smaller pixel number of the OM), this in my opinion is less important than the convenience of larger field of view. Above all, if one can get closer and fill the frame with the subject, then Nikon setup with 180-600 gathers twice as much light as OM (one stop less aperture, but 2 stops more sensor size). In other words, one would need to raise ISO by one stop, but one stop higher ISO on FF still looks better than MFT.
Hey Dennis, I really enjoy your comparisons videos (they're different and based on practice)...
...but, this comparison... even if you'd use two same Nikon Z9 setups, one at ISO 900 and other at ISO 6400 the iq and ''sharpness'' would be much worse on the one with iso 6400, right?
...There are other examples of major ISO differences in this video as well...
...so i have to give this comparison a ''bad verdict'' from the viewer-informative point of view, because it doesn't show the real difference, as i assume your goal was in the first place / to show the real difference, right?
(?maybe there was a outside-lighting change, or there was different metering used? i don't know)
i just know if you'd use two Nikon 400mm Z9 setups, with such a drastic ISO differences, the IQ would also be drastically different (but from this video we don't get to see the real difference shooting in the same circumstances), don't you agree?
i love your content nonetheless... keep it fresh and different...
best regards
Hi and thanks for sharing your thoughts 👍🏻😁 I shoot both setups wide open like what i mostly do photographing birds and to show them side by side in this config. Next time i make a comparison like this i also will compare exactly the same settings because you are not the first saying this 😁 thanks for your input 🙏🏻
Comparing 2.8 with 4.5 why not set them the same ?
I compared what to expect in best Aperture performance settings wide open as i use them most of the time and how it looks. Nothing scientific here just having some fun comparing 😉
What are the difference in the cost of the cameras ?
I think Olympus and now OM System insist that their system is useful for photographing birds but it is definitely not ideal in terms of final quality. The advantages of weight and size are there but the small M43 sensor is a disadvantage when it comes to focusing and complicated if cropping is required. Definitely the only thing I have M43 for is to have a travel camera with a 12-40 where the great depth of field of the M43 in this case can be an advantage in landscape photography. Excellent content, very illustrative.
I have the OM-1 and A1 but I have been contemplating a switch to the Z9. So far, the Z9 looks like a good camera for my changing camera needs.
Eh the OM1 shots were taken with higher iso's so naturally they won't seem as sharp?! This seems more of an F stop test to be honest with obvious results.