Nikon Z9 vs OM-1, Comparing the incomparable
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ม.ค. 2024
- I have done it before, and are doing it again! comparing the incomparable. I think it is fun and interesting to compare Camera gear from both end of the price and spec scale. So here goes, the Nikon Z9 side by side with the OM System OM-1
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!
Love these comparisons, want more of these type of videos in the future comparing more systems!
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!
I really like your comparison videos. Well done. I like the comparison videos so much that I subscribed
Thanks 😁 appreciated
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.
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?
Thanks Dennis. Very fair comparison. Much appreciated.
Which system is more fun to use?
Will you try the OM1mk2 ? I’d be interested to know what you think.
Many thanks!
Very interesting comparison Dennis. Your test plan was very thorough and interesting. Thank yoiu for yoiur test report. 👍 📷 😎 👋
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.
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)
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.
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.
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!
Wow that Om1 is surprising. Fascinating comparison.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
No surprises Dennis. Both systems have their place. An interesting video so thank you.
Thank you for those excellent comparisons. I shot with the Olympus E-M1 and their PRO lenses for years and loved the color quality, but when I shot wildlife I felt that it was more difficult to obtain separation between the subject and background with MicroFour Thirds than with APS-C. The comparison is even more extreme when compared to full-frame. Nowadays I photograph with the Canon R7 (which is APS-C) and I have a lot less difficulty gaining the optimal visual separation between subject and background, especially when using telephoto f/2.8 lenses. Photography is always a trade-off between what we desire and what is achievable, especially when considering budgets. Thanks again for the excellent comparisons.
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 .....
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 🙏🏻
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!
Great comparison I have both systems and I'm happy;)
Thanks and me to! both perform super! have e great day.
Thanks for the great video. But here you can clearly see the advantage of full format:-)
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.
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.
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
Hey Dennis. Guter Vergleich der beiden Kameras. Grüße Stefan
Nice and honest review thanks.
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.
I'm also in my 60's and find the OM1 and 300mm f4 or 150-400mm f4.5 so much fun to use. Before the OM1 I used a full frame kit and didn't enjoy it as much. A large part of my experience is simply the fun of taking the photos and being in the wilderness. I realize the quality probably isn't as good as something twice the price but when I'm only sharing on Flickr it's certainly good enough. When I sometimes manage to fill the frame with the bird at f5.6 sometimes parts of the bird is out of focus, so depth of field is not an issue for me either. Happy photography!
Thank you for commenting :)
Thanks for your comment and experience with MFT
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.
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 👍
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.
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.
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.
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! 😁
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.
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 👍🏻😁
Excellent a and interesting, thanks!
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.
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
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!
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 🙂
cool comparison, would have loved to see an equal focal length comparison, say the om1 with the Leica 200mm f2.8
What are the difference in the cost of the cameras ?
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.
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 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.
Very impressed with the OM System...think I'll get it now at less than half the price
It is a very good system 👍🏻📷😁
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.
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 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
You should have compare with the Leica 200mm f2.8 (with G9mkII) instead of the 150-400mm f4.5, to have comparable framings
Should be waiting to compare the OM-1 Mark II camera to the Z9.
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
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
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
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 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 😁
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😂😂
Very interesting
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.
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.
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.
Hi great video as always. I think it is a case of you get what you pay for.
Double the price and double the weight, expected there should be a 4 times better quality😂😂 Thanks for the comparison.
Se aprecia una significativa diferencia entre la z9 y la om1 y sus objetivos. Mejor nitidez y contraste en el set nikon.
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.
Always good to know your competitors LOL
😎🙏🏻
Both looked great with a slight advantage to the Nikon…not sure how that would work if you factored in cost plus weight and size as equally important. Enjoyed this!
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.
This is a very good comparison Dennis and a super job in creating such a smooth video. Considering the price difference and the weight difference between the two systems, I feel assured that my OM-1, 150-400 combo is not far behind the Z9, 400/2.8.
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.
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 😊
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
I respect this post.
It would make a bit more sense to use at least the 400mm f/4.5 lens but like this really difficult to justify its existence.
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.
Super fed samligning :-)
Dear Dennis: I am interested in you sending me, upon payment, the configuration of the OM1 for birds. Regards.
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.
I actually have both
most people do have a camera AND a lens. its the best way.
OM looks like sharp phone camera
🙂
Great photos from both cameras, Nikon is great and better than OM-1 but probably much heavier and much more expensive.
I guess for an amateur OM-1 is the way to go, for a pro maybe any of them. I use M43 Lumix and I'm happy with it. I do have a 100-300 zoom which is not so good, but maybe some day I will go for the 100-400 Leica, which now you can add a teleconverter 2x and 1.4x. This will be for my dreamed safari in Africa.
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
I think it's more a lens test than a camera test.
Your sons a chip of the old block.great comparison.
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 🙏🏻
People saying that the Nikon system is twice as much are forgetting that you could probably get 90% of the same thing with the Nikon 180-600...
To me, the Nikon wipes the floor with it because M4/3s will always be a small sensor, no matter what you do.
It would also be bad if the combination that was twice as expensive was worse.
They are both very good ;) and its not a contest, just a comparison :) thanks for your comment