Canon RF 600mm f4 vs OM Systems 300mm f4 Ultimate wildlife shoot out! Is bigger really better?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 พ.ค. 2024
- Hi everyone, thank you for following along... many exciting links down here!
canon rf 600mm f4 - amzn.to/44XMItV
canon r6 mk2 - amzn.to/3VbWFRn
om systems om1 - amzn.to/44Qx6sd
m.zuiko 300 - amzn.to/44VL0t3
manbily monopod - amzn.to/3yodJdN
Matt's instagram -
leatherbury...
SHIRTS! - cottonbureau.com/people/alex-...
PRINTS - chasingluminance.darkroom.com/
Paypal - www.paypal.com/paypalme/my/pr...
Venmo - @chasing-luminance-96
Buy Me a Coffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/ChasingL
IG - / chasing.luminance
My Gear
Canon R5 - amzn.to/3pNiCGh
Canon 6D - amzn.to/3tJ6bfG
Olympus EM 1 MK 3 - amzn.to/34oNe9u
Sirui Tripods - store.sirui.com?sca_ref=685571.nEkPqaVBpv
Olympus m.Zuiko 17mm 1.2 PRO - amzn.to/3pOjqdZ
Olympus m.Zuiko 300mm f4 PRO - amzn.to/3MzbmHW
#canon #wildlife #canonrf #canonrf600f4 #Omsystems #m.zuiko #wildlife #photography #canonlenses #wildlife - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
I own the RF600 F/4, yes many can't and won't own it, but you are all missing the point of this lens, many just don't understand, this lens takes over when I'm the last one still shooting wildlife 30min after sunset. The rest have gone home. Some of my most epic shots/video were taken at this time frame. And THAT is worth every penny for me personally.
Good point
YES, you nailed it. Things are getting interesting when the usual prosumer stuff (like my RF200-800) are just too slow to keep up. It makes a huge difference.
F4 is F4 for both lenses. Crop factor relates to DOF, not light transmission. Full frame sensors are better in low light and at high ISO, so a better low light image on a FF with an F4 v. M4/3 with an F4 is due to the sensor.
Yes, light transmission of lenses can vary, but the sensor size does not affect light transmission of a lens.
@user-tk5dz8hg9g: 30 minutes is a joke, really. I shoot couple of hours after sunset all the time with the OM1 but often with a 150mm f/2.0 lens. Useable with f/4.5 but have to manual focus by that time. Main thing is, no tripod needed with either lens. You can't chase after owls in the dark and dense woods with huge tripod and huge lens, seriously. You can mostly just shoot with setup but natural wildlife don't sit still in front of your setup unless baited.
And the shallow DOF too.
Yup, I agree. I've use Olympus since 1977 and went digital with them in the early 2,000's. In 2010 I added Nikon full-frame and have decent gear in each system, OM System OM-1ii & Nikon Z8 and, I carry my OM gear WAY more than my Nikon gear for all of the reasons you mentioned. As you said, at that price, the Canon lens should absolutely blow the MFT system out of the water and it simply does not, just as I've found with my Nikon gear. All of these systems are great and produce wonderful results in the right hands but, the constant dissing by so many of systems based on smaller sensors is simply nonsense. In the majority of cases, the differences are only apparent when pixel-peeping to the Nth degree and are totally irrelevant for much of photography. My MFT gear satisfies about 90% of what I do and I'm extremely happy with it. And yes, the 150-400 Pro is simply stunning and has no equal at present.
Preach
Are you kidding me, 600pf is almost same weight and one stop faster ( 600mm f6.3 vs f8) and much sharper with 45 mp of z8. Only downside is it’s pricier.
One stop faster? F8? The 300 f4 is not f8 in exposure terms. That's in terms of equivalent depth of field.
Absolutely. Loving my 300. Bought it used for $1300 and it lives on my OM-1 MK2 rent free.
OM needs to do more marketing for the 150-400. It is the best wildlife lens on the market IMO, and photographers are just unaware of it. It's all Canon,Nikon,Sony (Fuji is not for wildlife). I went to a bird observatory and the photographers there didn't even know the brand OM when I showed them the OM-1 mK2.
I belive they're having a hard time keeping up with orders for that lens
Thank you so much for making this video!! I came from owning the Sony A1 and A7RIV with several g master lens; I decided to rent the OM-1 and the 300 f4 and was blown away by the IQ, image stabilization, weather sealing and computational features. I sold all my Sony gear a week later and I haven’t regretted it at all! I finally purchased the 150-400(have had it for about 5 months now) and while I love the 300 f4, the white lens is just a true masterpiece!
I will never go back to FF due to all the points you’ve highlighted in this video! Olympus/OM system is a wonderful system and if more people actually give it a chance, I think they’d be as thoroughly shocked as I was and maybe they too would make the switch!
I will be sharing this on my IG photography page story!
Thanks again for making this video, giving praise to the system. I hope to see more videos like this in the future!
So glad you enjoyed
DXO PureRaw4 is simply AMAZING!!! It should be built right into all MFT cameras. So many pictures you took would look so much better after processing with PureRaw. It truly is a game changer for all cameras but for MFT it is a God send!!! Thank You for the comparison!!! Such good information!!!
I think that the bokeh was better with the Canon lens, but I agree not by much. I just went from Nikon to OMsystems two months ago and it's put the fun back in photography for me. Love your videos and thanks for sharing.
Fair enough!
not sure what video you watched, but the Canon setup was far superior in bokeh to the OM systems setup. It may not matter to some people, but again, having better subject isolation from the background really does help the subject stand out.
What a great video, thanks! Such a fair and reasonable conclusion 👏👏👏
Thanks for the comment
Just ordered my 300 F4 about 5 minutes before finding this video! I've got the 12-40 2.8 Pro, and the 40-150 2.8 Pro so this will be a nice addition. Very good comparison video!
It's a perfect addition
Alex, great video. I love my Olympus 300 and am renting the 150-400 for a trip to Costa Rica next February.
Good choice!
Well done for the two of you getting such similar images with the two cameras. That’s an impressive amount of coordination and collaboration.
There are differences between the two systems in terms of noise and bokeh. Sometimes I preferred the deeper depth of field on the OM system as it gave more context to the wildlife. The noise levels will depend on how you view the image as to how big a deal it is. I do imagine getting more shot opportunities with the OM system due to the increased portability.
I use Fujifilm so we are in the middle between MFT and Fullframe. I’m increasingly realising that the camera is not as important as the lens and photographer.
Lens + photographer + location + a little luck
I switched from Nikon to Olympus and I am using OM-1 with 150-400mm for wildlife photography, never regret!
I had pretty much the same reaction. Some of the photos I preferred were shot with the Canon; others with the Olympus. In neither case was the difference a blowout. The Canon will give you creamier bokeh out-of-camera for sure, but is that worth the considerable extra weight and expense? As always it boils down to a matter of taste, priorities, and the technical requirements of the job. But it is worth noting that even the beautiful white Olympus 150-400, as relatively expensive as it is, is still 1/3 lighter and cheaper than the Canon.
The creamy bokeh is nice... but lightroom blur ai is almost just as sweet
Huh... I didn't see a single shot where the Canon was sharper than the Olympus.
@@sandbilly100 canon was better on the 1st shot of the owl. I think I missed focus
@@chasingluminance It was an interesting comparison, not scientific but relevant. Not meaning to be Capt. Obvious but that image can't be considered in the comparison. So since as you put it at the beginning unless the Canon blows it away then it's a win for Olympus.
I moved from Nikon full frame this year to OM-Systems and the 150-400 f4.5. What a lens! I’m now in advancing years and frankly humping a Nikon D6 with a 5000mm f4E FL ED lens around was becoming a real, chore. 😊
Exactly, and you still forgot the huge tripod to support the Nikon gear.
If weight is a concern why didn’t you simply get a 500mm pf instead 500mm f4. On the other hand, z8 +180-600 is a much cheaper, same weight and better image quality option than om+150-400
5000mm ? Damn I want to see your photos
@@atanuhalder7750 I am more than happy with the change.
@@DavidL5star nothing wrong with that. 150-400 does get the job done. Sharp photos in a lightweight package. I was just pointing that same result could have been achieved with a much smaller budget.
This was a very helpful and interesting video! The differences in your comparison really seem rather small, which is quite surprising. However, I do think this is partly due to the time of day you were shooting, with a lot of bright and sunny pictures, as well as pictures where the subjects were quite far away. The 600mm f4 shines mostly in the early hours of the day and when it gets dark. I did notice that the highlights in the 300mm shots were often close to being blown out, while the 600mm shots maintained better exposure. You did make a great point about the differences between these setups being rather small given the enormous price difference. As I am a Canon shooter, I would always go with the 600mm f4 if I had the money, but right now, I am quite happy with my RF100-500, which is a fantastic compromise for Canon shooters.
The bear in the field was after sun dropped behind low heavy evening clouds and the owl and bison was dumping snow...
I for one have been shooting the OM-1 with the 150-400 pro and thought it was the best setup i've ever seen. UNTIL I saw the image quality of the nikon Z7 mk II. I then realized that focal length is focal length. no matter what. I compared the OM-1 vs Nikon Z7 mk II at the same focal length and aperture. this showed me that the OM-1 got twice as high ISO value as the nikon. Due to sensor size probably. this lead me to trade in this gear for the canon R3. which in turn is almost 2 stops better at handling noise reduction. this means that under the same conditions the canon R3 is 3 stops "faster" if you like, than the OM-1. I think this shows pretty evidently at 7:22 in the owl picture. this would also imply that there are more details to be retained when cropping as well.
With the R3 i've taken usable images at iso 40 000! Something I've only dreamt about.
The OM-1 sure has it's advantages. But the Canon wins every match in image quality.
This is only my opinion of course. And I don't think the OM-1 is bad in any way. I would love to have it in my arsenal as well.
Yeah, the high iso shots are rough. But the power of ai processing helps narrow the gap
I recently bought a used OM-1 and a 300 mm F/4. I am very happy with the quality. It blows away my Sony A7IV and 200-600 in both quality and portability.
As for the comparison in the video, there is so much to say about it. Naturally the 600 f4 has some benefits over the 300 f4 within the range of f4 - f8 because of smoother bokeh and better handling of high ISO because of a FF camera. The further the target is away the more obvious the difference is. From f8 and onward the difference should probably be negligible.
With targets close by the bigger DoF of the 300 mm can even be a benefit because you get more of the target in focus.
With the 600mm you would need to stop down to f8 and raise ISO for a similar image in terms of DoF and exposure.
But lets be real here. For most of us the 600 mm is out of reach in terms of cost, let alone the hassle of carrying it.
The 300 mm f/4 is fantastic. I would even go so far to say that it would be enough for most professional photographers as well, unless you are constantly shooting in a forest in terrible lighting conditions.
The real problem here is that there is so much hate towards the M43 system that people wont even give it a chance. Been there myself and I am happy I changed my mind.
The OM-1 with the 300 mm made photography so much fun again.
Cheers for the video.
Glad you're enjoying it
I can see the quality different but you made great points about size, weight and price. Anyhow, it is nice we have options as no one would have the same fat wallet or back free problem. You did a great job comparing them.
Thank you
Another great video, Alex. Do you use the MC14 with the 300mm f4? I have been using that combo recently and getting some great results
I have the mc20 and it's hit or miss. I need the mc14
@@chasingluminance I've got the MC20 too but stopped using it for the same reason.
Assuming the OM1 images are "as is" without any AI noise tweaking, the Canon does what you expect, less noise, slightly higher resolution, higher image quality, better bokeh. But is that difference worth the extra money and weight? I thought the OM1 images were already good enough (more so as a hobbyist, I would be happy). I think there's a case of diminishing returns with these big lenses, lots of extra $$$ for a small improvement. That's relevant to professionals who are willing to pay for the best. Thanks for the video, very interesting and informative.
Yeah, these were "untweaked". When I added noise reduction and ai blur they looked fantastic
Great video! Absolutely the Oly 150-400 is the ultimate choice.
I hope I get to call it mine soon
Agreed
I've just purchased an OM-5 with the 12-45 and the 12-200, and for the money, it is an amazing system. If I find myself doing more and more wildlife, my plan is to get the 100-400. The size and weight saving of the OM Systems is amazing.
I still want to test the 100-400
I've been using the 300mm and the 150-400mm daily for birds and wildlife over the last 6 months. When it comes to resolution and sharpness, I can't tell the difference between these two lenses. The big white lens obviously has the zoom advantage which I find I don't use as much as I thought. I guess for video it's essential. Because of its size and weight - the 300mm is far better for travel and shooting in local parks etc. Glad I have the 150-400mm but the 300mm with the 1.4 converter is just as sharp at 840mm and more convenient.
The biggest advantage for me with the OM System setup is I can easily shoot 1/50sec at 1000mm f5.6 and get tack sharp shots. It's amazing.
Nailed it!
Thank you😁
After using the 300mmf4 pro for 2 years, i enjoyed the om system so much I upgrade to the 150400pro instead of going FF.
Great choice
Hey that’s me! Super duper helpful video. You’re welcome.
Yep
The glitch made me seize
@@mattanous I have no idea why things happen
Nice good comparison, 👍
This pictures are incredible
Thank you! It was fun
what a great review! The 300mm had a great showing.
Thank you!
Love my Olympus M.Zuiko 300mm f/4 pro and OM-1. Would love to get the 150-400!!
Me too
I agree about of those pictures I preferred the Olympus if I’m honest. I’m not a pro by any means and have been shooting with the 100-400 but my aim is to get the 300 f 4 next for definite. Beautiful photos by the both of u. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Thank you!
Nice comparison. With som further editing the gap between these two can be even smaller. One question though having the 300 and loving it. Why are the shots with the 300 constantly framed wider? I know this happens when comparing at 100 % (pixel level) but if 300 really is equivalent to 600 field of view wise shouldn’t the framing be more the same? Or is the 300 not really a 300 lens?
It's just 20 megapixels vs 24
@@chasingluminance The megapixel count shouldn’t matter for the field of view/framing as it does when looking at the images at 100%. Or am I missing something here?
It does make a difference when comparing in lightroom. It's very noticeable with the r5
@@chasingluminance I see. Thanks for taking the time to respond and explain.
Nice video, completely agree with you. The difference is minimal and mostly in the background blur in some images and a bit in noise. In fact for some images I preferred the Olympus setup, for others the Canon. For me the portability and flexibility is more important than maybe 10% extra in image quality. In addition, for extra 10K you can travel to many amazing places.....
Agreed
Moved to OM Systems/Olympus last year from Nikon DSLRs. My D500 and D850 with pro glass have served me well and I occasionally still use them, but I have more fun with the MFT gear. Smaller, better computational features, weather sealed, less expensive lenses without a loss in quality.
The Oly 300mm f4 is the sharpest lens I own. An example of excellent engineering. The Oly 150-400 would be a dream lens to own...maybe after my kids complete college and I payoff my home mortgage....LOL
What's the actual difference between manfrotto and manbilly? 🤔
Probably just the label
The 600 blows the 300 out of the water. But I don’t know what you meant by the 6 being more hassle to use.
Having a 500 to cover news and sport for my job, I could never shoot at f8 at night, f4 is a must. I also own the canon 800 f5.6 for moon images, I think you can also get an f11 equivalent but you won’t get away with that in low light
It's just annoying to travel with, and much more irritating to use in quick situations.
Simply the size of it makes it a Hassel.
But obviously it's a fantastic tool for the job
@@chasingluminance it’s very hand holdable, possibly not to someone not used to big glass but as its tools for my job it’s fantastic, couldn’t be without it, and wouldn’t swap it for a 300 and a converter
Apparently we weren’t looking at the same pictures or your not comfortable contemplating the possibility that the money you paid wasn’t worth it. Confirmation bias.
@@amacmedia3221 have you figured out yet that f4 on 4/3s is the same as f4 on ff excepting depth of field which is easily circumvented.
@@sandbilly100 hardly rocket science that, just not sure what you’re point is
I thought the canon with the 600 produced better images, too. But not $10,000 better. I think the OM 1 with the 300mm is the winner if you are going to be hiking your gear in and out, as well.
Thanks for the comment
Nice one. These lenses on a GH7 would be interesting.
For sure
I just returned from a trip to Europe and had the 300, 12-40, 40-150 and OM-1 plus other stuff in my carry-on backpack, weighing 7kg total.
Exactly
Bingo. MFT = Lots of capabilities in a very small and lightweight system.
If you want the very best IQ and low light capabilities then FF is the route, but you will need more bulk/weight. Physics is physics. A larger sensor means more glass up front.
Personally, the incremental difference in IQ between FF and MFT is not worth the extra weight, bulk, and cost IMO.
The 300 in the the om1 is good but the bokeh and isolation on the the 600 is outstanding.
Truth
Isolation is a late concept in the history of photography. Photographers would try to get as large a depth of field as possible. Some super-pros like Salgado still advocate for this.
@@joaquintrigueros I like isolation sometimes. In closeup "animial portraits"
I do most of my background blur in post. Glad to be in 2024 vs 1994😊
I have the OM1 with the 300 mm f 4 MC14 and MC20. Works super well with both tc but anyway I ve always considered the OM SYSTEM just “a toy system” something you can carry on easily but it’s just so far comparing with the FF quality, far far away I would say.
Anyway it’s a great comparison even it’s not the “fair one” due the systems differences.
Best all!
Bokeh and noise are the main giveaways of the 300 f4. The higher ISO due to the f8 eq, is making the 600mm look glorious,
True
@@chasingluminance Not true... equivalence only affects apparent depth of field, not the light-gathering ability of the lens. But the smaller sensor does have an impact when it comes to noise, I believe.
Why do people think MFT to FF depth of field equivalence is the same as exposure equivalence?
It would have been nice to compare the ISOs used. I own a G9 and a G9 II. MFT is a great format to shoot birds because you get a greater depth of field. However the compromise is that, if you need to crop in, you will have to denoise the resulting image. Not a big deal but it's an additional step in my workflow. Finally the lighter, cheaper gear is a WIN_WIN for me. How about you? Looking forward to more content from you. :))
We did our best to use all the same settings... we missed it a few times.
Super-pro Andy Rouse switched from Canon to Olympus (OM Systems now) years ago. He hasn't looked back. Super-super pro Sebastian Salgado used to maximise depth of field (opposite of subject separation) "because that's how the human eye sees". He often used a Canon 70-300L at f11 to capture things as he thought they should naturally look. No need for large apertures or massive teles.
nice comparison, I would pic 300/f4 anytime, excellent combination of size and IQ
beautiful video. I am aware that the man/woman behind the camera makes the difference, I completely agree with your final conclusion. There are differences in favor of the Canon set up, but they do not outweigh the advantages of the Om system, which is much lighter in weight and size, and in the bargain also significantly cheaper to purchase.❤
Thank you!
It would be interesting to see the OM-1 II with the 300 compared aginst the Nikon Z8 and 600pf. That comparison would be relevant because size, weight and price would be very comparable and you would be shooting the same focal length with 2/3 stop difference. At that point when cost, size and weight differences are negated and the Nikon has a 2/3 stop advantage what do you choose then? Ok after a bit of quick math the OM kit looks to be about $5,000 and the Nikon $7,000. The OM weighs .9lbs less where the Nikon will have a 2/3 stop aperture advantage and just over double the resolution. Sounds like you get your money out of the extra $2,000. I’m not looking to argue against OM I like their stuff but I think the Nikon PF lens options really take a bite out of the OM portability positioning.
That would be interesting
Olympus ❤
great video ... 600 f4 is hard to beat or to come closer. Just my opinion.
Indeed not to mention bigger sensor on full frame makes the lens let in more lights to shoot in low light om1 is dark unless u use on tripod or shooting a stationary subject (most wildlife move anyway) haha
@@mbismbismb You`re still holding the "Olympus" in your hand when you have to hang the 600/4.0 on a crane after just 5 minutes.🤣
@@richardfink7666 as long i get the shot i needed... i dont need to hold it that long 😎
@@mbismbismb Just....lens becomes too heavy and than it happens! haha
@@richardfink7666 maybe just an iphone 15 pro max sounds like a wise choice for you hahahahaha
Great video and conclusions. There was no doubt the Canon set up was better. It was not just the lens that mattered, but also the OM sensor produced noisier images. But was it _that_ much better?
If I had $13,000 to spend, I would go for the cheaper system and spend the money on great experiences, such as safaris and photo expeditions! :-)
Experiences are everything
I've been using the 300/4 for almost a year now, and I can't find any downsides of this lens. It's really impressive how no matter the lighting conditions, it's always extremely sharp, while not suffering from any aberrations.
What's even more impressive that they were able to reach (or maybe even surpass) this level of quality with their 150-400.
The depth of field is the only downside in my opinion
@@chasingluminance it comes with the m43 territory :)
Although, I think bokeh is a bit overrated. It will fall out of fashion sooner or later.
I like the color better on the OMS stuff better too. I have an R5 system and an OM-1 mkII system. When I go out the door, I tend to grab the OM-1. ps: I also have the 150-400 f/4.5 and will probably be buried with it as I will never let it go.
That 300 is crazy strong.
Thanx for the Video!
But in my opinion the 300mm f4 is the sharper lens. I compair it again and again in 100%…
Great video! Good ol' #399 is the most photographed grizzly alive. Do you know why she is always found near the road with her cubs?
A lot of the bears cross the road... 399 is just the most infamous. 610 and falicia are really photogenic too
I don't see any more detail or contrast on the 600mm just more background blur. I guess if you're only shooting with ~20MP go with the MFT version but for higher resolution maybe the 600 has a benefit? Not $10k of benefit unless you're literally shooting for National Geographic >.>
A few of the owl photos look better on the Canon
Where can I find the bokeh from Canon and the weight of the OM? Is there such system out there?
I think the science of how the lens is work makes that impossible
As a user of both the 300 and 150-400 OM lenses I saw nothing to tempt me to switch to a 600 f4. Yes there is a difference but the 600 f4 is too heavy for the way I operate which involves a lot of walking. We have choices and that is good.
I like to be light and mobile
For 99.7% of the pictures I take, FF would make NO difference. I hike mountains with 2 bodies and 5 lenses and weight is a huge issue. But it’s more than just weight that matters to me. The computational features of the OM 1 fit my needs perfectly. I don’t need filters, I don’t need a tripod yet I can still get 10 second hand held shots. It’s the whole package that fits me and no other system even comes close.
Uh, big white "lens" is not what I thought was gonna come outta your mouth. 🤣
I'd stick with the smaller lens also... Trying to out run a grizzly with that big lens would be a real bear... bada bing 🥁 🥁...I kill myself 😂🤣
Ha
New wrinkle to the old joke: “I don’t have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you carrying that lens.”
@@michaelhall2709 ... Perfect !!!
never regreted the choice for olympus / OM system since first purchase in 2011.... the bigger sensor is better guys can run around like a mule spending there last breath how good there white primes are :-)
That's awesome
Great comparison the 600 F4 Canon blows the OM1 out of the water when it comes to image quality but your comparing full frame to what the OM1 has so thats unfair to say the OM1 is not good or the 600 is better there both amazing kits the 600 f4 is def sharper on the R series Canon gear. Again great comparison.
Thanks for sharing
I would choose that large white thingy. It would look cooler on me .
That's true
No competition, the 600, hands down for image quality. The bokeh alone makes an image a toss or keep. I feel like I need to balance out all the comments saying they could barely notice a difference but I would take the 600 images in every case for a 24x36 print. I wouldnt even keep any of the images from the 300. Furthermore, the 600 is harder to get good images with but if you implement good technique the results will have an even wider difference. If this was comparing a faster 400 lens, for instance the 100-400 mkII then it might be a closer competition and much easier to balance the very slight loss in image quality with the benefits of portability and versatility of zoom. Far away low quality photos are not where you want to compare these. It is far more intimate when you can see the structure inside an owls eye vs just a yellow iris.
I've printed Olympus files to 60x40 and they look great with the right processing
@chasingluminance I never said that you shouldn't. I said in a situation where you're comparing the 600 vs 300 and you need at least 600 mm in a lens, then the 600 will win hands down for image quality.
You can`t sum it up better! You can do a lot of nice things for 10.000 euros.
Full on African safari or somthing else crazy
That was hard to see a difference. I agree with you. I met a hiker once in Canada with what must have been a lens like the Canon 600. It was a monster! I asked how much it weighed and he said about 10 lbs. and that was only camera and lens. I can't imagine hiking any significant distance with that but I know people do. I would take the Olympus.
Will be cool to see the cheaper 100-400 options compared
I'll have to do that
I tried all... 100-400 is quite ok, but the new 150-600 is amazing with its stabilizer. 300 and 150-400 are another league in sharpness and quality
Well... i shoot Oly, but i don't have the 300 f/4 - i have the earlier ZD 300 f/2.8 - Big Tuna - (4/3 adapted to a 1X) which is such a likable 3.6kg lump of metal and glass, and so useful for what i do with its faster aperture, that there's no way i'd sacrifice it. So, with no experience of either of the lenses featured here, and just going off the screen, i felt the Canon images were, in most (but not all) cases, noticeably superior. I'm confident i'd pick them out if they were all mixed together and unlabeled. That said, if i only saw the Oly shots on their own, i'd consider them to be perfectly good. Would i want the Canon - not for what i do. I shoot in harsh and rugged environments and dragging that thing through a rainforest would be a PITA - it's exhausting enough getting all tangled up with the gear i've got. Good vid to see, anyway, and i'm looking forward to the 150-400 which does seem to have a bit going for it.... Cheers and all the best.
The harsh, rugged environments are such a big factor
I think the justification of owning big primes in today’s world is becoming less and less of a necessity comparing to say ten years ago. Full frame big primes will give you better subject separation and a little better image quality but the noise factor is becoming less and less of an issue with the advancement of AI Denoise softwares. The advantage of producing cleaner images can now be achieved with smaller sensors now with those technologies
Agreed
firstly, the 2 cameras are NOT similar. 20mp on a 4/3 camera is equivalent to roughly 80mp FF. Comparing the OM-1 20mp 4/3 to the 24mp R6II full frame sensor is not a fair comparison in terms of resolution of detail. Even comparing it to the R5/R5II isn't fair. You are already hobbling the Canon RF 600f4 lens by doing this.
Secondly, the 4/3 lens will NEVER have the same background blur as the FF 600f4. If that's not important to you, then fine. I rarely shoot wide open anyway, but some people do. You can get excellent background/subject separation and background blur when shooting at f8 with a bit White prime if you know what you are doing.
The RF 600f4 is also inferior optically to the EF600f4 II lens btw.
The OM lens seems to have more contrast/micro-contrast and 1 thing that I have learned is that this can make an image appear sharper.
The OM lens also seems to have a colour cast (I guess this could be camera, rather than lens related). This is another thing that I have learned from 18 months with my R3 - WB can also impact upon image sharpness. It's a pseudo image thing, but the brain is a very funny thing when it comes to viewing and processing optical data.
With the owl shots, the Canon setup looks more colour accurate and sharper too. But, that's how MY eyes perceive the optical data.
The Canon AF system seemed to be less affected by the falling snow too (you see the OM system pulse a lot more).
For me personally, the Canon setup helps draw attention to the subject due to the background being shallow and out of focus. The OM system's more in focus background detracts from the subject of the image(s). Again, ymmv.
I think you've exhibited some user bias here and not been fully impartial, or logical in your testing process. re-do the test with a R5 and the RF 600f4 and compare the results. The OM-1 simply has more pixels on the subject and will always have greater resolution.
Is the OM system good? Yes. If I was starting out afresh, I would probably go with the OM-1 and 300f4 - size, weight and cost are big factors. I'm an older guy, with a not so great lower back. I've adapted to lugging around my R3 and EF 500f4 mark 1 + 1.4x TC, but a lighter solution wouldn't hurt.
The Canon 600mm is noticeably better and produces photos that are far more magical IMO.
It's a great lens
Side by side the difference is really obvious. The 600 f4 images do look much more pleasing to me, but price, size and weight are good arguments in favor of Olympus. You just have to manage your backgrounds more carefully
I'll tell the animals to stand in front of cleaner back grounds next time
@@chasingluminance I‘m sure they‘ll listen to you. Seriously though, the video shows the difference between the two systems nicely and one simply cannot expect the background separation to be the same. Still the OM System combo more than holds its own
I am really surprised, I thought the 600mm would blow away the 300 out of the water in truth 300 is a bit more Sharper than 600 although bokeh is more pleasing in 600.
One word comes to mind: Separation
Yeah
Agree. Optical bokeh is dead
Flippy screen is the most annoying thing when shooting handheld wildlife. Especially when you have a camera strap.
View finder
@@chasingluminance Stupid
Think if om system could make a 300mm 2.8. That would have been a "killer lens"
That would be amazing!
Well, Olympus made a 300mm f2.8 for the FT-mount. It‘s fully adaptable with AF, but it‘s rather big and heavy.
@@tobiasdavid3096 That is an amazing lens yes. But i am sure if they made one for the mirrorless system, it would be close to 2 - 2,5 kg. If that happend, i think i would switch from Canon to OM system.
If you’re shooting midday and hiking long distances this looks like a great setup, but the difference between f4 and f8 (FF equiv) is very noticeable. The background on MFT is distracting and looks more like a snapshot. Granted most people aren’t going to spend the money for a big f2.8/4 prime, but legacy glass is more financially accessible. I think a happy medium is one of the 200-600 f5.6-6.3 zooms or the Nikon 400 f4.5 on FF or APSC. I just don’t see tremendous value in MFT unless you’re always hiking 3-5+ miles or a weak senior citizen.
Exactly my view. I appreciate the weight and cost related advantages of the MFT system. But the photos from it don’t appeal to me.
I personally did not see a $10,000 advantage in the Canon. For me at my age I cannot see myself ever carrying a near 7lb lens around for nature photography. I owned the 300f4 and the 3.25lbs seemed heavy enough for me. The 150-400 is only a dream lens for me. The 150-600 is probably the longest lens I can afford unless I get the 200-600 for my sony. But I honestly would never trust my Sony out in bad conditions. Gotta hand it to Olympus and OM systems. Their gear is rugged.
I love it
It wasn't even close. There was a significant difference between those lenses. Although the OM systems did well, the Canon setup was miles ahead.
It is better in a lot of ways
@chasingluminance But the OM system is still a great piece of kit.
300mm f4 was to me the same . Therefore, I would choose it.
I like it
One of the weirder apples to oranges comparisons I've seen. That said none of the TH-cam photographers ever factor in the user capability into the reviews. I've seen loads of people buy a 600 and have no skill, and make terrible images with them and then someone with skill outshoot them with lesser kit.
I'll agree to that, any camera in the right hands will get good results
@@chasingluminance Have you looked at other peoples images with a Canon RF600 or just going on your own images to make the assessment?
If you do not trust me, ask your wife. She will confirm, bigger is better 😉
And your mother can back up that theory
Sorry, but anyone that can’t see the *very* stark difference between the bokeh and over all image quality that the Canon 600 produced over the OM 300 either needs glasses or to just stick with their iPhone or Android’s camera.….
Difference: yes
Enormous: no
And the difference is dertainly not worth 10.000 euros.
@@richardfink7666 The difference is enormous and if you had both images in your portfolio or on a rack people would choose the 600 every time all else equal.
@@ttonAb2 What do you actually photograph with?
@richardfink7666 full frame dslr and mirrorless with a 1-400 mkii or a 500 f4 ... 1.4xtc on either for wildlife. For most people the 1-400 or similar would be much better for them due to its versatility and portability but if I know I need the reach the 500 comes along hands down... I often wish I had a 600 even. Finding a good used EF version instead of new RF is probably better as well.
@@ttonAb2 I had a Z6II and now an OM1II with the 300/4.0 and I haven`t regretted the switch. But I don`t make anymoney from it either. And for that little bit more performance 10.000 Euros........
It's not magic. That 300mm f/4 is not a 600mm f/4 in any way. They may give you the same field of view in their respective formats, but they are NOT the same magnification.
Conversely and strangely, nobody ever compares the formats in this way:
The Nikon 400mm f/4.5 lens is a "field of view" 4/3 equivalent to a 200mm lens. If you're using a Nikon Z8 or Z9, you can crop your image to the 4/3 equivalent field of view of 400mm and still make a better print than you'd get from a print from that OM camera (it's been proven). So, via cropping, you have a considerably cheaper and lighter, theoretical 200mm - 400mm f/4.5 zoom lens.
And no, I'm not a full frame or Nikon fan boy. I was very recently in the market for a completely new camera system, and had my choices narrowed down to OM Systems (because of the 150-400mm lens) and Nikon. I simply finally decided on Nikon for the above reasons.
Yes, 45.7 megapixels is more than 20.
@@chasingluminance, but here's the real kicker:
Nikon Z8, 24-70 f/4, and 400 f/4.5 is 5.65 lbs and $7100.00
OM1 MkII, 12-45 f/4, and 150-400 f/4.5 is 5.85 lbs and $9500
@@PatrickSmeaton and I'd take the om1 set up every time
@@chasingluminance, oh and I forgot to mention that pixel peeping images/files of different sizes at 100% on a computer does not give you a real representation of the image quality. If they're both at 100%, the large image/file will be a larger photograph.
@PatrickSmeaton well obviously a sensor with more pixles will create a larger file. And you could see that represented in the images. A 100% on the cannon was not the same as a 100% on the O. M... but still the best way to compare them
As expected the canon is much superior... sharper, details, low noise and bokeh... the colours is a bit richer
.......and much, much more expensive.🤣
@@richardfink7666 u need more expensive gear to give a better results thus get better paid 😎
@@mbismbismb I think you`re right. I just doubt that this is always necessary.
“Much superior,” really?! Are you looking at the pictures themselves, or at a spec sheet?
Seriously - aside from the bokeh, there’s hardly anything to distinguish the two sets of images. Certainly nothing with respect to sharpness, colors or dynamic range that would justify the weight and expense of the Canon gear. A different set of photos, of course, may yield a different result.
It is better
Not going to watch the video because the title is ridiculous and you misspelled Canon.
Or did i?
HTF do you not know how to spell "Canon"?
Or did i?
She's better off..
You cut me deep baxter
@@chasingluminance my last 2 did too..but we have each other now
.
The meh!?
@@chasingluminance you funny 😁
The big Canon lens outperformed the smaller OM lens in a big way. Sorry. Loved the video and all of the wildlife too. Frankly, there were saleable photo’s coming out of the larger more expensive lens, not as many with the OM system. Comparison between the two lenses was a nice way to tell a (wonderful) story, but I disagree about the outcome.
The comparison is little unfair. 600mm f4 is much faster and light gathering than 300f4 ( equivalent to 600f8). You should have compared with at least Nikon 600mm f6.3 which is faster and same weight than 300mm f4. Nikon 400 f/4.5 on a crop body is even cheaper and lighter and ff-equivalent to 600mm f6.75.
No it's not... the "f8" only affects depth of field.
@@chasingluminance And light gathering capability. Light gathering capability of a lens depend on physical diameter = focal length/f-stop. Diameter of 300mm f4 is 75mm same as 600mm f8. 600mm f/6.3 has more diameter. For mft, 300mm, f4, ISO 200, Shutter Speed 1/500 would be equal to ff 600mm f8, ISO 800, shutter speed1/500. See how I kept shutter speed and physical aperture (focal length/diameter) same. This allows same dof and same noise. ISO 200 on mft and 800 on ff would give almost same noise because same amoount of light is gathered. You can do the experiment yourself to verify or check some videos from Tony Northrup.
Nope, wrong again
@@chasingluminance can you point out what is wrong here? Btw, I have a phd in aerospace engineering and I understand lens optic. Not trying to brag, but when you say I’m wrong I expect some logical answer.
@@atanuhalder7750aerospace engineering and optics? Not seeing the connection here or are you assuming that the rest of us don’t have a science background therefore your tenuous connection to optical engineering trumps anything we have to say ?
Total rubbish, the 600mm was without doubt much better, Your only kidding yourself to think otherwise, you know you really want a 600mm f4 😂
Honestly... no.
It's just a pain to actually use. It's massive and cumbersome.
I'd never want to travel to Alaska or Asia or Africa with that.
If I had a gear caddy to move everything then sure.... but when I'm hiking into the back country.... om system for the win