OM System 150-600mm Lens - Controversial Comments Addressed
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 сер 2024
- Buy Me a Coffee - paypal.me/Bria...
Become a Patron of the channel at Patreon for extra content and privileges
/ thatmicro4thirdsguy
Video shot on OBSBOT Tail Air
Any views expressed on this video or any other videos on this channel are purely my opinion and are not to be taken in any way as formal or professional advice.
Olympus Firmware page
cs.olympus-ima...
Panasonic Lumix Firmware Page
av.jpn.support...
HUGE THANKS TO MY PAYPAL SUPPORTERS
Title Music: Country Cue 1 by Audionautix is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution licence (creativecommon...)
Artist: audionautix.com/
#microfourthirds #olympus #lumix
Just checked the 150-600 Sigma lens for E-Mount and it is £1100. With OM badge for M4/3 the price for a very slightly modified lens but basically the same construction and glass, is £2500. They are having a laugh at our expense. Since I do have a Sony A7III, I am tempted to buy the Sigma brand for it and just use the inbuilt teleconverter or even the 2x digital zoom, or even just crop in post processing to make the same composition as it makes on M4/3 cameras. The saving in buying the Sony version, to put some perspective on it, actually pays for a new A7III camera body within £200. A NEW one! A nearly new A7III with the Sigma 150-600 would actually save £200 compared to a bare lens from OM Systems.. An alternative is a new or used Olympus 100-400 which was only introduced three years ago and costs around £1100 new or £800 in excellent used condition to which you can add an optical teleconverter between lens and body. £2500 for the new 150-600 is a sick joke.
It's even worse. The same lens for EF mount is less than USD1,000 - and the EF version is 235g less heavy to add insult to injury.
I use the 100-400mm I think it’s a very nice capable lens. I’m satisfied with the quality of photos I get. The IQ of the Olympus 100-400mm is as good as the photos I got with my Sony 200-600 on the sony A9. Granted the Sony was not as noisy in low light but in reasonable light the OM-1 and Oly 100-400mm is as good as the Sony setup.
Isn't it a rebrand of the more expensive 150-600 sigma variant, though?
@@tonyb736 But that's the big caveat here. "In reasonable light". The best wildlife opportunities happen early in the morning and late into the day. Wildlife often hides in the shadows. Wildlife requires fast shutter speeds and long focal lengths, resulting in high ISO. Micro Four Thirds is at a severe disadvantage here that in my opinion cannot easily be compensated with isolated benefits of computational photography features, fast frame rates and other gimmicks. Yes - if you're a "Sunday afternoon shooter in the park at the duck pond" you might enjoy that USD4,000 MFT setup over the USD6,000 full frame setup...
@@tonyb736 the Olympus 100-400 is also a Sigma lens with a rear element change to fit the m43 mount. The original Sigma DG DN version costs US$900 whereas the Olympus costs US$1500.
My purpose of getting back into micro 4/3 is simply to save weight for telephoto. The Sigma 150-600 contemporary wears me down after several hours of walking in nature. I’m so happy with the LUMIX 100-300. I was able to hold it steady to get some birds in flight.
Even the Panasonic Leica 100-400 is smaller and lighter (and cheaper). I wouldn’t go much larger than that.
The reason the price so high is 100% purely to prevent cannibalization of their other lenses. That's it. If the lens was $1300 like the Sigma version, the 100-400 would take a huge hit despite it's size advantages. Ultimately, pricing at $2700 is to smack it between the 300f4 and the 150-400f4.5tc. With that price I'm more likely to drop the money to Canon with the 200-800 and an R6mkii (and hopefully an R7mkii with faster readout in the future). For now, I'm sticking with my D500 and 150-600.
Thanks for the video. I am in agreement with pretty much everything you say. The biggest thing I don't understand is the price for the 150-600. Looking at specs, it is based on the Sigma 150-600 for Sony mirrorless mount. That lens is $1499 here in the states and the OM version is $2699. How can it be almost twice the price?
Om 150-600 that ekvivalent FF 300-1200mm. + with MC20 converter (2x) 600-2400mm not cheap but cool.
explain why that L mount sigma is allowed to have a teleconverter and the E mount version cannot?
sounds like you have some research to do to get to the bottom of the conspiracy and save the world before midnight.
As someone mentioned in another comment, his g9ii is already updated to firmware version 2.1. Olympus used to do many firmware updates and owners often felt they were almost getting a new model. Although my EM5 and EM1 mk3’s have had several firmware updates I feel that there could have been more without having to buy an OM1 for some of the added features. I imagine there are many OM1 owners who really feel they could have many of the mk2 features with firmware updates. If I owned an OM1 I would feel cheated.
The problem of today, and it complies to all brands, including Sony, Nikon and so forth, is that the tech level in the cameras are so high now, you can't get much in firmware updates. It's all there already and only corrections can be done without new hardware in the cameras. And hardware makes prices go up. And I believe that the OM-1 would have been to expensive two years ago if the new hw was in it from the beginning. We all got good comprehensive tech in our new cameras as they were new. And the only proper thing I can truly believe can be implemented in firmware without tech update in the OM-1 is the human subject detection, and stickier AF. That I believe will come in 2-3 months.
I asked my Sony and Nikon friends, and they say the whiners are there too. That brings me to the conclusion that the mirrorless industrial revolution times are over. For all brands tech update will be minor in the future. And OM System have more sw tech and hw tech inside the cameras than most of the brands. I hope we get at least a soft version of the GND function in firmware for our older pro cameras like OM-1, E-M1X and E-M1M3. If the hw supports it. And we get human subject detection to all three as well.
@@sweden_ove2074 Who would have ever thought that a camera might actually need human detection?!?
@@andy_elliott Good question. Who would 50 years ago thought a camera would have needed AF or selectable ISO.
@@sweden_ove2074 My point is - should human detection not come before all the others? Most people take pictures of people. As well as dogs and cats and birds and insects and elephants and polar bears, etc. Why is human detection such a new feature-thing for OM System?
150-600mm weighs 4.55 lbs ($2,699) vs 150-400mm+1.25TC weighs 4.13 lbs ($7,499) va 100-400mm weighs 2.47 lbs ($1,500) - The Sigma 150-600mm Sport weighs 6.31 lbs
Regarding the size and weight of the lens - I’m not sure if it would have been much smaller and lighter if it would have been designed for MFT. If we look at the specs of the MFT 300mm/F4 lens and compare them to the old Zuiko 300mm/F4.5 lens for the original OM System by Maitani, they are similar. The new lens has a 77mm front element, the old lens 72mm (but yes, it is F4.5, not F4). The new lens weighs 1270 g, the old lens 1100 g. Length 227mm versus 181mm. I guess the AF and IS electronics make it bigger and heavier than the old MF, all metal ‘FF’ lens.
I stick to my 300 F4 Pro (with both TC). Not going back to fullformat times. I used to have the 150-600 Sigma on a Nikon Z72, simply to bulky for my way of going out and use the gear (on foot or on bicycle - not using a car anymore). BTW it should be 150-600 and not 160-600 in the videotitle ;-) - about the OM1 firmware trick - I have read in the different older threads in different forums where people heard about the updates for the now Mark 1 that are now in the Mark 2. So it is/was greatly awaited by us Mark 1 users. We know now how we are treated by OM (and the Mark 2 users will know it somewhere in about 1,5 year). You are 100% right on the OM Marketing part. Gonna use my G9II more (just got a new update for it from the 30th of January 2024 - it is already on 2.1)...
The 150-600 maybe it could have been smaller if done from the ground up. But what will it cost to develop and how long time will it take. The lens fits the narrative for wildlife. I have the 100-400 but if i didn’t I would buy the 150-600. It is approx. 900 grams heavier which is litte less than double weight. The price should be higher than the 100-400. But I agree it is pricy.
But appears to be sharper and have IS Sync.
Marketing are difficult and so is pricing. But I do not know if any camera vendor will market a new lens as this is a reworked other brand.
The 9-18 is another story. If it really is just a rebadge which I really no nothing about, then it should just have been in the lens line up without any notice. But again that is not how marketing works is it. Not for any brand.
The om-1 mark II has got a lot of critic. I am not one of them. It seems to be the new OM-1 and therefor they are not producing any more mark 1. Makes perfect sense to me. It is a refined version where they have addressed a lot of the issues that has been mentioned about mark 1. The lack of buffer / working memory as the really big one.i still think Thomas Eisl’s video is the best to explain all the many small but significant changes that marketing didn’t address. Maybe they had to come with a rebagded OM-1 now and then release what the have done so far. “It could have been done in firmware” this implies, that firmware is easy to do and no big deal. Well it is not cheap to change software and I think that firmware development is even more complex because of memory and power constraints.
Here are my thoughts after owning this lens for a couple of weeks.
First, I love it!
It’s a great wildlife lens. It’s fast focusing and has great range.
I’ve found a good way to carry it. I attached a Peak Design plate and anchor link on the lens foot, attached another anchor plate to one of the built in rings on the lens, and attached my peak design strap to them. That way the camera and lens lays horizontally across my body instead of pointing down like it would connected to both of the built in rings. There is no danger of hurting either the camera or lens mounts.
I took the advice of UA-camr Thomas Eisl in his review and installed my battery grip. It gives my right hand more to hold on to and provides a counter balance when zooming in all the way by turning the lens barrel.
Having 2 settings for the lens tension when zooming is really nice. Sometimes I turn the lens barrel to zoom. Sometimes it’s easier to use a push pull method, especially for flying birds.
No, it’s not cheap and I wouldn’t call it small and light, but it’s worth every Penny.
Excellent to hear and I totally agree with you both about the battery grip. Thanks for the feedback. Best wishes, Brian
Thanks for your review, and your positive comments. I didn't think I would go for one of these, but I can't afford the 150-400, and I would like the extra reach, especially for small birds, so I've just pulled the trigger and expect delivery in a few days. Even if I end up using this lens mostly in hides, and the 300 F4 for walkabouts, I'm really looking forward to trying it out. I came to M43 from FF, enjoying the main advantage of smaller size and less weight, so it is a bit of a retrograde step in some respects. However, I certainly can't afford, and don't want to carry, a Z9 and an 800 PF! I value Thomas Eisl's advice, and I like his methodical methods of analysing and comparison with data-based results. Thanks also to Brian and his pragmatic approach, I'm still bewildered as to why people take offence at different opinions to the extent of writing negative or disparaging comments.
I emailed OM system directly a couple of times, and also posted on their social media channels - asking if they had any plans to do an updated epl or penf model - or any other compact model. Got ghosted by them on each occasion. Find it very weird that they didn't even bother responding with any sort of answer. What's up with that? I wouldn't have minded even if the answer was no. At least it would have been a straight answer.
It seems to me - regarding the Om-1ii - that some of the angst and arguments are inherently self contradictory. We can only speculate, but the alleged driving force being the contractual requirement to stop using the Olympus name does serm to make sense. So, if we accept that as true, then it explains the two year cycle (which is absolutely unusual for OM/Oly) , but leads us to the following - would people really be happier if theyd just released the new body with the OM graphics? Are we really finding excuses to be upset because they actually gave us whatever improvements that they had available after two years? Do we extrapolate this to a point where we'd rather they held the better AF, Live Grad, human recognition , 14 bit hi res etc over until whatever comes next in 2026-ish?
Bottom line - theyve made the camera better. It takes an effort to somehow paint that as a negative considering its two years ahead of the expected cycle. This is a mid-life refresh and it offers definite improvements. It's a good thing.
If I'm critical of anything in the latest releases , it's these - the 150-600 does seem a bit overpriced for what the known changes are. And they missed a big item by not making the new 9-18mm weather sealed. It would be perfect for an Om-5 series. Should've been done.
For clarity, I own an Om-1, 5iii, Pen-F and Gx-8 , plus a swag of lenses in both pro and non pro lines. Will I buy an Om-1ii ? I'd like to. The improvements would help my shooting in some situations. But another body upgrade at this time is awkward financially. Especially since I'm already saving for the 90mm Macro. You can't have it all.
This is a good addition IMO. There is no "THE right path." Previous OMDS releases were small, f4 lenses that are also top shelf. Now for something different. This is an option for a different segment of consumer. One that doesn't have the $$ for lenses such as 150-400 white lens or 300 f4. I'm glad there is a viable option for a super zoom for others such as myself. This will increase my love affair with OMDS. I think it is spot on that there are offerings for all varieties of photographers.
I see your point, but if i recall, wasn't the 75 1.8 also made by Sigma, and there was no badging indicating so. Then why would we expect anything different now? Personally, contracting out a lens makes no difference to me.
Spot On Brian, and this is what makes me mad. I switched from FF Nikon to MFT to have less weight to carry and now OMS are bringing out gigantic lenses. It does not make sense to me....
@@witssen9954 This is not the point, this lens has not been rendered, calculated to be mount ideally in front of an mft sensor. An equivalent calculated for an mft sensor would have been much smaller, hence lighter as well.
@@migueljohnson432It's exactly the point. Same reach in FF is 300-1200 mm,and that requires gigantic lenses.
You can't compare the 150-600 with FF 150-600, you have to compare it to 70-300 mm. And I hope for a pro level lens in that area. A 90-350 f3.5 or realistically f4.0. That will be the contender to the Sony 200-600, the Sigma 150-600 and the contenders from Nikon and Canon.
I get really mad when people compare different FOV lenses in the same bag.
Ok, I understand if OM System would make a 150-600 lens from scratch, it would be realistically maybe 20% lighter than the new M.Zuiko 150-600, but at another price level. It would be to small market for such a long reach lens. Stop comparing a truck and a car in the same comparison. It's not fair for MFT. FOV and aperture is what matters not the numbers of mm.
@@sweden_ove2074 Don't get mad, :-) I know what you mean, the point to me is just what you just pointed out yourself, if Olympus or OMS would have rendered that lens specifically to be mounted and used on mft it would have been smaller and lighter.
About the price tag, I assume we do not need to argue about that, is just bananas why OM-S is selling the lens at a premium where you can get the original Sigma at a fair price. And no, is not the stab. It does not make sense at all. I can expect from a manufacturer of lenses that it works this is why the get my hard earned money for it. I do not pay a premium because it just works the way it should...
@@witssen9954the equivalent lens in FF cost 80k when launched and had a weight of 16kg
I think part of the reason people are in such a tiff is because each launch after the original OM-1 has started to make JIS-run OMDS smell more and more like Ricoh-run Pentax. Whether loyal partisans want to sound the alarm or bury their heads in the sand, the winds have changed - and not necessarily for the better. Third party support has dried up for M4/3, OMDS is white-labeling lenses from those aforementioned third parties, previously road-mapped lenses are getting dropped from the road map, old lenses are getting re-released with nothing more than a new coat of paint, cameras are getting re-released with nothing more than some software tweaks (and minor component changes due to supply issues) or more RAM and software tweaks. See: Sigma and Tamron stopping release of Pentax mount options, new "Pentax" FF lenses being white-labelled Tamron lenses, re-releasing various SLR-era lenses with no changes other than modern coatings, Pentax KF/K-70 situation, Pentak K-1 II. It's eerily similar.
Seems like Oly's last great hurrah has already been uttered, and while no one wants that to be the case it seems that people are getting anxious, the herd has felt something and is getting restless. Its a shame, really. Luckily the Sigma lens is designed to be sharp enough to resolve for Sony's 61MP sensor, which is only a hair less pixel-dense than the OM-1's 20MP sensor.
But buckle up folks, and get used to a future where you're watching for the next Samyang/Rokinon announcement.
I think that OM-Systems have stopped with the firmware updates because they’ve realised they sell fewer cameras as a result. I agree, though, that firmware updating an OM1-1 isn’t going to make it an OM1-2
Camera companies such as Nikon and Sony are starting to make smaller and lighter lenses for full frame with new optical technology, and also some of the zoom lenses are actually cheaper than micro 4/3 lenses unlike the past when micro 4/3 was small and cheaper, but then the competition it is no longer the case making it a very difficult cell, and now it’s cheaper to make full frame sensors over micro 4/3 sensor being a specialty sensor now in 2024.
I agree with your opinions. One thing I want to say is that I am using the micro four thirds format for its compact size and less expensive lenses. I like the range of the new lens but the size is too big for me to carry. Panasonic has a 50-200mm f2. 8 with a 67mm filter thread. OM System should collaborate with Panasonic for R&D to come out with compact micro four thirds lenses. They are already designing lenses for this format so you won't need to revise a full frame lens to fit a micro four thirds camera body.
Same with me. I have Fuji and bought OMD EM1 II a couple of years ago. A direct comparison is the Olympus 12-40 is way lighter than the Fuji 16-55. I like the size and weight of the OM lenses.
Despite all the complaints about this 150-600 lens being 'too big' for people who got into MFT because of its small form factor, we are talking about a 300-1200 equivalent zoom lens with a relatively large aperture. How big/heavy/expensive would a 1200mm be on a FF camera?
Considering the size/weight of the Olympus 300mm F4 and extrapolating to 600mm, this new Sigma lens is not that huge.
I'm more worried about this lens having sufficient resolving power for the smaller sensor (equivalent to 40mp APS-C or 80mp FF pixel density). Maybe the extra cost is due to tighter production tolerances on glass polishing to achieve better image quality, and/or lower production quantities (compared to other camera brands).
Great point worth considering as the lens is effectively having to resolve the equivalence of a 80Mp FF
@@ThatMicro43Guy the true test would be if this lens can resolve more absolute detail at 600mm (at a given distance) than the 300mm F4 pro with 2x teleconverter. Even if it is the same, the 150-600 has the advantage of (1) being a zoom lens (2) having a 2/3 stop wider aperture at this focal length. At F8, the 150-600 might be even a bit sharper at 600mm.
Surely Olympus bought the rights to manufacture this lens, its not a Sigma lens with 4/3rds mount and software. Isnt it the same as the 100-400mm which also started life as a Sigma lens. Oly save same development costs but it is equiped with Oly made lenses, image stabilisation and software. The only comminality with sigma is the lens body
When full frame mirrorless cameras became popular, third party manufacturers like Sigma offered a mirrorless version of their DSLR lenses. This was basically the old lens with an adapter permanently attached. Everyone understood it was not optimised for the shorter flange distance, but was a useful stopgap until the company got around to making a dedicated lens that took advantage of the new format. Olympus have gone the other way. When one thinks of m43 lenses, it's classics like the PanaLeica 10-25mm f1.7, or Olympus 300mm f4 Pro. It isn't a budget full frame lens sold at a very non-budget price. Olympus were known for innovation and miniaturisation. So far OM Systems have offered tweaks on existing cameras and lenses. If they're not to become a neo-retro company like Pentax, a kind of managed decline sold as a feature, they need to do something exciting.
I think Panasonic waited way to long to upgrade the G9, the G9's AF was awful and why I sold it and bought an OM-1. I'm delighted OM Systems has updated their flag ship with a Mark II version, I don't need it but in a year or two I'll see if a OM-2 comes out. The G9II is tempting as well. The price of the new lens is crazy, it's so similar to the old E mount it seems like a total rip off. I hope it comes down soon.
im a olympus user and thinking about buying the 150-600mm lens ,i found it very interesting listening to what you said thanks
Watch the next video after this one as I got my hands on a real one and an OM1.2 to try.
I bought Olympus now OM-Systems due to the small size and weight. The 150 - 600mm lens is exactly the same as the heavier and bulkier lenses which Sigma produce for generally larger heavy FF systems. I will not be buying the lens for this reason. What has happened to the 50 - 250mm OM System lens which has been on the lens map for several years now?? The 150-600mm was never on the lens map.
A very thought provoking video, I thought the first video was also very thought provoking. I think the final bit is the concerning bit for me. On this lens, it's a niche product and if OM designed a new M4/3 lens I think the limited number of sales would make it prohibitively expensive. Adapting a Sigma FF lens has allowed OM to nip in with a very specialised lens which offers insane magnification. Yes it's big and heavy but it's what, 24× magnification if we take 25mm M4/3 as a baseline? That's bonkers, any lens trying to do that will be big and heavy, and in FF it'd be a full on monster. I don't need that magnification but for those who do this could be a game changer.
My concern would be if this became the norm. The Zuiko 100-400 is said to be derived from a Sigma FF design. It's a very good lens and still pretty compact for the reach it offers but it is bigger than the Panasonic-Leica 100-400 true M4/3 lens even though the Leica has a faster aperture. The excellence of Zuiko lenses has been a key selling point of Olympus since before I remember, if they lose that by OM making badged third party lenses their normal path to new glass it would raise serious questions for me.
The jury is still out on OM. They inherited a wonderful legacy but key capabilities were retained by Olympus for their medical/industrial optics. Hopefully OM will find their feet and continue the great tradition they inherited. The OM-1 ii is more than a firmware upgrade, it's a modest evolutionary upgrade but I don't see anything like the same Internet (not from you!) negativity when Nikon, Canon unveils an evolutionary Mk.ii or Mk.iii model.
That said, Panasonic seem to be the ones moving M4/3 on. I don't do video but friends who do tell me the GH6 knocked it out of the park. The G9ii is basically a new camera (why isn't it the G10?) and they're still developing some great lenses. I truly hope OM will give us similar developments soon as I also have a bit of an emotional attachment to Olympus.
Thanks for the detailed comment which I agree with.
The G10 model name had already been used as a slightly downgraded version of the G2 so could not easily be used again.
Just watched your video. I do agree with most of what you’re saying. One area though is lens speed calc. It will be focal length/aperture diameter. So, 600/95=6.3. Having said that, 150/95, should be about 1.6. So there’s obviously some magic to the physics with all the elements. So, it’s designed to the longest reach. In order to fit into the “compact” length, they are compromising the speed at the shorter lengths. I’m definitely not an expert, but I wonder if changing the diameter would’ve changed the physics of the lens design to achieve the same speed.
Other thing about the cost. My suspicion is that Sigma still wants their profit from each lens and OM is not going to sell at a loss. That, along with tweaks to the design to fit m43 and design changes for sync IS probably punched the price up significantly.
I am new to m4/3 I have the om1 and it has inspired me again, coming for full frame which I still shoot, but the om1 dose so much in camera, and the image quality is perfect for me. Honestly, I can’t tell much difference between it and my Sony A1 my Nikon Z9 or my Fuji FX five the image quality of this little camera is amazing. I’m definitely a fanboy I have been eyeing the 150-400 with the build in tc. But is 7500$ so I was looking at the 150-600 but when I found out it was really a full frame sigma it changed my mind, Not because it’s a Sigma I have lots of Sigma lens that I love. It’s like you said Olympus OM system should have told us this is a sigma lens made for full frame not make us find out the hard way. I agree with you.thanks for your channel. I am really glad I found you. I am a new subscriber God bless.
Thank you and welcome to our happy little community
Thank you for your "deeper dive" into some of the issues pointed out. In these days, looking for synergies among solutions may indeed be one way to go. But concerning marketing, R&D and - in my opinion; I don't find my use cases covered - the product development path in a sense may cause a problem of trust, especially towards OM Digital Solutions as a warden of M43. I love M43. I think it's a viable line to pursue in photography. But - as far as I am concerned I am hoping for things closer to my home and for a trustful relationship in this context.
That said, my "old stuff" still works nicely. 🙂
About the 150-600. I believe the price tag comes from its a 2 stop better lens IS than the Sigma version. Going from 4 to 6 stop, probably need some major differences inside the lens. We are both engineers you and me Brian and as you say about the OM-1MK2, firmware can't do everything. I can't believe OM system or Sigma would just make 1000 £ higher price for fun. There has to be a reason. I hope, and I hope you want it too, they explain the different in lens stabilisation tech. I believe we all need that to stop the whiners. Unfortunately, I also believe some percentage of the increase to the higher price is due to the world reality right now with war inflation and stuff. If OM system and Sigma would have taken away the extra amount of glass, the lens would probably be even more expensive. Maybe 1500£ more, due to the fact it's a special lens for special photographers made in small numbers. And that would kill the market.
If OM system would make a up to 600 mm zoom from the bottom, I think they would have chosen 200-600 mm. It would reduce the weight especially in front of the lens by 20 %. But it would still be a 4000 £ lens.
The compromise with this lens is understandable and in my opinion the right choice. I believe it will be a success, sales wise, in the end.
My biggest criticism these days, is that we MFT lovers don't stick with our system. The constant whining is what kills the system, not size of multiple size sensor lenses.
I believe it's time for a updated 100-400 lens in a year or so, 90-350 mm instead, and a proper MFT size wise. That would kill the 100-400, but I can live with that. The Lumix 100-400 could also be killed if the 80 or 90-350 would get aperture of f/4 or so. But probably not because that lens would cost at least 2500 £ too.
Apparently, Olympus still owns 5% of OM systems.
They definitively care. 🫡
There is no Canon version of this lens. It is a modified (improved) version of the Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports for mirrorless cameras, at the moment only available for the E and the L mounts; it costs €1440. So for the MFT version they improved the IS, added support for Sync IS and improved the environment sealing. If you look at the specs of the Sigma lens you will notice they are almost identical to the OMS version, but no claims are made regarding the levels of stabilization and sealing. Everyone can decide if these improvements are worth the extra money.
The IS improvements are likely coming for free with very little engineering effort due to the smaller sensor. There is some firmware engineering involved in making it work with the IBIS. Improved weather sealing is a few additional O rings. Nothing in there warrants more then a few hundred $ over the E mount version. There would be little complaining if it would be priced similarly to the Nikon 180-600. Double the price however is insane.
Totally agree
Thanks for the video. Do you think will work properly on a Lumix G9?
It does but you don’t have the dual IS just the cameras IBIS
Brian, I'm not sure about OM Systems marketing. I'm not sure what I think about the adaption of a full frame Sigma lens to MFT. I'm not sure what I think about the R&D edge of OM Systems. All I know is that I truly enjoy my OM-5, and I'm looking forward to the OM-1 mkii. I'm not a serious birder or wildlife shooter, so will probably never get the 150-600. That lens is for a select market niche. Besides nature, seems like the OM-1mkii + 150-600 could work well for outdoor sports.
The OM-5 actually has a faster (next-generation) processor than the E-M5 iii, enabling more computational stuff including hand-held hi-res mode. So it's actually much more than simple rebranding or firmware upgrade, even though it looks exactly like the E-M5 iii.
Brian, I appreciate your channel, but have to say I do not agree with your statement that OM System should reveal the linage of this lens. Why should they? Do you think they should also reveal who makes their sensors or circuit boards or any other components? Virtually every manufacturer of all kinds of products licenses technology and/or outsources components. With your background surly you know this.
All that has happened is that far too many people have just assumed - for reasons I can't fathom - that OM System just slapped their name on a Sigma lens and increased the price. OMDS would be stupid to do that and I have to say that I think it's stupid to assume they did. Anyone who takes a few minutes to look at the published specifications of the Sigma lens vs. this OM System lens will see it's crystal clear that OM System made a lot of upgrades to the basic Sigma design. It is built to a level of performance whereas the Sigma lens it built to a price.
1. The lens elements appear to be of much better glass.
2. It is IPX1 weather rated whereas the Sigma liens meets no recognized standards.
3. It is Focus Stacking compatible.
4. It provides 2 to 3 more stops of IS for the lens alone than the SIgma version.
5. It is SyncIS compatible which adds 1 to 2 more stops of IS .
6. It is compatible with both the 1.4 and 2x Olympus/OM teleconverters.
Some think this lens is "too big" (like double the size) because it was designed for FF cameras. Yes, it is bigger than a native MFT lens, but not by more than about 20%. Just look at the Olympus 100-400mm IS f5-6/3 lens that is also based on a FF Sigma design (yes, Olympus already rebranded a Sigma FF lens) and compare it to the Panasonic Leica 100-400mm f4-6.3 lens. I have both, and the Olympus is a bit larger by it's not "twice the size" like some seem to assume. And the Olympus is the better lens both optically and for image stabilization on an Olympus body.
All these negative assumptions and people just repeating false statements in the Internet echo chamber. I know a lot of this is coming from MFT haters and trolls, but unfortunately some if from people who own Olympus or OM System gear. Of all those complaining about the price, I wonder just how many would buy one at any price or even shoot long lenses? The people I know and follow who will and can use such a lens are not complaining about the price - they are happy to see OM System continue to extend the brand.
Thanks for the comment and your take on it. Great points and thought provoking for me.
Best wishes
Brian
The OM-1 mak II is probably the most expensive firmware update ever. Technically speaking, nothing but doubling the buffer differs from the OM-1. And then, they explain that they'll do a very minor firmware update for the OM-1 without the intereting features the hardware can support. I'm very disappointed as I got an OM-1 and I'll not pay 2,5 K€ for a f..... firmware update. I'll probably sell my OM-1 and move either to Sony A7Rxxx or Nikon Z.
I'd be happy if they pumped out a slower aperture super-telephoto prime lens for M 4/3, such as a 300mm f5.6. I recently purchased a 40 year old Canon FD 300 / 5.6 lens, somewhat opportunistically, as it was just there and I found myself intrigued by it. It weighs a bit over 600g, isn't very big and covers the full frame. An M 4/3 version could presumably be a bit smaller and lighter again. Ok, its manual focus, it won't replace the Pana-Leica 100-400, as things like dual stabe and autofocus are easy to get used to, however, it can be adapted to any mirrorless camera I might buy regardless of the format. For a lot of stuff I can run the 40-150 f4 lens (tiny, light and perfect) and just to add something like a 300/5.6 when you need the extra reach would work ok I reckon.
I see people refer to this a simple rebranding, but judging by the specs published by OMDS and Sigma, it isn't a rebrand of either Sigma branded lens. The Sigma Sports version weighs 2100 grams, and the OMDS version weighs 2065 grams, so that kind of matches. Also, but the Sigma Sports and the OMDS have 25 elements in 15 groups. But the Sigma Sports has a filter radius of 105mm, while the OMDS has a filter radius of 95mm - a significant difference. The Sigma Contemporary model has a filter diameter of 95mm like the OMDS, but it has only 20 lens elements in 14 groups, and weighs 1930g so it's a different beast altogether. Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether OMDS develops a lens in-house or works with an outside company - Sigma's CEO said in February that they would not develop more M43 lenses, but I guess they just don't want to be involved with marketing and shipping, and if that means OMDS can get bring new products to market, then it's a win/win. FWIW, I'll be sticking with my 100-400 - it might not have the same reach, but I can carry it all day.
According to WEX site the L mount sports has a filter thread of 95mm and a weight of 2100g which (apart from 35g which as you imply is pretty close to a match)
Olympus always gave tons tons of firmware update’s essentially making the camera feel like a new model to some degree. Look at Nikon for example. My Z8 just received a firmware update giving it everything the Z9 had and more in some cases. If OM System has no intentions of improving there camera through firmware I am moving on. I will sell all of my Olympus gear and put the money into my Nikon system. Even the OM1 was an Olympus derived camera. OM system has created nothing. The 8-25 pro, also an Olympus derived lens. OM system needs to setup up there game in a big way or it’s game over for them.
I find it difficult to swallow the extra US$1400 to get the Olympus OM1-II + 150-600 over the Canon R7 + 200-800.
I have a history with the Sigma 150-600. I bought the old DSLR 150-600 sport lens, then updated with the 150-600 for my Panasonic S5, and then the 60-600 when that came out. I do wish they would have used the 60-600 for the base, it is sharper, and in micro-four thirds that would have given us 120-1200 in micro four thirds.
Brian -- agree with you on all the points about the 150-600mm lens. Besides shooting M43, I shoot/collect vintage film cameras and lenses. I have a bunch of 'top-name' lenses (Nikon, Canon, Minolta, etc.) and even 'vendor-brand' lenses (Quantaray and others) -- which were all made by Sigma (or similar) -- and even sold by Sigma (or similar). The lenses are almost completely identical other than the brand badging, and often the pattern on the rubber grip surface. These major vendors leaned on these respected lens manufacturers -- and everyone wins. So the rebadging has a long history (how about the Ilford Sportsman 35mm rangefinders made by Dacora in Germany) -- and yeah, most of the big brands wouldn't admit to it directly, but give you a 'nod and a wink' about whether or not they actually made those lenses. And those were not their only lenses -- of course Canon, Nikon, etc. made their own lenses as well, but these rebadges helped extend/round-out the offerings. In this case, yep -- a built-from-scratch 150-600mm micro-four-thirds lens would be smaller and lighter -- but also require, as you pointed out, R&D, and $$$ -- so this was a business decision to add a lens to the line up with a lot less money up front, but a good lens and to try to make the customers happy....
I'm more concerned about how a lens performs than how it's labeled BUT, having said that, I don't think anyone would mind a 150-600 labeled SIGMA/OM SYSTEMS any more than I mind the Leica/Lumix label on some of the lenses for my G9. Any interest the photographic community shows in MFT bodes well for this format. I would like to see high-end MFT cameras show more interest in digital converters. The I-Zoom feature in the Leica V-Lux 114 and Lumix FZ1000 bridge cameras works very well (as I understand it this is basically processor enhanced magnification of the image). My G9 has a version and I'm pretty sure so do the OM 1 cameras, though I've heard less than complimentary things about this feature in both those cameras. If these can be improved you'd get long reach without weight or F-stop penalties, a win-win for MFT shooters and the format in general. Try it and, if you see merit in the feature, let OM Systems and Lumix know. Brian, this might be worth a video for the birders who follow your channel.
OM System is not the only camera manufacturer that has 3rd party companies making their lenses. My issue is the same as you have, the benefits of making lenses for MFT is size and yes, effective focal length impacts size, but this lens could be so much smaller and lighter. I remember Tamron making some very compact telezooms the 80’s using aspherical elements. Even a lens originally designed for APSC would be smaller than a full frame version.
You've hit the nail on the head
I think reasons for a larger price on the long lens are smaller market share for MFT and smaller volume means higher price to recoup costs. I suspect that OM Systems may have asked for a royalty. An odd turn on the lens, if they had adapted the Sigma full frame lens with an optical equivalent of a speedbooster, they could have made a 600mm full frame equivalent with +2 stops of aperture (or perhaps the ability to choose and switch like some lenses with built in teleconverters). If they did convert from FF, which seems likely, I think that would have been a great option. In my last post, I mentioned that a little over four pounds is not that bad, which is unfair. I am over six feet and 250 pounds so I am a big guy. But I have a lens that is seven and a half pounds and I can't hold it comfortably very long, and that is probably what a four pound lens feels like for a smaller person. I guess maybe they didn't offer a built in speed booster because a really fast lens might take sales from their premium line. Nikon has also had outside vendors rebrand lenses according to popular rumors. Anyway, I think the long lens would be a good choice for me. But I wish some MFT vendor would use a 32 megapixel (or better) sensor. Maybe physics argues against that, because 25MP is the most you can get and I guess they would probably bump it if they could.
I agree with you about the marketing - you should perhaps do it for them. Looking forward to getting my hands on the OM1 II, and I hope the better AF and tracking will make the most of the 150-400 for me. I have no interest in Live ND, I prefer filters - so far I find too many artifacts with HDR or Hi-Res in my photos. There is very little info about the new 9-18. It is almost identical in appearance (it has a black rear component) to the old version, but so is the 14-42 ii compared to the original. I hope they have improved the coatings as my version does have a tendency to flare. Good to see you with Rob.
I wouldn't take the OM-1.2.if they paid me.
The thing that gets me about that lens is that the sigma 150-600 with a speedbooster ends up at 500f5 for half the price of that lens. So I’d like to see a comparison of those 2, because the f5 speedboosted lens I have seen a video of it and it focus fairly quick
But speedbooster is only available for the Csnon EF version of the sigma? And that sigma 150 600 is not as good as the discussed sports version?
@@delphin219 Yeah, the more I see on it the more it makes sense. I guess it feels overpriced because that is just the price of those features when the “competition” requires a lot of trouble getting the adaptors, and you’d still will be short of the image stabilization and weather sealing.
I have read a lot of comments from both sides of the argument and I don’t wish to add further to that pile. I would however add an observation that JIP do not, as far as I know, have other interests or track record in the camera business. Their actions are simply based on the balance sheet and improving the bottom line. Olympus were not doing well in this department with regard to cameras otherwise they would not have decided to sell this part of their business. They had built a camera business based on passion and profitability but in latter years the market could not sustain both. So going forward we can expect new product decisions to be taken on the basis of JIPs judgement on profit and loss rather than the level of passion that Olympus exhibited but could not ultimately afford. Fair enough, that makes good business sense but I suspect that many of us amateurs will look elsewhere for the passion which Olympus represented. I for one will continue to keep an eye on OM systems going forward to see if just a little of that passion can be rekindled.
Great answer, thank you, and you are perfectly right. However, without that "speculate to accumulate" investment attitude I fear OM System will whither and die by the wayside as customers turn their backs on its lack of innovation.
Everyone please check the amazing firmware update Nikon did recently; I do believe many things could be improved through firmware.
I took some classes in optics in my studies. Your assumptions about optics, aperture are not all correct. But in your overall verdict I agree: For m34 this lens could have been smaller with some lenses having a smaller diameter. No matter what price, this lens is not for me. But I absolutely agree that the price is too high. +50% markup at start and +30% in the long run would be justified imho.
Its a shame that cant give us a proper M43 zoom lens i use the 75-300 f6.7 and you are correct about sizing
I own the original OM-1. This camera suits my needs/wants very well. Untill there are significant upgrades, I am going to stay with my current body. I have the Oly 40-150mm F2.8 and 300mm F4 which I can use with or without both teleconverters. To be honest, in spite of the reach, I am sceptical of a lens which is F6.3 and $AUD4500.00 is difficult to find as well.
Here is a question OM Systems must ask itself. Why go MFT if you can buy a mirrorless full frame 46MP camera, buy the Sigma version of the 150-600, and get the best of both worlds, shallow bokeh, improved low light and images you can crop to get the same equivalent focal length? The main advantage of MFT is size and weight. The computational features are also great to help overcome physics. I can see a day when you can increase bokeh in camera using computational photography and also when noise will be a non issue (we are almost there already). That would put OMSystems in top.
The problem is that to get a FF to have the same pixel density when cropped to M43 size you would need an 80Mp sensor as the area of a M43 is approx 1/4 the size of a FF (2 x width times 2x height)
@@ThatMicro43Guy I see your point. Maybe an APSC with 46 MP will get you closer. The point being that although I see the benefits of MFT, after all, I have stuck with it, I think there are many lost opportunities from not taking complete advantage of that ground up approach Olympus took to build the cameras. It was great having those smaller lenses. Tamron makes lenses for APSC that are smaller than Full Frame lenses. I believe I. The past Sigma had DC lenses for APSC and DG lenses for Full Frame. As a business person, I would partner with other lens manufacturers too. Outsources much of the R&D and design saves money. But outsource for the right product, which are lenses that are sized to take advantage of the smaller sensor. (I hope OM Systems is reading these comments)
What would have made me seriously think about buying into OM . Is that the 150-600mm if it had been F4 or even F2.8 . I reckon it would tempt me . Though as for price who knows what they would have priced it as
I think this whole situation regards choices made by OM system will likely divide users for a long time to come. My immediate kneejerk reation to the OM1 mkII and the new 150 to 600 lens was pretty negative overall but I'm slowly starting to understand their strategy. Thats not to say I agree with, or would even purchase either products myself, just that I can see the other perspective now I've had time to digest it all.
For sure the OM1 mkII is an evolution of its predecessor, all be it a minor one but that doesn't mean its a bad camera in any way, quite the opposite in fact. The problem OM are facing is the rapid development pace of its competitors, each iteration of their cameras jumps in performance with each release so their is a similar ( and perhaps justified ) expectation that OM should do the same. Sadly, as we are only too aware, OM simply doesnt have the R&D or resources to do this. What I am alluding to here is what would people prefer, perhaps it might be better if OM simply exited the camera business altogether leaving owners high and dry with only Panasonic at the helm? How long would Lumix promote M43 if they were the only player in the market?
Next up is the issue with the 150 to 600 lens. If this lens had been developed entirely around the M43 mount would it have been smaller and lighter? Well actually, not by much and this is an aspect many cannot get their heads round. Its not about the size of the sensor ultimately, if you design a lens thats 150 to 600 with the aperture range this lens has then this is pretty much how big it needs to be. Sure it might be slightly smaller and narrower only having to cover the image circle of a M43 sensor but it wouldnt be much. One of the strengths of M43 has been its improved " reach " over APSC and FF ( and yes I realise its actually just a crop ) and this 150 to 600 gives an " equivalent" field of view that cannot ( yet ) be matched by either APSC or FF. Again I know many will throw equivalent aperture into the mix in terms of depth of field but in terms of absolute light gathering nobody in full frame is offering, or is ever likely to offer a 1200mm f6.3 lens. Is the lens overpriced? Yes absolutely, but again if you undestand manufacturing you'll know that swapping out production lines is very expensive indeed. This lens is more than the exact Sigma lens with a M43 mount. There are internal and cosmetic differences which only add to the greater tooling costs. That doesnt justify the price overall, its clearly way overpriced in my opinion but it should give folk some idea why this lens costs what it does.
So what should OM do? Given the huge interest in retro styled cameras of late it seems crazy that OM seem to have no interest in releasing a PEN series body? Seems like a missed opportunity here.
I can see the pros and cons on both sides of the argument here. As always, you pay your money, you make your choice. 😋
The new OM1ii sounds good, but I haven’t yet upgraded to the OM1i, still on the EM1iii, mainly because of weight. I graduated up from a Nikon, then Sony, and have the Sigma 100-400mm f5-6.3 for the Sony. It’s a wonderful lens, but weighs 1.140kg, so it stays in its bag. Should sell it! The new 150-600 is obviously aimed at bird/wildlife photographers, neither of which I am, being more into creative photography. I’m sorry, again, that OMS has not seen fit to increase the multiple exposures to 9-10, which would make a big difference to creatives. If they had, I’d buy it and finally get rid of my old Nikon. Thanks for the video, Brian! Saw you with Rob Trek and the others, all my favourite photographers together. It was fantastic!🇦🇺
Thanks for the comment and the compliment at the end.
Yes, it was quite an honour to be asked onto that Meetup. I have so much respect for the others on there.
I don't know where people get this idea that the OM1 mkII has a different processor. It's clearly the same as the old one. It's only the ram.
Hi Brian, I was very interested in your views. You majke excellent points and you gave me many things to think about. I appreciate all the new information you pointed out here. 👋 📷 👍
Thank you
A shoot out between the "OM System" 150-600 and speedboosted Sigma 150-600 both mounted on an OM1-ii could settle the speculation IMO.
Hope they refit some masterclass full frame lenses. There are many that would make 4/3rds have a lot of pop in their photography. I'll take a refitted Cooke lens =p
Did I understand correctly you are saying the 150-400 is also based on a 3rd party lens? What lens is that?
I believe it is also based upon a Sigma lens
@@ThatMicro43Guy but which one then? Because I understood the 150-400 was developed for. MFT, unlike the 100-400.
@@griphuz talking with the OMDS rep today it’s the 100-400 which is a sigma design
@@ThatMicro43Guy ah yes that I know! So the 150-400 is still specially developed for MFT
@@griphuz accordiaccording to him, yes
How many of these lenses could they sell and how many more if it was smaller? Have they greater R&D priorities. These are questions OM will ask themselves in seeking to broaden their range.
It's my opinion that OM Systems are in danger of losing their way. For me the weight of that lens is something I won't countenance, the 100-400 is a big as I am happy to carry. This lens has been demoed by several ambassadors and invariably they are struggling to handhold it for fairly stationary targets and are using monopods, bean bags etc. Most demos are also being done in colder climatic conditions where heat haze is not so prevalent, I think purchasers of the lens may become disappointed in warmer weather! Grow the 100-400 by 50%, still a lot lighter than this option.
The former Olympus 100-400mm is also adapted from Sigma's FF lens so it is not first time OM plays such trick.
Although I will never be a user of either lens (even the 100-400mm is too heavy for me, not to mention the 150-600mm), I would like to see some practical performance comparisons of these two lens. I have watched many bird photographers videos on UA-cam and it seems 800-1000mm FF serve them well and focal length longer than 1000mm FF (500mm mFT) is only needed occasionally. So I guess the Olympus 100-400mm (equipped with 1.4x converter) would be a better choice considering the weight and price.
Thanks for the great comment
There are a couple of issues associated with very long focal lengths. Firstly is the angle of view. As we get longer FL the difference between lengths becomes less pronounced. For instance on M43 a 10mm lens has an angle of view (AOV, frame width measurement only for this example) of 82deg, a 20mm gives 47deg or a difference of 35deg AOV. a 50mm lens (20deg) compared to a 100mm (10 deg) gives a difference of only 10 degrees. 300mm (3deg) compared to 600mm (2deg) gives only a 1 degree difference. Putting things into perspective the 400mm is still 2.x deg so well less than 1 degree difference. So there is very little magnification advantage over the existing lenses for a huge expense in weight, size and price.
If I used the excellent Lumix/Leica 100-400 lens and cropped in to get a comparable FOV I would lose very little in pixel count but would retain my speed and have all the size, weight & price advantages. Additionally, at very long focal lengths the issues in the atmosphere such as heat haze can become very apparent and inhibit getting a shot at all.
@@ThatMicro43Guy Thanks very much and I learn a lot from your detailed feedback.
Hi Brian,
Thanks for that.
I agree with all that, and yes the price of the "sigma" lens is the worst of all..
Here in Australia it is virtually double the price of tbe Sony mount equivalent sigma lens.
It is as if we are being punished for being loyal to the brand.
I have been holding back on any upgrade of my EM-1 mk2 and lenses a lot to do with the lack of "reasonably priced - quality" zoom lenses in this range.
I have a Sony A7riv (a) and still prefer the olympus so wanted to change over ... But not being able to crop means I need the longer zoom..
Weight is also a huge factor as I have arthritis in my neck... So using the sigma FF SPORTS lens adds so much weight it's not funny (I had the standard one for my Sony at one stage)
So this could unfortunately be the death Nell.
So Brian before this release l was ready to move into the OM Systems system but now l am questioning their R and D as there are some good upgrades but not much in the way of innovation.and the lens is not even micro four third R and D so l will wait for another generation to see if they have the ability to keep up with the R and D of the bigger companies l think.
Its a third more than a PL 100-400 with a 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverter which is heaps lighter.
Possibly OM systems is aware of which numbers of the 150-600 they could sell for any given price? Possibly production capacity at Sigma is limited and there might only be a certain number of these lenses available for OM-systems in a given time? Possibly it is more clever to adjust the demand for this item with a kind of prohibitive price badge on it, rather than having a lens on offer which OM-systems could only deliver in much smaller numbers?
Personally I don’t have any problem with ff-lenses adapted to M43. I might not buy such lenses because of size and weight, if I have an alternative. In this specific case I don’t have a use case for the lens at all.
Great point I hadn’t considered
They may also be pricing it as a competitor to the 300 f4. Sounds a bit crazy perhaps, but if it come significantly less expensive, it would probably cut into the 300 f4 market. I know as a 100-400 owner, I was considering the 300 for improved sharpness, resolution, and the sync IS. Now, do I consider the 150-600 instead? It’ll actually be faster than the 300 with the 2x tele on it.
Not sure why everyone is gnashing their teeth about this stuff. If you feel the 150-600mm is too big, too expensive, or are just upset that OM System didn't go to the expense of designing an all new lens -- then don't buy one! Get the 300mm f/4 or the 100-400mm and be happy. Or you can go FF and get the cheaper 150-600mm and crop to your heart's content.
Roger Hance has a couple videos using the new lens and it looks like it performs very well -- but it is big, and it is priced high. I suspect the price will come down fairly quickly, but the size is what it is. You're simply not going to get 300-1200mm equivalent range in a small, inexpensive lens for m4/3's. I can easily see why OM System went this route.
The OM-1 mkll is a different story in my opinion. The announced price is a lousy $200 more than the mkl at its release price, which won't break the bank. They have increased the RAM in the processor, doubled the buffer, improved AF and IBIS, added Human Detection and tracking, rubberized those plastic dials (one of my favorite improvements), added another stop of Live ND, plus added the variable GND. I feel these features add up to a decent upgrade over the OM-1 mkl.
As you say, the market will determine prices. As it did with the E-M1X, a decent but inflated (in every way) camera, that found its true value in a short period. It was also the single biggest factor in Olympus putting up the white flag as a venerable photographic company (IMO). You can't make too many decisions that impact customer confidence, and expect to stay in business.
@@borderlands6606 The problem I have with all the negativity is that just like the E-M1X, a bunch of people are proclaiming total failure before the camera is even in the hands of the buying public. When this happened with the E-M1X it helped to minimize the sale of that model -- thus bringing about a 'self fulfilling prophecy.' From the beginning, I was impressed with the E-M1X, once I had a chance to actually handle and shoot one. After the price came down a bit, I bought one and came to realize that it is the best camera I've ever owned. I'll be using it to shoot a charity event this Friday -- while my OM-1 sits parked in my camera bag.
I get that people are wanting small and light, but those options are available with a camera like the OM-5. I have three different Olympus/OM system sizes to choose from right now. The problem is that buyers are spoiled and want top level tech and performance, small size, and cheap pricing -- a pretty unrealistic demand.
OM System is targeting the market where m4/3's has its greatest advantage right now, and that is the wildlife, nature, sports areas. Go out to any popular birding or wildlife spot/event and look at what people are using -- gigantic FF camera/lens set ups, big heavy tripods, and equally big heavy camera bags. I have taken my OM-1 with Battery Grip and 100-400mm to birding areas where the rigs around me are simply massive compared to mine -- yet when we compare images, others are amazed that I am getting tighter crops with my relatively small 100-400mm than they are with their Nikon 600mm f/4 lens that costs 10 times the price. I suspect FF users will be equally amazed when they compare images captured with the OM-1 mkll and 150-600mm vs the Sigma version on their FF camera.
OM system have built nothing from the beginning and if the MK2 doesn't sell will they bother to go any further? I read their in the throws of purchasing Toshiba and have many other interests. I suppose their investors will dictate what they do in the future.
Now that Olympus has sold 95% of the company to JIP, i’m not sure what’s going to happen with R&D in the future, a lot of R&D that Olympus used came from the medical and scientific sides of the business that was shared with the digital imaging side of the business which now they’re only a 5% shareholder of, going by the information that was given when the business was sold to JIP.
Well said brian👍camera manufacturers have been doing rebadged equipment for years take even Leica there compact cameras are just rebadged Panasonic at a premium price also Leica just add there name to the front of some lenses to double the price of a mass production product. Keep up the fantastic videos. Gerry
First timw I'vew looked at Brian's channel. very upbeat very informed, well done. Long live mft.
@@terilmorton7083 thank you, appreciated
i know this isnt relevent brian but how do i set back button focus on em1 mk 1 im about pulling my hair out lol thanks
Hi, its very easy but rather than explain myself Gavin Hoey has a great video on doing it in the mk2. It works exactly the same on the mk1. Do a search on this title:
Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II - Back Button Focusing with Gavin Hoey
@@ThatMicro43Guy thanks I just picked it up as a back up body with the 12-100f4 do you get ibis with body and lens or one or the other I’m primarily a lumix user
@@Massey_Fferguson the switch on the side enables both the lens and camera IS. You cannot separate them. If on then it’s a dual IS
I love your thumbnail!
Thank, I thought I’d have a bit of fun with it
scrolling through subscriptions then suddenly that, i was laughing so hard and its an accurate depiction of the lens!
I think the way there pricing is going if a Pen F does ever come its going to be so expensive that a xpro 4 coming soon would be a better option
Hello from the hills east of Manchester, UK. Don't know why there is controversy about the 150-600mm lens. The ultimate choice is, do you want to buy it because there is no other choice in the OM range? Answer is Yes or NO. If Yes, then go ahead! If No, that's the end of the story and you will never know how good (or bad) it is.
You are right about this particular lens (or indeed any other product). But the controversy is about the system surrounding the lens and how it is being developed, invested in and marketed rather than this particular product. As I said in this video, it does fill a unique, at the moment, slot in a niche area of the market and as such is great and welcomed, even by me. but to charge almost double of its FF twin without any real innovation is where the issue lies. For that price I could have bought a sony version for half the frice plus a metabones smart adaptor and had hundreds left in the bank or indeed the (75)100-300 and a 2x teleconverter even cheaper (admittedly at the cost of a couple of stops of speed). Both would be smaller and lighter too.
If you dont like the 150-600 dont buy it, it will send a signal too OM-system. I want a small light weight system so i am not going too buy it . i order a 100-400 whit 1,4 converter instead
first of all its 150 to 600..........
Not to take away from the discussion (and physics) but I thought this video looked quite good. Recorded on an Obsbot Tail Air! Nice!
Yes, I’ve just got a couple from Obsbot to review. Thanks for noticing and the feedback
@@ThatMicro43Guy Markuspix had one a few months ago…looked good outside and yours seemed to work well in.
@@gordon3988 yes, I saw his review. He’s got too much energy running around in the hill like that lol
MarcusPix is wonderful,@@ThatMicro43Guy . Sure, he's a little amped, but he has really good reasoning about why you can spend less and get great results. Then he proves it with sample videos. And he also gives away nice stuff all the time. I'm subscribed.
Too bloody big, but a few will be glad for it.
Interested to see if lumix produce a true M4/3 150-600 sized lens 😉
I think a top end of 500mm (1 meter FF equivalent ) is probably best. At 600mm (1200mm equivalent), you need really still air to collect your resolution. Atmospheric turbulence becomes the real limiting factor unless there is really good seeing.
@@danncorbit3623 agree, a smaller 150 - 500mm M4/3 designed lens (not adapted) with IS that works with the camera body IS would be good and could potentially be a faster, lighter lens than the new OM Systems lens, add a 1.4x teleconverter 1400mm FF equivalent - job done
@@tonyb736 I would go the other way with the converter, and use a speed booster instead. Then your 500 would just be the 500mm equivalent on FF, but an f6.3 lens would become f4 for exposure speed. At 1400mm atmospheric variations or a breeze wobble would be very magnified. After 1000mm, I would rather zoom with my feet. It is true that once in a great while 1400mm would be useful and interesting, but I think a shorter faster lens would be more useful more often.
What I'm waiting for, and I don't think it will be soon, is that these giant zoom lens will be dinosaurs. It'll be be through AI or whatever but there will be a digital leapfrog and the optics will be augmented or even replaced by a true "digital zoom". This is where this is going and the lenses will be much smaller and frankly optically better including gourmet bokeh.
Camcorders do digital zooming and all that is is cropping. You are trading resolution directly for magnification. Optical zoom is and will always be better (assuming the optics are precision ground and properly coated). Besides the resolution loss, you are also throwing out your choice of what to crop. A digital zoom only gives you the center. If you crop yourself, you can choose any part of the frame. Possible resolution is also limited by the width of the lens. There's a reason that a telescope with advertising of magnification of more than double the objective lens width is selling snake oil. Sure, the image is bigger, but you hit the physical limit so it's also fuzzier.
just carry a ff 1200mm for a day and say that this m4/3 isnt weight saving
Well. IMHO it is just a little silly to make such a big deal over the fact that Om systems is not being “straight” with us that it is a sigma lens. What company is straight with anything? It is being offered to customers. As you keep saying on the one hand that it doesn’t matter what the name is they put on it. And then you complain that it is a sigma lens. I think you should just take your own advice seriously. Buy the lens if you want/need it. Not much else matters. 😊
👍👍👌👌✌✌😊😊❤❤
both agree and disagree. how is that for you @ThatMicro43Guy?
BUT, Can we both agree that 'us consumers' have money, and 'camera companies' simply want our money?
THERE IS THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING! (I hope you have a better life now the burden of being a victim has been removed)
Yes, I can agree with that.
However, I’ve never considered myself a victim and excepting age and medical issues I feel I’ve had a great life already thanks. Too late now to play the victim card.
But at least I did respond to this comment as that was a criticism in your earlier message on my channel (yes, see I do read them and often remember them too), this video obviously was inspirational enough to make a another comment.
@@ThatMicro43Guy @7:17 did you have a slip of the tongue? did you mean the 100-400 was also made by a third party or the 150-400? the latter would be new information.