I've recently bought an OM-1 and 300mm prime lens having tried Fujifilm and Sony before that. I use the internal digital 2x converter and I'm getting far better bird shots than I ever did with the Fuji 100-400mm , 150-600mm and Sony 100-400mm before that. I'm so pleased that I made the move to the OM-1 and feel a lot more confident for birds in flight also. The great thing about the digital 2x converter is that you are still at f4 at a 35mm equivalent of 1200mm. Please correct me politely if I'm wrong in my assessment.
The Om-1 is amazing for in flight birds, I just wish I had had more good opportunities to use it for that since I got it! Yes you would be at the equivalent be at 1200mm f4 but with half the resolution, and you can achieve the same result by cropping while editing later on, but some folk prefer it composed fully in camera/when its taken which is fair enough :)
You may have seen it but if you haven't, you may be interested in the UA-cam video by Andy Rouse on this subject. He explains it far better than I could. His theory is that the image taken using the internal digital converter is better than a cropped image. He also shows examples of his theory. I'm certainly very pleased with the results that I'm getting using the digital converter. Just thought that you might be interested.@@ukwildlife
I find the MC20 on the BWL to have the same problems you mentioned.... so I rarely (never) use it. On the other hand, the MC14 works fine. I have the 300m f4, and that is where I use the MC20 (actually, that configuration is what my wife uses).
Up until now Ive been using the 300mm, usually with the 2x tele unless it was something like dragonflies in flight where I need the faster aperture and shorter focal length. Ill have to try the 1.4x out with the BWL :)
@@ukwildlife can you do a sharpness comparison test between (150-400+1.25x+1.4x) vs (300+2x)? This is a comparison that I've been unable to find anywhere on the internet. Very few people have the 150-400, and among those, even fewer care enough about proper sharpness testing to shoot comparisons (which I find ridiculous, given how $$ the lens is, they really ought to find out just how good it really is in a test with controlled settings, rather than just placebo filled subjective tests in the field). Looking forward to seeing more tests. Would appreciate seeing tests with static objects at a distance where atmospheric effects don't come into play (since their effects will make it unknown whether softness is caused by the lens, or the distance).
Setup may have a similar angle of view as a 200mm lens but it is not equal to a 2000mm lens. Sensor size does not effect DOF etc only the AOV - a teleconverted 100mm will always be a 1000mm lens ...🦘
I wish the 150-400 was not so expensive. I run two camera systems, micro 4/3 and full frame. I have the OM-1, 300mm and 90mm maco. I also have Nikon Z7 and Z100-400mm and other Z lenses. For the price of the Olympus 150 to 400 I could and probably will upgrade to the Nikon Z8, Z180-600mm and 1.4 or 2x teleconverter. I think for birding, not insects, I would get better results cropping into the full frame 45MP photos than the OM-1. If the Olympus 150-400 was around £3000 I think I would go for that. I sold the Olympus 2x teleconverter I found it too soft however I would like to try it again with the 90mm macro lens. I rarely use the 300mm or 90mm without the 1.4 teleconverter.
So does my bank balance! Its an expensive lens but about half price of canon equivalent (200-400 with built in tele). I guess vs the Nikon 180-600 you are paying more for the tele being built in and fast/wider aperture while keeping a similar weight, always diminishing returns the more you pay with photo equipment. Guess it up to the individuals needs at what suits them more. :)
@@ukwildlifeMy meager experience (on the OM1) is that it is superior to simply cropping in. It also works better when combined with hi-res (use paralyzed birds!). The raw files seem to have a lot of information although not technically higher resolution. Your skills might clarify my messy impressions. 😊
I've recently bought an OM-1 and 300mm prime lens having tried Fujifilm and Sony before that. I use the internal digital 2x converter and I'm getting far better bird shots than I ever did with the Fuji 100-400mm , 150-600mm and Sony 100-400mm before that. I'm so pleased that I made the move to the OM-1 and feel a lot more confident for birds in flight also. The great thing about the digital 2x converter is that you are still at f4 at a 35mm equivalent of 1200mm. Please correct me politely if I'm wrong in my assessment.
The Om-1 is amazing for in flight birds, I just wish I had had more good opportunities to use it for that since I got it!
Yes you would be at the equivalent be at 1200mm f4 but with half the resolution, and you can achieve the same result by cropping while editing later on, but some folk prefer it composed fully in camera/when its taken which is fair enough :)
You may have seen it but if you haven't, you may be interested in the UA-cam video by Andy Rouse on this subject. He explains it far better than I could. His theory is that the image taken using the internal digital converter is better than a cropped image. He also shows examples of his theory. I'm certainly very pleased with the results that I'm getting using the digital converter. Just thought that you might be interested.@@ukwildlife
Just found your channel and love your videos. Especially love all of your wildlife videos (the photos are great as well). Really excellent work.
Thank you that's very kind.
Ive got a trio of wildlife videos on the way documenting my efforts to see Short Eared Owl and Waxwings :)
Very interesting - love the dragonfly!!
Thanks
An interesting test. Results sort of what was expected.
But the shots were ok considering the conditions
Yes, I hope to try it out in cooler conditions and closer subjects soon, hopefully with better results
Nice video. Well done. I also use Olympus stuff and use the 1.4. Works well 👍👍
Thanks, yes the 1.4x is great, hardly any loss of sharpness with it!
Shoot my om-5 and 75-300mm 2x digital teleconverter all the time.
which converter do you use? i thought this lens isnt compatible. or a you cropping? thx
I find the MC20 on the BWL to have the same problems you mentioned.... so I rarely (never) use it. On the other hand, the MC14 works fine. I have the 300m f4, and that is where I use the MC20 (actually, that configuration is what my wife uses).
Up until now Ive been using the 300mm, usually with the 2x tele unless it was something like dragonflies in flight where I need the faster aperture and shorter focal length. Ill have to try the 1.4x out with the BWL :)
@@ukwildlife can you do a sharpness comparison test between (150-400+1.25x+1.4x) vs (300+2x)? This is a comparison that I've been unable to find anywhere on the internet. Very few people have the 150-400, and among those, even fewer care enough about proper sharpness testing to shoot comparisons (which I find ridiculous, given how $$ the lens is, they really ought to find out just how good it really is in a test with controlled settings, rather than just placebo filled subjective tests in the field). Looking forward to seeing more tests. Would appreciate seeing tests with static objects at a distance where atmospheric effects don't come into play (since their effects will make it unknown whether softness is caused by the lens, or the distance).
@@HokKan ive been thinking of doing a 150-400mm vs 300mm comparison so Ill make sure to do that as part of it
@@ukwildlife excellent
Setup may have a similar angle of view as a 200mm lens but it is not equal to a 2000mm lens.
Sensor size does not effect DOF etc only the AOV - a teleconverted 100mm will always be a 1000mm lens ...🦘
"Oh! Oh! It's no good because... because... depth of field! That's it, yeah! You can't make things as blurry!"
🤣🤣🤣
I wish the 150-400 was not so expensive. I run two camera systems, micro 4/3 and full frame. I have the OM-1, 300mm and 90mm maco. I also have Nikon Z7 and Z100-400mm and other Z lenses. For the price of the Olympus 150 to 400 I could and probably will upgrade to the Nikon Z8, Z180-600mm and 1.4 or 2x teleconverter. I think for birding, not insects, I would get better results cropping into the full frame 45MP photos than the OM-1. If the Olympus 150-400 was around £3000 I think I would go for that. I sold the Olympus 2x teleconverter I found it too soft however I would like to try it again with the 90mm macro lens. I rarely use the 300mm or 90mm without the 1.4 teleconverter.
So does my bank balance!
Its an expensive lens but about half price of canon equivalent (200-400 with built in tele). I guess vs the Nikon 180-600 you are paying more for the tele being built in and fast/wider aperture while keeping a similar weight, always diminishing returns the more you pay with photo equipment. Guess it up to the individuals needs at what suits them more. :)
soft images and busy background. I would buy something else.
I'm intrigued to hear your suggestions for a superior 2000mm photography experience.
...and with the digital teleconverter you have 4000mm. The photos are JPEG`s with 20MP.🤣
Oh no I hadnt thought of that! Im not a fan of digital teleconvertors, but might have to give it a go....
@@ukwildlifeMy meager experience (on the OM1) is that it is superior to simply cropping in. It also works better when combined with hi-res (use paralyzed birds!). The raw files seem to have a lot of information although not technically higher resolution. Your skills might clarify my messy impressions. 😊
This is not bad. Not it all
I was pleasantly surprised :)