Quite an interesting read, and I’m on and off tempted by MFT and the OM1 Mk2 for Wildlife and Safari.
I recently acquired a Sony A1II and a 200-600, believing that this is the best possible choice, and now I’m scratching my head, wondering if I made a wrong choice. I took the combo out for a few shoots and the picture quality left something to wish for. There may be many reasons, AF, Shutter speed, etc., but I believe that I’ve taken a reasonable amount of shots to eliminate everything else but the quality of the lens.
I’m a hobbyist/enthusiast and do not need to earn money with photography. I want to print shots for my own needs at home, so A3+, maybe a bit larger would be enough for processing, and otherwise I use the pictures on the screen and for social Media.
I understand that most likely I should be choosing a better lens for the A1II to get better picture quality, but this would require me now to considerably saving money first, so maybe in a year or two I could wield a good prime lens. But this setup is then really not convenient to lug around (camera and lens easily 4kg) or to travel with.
That made me thinking of if I made the wrong choice, and should maybe replace the whole thing with the OM1 Mk2 and either the 50-200 f2.8 and the 300 f4 or the 150-400 f4.5.
You have a combo that should put out good images. Perhaps we can figure why you are not getting the results. I don't know you or your shooting experience. This is what I see in some images. It is ok if I'm wrong to anything below.
Some factors could be that you are new to long lens photography?
Too slow shutter speed, motion blur by lens movement.
Way over exposed images that washed out that lack detail and dianamic range.
Too far from subject and crop heavy with a image that is not sharp to begin with.
Long lenses require good techniques, steady firm handling. Shutter speed adequate for subject, too slow the more techniques needs to be.
The list can go on. A couple images of the ones you are disappointed in with Metadata might help.
You should get good results, if it is you then moving to different equipment you bring it with you keeping you disappointed.
Or it could be that you were lucky enough to recieve defected equipment.
Toertel76 wrote:
I took the combo out for a few shoots and the picture quality left something to wish for. There may be many reasons, AF, Shutter speed, etc., but I believe that I’ve taken a reasonable amount of shots to eliminate everything else but the quality of the lens.
If you want helpful feedback from other members you should post some examples of the poor picture quality, ALONG WITH THE EXIF DATA OF EACH SHOT.
I’m a hobbyist/enthusiast and do not need to earn money with photography. I want to print shots for my own needs at home, so A3+, maybe a bit larger would be enough for processing, and otherwise I use the pictures on the screen and for social Media.
You can print A3+ and larger and get decent results from an 8MP camera.
Here is a guy down in your country, Duade Paton. He has a YouTube channel with a ton of great content. In case you missed his channel. Good stuff, great for anybody!
I'll be visiting your North East coast soon to chase around birds. First visit to Australia.
Toertel76 wrote:
Hello everyone,
Quite an interesting read, and I’m on and off tempted by MFT and the OM1 Mk2 for Wildlife and Safari.
I recently acquired a Sony A1II and a 200-600, believing that this is the best possible choice, and now I’m scratching my head, wondering if I made a wrong choice. I took the combo out for a few shoots and the picture quality left something to wish for. There may be many reasons, AF, Shutter speed, etc., but I believe that I’ve taken a reasonable amount of shots to eliminate everything else but the quality of the lens.
I’m a hobbyist/enthusiast and do not need to earn money with photography. I want to print shots for my own needs at home, so A3+, maybe a bit larger would be enough for processing, and otherwise I use the pictures on the screen and for social Media.
I understand that most likely I should be choosing a better lens for the A1II to get better picture quality, but this would require me now to considerably saving money first, so maybe in a year or two I could wield a good prime lens. But this setup is then really not convenient to lug around (camera and lens easily 4kg) or to travel with.
That made me thinking of if I made the wrong choice, and should maybe replace the whole thing with the OM1 Mk2 and either the 50-200 f2.8 and the 300 f4 or the 150-400 f4.5.
As much as I would recommend an OM-1 to anyone wanting to do wildlife, you've got a flagship FF Sony setup should have slightly better IQ and more room for error with the extra MP's, extra Dynamic Range etc on the sensor.
Agree with others here, post examples and provide the exif data. A lot of people buy expensive setups and expect to get pro level results from day one, it just doesn't work like that. There will be people in the Sony forum who can give more tips on the setup and configuration of the camera, but folk here will be able to see if you are under/over exposing or expecting fine detail on subjects 50meters away.
Thanks for the feedback. I’m traveling the next few days, but I’ll upload afterwards some examples with dedicated questions. I concur that I may have even wrong expectations.
Quite an interesting read, and I’m on and off tempted by MFT and the OM1 Mk2 for Wildlife and Safari.
I recently acquired a Sony A1II and a 200-600, believing that this is the best possible choice, and now I’m scratching my head, wondering if I made a wrong choice. I took the combo out for a few shoots and the picture quality left something to wish for. There may be many reasons, AF, Shutter speed, etc., but I believe that I’ve taken a reasonable amount of shots to eliminate everything else but the quality of the lens.
I’m a hobbyist/enthusiast and do not need to earn money with photography. I want to print shots for my own needs at home, so A3+, maybe a bit larger would be enough for processing, and otherwise I use the pictures on the screen and for social Media.
I understand that most likely I should be choosing a better lens for the A1II to get better picture quality, but this would require me now to considerably saving money first, so maybe in a year or two I could wield a good prime lens. But this setup is then really not convenient to lug around (camera and lens easily 4kg) or to travel with.
That made me thinking of if I made the wrong choice, and should maybe replace the whole thing with the OM1 Mk2 and either the 50-200 f2.8 and the 300 f4 or the 150-400 f4.5.
The most common issue I see arising from a post similar to yours is the photographer is attempting to photograph subjects that are too far away.
Here's a scenario; photographer is out and about with his normal lens, sees interesting subjects 100 yards away, thinks he needs a long lens to capture them. Photographer buys a long lens, goes out to capture those subjects from 100 yards away, and is disappointed in the results. I think people underestimate the importance of fieldcraft when it comes to photographing wildlife. Simply buying a long lens is not the answer, you still need to be close to your subjects to get the best out of your gear. In other words, close to filling the frame. Please don't take this as condescending, I have no idea if any of this applies to you or what your skill level is and you may already know all of this. But I do know you have a combo that is more than capable of fantastic images if it's in proper working order and used correctly.
Gary
Quite an interesting read, and I’m on and off tempted by MFT and the OM1 Mk2 for Wildlife and Safari.
I recently acquired a Sony A1II and a 200-600, believing that this is the best possible choice, and now I’m scratching my head, wondering if I made a wrong choice. I took the combo out for a few shoots and the picture quality left something to wish for. There may be many reasons, AF, Shutter speed, etc., but I believe that I’ve taken a reasonable amount of shots to eliminate everything else but the quality of the lens.
I’m a hobbyist/enthusiast and do not need to earn money with photography. I want to print shots for my own needs at home, so A3+, maybe a bit larger would be enough for processing, and otherwise I use the pictures on the screen and for social Media.
I understand that most likely I should be choosing a better lens for the A1II to get better picture quality, but this would require me now to considerably saving money first, so maybe in a year or two I could wield a good prime lens. But this setup is then really not convenient to lug around (camera and lens easily 4kg) or to travel with.
That made me thinking of if I made the wrong choice, and should maybe replace the whole thing with the OM1 Mk2 and either the 50-200 f2.8 and the 300 f4 or the 150-400 f4.5.
Dan Cox, a noted wildlife photographer, went through the same decision process a few years ago, albeit with the previous generation of Olympus and Sony camers, but with the same lens choices. He posted several YouTube videos of his decision process - this is probably the most relevant one:
But I agree with some of the previous posters - you should post some examples of what you find disappointing about your Sony setup. It may simply be a case of unrealistic expectations, and different gear likely won't help with that.
Dan Cox pointed out what I complained about on the EM1-x with polarized glasses. I bought non polarized glasses, but since the OM1-1 forward it was corrected.
Anytime you have wolves that far away it is just going to be a record shot or in a presentation as a talking point. But for him it was a talking point to show the mm range difference between systems.
Lenses are the same now, the cameras used have been updated twice since.
I did catch at the end that Dan should have tested Sony lens to the new coming out (at the time) Olympus 100-400mm for similar price and mm range.
The problem with so many of these comparison reviews is that they try to get exact image matches for comparison, which inevitably handicaps one of the systems over the other - for example, comparing the background blur from an OM 150-400 vs Sony 600mm 4, where the Sony looks better because all the images are shot at long distances (because the Sony lens can't focus very close) - yet if you used the OM lens for closer subjects it will have better background blur than the Sony lens.
The same goes for reviewers comparing "unprocessed RAW files" from each camera - which is really silly, since you can't actually look at a RAW file without somehow processing it into an image - usually at the camera's default JPEG settings - which bake in different amounts of contrast and sharpening so it's never an apples-to-apples comparison.
PV Hiker wrote:
Dan Cox pointed out what I complained about on the EM1-x with polarized glasses. I bought non polarized glasses, but since the OM1-1 forward it was corrected.
Anytime you have wolves that far away it is just going to be a record shot or in a presentation as a talking point. But for him it was a talking point to show the mm range difference between systems.
Lenses are the same now, the cameras used have been updated twice since.
I did catch at the end that Dan should have tested Sony lens to the new coming out (at the time) Olympus 100-400mm for similar price and mm range.
Mike Lane also did a 150-400 vs Oly/OM 100-400 (not sure which version) comparison. his results were the 100-400's IQ was pretty good versus the 150-400. Mike often uses ISO 1600 as his base ISO so I do take that into consideration/grain of salt.
Cliff I agree that the big fuss over background blur can be avoided, sometimes. Move to better position.
Advantage of a zoom over a fixed say a 600mm lens like the nice zoom of the 150-400mm to 500mm is that I can zoom in to my subject thus making a thinner depth of field view and that will blur the background better.
More pixels on the subject and not throwing away pixels you could have had.
Post Cropping in on a image taken loose in the frame later, you have already baked in the depth of field at capture. So when one say's I'll crop it in post, that busy background you see at capture your not going to change. You just make it bigger when post cropping. Of course new software can blur to a extent.
a little update from my side, I haven't had a chance to really upload something, but I have figured out that the pictures are okay, problem was on my end. My wrong conclusions were coming from me not having the right amount of time to work a bit with the pictures and to compare properly.
I was able to get also my hand on comparisons from Duade from YT, he had RAW Files to download. That was quite an eye opener. the 150-400 sees hardly a drop in image quality at least with the internal TC PLUS the external 1.4 converter. That's insane. 1400mm Focal length @ 20MP is killer at any kind of Safari/WL shooting, as long as you are not getting into atmospheric problems.
Also the comparison earlier in this thread - Dennis Jacobson - he also compares the 150-400 to the 600 f4. What sounds silly in the first place turns out to be at close competition. I mean, having a zoom at almost prime level? Autsch!
I love the A1II for everything that this camera is, but on pure Wildlife shooting and Safari the OM1 and the 150-400 with TCs is really in a league of it's own, considering weight, compactness, flexibility and reach.
It would be good to understand if a OM1-2 with the 50-200 and the 2xTC would be an adequate choice for Safari. You could hardly go lighter with 100-800 f2.8-5.6 coverage, as long as the focusing speed and accuracy is still good enough. Does anybody have thoughts about this?
On my last safari I was using a Leica SL2 and the Sigma 100-400, which was almost always at 400mm. It was just too short.
Glad you got things sorting out. Take your time and play with the images you have and you'll notice things that you need to improve on out in the field.
Not sure I would be relying on a 50-200mm with a 2x on a safari trip. I consider that combination for when the 150-400mm lens stops working and still need the reach as a back up.
I take 95 percent of all my wildlife images on trips with the 150-400mm lens and happy with the results.
You will need to sort through your wants and desires (and money) as what is going to work for you. But make sure you learn your equipment and know what you can and not expect from it in any situation. That takes time and lots of image captures. Jumping from one system to the next quickly is not fair for any brand evaluation.
I agree, chewing through systems is not the smartest thing to do, and there is a good portion of GAS in it as well.
I had the 150-400 in my hand on a trip to Germany last Christmas, and I loved it. During this time I disregarded the MFT for several reasons, but that’s a longer story and was mainly related to prejudice.
The good thing is, it looks like I’m getting the whole setup on a loaner for a couple of days and can then trial it side by side.
Thanks Mate, Good luck with the loaner. Hope you can set it up properly for the trail.
You can watch this from Scott Keys if you have time. BTW he never used the built in 1.25 extender. So he left pixels on the table that were thrown away and ability to zoom in to crop in camera will make backgrounds blur more than shooting loose. Sometimes the background is what it is with any camera - lens combo.
.
.
Yes, that’s the video. The RAW files are great to get an idea of what the sharpness looks like. It’s an eye opener to see how the 150-400 looks like - in my eyes not much of a change with the 1.25 TC and then the 1.4 TC on top. Crazy.
It’s pretty awesome to think about having 1400mm of tack sharp focal length with you on a safari. Yes, in several cases you’ll be set back by the air between you and the subject, in case you want to use it on large mammals, but in case you are on a boat out for birds focal length beats everything else.
The 50-200 and the 150-400 would be a luxurious, awesome combo to shoot in whatever scenario you could think of. Add a 17 f1.2 for some street shooting, and there is not much of a better kit for real world fun shooting you could imagine.
