I had the Olympus 100-400 mk 1 a couple years ago but wasn't pleased with the image quality I was getting so I sold that lens for the 300 f4. I couldn't have been more pleased with the images I was getting with that lens, but I found the lens to be too limiting as I preferred having a zoom. I sold the 300 to start building funds to purchase the much-praised Big White OM 150-400. While accumulating the needed funds I had the opportunity to use the new OM 100-400 mk 2 for a few days. I found the mk 2 to big a big improvement over the mk 1 and decided I was pleased enough with the images from that lens that I didn't need the Big White and purchased my own mk2 lens. I find the images from the 100-400 mk 2 to not be quite as good as with the 300 f4 but they are close enough to satisfy me.
Either I had a bad copy of the 100-400 mk 1 or I believe the sync IS of the mk 2 makes for the big improvement in image quality for me.
Snapshot-72 wrote:
Either I had a bad copy of the 100-400 mk 1 or I believe the sync IS of the mk 2 makes for the big improvement in image quality for me.
You had a bad copy. IS does not affect the image quality of a lens, only the quality of an image when movement of the camera & lens occurs.
I had the 100-400 mk1 and used it extensively for 3 years. I was an early adopter. On my em1-2 I thought that it worked well with my 1.4tc. I bought an OM-1 and though the sensor was nearly the same, it did not seem as good. Also since I had used it continuously for 3 years, the front 3 screws on lenses loosened and one actually fell out. I was wondering why when I put the lens hood on that it seemed wobbly. Fortunately I had an old manual focus Nikkor 50mm F1.8 lens that had the exact same thread and length screw and fit perfectly. It was silver but who cared. Olympus had a sale on the 40-150 F2.8 and 2x tc. I paid $56 Canadian to get 3 new screws for the 100-400 and sold it. I miss the 100-400 for it's range, but the 40-150 is such an awesome lens that the trade off is worth it. I found a new discounted 300 f4 and couldn't resist. Additionally I had an opportunity to photograph some grizzlies with it and then discovered one of the flaws of the OM-1 with any lens in that it will not focus through snow or rain using animal detection. This was confirmed to me again the other day when I had a coyote chasing a squirrel. I have numerous photos of the camera preferring the grass to the coyote. Oh well, such are the vagaries of owning camera with animal or bird af.
RZ350 wrote:
.......... one of the flaws of the OM-1 with any lens in that it will not focus through snow or rain using animal detection.
That is hardly a flaw with the OM-1, since most any camera will not usually focus through snow or rain. That is about the only scenario where I would use spot AF.
I realize that af systems tend to focus on whatever is closest. But I was with a friend who had a Canon R7 and I had my OM-1. It was raining. He was able to focus and my OM-1 liked the rain. Same thing with the Grizzlies. I tried single spot focus because I have that set for one of my modes. It still preferred the snow. I even tried manual focus. I have had better days.
With the coyote, where there was grass, even a single blade, it focused on the grass. Fortunately it cleared the grass and I got some shots.
My success rate is far better than with my old dslr's for accuracy on moving subjects and it is amazing how quickly it reacts, but it is not perfect yet.
They all struggle in different circumstances, but between the R3, Z8, and OM1 (haven't tried the latest Sony offerings) , the Canon is the most consistent IMO. That's not to say it doesn't struggle also , but in my experience it grabs and keeps focus the quickest of the bunch that I have tried.
RZ350 wrote:
I realize that af systems tend to focus on whatever is closest.
Not all of them. Some focus on the most contrasty subject in the field of view.
But I was with a friend who had a Canon R7 and I had my OM-1. It was raining. He was able to focus and my OM-1 liked the rain. Same thing with the Grizzlies. I tried single spot focus because I have that set for one of my modes. It still preferred the snow. I even tried manual focus. I have had better days.
With the coyote, where there was grass, even a single blade, it focused on the grass. Fortunately it cleared the grass and I got some shots.
My success rate is far better than with my old dslr's for accuracy on moving subjects and it is amazing how quickly it reacts, but it is not perfect yet....Show more →
I owned the R7 once and its AF was not better than the OM-1's, and neither were the old DSLR's I owned.
RZ350 wrote:
Additionally I had an opportunity to photograph some grizzlies with it and then discovered one of the flaws of the OM-1 with any lens in that it will not focus through snow or rain using animal detection. This was confirmed to me again the other day when I had a coyote chasing a squirrel. I have numerous photos of the camera preferring the grass to the coyote. Oh well, such are the vagaries of owning camera with animal or bird af.
Your experiences may be different than mine. I was 100m from the grizzlies. I got the box around the momma grizzly but it wouldn't lock on. Just like when you have birds behind branches. So I tried single point af. still no luck. i went to manual af. Got some shots but not my best day ever. Years before I had shot some photos from the same vantage point with an EP-5 and Panasonic 100-300 and a Nikon D300s and 300 f4 and 1.7tc. But no snow. They all focused were better than what I got with the OM-1
The coyote photos I shot the other day were opportunistic in that I saw the squirrel running and then the coyote chasing. I whipped the camera up and shot. I got what I got. There were lots of shots that were focused on the grass in the foreground, but when the coyote was clear of the grass, it focused on the coyote. Normally i have my camera set to full screen animal or bird detect. That is what normally what works for me. But as "we" all know other items in the environment can interfere with the af. If you have done this for a while, you know the remedies. But sometimes things or timing are such you can't apply those remedies or they don't work. A month ago I was walking around Inglewood bird sanctuary in Calgary and a Kingfisher sat in a tree limb in the lagoon for at least 15 minutes. I sat there with my Nikon Z6-3 and Sigma 150-600 waiting for it to see a fish and dive. No luck chuck. I got awesome still shots but no diving shots. Still, it was a unique experience for me because Kingfishers are typically paranoid and fly at the slightest hint of human presence. I cannot complain about the level of technology that is available to me now. But luck still plays a large part. My two cents.
