At the moment, I don't do much bird shooting, but I used to shoot raptors quite a bit. I've used many systems, but my last FF setup was the Canon R5 with both the 600mm f/4 IS III or the RF 100-500mm. Before I switched to Olympus for wildlife, I compared that setup against the Olympus 150-400mm (I had the 300mm previously).
I much more enjoyed shooting with the Olympus kit because I had the reach without having to carry the weight of my 600mm. I was much flexible, because I didn't need my tripod anymore. So, the 600mm quickly went by the wayside. The 100-500 followed because in reality it didn't give me any advantages compared to the Olympus.
But, after I switched to Olympus fully, I did leave some areas earlier because the light was getting low. I could have stayed if I still had the 600mm, but not with the Olympus. At the same time, in that kind of light, you're not going to get the great shots. You need enough light on the bird no matter what system you shoot.
In the end, the only thing I would miss is the background separation, which is of course better with a f/4 lens vs any slower lens on a smaller than FF sensor. But I gladly give that up in exchange for the overall much nicer experience shooting with the MFT kit.
I think this is my conundrum, I am sure that weight wise it will be a much nicer experience, but like you said, under tree canopies or in the blue hour the OM1ii might struggle, but I can't help thinking that the 180-600 at F5.6 would struggle as well, I would just have more latitude when it came to noise. You are right about the light having to be there with any system you use.
I can't deny that I am tempted by the OM1ii and the new 50-200 F2.8, and I can have F4 out to 560mm with the 1.4 TC.
And it would weigh considerably less than my Nikon with 180-600
I shot a Z9 for about 4 years. I added the Z 180-600 at introduction. I made a total switch to OM a couple months ago. From an image quality standpoint, if you're looking to match your full frame combo, you're never going to get there. I think I get decent results from my OM-1 and Olympus 100-400 and I rented a 300 F4 to check out what is arguably the sharpest tele that Olympus offers. But my results from the Z9 and Z 180-600 are much more pleasing to my eye by quite a good margin from either Olympus lens. The Z 180-600 has gorgeous oof rendering for a 6.3 lens, IMHO. And I think that's more important than sharpness. The 100-400 just makes you work a little harder and be even more aware of your backgrounds. I know very little about technical details but it's pretty clear that it's not the lenses so much as the limitations of the sensor. I don't find noise to be an issue with the OM-1 or OM-1 ll that I'm now shooting for wildlife. I also see no issue with low light focus or focus issues in general. In fact, I'm convinced that the OM-1 has performed better in certain situations than the Z9. I feel the OM-1's are better at locking on to a greatly out of focus target. I do miss the completely black out free shutter of the Z9. The OM-1 seems to stutter a bit but it's not a big deal. So why did I switch ? I was running both systems for at least a year and I found myself leaving the Z home way too often and instead going with the OM-1 and Olympus 100-400. Especially when traveling by plane. It was starting to feel too big and heavy as I'm getting older (69). I loved the 4/3 system for Dragonfly, Butterfly, etc. I enjoy the computational features. I use the in camera focus stacking quite often. And I was getting tired of trying to balance menus and buttons on two completely different systems. But mostly size and weight. I liked the 4/3 system too much to give it up so I dumped all my Z stuff. This is all coming from a pure hobbyist POV. If I miss a shot or didn't get the best image quality it matters to no one except me and as I'm getting older I'm finding I'm not chasing after stuff as much as I used to. I'm just trying to enjoy myself and keep things simple. And I'm finding the OM-1's to be very enjoyable and the Olympus 100-400 blows away anything I used to use with my Nikons for Dragonfly and such.
Gary
Sep 15, 2025 at 10:59 AM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
At the moment, I don't do much bird shooting, but I used to shoot raptors quite a bit. I've used many systems, but my last FF setup was the Canon R5 with both the 600mm f/4 IS III or the RF 100-500mm. Before I switched to Olympus for wildlife, I compared that setup against the Olympus 150-400mm (I had the 300mm previously).
I much more enjoyed shooting with the Olympus kit because I had the reach without having to carry the weight of my 600mm. I was much flexible, because I didn't need my tripod anymore. So, the 600mm quickly went by the wayside. The 100-500 followed because in reality it didn't give me any advantages compared to the Olympus.
But, after I switched to Olympus fully, I did leave some areas earlier because the light was getting low. I could have stayed if I still had the 600mm, but not with the Olympus. At the same time, in that kind of light, you're not going to get the great shots. You need enough light on the bird no matter what system you shoot.
In the end, the only thing I would miss is the background separation, which is of course better with a f/4 lens vs any slower lens on a smaller than FF sensor. But I gladly give that up in exchange for the overall much nicer experience shooting with the MFT kit.
I think this is my conundrum, I am sure that weight wise it will be a much nicer experience, but like you said, under tree canopies or in the blue hour the OM1ii might struggle, but I can't help thinking that the 180-600 at F5.6 would struggle as well, I would just have more latitude when it came to noise. You are right about the light having to be there with any system you use.
I can't deny that I am tempted by the OM1ii and the new 50-200 F2.8, and I can have F4 out to 560mm with the 1.4 TC.
And it would weigh considerably less than my Nikon with 180-600
I shot a Z9 for about 4 years. I added the Z 180-600 at introduction. I made a total switch to OM a couple months ago. From an image quality standpoint, if you're looking to match your full frame combo, you're never going to get there. I think I get decent results from my OM-1 and Olympus 100-400 and I rented a 300 F4 to check out what is arguably the sharpest tele that Olympus offers. But my results from the Z9 and Z 180-600 are much more pleasing to my eye by quite a good margin from either Olympus lens. The Z 180-600 has gorgeous oof rendering for a 6.3 lens, IMHO. And I think that's more important than sharpness. I know very little about technical details but it's pretty clear that it's not the lenses so much as the limitations of the sensor. I don't find noise to be an issue with the OM-1 or OM-1 ll that I'm now shooting for wildlife. I also see no issue with low light focus or focus issues in general. In fact, I'm convinced that the OM-1 has performed better in certain situations than the Z9. I feel the OM-1's are better at locking on to a greatly out of focus target. I do miss the completely black out free shutter of the Z9. The OM-1 seems to stutter a bit but it's not a big deal. So why did I switch ? I was running both systems for at least a year and I found myself leaving the Z home way too often and instead going with the OM-1 and Olympus 100-400. Especially when traveling by plane. It was starting to feel too big and heavy as I'm getting older (69). I loved the 4/3 system for Dragonfly, Butterfly, etc. I enjoy the computational features. I use the in camera focus stacking quite often. And I was getting tired of trying to balance menus and buttons on two completely different systems. But mostly size and weight. I liked the 4/3 system too much to give it up so I dumped all my Z stuff. This is all coming from a pure hobbyist POV. If I miss a shot or didn't get the best image quality it matters to no one except me and as I'm getting older I'm finding I'm not chasing after stuff as much as I used to. I'm just trying to enjoy myself and keep things simple. And I'm finding the OM-1's to be very enjoyable and the Olympus 100-400 blows away anything I used to use with my Nikons for Dragonfly and such.
Gary
Sep 15, 2025 at 10:31 AM
Previous versions of sum1sgrampa's message #16890939 « Sony Full-Frame vs. Olympus OM1 II? »
