Yes, but it's an OM-1 and m43 so ...

Nice! OM-1 is the best and clear winner.

@@formermpc10 so...

@@formermpc10 so what?

We got 13 FPS because AF performance was limited by the lens. But you're right that the theoretical maximum with that lens is 25, rather than 20. Regardless, that combo was unable to achieve it in our testing.

Canon has added a similar feature on the R7!

Exactly, the OM1 is their flagship, while the r7 is Canon’s lure for budget conscious wildlife enthusiasts. There’s a big difference between what both cameras are designed to be, so which one you choose might come down to how many of those OM1 features you will need or want. Weather sealing for wildlife is very important, I accidentally got mud sprayed all over my oly 100-400 on a walk once. When I got home I ran it under the tap briefly, dried it extended, no worries. That said you can get lens rain covers pretty cheap so that’s another option.

Many non photographic snobs are, still, very content with the OM1, or lesser models, and the long legged glass, particularly for "birding". I prefer wider angle landscape type shots and there's certainly less glass to choose from, however enough for my needs.

@@robertcudlipp3426I’d probably pay for a longer prime than the 300mm. I Was thinking of that expense telephoto one they released recently… but I won’t go there I don’t think. I am Considering the Panasonic 10-25mm for night skies and wide angle. But it’s so huge… I am After an Astro lens and really haven’t settled on one yet. Perhaps the 12 mm f1.4

I think it’s because we hear that low light performance thing a lot, but in reality I find that more solved by the lens than the camera.

Well.. Did you do it again? I mean.. put icecream om top og your camera? I hope not. Because I think that it deserves a more loving home if you did..

My pleasure!

My husband is about to buy OM-1 and 300 mm F4. He is convinced this combination is almost professional like. At present, he shoots Pentax with 1.4TCx300 mm, which is perhaps upwards of 600mm equiv on full frame. So he is use to 300 mm already.

The 300 has better stabilization, focuses faster and outresolves the 100-400. it is in all criteria a better lens, but much more expensive and no zoom. If you want a zoom with the same or even better performance, there is only the even more expensive 150-400…

The 300 uses full sync IS, so it's considerably more stable.

@@HusbandnWifeDuo I have recently change to OM-1 and EM1x with 3 lenses inclusding the 300f4. I cam from Using Nikon FF and Sony A1 and been a wildlife photographer for 30 yrs. The OM system is a full professional system. The fact that is uses a M43 sensor freaks people out as they believe you cannot produce professional quality images with the sensor. Well the OM-1 has specs that you do not find in the A1 or the Z9/Z8 or Canon R3. the 300 f4 and 40-150 and the 150-400f4.5 can compete with the best lenses on the market. So why M34? The image sensor is good enough and produce fantastic detail and IQ. Beter then what most photographers would ever need. It is light, fast and from a cost point, well ir is not even a debate. I still have a Z8 and 400 f4.5 for "just in Case". well the last 4 months, it has not made any trips including 10 days to Botswana. Dir I ever miss the camera or lens? no... So comparing the R7 to the OM-1.. Yes the Canon is great is you want a lower cost camera that will perform fine.

that`s right

The 300m is an absolute monster, also in terms of sharpness. Even with the MC20 converter, the results are super sharp. Only the subject is a bit harder to get into the view since we're talking about 1200mm full-frame equivalent 😄

Olympus 100-400 does not support synchronized stabilization like 300mm f4,. 100-400mm is practically using only IBIS alone which is not very good at long focal lengths. That's probably reason for this result.

I'm thinking about the 300F4 for a burning man lens. Anything that zooms will suck dust in so I need a prime.

I get sharp 2 to 4 second handheld exposures with the R7 and the 24mm 1.8 lens. The stabilization is extraordinary.

Thanks!

I believe the point of this video was comparing two smaller capable wildlife setups, and not a which camera has more all around features comparison.

Then why not to take a smaller camera from Olympus (OM-5) and a smaller lens (Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7) which is actually a better equivalent to Canon 100-400mm F/5.6-8.0 ? Or perhaps Panasonic 100-300mm F/4.5-5.6 coul[d be considered too.

Exactly also better autofocus 😊

It was excluded from this comparison because it would be about 11 megapixels at 800mm.

OM-1 it's completely different camera. I'm using both of them and I hate when I need to use the E-M1 Mark II.

OM-1 is a revelation. You are missing out just to save a buck. awesome combo with the 150-400. life is short

@@godsinbox I'm not so much into wildlife, but I'll take 150-400 now if I had an opportunity!

Well, it does depend on your budget and weight requirements. You might want to check out this video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h71zp5yCrprYepc.html

@@AnastasTarpanov oh I know it's not the same. I am just glad that the Olympus m4/3s ecosystem is still competitive. I'm obviously a few years behind, but there's only so many thousands I'm willing to put into this hobby.

Valid point, my mistake! I'm accustomed to comparing everything to full-frame so I did some math in my head that was incorrect.

@@TonyAndChelsea Thank you! Regards!

I picked up on the lens hood, too. Like you, my lens has the classic bayonet fitting hood.

Not a mistake as you need a pro lens for 50fps

@@paul--bgood point. Thanks for that. Also in some screen shots they appeared to be using the green tracking box instead of the white bird detect af.

We used bird tracking for all of our tests. I dropped in some screen captures from a previous video just to illustrate the performance. Note the lens limited FPS, not the camera body.

Here ya go!

I bought the EM1M2 specifically for macro work.

I moved from Nikon and Sony to OM after using Nikon for 30 yrs, Yes, it is great for Macro work even using the 40-150 f2.8 or 300 f4 at very close distances is amazing. But the AF system is very close to the Sony and Nikon systems on the Z8/9. Lens quality is stunning, people hit M43 for noise, well exposure is the key and has taken me back to film days. With Post Processing software, noise is not a problem any longer. It is an amazing system .

lol

Note that we could only produce 13 FPS with the Oly when tracking AF. Both the cameras have a pro-capture/pre-shooting mode, but we honestly don't find it to be that useful. I wish there was a way to more instantly select it, like a separate shutter button, because when it's on you end up capturing hundreds of frames you didn't need, like out-of-focus frames when you were still lining up the shot.

I explained why you are wrong w fps in a different comment. As far as pre capture, you can configure it for a custom mode and assign a button to trigger it.

I have to say I’m only a casual wildlife shooter and don’t make much use of pro capture for wildlife, but it’s great fun for taking photos of your pets pulling funny expressions 😅 Also great for capturing lightning and storms, although the 1/30 second lower limit can be challenging.

@@12symmo I definitely agree. I use it for events also for that reason. I've never done photos of lightening but I think Live Composite mode might be beneficial to use. You may already do so but that's the first thing I thought of.

@@RobShootPhotos I did try live comp, unfortunately it meant the imagine became ridiculously bright very quickly just from the ambient flashes. It’s possible I needed to experiment more to get the right settings, but pro capture was doing a good job so I stuck with it.

Only with a pro lens, they were not using a pro lens, they should have got 25fps in sh2 though

The 100-400 theoretically supports 25 in SH2, but our testing produced only 13 FPS regardless of the mode. FPS can be limited by the autofocus performance of the lens; it takes some time between shots to keep the subject in focus.

Yes, valid. I mis-mathed.

To be precise, 48% larger (by area), using the actual active areas of both sensors

Here ya go: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h71zp5yCrprYepc.html

Sure, it's SDP.io/RodeGo2 . But the job of stopping wind noise is done by a generic dead cat, aka furry.

Maybe this could be a hint to Canon, to include lens hoods after decades to their „standard“ lenses and not only to the L-versions. To buy these additional lens hoods is a pain in the ass since I started with Canon in the 80s!

@@reinhardbecker284 It absolutely is a pain in the ass, butthe matchup here with a more than 1200 $ price difference AND lack of lens hood (which is far less than 1200 $) is quite uneven. This is a gripe about the video mainly :)

Canon should definitely include the lens hood. Unfortunately it's not even in stock anywhere so buying it isn't even an option.

Before you switch over, consider getting a better lens?

The problem is the lenses are overpriced for what they are. The bodies are a good deal though, thats how they hook you.

If you invest in a better quality lens like the 100-500 you will get much better results. Such an (expensive) lens will be good even for your next 1 or 2 bodies in the future, independent from APSC or FF

Or use a 100-400L ef and adaptor and it should have more light and better quality optics.

I have both lenses. The 75-300 is great for its price, really light and small, but for anything serious it has to be the 100-400 with it’s much better optics as well as lens stabilization (while no sync-is, unfortunately).

@@arandomdudewithhobbies3318 Good suggestion, thank you.👍The lens alone is 3 pounds. When added to the camera with adapter it's too much for me to handle for long without pain. A tripod or monopod isn't practical for 90% of my photography.

@@hauke3644 Good to know, thank you.

Price wasn't a factor here, just weight and reach.

Yeah the RF 100-500 is an amazing lens, as this test showed: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h71zp5yCrprYepc.html

Yeah, exactly, it's not a full review of the OM-1, and those features aren't useful for wildlife.

@@TonyAndChelseaactually at an OM workshop last Saturday in Virginia they demonstrated hand held high res on tree frogs and other macro type wildlife. I’ve also used it for some stationary bird-on-a stick photos to good effect. Pro capture is also a wildlife feature that alone would put the OM1 or the G9II ahead for wildlife. Rolling shutter will effect not only backgrounds but the fast movement of the wings- causing artifacts. This is what ruled the R7 out for me. Otherwise a good comparison.

Yes, as soon as those lenses are available for rent, we're going to do a comparison of the full Nikon wildlife lineup.

Yeah I picked it because of the pixel density for macro, as well as the computational photography features. Live composite was designed for me since I do long exposure fire spinning photos.

I do like the R5 better than the R7, but it has a lower pixel density and would be at 11 megapixels by the time you cropped to 800mm. However, the R5 with the 100-500 did extremely well in our bigger comparison: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h71zp5yCrprYepc.html

Can't find it, dou you have the link ?

That Sony RX10 IV is tempting. The most fun I've had with photography, if not the best results, was with a superzoom bridge camera. I just looked at some RX10 IV reviews and sample images, and it seems like a pretty good unit.

Sorry, we haven't compared telephoto lenses in that price range.

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro. You should be able to pick up a used one for around $800 and it's the very best lens for equine photography for any system, in my opinion. Since horses are large animals, you shouldn't be shooting with a shallower depth of field in most instances because most of the horse would just be out of focus. That lens gives you a wide range of focal lengths, it's very sharp, weather sealed, focuses fast, and has a constant aperture throughout the zoom range.

The R7 has pre-capture also, but we don't find ourselves using the feature for wildlife.

​@@TonyAndChelsea Knowing the behavior of the wildlife you are attempting to photograph is often more important than the equipment you're using. Pro Capture/Pre Capture is useful because if you know the behavior of the animal you are photographing, you can anticipate decisive moments and capture them without filling up your buffer as you wait for the action to take place. For instance, if you see a woodpecker making its way up the trunk of a dead tree, you know it will fly once it reaches the top, so you set the camera to Pro Capture/Pre Capture, and half depress the shutter as you wait for it to fly. It works great for capturing a heron or egret striking its beak into the water to grab a fish or for capturing a bird in flight as it leaves a feeder or nest or even for simply capturing a squirrel when it is jumping instead of sitting still. I used that feature a lot when a pair of river otters showed up at a local cemetery and people from all over New England came to photograph them. I got a great shot of one of them with its mouth wide open and a fish tail sticking out. You could see all its teeth and in that frame, its eye was open. Without a pre burst mode, my buffer would have probably filled up long before I got that shot. I often find myself half depressing the shutter anticipating some possible action and then releasing it because nothing happens. Ultimately, photography is about light, composition, and moment, and Pro Capture/Pre Capture are just as revolutionary for capturing decisive moments as autofocus was in the 1980s.

@@keithholland9401 I am sure Tony and Chelsea know all about it, but I have never seen them using this feature or talk about it.

What camera at under $1400 has better autofocus?

They both have a pre-release capture feature, but we don't find it especially useful for wildlife. Handheld high resolution isn't useful for wildlife.

@@TonyAndChelsea I use HHHR all the time shooting owls perched on trees. It really depends on the subject. If you shoot wildlife, you'd know how still they are. It's very easy to get a sharp shot. The color fidelity, noise performance and detail are significantly better with HHHR. It is particularly useful shooting perched owls in low light. Of course, it would be useless shooting BIFs, but not all wildlife is BIF. Likewise, not all wildlife shooting would require framerates like 25FPS+, yet, they are features you compare and discuss about. Perhaps you should give HHHR a try shooting perched subjects. It's a feature I often use. I can share results if you'd like.

​@@TonyAndChelseawhat? Procapture is like the most useful feature on the om1 for wildlife, next time try it with those kingfishers and you will be mindblown how easy is getting the perfect shot when it takes off from the perch or for landing shots, or any sudden action, by the way, Om1 is capable of 50fps with pro lenses (for wildlife = 40-150,300, and 150-400) with the later 2 you will also get sync is,which will destroy stabilization on the r7, also that stabilization lens was not a real test here, the r7 was at an equivalent 640mm and the Om1 at 800mm, try again that test zooming the olympus 100-400 at 320mm (640mm equiv.) And lets see which one wins in the stabilization lens 😉, and I can keep going with the list.

Keep in mind that @TonyAndChelsea value their wildlife photos by how shallow the depth of field is, not by whether or not they actually managed to capture an image of an animal doing anything interesting! You never see them traveling to remote areas in search of illusive wildlife, attempting to capture hunting behavior or other decisive moments because they aren't making money selling their photographs. They make their money by selling books and getting kickbacks from their sponsors, so the more you spend at KEH or Adorama or one of their other sponsors, the more money they make. Consequently, their idea of wildlife photography is taking boring shots of common birds like ospreys in flight or perhaps a songbird perched on a bird feeder because it requires little cost or effort and they can show off how spending more money can get you better results in that particular circumstance. Real wildlife photographers like Andy Rouse and Mike Lane recognize the value of a pre burst function because they use it for their professional work on a daily basis. I think the R7 has some sort of pre burst function, but its usefulness is limited by the rolling shutter.

@@keithholland9401 do they have a website or something where I can see their wildlife photos? I didn't even know they shoot wildlife (outside of review purposes).

With that lens and continuous AF, it tops out at 25.

50fps without af@@houserhythm

SH2 with the 100-400 tops out at 25 FPS, in theory. In practice we got 13 FPS because the FPS is limited by the time required for the lens to AF between shots.

More Canon bodies and lens reviews for birding! : )

By the time you crop to 800mm equivalent, this combo is down to 11 megapixels, which is pretty low for subjects like birds. But check out the Sony 200-600, which won our big lens comparison: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h71zp5yCrprYepc.html

Except for the 150-400 the G9ii is faster focusing then the OM1. So the Lumix is also a very good choice. Let‘s see wat the OM1 can do with a FW upgrade, which should be available in Feb…

We did compare the G9 II here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h71zp5yCrprYepc.html For wildlife we found the OM-1 was superior.

R7 has both rolling shutter and also autofocus problems.

The r7 rolling shutter will also show itself on the wing tips of fast birds in the form of artifacts.

ps: Functionally the OM-1 has a very rich feature set and the Procapture is awesome.

I have the 40-150 2.8 mc-14 combo. Absolutely love it.

I have the Oly OM-1 and the 40-150 f2.8 + 1.4 extender, and I absolutely love it. Had the Oly 100-400 and took over 40,000 images, which I really enjoyed using and images were great but traded it in for the Oly 150-400 f4. It is incredible, I crave getting outdoors amongst the wildlife with it. It is an absolute joyful combo.

You really think the 40-150 with a 1.4x will be sharper than the 100-400 @ 400mm?

Yep. Have tested.@@HokKan