Search results

Mike Lane () have compared the OM-1 with the 150-400mm with a Sony A1 with the 200-600mm. He says that the OM-1 has more out of focus images in a series than the A1, but it gives him more sharp images than the A1. Mainly because the OM-1 is shooting at 50 FPS. The ability to capture images...

If Olympus knew anything about marketing, they should be thrilled. An OM-1 with a 150-400mm F/4.5 will be very competitive. Especially if the improve slightly the eye AF (which is reasonable, but not very good). Even a slower 100-400mm would be fine for birders.

The pro version of that zoom is the 150-400 F/4.5 with a built in 1.25 teleconverter. If I didn't already have more EF glass than I can carry, I would consider the OM-1.

Then you should consider Micro Four Thirds cameras. A 400mm is equivalent to 800mm and is a lot cheaper than even the Nikon is. I see that there are more than one zoom which end at 400mm. I have my EF-600 II, so I am not in the market for a new long tele. If I was, I doubt that I would go with...

You could have gone for the EF 200-400 F/4 with a built in teleconverter. Not an RF lens, so what!

Canon does not work that fast. And they are frugal with new lenses. Remember, they still have not produced a new version of the EF 400mm F/5.6. Perhaps the lens is still good enough or would have been too god for the other 400mm lenses. Or improving it would have made it too expensive. If I...

Most photographers seems to exaggerate the difference in resolution between something like a R5 and a R6. But if you plot the resolution as rectangles with a common center, you should realize that the difference is not as great as imagined. Most probably think of the difference as if the R5 has...

I think that the OM-1 with a 100-400 zoom will also be a contender. The combination will have an effective reach of up to 800mm. Particularly for beginners this should be an excellent starting point for bird photography. It will not be bad for people with experience. However, it might not be...

There is a current deal with the R5 and a SanDisk card.

Perhaps he is a closet DPP user???

The 7D2 has been discontinued.

They are still modifying images. So it may be that they are still using RAW and only transmit a couple of handfulls jpgs immediately. See Jeff Cables blog when he talks about his process.

When you have thousands of images for each session it adds up. And they might also do some video. They might be under contract to supply images within the hour after an event has finished. Everything that will require processing will slow down the process. So even 24 Mpx might be a bit much...

There are quite a lot of birders. In the UK there is more or less officially 10 million of them. Eventually, the 7D2 replaced the 1D4 for wildlife.

CRAW make the camera work fine with cheap(ish) memory cards. You get a pretty good boost in performance.

And everything is fine at Sony? Not the tiniest bit desperate?

They tried half heartedly. Once the 1DX arrived nobody was buying the 1D4 any more. So that was the end of APS-H.

They are probably using CRAW which tend to end up as around half the size of ordinary RAW.

If you consider the importance of a rapid reaction time, the R3 battery makes sense. The camera will often need to be on all the time in the sense that a DSLR is on all the time. And the Mpx might be a bit on the high side for the intended customers. Given that the 1DX iii is 20Mpx and there...

Jan Wegener tested the Sony A1 against the Canon R5 and concluded that the video features of the R5 made it superior to the A1. For still images each had an edge. As I understand, video is really important for wildlife photographers these days.