EDIT. I really like OLY OMD cameras as well as my Canon gear.

[AlanF]

Just tried out an Oly M1 mk ii for a few days. first couple of days was not happy. Then started to figure out settings and was pleased with results in particular bif. am Thinking of adding one to my kit. Since i primarily shoot birds the light weight is great. Hiking with my 7D ii and 100-400ii gets heavy Yes low light performance was poor for OMD. I just wish Canon would decided what the plan is.....getting tired of waiting for 7Dii replacement (Not 90D). One of the reasons I have started looking at other manufacturers.

I've been through thinking about lightweight travel gear loads of times, and always end up sticking with my DSLR and 100-400mm II because they beat everything else for a combination of weight and quality. A problem with the Oly is the choice of telephoto lenses. The 300/4 is excellent, but it is still heavy and I like a zoom. The long m4/3 zoom is the Pana-Leica 100-400mm, and it is not in the top class.

 

[Don Haines]

I've been through thinking about lightweight travel gear loads of times, and always end up sticking with my DSLR and 100-400mm II because they beat everything else for a combination of weight and quality. A problem with the Oly is the choice of telephoto lenses. The 300/4 is excellent, but it is still heavy and I like a zoom. The long m4/3 zoom is the Pana-Leica 100-400mm, and it is not in the top class.

Yes.... there are few options with Oly to go long....

 

[Cryhavoc]

Not a troll. Just not afraid to be seen with a girly girl camera kit

Yes I have an R, the battery grip, the kit 24-105 R lens, and the adapter to which i use it with a sigma 100-400, a sigma art 35 and art 20mm.

Love the camera and it feels great holding it.

I just dont love hauling around full size gear all day every day. Tis why I sold off the 80d and the 1d mkv and gave away the T2i.

Bought into Olympus via the used market and have expanded my Oly inventory primarily for use during the day and its overal native light weight. I have no plans to adapt eos mount lenses to it. The 17mm 1.8, the 45 1.2 pro and the 12-40mm pro lenses I have are suitable to my tourist needs. Everything except the EM1 mkII were purchased well over 50% off retail via the used case at the local camera shop.

Our trip to the big island will bring many days of long walks and some hiking. I plan to pack lighter than I did for our Kauai trip in July.

When we take the observatory tours at dusk and dawn, the Eos R with the Sigma Arts will be used.

When we are walking around during daytime, the Oly gear will be used.

Different tools for different needs.

Tomorrow I am heading to the camera shop to have a look at possibly purchasing the M6 MK II kit with evf before that bundle deal is no more.

Canon is and will always be my favorite brand, but i do keep a very open mind to what the other guys offer.

 

[old-pr-pix]

Yes.... there are few options with Oly to go long....

Agreed. Waiting for Oly to finally release their own 'big white' the pending 150-400 f4.5 w/integral 1.25 TC.

Only other options are some of the previous generation 4/3 lenses adapted to m4/3. Excellent glass, but unlikely they would be up to BIF focusing duty.

 

[AlanF]

Agreed. Waiting for Oly to finally release their own 'big white' the pending 150-400 f4.5 w/integral 1.25 TC.

Only other options are some of the previous generation 4/3 lenses adapted to m4/3. Excellent glass, but unlikely they would be up to BIF focusing duty.

It's a particularly huge and heavy lens, which defeats the goal of being small and light, if that's your aim. It's likely to be cheaper and much lighter to buy a Canon APS-C + 100-400mm. But, if you are sold on Olympus, that's your choice.

 

[Don Haines]

Agreed. Waiting for Oly to finally release their own 'big white' the pending 150-400 f4.5 w/integral 1.25 TC.

Only other options are some of the previous generation 4/3 lenses adapted to m4/3. Excellent glass, but unlikely they would be up to BIF focusing duty.

I have some of the old 4/3 lenses.... they do not AF anywhere near as fast as the micro 4/3 lenses..... but the quality of the glass is top notch!

 

[old-pr-pix]

It's a particularly huge and heavy lens, which defeats the goal of being small and light, if that's your aim. It's likely to be cheaper and much lighter to buy a Canon APS-C + 100-400mm. But, if you are sold on Olympus, that's your choice.

Not sold, just curious at this point. I already have an 80D and 100-400 L (mark 1). In my unscientific testing my Pany G9 + Oly 300mm seems 'sharper' than my 80D/100-400M1 combo. However, based on your comments in other threads I'm tempted to upgrade to 90D and 100-400 L MII. We should know soon, but you could be right 90D+100/400II may be less expensive than Oly 150-400. Of course, the Oly @ 400mm w/integral 1.25 TC is equal to FF 1000mm - likely longer than I would ever want need.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

I've been having a serious flirtation (an affair, really) with the Olympus E-M1X, along (mainly) with the M.Zuiko 300mm f.4 Pro lens and converters.

I'd developed a chronic shoulder problem - impingement syndrome - which seriously compromised the strength and mobility of my left arm, and bringing with it an eye-watering amount of pain when I move the arm even slightly beyond where it wants to be.

Waving my 500mm f/4 and 1D-x around (I only ever shoot hand-held) got to being out of the question, and although I have lighter, smaller Canon gear, my curiosity about mirrorless had been peaked by my recent purchase of a Canon M6 Mk II, so I thought "what the hell..." and shelled out for the Oly set-up.

Despite initial promise, the end-point of my dalliance with Olympus can be read here: http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/reports/that-didnt-last-long

Canon 1, Olympus 0.

Interestingly, picking up my 100-400mm Mk II on my gripped 7D Mk II for the first time since using the Oly gear, felt like picking up a car...

But my shoulder seems to be on the mend, so I'm sure I'll be back to old ways before long.

 

[Cryhavoc]

so if I read your post on that page right, you used a 300mm F4 with a teleconverter on the EM1x?
Given that the 300mm is a 600mm on Oly systems, how much farther did you need with the teleconverter?

I do agree that Oly needs to use more modern sensors in their camera's, but if you operate within their limits, I still find them completely suitable for most of my day to day casual shooting. I would not expect a m4/3 sensor to operate properly using a 300mm with a tele that results in f 5.6 or higher and expect focusing to work well in low light or low contrast situations.

If I plan to shoot in low light situations, I use my full frame Canon, but if I am walking about during the day, the Oly gear is my go to simply for the reduced weight and size of bag I need to lug around. I hated carrying my Eos R, battery grip, 35mm Art, 100-400 Contemporary, tablet and 50mm Art in the camera backpack for more than an hour. I regretted walking the Bloedel reserve in July with this setup, but enjoyed walking around Kilauea in November with the EM1 MK2 and the EM5 MKII with grip, a couple pro lenses and spare batteries. The backpack is considerably lighter and smaller.

I have the EM1 MKII so I am going to skip the MKIII since there really isn't a big difference between them. Rather disappointed that Oly didn't put a new sensor in it but perhaps a future body will and I'll take a look then.

 

[AlanF]

so if I read your post on that page right, you used a 300mm F4 with a teleconverter on the EM1x?
Given that the 300mm is a 600mm on Oly systems, how much farther did you need with the teleconverter?

I do agree that Oly needs to use more modern sensors in their camera's, but if you operate within their limits, I still find them completely suitable for most of my day to day casual shooting. I would not expect a m4/3 sensor to operate properly using a 300mm with a tele that results in f 5.6 or higher and expect focusing to work well in low light or low contrast situations.

If I plan to shoot in low light situations, I use my full frame Canon, but if I am walking about during the day, the Oly gear is my go to simply for the reduced weight and size of bag I need to lug around. I hated carrying my Eos R, battery grip, 35mm Art, 100-400 Contemporary, tablet and 50mm Art in the camera backpack for more than an hour. I regretted walking the Bloedel reserve in July with this setup, but enjoyed walking around Kilauea in November with the EM1 MK2 and the EM5 MKII with grip, a couple pro lenses and spare batteries. The backpack is considerably lighter and smaller.

I have the EM1 MKII so I am going to skip the MKIII since there really isn't a big difference between them. Rather disappointed that Oly didn't put a new sensor in it but perhaps a future body will and I'll take a look then.

300mm on an Olympus is equivalent to 600mm on FF for field of view but not for resolution. Resolution depends on pixel size, the smaller the better. The EM1x has slightly larger pixels than on a 90D so a 300mm on the Oly is like 300mm on the crop. The 300mm on the Oly is equivalent to a 372mm on a 5DSR in terms of resolution. I have never considered using m4/3 for resolution for those reasons. The Oly shooters I know with the 300/f4 use extenders.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

so if I read your post on that page right, you used a 300mm F4 with a teleconverter on the EM1x?
Given that the 300mm is a 600mm on Oly systems, how much farther did you need with the teleconverter?

I'm guessing you're not a bird photographer, right?

I do agree that Oly needs to use more modern sensors in their cameras

I didn't actually say that. The noise from M43 is down to sensor size, not the sensor's position in the State Of the Art.

but if you operate within their limits, I still find them completely suitable for most of my day to day casual shooting.

Given that I was using Oly's flagship "pro" body and lens combo. marketed explicitly at photographers who don't expect limits of the kind I experienced (and don't shoot "casually"), that's not how it's supposed to be at all.

I would not expect a m4/3 sensor to operate properly using a 300mm with a tele that results in f 5.6 or higher and expect focusing to work well in low light or low contrast situations.

I would.

Olympus does.

And my buddy's Canon 600mm f/4 is just fine with a 2x on - as is my 500mm f/4.

There's no excuse for Olympus' failure here - the camera/lens/TC combo worked fine in good light, but I wasn't in bad light when it went tits-up.

 

[slclick]

I experimented with OLY. Too tiny (M5 was better for my hands and grip, still sold that as well) also the EVF was atrocious. The Pro M. Zuiko glass was nice but the menus were so poorly designed and the button layout made zero sense, I was more frustrated than anything. Small isn't always an answer and it sure isn''t THE reason to go mirrorless.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

I didn't actually mind the EVF in the E-M1X - you don't dwell on it too much when you're trying to shoot fast-moving, small birds - and I really liked the promise of small size/huge reach (although obviously, the E-M1X is the biggest "small" camera out there - the ergonomics and feature set were fantastic, even with my sausage fingers).

It just didn't deliver, and I gave it every chance - I wanted it to work out, and I legitimately expected that it would. You don't throw UK £4k+ at a complete wildlife set-up (I also bought an M.Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8) on a whim...

Speaking of "legitimate expectations", this (click on it) is with my 7D Mk II and 500mm f/4 Mk II, with the Canon 2x between them:

1/640, 10,000 ISO, 1,000mm (that's a hand-held 1,600mm in FF equivalent terms - more than the Oly 300mm and 2x on the E-M1X) - it was like a cave (although I admit that I'd accidentally stopped the camera down more than I would have wanted) - and the Canon kit could do this all day long.

This critter - a European Bank vole - is barely four inches long including its tail. That's why bird and wildlife photographers sometimes need all the reach they can get...

Olympus positions the E-M1X and 300mm F/4 Pro as competition for the best that the rest have to offer, yet it is roundly out-performed by a modest 7D mk II.

It may be that unlike most cameras - certainly DSLRs - the Oly doesn't meter/AF wide open, before stopping down and taking the shot. If that's the case (I did find an online reference suggesting it) then it's simply not fit for purpose, given that slightly low light is hardly a novel scenario for bird photographers to find themselves in.

 

[Mikehit]

I agree with you all the way, Keith. I have the Oly kit for those days I want to go light but for things like birds they need to (a) be in decent light and (b) be large in the frame. If the bird is barely larger than the focus square in the VF, the Canon nails it (7D2, 5DIV, 1Dx2) but the Oly can hunt even in decent light. Shooting seabirds at Bempton, I did find that if the bird was out of the immediate focus area, the Oly could pick it up better than Canon but again it needed good light/contrast.

And given the 300f4 and the PanaLeica 100-400 are not much smaller than the Canon 100-400 (I am still a fit 60 year old so the difference does not really matter), if the new R5 has the focus capability of the 5DIV but with higher frame rate I may go fully back to Canon for birds, but keep the smaller Oly/Pana for city walks.

 

[Del Paso]

I once bought an Olympus PL soandso, as an EDC camera.
Used it several times, disliked the low-light pictures, absolutely hated the tiny controls, hated even more the ridiculous menu, and stopped using it.
The build quality, yet, is top, but to appreciate it, one needs baby-hands, and mine, according to my relatives, are yeti-like...
But a Leica Q2...

 

[Cryhavoc]

I suppose I will have to rent and play around with one of the larger Oly lenses like the 300mm and see how it performs in the situations I use my Oly's in. I have used my 12-40 f2.8 taking pics and video's in very dark situations and it works great with the EM1 MKII as does the 7-14mm F2.8 but that particular very low light event was not something I do often. Grand daughter's elementary school dance with a DJ and laser's. Focus was very good and it didn't hunt. I did have it on single point focus though. Maybe that makes a difference?

Anyhoo, for me, I use the Oly's during the day when I wish to pack light.
I use the Eos R with a Sigma 20mm F1.4 Art for Astro. I plan to try out the EM1 MKII with the 7-14 in July to see how well it does astro.

One thing I wish Canon had in the R was the focus stacking that the Oly's have. Awesome when shooting complex flowers up close.

Seriously considering putting in a pre order for the R5 when it opens up for pre orders..if I can have it by mid July.

 

[slclick]

All of that 'work' sounds as hard and long as some of Olympus' model naming schemes.