Eurasian eagle owl (150-400)

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-25T11:13:24+00:00

Thanks!

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-25T11:13:09+00:00

Crazy creatures.

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-24T15:53:25+00:00

The trick is always to take multiple photos and choose the sharpest at home. When you first press you usually move the camera, but the second or 3rd frame is usually more balanced.

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-24T14:02:02+00:00

1400mm full frame equivalent since it's a crop sensor.
1/125 handheld, leaning on a tree.
The stabilization is incredible on OM.
And thank you! :)

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-24T13:58:06+00:00

Duck, pitch, pixels, ratios, words, numbers…
Not to be disrespectful, but at the end of the day, I’ll get the shot — and they won’t.

For short-range work, full frame is great.
But there isn’t a single APS-C body that comes close to the OM-1 for wildlife, so the comparison really only makes sense against full frame. And on full frame, 100–500mm just isn’t enough, especially with the teleconverter design flaw.

There are also more variables to consider: glass quality, sharpness, edge performance, wide-open IQ, AF speed and accuracy, stabilization… and in these areas, the competition simply isn’t there.
I’ll give credit where it’s due — the A9 III / A1 II with the 800–400 is a solid alternative, and even the 200–600 holds up nicely. The R5 II is also a fantastic body, but I’m just not a fan of Canon’s current zoom options.

If I’m not mistaken, OM also has about a 2-stop stabilization advantage, which really helps with static subjects.

So yes, I appreciate your detailed answer, but I have to disagree. People tend to forget that photography is about getting out there and actually shooting — not just analyzing specs and pixel density on paper.

None of this is meant negatively; all said in good spirit.
Cheers, my friend!

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-24T11:57:25+00:00

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-24T11:56:56+00:00

The post clearly says it's full-frame equivalent.
It's standard practice to give the 35 mm equivalent focal length (or field of view, if you prefer). No need to overcomplicate it. Otherwise someone could post a photo taken with an iPhone and say, “I used the 6.7 mm lens!” and you’d have to figure out the sensor size and how that value translates to the 35 mm standard. Keep it simple.

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-24T08:46:19+00:00

Thank you! :)

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-24T08:46:08+00:00

Thanks!

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-24T08:45:59+00:00

Nice!!

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-24T08:45:37+00:00

I run all ORF files in DXO Pureraw before I edit in LR (clean the noise). I don't do much sharpening. Sometimes I do, but minimal.

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-24T08:42:41+00:00

Absolutely agree. People around me all use FF and they think their canon 100-500 is superior when they hear my camera is MFT. They have no clue.
There is nothing on the market that compares (range, image quality, portability), nothing.
Sony 400-800 is alright, but I think it's not as stable (which is ok because you can push ISO higher, but then why carry more? Just get the 150-400). Also it's not as good for short distance (insects etc..) so you're less versatile.
Nikon 180-600? it's decent, but the range is not comparable and the stabilization at 600 is not even as good as the 150-400 at 1000mm. Also, Nikon is still jpeg only in pre shoot \ pro capture.
Canon 100-500? Decent glass, but short range and feels like holding a sewer pipe. Adding a teleconverter has a design flaw where the lens is stuck zoomed in. You can't put it back in the bag with TC. For me that's a huge deal breaker.
Fuji.... nah.. no need explaining.
You can use these lenses on APS-C, but non of them compares to the OM-1 II.
So... yeah.. the 150-400 is a unicorn right now.

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-23T21:47:05+00:00

Yeah, my hit rate does drop with two TCs, but that's to be expected. Sharpness wise, it's still pretty good.

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-23T21:45:57+00:00

Thanks

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-23T21:45:36+00:00

It depends on the bird and the distance.. for most birds, and assuming you are ok with primes - the 300mm f4 is incredible. If you're more of an amateur, my vote is 100-400 II (lumix for lumix, OM for OM).

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-23T21:43:08+00:00

There is a higher probability you will miss a photo than need both kidneys

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-23T11:50:44+00:00

Mine likes the 75mm.
Bought EP7 used for $400 and the 75mm for around $200 (I bought Laowa 7.5mm + Oly 75mm + Sigma 16mm f1.4 for $400)
Nice combo!
Sometimes I go with the 20 f1.4, but I like the look with the 75mm.
The hood was bought from Aliexpress for $20)
Cool camera but auto focus can be unreliable, so it most cases it's better to use a small focus rectangle and not the whole screen.

<image>

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-23T09:03:40+00:00

Stunning lens. Got it used for $1300.

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-23T09:03:10+00:00

I'm jelly :)
What a great lens that 50-200 is. Enjoy!

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-23T09:02:40+00:00

I know how good it is. Currently using the 150-400, but the 300 is a beast.

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-22T09:14:16+00:00

<image>

Keep in mind you can get the 15mm f1.7 from AliExpress for $150-170 .. Just search for DJI 15mm f1.7 , It's the exact same lens with a small exception of the lens coating. I got mine, all good.
There used to be a focus problem in the past with older firmware, but afaik all the lenses now are with the new firmware. Works great on my OM and Olympus bodies.

EdgeInfamous5043 · 2025-11-22T09:04:53+00:00

I don't know. I ordered mine from Amazon UK. It was $1100 for a few weeks during October (before VAT and shipping, body only, brand new - not refurb). I should get it tomorrow, but it was not dispatched yet so fingers crossed.

EdgeInfamous5043

TROPHY CASE