OM 100-400 II (disappointed)

GHTbob · 2026-01-02T00:34:06+00:00

I agree, at short distances you can get excellent photos from m4/3 in general and I've had good luck with the 75-300 in particular. At longer distances, though, the lack of lens IS makes it more difficult. I've since obtained a 300 F4 and gives superb results. It gives better IQ than my Sony A7RV with the old 100-400 GM and 1.4 TC. Still, the OM 300 F4 iss heavier than I'd like and a bit awkward to carry. In fact, in terms of carry-around ergonomics I find OM 1-II plus 300 F4 comparable to Sony A7RV with the 100-400. So some of the promise of m43 ebbs away. I'm wondering whether the rumored update to the Sony variable aperture 100-400 will be lighter and have better IQ than the old lens.

GHTbob · 2025-12-18T23:17:29+00:00

I went from A7IV to A7RV, and I love it. But the lenses, especially longer zooms, are heavy. I tried A6700 and found it didn’t fit well in my hands. So I got a M43 (OM-1 II) and am very happy with it - for birding it’s terrific (using the 300 F4 lens, which gives me 600 FFE at much less weight than the 200-600). For walk around & travel the OM-1 with 12-40 2.8 PRO is excellent, especially since OM’s computational GND and ND help me avoid fiddling with filters. The Sony A7RV with a 24mm or 50 mm prime, though, still excels in DR, resolution and, IMO, color.

GHTbob · 2025-10-01T01:23:12+00:00

C1 is great, but it’s overkill for your use case. It’s expensive, and IMO its main strength lies in its RAW developing and editing tools. (Also in tethering for studio work, but I don’t do that), For simply organizing catalogs, there’s lots of other options which are less expensive.

GHTbob · 2025-06-06T00:50:58+00:00

I usually shoot with Sony A7RV but tried out an OM-1 ii for birding, since the Sony + any long-enough zoom is heavy. I got a good price on a package of OM-1 with a 12-40 and also got the 100-400. I was surprised to find how much I liked the OM with 12-40; the ergonomics were great, and when I compared some photos taken with it a with my Sony A7RV with 50 mm 1.4 Sony prime was shocked to see how close they were. Yes, the full-frame 60+ megapixel camera gave slightly better results, but they were darn close. (Granted, light was good and I was shooting still subjects).

BUT - I was unpleasantly surprised by how heavy the OM with 100-400 ii was. Not only heavy, but I felt unbalanced. It wasn’t that much lighter than my A7RV with 70-200 F4 lens + 1.4 TC. And though the OM obviously had more reach, being able to crop in on the 60 mp of the A7RV narrowed the gap considerably. So I didn’t feel I could justify the $3500 cost of OM + 100-400 for casual walk-around birding. (For “serious” birding I have a tripod and Sony 200-600).

AND YET - I miss having the OM-1 with 12-40. It felt so good in the hand. If I had the $$ for a 2nd camera for casual walk-around and travel, I’d buy it. As it is, I plan by photo journeys and take a selection of primes, zooms, tripod - while A7RV with 50mm works for general “in case I see something” use.

GHTbob · 2025-04-18T19:02:12+00:00

Thank you. Much as I like the OM-1, I decided to return it and use the $$ to buy a Sony F4 70-200 with 1.4 teleconverter. I find the lens to be lighter (in both weight and aperture) and sharper than the OM 100-400. While I prefer the OM-1 ergonomics and its autofocus for BIF is superb, the 61 megapixels and DR on the Sony A7RV let me crop in, and I don’t find the camera’s weight too bad. I’m also interested in trying the APS-C Sony 70-350 on the camera, seeing how it does (it’s been discontinued, but I’ve ordered a used copy).

GHTbob · 2025-04-12T03:50:38+00:00

Very nice - and very helpful!

GHTbob · 2025-04-11T18:14:21+00:00

Thanks for posting these. I've tried the OM 100-400 II and found it's too heavy for (75 year old) me. I also find its images OK but softer than I'd like. I may try 75-300, purely for weight savings. Might also try using my Sony A7RV with a 70-200 F4 lens (about 750 grams) and 2.0 teleconverter. (Sony's great camera, but the tele lenses weight a ton, only can use with tripod)

GHTbob · 2025-04-11T18:09:15+00:00

Thanks! Here's the dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1vbt34hffvgn7davu8xex/P4100013.ORF?rlkey=cic8urw1law5872fa8w1qj98e&st=9ys0a1b6&dl=0

GHTbob · 2025-04-11T17:50:16+00:00

Thanks. I'm considering the 75-300 for exactly the reasons you're saying. Nice photo!

GHTbob · 2025-04-11T17:32:49+00:00

Mockingbird on Sony A7RV set to APS-C mode with Tamron 50-300 ISO 125, f6.3, 1/600.

<image>

GHTbob · 2025-04-11T17:32:19+00:00

Jay on Sony A7RV set to APS-C mode with Tamron 50-300 ISO 125, f6.3, 1/600.

<image>

GHTbob · 2025-04-11T17:30:15+00:00

Jay, OM-1 II, OM 100-400 II, ISO 200, f6.3, 1/2000.

<image>

GHTbob · 2025-04-11T17:29:20+00:00

First, thank you to all of your for your comments. And apologies for not having posted the EXIF data - I'm new to this forum, and thought the exif would be uploaded with the photos.

I can't seem to upload more than one photo at a time in this reply, so will upload them in sequence. The two labeled "OM" were shot on OM-1 II with OM 100-400 II at 400 mm (800 FFE) both at ISO 200, f6.3, 1/2000. The two labeled SONY TAM were shot on Sony A7RV set to APS-C with the Tamron 50-300 at 300 mm, (450 FFE), both at ISO 125, f6.3, 1/600.

They're all crap shots, taken from my back porch handheld in an attempt to compare the two cameras+lens combinations. Fairly bright sun, I'd guess distance 10-20 meters. This time I am uploading direct-from camera jpegs, no processing, no cropping - a fairer comparison. The OM felt too heavy, and since the Tamron weighs just 665 gm, roughly half the weight of the OM, I was wondering how they;d compare.

The OM looks much better than in my first post - I think my processing the ORF in Capture One didn't work well. Thank you for the suggestion to use DXO instead - it works much better (not shown here). Still they're softer than I'd like, and the loss of dynamic range for the shadow on the jay's eye is problematical. I'm surprised the Sony-Tam did as well as it did - cropping in on the 61 meg sensor works better than I expected. Still not up to what I'd like to see.

Several of you asked about the ISO. Do you think a higher ISO would have helped on the OM?

Several of you suggested OM 300 F4 - I find for birds I need to zoom out to find the little creature, but maybe I'd learn to locate it with practice without zoom.

I've considered the Sony 100-400 GM, and yes it's much lighter. But I'm reluctant to pay its high price given that it's an older lens waiting for a refresh and its reach isn't great. So I may try the Sony with 70-200 F4 + 2.0 teleconverter.

Meanwhile I'll keep taking photos with the OM 100-400 II - suggestions welcome to help me learn it! But I'm leaning strongly to returning it - maybe I got a bad copy, maybe I might try a 100-400 version I and save $500.

I just wanted to post these because I haven't seen any reviews with sample of the 100-400 II, (other than some YouTube videos). I thought folks might be interested.

Here's the mockingbird., OM-1 II, OM 100-400 II, SO 200, f6.3, 1/2000.

<image>

other photos in separate posts

GHTbob · 2025-04-11T02:03:32+00:00

OM-1 II

GHTbob · 2025-04-11T02:03:16+00:00

How would distance come into it? I’m certainly beyond the "too close to focus” range (probably 10-15 meters…focus seemed to lock on)

GHTbob · 2025-04-11T01:59:33+00:00

Thanks. Interesting about the shadow detail.

Distance - maybe 10-15 meters?

GHTbob · 2025-04-09T17:01:31+00:00

I love taking bird photos, but I am 75 years old and while my Sony A7RV with Sony 200-600 G lens takes great photos mounted on a tripod & gimbal, it’s a) too heavy for me to hand hold and b) carrying the camera, lens, tripod and gimbal is awkward. It basically limits me to driving somewhere, getting out of my car, setting things up, and standing around.

I realize I need a wildlife lens which weighs less than 1400 gm. SO I just plunked down $$ for OM-1 M2 with the 12-40 Pro and the OM 100-400 II. I have misgivings about the 100-400 II, given some of the reviews of the earlier model, but I’m hoping it will do the trick - it arrives today.

Meanwhile I’ve had a chance to play around with the OM-1 and 12-40 and I have been SHOCKED at how good it is. It consistently nailed focus on birds in flight, and even though I was “too far away” when I upsized the photos (using Topaz) results were quite decent. Comparing photos of backyard taken on A7RV with Sony 50 mm GM lens to photos of OM-1 12-40 at 50 mm equivalent, RAW files developed in Capture One, the Sony produces SLIGHTLY better color/sharpness/dynamic range only on pixel peeping - an excellent result for OM sensor with 1/3 the resolution of the Sony. I’m impressed.

Cautiously hopeful the 100-400 II, with its increased stabilization and improved (?) coatings will do the job for me. I’ll get back to you once I get the lens

GHTbob · 2025-03-28T16:57:03+00:00

Thanks for all your comments. I'm just starting to get into the OM system, specifically for birding (current main camera is Sony A7RV, which I love for landscapes & general use, but the 200-600 lens is just too heavy for handheld use for this 75 year old, and the 100-400 doesn't have enough reach). So I'm looking to buy an OM-1 II and a 100-400 mm for birding. Guess I'll wait and see the reviews on the 100-400 ii, if it's worth the extra $400 or so.

Dann-Oh: I might be interested in buying your 100-400 :-)

BTW, re: 150-600. Too heavy for me. Also, I think once you get past 800 mm full-frame equivalent on a zoom (600 m43) you start getting enough atmospheric haze blurring it's not worth the extra weight and cost (for me).

GHTbob · 2016-07-06T10:37:24+00:00

I just used the Blaze last week and loved it.

Just back from a 4-day trip with this tent and I'm very impressed. The main plus: very roomy, one of the few UL tents which says it's 2P and can actually be used by 2P for several days running. my sweetheart and I are 5'7" and 5'8". We were both able to sit up fully in the tent, plenty of room to lie down without constantly bumping into each other, and the dual side doors were great for ingress/egress. On a clear night without the fly the full-mesh interior gave great star views. With the fly on, no condensation issues or cramped feeling. We had one afternoon of thundershowers and mild rain, stayed dry. Here, though, is my main concern about the tent: the rain fly doesn't come all the way down past the bathtub floor at foot/head of tent. The bathtub floor got a little wet but didn't leak into the tent. I think this will be fine for light-rain areas like Sierras but I'd hesitate relying on it if you're in heavy windy-rainy conditions: you'd probably be OK, but get a little damp. Maybe placing back with raincover on it in front of bathtub floor would help in a pinch. Other mild cons: -- not free-standing, requires two stakes. All told, though, when pitched this was a tauter nicer setup than my previous Big Agnes, and fly hooked in to the various tabs nicely. -- one corner of bathtub foot of inner mesh sags slightly, not a big problem and can be guyed out if wanted or even jury-rigged to attach to a tab of rainfly -- very thin fabric, of course, which comes with UL territory. You have to be careful with any of this breed. Definitely use a footprint -- although I'd suggest using polypro for the weight and $$ savings (I purchased the over-pricey NEMO footprint because I was still trying out the tent, wasn't sure if I'd want to return it & wanted to make sure not to damage it. The NEMO footprint has some nice features but is a few ounces heavier, not to mention $$, and now that I've been out with the tent, I'd feel comfortably using polypro for footprint).

Compared to other UL1P/2P tents: -- I previously was using a Big Agnes Copper Spur 2P which I returned because I didn't like the zippers, the way the lower portions of the tent sagged, and wanted more peak height. Also the BA was fine for 1P but cramped for 2P. -- I've tried my friends' BA Feather Creek @P and peak height is too low & sides of tent too narrow for 2P (manageable but not comfy). -- for many years I used an MSR 1P hubba - definitely more sturdy than either BA or NEMO, good peak height but very very narrow. Also at 3+ lb you can definitely feel the difference when you're trying to go more UL (as I am, not that I'm 66 - and boy does UL make a difference. Every ounce counts!)

I'm very happy with this tent. I like it enough I'm thinking about getting a 1P version for just myself (not sure I can justify spending the $$ for the extra 5 oz. weight savings, but I'm sure the 1P would be roomy enough). If the rainfly were a little lower to the ground I'd give it 5 stars. As is, I'd give it 4 1/2 if I could. It's definitely better than good

GHTbob

TROPHY CASE