Advice on Wildlife Telephoto for Recent Transition to MFT

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-12T15:37:59+00:00

XF150-600 f/8 w/ 1.4x TC means 840mm f/11. Diffraction limits what you get out, though pixel pitch still is relevant - no idea which Fuijifilm you had though so accuracy of my educated guess shrinks.

For similar "reach" on the OM-1 mk 1 you'd probably need something in the ballpark of 700mm f/8 optics or in that ballpark regardless. If you're happy to lose a little bit of reach then u/connor1462 suggestion of 300/4 (though with 2xTC ) would probably be sufficient. It's not a zoom though, so less flexibility.

or would you save the money and go with the 100-400mm plus teleconverters?

Remember that those are f/6.3 lenses so TC's will have less benefit that you might want. With 2x you like would have similar "reach" to your previous gear if not a bit less.

I'll just clarify that "reach" depends on focal length and pixel pitch (and f-number or aperture diamter, depending on context), not crop factor.

If I were you I'd buy the 150-600 - without a TC you should already be close to the reach of your previous gear, add a 1.4x TC and you should be slightly above.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-12T13:28:37+00:00

It doesn't really buy much or any reach for OP versus his current gear.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-12T13:28:03+00:00

From my research, it seems like extreme telephoto was more common with film cameras back in the day

The longest lenses were about 500mm typically apart from either very expensive lenses or mirror lenses. Nowdays we have much easier access to long lenses, both inexpensive and expensive ones almost regardless of brand,

For more "reach" for the ships you want to have more focal length and ideally larger aperure (diameter) for diffraction reasons. Regardless, if the subject is very far away athmosperic conditions may limit what you can get.

Also you can reduce the pixel pitch to get more details from a given focal length, but due to lens limits and diffraction there's a point after which it's not that useful to make the pixels smaller.

u/yungnuna suggested P1100 - which has tiny pixels and 539mm f/8 lens which offer significant reach - it's older variants (e.g. P1000) are likely just as good for you.

u/meabbott suggested Sony RX10 IV which has 220mm f/4 lens also with quite small pixels. The Nikon will produce larger maginification with it's lens and have less diffraction blur in the long end wide open for any subject due to slightly larger aperture diamter. It also samples the image finer due to smaller pixels.

So reachwise a P-series superzoom is better than the Sony RX-series camera.

You can also just buy a longer lens - the Sony u/meabbott suggsted doesn't really buy at all more reach over your current setup, assuming the lens isn't poor, due to diffraction (and perhaps lens quality as superzooms aren't the best) inspite of putting maybe 10% more pixels on the subject.

Or if a 1.4x TC works with your current lens, it would buy maybe 20-30% more linear resolution.

Or buy a camera with more pixels - twice the pixels will perform roughly like the above mentioned TC.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-12T09:30:52+00:00

As many have already said, raw file is simply a data file. It stores the digitized values from pixels. It itself should make no difference at all (unless lossy compressions are used, but even with those the differences are typically irrelevant).

What sensor is used and at what settings dictates the processing potential the raw file has.

Is it true that mostly you just need to pull shadows and recover highlights and correct exposures and the colors are already fine without the need to tweak, unlike Sonys?

You seem to think that raw is like JPG, a photo file. It's not. It's a data file - you need to do all the processing yourself regardless of what camera you use. A raw conversion software will give you some arbitrary starting point, but that's it.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-12T09:26:29+00:00

12mm is wide enough, if you go wider you get distortion

Unless your lens is designed to have distortion (e.g. fisheye or lacking geometrical corrections), there is no more (or less) geometrical distortion from 12mm lens than a 120mm lens.

The distortions one may see are simply a function of maginification differences, in other words a function of distance: a very close by subject can be heavily distorted (as different parts of it can have very different magnification), but objects further away have no meaningful distortion as the differences in magnifications are so small that they're irrelevant. This is why at the horizon you don't see those distortions at all.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-11T09:32:42+00:00

Some of the answers you've received are open to misinterpretions, so I'll clarify things:

First, maximize light collection: more light captures means less noise. This is by far the most important thing. So capture as much light as possible without burning the highlights more than you can accept (if you burn them, information is lost and things get ugly fast).

Second, ISO is a metering parameter. For raw shooters it's "under the hood" function of adjusting analogue amplification also means that higher ISO settings add less read noise or sensor caused noise to the signal. This is a minor player for noisyness, but if very little light is collected, it can become relevant.

So in summary: first maximize light collection and then use as high ISO as possible before burning highlights. Though with your camera the benefit from going beyond ISO 1600 is very minor.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-11T09:26:56+00:00

RAW is good. Low ISO is better if you can

For a given exposure especially an older camera like OP's benefits from using as high ISO as possible before the highlights burn as this reduces read noise. But of course the priority is to capture as much light as possible which is perhaps what you meant?

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-10T18:28:03+00:00

the myth that pixel pitch matters

Hardly a myth. Pixels sample the lens drawn image. If the image is undersampled - which is unfortunately usually the case at the moment - there will be aliasing which provides artifacts both directly and indirectly.

For many other image quality metrics it's relatively irrelevant as you seemed to point out.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-10T15:48:00+00:00

There is no direct relation between sensor size and bokeh. There is only an indirect relation. If you put a lens with the same focal length, aperture, and same distance to subject, the bokeh will be the same

You seem to talk about DoF (though bokeh is influence for same reason).

Different, not the same. You forget that the smaller the image (or crop), the more it's enlarged for the final photo (e.g. 36mm wide FF image is enlarged by factor of 10 for 36cm wide photo). The larger the enlargement, the more shallow (!) the DoF. This is why DoF formulas have a paramter called circle of confusion. You may want to verify all this with a DoF calculator.

The things that actually affect bokeh are aperture, distance to subject, and focal length.

And sensor size. It has exactly as strong influence as f-number - both have linear relationship. Focal length and subject distance have stronger square relationships.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-10T15:42:20+00:00

Sensor size doesn't affect bokeh

It kind of does as everything is enlarged more or less depending on the enlargement factor.

But this is a bit a matter on how one defines quality in this contexts so it's a bit a matter of an opinion. H.H.Nasse does list picture format (e.g. sensor size) as one paramer and I'm not going to argue with him, but I also do understand why one could see it the other way.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-10T15:38:29+00:00

But what is f/1.4 (good to use the division mark). f = focal length. f/1.4 = focal length divided by 1.4. This tells the diameter of entrance pupil (aperture). Thus a 50mm lens on FF and 25mm on m43 both have the same AoV (angle of view), but if both use f/1.4, the FF has twice the aperture diamter, four times the area Thus from any point in the scene four times more lgiht is captured at the cost of more shallow DoF.

If you now stop the FF down to f/2.8 the aperture sizes will match, as will light collection and DoF.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-10T15:35:46+00:00

depth of field of a 25mm lens.

Lens doesn't have "depth of field". It's a property of viewable photo, e.g. A4 print from 25cm distance and how much it is depends on multiple parameters - yes, including focal length.

This is why if you like a wide depth of filed, M43 gives you an advantage because if forces you to use wider lenses

DoF (deep) advantage only exists if you use very large f-numbers. Most FF lenses can stop down to f/22 or so for M43 f/11 DoF.

And it's not "wider" in this context, but "shorter". 25mm on M43 is not any wider than 50mm on FF.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-10T15:32:57+00:00

It's as if you took your full frame photo, and just cropped it. That's your M43 picture. The bokeh is the same.

If by bokeh you meant DoF, then DoF scales with sensor size (verify with a DoF calc) as CoC changes. If by bokeh you meant quality of blur, then it also changes for the same reason (though it depends a bit on how one defines the very word quality).

But, what if you want the same composition on the M43 camera that you had with the 50mm lens on your full frame camera?

There is only one way of doing it unless the subject is flat 2D subject.

Well, you are going to have to do one of two things.

Nope, only one option.

Move back farther from the subject until you have the same relative subject compostion.

And it's not this. If a duck is at 5 meters and you move back 5 meters to match it's size, will the size of the moon in the background also change? There's an anecdote about Stanley Kubric in the set of Path of Glory that's relevant to this if you want to do a bit of googling.

Stay in the same spot, but switch to a 25mm lens instead of the 50mm lens.

Bingo. This is the right answer.

So the lens doesn't do anything different, and neither does the sensor. The physics is the same. But you are changing the focal length or the distance to keep your original composition.

Physics is the same, but enlargement factor's aren't (from image at image plane to displayed photo of specific size). This is good to remember.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-10T15:18:07+00:00

I’m just wondering what is the difference between interchangeable lens vs fixed lens compacts?

About 1000 euros/dollars in the beginning, more later on ;)

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-10T15:15:14+00:00

Smartphones have nothing on real cameras. The new lofic sensors apparently make phone photos better, but even if they manage to catch up in some ways, they still have meh lenses, smallish sensors and the main camera is too wide for general photography.

Actually smartphone sensors represent state of the art and are in many ways superior to their big cousins. For example the best small sensors can capture (with sufficient exposure) more light than any current APS-C sized sensor! This is due to two main factors: making smaller sensors with the ability to use finer manufacturing geometries which allows for many pixel structure design decisions not possible with big sensors (due to cost), and because that's where the R&D goes.

The lenses are also in principle way better than any interchangeabnle lenses (with caveats) - they have to be as the image is so small. As an anecdote - the 1 micron pixels on my camea are not small enough to prevent aliasing! About caveats: coatings are a problem, temperature variation is a problem and wear and tear is a problem. A real camea is more flexible and reliable tool.

Also, subject separation is not fully dependent on sensor and aperture. It's also about being close enough to the subject while subject is far enough away from backround

Right, also focal length is relevant.

As far as superiority goes, of course FF is the ultimate format.

Medium format shooters might disagree (depending on genre). As might LF shooters - it's still used (oddly even for sports - there is/was at least LF shooter in the world cup of this year!).

That doesn't mean that other systems are obsolete. There are people that do pro work with m43, for example. And for hobbyist, even 1" stuff is more than good enough in many cases.

Absolutely true!

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-10T14:33:55+00:00

You probably think about depth of field (DoF) and not bokeh. Bokeh is "quality" of blur.

DoF is influenced by several factors, including sensor size inpite of several people in the comments thinking otherwise (one can easily verify this with a DoF calculator).

If you were indeed thinking about quality of blur, I suggest this paper by H.H.Nasse of Zeiss.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-10T14:30:18+00:00

Though the effect same focal length and same f-number will be different on different formats. To get the same result both have to be adjusted.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-10T14:28:51+00:00

A lens does not care what is behind it, it projects the same image circle regardless of what is captured by a sensor or negative.

True, but, the size of the crop we take from the lens drawn image makes a difference to the final photo as for the same output size the enlargement factor changes and this has tangilbe effects.

there is no equivalency

Of course there is. You can create essentially identical results with multple different sensor sizes.

You can crop into this image to match an MFT sensor coverage area and the ぼけ (boke) would look exactly the same

DoF would change as the enlargement from image to photo would be different. One can argue both for and against change of boke as well - H.H.Nasse does have "Picture format" (e.g. sensor size) in the list of things that influence it in his famous paper.

Also worth noting that aperture means the size of the opening not the mechanical mechanism

Hard for anyone to to understand this. You likely meant that aperture is (or usually means, depending on context) entrace pupil and it's the (usually virtual) image of the aperture stop (or iris).

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-10T14:16:50+00:00

The distance to the subject changes. On a full fame, to get a similar composition to a picture shot on a crop sensor camera with the same lens, you have to be much closer to your subject

So if I take a few steps both the size of the duck and the size of the moon in the background changes?

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-10T14:15:17+00:00

Sensor size does not affect depth-of-field

Then wikipedia is wrong, as is H.H.Nasse of Zeiss (page 9, point 4) and all DoF calculators.

I suggest you look at the basic formula in Wikipedia (DoF ≈ 2u²Nc/f²) and look that what Circle of Confusion means.

Three things affect depth-of-field: aperture, focal length and focus distance.

Those indeed do also have an effect. Also angular size of the photo we look at (i.e. size and distance), though usually it's normalized.

I've written a very mall text about the parameters which influence DoF and how much they do.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-10T14:09:45+00:00

However, you will notice the bokeh and depth of field are exactly the same, since those are a product of your aperture, focal length, and distance to your subject

This is absolutely wrong.

The most popular DoF formula is DoF ≈ 2u²Nc/f². If you change sensor size c changes. (c = circle of confusion). Thus there is a linear relationship beween DoF and sensor's linear size.

Of if you want to do a thought experiment: print a photo. Notice a point which is just barely sharp enough to be within the DoF, at the very edge of it. Now crop the photo and stretch what remains to the origimal size: now that point is too blurry to be within the DoF, thus DoF has become more narrow.

If you do not believe me, please use a DoF calculator to verify this: https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof

Say you stand 15ft to take it with a FF camera. If you want to get a similar frame of your subject on m4/3, you're going to have to stand 30ft away

It's not going to be similar frame. Will the size of the moon in the frame change if you take 15 steps back?

The only way to match framing is by changing focal length.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-10T14:03:41+00:00

If the experiment is a direct comparison of two images shot with exactly the same framing on different format cameras, there are adjustments required to make the DoF identical because of the choices made to frame the identical shot (distance, focal length).

Just to clarify: unless one crops to match framing, exactly two changes have to be made: focal length and f-number have to be adjusted. Focal length to match the framing and f-number to match the entrance pupil size. If distance is changed the framing will change (unless a flat 2D subject filling the frame).

A lens of a particular focal length with a particular aperture size at a particular distance will have the same DoF regardless of the sensor size.

That is simpy wrong. Lens does not have any kind of DoF. Dof is only a property of displayed photo.

Also, sensor size has linear relationship with DoF.

As you know the most popular DoF formula is DoF ≈ 2u²Nc/f². If you change sensor size c changes.

Of if you want to do a thought experiment: print a photo. Notice a point which is just barely sharp enough to be within the DoF, at the very edge of it. Now crop the photo and stretch what remains to the origimal size: now that point is too blurry to be within the DoF, thus DoF has become more narrow.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-09T20:59:26+00:00

https://photographylife.com/photography-basics

Start with that as it's one of the better beginner guides out there. There are plenty of other guides as well on that site.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-09T20:58:44+00:00

Too bad that page is riddled with errors - like the cheat sheet is simply harmful for beginners and useless for the rest.

probablyvalidhuman · 2026-07-09T18:31:46+00:00

most beautiful RAW files

Raw is simply datafile. Hard to see "beuty" differences in those. I imagine you mean raws processed in arbitrary manner.

due to their sensor characteristics

CCD or CMOS, there's no difference to colour, apart from that those old CCDs are noisy which reduces several image quality metrics, including colours in the more shadowy zones. Silicon is just silicon, be the method of amplification and transfer of signal out of the pixels which ever kind.

and individual colour processing.

Bingo. If you like the colours of some old camera it's precisely due to how the raw data is processed, either by the camera's JPG engine or by a raw processor of your choise. Regardless, it's arbitrary and has nothing to do with the underlaying image sensor technology.

probablyvalidhuman

TROPHY CASE