Canon RF 600mm f4 vs OM Systems 300mm f4 Ultimate wildlife shoot out! Is bigger really better? 

I think that the bokeh was better with the Canon lens, but I agree not by much. I just went from Nikon to OMsystems two months ago and it's put the fun back in photography for me. Love your videos and thanks for sharing.

I own the RF600 F/4, yes many can't and won't own it, but you are all missing the point of this lens, many just don't understand, this lens takes over when I'm the last one still shooting wildlife 30min after sunset. The rest have gone home. Some of my most epic shots/video were taken at this time frame. And THAT is worth every penny for me personally.

Yup, I agree. I've use Olympus since 1977 and went digital with them in the early 2,000's. In 2010 I added Nikon full-frame and have decent gear in each system, OM System OM-1ii & Nikon Z8 and, I carry my OM gear WAY more than my Nikon gear for all of the reasons you mentioned. As you said, at that price, the Canon lens should absolutely blow the MFT system out of the water and it simply does not, just as I've found with my Nikon gear. All of these systems are great and produce wonderful results in the right hands but, the constant dissing by so many of systems based on smaller sensors is simply nonsense. In the majority of cases, the differences are only apparent when pixel-peeping to the Nth degree and are totally irrelevant for much of photography. My MFT gear satisfies about 90% of what I do and I'm extremely happy with it. And yes, the 150-400 Pro is simply stunning and has no equal at present.

Absolutely. Loving my 300. Bought it used for $1300 and it lives on my OM-1 MK2 rent free. OM needs to do more marketing for the 150-400. It is the best wildlife lens on the market IMO, and photographers are just unaware of it. It's all Canon,Nikon,Sony (Fuji is not for wildlife). I went to a bird observatory and the photographers there didn't even know the brand OM when I showed them the OM-1 mK2.

I had pretty much the same reaction. Some of the photos I preferred were shot with the Canon; others with the Olympus. In neither case was the difference a blowout. The Canon will give you creamier bokeh out-of-camera for sure, but is that worth the considerable extra weight and expense? As always it boils down to a matter of taste, priorities, and the technical requirements of the job. But it is worth noting that even the beautiful white Olympus 150-400, as relatively expensive as it is, is still 1/3 lighter and cheaper than the Canon.

Buy and use what you can afford. Comparing the 2 systems is redundant. One is clearly better than the other.

Thank you so much for making this video!! I came from owning the Sony A1 and A7RIV with several g master lens; I decided to rent the OM-1 and the 300 f4 and was blown away by the IQ, image stabilization, weather sealing and computational features. I sold all my Sony gear a week later and I haven’t regretted it at all! I finally purchased the 150-400(have had it for about 5 months now) and while I love the 300 f4, the white lens is just a true masterpiece! I will never go back to FF due to all the points you’ve highlighted in this video! Olympus/OM system is a wonderful system and if more people actually give it a chance, I think they’d be as thoroughly shocked as I was and maybe they too would make the switch! I will be sharing this on my IG photography page story! Thanks again for making this video, giving praise to the system. I hope to see more videos like this in the future!

I switched from Nikon to Olympus and I am using OM-1 with 150-400mm for wildlife photography, never regret!

Everyone is a fan boy for the camera system they use!! I have an RF 600mm f/4, so you know how I feel! 😎

I recently bought a used OM-1 and a 300 mm F/4. I am very happy with the quality. It blows away my Sony A7IV and 200-600 in both quality and portability. As for the comparison in the video, there is so much to say about it. Naturally the 600 f4 has some benefits over the 300 f4 within the range of f4 - f8 because of smoother bokeh and better handling of high ISO because of a FF camera. The further the target is away the more obvious the difference is. From f8 and onward the difference should probably be negligible. With targets close by the bigger DoF of the 300 mm can even be a benefit because you get more of the target in focus. With the 600mm you would need to stop down to f8 and raise ISO for a similar image in terms of DoF and exposure. But lets be real here. For most of us the 600 mm is out of reach in terms of cost, let alone the hassle of carrying it. The 300 mm f/4 is fantastic. I would even go so far to say that it would be enough for most professional photographers as well, unless you are constantly shooting in a forest in terrible lighting conditions. The real problem here is that there is so much hate towards the M43 system that people wont even give it a chance. Been there myself and I am happy I changed my mind. The OM-1 with the 300 mm made photography so much fun again. Cheers for the video.

Well done for the two of you getting such similar images with the two cameras. That’s an impressive amount of coordination and collaboration. There are differences between the two systems in terms of noise and bokeh. Sometimes I preferred the deeper depth of field on the OM system as it gave more context to the wildlife. The noise levels will depend on how you view the image as to how big a deal it is. I do imagine getting more shot opportunities with the OM system due to the increased portability. I use Fujifilm so we are in the middle between MFT and Fullframe. I’m increasingly realising that the camera is not as important as the lens and photographer.

I moved from Nikon full frame this year to OM-Systems and the 150-400 f4.5. What a lens! I’m now in advancing years and frankly humping a Nikon D6 with a 5000mm f4E FL ED lens around was becoming a real, chore. 😊

I for one have been shooting the OM-1 with the 150-400 pro and thought it was the best setup i've ever seen. UNTIL I saw the image quality of the nikon Z7 mk II. I then realized that focal length is focal length. no matter what. I compared the OM-1 vs Nikon Z7 mk II at the same focal length and aperture. this showed me that the OM-1 got twice as high ISO value as the nikon. Due to sensor size probably. this lead me to trade in this gear for the canon R3. which in turn is almost 2 stops better at handling noise reduction. this means that under the same conditions the canon R3 is 3 stops "faster" if you like, than the OM-1. I think this shows pretty evidently at 7:22 in the owl picture. this would also imply that there are more details to be retained when cropping as well. With the R3 i've taken usable images at iso 40 000! Something I've only dreamt about. The OM-1 sure has it's advantages. But the Canon wins every match in image quality. This is only my opinion of course. And I don't think the OM-1 is bad in any way. I would love to have it in my arsenal as well.

Great video and conclusions. There was no doubt the Canon set up was better. It was not just the lens that mattered, but also the OM sensor produced noisier images. But was it _that_ much better? If I had $13,000 to spend, I would go for the cheaper system and spend the money on great experiences, such as safaris and photo expeditions! :-)

Side by side the difference is really obvious. The 600 f4 images do look much more pleasing to me, but price, size and weight are good arguments in favor of Olympus. You just have to manage your backgrounds more carefully

DXO PureRaw4 is simply AMAZING!!! It should be built right into all MFT cameras. So many pictures you took would look so much better after processing with PureRaw. It truly is a game changer for all cameras but for MFT it is a God send!!! Thank You for the comparison!!! Such good information!!!

I’m ashamed to say that I have owned and used the Oly 300 f4 for quite a few years but it now stays in the cupboard. That’s because the 150-400tc now lives on my OM1ii! All of the quality of the 300 but what a zoom. At 74 and slowly falling apart, I don’t use a tripod or monopod - the Mk 2 has even better stabilisation! Was shooting the Paradise Riflebird in Queensland yesterday alongside a guy with the A1 and Sony 600 yesterday (his on a gimbal and tripod). If I’m honest, the extra pixels would be nice but noise isn’t a problem, courtesy of DXO Pure RAW.

Just ordered my 300 F4 about 5 minutes before finding this video! I've got the 12-40 2.8 Pro, and the 40-150 2.8 Pro so this will be a nice addition. Very good comparison video!

Assuming the OM1 images are "as is" without any AI noise tweaking, the Canon does what you expect, less noise, slightly higher resolution, higher image quality, better bokeh. But is that difference worth the extra money and weight? I thought the OM1 images were already good enough (more so as a hobbyist, I would be happy). I think there's a case of diminishing returns with these big lenses, lots of extra $$$ for a small improvement. That's relevant to professionals who are willing to pay for the best. Thanks for the video, very interesting and informative.

The Canon 600mm is noticeably better and produces photos that are far more magical IMO.

That's awesome, back in 1983, I got an original Olympus OM-1 black body 35mm film camera as my first camera when I as 14 years old. I loved that camera! Its nice to see they're still putting out some great cameras and lenses!

I thought the canon with the 600 produced better images, too. But not $10,000 better. I think the OM 1 with the 300mm is the winner if you are going to be hiking your gear in and out, as well.

Keep in mind Canon has the 600 and 800 f/11’s if portability and daytime shooting are priority. The f/4 tele-primes are primarily for maximum bokeh (which is quite noticeable even in this video) and sunrise/sunset shooting, where the smaller lenses fall apart.

The 600 smoked it, and like other comments have stated, when the light gets less than ideal the 600 will continue to steam roll ahead. But for good light shots, it would be interesting to see how much the 300/4 could be enhanced with skillful use of AI tools like the Lens Blur feature to see if additional separation could be had and a closer match obtained. Of course the same could be applied to the 600/4 and again it would take the biscuit.

EXCELLENT VIDEO!!! WAHOOO!!! I agree with you that the Canon 600mm f4.0 in some situations took better shots. Also like you, I think the that the Olympus 300mm f4.0 is a VERY CLOSE competitor! And it's so much more affordable. I have an OM Systems OM-1. However, I just upgraded to the Olympus 100-400mm f5.0-6.3 (from the Olympus 75-300mm f4.8-6.7). It is a better lens. It does not take as sharp a picture as the Olympus 300mm (or should I say that I to not take pictures as well...). A friend of mine has the Olympus 300mm paired to an OM-5. He takes outstanding pictures! At best, I am an eager amateur. I mainly shoot landscapes and plant portraits for nature scientists. I got into wildlife photography during the Covid shutdown years (I bought a backyard bird feeder....). Will I ever get the 300mm f4.0? Or the OM 150-600mm f5.0-6.3? I fear that the Olympus 150-400mm f4.5 is only a pipe dream.......for now! Cheers!

For 99.7% of the pictures I take, FF would make NO difference. I hike mountains with 2 bodies and 5 lenses and weight is a huge issue. But it’s more than just weight that matters to me. The computational features of the OM 1 fit my needs perfectly. I don’t need filters, I don’t need a tripod yet I can still get 10 second hand held shots. It’s the whole package that fits me and no other system even comes close.

You can’t compare the full frame sensor to a micro 4/3 😂😂. Let alone the big whites from Canon, dare to touch Sony 600/4 or Nikon 400TC. They are in a different league brother 😄

What the hell the 300 looked better to me most of the time!

Nice video. Thanks for sharing and I agree with your assessment. Question. On one of the side by side owl pics at 7:25, what was the crop factor (100%, 200%, etc. on the processed image that show the canon sharper? Before the last image they look almost equal.

You can`t sum it up better! You can do a lot of nice things for 10.000 euros.

The 600 blows the 300 out of the water. But I don’t know what you meant by the 6 being more hassle to use. Having a 500 to cover news and sport for my job, I could never shoot at f8 at night, f4 is a must. I also own the canon 800 f5.6 for moon images, I think you can also get an f11 equivalent but you won’t get away with that in low light

The $13,000 bokeh is well worth it.

To my eyes, the limitations are more in the camera than the lens. They are both super sharp. The Olympus is clearly more noisy due to sensor size. With the 600 on a FF camera, I bet it would significantly outperform it in lower light.

It would have been nice to compare the ISOs used. I own a G9 and a G9 II. MFT is a great format to shoot birds because you get a greater depth of field. However the compromise is that, if you need to crop in, you will have to denoise the resulting image. Not a big deal but it's an additional step in my workflow. Finally the lighter, cheaper gear is a WIN_WIN for me. How about you? Looking forward to more content from you. :))

Good vid. Agree with all. I use Olympus myself and have not regrets. However, disappointed there wasn't a low light comparison.

This was a very helpful and interesting video! The differences in your comparison really seem rather small, which is quite surprising. However, I do think this is partly due to the time of day you were shooting, with a lot of bright and sunny pictures, as well as pictures where the subjects were quite far away. The 600mm f4 shines mostly in the early hours of the day and when it gets dark. I did notice that the highlights in the 300mm shots were often close to being blown out, while the 600mm shots maintained better exposure. You did make a great point about the differences between these setups being rather small given the enormous price difference. As I am a Canon shooter, I would always go with the 600mm f4 if I had the money, but right now, I am quite happy with my RF100-500, which is a fantastic compromise for Canon shooters.

Despite the subject separation of the 600, I still found those images quite flat. The Olympus shots just popped.

I can see the quality different but you made great points about size, weight and price. Anyhow, it is nice we have options as no one would have the same fat wallet or back free problem. You did a great job comparing them.

I've been using the 300mm and the 150-400mm daily for birds and wildlife over the last 6 months. When it comes to resolution and sharpness, I can't tell the difference between these two lenses. The big white lens obviously has the zoom advantage which I find I don't use as much as I thought. I guess for video it's essential. Because of its size and weight - the 300mm is far better for travel and shooting in local parks etc. Glad I have the 150-400mm but the 300mm with the 1.4 converter is just as sharp at 840mm and more convenient. The biggest advantage for me with the OM System setup is I can easily shoot 1/50sec at 1000mm f5.6 and get tack sharp shots. It's amazing.

The OM Systems 300 f4 actually seemed just a tiny bit sharper to me than the Canon 600mm f4 in many of the photos which I found surprising. However, I know that changes as the light falls off and conditions favor the Canon. If you find yourself wanting to shoot in the predawn or twilight hours of the day the Canon is the lens you're going to want. But, for me at least, the portability of MFT gear is a great advantage in its own way. I'm grateful I live in a time that offers photographers such sophisticated options.

The only big difference that I see in some photos is that in the OM the grain, noise is much more noticeable, especially in the shadows and that the backgrounds also do not appear as blurred as in the Canon. I suppose that in good lighting conditions the difference in grain is not noticeable, but when it is necessary to use high ISO there is a loss of quality in the small sensor.

After using the 300mmf4 pro for 2 years, i enjoyed the om system so much I upgrade to the 150400pro instead of going FF.

nice comparison, I would pic 300/f4 anytime, excellent combination of size and IQ

honestly surprised, noise was the main downfall of the mf3 system. NOT worth the extra 10K unless you ARE a RENOUNED, and ESTABLISHED wildlife photographer that can write that thing off on your taxes. Then sure, but otherwise I'd be happy with the other combo!

z50 + z 400mm f4.5 look at the weight & reach

No competition, the 600, hands down for image quality. The bokeh alone makes an image a toss or keep. I feel like I need to balance out all the comments saying they could barely notice a difference but I would take the 600 images in every case for a 24x36 print. I wouldnt even keep any of the images from the 300. Furthermore, the 600 is harder to get good images with but if you implement good technique the results will have an even wider difference. If this was comparing a faster 400 lens, for instance the 100-400 mkII then it might be a closer competition and much easier to balance the very slight loss in image quality with the benefits of portability and versatility of zoom. Far away low quality photos are not where you want to compare these. It is far more intimate when you can see the structure inside an owls eye vs just a yellow iris.

An interesting comparison though for two widely different budgets. I think comparing the Olympus with the Canon 600mm F/11 would illustrate what m43 offers: feel & build quality

I've just purchased an OM-5 with the 12-45 and the 12-200, and for the money, it is an amazing system. If I find myself doing more and more wildlife, my plan is to get the 100-400. The size and weight saving of the OM Systems is amazing.

I don't see any more detail or contrast on the 600mm just more background blur. I guess if you're only shooting with ~20MP go with the MFT version but for higher resolution maybe the 600 has a benefit? Not $10k of benefit unless you're literally shooting for National Geographic >.>

I just returned from a trip to Europe and had the 300, 12-40, 40-150 and OM-1 plus other stuff in my carry-on backpack, weighing 7kg total.

Color saturation looks better on the OM

I'll take an EF 600 F/4 and save some money.

Agree. Optical bokeh is dead

Alex, great video. I love my Olympus 300 and am renting the 150-400 for a trip to Costa Rica next February.

Not going to watch the video because the title is ridiculous and you misspelled Canon.

What a great video, thanks! Such a fair and reasonable conclusion 👏👏👏

Bokeh and noise are the main giveaways of the 300 f4. The higher ISO due to the f8 eq, is making the 600mm look glorious,

firstly, the 2 cameras are NOT similar. 20mp on a 4/3 camera is equivalent to roughly 80mp FF. Comparing the OM-1 20mp 4/3 to the 24mp R6II full frame sensor is not a fair comparison in terms of resolution of detail. Even comparing it to the R5/R5II isn't fair. You are already hobbling the Canon RF 600f4 lens by doing this. Secondly, the 4/3 lens will NEVER have the same background blur as the FF 600f4. If that's not important to you, then fine. I rarely shoot wide open anyway, but some people do. You can get excellent background/subject separation and background blur when shooting at f8 with a bit White prime if you know what you are doing. The RF 600f4 is also inferior optically to the EF600f4 II lens btw. The OM lens seems to have more contrast/micro-contrast and 1 thing that I have learned is that this can make an image appear sharper. The OM lens also seems to have a colour cast (I guess this could be camera, rather than lens related). This is another thing that I have learned from 18 months with my R3 - WB can also impact upon image sharpness. It's a pseudo image thing, but the brain is a very funny thing when it comes to viewing and processing optical data. With the owl shots, the Canon setup looks more colour accurate and sharper too. But, that's how MY eyes perceive the optical data. The Canon AF system seemed to be less affected by the falling snow too (you see the OM system pulse a lot more). For me personally, the Canon setup helps draw attention to the subject due to the background being shallow and out of focus. The OM system's more in focus background detracts from the subject of the image(s). Again, ymmv. I think you've exhibited some user bias here and not been fully impartial, or logical in your testing process. re-do the test with a R5 and the RF 600f4 and compare the results. The OM-1 simply has more pixels on the subject and will always have greater resolution. Is the OM system good? Yes. If I was starting out afresh, I would probably go with the OM-1 and 300f4 - size, weight and cost are big factors. I'm an older guy, with a not so great lower back. I've adapted to lugging around my R3 and EF 500f4 mark 1 + 1.4x TC, but a lighter solution wouldn't hurt.

The bokeh on the Canon is lovely. And it's sharp. But I sold my full frame Canon gear simply because it's too much to lug around. Not just hiking and birding - but travel too. The OM1 and the 300mm F4 has produced some lovely images for me and its ability to follow focus on BIF is excellent. Sure, noise is up, dynamic range is a little less. But, the keeper ration of sharp bird photos is better. Also, in recent years, the AI tools can really help with bokeh and noise. Yeah, I know that's true for FF stuff also - and you can crop more. If I was 25 years younger then maybe I'd lug that 600mm around. Maybe....

Nice good comparison, 👍

Uh, big white "lens" is not what I thought was gonna come outta your mouth. 🤣 I'd stick with the smaller lens also... Trying to out run a grizzly with that big lens would be a real bear... bada bing 🥁 🥁...I kill myself 😂🤣

great video ... 600 f4 is hard to beat or to come closer. Just my opinion.

Age and injury precludes big heavy lenses for me. Currently use canon r7 with pro 400 ef lenses. The r7 is disappointing if the rumoured r7 2 does not fix the problems I will switch to the om1 with the 100- 400 and 300 pro which will give me the same versatility as may current set up.

Flippy screen is the most annoying thing when shooting handheld wildlife. Especially when you have a camera strap.

Sorry, but anyone that can’t see the *very* stark difference between the bokeh and over all image quality that the Canon 600 produced over the OM 300 either needs glasses or to just stick with their iPhone or Android’s camera.….

Super-pro Andy Rouse switched from Canon to Olympus (OM Systems now) years ago. He hasn't looked back. Super-super pro Sebastian Salgado used to maximise depth of field (opposite of subject separation) "because that's how the human eye sees". He often used a Canon 70-300L at f11 to capture things as he thought they should naturally look. No need for large apertures or massive teles.

This pictures are incredible

Moved to OM Systems/Olympus last year from Nikon DSLRs. My D500 and D850 with pro glass have served me well and I occasionally still use them, but I have more fun with the MFT gear. Smaller, better computational features, weather sealed, less expensive lenses without a loss in quality. The Oly 300mm f4 is the sharpest lens I own. An example of excellent engineering. The Oly 150-400 would be a dream lens to own...maybe after my kids complete college and I payoff my home mortgage....LOL

I have the OM1 with the 300 mm f 4 MC14 and MC20. Works super well with both tc but anyway I ve always considered the OM SYSTEM just “a toy system” something you can carry on easily but it’s just so far comparing with the FF quality, far far away I would say. Anyway it’s a great comparison even it’s not the “fair one” due the systems differences. Best all!

I like the color better on the OMS stuff better too. I have an R5 system and an OM-1 mkII system. When I go out the door, I tend to grab the OM-1. ps: I also have the 150-400 f/4.5 and will probably be buried with it as I will never let it go.

I am really surprised, I thought the 600mm would blow away the 300 out of the water in truth 300 is a bit more Sharper than 600 although bokeh is more pleasing in 600.

Thanx for the Video! But in my opinion the 300mm f4 is the sharper lens. I compair it again and again in 100%…

Olympus ❤

That was hard to see a difference. I agree with you. I met a hiker once in Canada with what must have been a lens like the Canon 600. It was a monster! I asked how much it weighed and he said about 10 lbs. and that was only camera and lens. I can't imagine hiking any significant distance with that but I know people do. I would take the Olympus.

Great comparison the 600 F4 Canon blows the OM1 out of the water when it comes to image quality but your comparing full frame to what the OM1 has so thats unfair to say the OM1 is not good or the 600 is better there both amazing kits the 600 f4 is def sharper on the R series Canon gear. Again great comparison.

Well... i shoot Oly, but i don't have the 300 f/4 - i have the earlier ZD 300 f/2.8 - Big Tuna - (4/3 adapted to a 1X) which is such a likable 3.6kg lump of metal and glass, and so useful for what i do with its faster aperture, that there's no way i'd sacrifice it. So, with no experience of either of the lenses featured here, and just going off the screen, i felt the Canon images were, in most (but not all) cases, noticeably superior. I'm confident i'd pick them out if they were all mixed together and unlabeled. That said, if i only saw the Oly shots on their own, i'd consider them to be perfectly good. Would i want the Canon - not for what i do. I shoot in harsh and rugged environments and dragging that thing through a rainforest would be a PITA - it's exhausting enough getting all tangled up with the gear i've got. Good vid to see, anyway, and i'm looking forward to the 150-400 which does seem to have a bit going for it.... Cheers and all the best.

Nice video, completely agree with you. The difference is minimal and mostly in the background blur in some images and a bit in noise. In fact for some images I preferred the Olympus setup, for others the Canon. For me the portability and flexibility is more important than maybe 10% extra in image quality. In addition, for extra 10K you can travel to many amazing places.....

Nice one. These lenses on a GH7 would be interesting.

I personally did not see a $10,000 advantage in the Canon. For me at my age I cannot see myself ever carrying a near 7lb lens around for nature photography. I owned the 300f4 and the 3.25lbs seemed heavy enough for me. The 150-400 is only a dream lens for me. The 150-600 is probably the longest lens I can afford unless I get the 200-600 for my sony. But I honestly would never trust my Sony out in bad conditions. Gotta hand it to Olympus and OM systems. Their gear is rugged.

As a user of both the 300 and 150-400 OM lenses I saw nothing to tempt me to switch to a 600 f4. Yes there is a difference but the 600 f4 is too heavy for the way I operate which involves a lot of walking. We have choices and that is good.

If you do not trust me, ask your wife. She will confirm, bigger is better 😉

Great video! Good ol' #399 is the most photographed grizzly alive. Do you know why she is always found near the road with her cubs?

beautiful video. I am aware that the man/woman behind the camera makes the difference, I completely agree with your final conclusion. There are differences in favor of the Canon set up, but they do not outweigh the advantages of the Om system, which is much lighter in weight and size, and in the bargain also significantly cheaper to purchase.❤

never regreted the choice for olympus / OM system since first purchase in 2011.... the bigger sensor is better guys can run around like a mule spending there last breath how good there white primes are :-)

It's not magic. That 300mm f/4 is not a 600mm f/4 in any way. They may give you the same field of view in their respective formats, but they are NOT the same magnification. Conversely and strangely, nobody ever compares the formats in this way: The Nikon 400mm f/4.5 lens is a "field of view" 4/3 equivalent to a 200mm lens. If you're using a Nikon Z8 or Z9, you can crop your image to the 4/3 equivalent field of view of 400mm and still make a better print than you'd get from a print from that OM camera (it's been proven). So, via cropping, you have a considerably cheaper and lighter, theoretical 200mm - 400mm f/4.5 zoom lens. And no, I'm not a full frame or Nikon fan boy. I was very recently in the market for a completely new camera system, and had my choices narrowed down to OM Systems (because of the 150-400mm lens) and Nikon. I simply finally decided on Nikon for the above reasons.

It would be interesting to see the OM-1 II with the 300 compared aginst the Nikon Z8 and 600pf. That comparison would be relevant because size, weight and price would be very comparable and you would be shooting the same focal length with 2/3 stop difference. At that point when cost, size and weight differences are negated and the Nikon has a 2/3 stop advantage what do you choose then? Ok after a bit of quick math the OM kit looks to be about $5,000 and the Nikon $7,000. The OM weighs .9lbs less where the Nikon will have a 2/3 stop aperture advantage and just over double the resolution. Sounds like you get your money out of the extra $2,000. I’m not looking to argue against OM I like their stuff but I think the Nikon PF lens options really take a bite out of the OM portability positioning.

I think the justification of owning big primes in today’s world is becoming less and less of a necessity comparing to say ten years ago. Full frame big primes will give you better subject separation and a little better image quality but the noise factor is becoming less and less of an issue with the advancement of AI Denoise softwares. The advantage of producing cleaner images can now be achieved with smaller sensors now with those technologies

What's the actual difference between manfrotto and manbilly? 🤔

One of the weirder apples to oranges comparisons I've seen. That said none of the RU-vid photographers ever factor in the user capability into the reviews. I've seen loads of people buy a 600 and have no skill, and make terrible images with them and then someone with skill outshoot them with lesser kit.

If you’re shooting midday and hiking long distances this looks like a great setup, but the difference between f4 and f8 (FF equiv) is very noticeable. The background on MFT is distracting and looks more like a snapshot. Granted most people aren’t going to spend the money for a big f2.8/4 prime, but legacy glass is more financially accessible. I think a happy medium is one of the 200-600 f5.6-6.3 zooms or the Nikon 400 f4.5 on FF or APSC. I just don’t see tremendous value in MFT unless you’re always hiking 3-5+ miles or a weak senior citizen.

I agree about of those pictures I preferred the Olympus if I’m honest. I’m not a pro by any means and have been shooting with the 100-400 but my aim is to get the 300 f 4 next for definite. Beautiful photos by the both of u. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

Love my Olympus M.Zuiko 300mm f/4 pro and OM-1. Would love to get the 150-400!!

I've been using the 300/4 for almost a year now, and I can't find any downsides of this lens. It's really impressive how no matter the lighting conditions, it's always extremely sharp, while not suffering from any aberrations. What's even more impressive that they were able to reach (or maybe even surpass) this level of quality with their 150-400.

It wasn't even close. There was a significant difference between those lenses. Although the OM systems did well, the Canon setup was miles ahead.

300mm f4 was to me the same . Therefore, I would choose it.

I would choose that large white thingy. It would look cooler on me .

Nailed it!

That 300 is crazy strong.

what a great review! The 300mm had a great showing.

Another great video, Alex. Do you use the MC14 with the 300mm f4? I have been using that combo recently and getting some great results