this one shows more focus throughout the image than some of the others. I'll be interested to see how your upgraded lenses will fare in the future. Your canon shots were always tack sharp! not a criticism, just an observation.

Thanks Gregory & Verena! I appreciate you left your thought on this since that's what I need. I am generally happy with this setup at this point but as you have noticed, these images are not bad but the Canon is a notch better. Partly, you get what you pay for and I actually got a lot for what I pay for with this little lens (LOL!). I paid $355 + $10 for the UV filter for this Lumix 100-300mm (Note that it's not an m.zuiko Olympus lens) and the Canon is a $6000 lens. That's one reason! The second reason the Canon image will generally better is because I normally try to get fullframe shot on the 1.6 cropped sensor Canon 7D Mark II and the 500mm on 1.6 cropped sensor has the equivalent view of 800mm. This little Lumix lens at 300mm is only 600mm equivalent view and I can not get frullframe shot most of the time. So, the images from this Olympus OMD-EM1 Mark II is generally cropped a bit more than images from the Canon, On top of that, you figure even a fullframe image on this 2x cropped camera is till probably 30-40% smaller than those images from the 1.6x cropped sensor, Not untill I can get the m,zuiko 100-400mm or m.zuiko 150-400mm (a $7500 lens) then images from this setup is still playing catch up in some way. However, cost wise, this setup (at this point) is about 1/8 the price of the Canon setup (camera & lens) and from that perspective it's very impressive. Especially, this fast little camera is for sure slower in focus compares to the Canon setup.

[[show-photo-18663033]]

 

Gregory & Verena! Thought I attach this Canon image and I am sure we both can see the Canon image is sharper and .. better :-)

Hi TmJ,

 

great photo of this female northern shoveler! Having read your reply to Gregory and Verena, I must say I acknowledge the Canon setup's superiority, but understand at the same time how well the Oly's setup with the Lumix zoom performs for its price range. I wonder if you could attach cheaper high quality lenses to the Olympus by using an adapter; I think of lenses like the Canon EF 400 mm 5.6 L or the Sigma 150-600 mm 5.0-6.3, which I could recommend. They are both relatively light lenses. Kind regards, Vincent

Thanks Vincent! Good to hear from you! Yes, you can attached any EF mount lens to this 4/3 camera with an EF to MFT adapter. I actually have 2, one is a Kipon and the other one is a recently bought Viltrox. I bought the Viltrox when my curiosity of 'what a booster adapter ' actually does ? This Viltrox has a .71 booster lens in it and it suppose to lower the cropped factor and also allow lower f-stop. Both of them works fine with my Canon 500mm F4 and even with the 1.4x mounted (I was shooting at 1400mm - 500mm X 1.4 = 700mm and on the 2X 4/3 camera it's 1400mm) . The problem that drive me to buy the Lumix 100-300mm is that when you shoot through an adapter it's either single focus or slow continuous focus. It's fine for shooting landscape and possibly people but not bird in-flight. Funny you mention about using cheaper EF mount lens since that what I was also thinking of acquiring (a Tamron 150-600mm) but decided against that since I know I won't be able to catch image like this one at all. Now that I've just bought the Olympus 100-400mm that cost $950 (almost new) I think it's not too bad considering the Tamron (used once) that I was looking at cost $1100. As for the Lumix 100-300mm (I paid $355 + $10 for the filter), it's brandnew and that's as cheap as it gets. When you consider I got this image with a $365 lens then it's amazing. I only pay $600 for the Olympus OMD-EM1 Mark II (with the battery grip included). It's amazing to me that I can get image like this for under $1000 . Now that I have the Olympus 100-400mm that match the 800mm reach of my Canon setup, I think I can closely match the Canon quality even with 32% less in sensor area and slightly slower continus auto focus.

Hi TmJ,

 

what a good reply to what I wrote! I see the issue with the adapters now; then the Oly 100-400 mm will probably be your best affordable option. Kind regards, Vincent

Hi Vincent! The feeling is mutual, I would say what a good inquisition, suggestion from you such that through our communicating dialog we both can see the issue with more clarity. You said exactly what I thought to myself about the m.zuiko 100-400mm. I was not going to buy anything after the Lumix 100-300mm and stay put to see how far I can push that lens but then the price for the 100-400m was too attractive and I thought to myself that since I probably won't be able to buy the $7500 150-400mm lens then I should buy this one and then stay put :-) . Now, I have to look into selling some of my old, unused Canon & Sony gears.. I also bought the m.zuiko 12-200 (that's 24-400mm in fullframe format) and my thinking is that with just 2 lenses I can go anywhere and shoot from 24mm to 1120mm ( I aready have a 1.4x and 800mm with 1.4x is 1120mm). That 1120mm reach is very much the same as my 500mm + 1.4x on the 1.6X cropped sensor of the Canon, btw.