What you need to remember from that list up there, that was before the firmware update to the EM1x. So it's more than likely it's improved from that already. That was version 1. The Sony's really are freaks at it though.
Danny.
What you need to remember from that list up there, that was before the firmware update to the EM1x. So it's more than likely it's improved from that already. That was version 1. The Sony's really are freaks at it though.
I will hopefully in the future find a less than $2,000 near new A9, as paired with my Sony 100-400 GM f4.5-5.6 and 1.4X tc, and possible a 2.0 tc, it would be an awesome kit for what I would shoot with it, mostly airshows, BIF, wildlife and surfers. I looked at the 200-600, but want the compactness for traveling of the 100-400. In the meantime I use my trusty D500 and Nikon 15+ year old 70-200 f2.8 V1 and 300 f4 AFS lenses along with a 1.4 and 1.7 Nikon tc, they just work. While not listed in the above lists that was mirrorless only, here are Matheiu's results he put in the comments when asked how the D500 stacked up against the A9 a year ago. It would be the 2nd best behind the A9's.
When I can purchase an a6400 and 200-600mm on special here in Australia for not much more than just the 300mm f4 it makes me give the option serious consideration. I shoot surfing off a monopod so weight is a non issue also mostly shoot in good light. Having 24mp and 900mm eq with better autofocus seems to tick lots of boxes for me.
I would have thought D500 is up there sharing top spot with A9. May be D5/D6 are.
Agree it's hard choice to ignore.
The Panasonic 100-400 would be on my radar if the price for the Olympus 150-400 is out of reach, it would be a great complement to my 40-150 f2.8 Pro. How has the 100-400 worked out for you overall, has it worked OK with the EM1.2 and AF? I only ask as while my Nocticron 42.5 f1.2 has worked fine with my EM1 and now EM1.3, minus of course the OIS, I had bad luck with my G9 and the 40-150 f2.8 when the MC-14 tc was added to the mix. Alone the 40-150 worked OK, but when the tc was added the G9 AF ceased to function properly and my hit ratio dropped to less than 10%. I am a bit hesitant as a result of mixing the 2 brands again, as I plan on selling the G9 and the 100-400 would be mounted to the EM1.3.
That’s a good point. I don’t get many AF misses with my X at all, which always makes me scratch my head with posts like these. I’m sure Sony is better, but if I get one shot out of a dozen slightly off, I’m not going to sweat it.
I found the same when I tried to use my 40-150 with the TC on my G85. Now I have bodies and lenses from both camps and having a few problems I try not to mix and match.
Possibly lens copy variation, seems to be a problem with Mu-43 lenses, and of course user skill / usage.
I used the PL 100-400 with the E-M1 MKII on a bird photography expedition in Lapland. It was certainly sharp enough, lightweight, and the zoom range was very nice; but the lack of compatibility with advanced Olympus features really bothered me. I’d miss that compatibility even more with the X. My wife was also using it on the original E-M1, which doesn’t have those features, and it was perfectly fine. I’ll probably sell it when the new Oly super telephoto zooms come out.
I'm perfectly happy (well could always ask for more
) with the combination.
Was this due to the lens mount being loose, or maybe too tight, and it could not fit properly on the EM1.2?I'm perfectly happy (well could always ask for more
I've handheld to 1/13th second with it. I am amazed at how well just the Panasonic image stability is.....
I've had 2 100-400 lenses. First one just fell off one day and wrecked itself.
Had other about 3 weeks. Can't notice any difference.
Autofocus is excellent majority of time but poor light tests it.......
Hope that helps. I would expect the G9 and 100-400 would be better matched but looking at others photos and respective combinations I'm sure either would be able to match quality in the right hands.
I thought the same thing when I first saw them and in fact thought the Oly photos were maybe ever so slightly sharper when looking at fur and such. But to your point, if you mixed all the photos up and asked me to pick which camera too which photo, it would be a totally random guess as the way they appear on this web site at this size, there is really nothing different between them when looking at each pair and certainly what little tiny differences might be picked out could be due to many other random (non camera) related factors such as photographer moving, animal moving, slight change in lighting between shots, focus point ever so slightly different on one from the other, etc.
Oops. Sorry, should have saidThat does help, thank you! But you left a big question about the 100-400 lens falling off
Exactly the point I wanted to make and you beat me too it.
