My Recent Bird Photography Road Trip; Which Served Me Better, The X-H2S With The 150-600mm Lens Or The OM-1 With The 100-400mm lens?

This Great Egret was sitting on a branch at the top of a small tree.  (click to enlarge)
OM-1; 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 @ 400mm; 1/16ooth sec. @ f/6.3; ISO 200

Recently I wrote in this post about my mid-December Eastern Shore of Virginia annual bird photography road trip.  That particular post was all about my unusual and extensive encounter with a beautiful red fox. You may find it interesting.  Besides enjoying the company of two close photographer friends, the opportunity to photographing birds and wildlife as well as wandering through small towns (one of my favorite things to do) of the Eastern Shore looking for unique subjects,  my primary 'gear' goal was to figure out which of my two long telephoto zoom camera/lens systems would work better for me when it comes to successfully capturing those elusive creatures.  

I currently own both a Fujifilm X-H2S onto which I couple the brilliant Fujifilm 150-600mm f/5.6-8 lens as well as an OM-1 onto which I attach the excellent Olympus 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 lens.  Both of these combinations work very well for my skill level for the few times a year I go out to photograph birds and wildlife.  If I were primarily a bird and wildlife photographer, I would probably invest in much more expensive gear.  But I'm not and I'm not willing to spend the money necessary to buy top of the line gear for just a few outings a year.  But, for me, the question remained.  How well would each of these combinations serve me on this trip and, if one is better than the other, which one?

I believe this to be a juvenile Black Crowned Night Heron sitting deep in the brush along
side a small canal. (click to enlarge)
Fujifilm X-H2S; 150-600mm f/5.6-8 lens @ 600mm; 1/1000th sec. @ f/9; ISO 640

First, I have to say that both of these combinations worked well.  It is mostly me that doesn't work as well I should.  The cameras are fast, the autofocus is fast and the lenses sharp.  Prior to leaving home, I set up each camera (they both have a number of AF parameters to increase the ability of the AF system to find and lock-on to various types of subjects) as best I could based upon suggestions of other photographers who have tested or used both systems.  After the road trip was over, I came to suspect with some additional changes, my 'hit rate' could have climbed a bit higher.  Having a 'hit rate' a bit less than one would like (not expect as my expectations were not very high) is what happens with lack of frequency of practice and evaluation.

This very elusive Belted Kingfisher finally settled down for a short time on a distant branch. 
It sat there just long enough for me to make a few exposures before it took flight. (click to enlarge)
Fujifilm X-H2S; 150-600mm f/5.6-8 lens @ 600mm; 1/1000th sec. @ f/9; ISO 640

One thing I tried to do as much as I could for this comparison was use both camera systems on the same subject under the same conditions.  I wanted the comparison to be as direct as possible.  Fortunately, I was able to accomplish that in many instances.

With the Fujifilm system, over three days, I shot 785 images of birds-in-flight, wading birds, shore birds, ducks, herons, geese and egrets in water and in trees and small song birds, etc., using this combination.  Out of those 785 image files, I found 575 'pin sharp'—about 73%.  When I refer to 'pin sharp,' I am speaking that a bird's eye was as sharp as it could be.  Another 10% or so, about 75 image files (just an estimate), the focus on the eye just missed by a tad.  However, to put it in better perspective, those 'just missed' images looked fine if not examined at 100% on a computer monitor.  At 100%, you could see the AF just missed.  Each of those 'just missed' image files could be made 'pin sharp' if run through one of the image sharpening programs such as Topaz Photo AI or Sharpen AI.  Very few of my images were seriously out of focus.  In those cases the camera jumped to the background (busy foliage) closely behind the bird instead staying on the bird.  Again, very few.  

Out of all of the birds and the various situations in which I photographed them, there weren't any static, flying or moving situations in the sequences of several images I made where I didn't get at least several 'pin sharp' usable images.  So, the ones that were not 'pin sharp' didn't cause me to be unsuccessful in capturing a particular composition.  Just to be clear, I'm okay with that 'hit rate' as I said, my skill level and practice level is not as good as if I did this regularly.  I think the 'hit rate' potentially could have been higher with different AF settings and more skill on my part.  But I don't know for sure.

The Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge is mostly famous for its wild ponies.  They were made
popular by the Margaret Henry book, "Misty of Chincoteague."  One of my companions counted
24 ponies out grazing in one spot.  Every summer, the Chincoteague Volunteer Fire Department
rounds up the ponies, drives them to swim across the channel to the town of Chincoteague,
then auctions off several to raise money for fire department operations. (click to enlarge)
Fujifilm X-H2S; 150-600mm f/5.6-8 lens @ 600mm; 1/1000th sec. @ f/8; ISO 1250

As for the OM-1 and 100-400mm lens, everything I just wrote about the Fujifilm camera and lens can also be applied to the OM system.  With the OM system combination I shot 1593 images and 1096 were 'pin sharp.'  Again, another 10% or so, maybe 150, the AF just missed by a tiny bit.  The hit rate for this combination is about 69%.  

I consider both percentages as subjective as I examined the image files.  With a few different choices of what is 'pin sharp,' the percentages could have varied up or down slightly.  I was very critical in my evaluation.  At this point, I call it a draw as not all compositions were equal.  It was impossible to shoot identical images with both cameras all of the time so one camera or the other may have had more of the really 'difficult' situations to capture.  

Again, I can live with both percentages and, again, there weren't any sequences where all of the images lacked sharp focus and in every case, there were several 'pin sharp' images that I can publish.  Also, I don't know why I shot so many more images with the OM than the Fujifilm.  It just worked out that way. 

One thing I did find very helpful was the extra 100mm reach of the Fujifilm lens.  The Olympus lens has a 35mm equivalent of 200-800mm and the Fujifilm lens has a reach of 228mm-912mm (the APS-C multiplier is actually 1.52 not 1.5).  On the other hand, the Olympus lens is 2/3 of a stop faster at maximum focal length.  A wash?  Which advantage is more important?  You decide.

So, which one served me better?  Well, there are a few other factors to consider, not just autofocus.  One of the main factors, in my opinion, is the experiential usability when actually out in the field.  How easy is one combination to use versus the other?  How did each system's IBIS work?  Is the image quality better in one than the other?  How about noise in low light?  Which is better at high ISO?  Which seemed to find focus more quickly?  Which locked on the subject better and stayed on the subject better?  How heavy are they?  How cumbersome are they?  Was using one or the other more intuitive?  Lots of questions.  I can't answer them all but here are some of my thoughts.

For me, the OM-1 was easier to use in the fact that if I needed to make instant changes in settings, it was easier for me to do so.  Also, the OM-1 and 100-400mm lens seemed to find and lock-on focus more quickly.  Additionally, that combination is more compact than the Fujifilm combination.  However, the 100-400mm lens didn't feel as well made, the zoom action was much stiffer and required more rotation as the lens physically extends.  I found it harder to zoom in or out when needed.

I believe this is a Sanderling scurrying to avoid the incoming Atlantic Ocean wave while looking
for some food.  Early in the morning I caught this one with both feet in the air!  (click to enlarge)
OM-1; 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 @ 400mm; 1/16ooth sec. @ f/6.3; ISO 250

The Fujifilm system was a bit more cumbersome to use in that when needing to change settings, it took some thinking.  It didn't seem as intuitive for me.  That just may be my fault for lack of practice and continuous use.  I normally use the X-T5 and only take out the X-H2S for these types of occasions.  I was not as familiar with its controls as I was with the OM-1's controls.  So there's that.  The 150-600mm lens was a joy to use.  It is professionally built, has a short-throw internal zoom and focused quickly.  One thing I noticed was that the focus point, even though I had 'bird subject detection' turned on and set to be more 'sticky' than free to refocus, would jump to other areas or subjects frequently.  That is baffling.  For example, I would see a large bird such as a Great Egret with its bright yellow eyes in good light, place the focus point over the head of the bird and the 'eye detect' would pick up the eye for a few shots, but then start wandering around to the body of the bird or even off the bird at times.  The OM-1 did not do that.  It stayed on the bird's eye or head depending upon the head's position.  Fujifilm needs another serious update to their AF as well as their subject detect system, in my opinion.  While we're there, the OM could as well.  Both could be better even though not $6000 US cameras.

Both systems' IBIS worked flawlessly.  Really no difference.  Also, I saw no difference in overall image quality.  I think more pixels, such as 40-45mp, would be nice to be able to seriously crop in when a bird or animal is far away (and many of them are very far away) but for general closer photography, 20-26mp is enough for most everything I'll need to do with my images.  As for noise, digital noise seemed to be about the same from both cameras when the composition was properly exposed even at very high ISOs, such as ISO 10,000 and above.  However, using DXO Deep Prime XD noise reduction on files of the same subject in the same conditions at ISO 12,800, after processing the OM images showed more detail than the Fujifilm files.  I plan on a follow-up post about the digital noise and results after noise reduction for both of these systems in the near future.

Neither camera system is too big nor too heavy.  The OM combination is a bit smaller and lighter than the Fujifilm system.  The OM combination weighs in at 60.65 oz. (1719g) and the Fujifilm is about 32% heavier at 79.92 oz. (2266g).  If weight is a factor, that 1/3 weight increase may be significant to you.  But neither were too heavy nor cumbersome for me and I'm 72 years old.  So you young whippersnappers shouldn't have any issues at all with either.

I've never seen a Harrier before.  We spotted this one hunting over the wetlands and I was able
to capture several images of it.  Its flight was very erratic as it looked for prey. (click to enlarge)
OM-1; 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 @ 400mm; 1/2500th sec. @ f/6.3; ISO 800

So, which one is the winner?  Neither.  No clear winner.  I don’t think there is much of a statistical difference in the hit rates of the cameras.  Each has its strong points as well as drawbacks, but each combination is a very good value for anyone who doesn't want to spend an arm and a leg for a Sony A1 and 200-600mm lens or a Nikon Z9 with the 180-600mm lens or a Canon R5 with a Canon 100-500mm lens or buy any 600mm f/4 lens.  My two systems are moderately priced (IMHO) and work well for someone like me who, on occasion, likes to get out and photograph birds and wildlife.  In the past, I owned the Olympus 300mm f/4 lens, which is faster and is wicked sharp, but again the price has risen about $500 since I last owned it (currently a list price of $3000 US) and a single focal length reduces flexibility.

I believe this is a Lesser Yellowlegs looking for breakfast. (click to enlarge)
OM-1; 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 @ 400mm; 1/1600th sec. @ f/6.3; ISO 1000

I was hoping one would be the clear winner as I planned on selling the other long lens as I don't need two.  Well, I'm not there yet.  I need more time and more evaluation before I decide.  I did mention to one of my friends that, when in a hurry, I tended to pick up the OM system instead of the Fujifilm system.  I think that is because I use that camera much more often than the X-H2S and could make settings changes more quickly.  Also, I think a psychological factor is that when fast action was all of a sudden before me, I knew that OM would better stay locked on to the moving subject.  

Then there is the probability that both OM and Fujifilm will either give us some updated firmware to better the AF systems or, in their next cameras, give us the same level of subject detection as now exists in those very expensive cameras I named.

Let me wrap up by saying that neither of these camera and lens combinations are mediocre.  Both are very good systems.  Neither are undesirable.  Both are worth buying and using depending upon your personal preferences.  Both produced excellent images.  I had fun using both of them which, as I just wrote, complicates the decision of which to keep and which to pass on to someone else to enjoy.  

I thought this was an interesting pose by this Great Egret.  Both cameras
did well with dynamic range as they were able to capture the textures
of the bright white feathers as well as the bird's dark surroundings. Neither
camera blew out the white feathers on any of my images. (click to enlarge)
Fujifilm X-H2S; 150-600mm f/5.6-8 lens @ 467mm; 1/1000th sec. @ f/8; ISO 640

If you have any questions or comments, please leave them below or email me privately.  My email address can be found on my website.

Lastly, I buy all my gear and pay the same prices as do you.  I don't have any affiliate links, no 'click through' ads nor am I sponsored by anyone or get anything free or even anything to test.  That way, my opinion is unbiased in every way.  Its just me trying to better understand my gear and to pass on my opinions to others so they might be helpful in some way.

Here are some additional sample images I made with both camera systems.

This Great Blue Heron roosted on this dead tree just before sunset each evening. (click to enlarge)
Fujifilm X-H2S; 150-600mm f/5.6-8 lens @ 435mm; 1/1000th sec. @ f/7.1; ISO 2500

Early morning.  Another Great Blue Heron.  These birds are very skittish and anytime you try
to get close to one, they get out those giant wings and off they go to a safer place. (click to enlarge)
Fujifilm X-H2S; 150-600mm f/5.6-8 lens @ 155mm; 1/2500th sec. @ f/5.6; ISO 5000

I just thought this was an unusual early morning scene. (click to enlarge)
Fujifilm X-H2S; 150-600mm f/5.6-8 lens @ 467mm; 1/2000th sec. @ f/7.1; ISO 8000

I believe this is a female Mallard duck.  I liked the spot of light into which she swam. I was able
to get only two frames before she was back in the shadows. (click to enlarge)
OM-1; 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 @ 400mm; 1/1600th sec. @ f/6.3; ISO 3200

One of the red fox images I included in the post referenced in the first paragraph.  (click to enlarge)
OM-1; 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 @ 361mm; 1/2500th sec. @ f/6.3; ISO 5000

There were several Great Egrets wading in this little canal.  For whatever reason they were not
happy with each other.  One would fly in and another would then fly out.  I sat waiting for this
one to possibly fly just after another flew in and I was able to catch it just leaving the water.
I made several nice images of this bird-in-flight. (click to enlarge)
Fujifilm X-H2S; 150-600mm f/5.6-8 lens @ 192mm; 1/2500th sec. @ f/11; ISO 640

Great Blue Heron (click to enlarge)
OM-1; 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 @ 236mm; 1/1600th sec. @ f/6.1; ISO 640

Join me over at my website, https://www.dennismook.com.  

Thanks for looking. Enjoy!  

Dennis A. Mook  

All content on this blog is © 2013-2023 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.