OM-1 and 150-400 in Costa Rica

[Geo]

Just back from a 2 week holiday in Costa Rica, it wasn’t an intensive birding trip but a leisurely tour stopping at five different locations from sea level to 8,000ft., with different habitats. We did several birding tours plus a Botanic Garden tour and a snorkelling trip. Great fun.

I managed approx 15,000 pics which I have just roughly sorted. Generally I am pleased with the results but glad I took a lot of each subject as, in my opinion, the camera/lens combo should have been better.

There were a number of times when the focus drifted from ‘soft’ to ‘in focus’ then ‘soft’ again over a burst of a dozen or so pics and there were a handful of times when it took 3 or 4 secs to focus on the subject. I switched between AF-S and AF-C depending on location of subject. I don’t rate the eye AF of the OM-1 very highly, if it locked on to a Birds Eye (like the Sony A1) it would be so much better.

I live in hope that OM will do something about this one day.

The light levels were very low in the forests and I did use ISO 25600 at times, especially for the Quetzels as we arrived at the location before sunrise I’m quite pleased with the noise reduction on these images, most of which was done with Lightroom denoise.

Managed to take pics of approx 100 species, the first ones were, would you believe, House Sparrows!! A few examples below, taken hand held or using a monopod:


Lesser Violetear Hummingbird


Volcano Hummingbird


Resplendent Quetzal




Flame coloured Tanager


Yellow Throated Toucan


Scarlet Macaw


Immature Snail Kite


Spider Monkey


Capuchin Monkey


Howler Monkey - lived up to their name especially at dawn!


Two-toed Sloth


Costa Rica Sparrows!!

[Malfis]

It looks like you had a great trip and you got some good shots.

I’m also finding the AF with the big lens a bit less precise across a burst of shots than with the 300mm myself.It might have improved a bit with the recent firmware update for the lens, not really sure yet.

It sounds like it was not a photography specific trip, something I would like to do at some point as my other half is not into photography.

Bill

I’m lucky enough to also own a Sony A1 (as well as an OM1) - the eye tracking on the A1 is far ahead of the OM1.
Having said that, when I go on a safari next year I will still take the OM1/300 Pro in addition to the A1.

[Geo]

I bought the 150-400 with this trip in mind, smaller lighter and more flexible then carrying a FF 600mm f4. I'm now going to wait two or three months to see if OM do anything about the AF problems before deciding whether to go back to Sony for bird pics I miss the A1!! I might also try the Nikon Z8 with the new Z 600mm f/6.3 VR S which is quite a lot smaller and lighter. If only Sony would bring out a lens like that!

[Malfis]

Agreed, I don’t want to afford the current Sony 400 & 600mm primes - both my 200-600 and 100-400 GM are fine lenses.
Without being a bit controversial, I think the OM 150-400 deserves a slightly better body.

[Geo]

I couldn't agree more and hope OM are doing something, they have to be aware of the reviews and comments. I had the Sony 200-600 and the 100-400 and was sad to part with them and the rest of my Sony gear. The 150-400 is capable of superb IQ but, in my experience, the AF of the OM-1 leaves a lot to be desired. What I liked about the A1 was when the birds eye was found the viewfinder showed a little green box over the eye so you knew you had got the target locked.

[huwnothugh]

No photos of the house sparrows? Rare as quetzals round here . . .

[Geo]

Sparrow added, just for you!!

[huwnothugh]

Glad to see that you thought the sparrowdicks worth photographing. Happy memories.

[Keith-369]

Fabulous pictures from a place that I always wanted to visit but probably never will now.

More and then more again please.

[blackfox]

very nice considering the locale you honestly can't expect every shot to be sharp

[Geo]

I don't expect every shot to be perfect as there are a lot of variables such as camera shake when hand holding, focus point just off subject when using single point or rapid unexpected subject movement, but once focus is obtained, if it was locked it shouldn't vary in a short ½ sec burst.

[antpitta]

From our recent Colombia trip I'd agree that there is still some way to go with AF consistency/stability with the OM-1/150-400 combination. At its best it can give superb results but I found it required a lot more thought and "effort" to exceed the results I had in Costa RIca last year with the OM-1/300 combo. However it is also undoubtedly true that photography (particularly nature photography) is a while lot more challenging on a single trip to somewhere like Costa Rica where you have to deal with either very little light or too much (harsh) light and where the targets are new/exciting/different and behave (or not) in ways which we're not familiar with. And when you get down to things like hummingbirds I think you just have to accept that whatever kit you use that the vast majority of shots will "miss".

But ignoring all that you clearly managed plenty of good shots. Look forward to seeing plenty more!

[Ian]

Wow - that looks like it was a trip of a lifetime; fantastic captures!

Ian

[Geo]

Thank you Ian, it was an amazing two weeks.

[davcoll]

Beautiful set, the Quetsals look gorgeous.

Dave

[Geo]

Thanks Dave, I was a bit worried as these were taken at 25,600 ISO but they haven't turned out too bad.

[BDennis]

It looks like you had a great trip and you got some good shots.

I’m also finding the AF with the big lens a bit less precise across a burst of shots than with the 300mm myself.It might have improved a bit with the recent firmware update for the lens, not really sure yet.

It sounds like it was not a photography specific trip, something I would like to do at some point as my other half is not into photography.

Bill

[Geo]

Thanks Bill, I wasn't sure what to expect on this trip never having done anything like this before. My wife isn't a 'birder' but likes walks and she normally takes pics on her phone. For this trip I gave her my spare OM-1 and a 12-45 f4 lens so it wasn't too heavy and she took a few hundred pics. All the tours except 2 were early morning so we had the rest of the day to ourselves, it was 30℃ and humid by midday so we lazed around, short walks, beach walks and a paddle - can't swim cause of crocodiles! - or the pool, one hotel had a small pool with water from the river so it was cold - lovely! We did private travel transfers on 4 days from 1½ to 3 hours driving. If you ever want to arrange a trip I can tell you what we did in more details which might help.

[Malfis]

It looks like you had a great trip and you got some good shots.

I’m also finding the AF with the big lens a bit less precise across a burst of shots than with the 300mm myself.It might have improved a bit with the recent firmware update for the lens, not really sure yet.

It sounds like it was not a photography specific trip, something I would like to do at some point as my other half is not into photography.

Bill

I’m lucky enough to also own a Sony A1 (as well as an OM1) - the eye tracking on the A1 is far ahead of the OM1.
Having said that, when I go on a safari next year I will still take the OM1/300 Pro in addition to the A1.

[Geo]

I bought the 150-400 with this trip in mind, smaller lighter and more flexible then carrying a FF 600mm f4. I'm now going to wait two or three months to see if OM do anything about the AF problems before deciding whether to go back to Sony for bird pics I miss the A1!! I might also try the Nikon Z8 with the new Z 600mm f/6.3 VR S which is quite a lot smaller and lighter. If only Sony would bring out a lens like that!

[Malfis]

Agreed, I don’t want to afford the current Sony 400 & 600mm primes - both my 200-600 and 100-400 GM are fine lenses.
Without being a bit controversial, I think the OM 150-400 deserves a slightly better body.

[Geo]

I couldn't agree more and hope OM are doing something, they have to be aware of the reviews and comments. I had the Sony 200-600 and the 100-400 and was sad to part with them and the rest of my Sony gear. The 150-400 is capable of superb IQ but, in my experience, the AF of the OM-1 leaves a lot to be desired. What I liked about the A1 was when the birds eye was found the viewfinder showed a little green box over the eye so you knew you had got the target locked.

[robes]

I’m just back from a similar trip & was very happy with the OM1 & 150-400 (& 90) performance. Always in CAF, often with bird AI. It is a quirk that some in a burst will often be OOF, and I don't understand why that is, but I never missed the money shot because they were ALL oof.

[Geo]

I didn't have any time when all pics were out of focus but, as you say, the focus can change during a burst which simply should not happen.

Using C-AF and single point focus is not as reliable as S-AF single point. I raised this with OM and they said "When using single point and CAF mode, the camera is able to see around that point in cases of user movement and as such we recommend SAF with single point".

They are aware there is a problem, I just wish they would fix it!

[antpitta]

Have to say I found much the same - I ended up using S-AF much more often than I expected to although at least in part that was because the vast majority of time I spent in forested areas and where it was often a case of trying to get on birds moving through foliage or flitting between gaps. What I'm quite sure is that for me this seems much more a problem with the OM-1/150-400 combination as last year in similar locations I was amazed at how lightning fast and stable the AF was using the OM-1/300 (and 90% of the time with the 1.4x TC in place too). Either way you do just hope that whether it is mainly a body issue or combination of body & lens that there are fixes/upgrades to address this.

[huwnothugh]

A couple of thoughts:

1. Is the inconsistency related to image stabilisation? I Imagine the OIS in the 150-400 lens has to work harder than in the 300. Is it a just a coincidence that the YouTubers that consistently get good results with this lens use a tripod?
2. Has sample variation crept in since OMS expanded its production capacity?

[Geo]

No, it is the way C-AF has been designed to work with the OM -1. As I mentioned previously OM have admitted that C-AF actually hunts around a single focus point and the focus area can move, which it does.

[RedRobin]

First and foremost let me say what a superb set of photos you have posted in this thread. You have captured the precise moments which show their behaviour. My favourite is the Toucan.

Regarding the reports of missing sharp focus, I learnt a long time ago (years not weeks) with the 150-400mm on both the E-M1X and OM-1 that using a single point AF with C-AF is not the way to secure a high hit rate because in Continuous AF the camera is being asked to hunt and that is restricted by setting only a single AF point for its mission. If I want to use a single AF point I will always switch to S-AF.

When shooting C-AF I always switch to at least 5-point AF or more if the subject demands it. I often shoot bursts in Silent Shutter and as many as 60 images or more when following action (fast surfers or trains for example) and my hit rate is at least 95% and often 100% on the whole burst. I don't shoot birds so much these days but have not experienced focus problems when doing so if I am in the right camera settings.

But what I also do to help my sharp focus hit rate is to always shoot with Manual override plus Peaking visible : S-AF[M] or C-AF[M] and the ergonomics of the 150-400mm (also 40-150mm F/2.8 Pro) allows me to very easily fine-tune the focus with one finger on the MF ring while using Peaking. This also has the added benefit of showing the DoF peaking in the Viewfinder which you can further control with the Aperture setting. I always shoot full Manual mode including never Auto ISO.

I guess your trip happened before the lens Firmware 1.1 became available but which was the Firmware version on your OM-1?

In my opinion there is no point in photographers expecting every camera brand to be more advanced etc than another brand's feature and so being disappointed. They are all competing and playing catch up with each other.

[Geo]

Thank you for your comment on my pics, these are some of my favourites.

I have the Function lever set to change focus area from single point to small when using S-AF on Custom setting 1 and C-AF on Custom setting 2. The larger the subject the easier it is to keep focus, even with birds. The problem with birds in the jungle is that there is often a lot of twigs or foliage in the way so single point focus is a must. I appreciate your suggestion re manual override but birds can be flitting around so that could be tricky and the extra split second could lead to missed pics.

I updated the Firmware for the 150-400 before I left and the OM-1 has the most up to date.

[tmp]

some nice images here indeed.
regarding the 150-400.
the 150-400 is a tool that requires time to learn how to use. period.
before I bought the 150-400, i used the 4/300 for 6 years-ish. I was perfectly comfortable using the 2.0TC with the 4/300. I'd have the 2.0 tc attached to the 4/300 for months at a time.
I had also used the Oly 100-400 and the Sony FE 200-600. I had lots of experience with similarly sized lenses and with similar focal lengths.
when I bought the OM-1 and the "out of the box/default settings" results I got with the 4/300 were absolutley astronomical...I decided to add the 150-400. I mean I was perfectly fine and great with shooting at 600mm (1200 FF equivalent) so no worries right?
I was DEAD WRONG.
I was immediately floored at the low keeper rate I got with the new greatest ever lens, the 150-400.
I have a closet full of lenses and cameras. I've never, not once, exchanged any piece of equipment for any reason (ie. sample variation, manufacturer defect).
I was sweating bullets with the 150-400...i had the sickening idea that I may, for the first time in my life, have to actually exchange this lens (which was likely going to be impossible at the time) due to the very popular "sample variation" curse a lot of other people suffer from.
I was angry and frustrated but given that there was no way I was getting a replacement any time soon I decided to keep at it with the 150-400.
Eventually I managed a satisfactory keeper rate with the 150-400. Sure, not as high a number as with the 4/300 but no concerns. I got what I needed.

*The 150-400 is not the same tool as the 4/300. Period.* (i didn't think you had a 4/300...that was just a something for other 4/300 users that are having issues after moving up to a 150-400)

When my friend told me he was selling his Nikon birding kit for an OM-1 150-400 kit I told him to get the 4/300 instead and I offered (strongly suggested) that he at least try my 4/300.
Nope. He saw my 150-400 images and was convinced that that lens was the one for him as well.
I explained to him everything that I have explained here today.
Guess what????...he was not happy with the keeper rate of the 150-400.
He is still often times unsatisfied with his OM-1 150-400 keeper rate and it's been about 5 months.
While out shooting, standing side by side shooting the same thing, he will often say I can't get anything in focus while cursing his 150-400.
On one of those occasions I took his lens off of his camera and put it on mine...(magically?) I was instantly able to show him very sharp and crisp images from his cursed lens that he could not manage 10 seconds before.
He thanked me for proving to him that his lens actually worked well and he knew he had to simply work on his technique.
He very recently asked me to do the same thing again as he is still not quite satisfied with his keeper rate .
Another thing he does differently than me is regarding post-processing. Our identical images will often look notably different after each of our post-processing is complete. Guess who's images he tends to rate as being the better simply based on how much crisper they appear? He is also not as interested in using the best available PP software as I am. To each their own.
I am not bragging. I am stating what I believe is pertinant information.

Also, I recently noticed, and posted about it more than once here, a notable improvement in my keeper rate by using IS-1 instead of IS-Auto (that fortunate change was on my friend's advice).

-"Using C-AF and single point focus is not as reliable as S-AF single point."
that has not been my experience since the days of using Olympus' ancient 4/3 (E3 and E5) equipment.
I havent used S-AF since the E3 unless the light is low enough that C-AF is notably affected. When I am not shooting BIF my default AF Target setting is single (sm) AF Target point. I have no worries or concerns with it.
I am entirely certain that I do not have a magic camera or lens that is providing me with a satisfactory keeper rate.
I do sometimes use a 3X3 AF Target group once in a while for fun but single (sm) is my default setting.
-""When using single point and CAF mode, the camera is able to see around that point in cases of user movement and as such we recommend SAF with single point"".
that's been the case since the days of 4/3 C-AF. if the camera operator is unable to keep, or place, the AF Target on a subject/area that the AF system can bite on...yes...the AF system 'may' begin looking around elsewhere, outside of the AF box, for something to bite on. what about that suggests to you that that is something that needs to be "fixed". that is a 'user' error induced issue. the only thing i find odd is that you were told to use S-AF instead. I assume they were thinking you were using the camera in low enough light that C-AF was not working well enough and that is the only time when S-AF will work better (on a perfectly still subject though). I would never use S-AF on a living breathing moving bird and expect a satiscfactory keeper rate. a sleeping owl perhaps.
-"They are aware there is a problem, I just wish they would fix it!"
I disagree. They are aware that C-AF and S-AF works differenty and for one situation S-AF will be a better choice.

I encourage anybody to use whatever equipment they want.
there is nothing in it for me whether a complete stranger uses a Sony A1 or a Nikon or Canon or Fuji or m4/3 equipment.
iirc, the vast majority of you're posts detail problems related to the underperforming of your m4/3 equipment. it surely is high time to go back to the A1 or whatever else makes you happy.
Life is short, do what you you like.
Good luck with the Sony and or Nikon.

[antpitta]

Would tend to agree with you. It can be only to easy to blame everything on the equipment - particularly if it's expensive. Fortunately I'd both read about your (and some others) early experiences and am fully aware I'm a relative beginner so wasn't surprised I struggled to get the kind of results I'd hoped/expected to get straight away. But now I'm getting more and more decent shots I'm happy to acknowledge it was my problem more than the lens. Looking forward to seeing more improvement in the New Year!

[Geo]

Sorry but cannot agree, the only operational difference between the 300mm f4 with TC (which I also use) and the 150-400 is the bigger size, weight and balance of the latter. It's not rocket science!! What takes time to learn, for either lens depending on subject, are the AF settings on the OM-1 which are far from ideal and this has been well documented. Both lenses are capable of very good IQ and no doubt many people have problems which are related to their own technique i.e. user error and poor technique, especially when hand holding!

Before moving to Sony mirrorless I used a Nikon 600mm f4 with a D500 and rarely had any focus problems and the same with the Sony A1 plus 200-600 + TC. Once the A1 locked on it stayed locked on.


Regarding focus problems with the OM-1 when using C-AF, you may disagree as is your right, but I have discussed this in detail with OM (I presume you haven't) and, as mentioned, they recommend "When using single point and CAF mode, the camera is able to see around that point in cases of user movement and as such we recommend SAF with single point". If the C-AF didn't 'look around' there wouldn't be a problem and OM wouldn't recommend using S-AF, therefore it needs to be fixed! Nothing to do with low light levels or personal opinions.

When the subject composition and point of focus remains the same but the camera changes focus over a burst of a dozen or so pics something is clearly wrong!!

Many OM-1 users have commented that they take many more pics to make sure they have a good rate of keepers due to poor AF which, quite frankly is very sad. The OM-1 and 150-400 have the potential to be a brilliant combination but improvements are needed.

[tmp]

"Sorry but cannot agree"
-I really didn't think you would.
"the only operational difference between the 300mm f4 with TC (which I also use) and the 150-400 is the bigger size"
- I disagree.
BTW do you have a better keeper rate with the 4/300 than with the 150-400?
"the AF settings on the OM-1 which are far from ideal and this has been well documented" 
-i am more certain today that you and I have different interpretations of the words "well documented" but in any case it would seem that since you believe that OM-1's AF settings are far from ideal then you most certainly ought to go back to the Sony or the Nikon.
"Before moving to Sony mirrorless I used a Nikon 600mm f4 with a D500 and rarely had any focus problems and the same with the Sony A1 plus 200-600 + TC. Once the A1 locked on it stayed locked on."
-well fortunately those are all great options to return to (and of course they are all different tools made by different manufacturers/engineers using different technology. Good chance they work, by design, differently [as do models from the same manufactuers i hear]?)


"Regarding focus problems with the OM-1 when using C-AF, you may disagree as is your right, but I have discussed this in detail with OM (I presume you haven't) and, as mentioned, they recommend "When using single point and CAF mode, the camera is able to see around that point in cases of ------user movement and as such we recommend SAF with single point". If the C-AF didn't 'look around' there wouldn't be a problem and OM wouldn't recommend using S-AF, therefore it needs to be fixed! Nothing to do with low light levels or personal opinions."
-i may disagree? OK thanks. 
i guess it's worth mentioning that my disagreement comes from my experiences using Olympus/OM Systems' stuff which include the E1, E500, E510, E3, E5, EM5, EM1, EM1mkII, EM1X, and the OM-1 (there are more but that's enough for now i think).
that experience includes 100's of emails/hours to Olympus/OM Systems customer service agents and numerous other 4/3 and m4/3 users discussing and trying to nail down best camera settings to suit my purposes. THE ONE THING i've learned in all my time corresponding to Olympus/OM Sytems customer service agents is that they very often do not have a clue as to what advice they are dispensing.
You presumed correctly that I haven't discussed your C-AF issue with OM-Systems. I haven't because it's not an issue in my personal opinion and experience of how a camera works. 

"When the subject composition and point of focus remains the same but the camera changes focus over a burst of a dozen or so pics something is clearly wrong!!"
-Wrong in your experience with your previous tools perhaps but not mine.
i'll say this....the 'C' in C-AF stands for 'continuous". continuous auto focus. what do you expect the AF system (when C-AF is selected) is doing when the user is pressing the AF button. add to that, what happens when the AF system AF Target is not covering an area that will aid in lock-up?  at the very least i would suggest that the C-AF systems of your previous Sony, Nikon and whatever else, 'MAY' just behave a little differently with one not being in need of fixing simply because it behaves differently.   
Another question for you...when you have a bird darting around on a branch for example how many shots are you getting in focus using S-AF as opposed to C-AF?


"Many OM-1 users have commented that they take many more pics to make sure they have a good rate of keepers due to poor AF which, quite frankly is very sad."
"The OM-1 and 150-400 have the potential to be a brilliant combination but improvements are needed."
-well I agree that is sad indeed that many OM-1 users state they have poor AF. what is sad though is that's not on the OM-1 and it's not poor AF...it's users not managing expectations. 
Like I stated before, I had a rough start with the 150-400 keeper rate. I no longer do. Nothing magical or mysterious whatsoever happened. OM Systems did not comply with any demands of mine to fix the camera/lens. I did not make any demands I just worked with the tools and learned how to use them better.
I've read that many users (across all brands) have been advised to and do shoot many more pics so that they have more pics/options to choose from. I do the same. Have been for years. many users have been doing as much for much longer than me even using motor drives for film cameras back in the day.
that seems to nicely coincide with the fact that ALL manufacturers have been, for years, increasing their sequential shooting buffer sizes and fps speeds to suit that purpose.
Mike Lane explained that his A1 combo had a higher AF accuracy than his OM-1 combo. I believe him and I never used an A1 (I did use an A9 and FE200-600). However Mike explained that he received more keepers from his OM-1 combo due to it's higher fps rate.
Mike chose the OM-1 combo over the A1 combo. I didn't hear Mike also mentioning how sad he was about anything or how he was going to demand that OM Systems make 'needed' improvements to the OM-1 and fix stuff in order to make it a brilliant combo to use. 
i'll happily take improvements that make my shooting experience better. i still find it strange though that some use a brilliant combination as is and some do not and instead suggest that improvements are needed to the equipment.   
this, your latest, reply is in the same spirit as most of your others detailng how the OM-1 is an inferior tool in your opinion and experience. i don't understand why you simply do not move on. I most certainly would move on if my OM-1 caused me to suffer with the same issues you claim to suffer with. If the G9II would have have bested the OM-1 for what I require from a camera I would have bought it. I wouldn't have suggested that the OM-1 sucked eggs and the G9II did not though. I would have simply stated that there was enough of a gain from the G9II to make the change warranted.
Good luck with Sony or Nikon.

[RedRobin]

I must say that I am surprised by some of the comments in this thread which express such strong disatisfaction with the 150-400mm TC Pro and especially when comparing it with the 300mm F/4 Pro. The 150-400mm is every bit as sharp and I find the hit rate even in really long bursts to be very high indeed (as I have already described).

Of course the 300mm F/4 Pro is a cracking lens but it's not a zoom and consequently cannot match the flexibility which a zoom lens offers. I found the 300mm to be very restrictive without a zoom option, even with being able to mount either the MC-14 or MC-20.

[Geo]

I think the problem with the original comment from Paul_100A implies that anyone who buys a 150-400 will require ‘time to learn how to use. period’ when this is simply not true. It would have been better had a few extra words been added, such as ‘time to learn for the inexperienced or beginner’.

I agree that the 150-400 is a cracking lens (and the 300 f4) and have said so!

The statement re AF from OM is FACT and is NOT from their normal CS staff but someone who is well versed in OM technology. I know many other users have had similar problems to myself with the OM-1 AF and this has been well documented in this and other forums and reviews.

Maybe I am too critical of my own image quality but having been a professional photographer for many years in a past life I do have high standards. I have read that some people use laptops to view their pics, I use an Apple 27in 5K display, occasionally viewing at 200%, to check sharpness of pics, this will obviously magnify and help to identify any inaccuracies.

[tmp]

"I think the problem with the original comment from Paul_100A implies that anyone who buys a 150-400 will require ‘time to learn how to use. period’ when this is simply not true."
-the 150-400 is a different tool than anything else Olympus/OM Sysytems have released. that's what i have said. if anyone, including a 25 year professional photographer, is having issues with the 150-400 the issue 'may be' stemming from not using the tool correctly. that's what i am saying.
"It would have been better had a few extra words been added, such as ‘time to learn for the inexperienced or beginner’."
-that most certainly should go without saying.

"I agree that the 150-400 is a cracking lens (and the 300 f4) and have said so!"
I agree.

"The statement re AF from OM is FACT and is NOT from their normal CS staff but someone who is well versed in OM technology. I know many other users have had similar problems to myself with the OM-1 AF and this has been well documented in this and other forums and reviews."
-I've been frequenting photography web forums for a long time and have seen many 'documented' issues with many brands equipment. i will say many are unfounded and/or attribued to user error as best as I can understand it.
"Maybe I am too critical of my own image quality but having been a professional photographer for many years in a past life I do have high standards. I have read that some people use laptops to view their pics, I use an Apple 27in 5K display, occasionally viewing at 200%, to check sharpness of pics, this will obviously magnify and help to identify any inaccuracies."
-your being a professional photographer for many years means you've operated camera equipment for many years same as a lot of others folks including myself and Phocal.
-i can see people's standards in the images they post. i can see areas in the same image(s) that are over sharpened, undersharpend, and/or have mushed/waxed/melted details from Denoise apps. i don't use special/expensive monitors.

-do you remember Phocal...who bought and returned 3 150-400 because none of them were sharp?
I am curious as to your thoughts on his experience and judgement based on your admission/opinion that the 150-400 is a cracking lens.

-unless you were operating the OM-1 and 150-400 for all those years your previous experience serves only to prove my point and the reason for participating in your thread...which, again, is this...
it seems that some of us camera operators believe we are experienced enough and well versed enough to simply aquire a tool, the 150-400, and expect we will have no issues using it when we actually do and we don't know why because we are great camera operators.

-you say you have an issue with the OM-1's C-AF and single point AF target. I say I don't and I say my tools are the exact same as yours.
iirc from reading your prior threads/posts I am sure I am using my tools in very similar conditions as you do yours.
out of curiosity, who are all these other users who have had similar problems to yourself with the OM-1 AF and are well documented in this and other forums and reviews. maybe i'll learn someting new.
I recall Robin Wong, a former Olympus engineer and then Olympus Ambassador, famously detailed what he perceived to be an issue with the OM-1's AF. Robin's 'issue' results were eaily duplicated by a couple other popular youtubers(Rob Trek and Peter Forsgard sp?)...because that's precisely the way the camera worked. same settings, same conditions, same results. It's been a little while but I am almost sure Robin stated (somehwere on his numerous social media platorms) that he knows how Olympus cameras work because he was an Olympus engineer (a long time ago) so he knew that the (totally newly designed) OM-1 was defective.
A third youtuber, a working photographer Thomas Eisl, explained how the new OM-1 camera worked and explained how it worked differently than previous camera models, the models Robin was familiar with in his day. Thomas explained how much more beneficial the new, and slightly differently designed, OM-1 AF's system was to the user and strongly suggested that OM Systems not change it due to the public outcry Robin was stirring up. the two youtubers, after seeing Thomas' informative youtube detailing how the OM-1's AF actually worked and why, apologized for their misstep and credited Thomas for his good work. Robin didn't. Go figure. that topic was discussed here and some agreed with Thomas that OM Systems should not change the OM-1 and some did not. I have to say some folks simply did not understand what Thomas had explained.
anyhoo.

-you've written a lot of thoughts down on a few things but i remain curious regarding your thoughts on a well versed and experienced wildlife photographer buying and returing 3 150-400 lenses because none of them were sharp.

[Geo]

Paul_100A I haven't read your latest and will not respond to any more comments, too much waffle

[tmp]

"Inviting other members to ‘go back to Sony or Nikon’ is uncalled for."
what's uncalled for?
I guess you missed this from the OP, original poster, thread starter, "I'm now going to wait two or three months to see if OM do anything about the AF problems before deciding whether to go back to Sony for bird pics I miss the A1!! I might also try the Nikon Z8 with the new Z 600mm f/6.3 VR S"
I wasn’t inviting anyone to leave. I was wishing the OP well on his journey.
Btw I use the OM-1 with 150-400 C-AF and single spot AF Target all the time. no issues. do you?

[RedRobin]

tmp, you are totalling misquoting me - I said no such thing nor even anything vaguely along those lines - Please delete your quote of my words - Thanks. FAO Ian

[Box Brownie]

I have tried to keep up with this thread discussion......

And noted in #13.3 above 'Robin' and recognised some aspects of discussions elsewhere where the person referenced is "Robin Wong" in Singapore who used to work IIRC in marketing and latterly as an Olympus Ambassador but then around the change to OM Systems lost his ambassador position and I had the impression his loss of status wasn't by mutual agreement???

Setting that aside.......I don't doubt there could be copy to copy variations in all technology but with such a flagship lens the probability should be lower compared to others lenses.

I surmise there are now many hundreds to the 150-400m now sold (if not a few 1000? by now). But there are very few complaints that I have seen (I wander through here, Talk Photography, DP Reviews, Back Country Gallery and one or two others).

In regard to learning how a lens functions.......change of weight & CoG, its interaction with different bodies etc can influence different folks individual experiences.
NB when I was using Canon I had the old push pull 100-400mm and it's action was easy IMO but I traded it in for MK2 that was optically that bit superior....but I was not that pleased with the rotary zoom!

In summary...... different strokes for different folks.

[Geo]

Box Brownie I have no problem with the lens, this discussion was never about that but with variations of AF on the OM-1.

[Geo]

This whole thread is going nowhere, the 150-400 is a great lens, no more comments or posts please. If anyone has any issues please start another appropriate thread.

[rustyarrow]

I dont want to start a new thread just to say I agree .

[BDennis]

I keep finding myself going to the top of this thread to look at your great photos George. I'm sorry if my comment about having similar AF issues triggered all this commentary on your post! I'm still learning my best techniques for using the 150-400mm, it is a great lens.

Bill

[Geo]

No worries Bill, these things happen. It's actually quite entertaining in a way with so many odd comments!!