Nikkor Z 100-400 vs. Olympus 150-400 Pro: how does telephoto reach compare?
Hello all!
I just finished a test trying to answer the following question: how does the reach compare between two camera setups, one “full-frame” and the other micro-four thirds? For this test I compared the Nikon 100-400 Z on the Z9 to the Olympus 150-400 Pro on the E-M1X shot wide open with and without teleconverters attached.
I’ll start out by saying both of these lenses are fine optics, but they’re also at quite different price brackets and fixed aperture (Olympus) versus variable aperture (Nikon). The field of view is also very different due to the 2.0X crop factor on the Olympus (as I will get to more below). The only thing that is really similar is their focal length. Definitely not an apples to oranges comparison!
So why bother with this test then? Usually I shy away from shooting a test charts and similar things, because wildlife do not behave like test charts, but I have been stuck inside the past couple days, have the new Z9 on hand and needed to scratch an itch. That itch was this: I have read the question more than one time on internet forums “Why shoot micro-four thirds when you can just get a high resolution full frame format camera and crop, it will give you the same reach”. Those who have read any of my posts know I use and enjoy different sensor formats, so I’m not trying to find out what is “better”. I already know what purposes each serve and have no intent to switch any time soon. However, I did want to know how to get the most reach out of this particular set of gear, and try understand how the lenses performed with and without TCs. Reach can be a big deal with wildlife photography, but it’s definitely not everything. I hesitated before sharing my results, because people can get quite heated about their chosen gear!
So with that out of the way, here were my methods:
I shot both setups from a stable tripod from approximately 5 meters away, used a LensAlign to line the lenses up with the target, and set both to their minimum respective ISO, in spot metering, and zeroed out the meter on both every time I took a shot with a different teleconverter attached. I used a 5 second timer to eliminate camera shake, with OIS off, shot both cameras in RAW, took five identical images at at each setting and selected the sharpest one out of five when viewing at 1:1. I then exported the batch out of Light Room into full-size jpegs. Since I was only interested in center sharpness and resolution, I used crop mode on the Nikon Z9 which crops out the central part of the image.
I used the 100-400 Z on the Nikon Z9, and the 150-400 Pro on the Olympus E-M1X. I also used the 1.4X and 2.0X teleconverters on the Nikon, and I used the 1.4, internal 1.25X, 2.0X (and combinations of each, i.e., internal + one of the other) teleconverter on the Olympus.
Forum goer Hillrg on Fred Miranda put together this nice chart to calculate “pixels per duck” which is basically a theoretical estimation of resolving power of a subject for a given camera and lens combination (without taking into account lens sharpness, diffraction, noise, aberrations, etc.). In other words, the last column, “HPPD” is basically a technical approximation of maximum “reach” for a given setup. I’ve copied the table below for these respective lenses/bodies. The chart takes into account the sensor pixel density and the crop factor, normalized to 35mm.
Based on the HPPD column, one would expect the Nikon lens with the 1.4X TC to have more reach than the bare Olympus lens, and the Nikon with the 2X to have more reach than all but the Olympus when combining both the internal and 1.4 and 2.0X TCs. I will leave it up to viewers to decide.
Of course there are many limitations of this test, like, it could be repeated stopping down the lenses, which has been shown to improve teleconverter performance in some cases. However it’s important to note the apertures involved and potential to approach diffraction limits that degrade image quality. I could have also examined the corners of the frame since the central part of the image is usually the sharpest. The test also says nothing about autofocus speed and accuracy with the different teleconverters engaged, and it doesn’t really say anything else about the cameras or lenses themselves other than reach under these semi-controlled circumstances. I still found it interesting and hope it helps those who may be wondering about this reach question.
As for the performance of the lenses with the TCs attached, I must say I was impressed with both. While usually 2.0X TCs severely degrade image quality (especially on a zoom lens), my eye tells me that the 2.0X does resolve slightly more detail on both lenses. It’s not a quantum leap from the 1.4X teleconverter but there is a slight improvement in reach. It’s only when you turn on the internal 1.25X TC and attach the 2.0X on the Olympus that the image really degrades and their are no more appreciable gains in “reach”.
It’ll be interesting to try the test again, maybe when that 200-600Z surfaces.
Links to all of the full-size Jpegs and comparison image below are here.
