In a previous article, I discussed the choice that I was making about which system I would end up using as my primary wildlife gear in Scotland. I wrote that article while I was still living in the Philippines. Now I’ve had some time here in Scotland and I’ve finally made a choice, but it wasn’t easy.
Yesterday I went out with the OM System OM-1 Mark II and the OM System M.Zuiko 100-400mm f/5-6.3 IS II.
The reality is that I really enjoyed using that combination. For the reach it gives, it’s incredibly small and light. I had absolutely no issues carrying that setup for miles. It felt easy. It felt natural. It made me want to take it.
But what it showed me was something important.
The Woodland Reality
It wasn’t a particularly gloomy day. Just average Scottish overcast light with occasional breaks in the cloud. Out in the open it was manageable.
In the dense woodland though, it was a different story.
At f/6.3 on the 100-400mm II I was already at ISO 6400 — which is about as far as I’m comfortable pushing it — and I still had to drop my shutter speed below the ideal range just to get the exposure I wanted.
And I love woodland.
I expect to spend a lot of time in woodland.
I saw my first ever red squirrel last week. Red squirrels, Capercaillie, woodland deer, alongside Raptors — these are the kinds of subjects I see in my mind when I think about what I want to photograph.
Dim light. Shaded clearings. Layered backgrounds, mountain environments, Smooth tonal transitions.
In that environment, I know I will need more light than the 100-400mm II can give me.
So I had a choice to make.
Path One: Go Deeper with OM System
In favour of the OM route is size, portability, computational features and incredible IBIS. I genuinely enjoy shooting with it.
To meaningfully improve low light performance I would need to look at either:
- The OM System M.Zuiko 300mm f/4 IS PRO
- Or the OM System M.Zuiko 150-400mm f/4.5 TC1.25x IS PRO
The 150-400mm is an incredible lens. Fast to focus, beautifully built, weather sealed, sharp. A 300-800mm equivalent f/4.5 zoom that extends to 1000mm with the built-in 1.25x teleconverter. I’ve shot it before. I know how capable it is.
But it’s £6,500.
That’s a serious investment for me.
And even at f/4.5, in dark woodland at dawn or dusk, I know I will still be pushing ISO fairly hard. It would be better, no doubt. But the ceiling for low light performance would still be lower than with a larger sensor, all else being equal.
I would also still want something brighter alongside it, like the 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro.
Now we’re over £7,000.
And here’s the honest part.
£7,000 is a lot of money to me. If I’m spending that, I don’t want reservations in the back of my mind.
The 150-400mm is the pinnacle of Micro Four Thirds wildlife photography. It’s brilliant. But it is the ceiling.
After that, there isn’t really anywhere else to go within the system.
That niggled at me.
Path Two: Lean Into Nikon
The alternative is using my Nikon Z8 as my primary wildlife setup.
I need reach out to 800mm ideally. I also need better low light performance in woodland.
I looked at the Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S. Incredible lens. But expensive, and I’m not experienced enough yet to justify jumping straight to that level.
What made more sense right now was flexibility.
The Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR gives me 600mm native reach. On the Z8, in DX crop mode, that becomes a 900mm equivalent field of view with roughly a 20MP APS-C file.
That already gets me beyond the 800mm equivalent I was using on OM.
It’s heavier. By all accounts it’s front heavy. It’s not built to quite the same level as the 150-400mm Pro. But optically it’s excellent, weather sealed, and it costs less than a third of the OM lens.
And yes, at f/6.3 it’s not a bright lens. The full frame advantage there is roughly about a stop in overall light gathering once you account for sensor size. Useful, but not transformative on its own.
Which is why I didn’t stop there.
The 400mm f/4.5 Factor
I’ve also ordered the Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S.
This will be my woodland and low-light lens.
At f/4.5 it gives me the full two-stop low light advantage (over the OM 150-400mm) that full frame generally has over Micro Four Thirds.
It will allow lower ISO values (than the 180-600mm zoom) in dim woodland. It will allow better subject isolation. It gives me the option to stop down if I need more depth of field — but crucially, I have the light available if I need it.
I can always stop down a larger sensor lens.
I cannot create more light when it isn’t there.
Add a 1.4x teleconverter and it becomes 560mm f/6.3. Shoot that in DX mode and I’m looking at an 840mm equivalent field of view at around 20MP.
That flexibility went a long way to calming my concerns about investing in a prime and with my Nikon Z8 setup for wildlife photography, I feel comfortable that I made the right choice.
The Bigger Picture
There are other factors too.
I plan to shoot more video over time. Both my Nikon Z8 and Nikon Z6III offer video performance beyond what OM System currently provides.
It’s not the primary reason, but it’s part of the picture.
There’s also the long-term question.
If I go deeper into wildlife photography and want to improve further, I’m not at the ceiling of what Nikon offers. I can’t see myself ever spending £10,000+ on exotic glass, but I like knowing that improvement is possible.
Nikon has a larger user base. If it all goes wrong, if I don’t dedicate the time, if I discover I’m terrible at wildlife photography, resale value on Nikon Z glass is stronger.
That matters when you’re investing this level of money.
This Isn’t Abandoning OM
I am keeping my OM kit.
The OM System OM-1 Mark II and OM System M.Zuiko 100-400mm f/5-6.3 IS II will remain my lightweight, scouting setup.
When I’m exploring new locations, hiking long distances, or shooting more casually, that combination makes huge sense.
It’s small. It’s capable. It’s enjoyable to carry. It is optimised for the advantages of OM System.
This isn’t OM versus Nikon.
It’s about where I want my primary wildlife investment to sit.
The Real Resolution
This whole process has been about finding the compromises I’m most comfortable making.
In the end, I’d rather have the potential low light advantage available and choose to give it up when necessary, than not have it available at all. Some may prioritise other factors and that’s fine. I’d never say my choice should be someone elses. This article is simply explaining my thought process and how I made my decision.
I’ve gone back and forth on this for months. It’s been draining.
Now the decision is made.
Once the lenses arrive, the gear question is closed.
If my last session taught me anything, it’s that this feels right. Being amongst animals and the Scottish landscape is where I feel most at home, most relaxed, most peaceful.
The gear choice is now out of the way.
Now the real work begins.
Learning the land.
Learning the animals.
Getting fitter.
Getting better.
And hopefully, finding a little peace in my own head too.