Subjective experience with G9 firmware v1.2 and birds in flight

[Tonygamble]

The E-M1 and E-M1 II have phase detect AF. Big difference.

Jorgen,

Any idea how the noise might vary between the M1 mk2 and the M5 mk2?

That, for me, is a bigger bugbear since I do more internal social journlism shots than bald eagles.

Tony

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

The E-M1 and E-M1 II have phase detect AF. Big difference.

Jorgen,

Any idea how the noise might vary between the M1 mk2 and the M5 mk2?

That, for me, is a bigger bugbear since I do more internal social journlism shots than bald eagles.

Tony

If you shoot jpeg, not so much. If you shoot RAW, there's a bit of difference from ISO 3200 or 6400, but not as much as one stop. You get more resolution with the E-M1 though, 20 vs. 16 MP, but also because the E-M5 II as far as I remember has an AA filter that softens the image somewhat. The E-M1 II has got rid of that.

 

[iiiNelson]

The E-M1 II is the obvious choice, but the D500 with the 300mm f/4 PF gives more or less the same reach as the PL 200mm on a m4/3 body and at a lower weight than his current combo with AF that will surpass any mirrorless camera. D500 + 300mm PF = 1,600 gram, G9 + PL 200mm = 1,900 gram. The Nikon combo is also less front heavy, so easier to handle. It's a stop slower, but the larger sensor compensates for that.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#648.710,725.689,ha,t

Since Fuji has been mentioned:
The only prime they have with this kind of reach is the 200mm f/2 at 2,200 gram plus body and with a price to match. It's a big, white beast that eats tiny British birds for breakfast. :shocked:

Dont know if it surpasses EVERY Mirrorless camera in actual real world sports/wildlife shooting but that’s truly besides the point. The D500 is a great camera but I truly feel technology isn’t a limitation for Mirrorless in general at this point.

https://youtu.be/KX1sfy__7A4

He just needs/wants one that does the job sufficiently and I’d assume that he wants it at minimum cost to himself. He can get a XT3 + 100-400 for the same price as a 300PF alone. He’ll lose something on aperture no doubt but gain something else in flexibility.... then there are the Olympus options that may work better for him too.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Dont know if it surpasses EVERY Mirrorless camera in actual real world sports/wildlife shooting but that’s truly besides the point. The D500 is a great camera but I truly feel technology isn’t a limitation for Mirrorless in general at this point.

https://youtu.be/KX1sfy__7A4

He just needs/wants one that does the job sufficiently and I’d assume that he wants it at minimum cost to himself. He can get a XT3 + 100-400 for the same price as a 300PF alone. He’ll lose something on aperture no doubt but gain something else in flexibility.... then there are the Olympus options that may work better for him too.

The X-T3 plus 100-400mm weighs in at more than 1,900 grams, is f/5.6 at the focal lengths we are talking about and the combo costs $3,100. The X-T3 also lacks a proper grip to support the weight of the heavy zoom lens. That's what the X-H1 is for.

The 300mm PF costs $2,000 and the D500 body $1,800. If you want to compare the Fuji 100-400mm with a Nikon lens, choose the $1,400 200-500mm f/5.6. Personally, I would avoid zoom lenses for quick moving subjects. They are too heavy with slower apertures (with some exotic exceptions) and most of them focus slower than the corresponding primes. YMMV

 

[ptomsu]

The X-T3 plus 100-400mm weighs in at more than 1,900 grams, is f/5.6 at the focal lengths we are talking about and the combo costs $3,100. The X-T3 also lacks a proper grip to support the weight of the heavy zoom lens. That's what the X-H1 is for.

The 300mm PF costs $2,000 and the D500 body $1,800. If you want to compare the Fuji 100-400mm with a Nikon lens, choose the $1,400 200-500mm f/5.6. Personally, I would avoid zoom lenses for quick moving subjects. They are too heavy with slower apertures (with some exotic exceptions) and most of them focus slower than the corresponding primes. YMMV

I used the Fuji 100-400 on an X-T2 with grip (never would really try to get great results without that grip) and I really loved it. I tried tis lens also on the X-H1 and there it is useable without the grip. But what finally made me sell this kit was the mediocre battery life - even with 3 batteries (1 in camera and 2 in the grip) plus several contact issues between camera and grip which got worse during the time I used this combo.

Other than that the 100-400 is a stellar lens and while not light I preferred its flexibility highly above using the 40-150 PRO with TC1.4 and the 4/300 PRO on the EM1.2. I would really love that Olympus finally introduces something like a PRO version of their 75-300 - maybe with constant aperture 4 or 4.5. This would be my ideal wildlife and action all in one zoom lens. The 4/300 PRO while being a stellar lens in all respect is too cumbersome as fixed focal length for my style of shooting. So I need to be looking for a very predictable scenery (maybe birds at a certain distance) to really make optimal use of it, but not so much as a flexible setup on safari for example.

 

[iiiNelson]

The X-T3 plus 100-400mm weighs in at more than 1,900 grams, is f/5.6 at the focal lengths we are talking about and the combo costs $3,100. The X-T3 also lacks a proper grip to support the weight of the heavy zoom lens. That's what the X-H1 is for.

The 300mm PF costs $2,000 and the D500 body $1,800. If you want to compare the Fuji 100-400mm with a Nikon lens, choose the $1,400 200-500mm f/5.6. Personally, I would avoid zoom lenses for quick moving subjects. They are too heavy with slower apertures (with some exotic exceptions) and most of them focus slower than the corresponding primes. YMMV

My mistake.

I thought the 300 PF was $3600 new and the 200-500 I believe is $1700 new. If we are talking sales prices then Fuji regularly discounts the 100-400 to either include a teleconverter for the price of a new one or typically discounting the lens $350.

The XT3 grip is more substantial than the one on the XT2 to the point is say it was marginally adequate... but then you still have the option for a grip if wanted/needed. Either I feel would likely be adequate but only one offers Mirrorless benefits.

 

[biglouis]

Completely off topic but the one thing I can confidently predict is that I'll fall for the new next version GR next year. My GR has been a fantastic camera. I like to call it the camera I take with me when I don't want to take a camera

Ditto.

It is worth the money to get rid of that rocker on the back that alters the exposure and which every table waiter rocks before taking the only picture of my wife and I together on a trip.

Tony

I agree about the rocker - a bad design decision.

LouisB

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

My mistake.

I thought the 300 PF was $3600 new and the 200-500 I believe is $1700 new. If we are talking sales prices then Fuji regularly discounts the 100-400 to either include a teleconverter for the price of a new one or typically discounting the lens $350.

The XT3 grip is more substantial than the one on the XT2 to the point is say it was marginally adequate... but then you still have the option for a grip if wanted/needed. Either I feel would likely be adequate but only one offers Mirrorless benefits.

I'm talking standard prices at B&H. You're probably thinking about the new 500 f/5.6 PF, a totally different beast, but still amazingly lightweight at 1,460g. I've owned the 200-500. It was never $1700 and always a bargain. It's quite a beast though, and like the Fuji 100-400mm it extends a lot, which I found tiring for long sessions since it pushes the centre of gravity forward. It does gives 750mm eqv. reach on a D500 though.

There's another side to the 300 PF (and the other Nikkor lenses):
It's a full frame lens and works equally well on a D850 or a second hand D810, the latter still an excellent camera allthough both of these are heavier than the little D500. It also works excellently on Nikon's new mirrorless bodies, and although dpr keeps repeating that the Nikon Z7's AF is somehow faulty, most or all user reviews claim the opposite. There's a link further up this thread to one of the user reviews. A 47MP full frame Z7 with adapter and the 300mm is around 1,500g.

If I had any brains left, and there's still a slight hope that there are some crumbs left up there, I'd go for a Z6/D500 combo, giving me the best of both worlds. The Nikkor lenses that are not E-lenses (the 300 PF is) will also work beautifully on my little F80, the fine little plastic camera that I bought for $100 brand new a few years ago and that eats Portra and HP5 for breakfast

 

[iiiNelson]

I'm talking standard prices at B&H. You're probably thinking about the new 500 f/5.6 PF, a totally different beast, but still amazingly lightweight at 1,460g. I've owned the 200-500. It was never $1700 and always a bargain. It's quite a beast though, and like the Fuji 100-400mm it extends a lot, which I found tiring for long sessions since it pushes the centre of gravity forward. It does gives 750mm eqv. reach on a D500 though.

There's another side to the 300 PF (and the other Nikkor lenses):
It's a full frame lens and works equally well on a D850 or a second hand D810, the latter still an excellent camera allthough both of these are heavier than the little D500. It also works excellently on Nikon's new mirrorless bodies, and although dpr keeps repeating that the Nikon Z7's AF is somehow faulty, most or all user reviews claim the opposite. There's a link further up this thread to one of the user reviews. A 47MP full frame Z7 with adapter and the 300mm is around 1,500g.

If I had any brains left, and there's still a slight hope that there are some crumbs left up there, I'd go for a Z6/D500 combo, giving me the best of both worlds. The Nikkor lenses that are not E-lenses (the 300 PF is) will also work beautifully on my little F80, the fine little plastic camera that I bought for $100 brand new a few years ago and that eats Portra and HP5 for breakfast

Fair enough on the Nikon but Louis left Sony because he didn’t want the larger lenses so a D850 is probably going in the wrong direction when you factor in the lens sizes for when he isn’t doing long telephoto. I assume this is why APS-C is as large as he wants to go with Mirrorless beyond the fact he probably doesn’t want a DSLR.

Regarding DOReview... their notes about the Z7 in continuous AF matches what I observed tracking cars on the road in front of the camera store for myself. Single focus was fine... continuous was all over the place for me. Some of it I acknowledge could have been human error and that was with the 24-70/4 native lens. But I also found the EOS R AF to be all over the place for accuracy in continuous. If a person is insistent on going Nikon I wholeheartedly recommend the D850 over the Z as of now. Larger lens selection (obviously) and none of the quirks and growing pains of a first generation product. I’m sure they will eventually get there but they aren’t there yet as of today despite the many favorable reviews out there. I don’t doubt those people feel that way about the camera and maybe the way they shoot completely overcomes the technical faults.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Fair enough on the Nikon but Louis left Sony because he didn’t want the larger lenses so a D850 is probably going in the wrong direction when you factor in the lens sizes for when he isn’t doing long telephoto. I assume this is why APS-C is as large as he wants to go with Mirrorless beyond the fact he probably doesn’t want a DSLR.

Regarding DOReview... their notes about the Z7 in continuous AF matches what I observed tracking cars on the road in front of the camera store for myself. Single focus was fine... continuous was all over the place for me. Some of it I acknowledge could have been human error and that was with the 24-70/4 native lens. But I also found the EOS R AF to be all over the place for accuracy in continuous. If a person is insistent on going Nikon I wholeheartedly recommend the D850 over the Z as of now. Larger lens selection (obviously) and none of the quirks and growing pains of a first generation product. I’m sure they will eventually get there but they aren’t there yet as of today despite the many favorable reviews out there. I don’t doubt those people feel that way about the camera and maybe the way they shoot completely overcomes the technical faults.

Which is why I recommended the D500/300 PF combo in the first place. it's the smallest, lightest and probably cheapest option and it offers the best AF.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Fair enough on the Nikon but Louis left Sony because he didn’t want the larger lenses so a D850 is probably going in the wrong direction when you factor in the lens sizes for when he isn’t doing long telephoto. I assume this is why APS-C is as large as he wants to go with Mirrorless beyond the fact he probably doesn’t want a DSLR.

Regarding DOReview... their notes about the Z7 in continuous AF matches what I observed tracking cars on the road in front of the camera store for myself. Single focus was fine... continuous was all over the place for me. Some of it I acknowledge could have been human error and that was with the 24-70/4 native lens. But I also found the EOS R AF to be all over the place for accuracy in continuous. If a person is insistent on going Nikon I wholeheartedly recommend the D850 over the Z as of now. Larger lens selection (obviously) and none of the quirks and growing pains of a first generation product. I’m sure they will eventually get there but they aren’t there yet as of today despite the many favorable reviews out there. I don’t doubt those people feel that way about the camera and maybe the way they shoot completely overcomes the technical faults.

As for the Z7 AF, it's quite apparent that those who have been claiming that Nikon is way behind for a few years now are annoyed and/or scared. Every little detail that can be picked upon is being picked upon, and sometimes written whole articles about (AF, banding etc.), and most of the nit picking is being revealed as BS by actual users. To quite Ming Thein in a comment after his own review: "The bottom line is you can make the photos you want with it; the camera doesn’t hold you back."

Unfortunately for photographers, Canon, Nikon and to a certain degree Leica are the only suppliers that can offer extensive current ranges of products for DSLR as well as for mirrorless cameras with substantial compatibility, and will do so in the future. Sony had that opportunity, but decided to throw it in the bin when they replaced DSLR with SLT which I think we can agree was less than a success. And they did this in spite of having one of the best DSLR bodies available at the time. Photographers want choice and they want gear that fits their needs. They get that with Canon, Nikon and Leica. No army of Sony or Fuji ambassadors can change that.

 

[iiiNelson]

As for the Z7 AF, it's quite apparent that those who have been claiming that Nikon is way behind for a few years now are annoyed and/or scared. Every little detail that can be picked upon is being picked upon, and sometimes written whole articles about (AF, banding etc.), and most of the nit picking is being revealed as BS by actual users. To quite Ming Thein in a comment after his own review: "The bottom line is you can make the photos you want with it; the camera doesn’t hold you back."

Unfortunately for photographers, Canon, Nikon and to a certain degree Leica are the only suppliers that can offer extensive current ranges of products for DSLR as well as for mirrorless cameras with substantial compatibility, and will do so in the future. Sony had that opportunity, but decided to throw it in the bin when they replaced DSLR with SLT which I think we can agree was less than a success. And they did this in spite of having one of the best DSLR bodies available at the time. Photographers want choice and they want gear that fits their needs. They get that with Canon, Nikon and Leica. No army of Sony or Fuji ambassadors can change that.

I completely disagree hat people are annoyed or scared. People are just comparing against the current competition.

Where I agree with you is that one can work around the technical performance deficiencies in some of the same ways that people have been doing over the last 10 years of Mirrorless development. Ming Thein has HIS opinion... that’s doesnt change the fact that the Nikon Z is not as technically capable in continuous Autofocus than the best of its direct competition.... but that’s different than saying the product is garbage. It’s no different than someone saying the Autofocus of the generation 1 Sony bodies wasn’t as technically capable as the best DSLR’s of that time which was true BUT that didn’t mean that many people overcame the faults to still get the shot.

IMO that’s all the reviews are saying but it seems when people say that (or that SOME Mirrorless cameras have surpassed the best Autofocus in DSLR) it offends prospective owners of the brand. I’ve said in many occasions the Z is a capable camera but nothing about it is class leading. That still stands but that doesn’t make it a bad camera. Again I don’t want to continuously rehash this factual point. Nikon (and Canon by extension) admit their initial Mirrorless cameras are compliments to their DSLR’s and not the flagship models. It’s not inaccurate to say they aren’t class leading but they weren’t designed to be in their current iterations either despite the marketing. Its not about any Sony or Fuji Ambassador bashing Canon or Nikon and to be honest I feel most of them have been exceedingly silent about their offerings. I think there’s some truth to large sites pushing cameras from big advertisers but the problem is that DPReview was plastered with Nikon Z ads after announcemet... and they received an early copy to test so that sorta kills the fake conspiracy that DPReview is just out to get Nikon.

This is the Micro 4/3 forum though and Louis was looking for a Mirrorless solution if at all possible. That’s what I recommended in the Fuji/Olympus options because there’s evidence that Mirrorless cameras are capable of maybe giving him the results he’s after. Not saying anything is wrong with the D500 but suggesting that Mirrorless cameras can’t offer the results he’s after sort of is doing the thing you’re accusing publications of doing towards the Z because of potential deficiencies of potentially not being class leading.

Lastly I’ll say this... you admitted up there in this thread that you’d go D500 plus a Z... why is that? Why not just a Z6 and Z7? With a Z7 in crop mode you’d nearly match the resolution of the D500 so why not just go fully Nikon Mirrorless if the technical capability is as good as the best Mirrorless or DSLR?

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Lastly I’ll say this... you admitted up there in this thread that you’d go D500 plus a Z... why is that? Why not just a Z6 and Z7? With a Z7 in crop mode you’d nearly match the resolution of the D500 so why not just go fully Nikon Mirrorless if the technical capability is as good as the best Mirrorless or DSLR?

Because:

1) The rock solid AF of the D500 and the way it's configured. After 8 years with mirrorless cameras, I still find it easier to configure AF-C on a Nikon DSLR body.

2) Lens selection. No mirrorless system can offer anything even close to the number of telephoto lenses available for a Nikon (or Canon) DSLR. I still sometimes shoot sports event with a 25+ years 300mm f/4 with screwdriver focus. The value of the lens is $300 (and I just paid $100 to have it refurbished) but the image quality is still excellent.

3) Battery life, which is particularly important at sports events. In a month or so, I'll be standing with water to my waist shooting watercraft. That is not a place to change batteries.

4) Sometimes I simply prefer an optical viewfinder, one that doesn't switch itself off to save battery power, one that looks and changes exactly like the ambient light around me.

I've been working with computers since the early seventies and I'm surrounded by electronics and automation everywhere I go. Sometimes, working with something that is truly mechanical/optical is very satisfying. I don't need electronic circuits to tell me what the world looks like. I can see for myself, through a piece of glass. Mirrorless cameras may make photography easier, but I doubt that they make me smarter or more skilled.

 

[biglouis]

Great thread!

I'm probably not going anywhere else in terms of camera systems any time soon. What might make me jump ship would be a next generation D500 that is mirrorless (if such a thing ever exists) but I am not going back to working without an EVF. I'd rather go for a Z6/Z7 first if I really, really felt the need to change.

Hadn't thought about adding a second body like the OMD-EM1 MkII. I might search for a good second hand one and give it a try - that would be the least cost alternative, right now.

When it all comes together, the 200/2.8 produces excellent results. The 'coming together' bit is the frustrating part given the AF on the G9 but having spent a third day with it, I think it has improved. Obviously, it will never be up there with a D500 but tempting as it is I just can't work without an EVF (unless it is a film camera, of course!).

Thanks again for all the thoughts.

I would also point out that the G9 has many fine points as a camera:
- Sensible menu system
- Top plate display (which I have learned to like very much)
- Excellent ergonomics and lots of function buttons
- Excellent EVF
- Good IQ up to iso2000 and sometimes iso3200 at a pinch

I'd reckon the new Panasonic FF cameras would be very good indeed if they are scaled up versions of the G9.

As Bart hinted above, my other system is the Fuji GFX50s and lenses, so I do not rely on m43rds any longer for landscape photography, although I happily did for a couple of years. The Fuji system is pure indulgence because I gave up MF film and I also wanted to try out MF (mirrorless) digital and it is the only game in town if you don't want to drain your bank account, sell a kidney on the black market and gamble heavily on lady luck (as it is I did drain my film camera systems of all my gear but kept my m43rds and Ricoh GR). I love photographing with the GFX50s so it was a good leap to make but it is entirely unsuitable for anything that moves quickly.

LouisB

 

[Tonygamble]

but I am not going back to working without an EVF

Ditto, Louis.

A year ago a friend handed me his camera to take a picture of him. I spent quite a time trying to check the exposure in the viewfinder before he reminded me that it was a DSLR. I felt deprived of information normally so useful.

In the UK we are just getting up (even after the clock change). I was going to ask if we could move more towards Louis and his m43 quest as I also felt that was where he wanted to remain. Most of the overnight posts seem to want Louis to jump to a different format and it seems from the post he did an hour ago that he'd rather not.

Those wildlife shots that were linked in the fifth (I think) message (moose peterson) were stunning and equal to many I saw at that Wildlife Photographer exhibition. We are told they were done with the E-M1 mk 2. They are a league away from the shots I am getting with my M5 mk 2. Maybe it is mainly me - but if that is the cure I am out shopping NOW.

Any other ideas chums - but please can we stay with m43 as I don't want to have to say goodbye to all those lenses.

Tony
London SW6

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

but I am not going back to working without an EVF

Any other ideas chums - but please can we stay with m43 as I don't want to have to say goodbye to all those lenses.

Tony
London SW6

The obvious thing to try is the E-M1 II. Used bodies are available for reasonable prices and there's no doubt that it's the body that is best suited for bif among the m4/3 bodies. m4/3 is still a sweet system, and I'm picking up a new-to-me Zuiko 8mm f/1.8 Fisheye on Thursday if all go as planned.

 

[Tonygamble]

The obvious thing to try is the E-M1 II. Used bodies

That was the conclusion I was coming to.

Nothing much on the UK eBay today but I'll put a 'watch' on it.

Tony

 

[iiiNelson]

Great thread!

I'm probably not going anywhere else in terms of camera systems any time soon. What might make me jump ship would be a next generation D500 that is mirrorless (if such a thing ever exists) but I am not going back to working without an EVF. I'd rather go for a Z6/Z7 first if I really, really felt the need to change.

Hadn't thought about adding a second body like the OMD-EM1 MkII. I might search for a good second hand one and give it a try - that would be the least cost alternative, right now.

When it all comes together, the 200/2.8 produces excellent results. The 'coming together' bit is the frustrating part given the AF on the G9 but having spent a third day with it, I think it has improved. Obviously, it will never be up there with a D500 but tempting as it is I just can't work without an EVF (unless it is a film camera, of course!).

Thanks again for all the thoughts.

I would also point out that the G9 has many fine points as a camera:
- Sensible menu system
- Top plate display (which I have learned to like very much)
- Excellent ergonomics and lots of function buttons
- Excellent EVF
- Good IQ up to iso2000 and sometimes iso3200 at a pinch

I'd reckon the new Panasonic FF cameras would be very good indeed if they are scaled up versions of the G9.

As Bart hinted above, my other system is the Fuji GFX50s and lenses, so I do not rely on m43rds any longer for landscape photography, although I happily did for a couple of years. The Fuji system is pure indulgence because I gave up MF film and I also wanted to try out MF (mirrorless) digital and it is the only game in town if you don't want to drain your bank account, sell a kidney on the black market and gamble heavily on lady luck (as it is I did drain my film camera systems of all my gear but kept my m43rds and Ricoh GR). I love photographing with the GFX50s so it was a good leap to make but it is entirely unsuitable for anything that moves quickly.

LouisB

Yeah I think you’ll like the XT3 as well if the Olympus doesn’t work out and there’s the obvious familiarity with your GFX plus 30FPS blackout free “sports mode” though that adds a 1.25x crop. This will give you a Capture area about the size of a Micro 4/3 sensor but I do believe it’s worth trying out for yourself if the Olympus doesn’t do the trick.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

This is slightly off topic, but relevant to m4/3 telephoto lenses. I've been discussing with myself for a while what to do with gear for sports and other action photography, since the Nikon gear I've used so far is getting old and in some cases broken. While a D500 (or a used D810) is still an option, m4/3 serves me very well, particularly since the bulk of my photography is travel.

So, I took a deep dive into what high quality lenses are actually available around 200mm for m4/3, and the result is actually quite astonishing. Here's the big picture, all mounted on the GX8, which is what I currently use:

From left to right:

- Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 (which I have owned) (56-210mm f/4 with TC), sharp wide open.
- PL 200mm f/2.8, very sharp wide open. Can be used with 1.4x and 2.0x TC.
- PL 50-200mm f/2.8-4, sharp wide open. Can be used with 1.4x and 2.0x TC.
- Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6 (which I own), sharp at f/8.
- PL 100-400mm f/4-6.3, sharp at f/8.

When I see the results good photographers get with these lenses, I should be ashamed for considering getting into other systems to improve my photography. My 100-300mm is limited in low light, but any of the three first lenses on the list above would solve that, as would an upgrade to a G9, a GH5 or an E-M1 II when it comes to better AF and video performance. My love for optical viewfinders is mostly satisfied by my always ready Nikon F80.

 

[iiiNelson]

This is slightly off topic, but relevant to m4/3 telephoto lenses. I've been discussing with myself for a while what to do with gear for sports and other action photography, since the Nikon gear I've used so far is getting old and in some cases broken. While a D500 (or a used D810) is still an option, m4/3 serves me very well, particularly since the bulk of my photography is travel.

So, I took a deep dive into what high quality lenses are actually available around 200mm for m4/3, and the result is actually quite astonishing. Here's the big picture, all mounted on the GX8, which is what I currently use:

From left to right:

- Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 (which I have owned) (56-210mm f/4 with TC), sharp wide open.
- PL 200mm f/2.8, very sharp wide open. Can be used with 1.4x and 2.0x TC.
- PL 50-200mm f/2.8-4, sharp wide open. Can be used with 1.4x and 2.0x TC.
- Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6 (which I own), sharp at f/8.
- PL 100-400mm f/4-6.3, sharp at f/8.

When I see the results good photographers get with these lenses, I should be ashamed for considering getting into other systems to improve my photography. My 100-300mm is limited in low light, but any of the three first lenses on the list above would solve that, as would an upgrade to a G9, a GH5 or an E-M1 II when it comes to better AF and video performance. My love for optical viewfinders is mostly satisfied by my always ready Nikon F80.

I don’t think anyone should “fight” with their gear if it doesn’t work for them (for whatever reason) either in “natural” use or by work arounds. If Nikon gear works better for you or if that’s where you see yourself going then you shouldn’t delay your inevitable switch.

There’s a reason I didn’t recommend Sony (given that K-H has a bunch of BIF and wildlife photos in the Sony section) and that’s simply because Louis has been down that path... would it technically work? Sure it would, but he wants to stay with Micro 4/3 or Fuji if at all possible I suspect.