thinking of leaving nikon for olympus..

[theMusicMan]

Reducing the size of the sensor in order to gain in perceived reach is not the way forward IMHO, especially if you're using FX lenses on a DX body, which will use the sweetest spots. I'd much rather crop until I could afford a longer focal length lens.

Which is why, I assume, you choose to use Nikon. If it works for you, super. Oly and 4/3 works for me thanks, and many others.

No FX lenses or DX bodies to concern ourselves about here I'm afraid, only 4/3 lenses.

 

[NorthernNikon]

If it works for you, super. Oly and 4/3 works for me thanks, and many others.

I'm not disputing that, what I am disputing is the misguided train of thought that suggests that a reduction in sensor size increases the reach or you lenses. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, not matter the size of the sensor. What proportion of the projected image is captured dictates the size of subject in the frame. Anyone choosing a digital format needs to weigh up the pros and cons of the sensor within the camera/system. Sometimes a cropped FX image will outperform a DX of 4/3 image, sometimes the opposite will be true, but there is no reason to presume that moving to 4/3 will produce a better image than cropping a DX image.

 

[theMusicMan]

I'm not disputing that, what I am disputing is the misguided train of thought that suggests that a reduction in sensor size increases the reach or you lenses. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, not matter the size of the sensor. What proportion of the projected image is captured dictates the size of subject in the frame. Anyone choosing a digital format needs to weigh up the pros and cons of the sensor within the camera/system. Sometimes a cropped FX image will outperform a DX of 4/3 image, sometimes the opposite will be true, but there is no reason to presume that moving to 4/3 will produce a better image than cropping a DX image.

Totally agree with your comments...

 

[Maxathos]

Very good pick,

For availability/ price/ fiability.
If your goal is to take bird shoots for your own you don't need the latest and meanest DSLR, BTW olympus have a good range of focals, but with the extra reach you get you don't need to buy a bunch of expensives telephoto lens.

Anyway any DSLR will take great pictures, it's all about how good you get at using it, and what kind of lens you will use.

Max.

 

[PsiFox]

This might explain the difference between sensor sizes and view perspective more clearly

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3290&p=2

As you can see the image is not magnified but just a smaller part of the image as seen by a FF and would nee heavier cropping. it does not magnify.

 

[theMusicMan]

This might explain the difference between sensor sizes and view perspective more clearly

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3290&p=2

As you can see the image is not magnified but just a smaller part of the image as seen by a FF and would nee heavier cropping. it does not magnify.

Yes, a smaller part of the image it may be on crop sensors, but the image is also covered by many more pixels than it would be on ff. Yes, ff will yield a better overall image no doubt as the photo sites are physically further apart, but to create the same image on a ff sensor as a crop sensor will have the images on crop sensors covered by many more pixels.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Is that no to Alex or no to what I have said! I am now paronoid that I am wrong.




Care to elaborate.

No.

 

[dalex_257]

This might explain the difference between sensor sizes and view perspective more clearly

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3290&p=2

As you can see the image is not magnified but just a smaller part of the image as seen by a FF and would nee heavier cropping. it does not magnify.

What you guys are all confusing here when talking abount magnifying or not is that the end image resolution/size (for diaplaying or printing) etc has nothing to do with the size of projection (sensor). True, looking at the way how the image is projected to the sensor, nothing is magnified - for 4/3 the proection looks simply as crop from 35mm sensor area. However, the cropped area on 12 Mpixel 35mm sensor and the same size 4/3 12 Mpixel sensor are not the same things - the latter has larger pixel density and resolution. Of course in this case some things like S/N ration and light sensitivity will be better on cropped 35mm sensor but those aside, pixel wise the image will be larger on 4/3, having more details than a cropped 35mm one. If we compare uncropped 35mm one and 4/3 at the pixel level and how it can be printed (providing both have a size of 12 Mpixels for the sake of this example), then 4/3 does give you magnification (a percevied one, achieved by different and non optical trickery but it is there)...

 

[cyclone]

I've been involved in these discussions too, and believe me, you get twice the range, and so you end up with an image on the sensor that is essentially twice the size as it would be on a ff camera...

Well no, technically that's pretty much backwards and what "crop factor" camera makers want(ed) everybody to believe.

What you get, is the same sized image on a sensor that's half the size.
Your small sensor then has the job of chopping that up into smaller pieces to get more pixels out of it.

This is why a larger sensor will always give you a better IQ in the long run. Medium format will always have higher IQ than 35mm an large format will always be even better.

I'm not saying Oly are rubbish, or anything like that, but using a 300mm zoom on a 4/3 system and expecting to compete with Nikon/Canon's best at 600mm, just not gonna happen.

 

[Chillimonster]

but using a 300mm zoom on a 4/3 system and expecting to compete with Nikon/Canon's best at 600mm, just not gonna happen.

Speaking from personal experience, the Oly 35-100 F2 (70-200mm equiv FOV on full frame) is sharper across the frame than any other lens of equivalent range on any 35mm system (and this is usually borne out by the test results)

The same can be said of the 90-250mm (180-500mm equiv FOV on full frame).

 

[NorthernNikon]

What you guys are all confusing here when talking abount magnifying or not is that the end image resolution/size (for diaplaying or printing) etc has nothing to do with the size of projection (sensor). True, looking at the way how the image is projected to the sensor, nothing is magnified - for 4/3 the proection looks simply as crop from 35mm sensor area. However, the cropped area on 12 Mpixel 35mm sensor and the same size 4/3 12 Mpixel sensor are not the same things - the latter has larger pixel density and resolution.

I'm not confusing that at all, hence why I pointed out that you have to weigh up the pros and cons of the sensor. Resolution is only one factor. How the sensor processes that resolution has a profound effect. Sometimes higher resolution is a good thing, often not.

 

[cyclone]

Speaking from personal experience, the Oly 35-100 F2 (70-200mm equiv FOV on full frame) is sharper across the frame than any other lens of equivalent range on any 35mm system

Fair enough.
But when you say across the frame, are you talking about looking into the corners? This would be another effect of the smaller sensor and at the same time make it more difficult to blur the BG.

If I were to see real world examples of pictures taken at the same place at the same time, after processing, where the Oly gave sharper results in the middle of the frame... I'd be very surprised.

 

[theMusicMan]

I'm not saying Oly are rubbish, or anything like that, but using a 300mm zoom on a 4/3 system and expecting to compete with Nikon/Canon's best at 600mm, just not gonna happen.

Sure, I hear what you say... but you wouldn't expect any system to compete with one costing at least 4 times more.

An Oly with a 300mm lens can cost around £600, whereas a ff Nikon with a 600mm lens costs significantly... and I mean significantly more.

If you can afford £1500 for a D700 and £6,500 on top for a 600mm lens then good luck to ya.

The camera the OP is after here is an E-520 which is around £400, and you can get an Oly 70-300mm lens for around £300.

Also... I'd get the Zuiko 300mm f2.8 to compete with any manufacturers glass. I'd have one if I won the lottery...

 

[dod]

It's probably just me but I can never help thinking that these theoretical arguments are a bit pointless. In practice you do get a bigger image in the view finder and you do get a subject which covers a bigger percentage of the sensor. Yes you get more DOF by default but that's sometimes desirable.

Whether or not the image quality is that much better on a bigger sensor format is a bit of a moot point for 99% of us as the image normally won't be shown at more than about 1024px or more likely as an A4 print. If viewed at smaller sizes the quality issue becomes even less important, modern cameras are all pretty capable nowadays.

Personally I'd just have a look at this and if you like what you see, go for it.
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/olympus/e_520

 

[Chillimonster]

Also... I'd get the Zuiko 300mm f2.8 to compete with any manufacturers glass. I'd have one if I won the lottery...

That and the 150mm are worth the move to Oly alone


It's often mentioned that Oly 'suffer' from too much DOF compared to FF, but i personally think that that is a bit of a red herring. The biggest problem with birding etc is that you need all the shutter speed you can get (in some instances), but to do this you have to open the lens to its widest and hope that you can still get the DOF you need to fit the whole bird in. So in this instance the additional DOF afforded by the 4/3rds system is actually an advantage.

 

[cyclone]

Exactly why I made a point of saying "I'm not saying Oly are rubbish"

In any hobby I've done, it's the last few % that costs.

I used to race RC cars, you can buy an RC car for £20, £50 or £200 ready to go. My transmitter is (was) worth £350 alone, no car included. The bit on the track ready to go was worth about £1000 and I had probably another £2000 worth of gear in my pit area.

If that money yields a disappointment in the long run, then it's £700 towards that lens, no need for the body to be honest, and don't forget the 600mm you mention is f/4.
A 300mm f/4 and 1.4TC on the D40 would end up close to the 600mm equivalent @ f/5.6 and cost under £1500. Actually sounds a good idea

 

[theMusicMan]

A 300mm f/4 and 1.4TC on the D40 would end up close to the 600mm equivalent @ f/5.6 and cost under £1500. Actually sounds a good idea

Naaah... can't compare 420mm to 600mm.... not by a long shot.

Also... would that combination on the D40 autofocus...? I don't think so... Oh, and would it have IS...? I don't think so...

You like Nikon, I like Olympus. Simple as.

 

[NorthernNikon]

Whether or not the image quality is that much better on a bigger sensor format is a bit of a moot point for 99% of us as the image normally won't be shown at more than about 1024px or more likely as an A4 print. If viewed at smaller sizes the quality issue becomes even less important, modern cameras are all pretty capable nowadays.

But that's the point. The OP is thinking of switching formats for a perception when, as you rightly point out, 99% of us don't need images printed at A0. IMVHO there's no need to switch format if cropping the current image will provide the same effect.

Looking at it the other way, the pros, those who do need to blow images up or print them at high resolution, stick with the larger formats and either spend on big and fast glass, improve their field craft to get closer to the subject, or usually a combination of both.

 

[cyclone]

Naaah... can't compare 420mm to 600mm.... not by a long shot.

Also... would that combination on the D40 autofocus...? I don't think so... Oh, and would it have IS...? I don't think so...

You like Nikon, I like Olympus. Simple as.

3rd time, I'm not saying anything bad about Olympus.
I overlooked the autofocus, but you overlooked that 35mm equivalent for 300mm + 1.4TC on a D40 is 630mm.
I was talking about the crop factor veil of half truths.

 

[theMusicMan]

But that's the point. The OP is thinking of switching formats for a perception when, as you rightly point out, 99% of us don't need images printed at A0. IMVHO there's no need to switch format if cropping the current image will provide the same effect.

Looking at it the other way, the pros, those who do need to blow images up or print them at high resolution, stick with the larger formats and either spend on big and fast glass, improve their field craft to get closer to the subject, or usually a combination of both.

But he's not cropping a FF sensor camera. To imply that cropping the image from a D40 to that of 4/3 will yield better results on the D40 is, well...

 

[NorthernNikon]

But he's not cropping a FF sensor camera. To imply that cropping the image from a D40 to that of 4/3 will yield better results on the D40 is, well...

I'm not sure what you're inferring, but I think it's the wrong end of the stick either way. Cropping a DX sensor would mean that the OP would retain more of his/her orginal pixels than if doing so on an FX, so any advantage in resolution the 4/3 sensor may have over a cropped DX sensor is less than it would be with an FX one.

The reference to the pros using FX and or DX sensors is merely that if it made more sense to reduce the size of the sensor to get increased perceived reach then surely they would be doing just that. The fact is that they're not.

BTW, this isn't a 4/3 bashing on my part. It's merely trying to clear up misconceptions. 99% of the time, changing kit or format isn't the answer whereas understanding what your existing kit is capable of and how to get the most out of it often is.

 

[theMusicMan]

BTW, this isn't a 4/3 bashing on my part. It's merely trying to clear up misconceptions. 99% of the time, changing kit or format isn't the answer whereas understanding what your existing kit is capable of and how to get the most out of it often is.

I know, no worries, I hadn't though you were doing this at all. You have given valuable advice.

 

[TheWombat]

The Oly uses a "crop"sensor.What you are effectively seeing is a 50% crop from a F/F 300mm image---Hence the 600mm equivalent.
The system should work fine for your stated preferences and will give you decent quality at a budget price.Having said that though most of the birders I know use Canon kit and have p/exed their way up to some seriously expensive high quality lenses over a period of years.So make sure that you are comfortable about any future upgrade path before taking the plunge.
For instance second hand 400D/30D + 70-300is lens could give you a route into the Canon system with future upgrade potential to their renowned 400mm lenses.
You need to ask yourself where you see you and your kit in 2-3 years time.Whilst Oly might be a short term fix you might be better off with either the Nikon or Canon systems in the longer term.

 

[Naboo32]

Sure, I hear what you say... but you wouldn't expect any system to compete with one costing at least 4 times more.

An Oly with a 300mm lens can cost around £600, whereas a ff Nikon with a 600mm lens costs significantly... and I mean significantly more.

If you can afford £1500 for a D700 and £6,500 on top for a 600mm lens then good luck to ya.

The camera the OP is after here is an E-520 which is around £400, and you can get an Oly 70-300mm lens for around £300.

Also... I'd get the Zuiko 300mm f2.8 to compete with any manufacturers glass. I'd have one if I won the lottery...

Very true and what's more, I know which set-up I'd rather carry around my neck for 6 hours at a time !

Can't beat Olympus for portability and for the kind of stuff that the OP has in mind, that's another worthy consideration .