thinking of leaving nikon for olympus..

A

alexsmith

Suspended / Banned
Messages
418
Edit My Images
Yes
Following an earlier post I have been looking at getting longer reach for my bird photography thats within my budget... If I want VR and 400mm + it is going to cost big bucks. At the Moment I use a D40 and 18-200vr which is a great setup..but I need to get a bit (lot) closer.
THen I started to look at the oly range...
I can get an E-520 with IS and anti dust thingy for just over £300
A well considered zuico lens 70-300 for just under £300 with an equivalent range of 600mm on their 4/3 rds system....
Which takes the setup to £600 ish. I tried out the Camera in the shop and first impressions were that whole setup felt years ahead of the nikon. I know the D40 is old but this made the D60 (similar price point) feel pretty old fashioned. (actually thats an understatement it was like one of those old dial phones (remember them) compared to a mobile.. Anti dust,live view 1/2 the size weight etc..
So Before I put the VR and D40 on the evil bay, any words of caution??:eek:

By the way I looked at the pics a guy on here took of puffins and was blown away with IQ of the lens and his Pics so I know it will be able to take better pics than me...
Al
 
I think you have solved your own dilemma!

I regard Olympus in quite high regard - my 2 film cameras are OM-10's, along with assorted Zuiko glass. Plus, it sounds as if the E-510 is more suited to the nature photography you're interested in...
 
mm I guess, just checking in case I'm missing some obvious point . I was thinking this might be likely as the Oly's are quite rare compared to the main two and yet it looks a very affordable system for wildlife type shooting....and by my rationale I'd expect everyother person to be tempted yet jessops (hereford) don't stock them nor my currys etc
al
 
You could do, but if you're ever going to do bird photography in low light, the 4/3rds system may not be the answer.

The Nikon alternative might be selling the 18-200, buying the Nikon 70-300 VR second hand, and then perhaps trading up from the D40 to the D90 and cropping from the D90 if you need to.
 
Blapto said:
You could do, but if you're ever going to do bird photography in low light, the 4/3rds system may not be the answer.

The Nikon alternative might be selling the 18-200, buying the Nikon 70-300 VR second hand, and then perhaps trading up from the D40 to the D90 and cropping from the D90 if you need to.
Click to expand...

The D90 with no lens cost more than the whole Oly system:eek: add a 300vr and you've got less reach and spent twice ? the money....
al
 
If your sole intention is wildlife photography then go for it. If you want to do some wider landscape photography too I would imagine the four-thirds system becomes limiting however my knowledge of Olympus is very limited so feel free to correct me.
 
Oly is ideal for what you want it for - The 2x crop factor gives you more bang for your buck for your type of shooting.

I've just went the other way (Oly to Nikon) for the prime lenses and shallower depth of field as I don't shoot wildlife/sports.
 
alexsmith said:
No idea.. Maybe this is the obvious that I am missing:thinking:
thanks
al
Click to expand...

Neither have I sorry, but something I am more than aware of as I do a lot of bird photography. The little devils do not hang around long, and usually are in a fairly confusing background...something to check into before you take the plunge.

However I must say your reasoning is sound, if it all pans out that it will do the job, go for it.
 
Martyn... said:
Neither have I sorry, but something I am more than aware of as I do a lot of bird photography. The little devils do not hang around long, and usually are in a fairly confusing background...something to check into before you take the plunge.

However I must say your reasoning is sound, if it all pans out that it will do the job, go for it.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean, focusing is an art in itself, especially flying and small birds in undergrowth.
al
 
DekHog said:
Oly is ideal for what you want it for - The 2x crop factor gives you more bang for your buck for your type of shooting.

I've just went the other way (Oly to Nikon) for the prime lenses and shallower depth of field as I don't shoot wildlife/sports.
Click to expand...

Thanks how would you say the focusing on the Oly was vs the nikon?
The nikon is my only point of reference. TBH I find the focusing on the D40 fast enough but wouldn't want to have it miles slower:suspect:
al
 
alexsmith said:
Thanks how would you say the focusing on the Oly was vs the nikon?
The nikon is my only point of reference. TBH I find the focusing on the D40 fast enough but wouldn't want to have it miles slower:suspect:
al
Click to expand...

If you're willing to invest in SWD lenses the focusing can be very quick - the 70-300mm is great value, but not the quickest around. On saying that many folk use it to great effect; probably just the fact it doesn't like low light has something to do with it. It's probably equal to any budget lens on your D40.

The 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 (100-400mm in 35mm terms) is razor sharp but will cost considerably more than the 70-300mm.
 
DekHog said:
If you're willing to invest in SWD lenses the focusing can be very quick - the 70-300mm is great value, but not the quickest around. On saying that many folk use it to great effect; probably just the fact it doesn't like low light has something to do with it. It's probably equal to any budget lens on your D40.

The 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 (100-400mm in 35mm terms) is razor sharp but will cost considerably more than the 70-300mm.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing... will look into which lens to get..
al
 
As a further point, the olympus will take a huge range of old manual lenses with the use of a cheap adapter. OK you are then limited to Manual or Aperture mode, but that brings a huge amount of cheap high quality glass into the picture. (And the Image stability will work with it all)

That just isnt possible with the nikon because the lenses would need to be embedded inthe body to get the focus (register distance is too much).

Would manual focus be a problem?

If not then look at things like the Tair 3, tamron SP 300, etc.
(If you're a real cheapskate then the soligor 350/5.5)

There is a good resource for such things at www.mflenses.com
 
alexsmith said:
Following an earlier post I have been looking at getting longer reach for my bird photography thats within my budget... If I want VR and 400mm + it is going to cost big bucks. At the Moment I use a D40 and 18-200vr which is a great setup..but I need to get a bit (lot) closer.
THen I started to look at the oly range...
I can get an E-520 with IS and anti dust thingy for just over £300
A well considered zuico lens 70-300 for just under £300 with an equivalent range of 600mm on their 4/3 rds system....
Which takes the setup to £600 ish. I tried out the Camera in the shop and first impressions were that whole setup felt years ahead of the nikon. I know the D40 is old but this made the D60 (similar price point) feel pretty old fashioned. (actually thats an understatement it was like one of those old dial phones (remember them) compared to a mobile.. Anti dust,live view 1/2 the size weight etc..
So Before I put the VR and D40 on the evil bay, any words of caution??:eek:

By the way I looked at the pics a guy on here took of puffins and was blown away with IQ of the lens and his Pics so I know it will be able to take better pics than me...
Al
Click to expand...

I think the thing that you are missing is the fact that just because the oly has a crop factor of 2 DOES NOT MEAN that the 300mm lens will be like shooting with a 600mm lens, what it will mean is that the field of view is the same as a 600mm lens but it is still only a 300mm lens. Hope that makes sense.
 
Davec223 said:
I think the thing that you are missing is the fact that just because the oly has a crop factor of 2 DOES NOT MEAN that the 300mm lens will be like shooting with a 600mm lens, what it will mean is that the field of view is the same as a 600mm lens but it is still only a 300mm lens. Hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...

urm no:thinking: i'm being thick maybe...;)
if the field of view is smaller , the sparrow in the hedge looks nearer (bigger) so its the same as a longer lens isn't it.?
al
 
I will try and find the online explanation that cleared this up in my head. I am also sure I posted a similar question when I started I will try and find that post aswell.
 
Davec223 said:
I will try and find the online explanation that cleared this up in my head. I am also sure I posted a similar question when I started I will try and find that post aswell.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I understand its not actually 600mm but if two people look through two cameras at a sparrow in the distance,
one has full frame and 600 mm lens
t'other has 300 mm lens 4/3rds system
both will see the same thing...? no?
:thinking:
al
 
I've been involved in this debate before... never again! :D
 
just found this on a review of the oylmpus 300mm review


"Well the first look through the lens is a bit of a shock because from 10 rows away a 600mm equiv. lens gives you a pretty startling close-up look at the action. "

so still none the wiser ?
what would the real 600mm see? the subject the same size but with more background????
al
 
alexsmith said:
just found this on a review of the oylmpus 300mm review


"Well the first look through the lens is a bit of a shock because from 10 rows away a 600mm equiv. lens gives you a pretty startling close-up look at the action. "

so still none the wiser ?
what would the real 600mm see? the subject the same size but with more background????
al
Click to expand...

god this is going to be difficult think of two boxes one 4 inches square one 2inches square one inside the other think of the inside square as you,re oly 2/3rds system and it simply blows up the middle portion of the same picture so not actualy closer hope that makes sense
 
Hi Alex

FYI - thought I'd pop a few pointers on here for you.

  • The autofocus on the E520 will be very good, even with the 70-300mm and a 1.4x lens attached.
  • Low light shooting is fine with the latest E-Series cameras, not as good as the D3 or D700 I appreciate, but neither is the D40 as good as the D3 or D700. Out of the E520 and D40, in this regard I'd say the E-520 is streets ahead wrt low light, and would be usable up to ISO1600.
  • Using a 300mm lens on a 4/3rds camera will give you an effective focal length of 600mm. You will get twice the reach with any lens you place on the E-520 because of the 2x crop factor. A 300mm lens is a 300mm lens, but you do get twice the range i.e. an effective focal length of 600mm. 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... and also... on a similar number of megapixel sensor, covering a larger number of pixels.
  • A huge plus is that ALL 4/3 lenses you place on your E-520 will autofocus, even with the EC14 1.4x or the EC20 2x teleconverters, even in low light. They will ALL autofocus.
  • Another huge plus is that the IS on the E-520 is in-camera, and not in the lens. This means that you get IS with any lens you place on the camera... even legacy OM lenses. I am not sure what Oly claim the number of IS stop advantage is with the E-520, but with my E-3 I get as much as 4-5 additional stops with the IS. It is an excellent image stabilisation system.
  • With the E-520 you will get an internal dust removal system that works very well. I am sure one will inevitably get dust on ones sensor, but the Oly system is superb for keeping dust off.

Hope this helps.
 
dinorock said:
god this is going to be difficult think of two boxes one 4 inches square one 2inches square one inside the other think of the inside square as you,re oly 2/3rds system and it simply blows up the middle portion of the same picture so not actualy closer hope that makes sense
Click to expand...

yup, got that good explanation but that means the end result looks the same . Yes?
alex
 
alexsmith said:
yup, got that good explanation but that means the end result looks the same . Yes?
alex
Click to expand...

no !!!

why ? because the depth of field will apear different sorry cant explain that but i know it does:thumbs:
 
theMusicMan said:
Hi Alex

FYI - thought I'd pop a few pointers on here for you.

  • The autofocus on the E520 will be very good, even with the 70-300mm and a 1.4x lens attached.
  • Low light shooting is fine with the latest E-Series cameras, not as good as the D3 or D700 I appreciate, but neither is the D40 as good as the D3 or D700. Out of the E520 and D40, in this regard I'd say the E-520 is streets ahead wrt low light, and would be usable up to ISO1600.
  • Using a 300mm lens on a 4/3rds camera will give you an effective focal length of 600mm. You will get twice the reach with any lens you place on the E-520 because of the 2x crop factor. A 300mm lens is a 300mm lens, but you do get twice the range i.e. an effective focal length of 600mm. 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... and also... on a similar number of megapixel sensor, covering a larger number of pixels.
  • A huge plus is that ALL 4/3 lenses you place on your E-520 will autofocus, even with the EC14 1.4x or the EC20 2x teleconverters, even in low light. They will ALL autofocus.
  • Another huge plus is that the IS on the E-520 is in-camera, and not in the lens. This means that you get IS with any lens you place on the camera... even legacy OM lenses. I am not sure what Oly claim the number of IS stop advantage is with the E-520, but with my E-3 I get as much as 4-5 additional stops with the IS. It is an excellent image stabilisation system.
  • With the E-520 you will get an internal dust removal system that works very well. I am sure one will inevitably get dust on ones sensor, but the Oly system is superb for keeping dust off.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...


Ah,
You were the puffin man in the original question ! wow great photos !
THank you for the reply and I can now say the penny has finally dropped:D
to the relief of all who are explaing to me.;)
Thanks
al
 
alexsmith said:
You won't get a debate from me cos I know nothin:)
can you just tell me what each would see through the lens looking at the same thing? one with 300 on oly and one with real 600mm?
I will believe you i promise;)
al
Click to expand...

the 300mm on 3/4 is equal to 600 with nikon d3 or canon 5d. its same angle of view. the different is with 600mm and d3 you get more pixel out of it. which mean proberly less noise. but if you shoot day light you will use iso 100 anyway . so i dont see the point to use 5000quids 600m unless you got d3 or someone else pay for the lens.
 
dinorock said:
sorry alex not the depth of field the perspective:lol:
Click to expand...
the perspective will be the same. *** it only depends on the distance between you and the object. and if you compare 300mm on 3/4 and 600mm on 35mm. its same angel of view which mean same distance between you and the object. and the perspective will be the same
 
Davec223 said:
I think the thing that you are missing is the fact that just because the oly has a crop factor of 2 DOES NOT MEAN that the 300mm lens will be like shooting with a 600mm lens, what it will mean is that the field of view is the same as a 600mm lens but it is still only a 300mm lens. Hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...

I can't believe that it took 18 posts before someone pointed this out!

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top