Jump ship from 4/3ds platform?

4thirds_dude · Feb 10, 2009

I'm having a bit of a dilemma... I'm using an Olympus E-510 presently. Thing is, I'm getting more into sports photography and the speed of this entry-level model just isn't cutting it.

I can't decide whether I should take my lenses and go to an E-3 (5fps vs my current 3fps) or if I should completely jump ship and go to a D300 or a 1d Mark III. I have some decent lenses for the 4/3ds system, but I'm not 100% "married" to it yet.

Any thoughts? Right now I'm shooting at 400mm EFL (70-200mm f2.8 w/ 2x crop factor)... how much am I looking at for a similar setup with either a Nikon or Canon system? Should I stick with my system and get a new body? Help! LOL. :angry1:

Enem178 · Feb 10, 2009

By no means am I a pro but if I were in your shoes, i'd research like crazy and compare all 3 models (d300,e-3, 1d mark 3) and see which one is best and how much it would actually cost to replace all your equipment with something similar from another company. It might be more that what you want to spend. You look like you have a lot of Olympus stuff and it might be really exspensive to replace all of that. Maybe someone up here has a E-3 that can shed some light on it??? But I would just do alot of researching.

McQueen278 · Feb 10, 2009

I used to love my E1, but I jumped ship to Canon. I miss the size, weight, build quality, flash sync, shutter noise and speed of use. My E1 was the king of speed compared to my 5D where I have to use menus to make a lot of important changes, but you may not be used to a pro body yet so it might be about the same. I needed the noise handling though. You might easily get by with an E3 and a ZD 75-300mm f/4-5.6 for outdoor sports. The AF is quick and the viewfinder is surprisingly bright even at the long end of the lens. This isn't really the best rig for anything indoor and I certainly wouldn't expect the results you see in ESPN magazine from a 1D MkIII and a 400mm f/2.8L period. It is pretty good for a hobbiest though and you could keep you current lenses and have a backup body.

Enem178 · Feb 10, 2009

Olympus E-3 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

4thirds_dude · Feb 10, 2009

McQueen278 said:
This isn't really the best rig for anything indoor and I certainly wouldn't expect the results you see in ESPN magazine from a 1D MkIII and a 400mm f/2.8L period.

I like the idea of a backup body... and while the lens I'm using wouldn't be the $5000 Canon L supertelephoto, it's still a large f2.8 aperture and has the equiv focal length of 400mm. I just need more FPS, so I'm leaning strongly toward either the E3 or new E30, since they have the same burst rate. ...probably more toward the E3 though, since it's weatherproofed.

The only reason I haven't done that yet is that the 10 fps of the Canon 1D Mk III is sooooo tempting....man, that would be nice. At the same time, it's looking like I'll probably be at least $5-6000 in by the time I have the gear I'd need. That compared with maybe $1200 for the E3 is a tough one to justify. I'm torn! LOL

Village Idiot · Feb 10, 2009

Used 1D MKIII may be an option. Go to POTN and check out the used classifieds section.

www.photography-on-the.net/forum

a 1D MKIII is weather sealed as well and build like a tank.

sultan · Feb 10, 2009

Four-Thirds will limit you as you move on. And the format is just too small and dinky. My recommendation: Nikon D300 + Vert Grip.
Full Frame + 8 FPS + 51-Point AF = Great camera.
Its not too expensive either. The D700 will also be a good choice but you'll need longer lenses for the same FOV.

*Edit* My bad - I forgot to edit

The D300 is half frame and the D700 is FF.

Joves · Feb 10, 2009

D300 isnt full frame, it is a 1.5 crop.

potownrob · Feb 10, 2009

What about the D200? Not the best high ISO performance but you get 5 fps and lots of on-the-fly settings, and you can get one for around 600 USD. Not sure how fast it can realistically get compared to a high-end 4/3 camera.

blash · Feb 10, 2009

Joves said:
D300 isnt full frame, it is a 1.5 crop.

... which makes it better for sports photography, which uses telephoto lenses.

Joves · Feb 10, 2009

Yes it does. I shoot wildlife with mine.

usayit · Feb 10, 2009

In my opinion,,,

Going from your system to a canon 1d markIII with a fast zoom of 400mm focal length is not going to be cost effective for anyone who has a budget. There is so much focus on which camera to purchase but the glass is going to be far more expensive. This discussion should be more about what glass you are going to buy NOT the camera to jump ship to. The 4/3rds format ultimately might not be up to par to Nikon or Canon equivalents BUT it is definitely more price competitive... which is definitely a high priority for the typical consumer market.

If money is no issue... then by all means
If your career or living depends on sport photography... then by all means.

For one.. you will not find a Canon equivalent of the 70-200 f/2.8 4/3rds zoom. The Canon 400mm f/2.8L by itself is $6800. I am not as familiar with Nikkor but I don't think there is an equivalent zoom either....

sultan · Feb 10, 2009

Joves said:
D300 isnt full frame, it is a 1.5 crop.

My bad

I was originally recommending the D700 but I then changed my mind and wrote D300 but forgot to edit my post.

McQueen278 · Feb 10, 2009

4thirds_dude said:
I like the idea of a backup body... and while the lens I'm using wouldn't be the $5000 Canon L supertelephoto, it's still a large f2.8 aperture and has the equiv focal length of 400mm. I just need more FPS, so I'm leaning strongly toward either the E3 or new E30, since they have the same burst rate. ...probably more toward the E3 though, since it's weatherproofed.

The only reason I haven't done that yet is that the 10 fps of the Canon 1D Mk III is sooooo tempting....man, that would be nice. At the same time, it's looking like I'll probably be at least $5-6000 in by the time I have the gear I'd need. That compared with maybe $1200 for the E3 is a tough one to justify. I'm torn! LOL

If you are planning on using a 3rd part 70-200mm f/2.8 you might be disappointed on any 4/3 camera. They aren't designed like a zuiko ZD lens and so light at the corners hits at an angle rather than straight on. They lose half their resolution in effect because of the small sensor and they have soft corners. Even if they are slower, ZD lenses are just about always a better choice for 4/3. You might consider stepping it up to the 35-100mm f/2 (70-200mm f/2 equivilant). It is a throughly badass peice of glass designed specifically for the sensor.

sultan · Feb 10, 2009

usayit said:
In my opinion,,,

Going from your system to a canon 1d markIII with a fast zoom of 400mm focal length is not going to be cost effective for anyone who has a budget. There is so much focus on which camera to purchase but the glass is going to be far more expensive. This discussion should be more about what glass you are going to buy NOT the camera to jump ship to. The 4/3rds format ultimately might not be up to par to Nikon or Canon equivalents BUT it is definitely more price competitive... which is definitely a high priority for the typical consumer market.

If money is no issue... then by all means
If your career or living depends on sport photography... then by all means.

For one.. you will not find a Canon equivalent of the 70-200 f/2.8 4/3rds zoom. The Canon 400mm f/2.8L by itself is $6800. I am not as familiar with Nikkor but I don't think there is an equivalent zoom either....

D300 + Battery Grip + 70-200 F/2.8 = $3500 (for a far superior camera)

E-3 = $1400 (used with your Sigma 70-200)
But a Slow Framerate + Soft Image Quality + Smaller Format + Less Battery Life + Poorer Lens Quality (not as well built, not as sharp)
And you'll be stuck in a limiting camera system too.

So yes, sticking with 4/3ds is cheaper in the short run but do you want to build up a lens collection in a small limited format with an uncertain future (given the larger format trend now going on). And then just getting an E-3 will give you a far inferior camera system.