Jump ship from 4/3ds platform?

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

You missed my point.... I said the nikon and canon will be superior but at what cost.

I guarantee that the 200mm focal length on even a 1.5 crop is too short for most outdoor field sports. What people don't realize is that at the high end you will be spending exponentially amount of money for every little ounce of advantage. For a hobbiest this might not be cost effective (which is my point). For someone who is professional or with unlimited funds, then every ounce is worth it. Often, practice is all anyone needs... not just throwing money.

NO the 70-200mm f/2.8 on a D300 is not equivalent to a 70-200mm f/2.8 on a 4/3rds. Find me a f/2.8 zoom with a max focal length of 400mm for the same price. It is not uncommon to see photographers with even a 1.4x teleconverter on their 400mm lens.... I shot polo for a few stints with 100-400L on my 1D MII. 400mm even then seemed short.


Again.. I never said that the nikon D300 nor a 1series canon will not be better.. The point is that at the high end you will be payig exponentially more money... money that to a hobbiest might be better spent elsewhere. There was a time that sports photographers were doing high quality work with fps equal to how quick your thumb can advance that lever. They did just fine with practice to learn how to anticipate the movement. Practice and skill will NEVER be replaced by sheer equipment.

Hunters used to say the same thing... If you need a full automatic assault rifle firing at a high rate of speed to hunt deer, then you shouldn't be hunting at all.
 
Last edited:
I guarantee that the 200mm focal length on even a 1.5 crop is too short for most outdoor field sports. What people don't realize is that at the high end you will be spending exponentially amount of money for every little ounce of advantage. For a hobbiest this might not be cost effective (which is my point). For someone who is professional or with unlimited funds, then every ounce is worth it. Often, practice is all anyone needs... not just throwing money.
True. I strongly agree that practice is more important than equipment. If 4thirds_dude has enough money, he should make use of his money and get some better equipment. No, it won't make him a better photographer but it'll give him room to grow and better equipment is more enjoyable to operate. But if money is a concern, yes he is fine with Olympus.

NO the 70-200mm f/2.8 on a D300 is not equivalent to a 70-200mm f/2.8 on a 4/3rds. Find me a f/2.8 zoom with a max focal length of 400mm for the same price. It is not uncommon to see photographers with even a 1.4x teleconverter on their 400mm lens.... I shot polo for a few stints with 100-400L on my 1D MII. 400mm even then seemed short.
I sorta disagree here.
1. The difference between 300mm and 400mm equivalent is tiny.
2. The Nikon lens is somewhat sharper than the Sigma. Even the OP's current cam out-resolves his Sigma, so the smaller format will give no advantage over the larger format. Switching to a Nikon 70-200 on a D300 will actually give better detail because of the lens a bit sharper (about 15% sharper according to DPReview) and the D300 gives sharper output because of its better sensor.
3. A teleconverter will be pointless anyway because the 70-200s by all manufacturers aren't very sharp on DX/APS-C format.
4. Why should the OP get a $4000 400mm 4/3ds lens? He has a soft 200mm lens that is being cropped. That is NOT equivalent to a Canon or Nikon 400mm on FF. Far from it (the Canikons will get approximately 2-3 times the detail).

There was a time that sports photographers were doing high quality work with fps equal to how quick your thumb can advance that lever. They did just fine with practice to learn how to anticipate the movement. Practice and skill will NEVER be replaced by sheer equipment.

Hunters used to say the same thing... If you need a full automatic assault rifle firing at a high rate of speed to hunt deer, then you shouldn't be hunting at all.

I agree; no equipment can replace the necessary skill. It does make it a bit easier for you though.
 
I agree; no equipment can replace the necessary skill. It does make it a bit easier for you though.

Well..... if you start to rely on the features of your equipment then you never get to your true potential, and get to the point where you depend on your equipment rather than the equipment making it easier for you. That's why no one should start on a D3 irregardless of financial circumstances, and it's why people learn to add by hand before allowed to use a calculator.
 
I sorta disagree here.
1. The difference between 300mm and 400mm equivalent is tiny.
2. The Nikon lens is somewhat sharper than the Sigma. Even the OP's current cam out-resolves his Sigma, so the smaller format will give no advantage over the larger format. Switching to a Nikon 70-200 on a D300 will actually give better detail because of the lens a bit sharper (about 15% sharper according to DPReview) and the D300 gives sharper output because of its better sensor.
3. A teleconverter will be pointless anyway because the 70-200s by all manufacturers aren't very sharp on DX/APS-C format.
4. Why should the OP get a $4000 400mm 4/3ds lens? He has a soft 200mm lens that is being cropped. That is NOT equivalent to a Canon or Nikon 400mm on FF. Far from it (the Canikons will get approximately 2-3 times the detail).

I'm going to disagree with you here.
1. 300-400mm is a fair amount of reach, I guess this is a matter of opinion though.
2. your probably right.
3. well I know for a fact that the canon 70-200's are extremely sharp, regardless of sensor, and the Nikon's are apparently just as good. Again I have used or seen prints from 1.4, and 2x teleconverters and the quality is still quite good.
4. I don't think that buying 400mm for 4/3 was suggested, rather that to get equivalent reach a 400mm lens would be required with a 1.5-1x crop camera.
 
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:
I shoot professionally with the E3 and personally I do not think that it would be worth the investment to invest in a d300 over a E-3 if you already have anything Olympus. The Canon can be a fine set up at a high admission but you would have to be able to justify it. Are you going to need it, will you be shooting gymnastics or other high speed indoor events where flash is not allowed but have poor light. If so then the Canon may be worth the extra investment.
Just to give you a point of reference here is a shot with the Olympus E-3 at ISO 1600 on a monkey (they do not sit still)
">
And if you want to see it much larger just click on the image.
I would make sure to take some time and study the type of photography you need to cover and go from there. price wise the E3 is the next big step and can cover a lot just as much if not more then a d300 however if you need more then that then it will need to be some thing like a D3, D3x or 1DMKIII Which are all very large investments and should not be taken lightly.
 
Well..... if you start to rely on the features of your equipment then you never get to your true potential, and get to the point where you depend on your equipment rather than the equipment making it easier for you. That's why no one should start on a D3 irregardless of financial circumstances, and it's why people learn to add by hand before allowed to use a calculator.

I rely on autofocus for most things.
 
4. I don't think that buying 400mm for 4/3 was suggested, rather that to get equivalent reach a 400mm lens would be required with a 1.5-1x crop camera.

Yes.. RyanLilly is right... I never suggested a 400mm on a 4/3rd. The 70-200 f/2.8 on a 4/3 is going to be significantly cheaper than the 140-300 f/2.8 on a 1.5 crop or a 400mm f/2.8 focal length on a full frame. For the (most) consumer this is a very important thing....

The way I see it, the cost versus benefit is just not favorable for the typical consumer. HolyGhosted echos my thoughts.

Professionals of certain requirements/needs and those with deep pockets... that's a different ball game.
 
Yes.. RyanLilly is right... I never suggested a 400mm on a 4/3rd. The 70-200 f/2.8 on a 4/3 is going to be significantly cheaper than the 140-300 f/2.8 on a 1.5 crop or a 400mm f/2.8 focal length on a full frame. For the (most) consumer this is a very important thing....

The way I see it, the cost versus benefit is just not favorable for the typical consumer. HolyGhosted echos my thoughts.

Professionals of certain requirements/needs and those with deep pockets... that's a different ball game.

The Sigma lens is significantly softer than the camera. If you take an image from the D300 with a 70-200 at 200 (300 equiv), and an image from the Oly + Sigma at 200mm (400 equiv), you'll find that the Nikon has more detail. To get a "400mm equivalent", slightly crop (and interpolate if you want) to get results still better than the olympus.

The D300 has an absolute resolution of 2200 LPH.
The E520 resolves 2050 LPH (~2400 DX LPH).
The Sigma 70-200 resolves 1100 LPH at 200mm at the best aperture in the center in DX.
The Nikon 70-200 resolves a max of ~1300 LPH at 200mm in DX format.
The Canon 70-200 resolves a max ~1300 LPH in APS-C.
Source: dpreview

Basically, all these cameras out-resolve the lenses. The Nikon lens is sharper than the Sigma, so there will be more detail there. The extra pixels in the centre provided by 4/3ds don't do anything. Its no better than cropping and interpolating the D300s image (actually worse because the lens is less sharp).
 
Well..... if you start to rely on the features of your equipment then you never get to your true potential, and get to the point where you depend on your equipment rather than the equipment making it easier for you. That's why no one should start on a D3 irregardless of financial circumstances, and it's why people learn to add by hand before allowed to use a calculator.

True; for a beginner, a simple camera is the best choice because it'll teach him/her the basics. I assumed that the OP already "knew how to add by hand" and that using a calculator will "save him time doing calculus". But if the OP considers himself at the stage where he is still "learning to add", then he should stick with his e510 for now.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top