Coming from Micro 4/3, is it worth it for wildlife?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
MarkLeeds2k5
Forum MemberPosts: 75
Like?
Coming from Micro 4/3, is it worth it for wildlife?
3 months ago

When I felt like I had outgrown my point & shoot, I upgraded to an Olympus E-M10 micro 4/3 camera. I'm now wondering if I went in the right direction, or if an aps-c would've been a better option.

Wildlife/Nature/Birds are by far my main photographic interest. With that in mind I went with a 75-300mm lens (600mm FF equivalent, longest currently available for M4/3), and for reference the camera has a 16mp sensor. One of the great positives about it is that it's surprisingly easy to hand hold at 300mm. However a big negative is the continuous autofocus (the equivalent of Canon's Servo AF) is terrible when it comes to small fast moving targets - which of course are a big part of my kind of photography.

Also, even at 300mm, more often than not I end up cropping photos (no teleconverter is available), so that 16mp image often ends up as 4mp-6mp, which has been a bit limiting when I've come to print things out.

And lastly for nature photography, where small details can make a big difference, I've found 800iso to be my preferred upper limit for preserving maximum detail. Not ideal here in the almost always cloudy north of England...

Basically, I have been wondering if it would be worth changing to a Canon 70D with either the 100-400mm or 400mm prime lens.

In theory it seems I'd get:

- Faster AF speed (particularly Servo AF for birds in flight)

- Potentially longer reach, either with teleconverter or availability of longer lenses

- higher mp images to crop from (20mp@640mm FF equiv vs. 16mp@600mm FF equiv)

- Better noise performance allowing a higher iso

And in theory the downsides are:

- Bigger/heavier system. Not too fussed about this as I'm young and fit, and the E-M10 with long lens is far from pocketable already.

- Hassle/financial loss of selling the M4/3 gear, as I couldn't justify owning both.

Here are a few photos I've taken with the E-M10 to give an idea of A: the type of photos I take, and B: the image quality I'm getting:

My gut feeling is that if I could go back in time, I would buy the 70D instead of the E-M10. However since I can't do that, I'm left with the question of is it worth changing systems now, with all the hassle that entails, or would I not see a big enough difference in the useability of the cameras/quality of the output to justify the change?

Ultimately only I can answer that definitively, but I would really appreciate some insight on the matter from those with more experience!

Canon EOS 70D Olympus OM-D E-M10
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow