Superzoom '800mm' vs micro 4/3 '600mm'

Thank you, but that lens is too large to be really portable for me, plus it's out of my budget. But the shots again are clean.
While f/2.8 is nice for low DOF and faster shutter speed, a 300 mm f/4 lens would probably be fine for most people (and be noticeably smaller and cheaper). The 'problem' is that the most if not all 300 mm f/4 lenses (including the Sigma 100-300 mm f/4 which is as good as the primes), while pretty good are a notch below the 300 mm f/2.8 lenses (or the 200 mm f/2 lenses) as you clearly see from test results:
  • Nikon 200 mm f/2, which is clearly outresolving the sensors at f/2.8 and f/4, ie, it has reserves for the higher pixel-density of the (m)43 sensors:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/575-nikkorafs200f2vr?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/499-nikkorafs200f2vrff?start=1
  • Nikon 300 mm f/4, Canon 300 mm f/4, Sigma 100-300 mm f/4, while all excellent, even wide-open, are clearly a step below this high-end prime:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/228-nikkor-af-s-300mm-f4d-if-ed-review--test-report?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/172-canon-ef-300mm-f4-usm-l-is-test-report--review?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/328-sigma-af-100-300mm-f4-ex-hsm-apo-lab-test-report--review?start=1
  • the slower (f/5.6) xx-300 mm zooms are yet again a notch below the f/4 primes, though the recent Canon 'L' version (70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM L IS) comes close and the (m)43 xx-300 mm f/5.6 lenses might be better than the Canon and Nikon counterparts as they have been designed for cameras with a higher pixel density:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/571-canon70300f456islapsc?start=1
I thought hard before I went for the 300 2.8L and spent a lot of time looking at the 300 F/4L

The were 2 reasons behind the 300 2.8L decision.

First I now have the G2 locked off at ISO 200, I don't like anything over that at all, not even for macro. So a faster shutter speed was needed for birds in flight, hence 2.8. At F/2.8, its very sharp wide open and no CA at all, thats a must IMO.

2nd reason was I'm planning to add a Canon 2x type A to it. If I had an F/4, it would become an F/8. As it is, it will be a 600mm F/5.6 and that I can live with and I know I can still use ISO 100 -200 for every shot and still keep the shutter speed up.

So it was well looked into :), I'm too old to just jump in.

So yes, for most people a 300mm F/4 (beautiful glass btw) would suit just fine and for many, they would be happy with a 300mm F/5.6. Personally for what I want, it just wouldn't work.

You are right though and even a 200mm F/2 or F/2.8 2ould make an excellent lens for the 3/4 IMO.

All the best, very interesting thanks :)

Danny.

...........................
4/3 macro

http://www.macrophotos.com/g2macro

http://www.macrophotos.com
...........................
Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.
 
Those are all certainly very good! But for me at least the m43 system fills my needs at lower cost and lighter weight, giving me acceptable image quality. I may at some point feel the need to move to a DSLR but for now I am still happy with and still learning how to take better photos with the G2 and the 100-300.















 
Is there anything like a 300mm prime or zoom lens at F3.5? If not then I guess I will check out one F4 lens for minolta mount.
 
Some of these photos are amazing.

As for the original question, I was in your situation just a few months ago. I own the G2 and 100-300 and came from an FZ35 and FZ18 before. I take only nature pictures so was looking for better quality, from the FZs. I had the reach (840mm) already as I own the excellent tc-e17ed converter. I am by now means an expert or experienced hobbyist, but take photo hikes most every week and learning.

I was initially discouraged that my reach wasn't as long, until I realized I could crop much more then I ever could with the FZs. IQ is certainly better at all ISO settings, but I am starting to try an keep ISO down so I can crop more. I still want more reach but feel I have more control over the camera and the camera is certainly more responsive. My experience is I have similar reach as before, with better quality photos. If you have the funds, the GH2 would certainly be better, initial reports indicate the G3 will be better as well.
 
Superb shots. I agree that there is a huge difference between the two. But there is also a huge difference between weight, size and cost as well.

How much does a 300mm F/2.8L with autofocus and IS cost......... its alright, I already know the answer :) ;)

Its also a bit like comparing medium format to 35mm. Theres a huge difference in quality, but also in cost and size between the two. So at some point reality hits and a line is drawn. In the golden old days of 35mm Slr's, I still remember landscape photographers using large and medium format cameras, referring to 35mm users as "Toy film users" :) :). Just glad those silly days have gone.

All the best Bill and top work and shots, impressive.

Danny.

...........................
4/3 macro

http://www.macrophotos.com/g2macro

http://www.macrophotos.com
...........................
Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.
 
Is there anything like a 300mm prime or zoom lens at F3.5? If not then I guess I will check out one F4 lens for minolta mount.
F/4 would be it and there are a few choices. Check out Ebay. Nice Canon 300 F/4's on there and bound to be Nikon's as well. Pentax made some good primes.

Minolta I've never really looked at, but they made good glass as well.

Others might know more on the brands, Tokina, Sigma and Tamron all made pretty good glass at the end of the day.

All the best and good luck :)

Danny.
...........................
4/3 macro

http://www.macrophotos.com/g2macro

http://www.macrophotos.com
...........................
Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.
 
Yeah I think I am going to see if I can find a 300mm F3.5(or close) Tamron SP or high quality like that.
 
Your pictures are looking great. I am looking forward to the 100-300 lens, just ordered one.
--
Ellen McIlroy
 
I'm the orignal poster. I assume a Canon/Nikon etc 300mm F4 will be manual focus anyway. How easy is MF with a G2 type EVF?

Thanks
Sean
 
I'm the orignal poster. I assume a Canon/Nikon etc 300mm F4 will be manual focus anyway. How easy is MF with a G2 type EVF?
On the G1 + 100-300 (same EVF as the G2), I often use MF to fine tune focus where there are branches around the bird. Even hand-held, it works quite well using MF assist (5x / 10x enlarged picture displayed in the evf).

This is of course mostly thanks to the OIS in the lens, as I found out the hard way one day I somehow managed to inadvertently push the IS switch to "off" on the lens !

Didier
 
The sample shots are very nice, but not the sort one is typically able to attain with either a big sensor camera or a ultra-zoom P&S.

Birds have a propensity to keep at considerable distance from people, with or without cameras, except for urban sparrows or starlings accustomed to hand-outs. They also have a propensity to perch high in trees, which invariably entails back-lighting and a silhouette appearance, unless you are very fortunate. Small ones that fear raptors will avoid open spaces at mid-day. So many are apt to appear only at dawn or dusk, or hide amidst branches and folliage. You can go and sit in a bird blind all morning, and gain nothing but mosquito bites, until you decide to leave when the chattering strollers, heckling teens, and shreiking kids arrive.

No sensor, of any size, will insure you against those problems.

But it does strike me that very few of the sample shots one sees for the P&S ultra-zooms involve wild birds in natural settings. Most are of water fowl in parks or raptors in enclosures. One gentleman has unique nest-level access to an eagle lair. But folks on the ground would have a hard time (lookup up against the sun) seeing what he sees.

Finally, the big problem with any 600mm or 800mm lens is that it is very hard to "hunt" for birds or any object with that focal length, unless you know where the object is and have the time to set up your shot. Perhaps, if there is a nest or bird feeder. Otherwise, the bird will be gone before you can set up the tripod, zero in, and make sure the focus is right. Focus is darned hard to adjust manually in bright light, if you can't see the LCD or the object in your EVF is low contrast.

If you somehow manage to pass all these hurdles, then indeed a large sensor camera will give you better prospects of a clear shot. Yes, for perhaps an extra $1,000, you double or triple the prospects of a good shot, once you've avoided all the other slings and arrows.

It's all a question of how much TIME you care to dedicate. Your discretionary money for purchase of cameras is also a function of how much time your regular income leaves you free from labors needed for survival.

Don't spend the extra $1,000 it may take to built a full "kit" of m4/3 equipment, unless you really intend to forage a lot for bird shots and can accept the fact that lots of time you won't get great pictures.
 
All that I know already. I have been a birder all my life and have used superzooms for the last three years.
Sean
 
I am new to birding and recently upgraded from an S100fs to a G1/100-300mm. Most of the birds I have been shooting are of the smaller variety and are usually sitting among branches where AF precision/speed is required and you need to deal with lower lighting. I didn't do a direct comparison of images, but the main improvements I have found are the faster and more accurate AF and higher ISO capabilities. These improvements have significantly increased my chances of getting a good image.
 
Respectfully, I like the shots with the big lens, but I have decided that I will not again go to big lenses. I am a birder first, I want to have my telescope, field guide, water, etc when I go birding. When I had a film 35 mm with 450 lens, it was often either the camera or the telescope, almost never both. With a superzoom -- easy to bring both. With the GH2 + 100-300, still doable, but I personally don't want to go larger than that.

Niels
 
I'm the orignal poster. I assume a Canon/Nikon etc 300mm F4 will be manual focus anyway. How easy is MF with a G2 type EVF?

Thanks
Sean
The EVF totally took me by surprise Sean. I was expecting something like the Panasonic FZ10 or the SX20 IS, nope, in fact the dead opposite. Its actually like looking through a mirror and pentaprisim to be honest. The only time its an issue is at night time, then its like the super zooms EVF. During the day, well it will surprise you, it certainly did me.

I had a look last night on Ebay and there are a couple of nice Canon 300mm F/4's there.

Focusing is helped with legacy lenses by pushing in the back wheel on the G2 and that magnifies the image Sean by 5x, move the wheel and its 10x magnification, so focusing is darn accurate. Its fairly easy on the EVF to see anyway with out that feature, but it does come in handy now and again.

The 300mm I have, the focusing ring is just so smooth and easy. Much easier than what you are used to with the super zooms. Its also far better than manual focusing on the Panasonic lenses as well. It just feels real if you know what mean.

Anyway, all the best Sean and good luck with it.

Danny.

...........................
4/3 macro

http://www.macrophotos.com/g2macro

http://www.macrophotos.com
...........................
Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top