The 4/3 tele advantage myth

Started Oct 2, 2012 | Discussions thread
agogo Contributing Member • Posts: 581
Well, for me....

...for birding I'd rather carry my 300/2.8 (3.28kg) than a 600/4 on FF (5.36kg). (I have used the Canon 600). APS-C would still need a 400/2.8 (5.37kg)

At the end of the day, I can get more or less the equivalent reach (however you might want to quantify it) in a smaller and lighter load. Also it's a SHG lens, and we all know how good they are

We could go on and on about equivalence which has been done to death here - let's not, eh ;-).

Yes there are compromises and trade-offs, as always, but for trekking and manoeuvrability, 4/3 DOES have the tele advantage - there are shots that I just could not get with a bigger, more ungainly lens that really needs to be mounted on a tripod. With the 300 I can weave my way through dense bush and walk further to more remote spots. I can turn the rig quickly to catch small birds that might be behind me and hand-hold for longer if necessary. Another 4/3 tele advantage (for me) is the extra depth-of-field for a given f-stop. With the 600 I had to stop down anyway for birds that were in closer.

If the shoot could be done with a 600/4 on a tripod where I wasn't moving a lot, then yeah - give me that on a FF Nikon D4 - of course! for all those FF advantages.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow