Who Chose the 300 f4 over the 100-400 for Birding and Why?

sdw1 wrote:

petebuster wrote:

Phocal wrote:

petebuster wrote:

Phocal wrote:

petebuster wrote:

sdw1 wrote:

Pd printer wrote:

I am interested in a M4/3 system for photograpby hy which requires more magnification i.e. macro and birds/reptiles. Both the 300 and 100-400 allow quite close focusing which would important use of these lenses for me but I have not seen any comparison at the closest range. Otherwise I would tend to the 300.

Also I have not made any decision on which camera: GX8 or PenF. Panasonic uses the same batteries as my Leica Q and I like the tiltable viewfinder but I am concerned losing the advantage of IBIS working with Olympus lenses.

We are thinking the same thing Pd printer.

The 6 stop sync IS available with the 300 and EM5 II seems very desirable.

Another feature we like in the 100-400 is the 72mm filter size which would allow us to use the filters we already have for the 40-150 Pro.

I guess we're like everyone else; we wish the Oly and Panny stabilizer systems were fully cross compatible.

Both the 300 and 100-400 have advantages and disadvantages, but I'm glad they are here!

Doc

The thing with the Olympus 300mm f4 price is for less cost you could get a nikon dslr, tc and their image stabilised 300mm f4 and have a bigger sensor so Imo it's a no brainer and there's little difference in size and weight so why spend all that on a lens??? To me Olympus have shot themselves in the foot with that one.over 2k for a not very versatile lens is ridiculous.

It always makes me laugh when people bring stuff like this up.

First lets talk about price, since it seems to be what motivates these types of comparisons. Yes, the Nikon is about $500 cheaper but Nikon can afford to price things cheaper because they will sell more units which allows them to their money from volume of sales. Olympus has priced their lens as cheap as they feel they can and still turn a profit. Their R&D cost are not cheaper then Nikon or Canon and their sales volume is much lower, so the only way to recoup the money invested is thru a bit higher pricing. Seriously, $500 difference at these prices ($2,000 vs $2500) is really not that much of an increase. That difference is offset by the fact that you don't have to buy a 2nd camera or extra batteries or even a different bag or even a bigger bag because now you may need to take both the Nikon and the Olympus because you may need the shorter focal lengths of from your current lens selection. Maybe if you were just getting into photography and wanted to do birds/wildlife it would make sense. From this standpoint it really does not (that is without getting into the entire learning a 2nd system and having to develop muscle memory for a 2nd system).

Second lets talk about camera bodies. The Nikon D7100 is such an inferior camera compared to the EM5 when it comes to fps and buffer size. The only current Nikon cameras that can really keep up with the EM5 in this regard are the D5/500 (yes there are older cameras like the D4 but lets keep it at current models), which brings the cost way up. The sensors are not that much different in performance, you really gain little from an APSC sensor compared to µ4/3. Personally I feel that going away from the electronic viewfinder is a step backwards. Yes there are some issues with the EVF that you don't have with an OVF, but I am not sure I could ever go back and I know a lot of mirrorless shooters feel the same.

Third, the lenses. Nikon went with that fresnel design to make the lens smaller and lighter but they sacrificed IQ in doing so. Olympus went for the best possible IQ, well not the best because they did not go 4/3 SHG IQ (but that would have made the lens even bigger and cost even more).

Something else to consider is your suggestion is not weather sealed and for some that can be an issue. Wildlife photography kind of means in the wild, which means you will be in the elements. Weather sealing can be very important when it comes to photographing animals in all weather conditions. Personally I don't buy gear that I intend to use for wildlife photography that is not weather sealed because I know I will be in the rain shooting or possibly drooping my camera into the swamp or getting it splashed with water all day while in the kayak.

You can't just look at focal length and price when considering what camera and lens to get. There are many other factors that play into that decision. If all I wanted was maximum reach for the cheapest price I would have a Canon Rebel and a Sigma 100-600, can't really get much cheaper then that for 900mm of reach. But that combo would not come close to getting the images I get with my EM1 and ZD 150mm ƒ2.0 + EC-20 (which gives 600mm of reach).

I can't see going the two different camera approach. Wildlife photography is a lot like sports photography, it really is about shooting action. Muscle memory and not having to think about where a function is located on a camera can make the difference between getting the shot or missing it. When you start switching between two bodies in the same system (let alone different systems) your reaction time is going to be lower. I have been using my EM1 for so long I don't even have to think about where something is, my mind and fingers just do it.

OH, the cheaper route would be the Panny 100-400......lens is cheaper and no need for a different camera.

Sorry but utter rubbish regarding the IQ of the Nikon 300mm prime, you've obviously never used one so let's not even go there,it produces stunning image's. period.

Very much debatable. Never used one but have seen many images from it and looked at many reviews. The IQ will also be lowered when you start adding TC's to get the same effective reach and that 1 stop difference in performance of APSC over µ4/3 is out the window when you go from 300/4 to 400/5.5

whatever the reasons for pricing is irrelevant, that's a company problem not a consumer one, also as I said it's merely an optional alternative, not anything anyone has to do.

Actually it is a consumer problem. The consumer is the one who has chosen which companies product to use. I don't expect Olympus to compete with the big boys when it comes to pricing of their top end stuff, they just got do it because they don't have the volume of sales. But there are lots of reason I have chosen Olympus over the others, recently switched after 25 years of shooting Canon so it was not something I did lightly.

Also a D7200 would still be cheaper and much bigger buffer and better iso performance

Compared to my EM1 it can't even compete in FPS or buffer size or number of images over a 30 second to 1 minute period before slowing to a crawl in as it clear the buffer. According to Camera Memory Speed Test

EM5mk2 - 176 RAW images in 30 seconds

EM1 - 101 RAW images in 30 seconds (this will surpass the EM5 when the EM1 comes out because it will be able to use the newer cards like the EM5 and D7200).

D7200 - 77 RAW images in 30 seconds

Weather sealing may or may not be important that's up the individual and where, what, when they shoot but always something I'd prefer to have than not have but not essential in most situations.

But when you need it you can just add it to your camera. Well I guess you can wrap it in a baggy that gets hung up on stuff and rips and is just a general pain in the ass to use.

We were talking a 300mm exclusively

Ok, 300mm exclusively. Like I said above, once you add the TC to get the same reach you have negated any of the advantages in DoF or IQ or aperture size or ISO that the D7200 had over the OMDs.

As I said it's a viable alternative to a overpriced lens obviously not for you but for others it maybe, as you admit you've never used the Nikon so........ Many have and wouldn't swop it for anything ( i guess there's a good reason for that?) and the D7200 does a fantastic job for many, 77 images is more than enough and it will track better though the D500 will probably knock the crap out of anything panny and Olympus have to offer if you want to pay the extra.

I have used Nikon - but just didn't mention it. But, that was in my distant past - in Vietnam as a Combat Correspondent - Nikon F and Nikkormat. From there I went to a Minolta SRT-101 and beyond. So see? No brand loyalty - just progression. I certainly wouldn't try to convince anyone that my camera journey has been right.

Doc

Im certainly not, Canon whatever there's equally other options but I can't comment on what I've not used, and if people want to pay over 2k for a 300mm prime that's up to them, just putting other options forward for those who think it's a ridicoulusly high price