I bought myself an Olympus 75-300 II

Guy Parsons wrote:

rube39 wrote:

Hoping that some folks like that might accidentally drop in on this thread. GRIN

Maybe best you start a new thread just on the 75-300 vs 100-400 topic for sports, also there have been previous comparisons maybe worth Googling for.

It always gets down to the size and weight and cost people are prepared to pay for that tele performance.

While the Pana 100-300 and Oly 75-300 were the only contenders all we got were cat photos. Once the 300/4 plus 1.4x and 100-400 surfaced we seemed to drop the cats and start getting lots of birds on twigs photos. Not much sports action seen though. Once the E-M1 Mk2 came we seemed to get more birds in flight shots here.

It will heavily depend on which M4/3 body you might use.

The complaint with sports still seems to be the AF tracking performance of any of the M4/3 cameras and if dedicated to sports shots then a regular DSLR with proven phase detect AF tracking seems to be the best answer.

With any sports shots the best place is always to be with the press on the sidelines and occasionally get crashed into by the players, that's the only way to get action looking good with current and convenient tele use.

For casual sports shots, I would maybe grab Lyn's Casio ZR850 and use its 25-450mm equivalent OIS lens ability to get the odd shot. Easier than lugging something heavier unless I was getting my serious frown on my face about my photography.

Meanwhile, probably borrow Ako's camera and try for say some cyclists whizzing around some park, if there's any nearby doing that sort of thing. That may start to show any limitations of tele/light/shutter speed/aperture/ISO involved.

The summary always seem to be for sports in a serious way you need big and heavy and expensive. Otherwise the "lesser" lenses like the 75-300mm may yield some good sports shots, but (body dependent) may also yield a lot of deletes.

Good hunting.

Regards.... Guy

Guy,

Thanks for jumping in.

Smaller sensor cameras, like the m4/3s and "1" are just fine for amateur sports. I have been satisfied with my results for years. Of course closer is always better! And closer for most of us means more tele.

I had to return the EM-5 and 75-300 to college when I retired, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to ask the question of replacement gear. But now that the 75-300 and the 100-300 are no longer the only game in town, as you say, I thought I would try to see what others had to say. And again you are right, a new thread might have been the way to go.

Bigger and better glass, and better tracking is one way to go, but for sideline duffers like me, they really aren't necessary, especially the latter. What is more important, for team sports especially, is knowledge of the game. If you know pretty well where the play is headed you can pre focus in anticipation, and normally get your shot. For example, Ako and I often go to see Japanese college football together. She is the better photog, but I always come home with the shots, while she often misses. Why? I used to announce the game on cable TV, while Ako hadn't even heard of football until she met me

So I guess I will go down to Yodobashi Camera (the front entrance) and see for myself just how much of a monster the 100-400 is, and then borrow Ako's Nikon 1 gear and try shooting some soccer (it is the season) at 800mme.

rube39 wrote:

I caught the "retired" bit, Are you staying in Japan or flitting back and forth?

........... For example, Ako and I often go to see Japanese college football together. She is the better photog, but I always come home with the shots, while she often misses. Why? I used to announce the game on cable TV, while Ako hadn't even heard of football until she met me

Yes, game knowledge is a must to anticipate where to aim that camera, especially with that American type of football as the ball often seems to disappear and pop up totally unexpectedly somewhere else.

So I guess I will go down to Yodobashi Camera (the front entrance)

Yes, sorry about that. I waited for you at what I thought was the main entrance opposite the station. Oh well, we did meet up. It was a good day.

and see for myself just how much of a monster the 100-400 is,

Yes, maybe hand-holding it for a while could be a chore, don't know as I have not handled it yet. Mono-pod maybe? The 75-300mm is certainly easy but with its known limitations of course.

and then borrow Ako's Nikon 1 gear and try shooting some soccer (it is the season) at 800mme.

Yes, I think that may help understand potential problems. Even focus on traffic on a highway to check focus track issues may also help.

As for us, no travel or excitement, stuck at home for a couple of years just catching up on needed home maintenance. Please say "Hi" to Ako from Lyn and myself.

Regards..... Guy

Guy Parsons wrote:

rube39 wrote:

I caught the "retired" bit, Are you staying in Japan or flitting back and forth?

A year to go, then most probably off the Island and Northern Spain, splitting the year.

As for us, no travel or excitement, stuck at home for a couple of years just catching up on needed home maintenance. Please say "Hi" to Ako from Lyn and myself.

Will do, and good luck on the 'home repair.'

Off to walk the river, a daily event when school is out, trolling for birds.

I have had a new 75-300mm for almost a couple of years, and struggled with it and hated it for most of that time, even in frustration putting it on eBay a couple of times but then withdrawing it from sale. I tried high isos to ensure high shutter speed, I tried very steady hand holding, I tried tripod mounting but the results pixel peeping at full resolution were dreadful.  But then after extensive email exchanges with a very helpful member here, I discovered what shutter shock is all about. Since I discovered how much better the sharpness is on my E-M1 when using electronic silent shutter with the 75-300, I am now very happy with the lens. I have been a digital user since 2000 and a photographer since about 1960 and I think I have a grasp of how to use long lenses. I have no trouble with my unstabilised 400mm Canon on my old Canon 60d, so I really thought that my 75-300 was just what folk like to call a  "bad copy". And I wasn't totally convinced that shutter shock really exists. I was wrong, it does and it was the problem all the time.

Having said that, the Oly 75-300mm on my Oly M1 is no match in sharpness for my L series Canon 400/5.6 on my old Canon dslr. But that lens costs 3 times the price of the Olympus lens. I guess the Oly 75-300 must be good value for money, with little choice other than spending a lot more cash.

Ken C

Both the Panasonic 100-400mm and Olympus 300mm are way too expensive for what they are. I would rather buy a small 24mp SLR and 400mm f5.6 lens than pay those prices. Here's a gallery of bird images showing what the 75-300mm II can do (and not cats and dogs) as one poster mentioned. Check the gallery below:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ucla-wap/with/26666623105/

Absolutely fantastic images! Very impressive!

Ken Croft wrote:

I have had a new 75-300mm for almost a couple of years, and struggled with it and hated it for most of that time, even in frustration putting it on eBay a couple of times but then withdrawing it from sale. I tried high isos to ensure high shutter speed, I tried very steady hand holding, I tried tripod mounting but the results pixel peeping at full resolution were dreadful. But then after extensive email exchanges with a very helpful member here, I discovered what shutter shock is all about. Since I discovered how much better the sharpness is on my E-M1 when using electronic silent shutter with the 75-300, I am now very happy with the lens. I have been a digital user since 2000 and a photographer since about 1960 and I think I have a grasp of how to use long lenses. I have no trouble with my unstabilised 400mm Canon on my old Canon 60d, so I really thought that my 75-300 was just what folk like to call a "bad copy". And I wasn't totally convinced that shutter shock really exists. I was wrong, it does and it was the problem all the time.

Having said that, the Oly 75-300mm on my Oly M1 is no match in sharpness for my L series Canon 400/5.6 on my old Canon dslr. But that lens costs 3 times the price of the Olympus lens. I guess the Oly 75-300 must be good value for money, with little choice other than spending a lot more cash.

Ken C

+1