M43 vs canon apsc

Ah, yeah. If you kiss enough frogs.......Even an oyster can eventually make a pearl.

I think we focus too much on technical detail and sharpness, and not enough on photography. I feel like I'm more of a camera operator, and less of a photographer. That's because I'm not a good enough photographer.

Some of it is because digital cameras are so good and so smart, compared with film. Takes a lot of the skill out of it.

You can stand at the edge of a lake before sunrise, or an ocean before sunset and snap away. In a nice location, you will get something decent. You don't have to wait for the moment. Wildlife takes more time.

I like the background too

I find you need to stop the lens down sometimes to produce enough DOF to put an entire small bird in focus. This is where the smaller sensor helps you. Problematic if you don't have full sun. Then you need f/2.8-4 in a telephoto, or the ISO shoots way up and you lose detail.

Those redwings like to hang on thin, tall stalks that sway in a breeze like this one. They move around for balance and in a breeze. You can't shoot as slow a shutter as the kit can manage because there is movement. Not an easy shot.

Thanks, Phil.

I like shooting on gloomy days. No shadows, no blown-out highlights. It's easier to control this while pushing camera settings to get the best image out of it. You find good contrast all day, not just first and last light. Yeah, you need fast glass to keep the ISO down because you can't use a slow shutter for tiny birds. Can ISO 2500 produce this? I can't do it if I have to crop.

I have the 14-150 and like it a lot for travel, but I can't produce images this detailed with it. I need the PRO version for that. Some of the delta is lens sharpness, but I think more of it could be shooting f/2.8-4 vs. f/5.6. I see significant difference at 50% crop on a 2000 line 27" monitor. With no crop, not so much. I can't get these tiny, flighty birds to pose long enough to fill the frame with them. I need 1/160 so I need f/2.8 - f/4 to keep the ISO down and produce this level of detail.

Having said that, I don't think the image has to be this sharp or detailed to make a good photo, not at all. It can be technically better, and not a better photo. I mean by this I don't enjoy looking at it because of sharpness or detail. Composition is more important to me. I prefer a soft image that is also a better composition.

The 40-150PRO weighs 1.67lbs + 3oz for the TC when needed. Pretty easy to handle hand held, balanced and heavy enough to help keep it steady. I think OLY designed this one right. I can't fault it except sometimes it makes ugly bokeh. My Four Thirds lenses shoot warmer and generally make more pleasing bokeh, but they don't have the snappy AF, and are bigger and heavier for the FL. I think the 40-150PRO needs to shoot a wider aperture to make a pleasing bokeh, but I'm not sure yet - still testing. I'm really impressed with this PRO lens and the 75 f/1.8. I wish OLY made an M43 150 f/2 prime.

Sometimes I wish the 40-150PRO had more reach, but when I crop the identical image to compare with the FT 50-200, I have to pixel peep to find any difference. Even cropped to match framing, the 40-150PRO image is sharper. It manages light better, and is much easier to handle, Of course the AF is way faster. I find myself reaching for the M43 lens. That's a personal choice. I prefer a cropped image taken by a sharp, fast lens that's easier to handle.

I've cropped images from the 75 f/1.8 and the OM 135 f/2.8 down to 1280X960 and more, displayed them on a 27" 2000 line monitor, and they still look sharp. Can't make print a poster from them, but other than that, it tells me sharpness is more important than resolution.

I'd like to try the 300 f/4 PRO. I'll rent it. Don't need it enough to own it.

Here's a Formula Junior flying up the back straight at Laguna Seca taken with the 75 f/1.8 cropped down and sized to 1280X907. I think its sharp and detailed enough on my 2000 line monitor. No Photoshop. That's the background straight out of the camera.

Below it is "Alana" in my car taken with a 29MP Hasselblad. I have the same photo from the OLY 14-150 and it looks good. For the commercial calendar print this was, the EM-5 and the 14-150 is good enough. The Hassy is better for this studio shot because the resolution is so high, but the image is also softened. The Hassy is better for commercial studio photography, but for everything else I like the sharpest lens, a kit I can comfortably handle. 12-16MP is almost always enough resolution - for me.

Who would compare a 1280X907 image with a 7216X5412 image? Go for it, just don't waste the paper to print them.

Track photo = overcast sky. Studio photo = lighting perfection.

Lens and light are important. In lots of places, camera body / system is overrated. - IMHO

Yes, ISO pretty good in good light, even with EM-5 and PL-7. Works in low light too, but only if you don't have to crop.

Have you tried "Pro Capture?" Could be ideal for the Red Wing Black Bird, herons and such when you don't know when to fire the shutter. If you could run up the shutter speed, and shoot a higher ISO, you could catch it flying off and track it.

Might be tough for a small bird, They are so fast and erratic, the wings flap so rapidly. But for a big bird like an eagle....

Have to find the eBird site. What is the best way to use it?