• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Micro Four-Thirds (5 Viewers)

Vignetting is not usually a problem with APS-C sensors, but only with full frame if the scope has only a 2" focuser. FF requires a 3" focuser. The 4/3 format is nice for scopes for two reasons, more reach and a closer to square format. I have both 4/3 (Oly E-30....maybe E-M1 sometime) and APS-C (Nikon d7000, maybe D7100 sometime) and although I normally prefer the 3/2 format for normal photography, I find 4/3 better for birds, which is about all I do with the scope anyway. Keep in mind that an APS-C sensor cropped to 4/3 format is only slightly larger than the 4/3 standard size. Enough bigger to give it a slight advantage in DR and noise, but not really a huge amount. There was quite a difference between the E-M5 and the D7000, but the difference between the E-M1 and the improver sensor in the D7100 seem to be more evenly matched. Still no figures from DxOMark to base this on, but the test shots I have seen indicate a big improvement in 4/3 sensor technology.
 
Richardmg9 said:
Sorry in advance for the noobie question, but why does it seem that 4/3s and M4/3s are so popular in digiscoping in general? (other than portability) Is is that you have to end up cropping to that size anyway because of vignetting when using something with an APS-C or larger sensor?
Click to expand...

If your setup is well made with the right components, you should not have any vignetting. The M43 sensor is interesting because the sensor has a 2X crop factor. Your 600mm telescope becomes a 1200mm one. Since the aim of digiscoping is to get more reach, it is an important advantage.

Weight is another important factor, for 2 reasons. First, a telescope is quite heavy. Adding a 1.2 kg Canon 1D is much worse than an Olympus OM-D that weights only 425 g. It also causes less strain on the camera adapter and the focuser.

Here, on the Astro telescopes forum, the Oly OM-D is a popular camera. I use one and here is what I like the most about it:
  1. 2.0 crop factor
  2. Light weight
  3. It is an award winning excellent camera.
  4. Manual focusing is easy with the IBIS stabilizer and the 5-14X magnifier in the electronic viewfinder.
  5. The electronic viewfinder is excellent. You don't have to rely on the LCD.
  6. The sensor is not too noisy at ISO 800 and 1600, which is important because we need a lot of light to compensate for the high f/6+ ratio of or scopes.
Reading all this Micro Four-Thirds from the beginning will teach you all there is to know on the subject.


Regards
Jules
 
"If I stick a prism and eyepiece on my scope and photograph through it then I can't get photos as good as if took them at prime focus and cropped."
The more glass you have between the subject and the sensor the more likely it will be for distortion to creep in. That is the beauty of using astroscopes as we do. They are so simple in design and there are only two or three glass elements, and if they are high quality a nice sharp image will be projected onto the sensor. (Astro guys require a field flattener so that stars on the edges of their shots are round and not oval). Run that image through an eyepiece and everything changes. They are ideally meant to project the image onto the retina of your eye and not on to the larger, flat surface of a sensor, and they are very likely not to be of the same quality glass as the scope lenses. They don't need to be for the reasons Paul mentioned.
 
Thanks a ton Dan and Jules for the prompt and informative answers. The Oly OM-D is what I have been leaning towards purchasing. It really seems like an incredible little camera, the only things that haven't completely sold me on it is the lack of 60p video and no electronic shutter option; guess you can't have it all in one camera. One clarification though please, would you not have the same reach as a 4/3s with a larger sensor if you just cropped it to 4/3s size? Sorry again for the tedious questions, about to buy my 1st "serious" camera. Also, anyone have an opinion on the OM-D for astophotography?
 
Last edited:
Sure, but the question is what is the pixel pitch. For instance, a 36 MP FF Nikon D800 sensor, cropped to 4/3, would give you the equivalent of a 9 MP sensor. It would be great in terms of noise and DR, but lacking in fine detail compared to a 16MP OM-D sensor, and it would further limit your possibilities to crop even further, which we often need to do. To me the two best options are the new OM-D E-M1 or the Nikon D7100. There are others for sure, but those are the only two I am interested in.
The OM-D E-M5 seems to be a great camera for our kind of photography, and there are many on the used market now because of the E-M1. Tord, Carlos, and Jules all use it and swear by it.
 
Richardmg9 said:
Thanks a ton Dan and Jules for the prompt and informative answers. The Oly OM-D is what I have been leaning towards purchasing. It really seems like an incredible little camera, the only things that haven't completely sold me on it is the lack of 60p video and no electronic shutter option; guess you can't have it all in one camera. One clarification though please, would you not have the same reach as a 4/3s with a larger sensor if you just cropped it to 4/3s size? Sorry again for the tedious questions, about to buy my 1st "serious" camera. Also, anyone have an opinion on the OM-D for astophotography?
Click to expand...

Having no 60p video is indeed a weakness if you're into video. IMO, electronic shutter is nice but there are serious limitations when using it so it is not that big a factor.

Comparing no crop M43 to cropped FF photo:
  1. Like Dan wrote, you are better off with a no crop M43 photo because of the difference in pixel pitch.
  2. It is nice to see the exact image in the viewfinder.
  3. Bear in mind that you multiply the focal length by 2 but the aperture doesn't change.
  4. There are important differences in weight, size and cost.
  5. Lenses are less expensive, smaller and lighter.
Before getting the OM-5, you should also have a look at the OM-1. It has a C-AF function that works reliably, meaning you can do BIF with a regular telephoto lens. Of course, it is more expensive.

Difficult decisions...
 
Last edited:
"meaning you can do BIF with a regular telephoto lens. Of course, it is more expensive." What does BIF stand for? And about the electronic shutter, I really want that more for astrophotography than terrestrial. My problem is that I want 1 camera to do it all, lol
 
Ah, of course birds in flight. For astro, you really need to minimize any vibration as much as possible. Even walking near your tripod on hard ground can lower the image quality. Although, I have seen some stunning astro shots from the omd5...
 
JGobeil said:
...// snipped
Here, on the Astro telescopes forum, the Oly OM-D is a popular camera. I use one and here is what I like the most about it:
  1. 2.0 crop factor
  2. Light weight
  3. It is an award winning excellent camera.
  4. Manual focusing is easy with the IBIS stabilizer and the 5-14X magnifier in the electronic viewfinder.
  5. The electronic viewfinder is excellent. You don't have to rely on the LCD.
  6. The sensor is not too noisy at ISO 800 and 1600, which is important because we need a lot of light to compensate for the high f/6+ ratio of or scopes.
Reading all this Micro Four-Thirds from the beginning will teach you all there is to know on the subject.


Regards
Jules
Click to expand...

In addition to what Jules writes (and that I agree on), I would like to add the following regarding the EM5-OMD.
  • The effect of the IBIS applies to the image in the viewfinder, making it much easier to adjust focus.
  • The electonic viewfinder means that the image will be bright even in poor light conditions, easier to focus.
  • The touch function on the LCD allows for taking long exposures with less risk of introducing vibrations, which would be the case by pressing the shutter release button.
  • Camera is weather proof, should you want to take pictures in rain/snow.
 
Richardmg9 said:
"meaning you can do BIF with a regular telephoto lens. Of course, it is more expensive." What does BIF stand for? And about the electronic shutter, I really want that more for astrophotography than terrestrial. My problem is that I want 1 camera to do it all, lol
Click to expand...

The electronic shutter seems nice at first glance. Yes it is silent but it has serious flaws:

It is in fact a rolling shutter that scans the sensor to get a picture instead of taking an instant snapshot. This scanning takes 1/10 second, meaning it is useless on moving subjects. Also, it will amplify camera shake, making it useless as well with long lenses like our scopes.

Common artefacts are that sometimes, one half of the picture is sharp and the other half has camera shake. Also, with geometric objects, distorsion is a problem.

Want more ? On some cameras, you are limited to ISO 1600 and speeds faster than 1 s. Flash cannot be used.

When I purchased my OM-D, I also thought the electronic shutter was a worth while feature but, after some research, I quickly changed my mind. I think it is useless for birding.

See this comprehensive article with pictures on the subject, :
http://m43photo.blogspot.ca/2012/12/gh3-electronic-shutter.html
 
I disagree with the electronic shutter being useless for birding, it was the feature that made me get a G5 when it came out, I took over 8000 shots with the camera and most of them were with the silent shutter on.
It's the feature I miss the most after selling that camera.

It's useless for action, it makes some very weird effects on action images, but that's it, for regular static shots it's more than effective enough. For this reason I had a button dedicated to switch it on and off, when I had any expectation of shooting some action I'd just switch it off, in any other situation it would be on, always.

The upside of having a truly silent shutter is more than enough to justify having this function. I was able to shoot several birds extremely close that I was never able before with a DSLR.

Also I don't understand why do you say it amplifies vibrations, I tested the feature a lot and compared both results several times, if anything it's much easier to get sharper results out of the electronic shutter with the telescope, specially at very low speeds.
 
FernandoBatista said:
I disagree with the electronic shutter being useless for birding, it was the feature that made me get a G5 when it came out, I took over 8000 shots with the camera and most of them were with the silent shutter on.
It's the feature I miss the most after selling that camera.

It's useless for action, it makes some very weird effects on action images, but that's it, for regular static shots it's more than effective enough. For this reason I had a button dedicated to switch it on and off, when I had any expectation of shooting some action I'd just switch it off, in any other situation it would be on, always.

The upside of having a truly silent shutter is more than enough to justify having this function. I was able to shoot several birds extremely close that I was never able before with a DSLR.

Also I don't understand why do you say it amplifies vibrations, I tested the feature a lot and compared both results several times, if anything it's much easier to get sharper results out of the electronic shutter with the telescope, specially at very low speeds.
Click to expand...

Hi Fernando,

I wrote: "When I purchased my OM-D, I also thought the electronic shutter was a worth while feature but, after some research, I quickly changed my mind. I think it is useless for birding."

First, it is clear that I don't own a camera with an electronic shutter. Second, I say that I THINK it is useless for birding.

The article in reference sums quite well what I have read in many places regarding the electronic shutter.

I'm happy that it works well for you.

Regards
Jules
 
For astro you are using such long exposures I can't see that an electronic shutter would be that much of an advantage over a mirrorless system.
 
Well guys, thanks for all the answers and input. I just received a 1100D + kit lens + a 75-300mm lens. So for now, I'll learn the ropes on this setup. I pretty pleasantly surprised with the results I've gotten so far. My 12" mirror will be done soon as well. It's no OMD on a skywatcher, but I am optimistic and excited. Thanks again.
 
Broken IBIS?

The IBIS on my E-M5 is behaving strange with pronounced vibrations and humming when used on long focal lengths and the EVF image is no longer stabilized as it used to be. I have sent it to Olympus for them to have a look at and repair.

This means I am out of camera for some time, unless I fallback to 4/3 but not having the useful features offered by E-M5.
 
THAT...is a bummer!
I actually find that there is enough mass in the scope/camera combo that camera shake is not as much of an issue as subject movement is, ESP nervous birds! I just try and keep the shutter speed up and squeeze the trigger. I seldom see wiggled shots, but enough blurred ones from subject movement if the light is not good enough.
Seems you have had your share of bad luck with the OM-D.:-C
 
You are really not lucky with this camera Tord. Sorry for that.

Dan, with my EM-5, I don't think I need IBIS when shooting except in bad light at low shutter speeds. However it is very handy for focusing using the 5X magnification. 9000mm EQ. is a lot of power and even very small vibrations make focus difficult without IBIS. This is the beauty of having such a good stabilisation system built in the camera.
 
Last edited:
Yes I seem to be followed by bad luck with that camera. Let's see what Olympus report.

The IBIS is strictly speaking not critical in good light conditions, but it is extremely useful when fine focusing.

In less good light teh IBIS has enabled me to take sharp shots free from shake blur at shutter times as low as around 1/100 or maybe even 1/50s (at 850mm), something I could only have dreamed of just a few years ago.

Even though I have a nice and smooth RH2 gimbal, the setup is subject to vibrations transferred from hand holding the camera or caused by wind, which often is the reality I need to face here.

Without IBIS shake blur is noticeable as soon as light is not that great, unless I push the ISO high enough to compensate and get shutter speed down to something like 1/250 - 1/500. Using the touch screen is an option, but that only works when weather is calm, and when subjects are static.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

S
Using iPad as monitor for DSLR Digiscoping
Replies
0
Views
546
SwannyVancouver
S
MelospizaMelodiaFan
Upgrading from Bridge Camera to M43
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Missy_MT_AK
M
O
Canon EOS 80D always slightly "fuzzy"
Replies
14
Views
2K
nikitasius
N
C
AX Visio: is it really as bad as some reviewers claim??
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
7K
Canip
C
W
Considering a Partial Camera Upgrade - D500 w/ 200-500mm lens
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
BriLee
B

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Back
Top