Olympus Bigma? (1 Viewer)

Hi Guys

In an earlier canon thread I was enquiring about whether or not to go for an Olympus E-620. The reply I got was if you decide to take it further there are fewer bigger lenses in the four thirds category.

If I did go for an E-620 with 300 zuiko lens and toyed around with it for a while. Could I get a compatible Sigma lens (500mm) some time down the line?
Surely I could get on from somewhere or are they intending on making something new in the Simga Four Thirds range.

Those that use the Zuiko 300 lens - does it have good reach and good IQ at the top end - 300?

I need to make my mind up by this weekend.

I like the E-620 and it would be a pity to go to Nikon/Canon because of the aforementioned problem.
One would like to think there would be Four Thirds lenses somewhere down the line:t:

Sigma has stopped supporting the 4/3rds format although you might find a s/h 4/3rds bigma.

I tried googling that Speckled Wood and cant find anything. Big disappointment about the Sigma thing

Guess I will have to change my mind then about a different dslr body...

Sigma are still producing lenses for 4/3 cameras but they have slimmed the range down considerably and no longer have any in the 300mm+ range. I think it is unlikely that they will be producing any more in the future. If you can find a used Sigma 50-500 they seem to give excellent results (see Amadoux's work) but they are rather big and heavy.

By Zuiko 300 I imagine you are referring to the 70-300 zoom, as the 300 f2.8 is a seriously expensive and heavy piece of hand built kit. I am much fonder of the 70-300 than most users seem to be and I think that it is an excellent value lens capable of giving very good results with a bit of care. It is a superb walk-about lens which can take fine macro shots too.

I use the 50-200 SWD zoom with the 1.4x converter attached all the time now. It is definitely better than the 70-300 in most aspects but it is bigger, heavier and a lot more expensive. Unfortunately, although I haven't tried it, it doesn't appear to give such good results with the 2x converter. This is a pity as 400mm would be a nice length to have.

It pains me to say it but if you are interested in bird photography some of the other manufacturers are a much better choice to make. Olympus make (or have made) some excellent cameras but the lack of longer length lenses limits their wildlife photography applications severely.

Ron

thanks for that guys.

Bit of a disappointment so am going to start looking at Canons and Nik's.

hello again

as of my personal attitude for cannon and Nikon i will not go with getting any of them, as i understand, compact size is what you are looking four, cameras with 4/3 sensors is the answer for you as they for focal length of 300mm give you what is equivelinf to 600mm in 35mm full frame format.

but i also would not advise to take the E 620, although i think it is a marvelous camera, but there are two major drawbacks for it.

1- it uses the XD card which comes with max 2 GB that means only 312 exposures in LF JPEG, and less in raw, so you always have to go around with one or two more cards in your pocket.

2- it doesn't have HD video

the second point may not be a concern for you now but if you can get the same capabilities + HD video with same or even less price why not.

i would strongly suggest to you to have a look at the six or seven options available for mirror-less micro4/3 bodies form Olympus and Panasonic. the Olympus's got the advantage of in body image stabilization.

and have a look at this lens form Lumix

http://www.f8daily.com/Panasonic-LUMIX-G-VARIO-100-300mm-F4-0-5-6-MEGA-O-I-S-Review-4815024

looks so impressive, i am planing to get me one for my EPL1. for travelling.

yes it is the longest reach lens now available but the future for m4/3 seem promising, as now many independent lens makers, like Sigma, have announced that they will produce lenses for m4/3

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/schneider-kreuznach_joins_micro_four_thirds/

QuestionableCarrot said:

Those that use the Zuiko 300 lens - does it have good reach and good IQ at the top end - 300?

Click to expand...

There's that word "reach" again. I inquired about a formal definition of it in another forum, and was assured that, although there isn't one, it simply means focal length. By that definition, this lens has precisely the reach of every other 300mm lens. But I tend to use it like you have, where IQ and the end result matter too.

Another option, not one for everyone, is to use the camera with older manual focus lenses. Adapters are available for lots of mounts for 4/3 cameras. Of course you lose AF and even auto aperture control, so not a very popular solution.

I've fitted my E-520 with a 1.36x viewfinder magnifier and an AF confirm chip to help focus my Sigma APO 400mm f5.6. Results are usually ok, sometimes I mess up the focusing. I've never felt the need to zoom out, and it's permanently wide open. I went with this solution because of cost - I can use any older lenses, and still have image stabilisation. I don't think there are any other camera brands that allow such MF lens choice.

I'd be very interested to see how the results compare with the 70-300mm Zuiko lens. I suspect it might be uncomfortably close, as the Sigma was not very expensive.

ammadoux said:

1- it uses the XD card which comes with max 2 GB that means only 312 exposures in LF JPEG, and less in raw, so you always have to go around with one or two more cards in your pocket.

Click to expand...

My E-520 takes both CF and XD cards, and I suspect the E-620 does too. I only use CF, and I think I have an 8GB card in it. I've got no complaints about storage, although I've only been shooting jpgs.

Incidentally, I read somewhere (Wrotniak's site?) that Olympus get an unusual amount of information into their jpgs, and there isn't as much advantage in shooting raw as with other brands. I must try it for myself one day.

If you haven't had a browse of his site then it's well worth it, there's lots of intelligent information about the Olympus E series: http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/index.html

ammadoux said:

i would strongly suggest to you to have a look at the six or seven options available for mirror-less micro4/3 bodies form Olympus and Panasonic. the Olympus's got the advantage of in body image stabilization.

Click to expand...

I'm very interested in Micro 4/3 now. I think if I didn't have the E-520 already, I'd be at least trying one of the Olympus ones out with the VF-2 viewfinder.

and have a look at this lens form Lumix

http://www.f8daily.com/Panasonic-LUMIX-G-VARIO-100-300mm-F4-0-5-6-MEGA-O-I-S-Review-4815024

looks so impressive, i am planing to get me one for my EPL1. for travelling.

yes it is the longest reach lens now available but the future for m4/3 seem promising, as now many independent lens makers, like Sigma, have announced that they will produce lenses for m4/3

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/schneider-kreuznach_joins_micro_four_thirds/

Click to expand...

Yes, sadly for 4/3, it does seem like manufacturers are opting to support Micro 4/3 instead.

E-620 has slots for CF and XD. The XD card it isn't very fast in writing files, so I keep a XD as a back-up an I usually use a CF card.

I have only once had to switch over to the XD card and that was when I had forgotten to download the shots from the previous session. My 4GB CF card will hold enough raw images to keep me occupied (bored) at the computer for an hour or two sorting them out. It's interesting to see that they have swapped the XD slot for an SD one of the E-5.

The more I think about, the more I am interested to see what sort of mirrorless cameras Olympus will be producing in a couple of years. If they are compatible with 4/3 lenses, they could be the answer to my, and other people's, prayers. That's assuming that Olympus still exist as a camera maker then, of course!

Ron

pshute said:

There's that word "reach" again. I inquired about a formal definition of it in another forum, and was assured that, although there isn't one, it simply means focal length. By that definition, this lens has precisely the reach of every other 300mm lens. But I tend to use it like you have, where IQ and the end result matter too.

Click to expand...

I more often see reach used as meaning the equivalent focal length. On any 4/3 camera, the crop factor is two, so the 300 mm end has a reach equivalent to a 600 mm lens on a 35 mm film camera (it has the same field of view as would have been obtained on the 35 mm film camera using a 600 mm lens). Canon and Nikon in their smaller sensor cameras have a crop factor of about 1.5-1.6x.

Of course, with any camera/lens combination, the main question is what the pictures afterwards look like.

Niels

ok guys Im starting to get lost now.

What do you mean when you talk about 600mm within the context of this thread? Are you saying that the Zuiko 300 is actually a 600m?

Boy this is getting really confusing... I have went from Canon to Nikon, to Olympus and now I am looking at Pentax!|:S|

ammadoux said:

hello again


but i also would not advise to take the E 620, although i think it is a marvelous camera, but there are two major drawbacks for it.

1- it uses the XD card which comes with max 2 GB that means only 312 exposures in LF JPEG, and less in raw, so you always have to go around with one or two more cards in your pocket.
[/url]

Click to expand...

This is not true. E620 and E520 both support CF cards.

QuestionableCarrot said:

ok guys Im starting to get lost now.

What do you mean when you talk about 600mm within the context of this thread? Are you saying that the Zuiko 300 is actually a 600m?

Boy this is getting really confusing... I have went from Canon to Nikon, to Olympus and now I am looking at Pentax!|:S|

Click to expand...

I am not saying it is a 600, but it gives a field of view that is the same as what you would have gotten with a 600 on a 35mm film camera. On a Canon/Nikon a 300 gives a field of view like what a roughly 450 would have gotten on a 35 mm film camera. I think the pentax is closer to the latter number too, but I do not really know anything about pentax.

Niels

QuestionableCarrot said:

ok guys Im starting to get lost now.

What do you mean when you talk about 600mm within the context of this thread? Are you saying that the Zuiko 300 is actually a 600m?

Boy this is getting really confusing... I have went from Canon to Nikon, to Olympus and now I am looking at Pentax!|:S|

Click to expand...

It can be confusing, I know, but whenever we are talking about the equivalent 'reach' of a lens for a digital SLR, you have to consider the crop factor of that particular system. Canon, Nikon and Olympus are all different (1.6x, 1.5x and 2x respectively) so the effective magnification of a particular focal length lens changes accordingly due to this factor. It's worth bearing in mind that this only refers to cropped sensor cameras from Nikon & Canon. Both companies also produce 'full frame' cameras. Olympus however, only produce one sensor size, which rather confusingly, is the same for both 4/3 and m4/3 bodies! Their sensor is noticeably smaller than the other two. Compact digital cameras all have tiny sensors, even compared to the smaller Olympus 4/3 ones.

Equivalent focal length is always based on the understanding that 35mm film came first, so it's worth remembering that the Olympus sensor is half the area of a 35mm negative. Canon's sensor is 1.6x smaller, and Nikon's is 1.5x smaller than a 35mm negative. Hence the 'crop factor'.

As has already been said above, a 300mm focal length lens is always 300mm, no getting away from it, and likewise, 500mm will always be just that.

Now imagine that any 300mm lens produces an image circle of a given size on the camera's sensor, irrespective of the company that makes the lens or body.

If you placed a camera with a larger sensor (Canon or Nikon) behind that very same lens and fired a shot, then placed a camera body with smaller sensor (Olympus or Panasonic) behind it and fired a shot, the resulting Olympus/Panasonic image, when displayed on your computer screen, would show the same details noticeably larger than the Canon/Nikon pictures. This is because a smaller area of the image circle has been selected due to the reduced size of the Olympus/Panasonic sensor. It has effectively 'cropped' the image produced by the lens. The Olympus 2x crop factor is because the sensor is exactly half the size of a 35mm negative, so it appears double the size on the monitor.

If all things are equal (e.g 300mm lens, 10 megapixel sensor etc) then the smaller sensor has an advantage in reach. However, things very rarely are equal, due to the varying quality of glass, different number of pixels on more recent sensors (latest Canon's are 18mp) and so on.

Example:

Canon 300mm lens x 1.6 crop factor = 480mm effectve focal length
Olympus 300mm lens x 2 crop factor = 600mm effective focal length

Sounds good doesn't it? but when you take into account that a Canon 18mp sensor might have more 'pixels on the bird' due to its higher pixel density, the apparent advantage might not be so great (if at all?). An 18mp sensor means that you can continue cropping the image in post processing, using a programme like photoshop, and pull more detail out of an image that at first sight might look smaller when first uploaded onto your computer. Of course, this relies on the image being sharp, and having been taken through a high quality lens capable of capturing high resolution images.

Hope that made some sense

ATB

Steve

Steve,
I at least think that was a good explanation.

For reference: the Olympus E5 has a 12 mp sensor, same for their EPL2 micro4/3.
The Pana GH2 has 16 mp (but 12 mp in most of their other models)
Canon seems to have 18 mp in 60D and 7D, but 15 mp in 50D.
Nikon has 14 mp in the d3100 and 16 mp in d7000, but 12 in some of the slightly older models
(all according to numbers I found on DPreview)

yes, it is a jungle out there 8-P

Niels

There is a 4/3 mount Bigma on Ebay at the moment with less than an hour to go. The seller describes it as 'pristine' and the latest bid is £609. Too big and heavy for me, though, and I have spent all my money on my Zuiko 50-200.

Edit. Sold for £775. I imagine that is not much less than it cost new.

Ron

NoSpringChicken said:

There is a 4/3 mount Bigma on Ebay at the moment with less than an hour to go. The seller describes it as 'pristine' and the latest bid is £609. Too big and heavy for me, though, and I have spent all my money on my Zuiko 50-200.

Edit. Sold for £775. I imagine that is not much less than it cost new.

Ron

Click to expand...

Ron, that is one of the reasons I moved over to Canon last year, and now, having been a Canon user for over a year, The Bigma is actually one of the less desireable 400mm(ish) lenses available to me. Also, even if I had bought one, the 4/3 concept of smaller bodied cameras delivering IQ comparable to larger ones is wasted rather, as you would still need to us it on a full size DSLR body, so not really much of an advantage in practice in staying with 4/3.

I know that in the right hands, the lens is capable of excellent results, and I've seen some great pictures from it, but it's big, heavy, and almost as pricey as either the Canon 400 f5.6, 300f4 or the 100-400 zoom. All three of these are capable of results at least as good as the Bigma, will retain their value better, and are lighter in weight. What's more, the apparent advantage of the 2x crop factor isn't really bearing fruit as their DSLR sensors are lagging behind the competition both in terms of resolution and dynamic range. In comparison tests with the Canon 400f5.6, the Bigma has almost no reach advantage in real terms (not really a true 500mm).

For me the Olympus brand had such great potential for wildlife photography, but unfortunately they never achieved as much of it as they could have due to lack of investment in lenses.

With the m4/3 format growing at an increasing rate, I think that's where Olympus will see their true strength in the coming years, though I'm not sure where that will leave their DSLR following? Exciting times are ahead if you want compact, high quality cameras with decent image quality and the ability to change lenses. But I wonder how we bird nuts will be catered for? We'll have to see....

Steve, I never seriously considered buying a Bigma. It is much too large and heavy for my requirements and I think it really needs tripod mounting for best results. I always shoot handheld. The Zuiko 50-200 and EC-14 are adequate for my snapshots and, mounted on the E-30, are as heavy as I am prepared to go. My present combination is a lot weightier than my original E-510 + 70-300 which was an ideal 'walkabout' rig. It's just a pity that the EC-20 apparently doesn't work too well with the 50-200 as the magical 400mm figure is so appealing.

I am quite happy with my present gear and see no need to move to anything else for a few years. By that time the situation with mirrorless cameras should have become clearer and, hopefully, there should be a route available to make use of my existing lenses. I have always enjoy being different and supporting the underdog. ed

Ron