Sorry, but have to disagree with almost everything you claim here. First, the main advantage of MFT over DSLRs is the weight of an equivalent magnification camera/lens combination, which for birding can be an enormous difference. Second, the price of a "good" MFT camera is around $600 for a G6; the E-M1 is a premium professional class camera with advantages such as weather sealing, the image quality differences between it and a G6 are fairly minimal. Finally, if you think carrying around a scope and tripod and digiscoping is as convenient for photographing birds as carrying a lightweight handheld camera you are in a distinct minority. Moreover, the keeper rate for digiscoping is notoriously low to say nothing of the fact you will miss a lot of bird photos if you are constrained by a tripod.
-
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.
Micro 4/3 vs. DSLR (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Rapala
- Start date
Sorry, but have to disagree with almost everything you claim here. First, the main advantage of MFT over DSLRs is the weight of an equivalent magnification camera/lens combination, which for birding can be an enormous difference. Second, the price of a "good" MFT camera is around $600 for a G6; the E-M1 is a premium professional class camera with advantages such as weather sealing, the image quality differences between it and a G6 are fairly minimal. Finally, if you think carrying around a scope and tripod and digiscoping is as convenient for photographing birds as carrying a lightweight handheld camera you are in a distinct minority. Moreover, the keeper rate for digiscoping is notoriously low to say nothing of the fact you will miss a lot of bird photos if you are constrained by a tripod.
One of the funny differences is that m4/3 in doing very well in East Asia and has a difficulty cracking into the western world. There has been some strange marketing decisions made by both Pana and Oly that is at least partly to blame, and there is in the US the usual belief that everything bigger by necessity is better which is also at least partly to blame.
A few years ago I went to Southern Africa with someone carrying a Canon dslr, while I brought my GH2. There was very little difference in quality of the pics we came home with. Therefore, the rumours of how big the difference in image quality is are greatly exaggerated. Possibly the FF canons/Nikons, etc has some advantage, but for the beginner models, no.
Niels
A few years ago I went to Southern Africa with someone carrying a Canon dslr, while I brought my GH2. There was very little difference in quality of the pics we came home with. Therefore, the rumours of how big the difference in image quality is are greatly exaggerated. Possibly the FF canons/Nikons, etc has some advantage, but for the beginner models, no.
Niels
GraemeS
Sporadic user
Just got back from the jungle.
My results are mixed - if I don't need to crop then the E-M1 image is fantastic. Myabe up to trimming 30% off, but not sure yet. The 7D can withstand a much more severe crop and still show detail (the E-M1 lose fine detail and can smudge colours when pixel peeping).
However, ai'm not convinced it's the camera, I think it could be a lens limitation rather. I want to give it another go since I was shooting wide open, so I would expect the Canon 70-300L lens to outperform the Oly75-300.
I don't think I missed any shots due to the new camera, except for a few user errors as I get used to the camera, and I struggled to get an instant lock on birds suddenly flying past or overhead (which never result in nice photos, so I'm not bothered about that).
So, the jury's out for me whether the E-M1 will replace my 7D, or supplement it for other forms of photography. I do love it for photography where I can fill the frame.
My results are mixed - if I don't need to crop then the E-M1 image is fantastic. Myabe up to trimming 30% off, but not sure yet. The 7D can withstand a much more severe crop and still show detail (the E-M1 lose fine detail and can smudge colours when pixel peeping).
However, ai'm not convinced it's the camera, I think it could be a lens limitation rather. I want to give it another go since I was shooting wide open, so I would expect the Canon 70-300L lens to outperform the Oly75-300.
I don't think I missed any shots due to the new camera, except for a few user errors as I get used to the camera, and I struggled to get an instant lock on birds suddenly flying past or overhead (which never result in nice photos, so I'm not bothered about that).
So, the jury's out for me whether the E-M1 will replace my 7D, or supplement it for other forms of photography. I do love it for photography where I can fill the frame.
GraemeS
Sporadic user
All my photos are converted from RAW in LR. I haven't optimised my workflow for the new files yet, but I don't think there's much difference regarding my workflow. This is my real world testing, nothing more or less.
I've attached two similar photos, from each setup as 100% crops. I can see the difference and I don't like it that much. Having said that, I'm also attaching a photo I rather like that used the E-M1, which has only a small crop and is then down-sized slightly for the web.
Current thinking (overnight), is to keep only the Olympus and carry that with a couple of lenses and binoculars! Better birding, but compromised cropped photography (no REAL compromise on full-in-the-frame photography).
Best wishes.
I've attached two similar photos, from each setup as 100% crops. I can see the difference and I don't like it that much. Having said that, I'm also attaching a photo I rather like that used the E-M1, which has only a small crop and is then down-sized slightly for the web.
Current thinking (overnight), is to keep only the Olympus and carry that with a couple of lenses and binoculars! Better birding, but compromised cropped photography (no REAL compromise on full-in-the-frame photography).
Best wishes.
Attachments
Graeme, I hope that some tweaking of your standard settings would be able to improve the results on the EM1. As is this looks no better than what I am used to with my Pana GH2 and all other examples I have looked at gives me the impression that the EM1 handles low light better.
Niels
Niels
GraemeS
Sporadic user
Niels, I hope so too, but as these are from raw I'm not sure what setting could help at the moment, but I'll look into it.
There's also things like camera shake that may be more significant with the EM1 and other non-camera possibilities. As I said, this was very unscientific, just a real use comparing a camera I've shot 10s of thousands of photos on with one I've shot about 100 with.
There's also things like camera shake that may be more significant with the EM1 and other non-camera possibilities. As I said, this was very unscientific, just a real use comparing a camera I've shot 10s of thousands of photos on with one I've shot about 100 with.
GraemeS
Sporadic user
Yes, I saw that. I've just re-adjusted my settings, and I'm prepped and ready to shoot with suitably high shutter, steady hands and stopped-down aperture.
I'll be back in the jungle at the weekend for round two, after which I'll report back with something relevant to the original point of this thread!
Apologies for this minor hijacking, but the intention has been to describe my attempts at moving from a DSLR set up to a M43 one. So far the weight advantage is probably just winning, but I still hope to make the image quality disadvantage less noticable.
I'll be back in the jungle at the weekend for round two, after which I'll report back with something relevant to the original point of this thread!
Apologies for this minor hijacking, but the intention has been to describe my attempts at moving from a DSLR set up to a M43 one. So far the weight advantage is probably just winning, but I still hope to make the image quality disadvantage less noticable.
Rapala
Well-known member
I don't mind at all. The pictures you've attached are great. It's nice to get some personal reviews on these cameras. Thanks!
Last edited:
GraemeS
Sporadic user
Round 2 of my "testing" is done. (Seriously, how focused on testing am I going to be in the amazing jungle that is Kaeng Krachan?).
Anyway, the E-M1 is fantastic. It takes sharp, detailed and rich photos, with great ISO sensitivity. I have absolutely no hesitation in recommending it over the 7D or similar heavy camera, unless there are features you need etc etc.
One such feature, sadly, is a high quality (pro) telephoto lens to attach to it. On my Olympus, the 12-40mm pro and the 60mm macro lens take stunning pictures over a range of ISO settings. My copy of the 75-300mm lens smudges colour and fine detail even at ISO 800, which is kind of annoying. If I don't crop it's not noticeable, but even a small crop gives a noticeably inferior to the 7D with 70-300L lens (note the 7D requires more crop but is still MUCH better for fine detail.)
Now, I know the Canon lens is more expensive, but I am still surprised by the extent of the difference.
I might try comparing the Olympus against 7D with 55-250 lens, which is a cheaper Canon kit lens, but I might not have time.
What I do plan to do is this:
1. Try the lens adjustment feature to see if the lens is simply misaligned.
2. Research to see if I have a bad copy of the lens, probably taking it back to try against another.
3. Try the Canon 70-300L lens on the Olympus with an adapter.
I'm stilling planning to sell the 7D as I love the weight advantage too much. And I'm considering an old (heavy) lens to go with it for when I'm birding by car. An affordable 600mm lens on this body could be amazing. But I'm disappointed the walkabout 70-300 isn't better quality.
Anyway, the E-M1 is fantastic. It takes sharp, detailed and rich photos, with great ISO sensitivity. I have absolutely no hesitation in recommending it over the 7D or similar heavy camera, unless there are features you need etc etc.
One such feature, sadly, is a high quality (pro) telephoto lens to attach to it. On my Olympus, the 12-40mm pro and the 60mm macro lens take stunning pictures over a range of ISO settings. My copy of the 75-300mm lens smudges colour and fine detail even at ISO 800, which is kind of annoying. If I don't crop it's not noticeable, but even a small crop gives a noticeably inferior to the 7D with 70-300L lens (note the 7D requires more crop but is still MUCH better for fine detail.)
Now, I know the Canon lens is more expensive, but I am still surprised by the extent of the difference.
I might try comparing the Olympus against 7D with 55-250 lens, which is a cheaper Canon kit lens, but I might not have time.
What I do plan to do is this:
1. Try the lens adjustment feature to see if the lens is simply misaligned.
2. Research to see if I have a bad copy of the lens, probably taking it back to try against another.
3. Try the Canon 70-300L lens on the Olympus with an adapter.
I'm stilling planning to sell the 7D as I love the weight advantage too much. And I'm considering an old (heavy) lens to go with it for when I'm birding by car. An affordable 600mm lens on this body could be amazing. But I'm disappointed the walkabout 70-300 isn't better quality.
Last edited:
The 50-200 4/3 oly lens is supposed to be really high quality and usable on the M1 with an adapter. This does some AF, as opposed to your canon lens that would be fully manual focus on the oly camera. However, this might be too expensive an option to test?
You probably are aware of the 300 that is promised for next year. You could also try the pana 100-300 lens to see if that delivers better results than the oly lens in your hands.
Niels
You probably are aware of the 300 that is promised for next year. You could also try the pana 100-300 lens to see if that delivers better results than the oly lens in your hands.
Niels
A (I think) very balanced review of what happens when you shoot Nikon and Pana GH3 side by side for a year: http://www.naturalexposures.com/one-year-testing-the-panasonic-lumix-gh3/
Niels
Niels
GraemeS
Sporadic user
I agree, it seems like a balanced and echoes my findings - the weight difference simply makes photography more enjoyable, but I wish there was a better long telephoto lens.
Next year's 300mm f4 lens will hopefully correct that, but I think I will be happy with my current zoom and looking at a manual focus 600mm old lens (1200mm will me no more cropping).
Most of photography will be with the 75-300 I have now - it takes great photos really, if I'm not so fussy! And it's fun to use, which is easy to overlook.
Thanks for sharing.
Next year's 300mm f4 lens will hopefully correct that, but I think I will be happy with my current zoom and looking at a manual focus 600mm old lens (1200mm will me no more cropping).
Most of photography will be with the 75-300 I have now - it takes great photos really, if I'm not so fussy! And it's fun to use, which is easy to overlook.
Thanks for sharing.
Last edited:
flanken
C-GU11
I have both the 75-300 and the 50-200 SWD with an E-M1, and recommend that you give the 50-200 a try, although it can be a bit pricey of an endeavor since it costs more than the 75-300, and you'd also need a Four Thirds adapter. If you're content with only 200mm (400mm full-frame), I find the 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 SWD to be quite excellent with the E-M1, definitely a big step up from the 75-300, and optically very close to the new Nikon 80-400mm AF-S. Since the E-M1 is using only phase detection, its autofocus behavior is different as well; while I wouldn't necessarily say it's better across the board, it acts a lot more DSLR-like in the way it moves and searches for focus. It's quite adequate for slower birds in flight.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/48282656@N00/13105780465/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/48282656@N00/13105899903/in/photostream/
Note that while you can turn it into a 283mm f/5 lens with an EC-14, I'm not impressed by the results. Image quality is only good at 283mm, about on a par (maybe very slightly better) with the 75-300 at 300mm, and while autofocus still works, it's slower, and less able to track objects, such that it's very difficult to use for any moving objects. In other words, if you need 300mm and autofocus, the 75-300 is the best option for the E-M1 at this time.
So if I'm traveling very light, or just need a lens for grab shots, I take the 75-300. If I expect to shoot birds, though, I'll bring the 50-200 and EC-14, and only use the EC-14 if I absolutely need the reach.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/48282656@N00/13105780465/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/48282656@N00/13105899903/in/photostream/
Note that while you can turn it into a 283mm f/5 lens with an EC-14, I'm not impressed by the results. Image quality is only good at 283mm, about on a par (maybe very slightly better) with the 75-300 at 300mm, and while autofocus still works, it's slower, and less able to track objects, such that it's very difficult to use for any moving objects. In other words, if you need 300mm and autofocus, the 75-300 is the best option for the E-M1 at this time.
So if I'm traveling very light, or just need a lens for grab shots, I take the 75-300. If I expect to shoot birds, though, I'll bring the 50-200 and EC-14, and only use the EC-14 if I absolutely need the reach.
GraemeS
Sporadic user
Just a quick update that after upgrading my camera's firmware and enabling the new option to use electronic first curtain with zero second delay, I feel like the photos are better and much closer to the 7D (still short, but initial tests suggests acceptably close for me).
I'll be doing a lot of photography over the next couple of weeks with both cameras, and I'll tell you how it goes.
I'll be doing a lot of photography over the next couple of weeks with both cameras, and I'll tell you how it goes.
Elkhornsun
Well-known member
With the mirrorless cameras the primary drawback is the lack of lenses with optical stabilization coupled with the need to hold the camera away from your body to view the display and select the point of focus and shoot. One cannot brace the camera properly and in-camera optical stabilization is good only for wide angle to normal focal lengths.
There are also very few fast lenses so much higher ISO settings need to be used which adds to the noise in the images. Try to find a 300mm f2.8 or f4 lens or a 400mm f2.8 or 500mm f4 lens for a mirrorless camera. Or try to find anything close to the Canon 100-400mm f4.5 IS or NIkon 80-400mm f4.5 VR optically stabilized zooms - they do not exist. The mirrorless user is having to use a f5.6 lens and shoot at 2x the apparent focal length or around 1/500s or faster and this is very limiting and results in needing very high ISO settings and having more noise in images.
There is also often the need when photographing a bird in the wild to focus manually so the point of focus is the bird and not a branch in front of or behind the bird. This is easier to do while bracing the camera and lens with a DSLR and this results in sharper images at lower ISO settings. Photographing birds in flight is also much more difficult with mirrorless cameras.
Where a mirrorless camera is better than the average DSLR is with digiscoping and taking pictures through the eyepiece of a spotting scope. The mirrorless camera and lenses will be less than half the weight of their DSLR counterparts which is great if hiking into the back country.
Considering their size and low cost the mirrorless cameras and lenses produce amazingly good pictures with a little care and far surpass the P&S and phone cameras one sees people using to avoid the weight of a DSLR kit.
There are also very few fast lenses so much higher ISO settings need to be used which adds to the noise in the images. Try to find a 300mm f2.8 or f4 lens or a 400mm f2.8 or 500mm f4 lens for a mirrorless camera. Or try to find anything close to the Canon 100-400mm f4.5 IS or NIkon 80-400mm f4.5 VR optically stabilized zooms - they do not exist. The mirrorless user is having to use a f5.6 lens and shoot at 2x the apparent focal length or around 1/500s or faster and this is very limiting and results in needing very high ISO settings and having more noise in images.
There is also often the need when photographing a bird in the wild to focus manually so the point of focus is the bird and not a branch in front of or behind the bird. This is easier to do while bracing the camera and lens with a DSLR and this results in sharper images at lower ISO settings. Photographing birds in flight is also much more difficult with mirrorless cameras.
Where a mirrorless camera is better than the average DSLR is with digiscoping and taking pictures through the eyepiece of a spotting scope. The mirrorless camera and lenses will be less than half the weight of their DSLR counterparts which is great if hiking into the back country.
Considering their size and low cost the mirrorless cameras and lenses produce amazingly good pictures with a little care and far surpass the P&S and phone cameras one sees people using to avoid the weight of a DSLR kit.
GraemeS
Sporadic user
Elkhornsun, your comments seem to centre largely around the belief that m43 cameras do not have optical viewfinders. The reasonably priced OMD cameras do and they make great options.
Bracing against the face is possible.
Manual focus with a zoomed image is possible thanks to the EVF (this is a standout feature).
But there are no big lenses, so high ISO is needed (but not significantly more so than if using the Canon 400 f5.6 imo.
Bracing against the face is possible.
Manual focus with a zoomed image is possible thanks to the EVF (this is a standout feature).
But there are no big lenses, so high ISO is needed (but not significantly more so than if using the Canon 400 f5.6 imo.
I have a GX7 which I've been trying out for birds. The main problem is that I find it very difficult/impossible to distinguish birds in bushes etc. I don't know if this is just me but the EVF needs to be much better before I'll be able to use it successfully. Incidentally I'm happy with other things such as af and even quality isn't too bad.
