BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dwever" data-source="post: 3537686" data-attributes="member: 118803">There's a lens hood on both lenses that make them appear way way bigger than in reality.Below left is the 31 ounce (remember that number) Oly 40-150 f2.8 (Equivalent 35mm 80-300mm) lens in better perspective.  It is metal build and weather sealed.  As someone who used to shoot sporting events with a Nikon SLR for the Florida Flambeau (FSU paper) and then DSLR non professionally with a 70-200 f2.8 and a couple of primes, the Oly lens and body are Lilliputian by comparison.  I would also point out again that with the Oly lens you're getting the 35mm equivalent of 80-300 in an f2.8.By comparison, look at the Nikon 300mm F2.8 to the right.  It is right at 100 ounces (6.4 lbs.).  See the mount to appreciate it's size.  The Nikon is an engineering marvel and with a Nikon DSLR like an 810,  if you need spectacular detail and massive print output, or huge croppping ability,  that format is the way to go for that and other reasons.  There are so many nuances to the formats I don't want to start that discussion.  At the end of the day, in 2017 both formats in their PRO expressions are engineering marvels with incredible abilities, and for the vast majority of us, micro 4/3 will be all we'll ever need; and again for most, it is a very limited set of conditions where image quality will be an issue by comparison.  I routinely order 20x30 in the 4/3 without disappointment, and I could go higher.I'll be going to Santa Fe this year for a week of landscape shooting.  Wasn't long ago I would have had a full-size DSLR for that task.  This year I'll shoot in the new EM-1's high resolution mode.  Here's a guy from Cocoa Beach already using that technology: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/edrosack/sets/72157657294429441" target="_blank">https://www.flickr.com/photos/edrosack/sets/72157657294429441</a>If you actually need more resolution than the camera's almost-always-more-than-enough standard res of 5184x3888, then the resolution in High Resolution Mode is 8160×6120 with staggeringly large 50mb file sizes or even 10368 × 7776 With 80mb files.   In high res mode your subject should be still like a landscape or skyline.</blockquote>

Verification