Trying to decide between Olympus and Canon for Bird Photography

I'm posting here as well as in the Nature section. I am an avid birdwatcher and

love photographing my feathered friends, which can be very challenging. I'm

planning to purchase my first DSLR camera this year prior to a trip to Costa

Rica at the end of the year. I want to take my new purchase with me to

photograph wildlife in CR. So, the qualities I consider important are:

 

1. Weight - I have back issues and don't want to lug more weight around than

necessary. This is a VERY important factor for me since I will be outside

looking for birds on very long walks.

 

2. Sharpness/resolution - I don't think this will matter much among the cameras

Iﾒm considering, but since I'm shooting often faraway subjects, I want to be

able to take pictures that are as sharp as possible so that I can crop and get

the best results. The 4/3rds system appeals to me since I can take a 200mm lens

and get effectively 400mm out of it.

 

3. Action shots - I like taking photos of birds doing things rather than just

sitting around. Behavior is a lot more interesting to me than still shots.

 

4. I think that autofocus speed is important since the bird may not hang around

on the branch waiting for my camera to focus.

 

5. I do like macro photography as well - when the birds aren't around, I tend to

focus on the tiny things around me like insects, reptiles, or flowers.

 

6. Ruggedness - If I'm going to be traipsing around jungles and be outdoors in

general, I need a camera body as well as lens options that can take the "heat"

or, more importantly, the humidity.

 

7. Image Stabilization - Given I'm shooting birds, this would seem to be very

important. Is in-body IS better?

 

8. Price - I'm willing to shell out a pretty good sum for this camera. I'd like

it to be one that I can use for many years to come. I want to get into a system

that I can grow with and not need to start over again in a couple of years.

However, I'm not a professional photographer, so I guess I don't need to go

crazy with this purchase.

 

Is the Four Thirds system a good long-term investment? I've seen comments

related to the financial stability of the camera division of Olympus but haven't

found any confirmed sources to support that yet. It seems other bird

photography professionals are predominantly with Nikon or Canon. I do have one

Canon lens, but that doesn't mean I'm stuck on that brand.

 

I'm still a novice to serious photography, so I would also love to hear if I'm

missing out on any important considerations. Thanks!

<p>1. With the Four Thirds system you can have the Zuiko 7ﾖ30cm, the Sigmas

5ﾖ50cm, 135ﾖ400mm or the Zuiko 3dm 1:2.8. They will give you respectively

14ﾖ60cm, 1ﾖ10dm and 6dm in 24×36mm focal length equivalence, being that 6dm is

what is most often sought for birding. With any other systems, you would have

to get far bigger, heavier glass.

 

<p>2. Zuiko and Leica glass is superb, as is professional Sigma glass. Both

Zuiko and Leica have top-notch quality control, thus you are far less likely to

get duds than usual. The Zuikos are a steal if you consider their quality and

capabilities.

 

<p>3. You will want fast glass, and that would mean the 3dm 1:2.8 Zuiko.

 

<p>4. Get the E-3, an interesting proposition in price, size, weight and

capabilities ﾗ and the fastest focusing camera in the West.

 

<p>5. Olympus has a nice reputation for macros, for instance the 5dm 1:2. Sigma

has interesting options at 105mm and 15cm.

 

<p>6. Zuiko middle and top range glass is weather and dustproof.

 

<p>7. It is not better, but seems to be on a par with lens stabilisation, and is

quite a lot cheaper, lighter, more compact more practical. You can get Leica

stabilised glass, but no longer than 15cm.

 

<p>8. An E-3 will set you off from US$1.5K to 2.5K at, say, Adorama, depending

on being body only or in a kit with professional lenses and even a high-powered,

wireless flash. The 3dm 1:2.8 will be almost US$6K, but the 7ﾖ30cm is only

US$400. The Sigma 135ﾖ400mm less than US$600, the 5ﾖ50cm less than US$1K.

 

<p>Yes, Four Thirds is here to stay, with Olympus, Leica, Panasonic and Sigma on

board. Rumour has it that Tamron will enter the fray, but it is only a rumour

for now. Olympus is a big seller of compact and superzoom cameras, and even if

they made no money on dSLRs (which is only a rumour too) they need it because it

enables them to sell more compact cameras at higher prices due to the prestige

effect. Not only that, they seem to really enjoy creating some interesting

technology in their own terms instead of just carrying on some no-more-relevant

legacy for marketing sake. And the optical division of Olympus is bigger than

the ones by Canon or Nikon, due to microscopes, binoculars, endoscopy and other

products.

 

<p>You can use manual Canon glass on Four Thirds bodies, even taking advantage

of image stabilisation and, with a Dandelion chip on the adapter, focus

confirmation.

"Four Thirds is here to stay, with Olympus, Leica, Panasonic and Sigma on board. Rumour has it that Tamron will enter the fray"

 

Rumor has it that Panasonic is leaving the 4/3 market too.

 

Sigma and Leica only sell a couple of their lenses in 4/3 format.

 

"Four Thirds is here to stay, with Olympus, Leica, Panasonic and Sigma on board. Rumour has it that Tamron will enter the fray"

 

Andrea, because of the 2x magnification factor Olympus is a good choice as long as you (a) usually don't intend to print larger than 8x10 and (b) understand that four-thirds cameras have diffraction issues (based on sensor size and other factors) that result in reduced resolution earlier than you'll see in larger sensors from Canon (usually around f/11). For ultimate sharpness you might not want to use an Olympus with an aperture smaller than f/8

 

For more info on diffraction, see:

 

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

 

Examples of diffraction: these two blog posts demonstrate the effect of diffraction in the Canon G9, which has 12MP packed into a sensor sized much smaller than DSLRs; in the case of this camera, diffraction effects begin around f/5.6:

 

http://www.bigmikephotoblog.com/2008/03/diffraction-eff.html

 

http://www.bigmikephotoblog.com/2008/03/g9-at-wide-angl.html

You seem to have a good idea of what benefits 4/3rds can give you when it comes

to 'long reach' photography like birding.

You can see good examples in the <a

href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?

forum=1022&thread=28292350&page=1">"Sunday Bird"</a> thread, every week in

the dpreview Oly SLR forum this thread maxes out with bird photos from all over

the world taken with mostly Olympus equipment. <p>

With regard to the comments on diffraction, yes, diffraction limiting does start at

around f/11 on 4/3rds, however this is at the SAME DOF as you would hit

diffraction limits on APS-C or FF. Turning this around however, you get more DOF

at a given aperture than you do with competing formats, which is an advantage

when using long focal lengths where shooting wide open can result in extremely

shallow DOF. <p>

There was a rumour going around that Panasonic was pulling out of 4/3rds, started

by a report on a single website of the "A rep said this at a trade show" variety.

This has since been completely denied in an official statement from Panasonic

management.<div></div>

Having just researched, tested, and purchased gear for the same purposes that you are considering, here are some suggestions:<p>

 

<li>Body: Canon 40D or 1DMkIIN or 1DMkIII

<li>Lens: EF400mm/f4 IS DO

<li>Teleconverter: Canon 1.4X

<li>Macro accessories: Canon 500D diopter; Kenco extension tubes.

<li>Camera support: Carbon fiber tripod or monopod; Really Right Stuff ballhead, monopod head, clamp, and lens plate<p>

 

The 400/4 is a relatively lightweight but optically superb lens, suitable for use handheld for larger birds or birds in flight, or on a tripod with the 1.4X tele-extender for more elusive birds. The f4 aperture gives you a bright viewfinder and adequate shutter speeds in low light..<p>

 

The 400/4's image stabilization has a regular anti-camera shake setting, plus a setting to help steady panning shots of birds in flight. Since weight is a problem for you, IS will often give you very sharp shots handheld..<p>

 

The 40D is a 1.6X crop camera, making the 400/4 lens 640mm/f4 which gives you lots of reach and speed. The 40D body is not sealed, but with care it will perform without issues in humid conditions. <p>

 

The 1D series bodies are sealed and are very rugged, but weigh considerably more than the 40D as a result. They have a 1.3X crop, making the 400 into a 520mm/f4 lens. All three bodies have a high burst rate (6 to 8.5 fps) for birds in action on the ground or in flight.

<p>

One or more of the extension tubes will give you close to true macro (1:1) on the 400/4 without requiring you to carry a second lens. Add a 500D screw-on dioptor to get even closer for macro subjects.<p>

 

Before buying anything, try out the body and lens in a camera store or in the field to be sure the weight is managable for you. <p>

 

Canon and Nikon dominate the professional and serious amateur market for several good reasons, including reliability, image quality, versatility, and resale value. Bird photography is one of the most challenging photographic pursuits, where the quality of your equipment can make the difference between capturing shots you are pleased with, or missing golden opportunities. Don't skimp on your gear, or allow yourself to be fooled by off-brands with gimmicky feature lists.

<p>

Happy testing, shopping and shooting with whatever system you choose!

"yes, diffraction limiting does start at around f/11 on 4/3rds, however this is at the SAME DOF as you would hit diffraction limits on APS-C or FF."

 

That is inaccurate and ignores the physics of the situations for 4/3, APS and full-frame.

<P>The diffraction limit is a red herring. There is a difference in practice between 4/3 and APS-C but it's less than a stop. (And as Kurt says the difference in DOF tends to confuse the comparison.) 35mm film cameras suffer from the same problem, though it's more like f/16 with them.</P><P>I think it's one more scare story by people on this forum who for some reason feel threatened by the Oly 4/3 cameras.</P><P>If weight is important, the 4/3 system, particularly in the telephoto area, has an advantage.</P>

Thanks very, very much for the detailed responses. I am going to look into options for renting a camera and long lens so that I can use in the field and get a better idea of my limitations and camera/lens capabilities. I do indeed need to consider the environment when I'm out. I live in a humid area and also tend to visit humid areas. However, going all out with a ruggedized body is going to certainly add weight that I probably need to avoid. So taking care with how I protect the equipment is going to be important. Field tests sound like an extremely wise move given my situation. I don't know that I will go greater than 8X10 any time soon, but who knows. Leandro, thanks for taking time to address each item in my post. Brent - thanks for the specs on your recent purchase. Thanks again to you all. I do appreciate your time and responses.

I'm pretty sure you can print larger than 8x10. I don't know where .(.z got this information.

"I think it's one more scare story by people on this forum who for some reason feel threatened by the Oly 4/3 cameras."

 

That's a bit of damn foolishness. I just recommended the E-420 to someone on another thread this morning.

 

Diffraction IS an issue.

 

And Stefan, I said 4/3 is a good choice if you usually don't intend to print larger than 8x10, not that you 'can't print larger than 8x10.' Compare 11x14s from a 4/3 camera and, say, a Canon 40D, at anything above ISO 400, and you may see real differences.

Kurt, that's a stunning photo. Thanks for the tip about the Sunday Bird thread!

Hi Andrea,

 

I've become a big fan of the Oly 4/3 system in the less than a year I've been using

it.

 

I researched the options pretty intensely before deciding, and concluded they give

a great amount of utility and quality while keeping weight and bulk to a reasonable

minimum. My main interest was gear to take hiking and backpacking and there,

Oly definitely has an edge. Since weight is one of your main considerations they

deserve a close look.

 

There's little point in comparing 4/3 with the various APS formats expecting a

winner to jump out. Whatever significant differences exist between camera models

are due to design issues and not the chip formats themselves. You'll have to go

full frame to gain a significant advantage in maximum image size, and at that point

you'll want to look at hiring a porter (and finding a co-signer :-)

 

I'm not a birder (lacking the time and especially the patience) but that doesn't

mean I haven't tried. I don't know how to attach a photo here, but here's a link to

one I took last summer, soon after getting my gear (E-510 + Zuiko 50-200).

 

 

For a reasonably low weight (but not the lightest) that would give very fast and

accurate focusing and good, if not spectacular low-light performance, you might

consider the E-3 and the SWD 50-200, plus the EC14 teleconverter. If you're

headed into triple-canopy rainforest, lighting is going to be a big issue, challenging

autofocus and high-ISO performance. The E-3 is Oly's best camera in that regard.

My E-510 is fine for perched birds but the CAF is so-so tracking birds in flight. The

E-3 is a lot more responsive and has far more AF points. It's also better at high

ISOs and has more dynamic range.

 

One other thing: you'd have a completely weather proof kit.

 

In-camera IS has been terrific, and I like the fact I only have to buy it "once." You

probably already know you don't use IS with a tripod, but it is still effective using a

monopod.

 

Happy shopping!

I have an Olympus DSLR and it is a great little camera. I do not have a Canon, apart from a small point and shoot. The benefit of small sensor cameras for bird photography is the extra reach you sort of get from the crop factor. With Canon, 1.6x and with Olympus 2x. I say sort of, because you could just crop a larger image and get the same effect, but lose some pixels. Nikon D2X does this in the body with the fast 2x crop factor.

 

Still, I would recommend Canon (or Nikon) over Olympus.

 

1. The lower end Olympus bodies are small and light, E-3 is not so. You could pretty well compare Olympus E-400/E-500 serieses against Canon 300-450 and E-3 against 40D. The Canon pro bodies are bigger but also in a different league from E-3. With lenses, you actually save very little weight on the Olympus.

 

2.- 5. not much difference. Both make good cameras and lenses. But the lens selection for Olympus is much more limited, especially in the long end. Just what 200mm lens would you use on the Olympus? Sure, there are several zooms you could use, but they are not the best choice for serious bird photography (slower speed, generally slower focusing). Only a couple of the Olympus long zooms have fast focusing. Eventually, most serious bird photographers want something like 400-600mm fixed focal length. Olympus only has one lens in this category, 2.8/300 and it is as big and heavy as a Canon full frame lens and costs significantly more. The difference between 1.6x300 from Canon and 2x300 from Olympus is not very much, and with Canon you have many more choices, 4/300, 5.6/400, 4/400, 4/500 etc. etc.

 

6. E-3 would have a small edge over Canon 40D here. The smaller and lighter Olympus bodies wouldn't. To get full benefit from it, you would need to use the top end weather sealed Olympus lenses and there aren't many of them. But in reality, all cameras work in the tropics if you take reasonable care.

 

7. In body stabilisation is good because it works with all lenses but I do not believe it is as good as a dedicated IS on a long lens.

 

8. I am sure both companies will be around for a long while and 4/3 has been improving a lot in the last couple of years. Still, the lens and body choice is more limited than in Canon.

 

Olympus is good if you want the minimum weight and still get a kit that can be used for birds, and closeups. E-520 body and 70-300 zoom, maybe a 50 mm macro as well, or the new 25mm pancake lens that focuses very close as well. This is as small and light as you can get. But it is not very fast focusing and the zoom is 5.6 in the long end. Still respectable for a 600mm equivalent focal length. But I do not think any serious bird photographer would use a system like that. At least not for long.

Great closeup of that little (nectar) sucker, Rick. I have seen some really good

results from the 50-200mm, both old and new SWD versions. It is not a small

lens,but seems to be highly versatile. Can focus pretty close. And gain image

size with the EC-14, a small little gizmo that is very handy.

Wish I were enough of a birder /naturalist etc to justify the 50-200. Apropos of

bird stalking , Andrea, I just bought a nifty Pentax 10X43 SP roof

binocular-1-1/2 lbs. That is a humdinger I would take to Costa Rica myself to

scout wildlife.

I imagine you have a full backpack with such items. I will have to have a look

at Olympus E420. Seems like a winner in the size and weight department. gs

Rick, I love the hummer photo. I get ruby-throats every year. I'd love to get

a shot like that. Thanks for the feedback. Ilkka, thanks much for your

response. I do have some good binoculars, Gerry, but not the Pentax ones you

mention. I'm going to check out the Oly E-520 as soon as it's available. I'm

also considering the Pentax k20d and the Canon (40D or XSi). I don't think I

will bring Nikon into the fray just yet. Here is a link to a Barred Owl photo I

took in low light with my good old Oly C740 Ultra Zoom. The light was coming

from behind so I did have to lighten it up afterward.

http://picasaweb.google.com/andreabwilliams/BestOfStAugustine2008/photo?authkey=Be2P6xhSopQ#5212823460121560306

 

 

I've outgrown this camera but have had a lot of fun with it over the years.

 

Here is another shot of a Wood Stork:

http://picasaweb.google.com/andreabwilliams/BestOfStAugustine2008/photo?authkey=Be2P6xhSopQ#5212821421593619106

 

 

Imagine if I had had a real DSLR with me when that Wood Stork was being so

cooperative?

 

(Sorry if the links don't come over as links... Not sure how to do that on this

forum)

 

Thanks!

why are you considering Canon? Given your priorities, if you decide against 4/3 then I think your next decision is why not to get a Pentax K20? Cheaper, stabilization built-in, light, sealed, compatibility with older manual focus lenses which can provide cheap stabilized telephoto options. Unless you have particular Canon glass in mind, the next option could be Nikon D300. Very good high ISO performance, very fast autofocus, arguably more sealed than the 40D, compatible with older manual focus lenses.

Nick,

I do have one Canon 35-105mm zoom lens, but that's all the Canon I have and that is no big deal. I have no Nikon lenses. I do indeed think the Pentax K20D looks like a great camera for the money. I do intend to consider it. The Nikon you mention is slightly heavier than all the rest I'm considering, though I don't know if it is enough to worry about. Many have said that Canon and Nikon are the top two used by serious bird photographers, so that's why I'm considering Canon. I imagine it's going to boil down to trade-offs in the end between weight and capabilities.

 

Thanks.

I am not in the position to comment on 4/3 lenses but I would discourage you from relying on a diopter supplementary lens (one of the above suggestions) for close-ups. The equivalent of a 90mm macro lens for 35mm format, with a x2 converter, will accomodate most subjects until you feel you want to take on close-up and macro more seriously. (I have a 300mm f2.8 lens but, unless I was fairly sure of getting lots of birds, etc to photograph, that, at 250g, would be left behind before the macro).

one thing that you can consider 4/3 as your arsenal is wonderful color fideliy (very natural tonality). <br>

This is very important when you want to capture the amazing nature moments imo. <br>

this is one sample shoot to show about 4/3 system capabilities for small bird capture. <br>

http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/6843/fotoneta11874401qz8.jpg<div></div>

I no longer use Olympus for non technical reasons. I have realised that the system you use eventually become the one you like.