E3 and D300 user question

I am planning on upgrading and I need some advice from users who have both of these camera's.

 

1) Countinous AF (in E3) vs predictive autofocus (in D300). This is a comparison between 13 AF points vs 51, but i

have read online that most D300 users use only 21 AF points as 51 is slower. So 13 and 21 are somewhat near if

you see the layout and will cover the subject.

 

2) IS in E3 vs high ISO in D300 : If you leave catching action in low light, will the extra 2-3 stop ISO performance in

the D300 compare with the 2-3 stop IS of E3.

 

3) Lenses : I am not very familiar with the Nikon lenses, but they look a little costly when I want to cover my current

range of olympus lenses. 14-54/f2.8-3.5, 50-200/F2.8-3.5, and 1.4 TC.

 

Thank you.

Manu

As a 30 lover of Olympus cameras, the E-series was tempting. But, in terms of resolution, array of OEM and 3rd party glass, and noise-less high ISO image making, I don't believe the E3 compares to the D300.

 

With the 4/3 sensor, other Olympus SLR's have had a viewfinder that is akin to peering down a tunnel. The D300 has a 100% viewfinder, of a larger format.

Thanks Bill, but I have requested a more specific answer from the user of both cameras on the performance parameters I am discussing about.

Why would IS (image stabilization or VR) help in action photography?

"Thanks Bill, but I have requested a more specific answer from the user of both cameras on the performance parameters I am discussing about." Manu T

 

Oh... That's too bad.

 

Anyway, do some reading of sites fully testing both cameras and you can get more depth on the relevant points I raised.

Multi-point AF sensor options seem to contribute too many variables to make possible a specific answer. It might be more practical to compare responses using single sensor AF points.

 

Unfortunately, none of the usual review sites that offer otherwise objective reviews, such as dpreview, seem to compare cameras based on the types of responsiveness that would be of concern to action oriented photography: AF responses actually measured down the nths of a second; AF accuracy measured and quantified in all kinds of lighting. Mostly we're forced to rely upon anecdotes from experienced photographers.

Manu -

 

I don't know of anyone who shoots both the D300 and E3 - nor anyone who shoots the E3 by itself for that matter.

 

But here's my take on your 2nd question.

 

In low light action shots - I'm typically shooting ISO 3200 or higher on the D300 which gets me a shutter speed of around 1/320 or better. IS doesn't come into play (typically) at that shutter speed.

 

Based on the samples I've seen - Nikon beats Olympus at high ISO (above 800)

 

Dave

1-I am not sure if Olympus continuous AF is actually predictive. My feeling as an E-3 owner, but not a Nikon digital owner, is that Nikon has better predictive AF, but I don't have any data to prove it.

 

2-IS gives you the option to use 2-3 stops slower shutterspeed at low ISO. Nikon, and other larger sensor cameras, give the option of raising the ISO, and using a faster shutter speed without losing image quality to noise. The best option is obviously IS with large sensor. But in your comparison, IS helps with still subjects in low light while better high ISO performance (essentially larger sensor) helps with capturing action in low light. They are really two very different things.

 

3-Direct comparison is not easy because of the different sensor sizes (and resulting crop factors), the larger sensor in Nikon that gives better ISO tolerance, and the different construction quality of the various lenses. Olympus has some very good value lenses, but it also has some horrendously priced ones, even when compared with Nikon's and Canon's offerings.

 

In conclusion, I would not consider a switch from E-3 to D300 an upgrade, more of a sideways move. D700 would be an upgrade if you need a large sensor and the benefits it brings.

Thnak you all for your response.

2 - The stabilization vs. ISO debate is not just about "action". I can hand hold a 50mm (or equivalent) normal or

85mm (or equivalent) short tele pretty well at 1/50 sec. That speed is also pretty compatible with "civilian"

human subjects. If I had to give up 2 stops of ISO and compensate with two stops of stabilization, I'd be at 1/12

sec, and that's not compatible with a lay person. That requires at least a moderately trained model, and a

routine where I go "OK, on three: one, two, three" and the subject braces themselves and holds a breath on 1 or 2

so they're stable when I hit 3. Checking back at EXIF information, I'm quite surprised by the amount of shots I

take with the VR turned off on my 70-200mm f2.8 Nikkor. From the point of view of someone who has been pushing

film for 3 decades, rigged in camera latensification systems to increase speed even farther, I'd have to say, to

me, speed is a feature, stabilization is a gimmick.

 

3 - It's hard to do apples-to-apples when comparing to the Oly lens line, as neither Nikon nor Canon make

variable aperture f2.8-f3.5 4:1 zooms. You either have to go to the more expensive constant aperture f2.8 lenses

(typically 3:1 zoom) or the wider range (6:1 or so) variable aperture lenses. But one thing to remember is that

because of the sensor size difference, you get shallower DOF on the larger format system at the same aperture, so

you can safely compare a f2.8-f3.5 Oly to an f3.5-4.5 Nikkor and be assured of getting equivalent pictures.

 

3a) - Be careful, because the cost issue "flip flops" really easily, depending on what you're shooting. In four

thirds, a 25mm f1.4 "normal" is considerably more expensive than a 30mm f1.4 normal for an APS camera, and near

3x the price of a 50mm f1.4 on a full frame. Same with macros, wides, etc. There is no fast portrait length tele

with good bokeh that can compete with a Nikon 85mm f1.4 or 105mm f2.0 DC (although the 50mm f2.0 macro is

surprising in the quality of its bokeh, it's equivalent to a 100mm f4 on full frame).

 

1 - (this is totally subjective) I'm not as worried about the number of AF points. Nikon has had dual f2.8, f5.6

AF sensors for years. Not sure how many zones on the D300 are dual, but when you're in a dual zone with an f2.8

or faster lens, the Nikon focus accuracy and speed increase. Oly has just started with AF, and my brief E-3

experience (with the monster f2.0 zoom) didn't convince me that they were up to Nikon's game yet.

I have a good friend who shoots the E3, does mostly wedding stuff, but I've handled and played with it a bit. It is a

FANTASTIC camera, for sure.

 

That said, I've shot with the Olympus with those two lenses (not the TC though) and think it's a very sweet camera. My friend

often shoots stuff for us here at the church I work at, and her images are gorgeous. (Of course, she's also a fine

photographer... if you are good, you will get great results from either of those cameras...)

 

But I think you need to look at Bill Keane's issues anyway. The ones you mention are far from the only ones you should

consider. Also, Olympus only claims the E3 is the fastest Autofocus with one specific lens, so remember that, too!

"you need to look at Bill Keane's issues anyway...."

 

Let's look at them:

 

"in terms of resolution" E-3 is 10Mp with lenses that can deliver that resolution. Nikon has 12. There is very little real world difference between 10 and 12Mp, especially if lenses are not quite up to the same standard (Nikon has good lenses and not so good lenses, so it is up to the user what he gets). 15Mp with good lenses is more.

 

"array of OEM and 3rd party glass" Olympus has less lenses, but a very good selection by now. It is entirely up to the individual what lenses he needs and can afford. I really do not miss the 50 or 60 additional lenses that Canon and Nikon has that I would never buy anyway. But sure, their systems are wider.

 

"noise-less high ISO image making" This is the main shortcoming of smaller sensors. NikonD300 suffers from it against the D700 in exactly the same way. Again, the difference between 2x and 1.5x is there, but not very big. E-3 is better at high ISO than previous 4/3 cameras, but Nikon is better.

 

"With the 4/3 sensor, other Olympus SLR's have had a viewfinder that is akin to peering down a tunnel. The D300 has a 100% viewfinder, of a larger format." E-3 has a 100% viewfinder that is almost twice the size of previous 4/3 viefinders. The viewfinder image is as high as the other E's are wide. Side by side, it is very similar to the best APS DSLR sized viewfinders and in no way loses out.

I understand very well that you "limit" responses to those that actually have the two cameras, but it seems this precludes 99% of the audience here (and the 1% haven't found your thread :-). So, considering I own neither (!), but have been considering them very intensely:

1) There are several mentions on the web, that the E3's AF performance is considerably worse at sub-zero EVs, i.e. in the comparative dark (see reviews at Luminous Landscape, T.O.P. and popphoto).

2) Well, "If you leave catching action in low light" an extra 2-3 stops are exactly that, whether they come from the exposure or the ISO side of light <puzzled>.

3) As has been said it is always a little awkward to compare glass, but yes Nikon's is generally the most costly around, while Oly sure has the best deals. You can compare lense performance at slrgear.com . Olympus can obviously save on the IS in their lenses, plus the half f-stop variable aperture allows them some cost cutting while for the user it hardly matters. Also you have left out/ do not use the one area where Oly has a weak spot, namely wider than 14mm.

 

Hendrik

Now its more interesting. Thanks all for the resoponse.

 

Most of the things were explained nicely but the AF issue is not concluded for me, so I will try and be specific. Though E3 AF is good but D300 AF is better, which was expected. For me in particular, I am in to wildlife, birds, airshows and sports. Of course its the technique also, but for an non-professional like me, will the better D300 AF be more forgiving in shots and produce better results or the IS help me more with the camera shake at longer focal lengths, when shooting hand held.

Manu, I will try to help with my D300 experiences.

 

When I shoot something like you enjoy (I have an airshow this weekend), the last thing on my mind is image stabalization. Generally, I want a shot at 1/1000 or faster to freeze action so it usually means high ISO.

 

FWIW, I have my wildlife/action menu set up to automatically increase ISO up to 1600 if necessary. While I would prefer to stay at 800 or lower, I am certainly not afraid to go higher. The results are pretty spectacular compared to prior cameras.

 

I don't know what lens you would be using but mostly, I use a 300mm f/2.8, sometimes with a t/c if the subject is particularly far away. For me, that means a tripod and Wimberly so I guess my stabalization comes from the pod, not the body or lens. Maybe I am just getting old but no IS/VR will help me since this weighs about 8 lbs. Nothing stabalizes this like a good tripod and a gimbal.

 

Oh, and a quick note about the 51-pt AF. I very rarely use it, virtually never if the subject is moving. I prefer the 21-pt. Just seems to me that I get quicker AF but I will use the 9-pt for larger or more stationary subjects.

 

Sorry, I don't know anything about the E3.

"...you have left out...the one area where Oly has a weak spot, namely wider than 14mm."

 

I suppose you mean 14mm in actual focal length since there are very few lenses from any manufacturer that are wider than 14mm in 35mm terms.

 

Olympus has 7-14mm, 9-18mm and 11-22mm. Sigma has 10-20mm in 4/3 mount. These are in different price/speed and quality ranges. In addition, Olympus has a 8mm full frame fish eye. I would not call that selection of lenses a "weak spot".

"E-3 has a 100% viewfinder that is almost twice the size of previous 4/3 viefinders. The viewfinder image is as high as the other E's are wide. Side by side, it is very similar to the best APS DSLR sized viewfinders and in no way loses out." -- Ilkka

 

This then is a HUGE improvement. Olympus has always made unique, quality instruments -- The Pen, half-frame, OM's with shutter speed setting on the lens mount... My OM-4T was a jewel.

 

They're kind of like the Saab of cameras