E620 vs E520?

<p>So I'm trying to narrow down my options. It seems the E600 is not really available anywhere so that leaves these two cameras. The price difference is about $150 to $130 around here. I intend to use for general purpose photography, but I would like to be able to capture birds using the 70-300mm as well.</p>

<p>The key differences between the E520 and E620 seem to be:<br>

1. Grip<br>

2. Tilt screen<br>

3. Autofocus system and low light AF<br>

4. Viewfinder<br>

5. Resolution (megapixels)<br>

6. Noise<br>

7. ISO<br>

8. Overlay editing and art modes (for fun when you're waiting for the train)</p>

<p>Please let me know if I've left anything off the list. So it looks like the E620 has the advantage in most of the areas, except for the grip. I've also read that the E620 is noisier because it's pixels are small (more dense). It seems like the E620 is the better choice for capturing birds, but is there any reason I may have overlooked for considering the E520? Weight was a consideration, but both models are the same, though weight values vary wildly between the official website and third party reviewers.</p>

<p>If you add the grip Olympus sells for the E620, that winds up being a plus for the E620 too.</p>

<p>The E620's exposure system, using Normal Gradation, is more accurate and able to retain both highlight and shadow details, than the E520 using Auto Gradation. The AF system in the E620 is much better than the E520 and Olympus rid themselves of the banding at ISO 1600 you see with the E520.</p>

<p>If you do buy the E620, I would strongly suggest you try shooting JPEG for a while. The E620 and E30 bodies really, really do JPEG capture extremely well. The noise factor is, in my opinon, overblown. Do some testing and figure out the noise filter setting you want/like and you'll most likely be very happy with the results.</p>

<p>Bird photography is a hard subject to do well. What ever body/brand you decide to go with, be patient. If you have not done much of it before now, most of what you do at first will probably be disappointing. Processors in consumer level cameras do not process data and combine AF, exposure and speed of use like the pro bodies you see that take so many of the great bird images that are posted here and other sites. That all is a big part of the price difference you see that separates cameras like the Nikon D3 from a D300, or a Canon 1DsIII from a 7D.</p>

<p>I think <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse620/page31.asp">dpreview may have summed up the E-620 the best</a> :</p>

<p >"When we reviewed the Olympus E-30, we said it was the best Four Thirds DSLR yet - it didn't hold on to that crown for long. The E-620 crams most of the E-30's feature set into a much smaller, much less expensive package that competes more convincingly with its peers than any Four Thirds camera we've yet seen."</p>

<p >Their final word:</p>

<p >"The best Four Thirds camera yet closes the gap and competes convincingly with its APS-C competitors. More importantly though, it's small, produces excellent 'out of the box' image quality and is jam-packed with useful - and a few novel - features. If you can live without movies it's an easy pick."</p>

<p>Great posts guys. In particular, thanks for the extra insight, Greg. Improved dynamic range is definitely a plus for outdoor shots. I've heard that the E620 also maintains midtones somewhat better than the E520. <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E520/E520A.HTM">Imaging Review's test</a> of the E520 revealed some issues with midtones. Also, <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2010.03.06/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-facts">I heard 4/3rds is going to stop increasing resolution at 12 megapixels</a> , so I guess this is highest resolution we're getting for a while. I'm glad if this is true. Can the E620's <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse620/page31.asp">strong anti-aliasing filter</a> be toned down manually?</p>

<p>Do both cameras allow autofocus micro-adjustment? Seems like it would be a good feature for ensuring my telephoto bird shots are sharp a little more often. I can't afford any of the bigger cameras (nor do I really want to carry them with a 400mm lens), so the Olympus 70-300mm seems like a good compromise for now (unless the 100-300mm comes out tomorrow.) Also, can you grab the focus ring for access to manual focus at any time on either camera? Having to go through a menu to switch to manual focus is a bit of a sore point.</p>

<p>I'm not quite clear why DPReview states the E620 isn't a good choice for action or wildlife photography. AF is better than the E520, but perhaps it's not quite as good as the competition.</p>

<p>Also, any word of a update for the E520 or E620 soon? Availability of the E520 seems to be dwindling at some stores. The E620 is only a year old, so I suppose the most likely scenario would be an update of the E520's sensor to E620 standards, but without the articulating screen.</p>

<p>The AA filter is what it is. There's no manually adjusting of the strength, but from what I have seen using mine, any detail being lost is at the micro, micro level.</p>

<p>Of the E520 and E620, only the E620 has the ability to adjust the AF accuracy. I have never tried it for fear of making anything worse, but have really seen no need to date.</p>

<p>An update for the E620 is, most likely, not that far off. No one outside Olympus came really day for sure when. It may yet be months before we see that, but there's no knowing for sure.</p>

<p>The only lenses where you can just grab the focus ring anytime and manually focus are the ones with the SWD motors, so it's the ultra-expensive 14-35 f2 or the 12-60 f2.8-4 or the 50-200 f2.8-3.5. The rest are focus by wire where you have to enable some form of manual focus and the camera has to be turned on.</p>

<p>The E620's AF system is good enough to capture sports and fast moving subjects. I have used it at both an air show, NHL hockey and horse racing with very good results. The more you can fill the frame with the subject, the more accurate the focus is. Horse racing right now is a favorite of mine and I purchased my E620 just in time to make it to the last day of thoroughbred season down here last summer, using it with the 70-300 to capture these..</p>

<p><a href="#602882378_YSP4X"><img id="lightBoxImage" src="http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Sports/Lone-Star-Park-Grand-Prairie/P7260235/602882378_YSP4X-L.jpg" alt="" /></a></p>

<p><a href="#602836438_3NAqY"><img id="lightBoxImage" src="http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Sports/Lone-Star-Park-Grand-Prairie/P7260119/602836438_3NAqY-L.jpg" alt="" /></a></p>

<p><a href="#602862014_ewA6e"><img id="lightBoxImage" src="http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Sports/Lone-Star-Park-Grand-Prairie/P7260187/602862014_ewA6e-L.jpg" alt="" /></a><br /><a href="#602882378_YSP4X"></a></p>

Nice! Thanks for posting those great photos. Can you tell me what the shooting data was and how much the shots are cropped? Mainly I'm curious about how slow it's possible to handhold the 70-300mm when it's zoomed out to 300mm, but the other data would be interesting too.

<br>

<br>

Olympus claims 4 stops of IS on both the E520 and E620. Imaging Review's tests of the E520 showed a one to two stop advantage, but nothing for the E620, while DPReview shows that the E520 with a 50mm lens will get a rate of 50% sharp shots down to 1/15 while the E620 gets sharp shots with the same FL down to down at 1/4 sec. Shake reduction tests vary from user to user but this seems to imply quite an improvement in the IS system.

<br>

<br>

One thing that seems odd to me is why DP Review would claim that the E620 is not suited for "action/sports/wildlife photography". It's low light performance seems like it is a bit poorer than the average, it seems fine for action, sports and wildlife photography when the light is good. Maybe I'm just looking for what I want to hear, but your horse racing photos also look pretty darn good.

<p>The first image is not cropped at all. The other two were only cropped due to me needing to straighten them as I did not do such a good job keeping the camera level as I panned and shot. Those are located in this folder, the first 4 or so pages of which are E620 files..</p>

<p><a href="http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Sports/Lone-Star-Park-Grand-Prairie/8031811_ELQse#602882378_YSP4X">http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Sports/Lone-Star-Park-Grand-Prairie/8031811_ELQse#602882378_YSP4X</a></p>

<p>"Not suitable" for sports is in the eye of the beholder. Different people have different expectations and image quality requirements. I don't shoot for sports websites or news papers. It's for my own enjoyment, whether it's horse racing, baseball..</p>

<p><a href="http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Sports/Rangers-vs-Tigers-72909/9094317_yF29X#605821332_NfExN">http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Sports/Rangers-vs-Tigers-72909/9094317_yF29X#605821332_NfExN</a></p>

<p>hockey..</p>

<p><a href="http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Sports/NHL-Images-2009-2010-Season/9727585_e6Br5#683546802_Y4ej8">http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Sports/NHL-Images-2009-2010-Season/9727585_e6Br5#683546802_Y4ej8</a></p>

<p>air shows..</p>

<p><a href="http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Portfolio/Fort-Worth-Alliance-Air/10100000_7N2uA#691371109_Jm7Z5">http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Portfolio/Fort-Worth-Alliance-Air/10100000_7N2uA#691371109_Jm7Z5</a></p>

<p>Or just fun stuff..</p>

<p><a href="http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Portfolio/E620-Pop-Art-Images/9161143_eDrU8#614344503_KYFaJ">http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Portfolio/E620-Pop-Art-Images/9161143_eDrU8#614344503_KYFaJ</a></p>

<p>For what it's worth, I'm a Minolta manual focus guy, and just got an E-600 as my first digital SLR. So they can be found, though mine was refurbished. Still, it was $500 for the body and the 14-42 and 40-150, which I didn't think was too bad.</p>

<p>I gave the E620 a try today in the store. The grip is quite tiny compared to it's bigger brother, the E-30, which weighs a lot more. It'll be strange trying to use it though, since instead using the grip like a large trigger, you have to wrap more of your hand around the body. It's really too bad that they shrunk the grip down from the E520. Why did they have to shrink the grip? Such a shame.</p>

<p>But it's probably still worth it now that the prices are dropping. There still that battery grip, as well as improved ISO and AF.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One thing that seems odd to me is why DP Review would claim that the E620 is not suited for "action/sports/wildlife photography".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Compare to the Nikon D300, the D300 has 51 AF points that cover the entire frame. As a result, in AF-tracking mode, when your object of interest moves away from one AF point, it has a much higher chance to be picked by another AF point. By contrast the E620 has just 7 that cover mostly a horizontal line in the middle. Thus if your object of interest moves more or less horizontally across the field, such as the horse race shown above, the E620 is cable of tracking. However if your object moves unpredictably at much high speed, you need as many AF points as possible to cover the all the field. The frame rate of the E620 is just 3.3 sec, as opposed to the 5 or 6 fps from D300. Other issue to consider is how fast and accurate is the AF module, and the AF motor in the lens and the camera. If you want fast AF motors, they tend to be hosted in larger camera bodies and lenses. Of course not everyone can afford or need the performance of a pro level camera such as the Nikon D300, as long as you know what you may be missing.</p>

<p>Thanks, that is a good point. I was wondering how competitive the E620 was for action and wildlife photography within it's price class. Compared to the D5000 and T1i, it seems to trade off more AF point coverage for fewer AF points but more cross type points. but I'm not quite clear on the performance of those AF points. Hopefully it is decent for about $600 if not a star performer?</p>

<p>It's noise performance is not quite the best in it's class, but I think I can live with that for access to an $300 140-600mm equivalent lens that seems to be of decent quality for a beginner. Perhaps I'll regret it later when I need to bump up the ISO to produce handheld telephoto shots though.</p>

<p>I don't have a Nikon D300, but I have a D90, which uses the same AF module as the D5000. This AF module was used in the previous pro level camera so its performance is quite good considering the price of a D5000. On paper, the AF in D5000 has only one cross type AF point in the middle of frame, but the D5000 has a total of 11 AF points so they have better coverage. I am not sure which one works better in reality in low light but my D90 with a pro fast lens, focus very fast so I think the D5000 should be close in performance. Nikon has a built in AF assist lamp, which may also help. Since even with 11 AF points there are still a lot area left uncovered, AF tracking is not all that efficient with the D90. One other thing to consider in wild life photograph is that most of the people like to shoot at dusk or dawn because these are the times of the day when the animals are most active. Since light levels will be quite low during those time, how the camera performs at low light is an issue. Some pro told me that for real action photography, a frame rate of 3.5 fps is the minimum to allow you to capture the action is a more or less smooth sequence so you don't miss any part of the action. Higher the frame rate the better.</p>

<p>The most important thing in selecting your first camera is to think about the camera as part of a system. If you buy an Olympus now, it makes sense that you stick with Olympus so you can begin to collect high quality lenses. Camera will come and go, but lenses last much longer. So the first thing you may consider is among these major brands, which one as a system that has the most to offer in terms of lenses, flahes, etc. If they are all good and the price is close, how the camera feels in the hand can be used as the final deciding factor. Mount the lens you want to use to see if they balance well, especially the long lenses. Canon, Nikon, and Olympus all make outstanding camera gears and optics so to some degree it is the personal preference that ultimately seals the deal. I am not sure if this helps or it simply makes your life even more complicated.</p>

<p>No matter what you buy, until you hit the zenith of technology there's always going to be something out there better, if you've got the funds to afford it.</p>

<p>The D300 is quite a camera, but pales in comparison to the D3 that has superior processing power, and both the E300 and D3 are well above the E620's position in the market, as is a D90 from one generation earlier and the cost of buying the f2.8 image stabilized Nikkors to make any of them really fly adds exponentially to ones budget if you really want a head and shoulders better system. Even a new D300s with the not-nearly-as-fast 70-300 f4.5-5.6 Nikkor "kit" at B&H with the current $200 instant rebate is almost $2,100 after rebate vs the regular $805 an E620 and 70-300 combined costs, so there's probably a very good reason why the original poster was looking for an opinion of the E620 vs. and E520 vs. anything else!</p>

<p><strong><em>"Thanks, that is a good point. I was wondering how competitive the E620 was for action and wildlife photography within it's price class. Compared to the D5000 and T1i, it seems to trade off more AF point coverage for fewer AF points but more cross type points. but I'm not quite clear on the performance of those AF points. Hopefully it is decent for about $600 if not a star performer?</em></strong><br /><strong><em>It's noise performance is not quite the best in it's class, but I think I can live with that for access to an $300 140-600mm equivalent lens that seems to be of decent quality for a beginner. Perhaps I'll regret it later when I need to bump up the ISO to produce handheld telephoto shots though."</em></strong></p>

<p>It's not even $600 anymore. I just checked B&H and the E620 body only is $484. The 70-300 is $307, so if you are looking to compare like-priced equipment the bar, cost-wise, is $791. The Nikon D5000+70-300 is $1,219. A Canon T1i plus a 70-300 IS is $1,200, so it's not just an AF points trade-off comparing these three cameras, it's also a huge dollars trade off, which may or may not matter.</p>

<p>The OP is also considering a m4/3 camera, which is even worse than E620 in terms of the ability to shoot wild life. Instead of splitting money to buy two mediocre cameras for wild life photography, it may be better to put all the money into buying a single camera/lens combo that has fewer compromises. Buy something that you can grow into. Buying and selling waste a lot of time and money. The major advantage of the m4.3 system is the compact size, but not in the area of IQ and overall performance, and you pay a premium for it. Wild life photography is more demanding on the gears.</p>

I've seen enough from people who know what they're doing to know it's more about what the individual can do with what they have than any limitation equipment imposes. I would imagine there's a good number of D300 and 5D owners who had the money to buy what they have, but couldn't get an in-focus bird in flight if they tried. Like-wise, if one can shoot these type images with an E510 and 70-300, it's also possible with an E620.

 

 

 

http://www.pbase.com/pipkin/image/98748688

 

 

 

http://www.pbase.com/pipkin/image/98097004

 

 

 

http://www.pbase.com/pipkin/image/97637116

 

 

 

http://www.pbase.com/pipkin/image/97119480

 

 

 

http://www.pbase.com/pipkin/image/95394821

 

 

 

http://www.pbase.com/pipkin/image/94829386

 

 

 

You keep right own worshipping your Nikon equipment and preaching what everyone has to spend in order to shoot anything that moves.

<blockquote>

<p>You keep right own worshipping your Nikon equipment and preaching what everyone has to spend in order to shoot anything that moves.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Greg,</p>

<p>That is truely uncalled for it. Doesn't Olympus have something that is more high performance than the E620? I am not familar with Olympus camera so I can only use what I know to compare. That is all. How about E30, E3, a used E1/2? Come on; don't get so personal and defensive!</p>

<p>Thanks for all the helpful responses. I find this discussion pretty interesting. There's no need to get personal though. I'm not partisan for any particular brand (yet anyway). I think both of you have good points to offer here.</p>

<p>There are higher end Olympus models, the E-30 and E-3 which weigh around 23 oz and 32 oz respectively and are priced at around $850 and $1150 last time I checked. So there is some room for growth with Olympus. The question is whether they will put out a higher quality telephoto zoom in the near future. That said, I keep hearing from various corners that Olympus's build quality for standard lenses is better than average. I hear the same thing about Pentax. Nikon seems to be about average and Canon perhaps a little worse. I'm not sure how what to make of these claims though. The 70-300 does seem to be a decent lens for the money, I guess.</p>

<p>I am looking for a significant size and weight advantage in 4/3 and m4/3 cameras, but I'm not sure I see it. The 17 oz E620 and 20 oz 70-300 lens seems to be about as light as it gets at 37 oz. But the Canon T1i is 18 oz and the 70-300 IS lens is 23 oz, which is 41 oz, only 4 ounces heavier. It is however, around $1200 as Greg pointed out. The D5000 is 20 oz, while Nikon's 70-300 is 26 oz, so it's 9 ounces heavier. The T2i is the heaviest at 25 ounces with a total weight of 48 oz included the lens or 11 ounces more than the E620 set. All these cameras meet the 3.5 fps requirement I think (4.1 fps but not many frames for the E620).</p>

<p>I'm also interested in street photography, so I wanted a lens that is not too big. The Nikon and Canon lenses are 5.6 inches long while the Olympus is 5 inches long. So it's smaller, but it's not that much smaller. But Canon does have DO lens using special optics that is only 4 inches long, if a bit heavier at 26 oz. It's also $1200 so I guess I would be saving up for it.</p>

<p>Of course if you switch the APC sensor cameras to a 400mm zoom, then it's a different story since most of those zooms weigh quite a bit more and are 8-9 inches long or more. Tokina does make a 80-400 zoom that is only 37 oz and 5.4 inches long. If you want IS though, you need to go with Sony (no Pentax mount). Maybe I've missed another 400mm zoom that is as compact and light though.</p>

<p>The T1i does offer a higher resolution sensor, so if I crop down from there, the image quality may be comparable. Manually cropping a lot of photos might be troublesome, but if I shoot with the subject towards the center of the frame for greater sharpness, maybe I can automate the cropping. This was the best comparison I could find, though 450 to 480mm is actually slightly wider.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_files/articles/fl_comparison/500-600.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>CC Chang: Mainly I'm considering a m4/3 camera now because I was hoping one of them would offer a better viewfinder. Not having owned a DSLR before, I was disappointed by how dim all the viewfinders I were, even those of the full frame cameras. One Sony I tried had a slightly brighter viewfinder with a faster lens, but I still felt it was rather dim. Maybe it was the in store lighting though. In any case, it seems like m4/3 needs to overcome a few technological hurdles before it will be quite as responsive as DSLRs. Panasonic does seem to be trying to take m4/3 in this direction, while Olympus seems focused on rangefinder style cameras. If the 100-300 lens does come out for m4/3 soon though, it might be capable of capturing shots like these which were taken with the 70-300. Not sure what to expect from moving subjects on a m4/3 camera though.</p>

<p>Greg: Thanks for posting those photos though. They do set a useful benchmark for what Olympus's consumer cameras can do. I would be curious to know what the percentage of usage photos is for such shots compared to the competition (highly subjective of course. Impressive shots nonetheless.</p>

<p>I also found <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/olympusesystem/discuss/72157623529525307/">a few on Flickr</a>, though they are of lesser quality:</p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2496/4235664363_1283380e3b.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /><br /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3318/3524573567_2919a7a8f6.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /><br /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3544/3762960437_2ee50a0c63.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Moving subjects with micro four-thirds bodies? Don't go there. It doesn't work. They all use electronic finders, completely black out during multi-image bursts and do not refresh fast enough to allow a fast, steady multi image series of single shots as you pan with the subject and shoot unless you shoot the subject at a very small magnification and give yourself tons of wiggle room in keeping the subject framed. You definitely cannot even moderately fill the frame and keep the subject framed over a several image series unless you are shooting it around a non-moving spot, like a play at second base during a baseball game where there's no need to move the camera during the sequence.</p>

<p>It just frustrates me to no end to hear people say you have to buy a Nikon or Canon to shoot anything that moves, come to this forum to say it and use terms like mediocre to describe something they have no experience using.</p>

<p><em><strong>Greg: Thanks for posting those photos though. They do set a useful benchmark for what Olympus's consumer cameras can do. I would be curious to know what the percentage of usage photos is for such shots compared to the competition (highly subjective of course.</strong></em></p>

<p>It doesn't seem to me to be a subject where high percentages of keepers are common with any model or brand unless you are using the big pro models with the high speed processors that can handle the multi-tasking needed for focus tracking and high speed capture, much like shooting high speed, low light sports. Not too long ago I read the comment below here..</p>

<p><a href="http://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-dslr/166548-all-glass-olympics.html">http://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-dslr/166548-all-glass-olympics.html</a></p>

<p><em>"But people who haven't shot a Nikon or Canon pro level body might not appreciate how big of a gap there is between those mid level cameras and the pro series. Especially when it comes to low light performance. </em><br /><em></em><br /><em>All the mid level cameras are capable of excellent photos but the accuracy / reliability is an order of magnitude greater. For hobbyists it's not usually worth the price (because you need the right lenses to go with those pro bodies as well). But for working pros where you don't have the luxury of 30% keepers it's still a big gap. </em><br /><em></em><br /><em>Even if you talk to Nikon shooters who have used D300 and d3/s cameras they'll tell you - the focus array may be the same but there is no comparison between the two performance wise. The d300 doesn't have the same processing power as the d3. So while the Sony lenses are certainly top notch - they still don't have the focus system on par with the pro sports bodies. But I have seen one photographer that shoots NFL with Sony - it certainly can be done. You're just not going to have the same percentage of keepers."</em><br /><em></em><br />The D3/Canon 1D models are on a whole different plateau from anything else, as is the overall system price after you've bought the body and the lenses needed to really take advantage of that speed, and you still then need to be practiced at the subject or it could be frustrating even with one of those models.<br /><br />At some point, unless you are working towards becoming a pro, you've got to decide what's "good enough" for what you want to do and every level of improvement will cost some mutiple more than the level below that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In any case, it seems like m4/3 needs to overcome a few technological hurdles before it will be quite as responsive as DSLRs. Panasonic does seem to be trying to take m4/3 in this direction, while Olympus seems focused on rangefinder style cameras. If the 100-300 lens does come out for m4/3 soon though, it might be capable of capturing shots like these which were taken with the 70-300. Not sure what to expect from moving subjects on a m4/3 camera though.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The EVF on the GH1 is currently the brightest, sharpest, and the largest (almost 100% view) EVF in the m4/3 system. It displays all the vital camera info in the VF, including histogram, imagine that. The VF can magnify view to make it easier to MF so in fact it is much easier to MF with the GH1 than most of the cameras with the APS-C or smaller sensor. This EVF is very very good and you may not miss the optical VF in most dSLRs. While Pany AF is quite fast, when shooting in burst, the VF blacks out (because live view and imaging recroding use the same sensor so the sensor can only do one thing but not the other). This makes it nearlly imposible to follow your moving object and maintain framing. The rumor has it that this delay issue may be somehow addressed in the G2, but G2 uses the same sensor as in G1 and GF1, which is inferior to the one in GH1, in terms of video, high ISO performance, and DR. GH1 is not due to be replaced as yet, despit all the rumors. The 100-300mm lens may appear by year's end. Its IQ and price are unclear. Judging from the history of lenses from Pany, if this one is really good, it is going to be very expensive, and you again pay a premium for the compact size. I think the m4/3 system is still a work in progress. You will get better value for the money by going after a dSLR system. Save the money you plan to spend on the m4/3, put it into the dSLR camera body, lens, and a tripod. Wait till the end of the year and see where the m4/3 or the Samsung NX10 is going and then decide whether you want to jump into it or whether you should buy a new lens for your dSLR.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>come to this forum to say it and use terms like mediocre to describe something they have no experience using</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the record, I think NIKON D5000, as well as D90, which I own, <strong>is a mediocre camera for Sports/wild life photography.</strong> These cameras, together with E620, are simply not designed for this type of photography, although with practice and skills, they can be useful for this purpose.</p>

<p>CC Chang: Thanks for the clarification on the GH1 and m4/3. It's still tempting to also consider m4/3 as a secondary camera for street photography, but I will hold off for now and make do with a point and shoot for a while.</p>

<p>Perhaps the E620 with it's more compact build looks less conspicious, but I don't know if it's really much less conspicious than a D3000 or Rebel since it still looks like a DSLR. The NX10 is a strange camera. It doesn't seem to be available anywhere though it was released last year according to some reports. Samsung's lens lineup does not look particularly appealing last time I checked either. I guess we'll see what happens there.</p>

<p>In a way it's good to know I'm not missing much by going with Olympus in this price bracket, since most of the cameras are probably not the greatest wildlife cameras.</p>

<p>The only downside to buying into the 4/3 system here is that there don't seem to be too many upgrade choices for the telephoto range. Aside from the $5000 300mm prime with a teleconverter (not until I hit the lottery and get a photographer's assistant to carry it for me), there are only two choices, the 70-200mm f/2.8 by Sigma or Olympus's 50-200mm f/2.5-3.5 with a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter. They both seem to be good lenses, with the 50-200mm garnering some really nice reviews, but having a smaller aperture. Either option would get you to an 800mm EFL at f/5.6 to f/7 if my math is correct, for a little over $1000, which would require around 500mm of lens on a Canon or Nikon.</p>

<p>Actually f2.8-3.5 is pretty darn fast light-gathering for a telephoto zoom (the 50-200 Zuiko) with an effective field of view of 100-400mm.</p>

<p>As far as "upgrade paths" go, how many telephoto options does one need? In the end you need one standard zoom, one telephoto and possibly one ultrawide and Olympus has them all covered. I have the 9-18 Zuiko for ultra-wide subjects, the 12-60 f2.8-4 as my standard lens, the 70-300 f4-5.6 when I want to take a lighter lens and the 50-200 f2.8-3.5 when I want the better image quality at a cost of more weight and the EC20 when I want the extra reach with that lens, giving me a total tange of coverage of 9-400mm, which is an effective 18-800mm FOV.</p>

<p>You did miss two additional tele options. In addition to Sigma's 70-200 f2.8 in 4/3rd's mount, you can still find the 50-500 Sigma in addition to second-hand copies of the 135-400.</p>