Contemplating camera/format change. Opinions wanted

I've been shooting with my Olympus gear well over 10 years. It doesn't appear Oly is going to bring an updated body to market and I'm not interested in the smaller micro-FourThirds offerings. I've begun researching options and could use input. The Oly FT bodies are a 2X "crop" sensor so one thing it provided was some pretty good reach with smaller lenses. My current lens lineup with my Olympus is as follows:
ZD 90-250 f/2.8 zoom (this is my workhorse nature and wildlife lens)
ZD 150 f/2 prime
ZD 50 - 200 f/2.8-3.5 zoom
ZD 14 - 54 f/2.8-3.5 zoom (my widest lens at 28 mm effective focal length)
ZD 70 - 300 f/4-5.6 zoom (very light but IQ not great)
ZD 40 - 150 f/4-5.6 zoom
EC-14 (1.4 extender)
EC-20 (2.0 extender)
EX-25 (25mm extension tube)

Obviously my passion is wildlife photography but I also want the ability to take some decent landscapes from time to time. I also use my gear for photographing my family (school functions, graduations, vacations, etc).

I've been looking mostly at going with a Canon setup now. I'm thinking most likely a 5DIII (the 1DX sure looks good but might be a bit too much initial investment). I also briefly considered a Sony A99 but not sure if that's a good move considering what I've been through with Olympus. Anyone care to share some insight as to why they chose their particular body as well as what lenses I should strongly consider to start with? If I go full frame I'll definitely need a pretty long/fast prime I think. Also any good shopping tips for getting some new gear at good prices would be much appreciated.

Bruce- Could you provide a link to Olympus "FT" digital cameras. I don't seem to be able to fine out anything about them on the web.

Olympus Four Third's format has long been dead. They ditched it when they went to micro-four thirds a few years ago.

Choice of gear, depends on your budget, level of experience, expectation and how much you care about wildlife photography. It's like asking which car is right for me? it depends...


Currently, only Canon and Nikon have the super-telephoto lenses and the combination of electro-optical technology that allows you to capture subjects such as birds in flight consistently at long focal lengths.

Why I use Canon? IMO Canon is ahead in telephoto domain because their current generation of super-telephoto lenses (MKII) are extremely sharp (even with extenders) and very light compared to Nikon. This makes it possible (for photographers skilled in the art as well as folks willing to develop those skills) to handhold these long lenses day in and day out at all times. It gives you great field flexibility. The current Canon flagship camera, 1DX which is the working horse for pros and enthusiasts offers the fastest, most accurate AF for BIF, highest ISO performance and overall IQ as well as the highest frame rate of any DSLR on the market which makes it ideal for avian photography.

Where to buy? I always buy from B&H photo, since 2004. There are other reputable online vendors as well


good luck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Chardine

Bruce- Could you provide a link to Olympus "FT" digital cameras. I don't seem to be able to fine out anything about them on the web.

---

John, I see that Arash has given some reference to the Olympus Four Thirds format. Here's a Wikipedia link for my current body (E-5): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_E-5

I've progressed through several of the Oly FT bodies (E-1, E-3, E-5). Unfortunately, the E-5 has some DR limitations as well as not very good high ISO performance. I'm definitely looking to improve in both of these areas as well as looking for better AF performance.

Thanks for your input, Arash. I know choice of cameras can be a very personal decision. While my budget isn't unlimited I'm willing to spend enough to get a top of the line system. I'm not interested in entry-level bodies or slow, mediocre lenses. While my current gear is getting a bit dated I did choose to spend a fair amount on the higher end of the Olympus offerings.

I have heard great things about the 1DX. It is no doubt the Canon flagship model. It commands a hefty price and is probably worth it. What I'm looking for is what compromises would I be making to choose the 5DIII instead of the 1DX? Or should I consider a 1D4 even? The lenses will definitely be the major investment and I'll probably have to build those out over time. So my dilemma is do I pay more for the 1DX at the expense of a shorter lens now or start with some longer glass and move up to a better body down the road?

Hi Bruce, OK I see the specs for the Oly E-5. It had about the same pixel size as the Canon 7D (1.6 crop) so has about the same reach (nothing to do with sensor size).

I have the Canon 1DIV and still love the files it produces. If you can find a good used one you would be well on your way- they go for about $3k. Then put one of the new Canon version II super-teles in front and you would be guaranteed to be happy. The "overhead" would be the need for a good tripod- say Gitzo 3000 series and a good head like Wimberley, Mongoose or Jobu to name a few.

Bruce,
IMO a long lens is the corner stone of bird photography. Bodies come and go but lenses stay for a long time. bodies always drop in price with time, lenses sometimes go up in price over several years. I would def pick a 500 II or 600 II if you can and a used 1d4 over a short lens and a 1DX. The 1D4 is day and night better than any Olympus so you won't be disappointed :)

I own the 5D MkIII and the EF 500mm f/4L IS lens and just returned a 1D X and a Series II 500mm loaned to me by CPS (Canon Professional Services). The key difference between the 5D3 and the 1D X is the AF, particularly when extenders are used. They're both very good at handling the bare 500mm lens, focusing quickly and locking on nicely. However, at a 1.4x or 2.0X TC-III and the 5D3 slows down exponentially, while the 1D X hardly slows at all. For BIF, this is a critical difference. It's more than twice as easy to get the BIF shots with the 1D X. The price difference is actually cheap when you compare it to the lens prices.

About the lenses. The Series I 500mm is a superb BIF lens and can be had used for around $6,000. Moving to the Series II, you'll shed 1.5 lbs of weight and gain an IS (image stabilization) that is an order of excellence superior to the Series I IS. With the S-II 500mm, I added the EF 2.0X TC-III and hand held a 1,000mm moon shot at 1/40-sec. If you need to save a few thousand dollars, get the 1D X and use a Series I lens until you can afford to move up.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5476/9...0a128597_c.jpg
Waxing Crescent Moon by dcstep, on Flickr

I agree with Arash. A lens is more important than the camera. I would rather shoot with an EOS 6D and a 4/600 II then with a 1DX and a 4/300. The 4/300 is not bad (and I own one) but too short for most birds and mammals (unless big mammals in places like Kruger NP or Yellowstone NP).
IMHO nothing beets a 4/600 + 1.4x and 2x for bird photography. I recently upgraded from a 4/500 (old version) to the new Canon EF 4/600L IS II and the latest 1.4x III and 2x III. The image quality of the lens is beyond any criticism and even the 2x III is really, really good with that lens.
The 4/600 II and it's reduced weight of "only" 3.9 kg combined with the amazing AF system of the 1DX is - IMHO - the best you can buy for photographing birds (particularly flight shots). It also works great for many other animals that aren't close. A 7D is a nice backup (I use one) but I would probably go for a 70D right now or wait until Canon - hopefully - introduces a successor to the 7D (please with AF up to f8 !!!).
If you don't need the AF and frame rate of the 1DX, the 5D III is a great alternative (lighter, smaller, cheaper).

If you are often in situations where you can get close to birds, mammals or other animals, the new EF 4/200-400L IS 1.4x is the best choice. Very sharp, fast AF, the internal 1.4x is very easy to use and switch on (about 0.5-1 sec compared to half a minute or so for an external one). This will reduce missed opportunities a lot.

The 4/500L IS II is also nice and lighter than the 4/600 II but the difference is not as much as with the older lenses and I would go for the 600 II. The 2.8/300 II would also make a great lens which works great with 1.4x III and 2x III but the 4/200-400 1.4x is a more flexible solution.

Of course all those lenses are expensive. If you get only one piece of all the stuff mentioned and birds or shy mammals are your main subjects, nothing will beat the EF 4/600L IS II. Make sure to get the 1.4x III and 2x III (the latter at leat if your camera allows AF at f8).
You will also need a good tripod (e.g. Gitzo 3542LS and a Wimberley II when not hand holding).

Markus

If you're going to shoot BIF and use TCs, then the body gets extremely important. I don't know the 6D, but I own the 5D MkIII and it's almost unmanageable with 2X TC. I'd rather have a Series I 500mm, a 2.0X TC and a 1D X. The 1D X will AF almost as fast with a 2.0X TC as it will bare. The 5D3 is exponentially slower. The Series II lens is much lighter and the IS is really even more effective, but for BIF, I'd rather have the 1D X body.

Just wanted to "pop" back in and say thanks for all the points raised in the responses. I can't say I've made a decision but the advice to still consider a 1DX keeps finding its way into my head. I'm also torn between trying to start the lens acquisition road between the 500/4 and the 600/4. Ultimately, I guess the good news is that neither is a bad choice!

Bruce, if you get the 1DX, make sure to read both Arash' and Artie's AF guides. They are full if usefull information and targeted at bird photographers. I will try all the recommendations in those two guides and then see what works best for me.
Also make sure to read Canon's own AF guide:

http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources...uidebook.shtml

It is written with examples from sport photography but many things apply to mammals and birds as well and the guide explains in detail all the settings - better than the dry and boring camera manual. That said, RTFM is still a must .-)

Markus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce Spell

Just wanted to "pop" back in and say thanks for all the points raised in the responses. I can't say I've made a decision but the advice to still consider a 1DX keeps finding its way into my head. I'm also torn between trying to start the lens acquisition road between the 500/4 and the 600/4. Ultimately, I guess the good news is that neither is a bad choice!

---

You can't go wrong with either. I've just completed a loan from CPS of a 1D X and a 500mm II. In October, I'll follow up with a 600mm II and make a decision. There are enough out that you could rent also. With CPS you have your membership cost and return shipping and insurance (I was surprised that they don't cover the insurance).

I've got the Series I 500mm now and the luxurious weight savings of the S-II is really tempting. The IS is simply amazing, with good hand held results down to 1/40-sec. If you have a 1D X, the penalty for putting on the 1.4X or 2.0X TC -III is almost nonexistent. With other bodies, like the 5D3, it's very significant. So I'm thinking that I'll be shooting 500, 700 and 1,000mm. Isn't that enough? We'll see after I borrow the 60 and shoot it at 1,200mm. ;-)

The 500 has 3 advantages:

- smaller
- lighter
- cheaper

That is why I bought the 4/500 in 2007 because it was 3.9 vs. 5.3 kg for the 600.

The 600 has one advantage:
- more pixels per bird (44%)

The one advantage of the 600 was enough for me go upgrade when the new versions came out. The weight difference is still there but the 500 II is only about 700g lighter than the 600 II and the 600 II is as heavy as the old 500 which was ok for hand held shooting birds in flight. Where I live, birds are shy and even on a 7D with 1.6 crop and a 1.4x the 600 II is often too short. On the 1DX it is even more extreme (although that camera can AF with f8).

So far I am very happy with the 600 II.

Markus

With a 1D X, you're really comparing 1,000mm to 1,200mm.