Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Systems' started by Phocal, Mar 20, 2017.
A very good friend of mine shoots with one, so I have played around with it. Ditto with the Sigma 150-600. The kit together weighs nearly 10lbs and is decidedly large. For my needs, I would likely not go back to DSLRs. But I am curious why you are considering this. As a thoughtful person who seems to produce excellent images with your m43 kit, what are you looking to gain by making this change?
Curious to know how you arrived at the 810,your thinking ect, i know some use it as a wildlife camera but isnt the D750 a lot faster on focus especially moving targets.
I'd check out the Tamron 150-600 G2. It's around 4.25 lbs (lighter than the 200-500) and has been getting very good user reviews. I'm seriously considering that lens or the new Nikon 300 f4 with TCs as a major purchase this year.
Would the new Sigma 500mm be of any interest to you.
This I can see.
I would recommend that you get some of those RAW images from your friend (if you can) and look at them to see how you like them. For an event we shot together, I was a little disappointed in the high ISO IQ of results from my friend's D810 as the improvement over my E-M1 was marginal at best. I only saw the final jpegs, though.
Things to keep in mind about the 200-500mm lens, it’s not fast at f/5.6 – but then shooting at 1600 on a D810 is not issue to me. It’s not any place close to Nikons quickest focusing lens. It needs humongous filters – 95mm I think. It’s a 5lb lens!
The newer 80-400mm lens is again a slow lens f/4.5-6, but focusing quickly, 77mm filters, is only 3.5 lbs. Has a seal on the rear of the lens, not sure if that makes it weather sealed or not. I prefer it over the 200-500mm – but there are a lot of people that prefer the 200-500mm.
I’ve called the D800 camera the best camera I’ve ever owned, and the 810 upped that. The ergonomics are fabulous, all the controls that are needed quickly are there. Customization allows a lot, the custom menu probably has over 150 things to so set and change. The thing I like most but it, is when I shoot with it I have high level of trust and a feel of "I nailed it" that I've never gotten with the OM-Ds. BTW - the manual is well in excess of 400 pages! Yet...
There are a lot of differences between Olympus and Nikon, I’d highly recommend getting Thom Hogan’s D810 Guide! There is the right information (and a ton more) in there for you to maximize your use and the best of the camera, information that would be extremely hard and very time consuming to figure out.
Despite what I’ve said, my Nikon gear still sits in my cabinet most of the time. But when I need unquestionable gear and quality it comes out. I prefer to the use the E-M1 MkII and Panasonic 100-400mm lens over the Nikon and 80-400mm for a lot of things – but when needed I rent whatever long lens that is needed.
I’m going to venture to say that for your photography you’ll want the 400mm f/2.8 with a teleconverter.
It was a straight up 3200 vs 3200 comparison and the Nikon was better. Just not better enough to make a difference to me. Lot of variables, so I am not trying to argue anything here. And I was a long time Nikon shooter and always felt that they had the best low light performance. And the D4 was supposed to be the low-light champ. Mostly my suggestion was that you should see the files your friend shot when you were not shooting (or able to shoot) and decide if you would find them useable. That to me would the key metric.
Given that you seem to be focal length limited to some extant even when using adapted lenses on m4/3, I'm surprised that you would consider the lower pixel density of the 810. To get the same framing that you now get with the Bigma, you'll need to throw away 75% of the 810's pixels.
Color me confused...
Interesting! Could you point me to your sources comparing these lenses? I've only read rave reviews of the newest line of SP G2 tamron lenses.
I'm surprised to see this thread @Phocal . I thought your love of m43 was due to the reach you're able to get due to the smaller sensor. Is 600mm (FF eqv.) enough for what you like to shoot? If it is, are you prepared to haul that weight around in the swamp all day?
If so, then there's no doubt that the D810 offers significantly better low-light performance than m43 cameras. But as with everything in life, everything's a compromise, and weight is definitely a compromise with the D810.
For telephoto shooting, FF vs Crop gets pretty interesting. There's a complex ratio between cropping, lens size, effective aperture and the like. Sure the D810 will crop a lot, but at a 2x crop (to get m4/3 reach) you are at only 9 megapixels. So you'll definitely be using longer and larger lenses to get the same reach. You'd need 80MP to get the same crop from FF as 20MP 4/3.
Effective aperture is another one. Good FF has about 1.5-2 stops on m4/3 for noise (and D810 is not one of the best FF for noise). That's great. But FF super teles are so big and expensive. So a lot of people go for the cheaper super tele zooms. Then you are shooting f5.6 or worse. That means you lose a stop or more vs the more interesting 4/3 options, erasing most of that ISO noise advantage. Also, if you crop more, you effectively reduce your sensor size and increase the size of the noise relative to the picture size. So you lose even more of the noise advantage. In some cases you may even be worse off.
Even if you buy a huge expensive 500mm f4, if you compare to a 300mm f4 on 4/3 (600mm equiv), you have to crop the D810 to 25MP, and you are reducing your sensor area by 1.44 (exactly one stop). So you are going to have the noise like you shot on APS-C. That means you are only gaining 5MP and about a half a stop vs m4/3, and you are using a lens that is ridiculously large and expensive to get that tiny benefit.
If you truly invest in the huge super telephotos, like a 600mm f4 or 800mm f5.6, on a FF camera, then sure, FF is pretty hard to beat. But those are both a $12,000 lens that weighs 10lbs.
I'm a bit confused as well. The comparisons I've seen don't put the M1.ii that far behind the 810 in terms of high ISO performance. At least on the dpreview comparator it looks to be about a half stop. Though you lose in resolution, you gain in reach and honestly when you are talking about 600mm ff equiv, that Oly 300 f4 looks like a bargain.
Also, if you are not keen on BIF, then FPS (and even tracking to some extent) become a moot point.
Have you looked at the D500 (or if tracking and FPS isn't an issue) then the D7200? You gain reach advantage of DX with good tracking and as good or better high ISO performance of the D810. Despite the lack of weatherproofing, that 200-500 is a really popular lens and I've seen some good imagery from it.