They are both the same, Olympus 300mm, Nikon 300mm (Page 3): But the Olympus isn't a 300mm in reality..it's a 600mm. So it is an unfair comparison to use a 300mm FF. Now put the Oly...

Canisdirus

John from gpwmi wrote:

The micro 4/3 with a 300mm lens has a viewing angl... (show quote)

But the Olympus isn't a 300mm in reality..it's a 600mm.
So it is an unfair comparison to use a 300mm FF.
Now put the Oly 300mm against a 600mm FF ... it all falls apart...for Oly.
Kind of why Oly cannot continue.
The micro system was never meant for long glass or wildlife.
It's core mission was lightweight street and portrait photography.

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

A FF sensor size is 36 x 24mm
A 4/3 sensor size is 17.3 x 13mm
So the 4/3 sensor is physically half the size of FF.
That's why it's said a 4/3 lens is 2 times the focal of FF.
ie 300mm equivalent to FF 600MM.

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

A Nikon D850 45mp camera with the Nikon 300mm lens.
When the sensor is cropped in half, it is 22.5mp.

Basically it is the same view as a 4/3 300mm lens. Which is a 20mp sensor.

So, do I need to by a second camera to get the same view?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

[quote=Beenthere]

kenArchi wrote:

FF or 4/3, they are 300mm. And they are both 600mm... (show quote)

You've been lied to.

The D810, 36.7 mp, has a pixel size of 23.72 µm²
The D850 - 45.7 mp, has a pixel size of 18.84 µm²
The Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mk III - 20.4 mp, has a pixel size of 11.02 µm²

https://www.digicamdb.com/specs/nikon_d810/
https://www.digicamdb.com/specs/nikon_d850/#:~:text=Nikon%20D850%20has%20a%20pixel,density%2C%20the%20better%20the%20camera.
https://www.digicamdb.com/specs/olympus_om-d-e-m5-iii/

That would translate into some noise with the Oly that would have to be dealt with either in post processing (raw file) or in camera (jpeg). The 36.7 mp D810 would have the least amount of noise. But if you downsample each of the images to around 12 mp, the higher mp cameras would really improve in noise, while the Oly would only improve slightly.

Canisdirus

kenArchi wrote:

A Nikon D850 45mp camera with the Nikon 300mm lens.
When the sensor is cropped in half, it is 22.5mp.

Basically it is the same view as a 4/3 300mm lens. Which is a 20mp sensor.

So, do I need to by a second camera to get the same view?

Again...cannot compare a 300mm FF to a 300mm Micro.
The correct comparison is a 600FF to 300mm micro.

Get the Nikon 200mm to 500mm FF lens and you will have a wildlife "tiger" of a system.
You will spend less on the lens...and gain aperture...and sharpness.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Canisdirus wrote:

But the Olympus isn't a 300mm in reality..it's a 600mm.
So it is an unfair comparison to use a 300mm FF.
Now put the Oly 300mm against a 600mm FF ... it all falls apart...for Oly.
Kind of why Oly cannot continue.
The micro system was never meant for long glass or wildlife.
It's core mission was lightweight street and portrait photography.

You need to go out and shoot with the E-M1 mkIII with the 300mm f4 Pro IS lens and just show all of us 4/3rds users how the "Oly 300mm against a 600mm FF ... it all falls apart...for Oly" and how the "micro system was never meant for long glass or wildlife." You have never visited the Olympus site and examined the pro and advanced amateur shots of wildlife on the site done with long lenses. And not only that, a lot of those long lens shots were done without a tripod.

Olympus's biggest problem wasn't the innovation or equipment. It was the fraud that management chose to participate in.

Canisdirus

I see a 600mm f/8 lens. It's not as sharp as my Sony 200-600mm zoom...which is still a bit cheaper.
600mm on a full frame CRUSHES a micro sensor.

Oly's problem was it never made the move away from micro...when the market was screaming to do so.
Panasonic moved...
So you end up with a very small sensor that's 20mp.
The entire premise of micro is...MICRO. Small...not big.
But small has been taken away by cellphones...
FF's outperform in the long lenses...easily.
Oly also did not concentrate on video...which was a huge mistake.
I can’t find a single Olympus camera with video features that can compete with the GH5 or the Fujifilm X-T3.
There is nowhere for Micro to go....except perhaps video...which Panasonic understood...Oly didn't.

Yes, Oly had an accounting debacle...but the numbers are still real...
They lost money for three years in a row...
They did not adapt to the market...

If you have an Oly system...keep it if you want. It will serve you for a decade.
But there isn't going to be any innovation coming down the road.

John from gpwmi Loc: Michigan

kenArchi wrote:

A FF sensor size is 36 x 24mm
A 4/3 sensor size is 17.3 x 13mm
So the 4/3 sensor is physically half the size of FF.
That's why it's said a 4/3 lens is 2 times the focal of FF.
ie 300mm equivalent to FF 600MM.

Ken, Calculate the area of each sensor and you will find the 4/3 sensor is ¼ the size of FF. So the pixel count is ¼. You multiply by two to get the same viewing angle. Read my post on the bottom of page 2.

John from gpwmi Loc: Michigan

kenArchi wrote:

A Nikon D850 45mp camera with the Nikon 300mm lens.
When the sensor is cropped in half, it is 22.5mp.

Basically it is the same view as a 4/3 300mm lens. Which is a 20mp sensor.

So, do I need to by a second camera to get the same view?

Ken, You have to look at the area of the sensor, since the photo must be cropped by 1/2 both horizontally and vertically. Therefore when 45Mp is cropped to match the size of a 20Mp 4/3 the photo, the result is an 11.25Mp photo. Hope this helps, John

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

I guess my alien math is off.

If 4x4 area = 16 and a 2x2 area = 4. It does equal 1/4.
Yup, I stand corrected.

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

Ok, I'm getting it.
But how do they say the micro lens sees 2 times 300mm = 600mm FF?
Instead of 4 times 300mm. 1/4 times 4 equals 1.

John from gpwmi Loc: Michigan

Canisdirus wrote:

But the Olympus isn't a 300mm in reality..it's a 600mm.
So it is an unfair comparison to use a 300mm FF.
Now put the Oly 300mm against a 600mm FF ... it all falls apart...for Oly.
Kind of why Oly cannot continue.
The micro system was never meant for long glass or wildlife.
It's core mission was lightweight street and portrait photography.

Canisdirus, You need to go back and read the original question. Ken was saying he could crop the 300mm FF to get the same result as the 4/3 300mm. That can be done to get the same viewing angle, but pixel count is divided by 4. So if you don't have an 80Mp FF, you will end up with less resolution.

The Olympus 300mm is not in reality a 600mm lens. In lens physics it is 300mm. It just has the same viewing angle as a FF 600mm because of the smaller sensor. I know a couple of guides who lead photo trips and here is what they say: The gear is light and small. Easier to changes small lenses quickly and most shots don't require a trip-pod due to superior IS. Therefore, they say they get a lot more successful shots. There is no perfect camera and 4/3 is certainly not perfect. It's simply how one weighs the factors that are important to them.

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

Ok, it looks like the Nikon 500mm PF will be the way to go. It is about the same weight as the 300mm Oly.
This will give me plenty of room if needed to crop without any serious degredation. Maintaining FF pixel resolution

Well you guys are really a big help in me understanding this high end math.

Canisdirus

John from gpwmi wrote:

Canisdirus, You need to go back and read the origi... (show quote)

It's still apples to oranges. Yes, I get it that it is a 300mm ... but it is coupled to a 2x sensor...so it is not in use.

Any 300mm f/4 on a micro sensor is a 600 f/8.
I don't have anything against micro...I am not involved either way.
I just pointed out why it has failed to garner any market share for Oly...and doomed them.
Olympus always meant to stay the smart street camera company...but then came Google Ai and smartphone cameras. Oly decided to stay put...and it cost them.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

John from gpwmi wrote:

Canisdirus, You need to go back and read the origi... (show quote)

Here, here! Very well stated. I could not do better. If I really wanted to do a fine portrait versus my 4/3rds, I would pull out my Hasselblad and a roll of color or black and white. It would be no match, medium format wins. But plane travel vacation or one week car trip with hiking. 35 pounds of Hasselblad and tripod or 7.5 pounds of 4/3rdswith more angle coverage? 4/3rds wins. There is no perfect camera.