Full Version: Ideas for newer camera for Zuiko four-thirds sports lens
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.


<strong>Need newer Camera (from Olympus E-510) but not high cost E-5  for use with Zuiko four-third. Ideas?</strong>


I am looking for four-thirds or micro- four-third cameras

that will work well with

ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 50-200mm F2.8-3.5. (Some

have noted that this great lens, created for Olypus four-thirds, loses some autofocus

speed quality on micro-four-thords. But my lens is NOT the version with SWD...

and therefore I do not know if the quality of autofocus lost of just that of losing

the SWD motorised quality which would not apply in my case.) I shoot a lot of

kids sports and cannot afford most other high-zoom lens options that compare

(bought this sued for $600)...and therefore my desire is to upgrade the camera

as the E-510 is older and limited....but not at the high price / limted gain of

the E-5. Are there options to use newer models that the E-510

that have viewfinder, shoot video, and have some general gains from the older Olympus

E-510 (i.e. better autofocus, ISO usable range, etc). In particular, will my ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 50-200mm

F2.8-3.5 work (presumably with adapters) with any of the following and how


<strong>Olympus OM-D E-M5</strong>

Panasonic DMC-GH5 (would be my first choice in cost, video

quality, bigger size. sensor size)

<strong>Sony NEX 7</strong>


Any help and advice is REALY APPRECIATED.



My understanding is olympus is gonig to offer something(s) by the end of the year. It's not clear if it will be an e-7 or om-d with hybrid focus which will provide e quality focus with the 4/3 lenses. Its not clear from your post if you can afford to wait; if not perhaps a use 6xx series ? To be honest the new 16mp sensor is quite a leap in improvement over what is available in the current 4/3 cameras so waiting is probably the best option (if you can). Unfortunately my guess is that the new bodie(s) will be closer to $1000-$1200 at launch (mind you this is just a guess that might be way off) which seems a bit higher than you want to pay.


It does look like you can buy an e620 for around $320 from b&h (not sure if that is the sort of body you want). I think that is the only cheap option right now; persoanlly I never liked the exxx bodies (poor view finder) and it also has an older sensor.


I believe I've read over at dpreview (which is where i think you should ask this question) that micro 4/3 adapter will work with this lens but focus will be way too slow for sports et all.

Even if Olympus will release a new "four thirds compatible" camera this year, it is likely to be high-end and will probably cost more than a refurb E-5. And even if it is affordable, there are still even no real rumors about such a camera, just some speculation, so the waiting might be really long.


No such camera as "GH5", you either meant GH3 (since you mentioned video quality) or G5, but in any case you won't have any stabilization with a Panasonic body and that's a serious drawback for a 100-400 eq. zoom lens.


No MFT camera right now will give you fast autofocusing with your 50-200. Your best bet at the moment is an E-M5 with MMF-3: that's a weather-sealed combo with the best 43 sensor and the camera itself is not bad at all (close in price to a used/refurb E-5 though). If you need a "fast" (aperture-wise) yet affordable long telephoto zoom that can be attached to a small lightweight camera — don't bother with other small camera systems like NEX, they don't have anything like Olympus FT lenses (been there, tried that Smile ). The only similar package is a Pentax DSLR with Pentax 60-250, but Pentax lenses are at least twice as expensive, cameras are larger and the final images will look similar to E-M5 with 50-200. Pentax native standard zooms aren't as good as the ones from Olympus though, Oly 12-60 is pretty good and Pentax 16-50 is nothing special IMHO (yet again more expensive than 12-60, and a lot more expensive than 14-54). There are more (and better) ultrawides available for (M)FT as well..


While FT sensors aren't as good as APS-C ones in Pentax SLRs, it's hard to beat Olympus FT lenses in terms of quality/price ratio (used market), so in the end it depends on what you value in a camera system. If it's lenses and you also need a standard zoom and/or a wide angle zoom, then (M)FT is the way to go.


I REALLY APPRECIATE the time taken to respond to my post. It's really helpful.

Here is my current crossroad to which I appreciate ANY HELP.

I shoot a lot of kids sports - mostly outdoor (soccer, football, etc) with monopod...and invest a lot of time in Photoshop and video editing afterwards....but all on a hobby budget. I bought the Olympus E-510 several years ago when it was a good entry value. Then I bought a used ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 (No SWD) for about $580 as so many recommended it as a great sports lens. It has been just that. Naturally it has been a matter of having invested in better glass than camera.

So now I am at a point in which I would like to get past the limits of the E-510 not in high end quality as much as simply features that so many even lower end models have - especially shooting video, but also better ISO usability for some indoor sports, sensor size, etc. (Size of camera is NOT significant....so micro-four-thirds is not a benefit in terms of smaller size.) The dilemma seems to be that few if any cameras will operate my lens effectively...in particular they would lose AF speed which would be a big step backwards in all sports shooting. From all I read, any use of 4/3 lens to m4/3 camera via adapter loses significant AF speed.) And selling my lens and re-buying another would be too costly as no lens would appear to come close to that quality without an enormously higher price. I see some high zoom micro-four thirds lenses but I assume that the jump to micro-four-thirds, plus loss of f2.8 light, plus general quality would mean some significant loss in quality. So while I prefer to change cameras in order to maintain use of such a quality lens... from all I can gather...I would lose AF speed or even functionality with any other camera. If that is the case...I would have to look at an entire shift of camera and lens. Since I could likely only get about $550 for my current camera and lenses... I would want to have new set up only total about $1000. ($400 to $500 additional).

So main crossroads: Goal of any choice is kids sports enthusiast desiring value level equipment with video potential (as many now have).Do I get more invested in a four-thirds lens (when four thirds and that lens is in particular seems to have little future)...or do I jump to micro-four-thirds when size of gear is not a factor for me and there seems to still be some limits in equal zoom / sports lens quality...or do I jump out into standard Canon / Nikon world?

Is there any more updated camera (ie. with video) that my ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 (No SWD) could work well with that is WORTH the cost? And would it be a good choice or is getting further invested into the four-thirds line not wise at this time when so much is shifting?

I really like Panasonic for "enthusiaists" like myself, but the compatibility chart for the high feature and well value priced Panasonic DMC-GH3 (would be my first choice in cost, video quality, bigger size. sensor size) shows "quick AF operation" in photo shooting and "AF auto continuous operation" in movie shooting are not available with my lens. Compatibility notes also states: " Though AFS Mode is available, it may be lacking in sharpness in the image or taking longer than usual focusing time. In such cases, please use MF Mode or AF+MF function." I would also appear to lose any compatibility with my OLYMPUS EC-14 tele-converter.

So...if I had to choose a direction, do you have any insights or advice regarding any of the following:

Stick with the Oly E-510 and enjoy the great Zuiko lens until better choices emerge in future such as better micro 4/3 lenses

I could jump to micro-four thirds and consider
Panasonic DMC-G5KK ($500 body and lens kit)

Panasonic DMC-GH3 ($1300 body)

with a lens such as
Panasonic 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6 Lumix G Vario ($260)
Olympus M.Zuiko 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 ($200)
Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 45-175mm/F4.0-5.6 (upper line, has power-zoom especial for movies) ($300 black - 450)
(Also: In late January 2013, Tamron announced its first ever zoom lens for Micro Four Thirds, the 14-150mm F/3.5-5.8 Di III VC. That'll let in a bit more light than the Olympus, will have built-in image stabilization, and a stopper motor, which allows for quieter focusing. Unfortunately, Tamron hasn't said anything at all about when this lens will launch, or for how much, so we may be a while from knowing if it's any good.")

I could jump out of the 4-3 / micro 4-3 world and shift to:
Canon t4i (Best Buy $900 with 18-50 lens) (Amazon $650 with 18-50 lens) (Buy.Com - $456 body only)
18MP, continuous AF for movies, Full HD
Could combine with
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM Canon-ef
Dp Review
Amazon - shows used only at $800


micro-4/3 is not the best system for sports; the caf system does not do a good job of tracking (though if you are happy with videos the gh3 might solve the problem; also sony has a decent video camera based off of the nex system); In addition micro 4/3 has failed (so far) to provide a solid telephoto lens (at the long end). Ignorning the focus issue; optically there is not an equivalent to the 50-200 4/3 lens.


If you can hold out for 6 months I would stick with what you have and see if olympus offers a decent solution; if not canon is probably your best bet but you might want to look at a 70-200f4 lens (or at least check out the weight of the 70-200f2.8 sigma prior to purchase - the olympus 50-200 weight is closer to the f4 than the f2.8). Also on the canon body a 300mm lens is closer to the 50-200 on a 4/3 body (if you are frequently using the long end).


Btw I wouldn't count on the tamron 14-150 being any better than the panasonic or olympus equiv (it might be cheaper). I also do not know your optical expectation - all of the lenses are capable at the long end but (as i said above) they lack the brilliance of the 50-200 (they have less contrast and resolution).


Thanks so much. This was REALLY helpful.
My main hesitation about waiting on the one possible new Olympus camera is that it is expected to be high end price...and would be even a more extreme investment into a format that seems to have minimal future of support.It seems like either micro 4-3 (but not best for sports) or out of 4-3 / micro 4-3 may be safer.


I think perhaps I did not express it well but the rumoured high end camera will likely be compatiable with both 4/3 and micro 4/3 and contain both caf and pdf but again this is just a rumour and how well it handles both (if the rumour is true) remains to be seen.


You've indicated that size doesn't matter to you and sports is your main attraction then it may very well be that micro 4/3 and 4/3 are not the system. While many of the 4/3, micro 4/3 lenses are extermely good the focus for this system is size.


I think it is clear that 4/3 is dead and whatever olympus offers will be a bridge option from 4/3 to micro 4/3. 4/3 really offers very little 'cept some lens option.


Anwyays if you are willing to go to micro 4/3 I would wait; but if you are willing to switch to a new system then I would suggest canon (though photozone does have a reasonable nikon following). Traditionally canon offers better support and lower prices (usa) as well as better telephoto lenses; though in recent years nikon has made vast improvement in telephoto lenses and their high end cameras are probably a bit better with regards to sensor technology than canon. I think if you decide to switch system I woudl re-evaluate what specific lens you require and go from there (btw nikon repair in the usa is one of the worse options as well as most expensive due to recent nikon usa business decison). Remember that your 50-200 lens is pretty close to a 70-300 in dx format and 100-400 in fx format if you make the switch.


Last but least the gh3 is receiving extremely good reviews but it will likely not solve your issue with sports (then again I think I saw a 'try before you buy' option for the gh3 in europe).


Btw I made some coments about nikon: This link has some repair data (note from other sources I've seen on the web this data is generous for today (q4 2012):



I also want to empahsize that this is for  usa; and other regions will differ (radically). My first hand experience with olympus and canon has been extermeley positive; Other than olympus and canon I have no first hand experience with other brands but have heard bad things about most of them ('cept sigma in recent years and zeiss which tends to be slow and expensive but otherwise extermely good). Its not just bout $$$ and time but detail response to issues and correctness of the service.


Thanks so much. This info aligns with others to lead me towards waiting 6 months or so (if I can be patient)...and then assessing whether the Olympus new model appears to have potetial (doubt cost and features will match others in value...and would be a deeper investmet into a disppaearing format)....or m4-3 lenses better for sports appear....and in the very lieky fact neither do...I suspect the Canon T4i will have only come down in price and more used models will be up for sale.