Jump to content

Should I Switch from Nikon to Olympus


Peter_in_PA

Recommended Posts

<p>I am a long time Nikon fan, been shooting their DSLRs since 2006. I shot pentax before that and liked the way they handled.</p>

<p>I recently found an insane deal on an Olympus E-PM1 so I had to try it. So cheap that if I sold it used I'd make money and still give someone a swell deal. It came with the little clip on flash and the 14-42 kit lens (the II lens).<br /> I did some comparisons. there is no way you can see the difference between an image shot with this camera and my D90 except maybe bokeh.</p>

<p>I stopped by a camera store to look at the 40 - 150, thinking that I would have a little extra kit that I could travel back and forth to work and such with and tried it on an OM-D body.</p>

<p>HOly man... the handling of that camera is insane. The size of the little lenses (I am NOT interested so much in the "big" lenses like some of Panasonics, the whole point of this little camera is that it's tiny and solid.</p>

<p>Who has switched from Nikon and liked it... I am thinking of divesting myself of my nikon stuff and loading up on a tele zoom and maybe a portrait prime and/or ultrawide and an OM-D.</p>

<p>Alternatively, I might just keep this little PEN and add the tele zoom and keep all the Nikon stuff for more "serious" photography.</p>

<p>I don't print above 8 x 10 much, and only occasionally crop very seriously in. I don't really shoot sports or birds or stuff. I am an amateur, definitely.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I didn't switch, but augmented my Nikon (& other gear) with an Oly m4/3 and adapters for legacy lenses. Like you, I rarely print large any more, most of my stuff is internet shared. Loving it. But don't sell your Nikon gear until you are firmly convinced that your chosen alternative is definitely what you want to stick with.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I probably won't move TOO quickly, but I'm now finding that my D90 and lenses tend to stay at home (I have a bunch of lenses, 11-16 Tok, 18-70, 70-300VR, 35 DX G, 50 1.8D, and a couple MF lenses, 55mm micro and 105mm f2.5)</p>

<p>I haven't gotten some of those lenses out in a year or more... This E-PM1 fits easily in the bag I carry back and forth to work with lens and flash. to carry the D90 I have to bring a separate bag.</p>

<p>Small is pretty important to me these days.</p>

<p>The alternative (which I'll probably try first) is to just get the Olympus 40 - 150 (I know other options are better, but they are really big... the point of µ4/3 in my opinion is small size.</p>

<p>I'm floored that the image quality in my quick test was pretty much the same as my D90, maybe just a touch better at 1600 and 3200 even.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see myself using ONE specific system or format. I like to shoot with different cameras regularly, according to

occasion or just randomly. 'Let's see, tomorrow I'll take this with me'.. If I were a pro, then I'd spend most of the time with

a given system, of course. Happily for me, I don't have to choose. I don't have a lot of material, but I like the diversity of what I have.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I find the whole idea of 'switching' alien. Not unlike film and digital, why can't we have both? Or Meat and fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Peter, you may recall that I've gone through this decision process about transitioning from Nikon dSLRs to something else better suited to my personal preferences for lighter weight gear to save strain on my back and neck. It is good to find a camera that's comfortable to have with you. A few things I learned...</p>

<p>Hang onto your D90. You'll occasionally find situations where the optical viewfinder is a better tool. That's why I've kept my D2H, despite its limitations. The optical finder is very good. But I am ditching most of the heavier lenses and gear I'm not using.</p>

 

<p>I really wanted one of the OM-D models for the EVF, but even used camera/lens kits were beyond my budget. I still enjoy the Nikon V1 as a speedy P&S on steroids - it's a great candid/street camera in good light - but the image quality is only a notch above a teensy sensor P&S and not in the league of the Micro 4:3 cameras above ISO 400.</p>

<p>The Fuji X-A1 and 16-50 kit zoom came along at an incredible value price and settled my decision for me. The in-camera JPEGs are outstanding, which relieves me of much of the burden of computer processing raw files (which I do record and archive - and the camera itself offers excellent raw conversions). Even though it lacked the EVF I would have preferred, it's a reasonable compromise for the Fuji's overall value. But so would a comparable Olympus PEN model, particularly for the sensor based image stabilization.</p>

<p>In actual practice I find the rear LCDs on various cameras handy for snapshots, for following action with both eyes open, and many carefully composed photos. The EVF turned out not to be quite as essential as I'd imagined. Sure, it's useful for close quarters where the arms-extended pose is impractical. The EVF is handy when the sun glare obscures the rear LCD.</p>

<p>However, I also do a lot of nighttime and available dark photography, and there are occasions I'd rather have an optical finder than either a rear screen or EVF. That's one reason I'm keeping my D2H. It's a poor choice for low light or long exposures, even at the base ISO 200 because the noise and banding in shadow areas are horrendous compared with any camera made during the past few years. But at least I can see with the excellent finder well enough to use it for flash photography, low contrast scenarios and some HDR composites.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The trouble with multiple camera types in the digital age is the number of batteries to remember to keep charged up, and I normally have two batteries for each of the seven cameras in the stable .... URRRGH!<br>

Actually that is eight .. I forgot to count my cellphone.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>You'll occasionally find situations where the optical viewfinder is a better tool.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a belief, not a truth. P.net is a <em>Big Iron</em> and film site (classic film cameras and medium format forums have more activity than mirrorless cameras). For every person here that actually uses the high end mirrorless there's 20 people who will jump in and tell you to keep the blunderbuss handy, just in case. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>You'll occasionally find situations where the optical viewfinder is a better tool.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a belief, not a truth. P.net is a <em>Big Iron</em> and film site (classic film cameras and medium format forums have more activity than mirrorless cameras). For every person here that actually uses the high end mirrorless there's 20 people who will jump in and tell you to keep the blunderbuss handy, just in case.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Peter is certainly able to go to those other sites where for every person actually using film or MF there's 20 people who will tell you to dump everything for the latest point and shoot.<br>

Photo.net is for every kind of photography and gear. It's not our fault that those who are content with a single type of equipment are a minority.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thank you,</p>

<p>The differing opinions here are what REALLY makes Photo.net useful. Lex, you bring up some EXCELLENT points for sure.</p>

<p>I do wonder how happy I'd be, long-term, without my Nikons.</p>

<p>More thinking about this is required for sure.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Peter - I made the change last Fall. Sold all my Nikon digital and film bodies and lenses. Not an insignificant collation; I got a little over $8,000 from KEH, so you know it was a lot of stuff. Took the next step as well and sold my Hasselblad and Rolleiflex. Medium format was getting too difficult to work in for me (others may not agree).<br>

Anyway, I bought the EM-1 and the 12 - 40 zoom, and will buy a wide angle pro when it becomes available. IQ is fine for my needs. I don't shoot high ISO, so none of that matters to me. For anything I really care about the camera will be on a tripod.<br>

Interestingly, I think I'm going to be able to use the camera much as I would my H'blad. One of the features I like the most is the touch screen focus feature. When I'm standing in a stream shooting a waterfall, I can simply bracket focus by touching the screen, rotated to be parallel to the ground, and use it as a ground glass. I bought the remote release so I can easily deal with the very long exposures I sometimes get into (30 sec to several minutes). And I can even choose the square aspect ratio, which I love!<br>

My only concern so far is that there isn't a high quality wide angle zoom with front filter threads, or a rear filter slot. 90% of my work requires a polarizer. Maybe I should have checked that out in advance, but I'll figure something as a workaround.<br>

Hope this is informative and helps.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've just got back from a 5-hour hill walk. I was carrying my D800 and three primes. I'm old, and it was just too heavy. If I'd taken my OMD EM5 and 12/20/45 prime kit, I'd now be smiling and not rubbing my back and grimacing. So why run with 2 systems (in spite of the battery hassles) - well, the quality the D800 can give is definitely a notch above M43. Definition obviously, also dr and the ability to pull up shadow detail, and a less 'digital' look - much less CA, for example. The M43 kit is good, and I could live with it alone; I'd say it is about as good as my D200 was, maybe a bit better. My experience is that it's worth getting good lenses to ensure you maximise what that small sensor can do; for example, the Olympus 40-150 doesn't touch the 45/1.8 prime at 45 mm, or adapted Pentax or Nikon 100 mm lenses at 100 mm.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Mirrorless cameras are all the rage now, but the IQ from dSLR's is still better IMO. Not trying to start an argument, just playing devil's advocate. When I first got my M43, I was like "dSLRs are dinosaurs, go mirrorless or die!" My tune has changed somewhat lately.</p>

<p>The best attribute that m43 cameras have over dSLRs, IMO, is size and weight, and that is arguable in some cases. I have a Lumix G6 and a Nikon D200. Side by side comparisons I've done with the kit lenses (14-42 Lumix, 18-55mm Nikkor), all settings on both cameras the same, the D200 images are sharper and richer in color out of the camera.....and the G6 is 16mp while the D200 is 10mp. When it comes to editing, the D200 images edit better as well, don't ask me why though. I love the G6, don't get me wrong, it produces nice images, but I'm glad I didn't sell off all my Nikon gear. Keep in mind also that mirrorless cameras and lenses are not less expensive than dSLRs either.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>"IQ from dSLR's is still better"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Under certain specific shooting conditions and/or print sizes, yes, but for the majority of typical photography most would do, you would not be able to see a difference based on my experience.</p>

<p>IMHO many M43 lenses give better image quality than their full frame or crop frame counterparts, so you can often end up with better IQ with the M43 system over other systems.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"Who has switched from Nikon and liked it... I am thinking of divesting myself of my nikon stuff and loading up on a tele zoom and maybe a portrait prime and/or ultrawide and an OM-D.</p>

<p>Alternatively, I might just keep this little PEN and add the tele zoom and keep all the Nikon stuff for more "serious" photography."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Years ago when I shot 35mm film, I shot with a 35mm SLR and a 35mm rangefinder. Today, instead of a 35mm SLR, I now primarily shoot with a digital SLR.</p>

<p>Today, instead of a 35mm rangefinder, I primarily shoot with a micro 4/3 Olympus E-p3 and E-p1. The micro 4/3 is great for the times when I need smaller, lighter, quieter, and better video.</p>

<p>Just like my 35mm SLR and rangefinder could never replace each other, my dSLR and my Olympus micro 4/3 cannot replace each other. Therefore, my decision was to add a telephoto zoom (45-200mm f/4 to f/5.6 Panasonic) and keep all my Nikon stuff.<br>

<br /> Digital Compact vs Digital SLR00cb9a-548453784.JPG.9d5b51e2ad450ed15854a38d90bbc353.JPG</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>but the IQ from dSLR's is still better IMO</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Doesn't the DSLR mirror get out of the way when the photo is taken? Then how can it contribute to the IQ?</p>

<p>Sensors have the same performance and mirrorless cameras can use any DSLR lenses. So how can DSLRs have better IQ - where does it come from? What aspect of DSLR technology can provide that?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Laurentiu,</p>

<p>In most mirrorless situations (specifically the Olympus I'm talking about) the sensor in the camera is far smaller than is used even in crop frame DSLRs. </p>

<p>The bigger sensor takes a better photo, in general, if you pixel peep, which I don't usually.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IQ is not a simple thing when you break it into its components. I have not done any scientific tests myself but some of the data show that micro four thirds is as good or better than APS-C, but not as good as the full frame sensor. If you decide you don't use the Nikon much anymore, and want a smaller system, you won't be disappointed with OMD cameras, especially the higher end models ( they get better IQ and more flexibility and sharper electronic finders). I have stayed with the 4/3 range for many years....I hate to sell anything.....and find that Olympus lenses are top notch. Do you like working in the 3:4 format for example. I do. For price, the fast lenses will always remain costly. But the lower end ones are getting good results. As always, the answer is "it all depends." No, I did not switch from Nikon, but when I left the film world I switched from Canon to Olympus. And remained in that camp. Mirrorless has made great strides, and more and more commentary suggests that the big mirror and prism world is being supplanted. But not totally replaced. If you have a coin, just toss it. Simple way to get an answer. Keep both. Keep one, sell one. Switch to Sony? Life is full of great possibilities....truer now then ever with new technology. I saw some shots recently with a Phase One camera and back....for magazine covers in her case. And markets new and used abound. Like car salespeople may say in glossy spreads:

 

http://cameras.olympus.com/en-us/omd/compare

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I don't print above 8 x 10 much, and only occasionally crop very seriously in. I don't really shoot sports or birds or stuff. I am an amateur, definitely.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Then I would urge you to switch if you can afford it.</p>

<p>Only two things prevent me from switching from a full frame Canon to m43:</p>

<ul>

<li>Bokeh</li>

<li>AF on moving subjects</li>

</ul>

<p>The bokeh issue can be worked around to a degree by changing focal length or getting closer to the subject. m43 lenses can also often focus closer than many DSLR lenses which increases background blur. The AF will improve as the technology advances. The Olympus cameras already match (or even exceed) DSLR AF speed on static subjects. Contrast detect AF on mirrorless cameras is also more accurate than the phase detect AF used on most DSLRs and is particularly good for wide aperture portraits when focusing on the subject's eye... i.e. you know it's going to be in focus. </p>

<p>For their size, m43 cameras give incredible image quality and performance. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"the IQ from dSLR's is still better IMO."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not likely, if you're talking about the sensor and not external factors such as lenses and user technique. The same Sony sensors end up inside of many APS/DX dSLRs and mirrorless models. DxO tests for comparable models show no significant differences, although there may be some insignificant but measurable differences that cannot be seen.<br>

<br>

Then there are raw processing differences that significantly influence results and user impressions.<br>

<br>

I chose the Fuji X-A1 over a comparable Nikon DX dSLR in part because the Fuji results were visibly, if not necessarily significantly, better than Nikon's in various DPreview sample photos, JPEG and raw. The Fuji was also significantly less expensive, in part because they put some great guts inside an inexpensive plastic box and lens. The compromise suits me. Nikon's usual method is to deliberately hobble the IQ potential for their lower priced models, using the same hardware, to differentiate from their higher priced models, which always seems like a crappy thing to do when the bodies are already built to a lower priced standard.<br>

<br>

There are other complications. DxO hasn't, can't or won't test the new Fuji X-Trans models so we're left with evaluating results the old fashioned way. And since some Fuji fans are extremely experienced including with full frame sensors from various other manufacturers, I trust they have a valid reference point for choosing the best tool for the job.<br>

<br>

Finally, IQ - being a nebulous term like "sharpness" - is in the hands of the holder and eyes of the beholder. The available light photographer who prefers not to be tied to a tripod will probably get "sharper" results from any camera with good stabilization, such as Olympus' sensor stabilization, than with the best APS or full frame dSLR that lacks a stabilized lens, or is too heavy to handle comfortably without muscle strain for a daylong excursion. Been there, done that.<br>

<br>

I'm not particularly allergic to deliberate motion blur or noise, but between the two vices I'll choose lower noise at high ISOs. Larger sensors still hold a small but discernible edge in that department over smaller sensors. But in-camera processing is a major factor and for some types of photos, and some tastes, heavier noise reduction with their preferred camera is acceptable over a technically "better" camera.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>@Peter Hamm: Peter, what you are talking about and what Thomas said are two very different things. There is no mention of sensor size in Thomas's statement or in my reply to it, only a mention of DSLRs being better than mirrorless. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>... I'll choose lower noise at high ISOs. Larger sensors still hold a small but discernible edge in that department over smaller sensors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think it helps to be more specific about this. Larger sensors loose their advantage when used at high ISO because they open the way for smaller sensors to obtain the same results at lower ISO using faster lenses. The lack of availability of those faster lenses or their price can be deemed disadvantages of the smaller sensor system (and advantages of the larger sensor one), but this is quite a different point from saying that large sensors have an advantage at high ISO - they don't have any advantage if they only match results from smaller sensors.<br>

<br>

The advantage of larger sensors is the low ISO performance and the extra resolution. And the latter is not always the case - see Nikon D700 or the Df.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p> You'll occasionally find situations where the optical viewfinder is a better tool.<br>

This is a belief, not a truth.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course it is not a SINGLE truth, but it sure can be true for individuals. Complaining about generalisations with a generalisation isn't really going to work and the age-old complaining that p.net looks down on mirrorless either. In the end, the only thing that matters are arguments (with solid reasoning) on why one likes or dislikes a system. Obviously mirrorless has its place and is the right tool (for a lot more people than actually buying it too, I think). And equally obvious, sometimes DSLRs make the right choice.</p>

<p>Whether IQ is better or not - it's a useless discussion too, in my view, as it only generalises a lot. What is IQ anyway? Is that about high ISO noise only, or dynamic range (at what ISO?), about colour response, tonality, how harsh clipped highlights look? In my view, all of these cameras have reached a level that is excellent for 99% of the uses. And the users that hit that 1% niche should be knowledgeable enough about their tools to know what is the right tool.</p>

<p>In the end, in my view, it is all about handling and what you prefer about it. When the PM1 was on offer here (for a very attractive price), I had a serious look at it - though to add rather than replace my DSLR. Having no viewfinder at all was a deal-breaker to me. Shooting photos at arms' length just isn't how I like to take photos when I am serious about those photos. ANd when I am not too serious about them, my cellphone works fine already. I want a viewfinder of sorts to "close in" on the composition. Plus, in my hands, in the end the PM1 was too small and as a result felt too fiddly. But I can image a OM-D would convince me otherwise on those points (though I lean more towards Fuji if I'd swing that way).<br>

And these are just personal, non-generic, views - things one can only seriously decide for him- or herself. To me, it is the big difference between mirrorless and DSLRs. So, sorry Peter, can't help you much. I can see the attraction of the Olympus, I guess the thing to do is use it a lot and see if you enjoy the experience as much as you do with your Nikon.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...