Should I Switch from Nikon to Olympus

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>Now we're going down a lot of bunny trails. Let's remember what the original poster was asking about (oh yeah, I remember because it was me).</p>

<p>The micro 4/3 is a much smaller sensor than the DX sensor in my D90. Two cameras, one µ43 and the other DX, made from the SAME GENERATION in about the SAME YEAR... I have no doubt that under pixel-peeping careful testing, the DX will win.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now we're going down a lot of bunny trails. Let's remember what the original poster was asking about (oh yeah, I remember because it was me).</p>

</blockquote>

Let's remember that I wasn't replying to you but to a statement made by another poster that went above and beyond the scope of your question.

<p>I switched over from a D7000 based kit to OMD-EM5 about 18 months ago and have never looked back; was the best decision I've ever made in terms of photographic kit.</p>

<p>For lenses my walkaround setup is 3 small primes. 12mm, 25mm and 45mm. All of them make for great performance, small size and light weight. I also have the 60mm macro (though most of the time I just use it as my longest lens) and the 12-50 zoom - these are not in my everyday bag but I've enjoyed using both of them as well. The 12-50 is particularly handy as a weatherproof single-elns (ie no switching) solution for bushwalking, safaris, etc.</p>

<p>So I know everyone has different needs and wants but my own experience leads me to unreservedly advise "go for it".</p>

The main advantage of a smaller system is that you can always take it with you. And the best images you make are with

the camera you have with you. Not the superduper camera on the shelf at home.

 

But why switch? Just buy an Olympus next to what you have.

<p>I can only speak in general since I am not into Nikon & m4/3. -"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.<br>

Small is pretty important to me these days."<br>

Here I don't leave home without a military backpack, which was pretty cheap and swallows a Technika and Metz 60 if needed. So the size gap for me is different: either something fits into my work suit pocket and doesn't bother me when not used for the entire day or there is no big difference between camera sizes in my eyes. <br>

I suggest doing your math and figure out which amount of reference groceries the system change will gain you in weight. - I believe you gain 1 can of tuna with OM-D instead of D90. I didn't look up the zooms, but assume they might gain a 0.5l bottle? So we are talking about a mini lunch in total? - Is that convenience worth $1000?<br>

As a long term plan I see more sense in sticking to what you have (besides the too tiny brief case you carry to work) and upgrading for cheap on the used market later than in dumping Nikon for compact size. - The long VR zoom or the ultra wide zoom and primes are all nice to have and repurchasing those in micro 4/3 seems expensive. A used upgrade for the D90 is probably already in reach and just getting cheaper during years to come? I would stick to the Olympus gear as just an appetizer with maybe an OM-D and surely the compact telezoom you mentioned, but take Nikon out after licking blood or reading a promising weather forecast. No need to carry that entire kit everyday, but one lens at a time it still makes sense.<br>

Back in film days not really getting away with 35mm (usually sensed in my darkroom) was the best motivator to get my MF gear out of the shelf, so I believe light cameras are a motivator to grab heavier ones. With digital shooting mixed brands gear became less of an issue. - I'm talking covering events hung with maybe even 4 cameras right now. Specialty lenses on different brand's body don't mean infinite turn around time till we finish the roll inside that one anymore. Menu operation drill seems no issue in your case since you should know the structures of both.<br>

Back to the groceries comparison: It's not just about doing math; it's really about experiencing gear changes through shoulder straps during everyday life and feeling what matters. - I usually suggest it to upgraders to find out if mental horse blinders block their photographic mood after adding huge chunks of gear, but it is similarly important to realize if downsizing will be barely felt at all. I know I stay functional with just 5kg pulling on various straps, but won't notice many subjects with vacation luggage in my backpack and camera around my neck.<br>

Anyhow: Talking to amateurs its almost absurd to try talking them out of a gear purchase. If you feel attracted by some camera and see a chance to carry it: Get it. Enjoy it. But maybe try double checking how long that straw fire might burn at all? - Over in the classic manual cameras forum we take something fascinating out for a few rolls to get a feeling of it and put it aside again. Will your Olympus carrying motivation really last or end when something else, not photo related, demands space in your current bag?</p>

<p>If you don't print larger than 8x10, go for m4/3. You won't see the diference.</p>

<p>When I first went dSLR in a big way I opted Nikon (from a 35mm system of 5 OM bodies and some 17 lenses). So now I have a lot of 'gold ring' Nikon glass and some D300 bodies (my earlier Nikon bodies broke but they did serve me well) and it's big and heavy stuff.<br>

And guess what, I've just bought a OM-D E5 and love it. Small, lightweight and hence easy to carry, it works well, very well.<br>

Camera gear is meant to be used (at least in my books) and I'd like to think my OM-D will see plenty of hard use before it dies.</p>

 

<p>Thanks all, for a great discussion.</p>

<p>At this point, I'm going to hold onto all my Nikon stuff (I have most of the lenses I could ever hope to want at this point), and possibly build the Oly kit very very slowly (and used and cheap and only the real small stuff). </p>

<p>But for now, it's a bargain point and shoot for me, for less than a bargain point and shoot (yes, I got a SCREAMING deal...)</p>

<p>I ditched my Nikon gear because I was so fed up with Nikon's lack of q.c. and the general contempt for their customers that they have shown in the last few years. They are not the company they used to be and care far more about their profit margin than making their cameras properly these days. Also, giving with oee hand and taking with another is now an established decision in their camera line-up. And their lens line-up makes no sense.<br>

Panasonic give a damn and it seems almost every new thing they do is an improvement. Ditto Olympus and Fuji.</p>

 

<p><em>" possibly build the Oly kit very very slowly"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

That is how I started years ago and while I still have my D3 (sold my D800)and a bunch of Nikon lenses, I very, very, very rarely use it/them. The Olympus system is excellent overall and the lenses, especially the primes are amazing!</p>

<p>Sold the D90 and 8 lenses. Now have OM-D E-M5 with 3 lenses, and life is so much simpler. One small bag - life is good.</p>

<p>Bob Dein,</p>

<p>How is continuous shooting on that OM-D? It's okay on the D90, on the little PEN E-PM1 it's worthless.</p>

<p>I read with interest all the posts in this thread. Interestingly enough, I was just gifted by my father a OLY PEN E-P3 with the 14-42 kit lens...<br>

With that said, I have been thinking of some time of going small, light and portable as I am now chasing around a pair of 2 year olds :-), so the gift was perfect timing.<br>

For the longest time I have always shot Nikon. I like the quality and feel and lens selection. For the last 3+ years I've been shooting a D3s with a bunch of primes and only two zooms...an 80-200 f/2.8 and a f/4 16-35. Everything else f/2.8 to f/1.4 primes. ( life is too short for slow glass )<br>

The last two days have been the first with this little OLY and I like it. Grab it and go. I have a hundred or so pics through it so far, and I gotta tell ya, the IQ is plenty good enough and with only printing 5x7 or an occasional 8 x 10, this MORE than suits my needs for this purpose.<br>

Naturally we're going to concede bokeh, but geez, I've been shooting an 85 f/1.4 and a 135 f/2, WIDE OPEN, for 3 years....you don't get better bokeh than that! <br>

I shot close in and tight with this kit lens and bokeh and IQ was MORE than acceptable. I think putting an f/2.8 on this little camera will blur background plenty good enough for my uses.<br>

I'm confident enough that I'll sell the D3s and the big zoom. I'll keep my primes for the F5 and for a time when I decide a FF Nikon body will suit my shooting habits better than what I need right now.<br>

Stay tuned....</p>

<p>I got into M43 quite by accident when I bought a second hand Lumix GF3 for use as a briefcase camera.<br>

I was blown away by this little camera and after seeing some prints made with an EM5 I soon traded in all my old analogue gear to get a EM5 with the lovely Lumix 12-35 2.8<br>

Here are a couple of links for anybody who may be interested in my experience with M43 to save me repeating a lot of stuff..<br>

<a href="http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/2012/12/a-new-toy.html">http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/2012/12/a-new-toy.html</a><br>

<a href="http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/2013/12/a-year-with-micro-four-thirds.html">http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/2013/12/a-year-with-micro-four-thirds.html</a><br>

I have kept my Nikon gear, but I have not touched it for nearly a year and a half now. It just seems so big and unmanageable after using a M43.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

huh? what? this argument seems to contradict the laws of physics. larger sensors clearly have an advantage in terms of noise over smaller sensors. there is no way an m4/3 camera can compete with a full frame sensor in the high-ISO category, for example. the second part of this argument is equally erroneous and doesnt seem to make any factual sense whatsoever. you posit that larger sensors <em>"open the way for smaller sensors to obtain the same results at lower ISO using faster lenses"</em> .... uh, not really. it is true you can use faster lenses on small sensor cameras and avoid raising ISO past an unacceptable noise threshold, but it's equally true that you can also use fast lenses on large sensor cameras and get shots which would have been impossible with small sensor cameras and/or max out shallow depth of field in a way smaller sensor cameras can't do. pointing to the availability of fast lenses for m4/3 as an equalizer for the DoF and ISO issues is kind of misleading too, since there are a few ultra-fast f/0.95 lenses available, but not at all focal lengths, and besides being manual-focus, they're pretty pricey as well. it's not very realistic for someone who spent $300 or $350 (or less) on a older-model m4/3 kit to plunk down $1000 for a Nokton 25mm, especially when you can get equivalent focal length fast primes for DSLRs for a fraction of that cost.<br>

<br>

unfortunately, Larentiu, the facts are never going to fit neatly into your argument as stated. in fact, the facts live outside of your argument as you are simply incorrect on every point you were attempting to make there. it's one thing to have a personal preference, and that's okay, but try not to let that get in the way of making an objective, rational case.<br>

<br>

what is true, however, is this: mirrorless camera systems are much smaller and lighter than DSLRs and can do _most_ of what DSLRs do. the high-end bodies are very impressive, and there are loads of lens options. in some cases, you can't see the difference, depending on application and final outcome, but in others, it's apparent (cough cough continuous-AF shooting mode cough cough). i dont really see mirrorless systems currently as a replacement for DSLRs, but more like an alternative in situations where you want to go light and/or don't need pro-level functionality -- which essentially means AF performance, mostly, and a few other things.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>update for anyone interested...</p>

<p>I think I'm going whole hog into this... sold a couple of my Nikkors this morning, posted an ad with the rest this afternoon. I have the teeny little Olympus 40-150 incoming (used), and will probably (if I can sell all the lenses) get the OM-D EM-10 (Don't need the 5 and can't afford the 1).</p>

<p>I am keeping the D90, kit lens, my 55mm micro f3.5 and my SB600 for now, but if I like where the Oly system takes me (I tried the other mirrorless offerings, and the Fuji and Panasonic and Sony are really really not for me) I might just totally and completely jump ship.</p>

<p>I will probably not load up on primes again (except a nice macro, might get the cheap NIKON adaptor and keep the 55), as I honestly don't use them. I loved my ultra-wide, but, again, sometimes i went a whole year without using it... that's a waste of bag space.</p>