I need some friendly advice...

Greetings all,

 

I am currently experiencing a self inflicted dilemma that could easily be settled by just saying "Nah, skip it. You're fine", but I just can't do that right now. Here's the long version of the scoop(to skip the blah blahs, look for the question after the ***:

 

I currently own a Nikon d610 on which I mostly(96.7% of the time) use manual focus ai'd and non-ai'd lenses that I ai myself, and my first digital ever, an Oly E-M10. The Nikon is my 2nd digital camera that I've owned and I bought it in lieu of an OM-D E-M1. The reason I ended up making that decision was the great price I paid, the lenses I already had and could use, and the seeming redundancy of also owning OM-D E-M10 & an E-M1 with the E-M10 taking a backseat to whatever I chose. I also shot the E-M10 with older film lenses and never added any m4/3's lenses with the exception of a Samyang fisheye and the kit lens. The OM-D E-M10 was my first digital(I finally caved) and I bought it in late 2013 with the Nikon d610 coming a year and a 1/4 later. Last year, with the E-M10 sitting around doing nothing, I sent it off to be fully converted to UV/IR, which is really fun to use, and now my two digital bodies work together very well.

 

****That all being said, here is my dilemma, I'd really like to have an E-M1 Mark I(II if I were more liquid) and I found an excellent one with under 6k shots taken, no lens, very clean, box and all, with a 90 day warranty. The asking price is $575 with no tax. I'd been sniffing around for another Oly for a while. I want it for the portability and to have another big boy camera to use. However, I then look at the E-M10 Mark II, with all its features and familiarity, and it can be had on the Oly site(not a refurb) with a kit lens, for $499, or $449 without the lens. Either gets me the portability that I want. Since I tend to use legacy glass and the only two m4/3 lenses I have are a kit lens and a manual focus fisheye, does it make more sense to go with the Mark II E-M10 or to pick up a used E-M1, either the one I mentioned on another like it? Or, I guess the question is: which is a better camera, the E-M1 Mark I or the E-M10 Mark II? Of course, I could just buy a filter and put it on my E-M10 and shoot it normally, but that's not as fun as getting a new body. Any help, experience, or input would be greatly appreciated.

A tiny bit off topic, regarding your point "I could just buy a filter...". I've been there and I find in practice you don't get to shoot normally. I have an IR converted M4/3 camera (not the E-M10) and I have tried using the B+W 486 UV IR cut filter. Shooting "normal" colour is just about possible with careful manual calibration of white balance and some devious post processing, but it's kind of a chore. If you only want to shoot monochrome it's fine, but then you haven't got a complete camera in my view.

Other than this, what you do is really up to you.

You are all over the place! If I understand, you bought the M10 first and then bought the Nikon full frame. Now the M10 is converted to IR. A filter will not convert you back to visible light.

 

I don't know how many Nikon lenses you have. I have recently switched to Olympus and I am pleased.

 

If I were you, I would buy the M1 and start collecting Olympus lenses, particularly the Pro series. Keep in mind that they can be used on your M10. I would love to have an IR camera.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Mark Salo

This thread is from May 2017 unless an extreme procrastinator, the OP has likely taken action.