Dilemma: Have OM lenses, looking for DSLR

<p>I've been a long time Olympus/OM/Zuikoholic user (went from Nikon FM2 / FA2 to OM-1 / OM-2n) and have a small collection of some nice OM lenses. My main three cameras are a beautiful OM-1n, Mamiya 6 and a Hasselblad 500CM (also have an Olympus 35 SPn and XA2 somewhere).</p>

<p>My dilemma is that I'm looking to purchase a digital SLR / RF. I used to own a Nikon D60 and then a D200 and am still a big fan of Nikon (though not as big as Olympus :) ) and am looking for something fairly light and portable. The D200 was a massive brick around my neck and over my shoulder and would scare the bejesus out of people when I pointed it at them, so I'm looking for something fairly discrete.I do have a Leica D-Lux 4 for a point & shoot but its 24-60mm lens is rather limiting and the overall image quality is not really anything to write home about.</p>

<p>I'm fairly clued in when it comes to current DSLR technology, and have been eyeing either the E-620, E-30, EP-1 / EP-2 or something from Nikon. I do however, have the following Zuiko OM lenses I would like to use:</p>

<p>28mm f/3.5<br>

50mm f/1.2<br>

85mm f/2<br>

135mm f/3.5<br>

35-70mm f/4<br>

Vivitar 70-210mm f/3.5 (Kiron)</p>

<p>My requirements are street shooting, landscape and portraiture. I print up to A3 size currently, but would like to go bigger when I get the time. I almost never use flash, and am looking for a digital body that can shoot ISO 1600 to 3200 with little noise. I guess my questions are:</p>

<p>1) Are there any current Olympus E bodies with comparable high-ISO performance to a Nikon D90 or above?<br>

2) Can my OM lenses work via an adapter, on a Nikon body?<br>

3) If anyone has both an E-XXX and a new EP-X body, how do they compare when using manual focus lenses? Specifically, how easy is it to manual focus?<br>

4) Should I forget this idea completely and a) wait for the next generation E-7XX, E-4X or the EP-3 to provide better high-ISO performance? or b) Keep my OM lenses for my OM-1n and start building a new digital system?<br>

5) Are there any other options out there for what I want to do?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I can't give you a full answer, but I think the Nikons will out-perform the Oly at 800 - 3200.<br>

dpReview has said that the E-30 and E-620 are equal to the Nikon D300 in image quality up to about ISO 800. They have also said that the E-620 is the best 4/3s camera yet, being half the price with almost the same functionality of the E-30.</p>

<p>I have no idea if Nikon can accept OM glass, but they are quite a bit thicker around the 'waist' so I have my doubts. </p>

<p>Focusing manual lenses on standard DSLR screens is a learned skill, but no harder than ground glass really</p>

<p>If your only real interest is ISO 800 - 3200 work, Oly is probably not the place to look. If small, discrete and entirely competent for street shooting is your goal, then it is likely your best choice... The 620 is small and (relatively) inexpensive... It is also highly resellable if you try one and it doesn't work out...</p>

<p>The Micro-FourThirds bodies with high resolution EVFs pose the best platform for using adapted manual lenses. The Panasonic G1 and GH1, and Olympus E-P2, provide a viewfinder on par or better than pro-class DSLR bodies (Olympus E-3, Nikon D3 and D700, Canon 1Ds and 5D) for manual focusing, and the viewfinder doesn't dim on stopping down these lenses if you have the camera's display options set correctly. </p>

<p>There are other issues where the Micro-FourThirds bodies do this job better too. Both metering range and accuracy with SLR bodies using adapted lenses like this can be compromised, by how much depends on the specific body. The Micro-FourThirds bodies use the main sensor for metering, which provides more sensitivity and accuracy ... the same as with dedicated Micro-FourThirds lenses. </p>

<p>Nikon bodies have a 46.5mm mount register, Olympus OM bodies 46mm. This means that you cannot adapt OM lenses to Nikon bodies without losing infinity focus unless you also add optics into the adapter. </p>

<p>The E-P2 and G1/GH1 provide very good high ISO sensitivity with good noise characteristics, but certainly the larger sensor D700/5D and up class DSLRs present even better sensitivity. </p>

<p>I have and use both FourThirds SLRs (Panasonic L1, Olympus E-1) and a Micro-FourThirds body (Panasonic G1). I have used adapted manual lenses from Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Contax and Leica on all three. Since I obtained the G1, I've discontinued using adapted manual lenses on the SLRs ... The G1 simply does a much better job, where the SLRs work best with the lenses made for them. </p>

<p>I'd say if you have and like using these lenses, the cost of a Micro-FourThirds body, new or used, will keep them in use for you at a reasonable price. Then you can decide whether or not to expand on that system or develop a new all-digital SLR system to meet your needs. </p>

<p>I'd cast a vote for a m4/3 body, too, except that you have specified high ISO noise control equal to a D90. I have the D80, and my G1 is about equal to the D80 as far as noise control at high ISO goes. The D90 is at least a stop better.<br>

On the other hand, the G1 is a joy to use, even with manual focus lenses. I bought several old Nikkors, thinking I'd use them with both my D80 and the G1, and I have found I almost never pick up the D80 since I got the G1. Most likely I'll continue to expand the m4/3 system with the next generation Panasonic or Olympus and relegate my D80 and lenses to special purpose shooting or sell off the lenses.</p>

<p>Jonathan, if you want to adapt your OM Zuiko lenses to digital completely forget about Nikon. Unless you enjoy taking lenses apart and modifying them, it is a hassle to adapt OM Zuiko lenses to Nikon cameras. As Godfrey points out about the flange focal distance Nikon bodies have a 46.5mm mount register, Olympus OM bodies 46mm. It can be done but it's not practical.</p>

<p><strong>Your camera choices for adapting OM Zuikos on digital are Canon or Olympus, Panasonic both 4/3rds and m4/3rds, OM Zuikos work beautifully with these digital cameras (with adapter).</strong> Another question you have not asked yourself yet is whether you want to go Full-Frame or Half-Frame digital? As for whether to go Full-Frame or Half-Frame Digital without getting into Full Frame/Half Frame wars here, it is totally up to you and no one else here can decide that for you. It's personal preference and you really cant go wrong with either Full-Frame or Half-Frame digital. I switched to Canon EOS Full Frame Digital many years ago adapting OM Zuikos and now shoot with the Canon 5D Mark II camera. But that's just me. Olympus m4/3rds cameras are tiny (you can put it in your pocket!) so versatile and forgiving to adapting other lenses it's incredible. Just remember with half-frame the focal length multiplier (FLM) is double, 2X the focal length of the lens. With a Olympus E-P2 you can adapt not only OM Zuikos, but Nikon lenses and a whole laundry list of other lenses including lenses from the old half-frame Olympus Pen F analog film cameras from the 1960's!</p>

<p>There was a post earlier in this thread about allegedly-positive dp review for 620. Here's the review, see if you agree with that interpretation.<br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse620/page31.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse620/page31.asp</a></p>

<p>John-<br>

Pointing the reader to the original DPReview article so that they may form their own opinion is fine, but when you use the term "allegedly-positive dp review for 620" and the linked page ends with the following sentance:<br>

"The E-620 crams most of the E-30's feature set into a much smaller, much less expensive package that competes more convincingly with its peers than any Four Thirds camera we've yet seen."<br>

You seem to be interjecting your own negative views of the E-620. The review was clearly was clearly positive, if you feel a positive is unjustified why not just say so.</p>

 

<p>Jonathan, I forgot all about Sony Digital SLR. Sony has Full-Frame Digital SLR cameras and your OM Zuikos will work with a OM/Sony Alpha-Minolta Maxxum mount adapter (hard to find) . I am only familiar with Olympus and Canon systems so you will have to go to the Sony forum here and I am sure those guys will point you in the right direction. Hope this helps!</p>

<p>Well as it is, the E-620 seems to get the most glowing praise regarding any Olympus 4/3 body. The DPReview article, as far as I can tell at least, seems to say it is a really good camera up until ISO 800 or so and is on par with anything from Canon or Nikon in terms of still-image quality up until that point.<br>

It seems the high ISO performance of the E-620 is much better than the E-30. Although the feature set is much more comprehensive on the E-30, I can live with the slower shooting rate and 7-point AF - which would seem to be the main ones. I have heard the EP-1 / EP-2 are superior to the GF-1 in terms of high ISO and the in-body image stabilization, whereas the GF-1 has a much faster and more accurate AF, along with a better LCD.</p>

<p>My primary concerns regarding the E-620 are:<br>

-Small viewfinder (endemic to 4/3 cameras?)<br>

-Small hand-grip - I don't have large hands but I did prefer the heft and grip on Nikon's D200 over the D60, hence my worry for the small semi-grip on the E-620</p>

<p>As for the EP-2's EVF, to be honest I really couldn't stand it. The refresh rate was awful when I tried it out in a store a few weeks back. Kinda reminded me of those old CRT monitors that were stuck at 50hz and flickered whenever you were slightly off to the centre. Maybe this is just me being nostalgic and in need of a kick into this year, but I also found the electronic version to be sub-par compared to the one in the OMs...just...icky. :)</p>

<p>There are two ways to go: Most OM lenses can be adapted to F-mount, but you need a D200/300 or higher body to get metering. The conversion doesn't damage the lens, and is reversible. The converted lenses can even be used on a 4/3 or m4/3 body with an F-mount adapter. Here's a link to the conversion sets. I haven't tried them yet, but will probably do that:<br /> http://leitax.com/OlympusOM-lens-for-Nikon-cameras.html</p>

<p>When it comes to 4/3 bodies, the viewfinder is very important for the results. I used an E-1 successfully with OM lenses. Of today's bodies, I think that only the E-3, E-30, EP-2 and Panasonic G1/GH1 have good enough viewfinders for precise manual focusing, unless you want to use live view for that. I agree that an EVF isn't ideal, which basically leaves you with the first two. Although the sensor of the E-3 is somewhat dated, the viewfinder really rocks, and the price is very reasonable now.</p>

<p>Another way to go, would be Canon. The 7D and 5DII have great viewfinders and can use OM lenses with an adapter, but for somebody who likes Nikon, the Canon ergonomics can take time to get used to; forever according to some photographers ;)</p>

<p>Be aware also that most OM zooms are problematic on 4/3 cameras. I've tried the excellent 35-70mm f/3.6, and it was really bad at most focal lengths. It might work better on an F-mount camera though.</p>

<p>Rob H > Is there a full-frame Olympus DSLR body? I didn't even know one existed if there is one - I'm guessing it must be fairly old technology by today's standards. As for using a Sony or Canon, I do have a couple of Hexanon (50mm f/1.4 & f/1.7) and old Nikkors (35 f/2 & 80-200mm f/4.5) lying around but as of now, no Canon glass at all - and no desire to start collecting yet more (slightly) unused glass.</p>

<p>What do you guys think about the image quality between the E-620 and E-30? Seems like the E-620 has the upgraded sensor and LCD, but with the slightly smaller and dimmer viewfinder - perhaps its safest just to wait for the E-30 successor with hopefully even better high ISO performance than the E-620?</p>

<p>Come on Olympus, give us a body that can match a D300 or 7D for image quality at high ISOs in a package the size and feel of the E-30! (or E-1)</p>

<p>Jonathan, I wish a Full Frame Olympus DSLR existed! If it was 21mps, FF sensor, ISO expansion to 25,600 ISO and could accept OM manual lenses with TTL, AF confirmation without stop down meter and without a adapter... wow!:) Basically if it was like the Canon 5DMKII I shoot with! I would be one of the first in the line to get one! Unfortunately it doesn't (yet) and may not ever exist. If it will exist it would probably be called a Olympus OM5 DSLR as the last full-frame anything Olympus made was the analog OM-4(t) film camera.</p>

<p>Well it sounds like to me your best choice is Olympus or Panasonic 4/3rds or m4/3rds without getting into a new camera system like Canon or Sony. Take a look at the leitax link Jorgen showed you. I have known about that adapter for some time and believe me it's not for the faint of heart. You do have to be mechanically inclined, be prepared to take your lens apart. You may want to practice with a Nikon lens you don't care about first before you take apart your best lenses. To me with Nikon adapting OM Zuiko lenses is a total hassle. With Olympus, Canon, Sony you just slap on the adapter and you are done!</p>

<p>Oops typo! If you go the Nikon route, you may want to practice with a <em>OM</em> <em>Zuiko</em> (not Nikon) lens you don't care about first before you take apart your best lenses.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the adapter for use on Sony cameras contains a lens element in addition to other restricting factor. Apparently the difference in flange to sensor distance between OM and Alpha mount is just a little bit too small to make a working adapter without the extra lens. This is probably also the reason why it's difficult to find, and probably not even in production anymore. Here's a link with a description:</p>

<p>http://www.srb-griturn.com/olympus-om-lenses-on-minolta-af--sony-alpha-bodies-1229-p.asp</p>

<p>Well Jorgen, as far as a no-hassle adapter is concerned for adapting OM Zuiko lenses to a digital camera for Jonathan, I guess that just leaves Olympus, Panasonic and Canon digital camera choices! BH photo does sell a OM/Sony Alpha adapter as well (currently out of stock) . Again I am familiar with Canon and Olympus systems but not Sony. The Sony/Minolta guys may have to jump in this thread for a workaround or available adapter.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/97540-REG/General_Brand_ABMAXO_Maxxum_Body_to_Olympus.html#accessories">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/97540-REG/General_Brand_ABMAXO_Maxxum_Body_to_Olympus.html#accessories</a></p>

<p>That seems to be the same adapter, doesn't it? There's probably still no such thing as a free lunch :)</p>

<p>Canon is the obvious solution to this, I agree, particularly a 5D or 5DII. Using cameras with smaller sensors, the wide angle lenses lose their value. My excellent, little 21mm f/3.5 wasn't much fun as a slow normal on the E-1. The 100mm f/2.8 on the other hand, was really great, giving me 200mm of reach in a pocket sized lens. I'll try to remember to report back when I've converted the first lens myself. That may take a month or two though. Too much to do at the moment.</p>

<p><em>""The E-620 crams most of the E-30's feature set into a much smaller, much less expensive package that competes more convincingly with its peers than any Four Thirds camera we've yet seen."<br />You seem to be interjecting your own negative views of the E-620. The review was clearly was clearly positive, if you feel a positive is unjustified why not just say so."</em> _ Peter F<br>

Peter, I responded to Ron Pykes "allegation" about 620 Vs Nikon D300.<br>

The "peers" with which 620 competes in that review are 4/3, don't include prosumer APS (D300, Pentax K20, K7, or equivalent Sony)...and don't include E3.<br>

Have you seen positive comparisons between 620 and D300? Or 620 and E3? Please link.</p>

<p>John > I am under the impression that the phrase, "more convincingly with its peers than <em>any</em> Four Thirds camera we've seen" implies that the E-620 has done better than any other 4/3 camera when it is compared to cameras of other brands - i.e. in the same class. I'm assuming those to be the Canon 500D / Nikon D5000 / Pentax K-x and Sony A350.</p>

<p>Someone correct me if I'm wrong but that was the impression I got from the DPreview article.</p>

<p>Why don't you take a look at the GH1, which has pretty good ISO performance at 1600? The D90 may be just a little bit better at 1600 but not by much. Plus you can use all the OM lenses on GH1 with a simple and cheap adapter. The D90 may be a better choice if you have a whole bunch Nikon lenses and want to take advantage of the superb AF system on D90. Otherwise the true limiting factor here is the photographer to make nice images and the camera systems do not seem to play a major role here. I own both GH1 and D90 by the way, and I love these OM lenses. But using them on the Nikon requires modification to the mount as some has pointed out.</p>

<p>Jonathan M, yes...those APS examples are current-sub-prosumer in most repects, though the Kx high ISO is reportedly better than prosumer APS, said to include D300 (ie often acceptable at 6400). </p>

<p>Just another question here - for users of the EP-1 / EP-2 - or to anyone who has tested and compared both when using OM lenses, how does the electronic viewfinder with the EP-2 compare to the optical viewfinder of the EP-1?</p>

<p>Hi <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5211462">Jonathan Maloney</a> ,<br>

I own a couple of OM lenses, too. Originally only 2 lenses (f72.8 24mm and f/1.4 50mm) from my old film days with my OM-2. After purchasing a Canon EOS 5 D I have accumulated a rather huge collection of OM's.<br>

You may check out my site at:<br>

http://www.pbase.com/idurita<br>

http://www.pbase.com/idurita/equipment<br>

The f/1.2 50mm is one of my favorite, just second to the f/2.0 100mm<br>

Here is a sample (I think it was combined with a close-up lens):<br>

http://ic2.pbase.com/g1/44/535144/2/110217467.Ar8phUUT.jpg</p>

<p> </p>

<p><img src="http://ic2.pbase.com/g1/44/535144/2/110217467.Ar8phUUT.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="544" /></p>

<p>Jonathan</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My primary concerns regarding the E-620 are:<br /> -Small viewfinder (endemic to 4/3 cameras?)<br /> -Small hand-grip - I don't have large hands but I did prefer the heft and grip on Nikon's D200 over the D60, hence my worry for the small semi-grip on the E-620</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with your points, and are the reason I could never be happy with 4/3 in the past (but have been very happy with my micro 4/3)</p>

<p>Have you considered a used 5D? I have been very happy with images made with my Olympus 21mm 50mm and 300mm lens on this camera.</p>

<p>it is not compact but your lenses will look as you are familiar with them from the film world</p>

<p>Rudolf> Yeah, I have that 50mm f/1.2 as well - its a beautiful lens (when you get the focusing right) but has such a shallow dof it makes it quite hard to use wide open if you want clarity and sharpness on the subject.</p>

<p>Yoshio> I had thought that as well, but am not a big fan of Canon, though at roughly US$1k for a 2nd hand 5D it seems a bit silly to hold onto prejudices. I'm assuming its about the same size and heft as a D200, if not more.</p>

<p>I may just wait to see what Olympus releases next - the E-30 successor or E-3 upgrade. If they can pull usable ISO 1600 out of m4/3 and the E-620 they must be on track to do something special with the next range of mid-high end DSLRs.</p>