Change to Nikon or stay with Olympus

[porter]

<p>I know that I'm coming to a rather biased place for an answer, but you'd know the camera better than anyone... I used to shoot with a Nikon film slr and have kind of been pining to return to Nikon. Before I make any changes I want to make sure it is worth it and my ONLY concern when thinking about cameras is image quality.</p>

<p>Should I switch from my Olympus e620 to a d5000?</p>

<p>I do a decent amount of iso 400+ indoor shooting and long telephoto shots so the noise from 4/3s is a bit concerning, as is lens availability. Currently I have a decent amount of money invested into Olympus, but not a large enough amount that I couldn't switch. Other than the kit lens, I have a 50mm f2.0 oly macro lens and a 70-300. I was going to get another lens but before I do so I really want to consider whether it is worth continuing to invest in that company.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I shoot Nikon, and have a friend who shoots with an Oly E3.</p>

<p>Although I'm not crazy about the 4/3 format, it is in fact easier to crop to 8 x 10, and I think the ergonomics on that camera are SO SWEET! She gets AMAZING shots with it. Fact is, she is a way better photographer than I am, and any great photographer can get a great shot with a decent camera.</p>

[tony_phillips2]

<p>I now shoot with a Nikon D300, previous to this i had a Olympus E20, A E500 and a E510, I myself was about to invest into a new lens, but decided to make the shift to Nikon, the low light iso performance, the avalibility of a wider range of lenses both new and used (and the fact here in the UK its hard to find Olympus lenses in most shops, you usually have to buy mail order). It is a move i would recommend to anyone as much as i really loved my olympus cameras there were to many plus points to Nikon. Make the change you wont regret it.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Ironic. I was >thisclose< to getting an Olympus dSLR instead of Nikon back around 2005. More recently I've been thinking about the E-420 or current revision of that model (E-450?). I really like the size and weight, and the lack of an unnecessarily bulky palm swell grip. I'll need to try out one of the Olympus dSLRs in that series at a local shop to decide whether the autofocus is responsive enough. High resolution online sample photos indicate the noise level is acceptable, if not outstanding, up to ISO 1600.</p>

<p>I really need a much smaller, lighter dSLR than my D2H, but it would probably make better sense for me to get a D90 and keep my compatible lenses. Which, by the way, I did try last week. I'm very impressed with the handling and responsiveness. In terms of shutter and AF response I didn't get the impression that I'd be losing much compared with the D2H for casual photography. I don't do much action photography anymore so the D2H is like using a quirky Ferrari for morning commutes.</p>

<p>BTW, Patrick, if you don't enjoy doing much editing you might prefer sticking with the Olympus. For me, high quality JPEGs right out of the camera is essential. I enjoy casual event photography when I get a chance but dislike editing hundreds of files (I usually take way too many photos). I just want to burn the JPEGs to CD and give 'em away. Even after almost five years with the D2H it's still a struggle to do this reliably under some indoor lighting. For straight out of the camera JPEGs Olympus really seems to have it nailed. The D90 test JPEGs I got last week were very good, but extensive online tests and sample high resolution images indicate the D90 needs some attention to in-camera settings to deliver satisfactory JPEGs that are ready to go. Similar tests and hi-rez sample photos indicate Olympus understands that some folks do indeed want top notch JPEGs right out of the camera.</p>

<p>Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud here... but give the Nikon D90 a try. It's similar in size and weight to the E-620. It was pretty impressive for that price range and is compatible with both AF-S Nikkors with built-in autofocus motors and with AF Nikkors that need an in-body motor. That's the main reason I'm considering it over the even smaller D5000 - I want to continue using my AF Nikkors.</p>

[porter]

<p>I think regardless of your geographic location it is a bit hard to find Oly lenses in shops. I was in eastern Canada for awhile and trying to find ANYTHING other than Nikon/Canon was like pulling teeth. You could buy an e620 at Future Shop though! HAHA</p>

<p>Well, one nice thing is that I have a bunch of Nikon lenses and a speedlight that have been collecting dust so that'll make it easier.</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>"I do a decent amount of iso 400+ indoor shooting and long telephoto shots so the noise from 4/3s is a bit concerning, as is lens availability."</p>

<p>It appears that you've already answered your own question.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>actually, i think the Oly DSLRS have a better feature set than the Nikons at the entry-level segment--the one area where a d5000 makes sense is low-light/high ISO performance. i like Oly's ergonomics too, and the 50/2 macro is a really really sharp lens. also for long telephoto, you have equiv. 140-600mm in a compact package. so i'm not sure it really make sense to switch. even if you got a d5000, you'd still need a fast prime like the 35/1.8--a vari-aperture kit lens might not give you the same performance as the 50/2-- for available-light pics.</p>

<p>if you already have nikon lenses, unless they are AF-S, it doesnt make sense to get a d5000. a d90 would probably let you AF with your dust-collectors, but i wouldnt say this choice is a no-brainer at all. nikon doesnt currently make a macro faster than 2.8, and with the 2x crop factor, the 50/2 makes a better portrait lens than the nikon 50s on an APS-C body IMO.</p>

<p>so you're kind of stuck in-between shutter blades here. a substantial investment in nikon --both a new body and new glass--would possibly solve your noise and IQ issues. OTOH, getting a better OLY body like the E-3 might give you a little bit better noise handling along with a sealed body and pro-level AF (especially if you pick up the 12-60 SWF). here's the thing: a new E-3 isnt that much more than a new D90. and if you get a new d90, you'd still need good glass. you don't say what your old nikon lenses are, so they may or may not be sufficient. at the end of the day, this is a decision only you can make.</p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>Patrick/Lex-I have had my Nikon D90 for almost a year and I love it; it does everything I want it to and I think that you would like it just as much. cb :-)</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I would not recommend making the switch to a Nikon entry level amateur body. Lens selection is still not that great. To make the switch to Nikon worthwhile you would need to be considering specific lenses that Olympus does not offer and to truly justify a Nikon body I recommend starting only as "low" as the D90 or used bodies like the D200, D2X, etc that have full compatibility with both AF and AF-S lenses as well as metering and focus confirmation with AIS and AI manual lenses.</p>

[richard_driscoll]

<p>It's difficult to get a decent viewfinder image with a DX Nikon. Isn't it even harder with a 4/3 type camera. I don't know - I'm just guessing.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>The problem with Olympus is that they have locked themselves into the 4/3 "standard," which hardly anybody else follows (other than Panasonic having a couple of cameras). If the OP will only use consumer DSLRs such as the D5000 for years to come, Olympus is fine and there is no point to switch. If one wants to grow as a photographer and gets into higher-end cameras and lenses in the future, I think it is a good idea to swtich to Nikon, even though what you get now may be a consumer D5000. If you continue to invest further into Olympus, it'll only become more painful to switch later on.</p>

[zoid]

<p>I haven't kept up with Olympus products since I changed to Nikon SLRs back in the mid 90s. Olympus was the equipment I used when I started photography as a hobby and it was good stuff. I still remember seeing the huge telephoto lenses with "OLYMPUS" in big letters on the lens barrels. You could see them on the sidelines during any episode of ABC's Wide World of Sports. That was 1983...</p>

<p>In glancing at the E620, I'm quite tickled to see that it has a vertical grip option. That is something you would lose with the consumer grade Nikon Equipment.</p>

<p>And who cares about whether the image format is 4/3, or not? Heck every format get's cropped at some level during the standard enlargement sizes.</p>

<p>There are 3rd party manufacturers that make VERY GOOD lenses, for not a lot of money. I'd be surprised if they didn't have one for your Olympus System. It's not that expensive to create a new mount to stick on an existing lens design. If I had an E620 and all I lacked to get the job done right now was a particular lens, then I'd buy the lens, and that Olympus Grip, and use that E620 until it was junk, or seriously outdated (like MOST of my Nikon SLR film equipment - LOL).</p>

<p>I still miss my Olympus OM1n. That was a gem of a camera.</p>

<p> </p>

[porter]

<p>I would love to get into higher end full frame bodies, but I don't have the cash for that (like many people). so yes a concern in the back of my head, and why I mentioned lenses, is that I feel like I will outgrow my current manufacturer. When I first got Olympus I had NO idea about digital slrs or the importance of sensor size, but now that I have a little experience and a lot of reading under my belt, I really wish I had have done some homework and started with an aps sized sensor...</p>

<p>In regards to size, that isn't a concern of mine. If I need something small, even a small dslr like the 620 with a pancake doesn't cut it, so I got an LX3. If I'm grabbing something with a mirror I would actually prefer it to be a bit more substantial since, even on the 620, I don't really feel the grip is big enough.</p>

<p>In regards to in camera jpeg production; yes, Olympus does this quite well but oddly enough I like to shoot raw and post process. no big switch for me in that respect.</p>

<p>Maybe I'll try out a D300 and a nice lens in the standard zoom range. I'll definitely keep the 620 around for zoo trips till I can afford a nice telephoto though; stinks that I have to shoot at like 640-1000iso to get a decent shutter speed but money doesn't grow on trees, eh.</p>

<p>Thanks for the input fellows. More is of course appreciated, but I think I'll be looking for a D300 or maybe I should try a used higher lvl model if the D5000 isn't that great of an upgrade over what I have...</p>

<p> </p>

[tommyinca]

<p>My 2 cents, A f2 macro and a Field of view of 600mm will cost on the Nikon and Canon side. Make sure you check some prices before dumping Oly. </p>

[fast_primes]

<p>I have a Nikon D60 with 3 lenses (18-55VR, 35F1.8 and 50F1.8 D) and I'm having a bit of mild buyer's remorse with Nikon. I went with Nikon as my first dslr, only because of the recent introduction of the 35F1.8 AF normal lens, which is a superb lens and I enjoy using it. However, Nikon offeres no in-body anti-camera shake mechanism (a la Olympus, Pentax and Sony)--so I feel I can't quite take full advantage of the 35F1.8 lens or any subsequent prime. I also miss a basic protrait lens--the 50F1.8 D lens is an OK temporary stop-gap, but is not quite long enough and lacks AF with the D60 (a DX 70mmF2.0 would be perfect compliment to the 35F1.8). The new Tamron 60mmF2.0 macro might work but it's expensive. Also, I found learning and using the Nikon far more complex than I expected. It took weeks plus buying a third party book to reach a level of effectiveness with the D60.</p>

<p>However, there are problems with the Olympus 4/3 system also--despite the superb 50mmF2.0 macro and the in-body AS, there is no reasonable fast normal (the Panasonic 25F1.4 is very expensive) and there is the oncoming/competing micro-4/3 system development just getting under way. If micro-4/3s really takes off as it appears to be doing, I don't see the original 4/3 development (lenses and camera bodies) being continued.</p>

<p>The Pentax system is attractive because it has a petite 70mm F2.4 lens, which can be combined with a Sigma 30F1.4 normal. However, even Pentax is under a cloud with the still vaporware NX system of it's corporate partner Samsung. NX is going to be a APS-C equivalent of the micro-4/3 system.</p>

<p>I would recommend holding off making a decision until the dust clears.</p>

[porter]

<p>Hmm, well this will take a little more thought given my pros/cons list. </p>

<p>Other than the Panasonic lens, there is actually another standard length wide aperture lens made by Sigma. They make both a 24 f1.8 (48mm equiv on the oly) and a 30 f1.4 (60mm equiv). </p>

<p>Maybe the battery grip would solve my issue with the small size of the camera and the noise is in fact much better handled than my earlier 520 (which I only owned for a couple months till I got a good deal on the 620) Maybe an E-4 will come out that has even better low light performance *shrug* Guess it might be a good idea to see what is in store for us in the next few months then decide. </p>

[porter]

<p>theres some of my pics - http://www.flickr.com/photos/patrickporter/</p>

<p>maybe i'm just too hard on olympus? some of em are ok</p>

[billsymmons]

<p><em>I use Nikon D700 and D200 backup plus short and medium tele lenses. I used to use an 80-200 f2.8 as my fast tele for low light and weddings etc. But I found it so heavy and cumbersome that I found I didn't want to use it if I didn't have to. I did consider the 70-200 vr since as I tired it would at least help with the shakes. But after trying out all the Nikon lenses I bought a 50-200 Oly lens and an end of line E510 body which came with the kit 14-42. With a 1.4X extender this is now my telephoto kit for anything above 100mm (FX). The results are superb and the Oly lenses have a quality that seems better balanced than the Nikon results.</em><br>

The E510,kit lens and 50-200 cost me half the price of the Nikon 70-200 VR!!<br>

<em>This combination of Nikon and Oly gives me my perfect kit for everything I tackle</em></p>

[briangrossman]

<p>get an OM-1 and some prime zuikos. the glass is as good as anything nikon ever made. film rules!</p>

[j_dc]

<p>My, basically shelved, 35mm film system consists of 5 OM bodies and about a dozen Zuiko lenses. I opted not to follow Olympus into the dSLR world because I felt they dropped the ball on their OM system and I didn't want to get burnt twice.<br>

I chose to go with Nikon largely because of their ergonomics. I simply like the way the bodies feel in my hands along with their menu systems. I have two bodies (D300 & D70), 4 Nikkor lenses and am very happy. I agree with " fast primes' " comments that there is a fairly steep learning curve to master the higher end features of the Nikon bodies but you start taking decent shots in a few minutes with no problems - particularly with the D300 because of its highly advanced 3D metering/focusing etc.<br>

IMHO before you get further trapped with Olympus, bail!<br>

Jim</p>

[jim_stenman]

<p>I'm actually a fuji s5pro user (good picture quality + nikon lenses...) but have actually been quite intrigued about the new Pentax models: both the K7 (still too expensive but price will come down quickly) and the K-x seem very capable cameras with robust but tiny bodies. I know that they are even more difficult cameras to find than Olympus but I still suggest that you take a look on them...</p>

[gogu]

<blockquote>

<p>I do a decent amount of iso 400+ indoor shooting and long telephoto shots so the noise from 4/3s is a bit concerning</p>

</blockquote>

<p>4/3 format simply can't compete with APC format in matters of noise, period!<br>

If you want to switch to Nikon though, I'd suggest going with a body that works (in what regards AF) also with D lenses (D50, D70s, D90, etc).</p>

<p>rgrds </p>

[tobycline]

<p>Many posts above, DB Cooper, what a riot! Been jumping out of any planes lately?</p>

[davidaten]

<p>Too many people worry about a name. While it is true that some camera brand names are better, I can name several professional photographers that took images today that hang in museums that were horrid in quality compared to today's cameras.</p>

<p>It's not the camera, it's the person behind it.</p>

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p>Well, one nice thing is that I have a bunch of Nikon lenses and a speedlight that have been collecting dust so that'll make it easier.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If these lenses and flash are what you were using with your film system they are probably not going to fully work with the D5000 depending on what you actually have. Chances are you will be starting from scratch. However I do not know if you should switch or not. I am not familiar with the Oly system other then reading addvertisements. I do have a Nikon system of film and digital gear and I think that Nikon is very capable. Right now I shoot mostly film but I go back and forth depending on which way the wind blows. </p>