Change to Nikon or stay with Olympus

[leeb1]

<p>Hi Patrick!<br>

If you're shooting "available light" indoors, I've had better luck (lower noise) with images from my Nikons. However, I have an E-420, and I love it. It's very compact and offers an amazing feature set. The E-620 is a bit larger but includes additional neat features like built-in stabilization, so it generally improves on the typical image quality with respect to the E-420 (which was already pretty good!) depending on your subject and lighting.<br>

Here's a comparison of the "last generation", E-420 and D40x:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/olympus/e420-review/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/olympus/e420-review/</a><br>

The E-620 will actually use your Nikon lenses (no autofocus, but, yes, metering) with an adapter ring, about $30, shown in the article above. Depending on your needs, e.g., whether you're willing to focus manually, you might consider playing with the adapter ring and your old Nikon lenses on the Olympus until we see what the next few months bring for product introductions.<br>

Best, Steve</p>

[ArthurRichardson]

<p>I will wash my mouth with soap after asking you this: I trust you have asked the same question in the Canon forum. Even though I am a Nikon user, coming from where you stand, I would at least consider Canon too.</p>

[porter]

<p>I looked at a 500d and it was pretty nice... Someone mentioned Pentax, but other than image quality I also mentioned the annoyance of finding lenses and such for brands like that so it isn't on my radar at all.</p>

<p>In the end the name on the camera doesn't matter to me; availability, image quality, and lens selection matter most.</p>

[sven_felsby]

<p>Patrick, as Tommy stated: 600mm 35mm equivalent (your 70-300) requires you to get a Nikon 80-400. A little dated, lacks AF-S (internal linear focusing motor), otherwise OK. But low light performance of a D300 trumps a 620 hands down. Have compared myself.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> 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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex, my D300 produces great jpegs out-of-camera. Get one.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>In the end the name on the camera doesn't matter to me; availability, image quality, and lens selection matter most.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>patrick, i'm speaking as a d300 owner and Nikon shooter. all i can say is, it comes down to personal preference. almost any DSLR is capable of producing high quality images. a wide lens selection is good, but that comes down to what you shoot. for example, if i had an E-3 w/ 12-60 and 50-200 lenses, i'd feel i had a decent kit with a body in some ways better than the d300, in some ways worse, and in other ways equivalent. is that a better system than a d300/17-55/70-200 combo? both cover the same approx. range, except that OLY system doesn't have a gap in FL and you get IS throughout the range. is that a good enough system for now? probably.</p>

<p>down the line? who knows. but it's relatively easy to sell gear, so i think you have to look at the individual merits of each piece of equipment in a system. there are D3 owners on the nikon forum who also have E-3s for extreme conditions. and for wildlife, landscape and tele shooters, i think there are enough merits to justify Oly's products. for everyone else? i dunno. but i wouldnt just say, go ahead switch to nikon without giving some serious thought as to what you'll gain, and whether its a lateral or forward move for you.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>a little on the side of lex's words, my third camera on a very important shoot is either the C-5050 or the C-5060. if i know it will be a no-flash situation; and cloudy and gloomy for outside reception, it's the C-5050 for its bright and fast f/1.8 and the C-5060 if conditions are a little better and if i need something wider........absolutely no post-processing there. well, except cropping.</p>

<p>before i bought my first dslr --- the D70 ---- i thought about the olympus E-series because of the performances of the two oly cameras mentioned. but i have been a nikon film shooter ever since high school many moons ago and onto my newspaper years. plus i like how the nikon bodies feel in my hands --- a big factor to me. and at that time i had a few lenses i have used for my F2as, F3, FE2, F80 and F100.</p>

<p>and the zuiko lenses are awfully expensive, even the non-pro ones.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Do you like the feel of a Nikon body better in your hand than an Olympus body? Or are you by now very much used to the Olympus ergonomics?</p>

<p>One point I really do not get is the idea of "outgrowing Olympus because of full frame". The high-end olympus bodies are very capable, and I seriously doubt one will outgrow those. Technically, you could also consider any 4/3rd camera a full frame, since there never have been another definition of this format. So don't get lured there into this thinking that 35mm CMOS sensors make some holy grail. Like I said in several threads before: it's all horses for courses. Personally, I'd love a D700 but so far I love long lenses even more. The D300 is a nicer camera for that.<br>

The newer Olympus bodies have become much better with noise too. Sure, not in Nikon territory, but neither is Sony APS-C (or the full frame too actually). In fact, your E620 will probably be better already than a load of APS-C cameras out there. The sensor size is not the whole story after all.<br>

Finally, the olympus lenses do have a very good reputation. Even the cheaper ones are supposed to be qite good already. It may mean that getting equal optical qualities, and an equal range with a Nikon APS-C body is going to cost you a whole lot more.</p>

<p>Anyway. Image quality shouldn't be the only concern. All DSLRs are capable of very good quality images, and only pixelpeeping will tell them apart. The major concern is getting the pictures you like and want within your budget. Meaning ergonomics should be OK, the bodies should offer the settings you need, your desired lenses should be existing and affordable and so on. Should you switch brands? Only you can tell.</p>

[porter]

<p>Well, I think I'll wait a little bit and see what is offered in the remaining months of 2009. I ski quite a bit and would love to have a camera that doesn't mind a bit of weather, so if an E-4 comes out I would probably be tickled pink. </p>

<p>I'm not terribly fond of the 620s feel in my hands. The 520 had a much more positive feel to it, which is purely a result of it being a bit bigger and having a pronounced right side grip. Pro model Olympus cameras certainly feel nice... Also I do love telephoto so indeed I will have to think about how nice 2x magnification is. I don't have the nicest tele lens available, but the next step up is 200mm less length (35mm equiv), 3 times the price, but much faster and sharper (the 50-200).</p>

<p>Seems like many of the posters are saying that Olympus is certainly good enough to stay with, just lenses are expensive. I truly thought that sensor size was the be all and end all of image quality aside from the glass in front, but I guess that isn't entirely true. I'm not terribly impressed with the short zoom kit lens (14-42) that comes with the non pro model Oly cameras, but after throwing on the aftermarket stuff I have been quite impressed with what the camera can produce, so maybe it is best to stick with it and see if a new pro model rears its head in the next little while. Other than the 50mm f2 I also just got a 30mm f1.4 sigma and there is a huge difference when comparing it to the stock lenses. Maybe I should just hurl the stockers off a large building so they don't make me or anyone else wrongfully question the image quality that the body is able to produce... HAHA</p>

<p>Well if I happen to fall into a couple grand maybe I'll think about grabbing a d300 to use alongside my Olympus. A nice F1.X standard length lens and that body would make me very happy shooting people indoors :D </p>

<p> </p>

[jeffs gallery]

<p>Let me be a bit of a contrarian....I am a Nikon shooter (primarily in RAW) - D300, D2Hs and many Nikkor primes and I love the feel and output of the cameras, but they are heavy and bulky. Recently I purchased an Olympus E-P1 with a 17-42mm and 40 - 150mm lense for something different, and so I could take quality photos without lugging my Nikon's around. So far I don't regret my decision - other than a little slow in focusing, the images are gorgeous, with true (but subtle) color renditions. It is even pretty good in low light, though anything past 800 can be grainy. It is a fun camera to have and use, but it will never replace my Nikons as my primary. My suggestion, rent (or borrow) both for a weekend, shot the same scenes and then compare. I don't think you will go wrong with either.</p>

[vincent_p]

<p>Hi Patrick,<br>

I left Oly about 2 years ago. I was using the E500 then which I really liked, but I had to switch due to needs - I had clients that required me to shoot in very low light situations which Oly really lost out on. This forced me to consider either Canon or Nikon but eventually decided on Nikon. And now after switching, I do miss some of the Oly benefits, some of which has been pointed out by others - Oly has 2x crop thus reduces the weight of equipment/zoom lenses. Cost is another. Oly's anti-dust is also better. The 50mm macro is really very sharp. And since you like outdoors like skiing, the E3 is really great in weatherproofing. One of my friends tested it by literally taking a shower with it. Another used it in heavy rain. Somehow I don't have the same confidence even though my Nikon is weather sealed/magnesium alloy body...haha.<br>

I've not tried the D5000 but I guess it should be able to handle iso 400 or 640 pretty well. But since you are open for the D300, it is definitely better as it can handle even 1600 and weather sealed too. And since future upgrades is in your mind, Nikon caters for you here. I'm disappointed that the E3 is the best Oly has.<br>

Though my gears are now much heavier, and have spent a lot more that I originally wanted, I'm very happy with what I have and the images it produces. No regrets.<br>

Rgds.</p>

[munim]

Stick with Oly for the Zuiko 70300. The weight and cost of the Nikkor 80-400 alone is more than the 70300 + E620.

 

For everything else, go with Nikon. I do.