An interesting manifesto on why one photographer went to Olympus. Long but kind of interesting appraisal.

[GerrySiegel]

It is funny, how some of the most intelligent, -well at least thoughtful, or thought provoking- appraisals, both

pro and con and experienced user ideas of micro four thirds Olympus system vis a vis all the other offerings out

there are seen lately on Facebook groups. Yes, gasp, on Facebook that mass back fence selfie venue:-)

I thought our dear readers and those still looking at buying a new camera and lens array might be interested in one Michael

Rammel's manifesto ( well sort of manifesto sans fanboyish pecadilloes, hope that is spelled right-):

 

Check this page out when you have some time and see if you agree. Sure beats

the blather and chit chat on that other' review site' fora ,well most of the time....

and by a real full time wedding et al shooter who spends his own cash and knows stuff.

 

 

http://www.michaelrammell.com/blog/why-choose-olympus

[johnfarrar]

<p>Interesting - thanks for pointing to it. Generally fair and balanced, although I'd differ in one area. He praises the OMD files and their ability to cope with highlights and shadows. Whilst I love my EM5, and am very happy using it for lots of things, the files from my D800 just blow it away. They really have very low noise, and a huge dynamic range, and are very editing-tolerant. For critical or difficult shots (landscapes) I'd much rather have the D800. </p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Thanks Gerry for the link. Interesting read! And John, for mentioning the Nikon D800 - nice to know as reference, as I haven't compared the output between the two yet.</p>

[Ken Katz]

The bogger seems to be selling a Canon 7D (according to the photo), so it should not be a surprise that the OMD files are more than satisfying to him. It is reasonable to assume that a camera with a sensor 4x larger than M43, with over twice the MP, 3x the cost, and has similar sensor technology (Sony manufactured), would outperform the smaller sensor camera in DR and noise. My shoulder and back are quite happy with the compromise in performance compared with my Canon FF equipment.

[lmwalker]

<p>I agree with Mr. Rammell on every point except DOF. I purchased my OM-D E-M1 for its smaller size and weight for travel photography, and I am extremely impressed with the camera in every respect. But for good DOF control and especially for portraiture, my 5D2 with 100mm f/2 or 70-200L IS f/2.8 lenses are still my go to kit.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

"Thanks Gerry for the link. Interesting read! And John, for mentioning the Nikon D800 - nice to know as reference, as I haven't compared the output between the two yet."

 

Mary, I would be interested for your assessment/opinion on the two. Can you manage to achieve shallow depth of field with your micro four thirds and its lenses. Is it difficult that is? Is the trade off on resolution meaningful when we look at the output from the latest and greatest generation of OMD product vs FX Nikon.

 

And is the whole mirrorless bantam weight business a real deal maker..versus back breaker compelling.

 

This is not to hint there will be any end to the debate over formats. It is too much fun after all!

[Mary Doo]

<p>OK, I'll try it out sometime. Now thinking perhaps after I received the set of extension tubes for M43. It takes so long for them to arrive I am getting impatient. I would like to use the 75,, f/1.8 with the extension tubes, if workable.</p>

[cegeiss]

<p>OK, Gerry, I raise to the bait.<br>

The "bantam weight" and size was the deal maker for me. It started with a trip to Asia. I lived out of my carry-on for two weeks and there was absolutely no space for my Nikon. I purchased an E-PL1 with kit lens dirt dirt cheap (refurbished and on sale), spent 16 hrs on the plane learning its ins and outs (yep, another no-no), tried it and liked it. Yes, the camera and lens had their shortcomings, but there were ways to work around them. I knew there would be limitations and decided to treat them as photographic challenges rather than reasons for complaints. It was sure more fun to weave my way around the hordes of photographers with tons of full-frame equipment hanging off their necks, while still taking better images than the i-phone crowd. What I may have lost in image quality (not all that much) I gained in spontaneity, composition, etc.<br>

Always the cheapskate, I purchased a set of good lenses over the following years before finally splurging on an E-M1. I haven't regretted the change for travel photography. I could downsize my bag, my tripod (though often I take the big one for convenience), simply everything. My kit is much, much smaller and therefore comes with me rather than staying in the car/camp etc.<br>

For sports my Nikon reigns supreme. No contest. For a dedicated landscape photography trip I am sure the D800 (or similar) runs circles around any m43 camera. But I don't have the luxury to travel solely for photography's sake. While traveling I teach, work, or hang out with the family, so life's a compromise, and for me m43 fits the bill pretty well.</p>

[mferencz8]

<p>If there was no mirrorless m/43 Olympus or Panasonic I simply would't take pictures. I would miss out. I remember 10 years ago I had a Canon full size crop camera and full frame lenses and I walked into an Italian Restaurant with a 17-40 lens. Not necessarily huge at all, but the waiter got the biggest kick out of me using that huge lens in his tiny eatery. I took a look and he was right, I was banging around with 3 large lenses and a big bag and mostly miserable. To the point I sold it all and quit. M43 came a long and now I'm happy. I have an em5, 4 small primes and I literally feel free with more than enough quality. If Canon would have made the em-5 it would have been the best selling camera of all time. I truly believe that. </p>

[hstelljes]

<p>Thanks Gerry,that was well presented and quite thorough. I totally agree with Mr. Rammels' assessments. I'm just a hobbyist but enjoy the Olympus products, though I still have my Canon equipment, seems I can't make the break completely, oh well. Thanks again for the link.</p>