john_odonnell1

I’ve been shooting since 1976 - 1st camera Canon FTb. Shooting 99% images/1% paper. Agree that IS makes a big difference in the sharpness of the image. The WB and exposure accuracy I can’t figure out.

That’s correct. On paper, the Nikon should produce much better images. I just processed about 600 photos in LR and the time involved was minimal compared to a similar set of images from the D7100. Not all images were perfect, but those that weren’t were clearly operator error, either just a poor shot or unfamiliarity with the Olympus. My only conclusion is that I was doing a poor job with the Nikon. My hope was that somebody might identify potential issues I could work on to be a better photographer.

This is not a troll question. I just bought the Olympus OM-D to replace my Nikon D7100, mainly to save on weight and bulk for taking travel photos. I just got back from a trip to Hawaii and was very surprised when processing the photos in Lightroom. I had expected that the low light performance would be better and the images might be a little better. Apparently, I’m not dead still when I click the shutter and I anticipated that the 5 point IS would help. What I didn’t expect was white balance and exposure accuracy. Just about every RAW image coming out of my Nikon needs adjustment in LR, especially the WB. I’m telling you, the images out of the OM-D were great straight off the card. And yes, the low light performance was amazing and every photo is tack sharp. The WB is just right on. My question - why? On paper the Nikon should be hands down superior. I’ve been taking photos since 1977 and have owned a mix of Canons and Nikons. I’ve been using Photoshop since 1993. I’m not so much interested in what’s better about the Olympus, I’m more interested in what I was doing wrong with the Nikon. If I can discover why I’m hoping I can be a better photographer.

<p>I appreciate Pete S.'s DXO info. I probably should've looked at that first. And I also agree with Andrew that I didn't get the warm fuzzies from the answers.<br> Maybe I framed my observations the wrong way. I wasn't so much complaining about the 70D as I was expressing surprise at the image quality of the d3200. There is no feature parity. For example, the d3200 will not allow me to bracket exposures, and the 70D has auto focus for the video which is one of the reasons i bought it in the first place.<br> I started out in photography in 1976 with a Canon Ftb. I switched to a Nikon 8008 in the 80's when I went automatic. As I said I switched back to Canon with the 300D. I shoot in RAW and do my post processing in LR. I've been using Photoshop since 1994 so I have more than a passing familiarity with manipulating images - and I know a good one when I see it.<br> So I guess what I'm asking is, if you can get this kind of a result from the entry level model in the Nikon line, maybe I should be looking at switching to Nikon and upgrading within that line. Or is really true that they're all the same?</p>

<p>I have been on the Canon platform since the first Digital Rebel came out. Before that I had a Nikon 8008 with an SB-24 flash and a few lenses. I went with the Canon because Nikon had not yet come out with a consumer DSLR. Since then, I have had several Rebels. I had a IIsi before recently upgrading to the 70D. I also have a few lenses and a 580 EXII flash.<br> I've never really been happy with the Canon flash. I had a 420 before and thought upgrading would be helpful, but nothing ever came close to the Nikon SB-24.<br> Recently, I had an opportunity to buy a Nikon d3200, the entry level DSLR, at a very good price. I thought it would give me a chance to use my old lenses as well as the SB-24, although manually.<br> Here's the problem. When I got the 3200, I was bowled over by the picture quality, accuracy of focus and ease of use. In addition, the lenses all worked automatically with it. I did have to use the flash manually, but the quality of the output, IMHO, was far superior to the Canon. Now I've got a $1,200 camera, with flash and lenses and I don't think gives me images as good as a less than $400 camera with 30 year old flash and lenses.<br> What do I do? I know feature for feature I'm not comparing apples to apples, but still, when you look at the bottom line - the images - they look superior to me. So do I sell the Canon and switch platforms? <br> What do you think?</p>

<p>I appreciate that, Bob. And the few photos I've taken with the kit look very good. It's the speed I have an issue with (f3.5-5.6). The slowest lens I shoot on my 70D is the Sigma 2.8. I have a 35mm prime f 2.0 I also use.</p>

<p>Chuck - I do have a prime. A Nikkor 1.8, 50mm. Nice and fast, but on aa AF-S body the crop factor makes it something like 70mm. I like a wider view.</p>

<p>Sorry. Yes, I meant the 18-35.<br> I thought I had it narrowed down to that and the 17-55, but I had not considered the 17-70. This also has good reviews.<br> Any thoughts? Focus issues?</p>

<p>I just purchased a d3200 with the 18-55 kit lens. It's a nice lens but slower (3.5-5.6) than I like to shoot with. I looked at two Sigma offerings - the 17-50 2.8, and the 18-55 1.8 "Art" zooms. I have a Sigma 2.8 18-50 DC for my Canon 70D which I've been happy with. I have 2 questions:<br> 1. What would be a better choice for the d3200? The Art is faster, but it is heavier, no VR and 2x the price.<br> 2 There have been complaints about the accuracy of focus with both these lenses. Is this real, and does it affect one lens more than the other?</p> <p>I look forward to your thoughts and observations.</p>

<p>I have a Canon 70D with a 580 EXII Speedlight. I am happy with the light effect when I am able to bounce it off a ceiling, but I have been less satisfied with using a diffuser. So far I have tried a Lumiquest, Stofen Omnibounce and even an old flash card that I used with my old Vivitar 273. I just don't seem to get the softness that I used to get with my Nikon SB-24. It's particularly annoying in a situation when you're shooting a wedding reception in a hall. The subjects just look too harsh to my eye. A friend suggested I try an attachable lightbox like Lumiquest or Vello.?Any suggestions or recommendations/</p>