luxborealis

Right now, I'm trying out the FZ1000 and so far, have been impressed. The problem is that I'm comparing to my D800E

system. While the FZ1000 is no match for DR, sharpness or ISO, it is still impressive enough for 13x19" fine art prints (@

f5.6 and ISO 125 or 200, possibly 400).

 

I also like the fact that at ⅕ the cost of a D800E+lens, it is not ⅕ the quality - probably closer to ½ the quality, but 4x or

greater in convenience.

 

I have a short blog entry with photos at http://luxborealis.com/blog/?p=1755

<p>I think that if you are serious about photography for the long-term and want a system that you can update/upgrade in the future, it would be better to sell-off your Olympus equipment now, whilst it still has some value. It is for this very reason (and the release of the D800e) that I decided to move to Nikon at this point in time. The only bit I've been unable to sell so far is the FL-50r flash which indicates to me that the market is already starting to dry up for selling used Olympus equipment for a respectable price.</p>

<p>I've just sold my E-30, 12-60 and 50-200 to purchase Nikon primes and a D-800e. Olympus served me very well for 30 years - first an OM-1 then OM-4s - they were wonderful cameras and superb lenses. I was hesitant to go to 4/3s and rather annoyed at Olympus for creating a digital system that would not take their wonderful SLR lenses seamlessly. However, since I could get two zooms that covered from 28mm to 400 at 2.8-3.5, and I was travelling a lot at the time, it seemed a perfect fit - and believe me it was.<br>

Fast forward 8 years to 2012. 4/3s is longer being pursued seriously by Olympus - Micro 4/3s is all the rage. If I want cutting edge sensor technology, I would need to invest in a M4/3s body; should I want seamless versatility, new M4/3s lenses as well. Rather than being bitten yet again by Olympus and knowing that 4/3s is almost at the end of it's IQ rope and being one from the medium large format camp of the 1980s and 90s, the Nikon D800e seemed to be the way to go.<br>

Why invest yet another $1200 in a body (and sensor and lenses) that simply cannot keep up with the advances of APS and full-frame DSLRs?<br>

Believe me, it was a sad day when my Zuiko Digital lenses went, but Olympus has let me down twice now. I think the end is near...</p>

Once again, it appears there are a lot of nit-pickers who have not really tried the E-1

but pass comment about everything they know (or don't know) about it.

 

According to posts on every forum on the 'net, anyone who has actually tried an E-1

is instantly smitten with its quality. Those who have actually used it and compared

the images with anything in the same price range as Canon or Nikon are sure to

purchase the camera. It's image quality is hands-down superior right out of the

camera: lenses, white balance, colour, dynamic range. The "smaller" sensor is only 7%

smaller than the 6MP, but the image quality is significantly better and is obvious to

everyone who has actually done a real comparison - not the bench comparison like

on the review sites.

 

The number of Canon & Nikon DSLR users that have switched to the E-1 is

astounding for a variety of reasons which boil down to image quality, build quality

and lens quality.

 

As well, anyone who does any wide-angle photography instantly recognises the

Digital-Zuiko lenses are superior in sharpness and lack of distortion compared to any

of the current Canon and Nikon lenses and the Zuiko lenses are lower in cost (since

they are the equivalent of the "pro" glass from Canon & Nikon) and are 1/2 to 1/3 the

weight.

 

Again, anyone who has done an in-hand comparison would recognise this right off

the top.

 

Take a read of this link which summarises the differences between DSLRs at the same

price point: http://homepage.mac.com/luxborealis/words/whye1.html. Before you

buy a DSLR, get an E-1 in your hands and the photos on your computer.