Peter_in_PA

<p>If you really want a nikon, go for it. maybe there are things about the Sony that you don't personally like, in terms of the ergonomics or interface.</p> <p>But it won't take the kind of photo you describe any better than what you have, I bet.</p> <p>And if you don't have a sturdy tripod for that kind of stuff, you won't get your best shot.</p>

<p>those kind of shots require a camera to be in full manual for best results in my experience, and I doubt you'd see a difference between a properly exposed shot on a tripod of a shot like that between any DSLR currently available and any other one.</p>

<p>All that money on cameras... you'd be really really happier with a newer iTTL speedlight, don't you think?</p>

<p>No one who knows is talking...</p>

<p>I've been thinking about this a lot...</p> <p>I love everything about MILCs except one thing... EVF and EVF shutter lag...</p> <p>It's the only thing that has kept me from selling all my Nikon stuff and going with µ43.</p> <p>"low end" feature in a "high end" camera? No, thank you.</p> <p>That said, I would be first in line for a DX mirrorless body if it were nice and small and could very effectively use legacy lenses with an adaptor that didn't cost 400 dollars... but in addition to my regular DSLR, not instead of.</p>

<p>Hook up the camera as a card reader using the built-in USB port.</p> <p>If you can see them on the camera, I'm guessing you will be able to see the photos then.</p> <p>If you can, transfer them, then do your normal backup routine.</p> <p>Then, format the card, take a few quick test shots and see if it will work now.</p> <p>If not, and you can verify that this is the only card doing it, trash it.</p>

<p>You should be able to mount a lens with an aperture ring on a D90, and use the aperture ring and the dial for shutter speed, in manual mode, and shoot without metering at the very least. I do it all the time with a couple AI lenses.</p> <p>Something is wrong here.</p>

<p>Not all "chipped lenses" that are not made by Nikon are equal. It's possible that this one is just not compatible. I have heard of that happening before.</p>

<p>If you have enough space to backup, the 35 would be awesome. If you can't get all the way back, and you're on a tripod, the 18-105 should be fine, but not wider than about 24mm imho. Spend the money on one more flash.</p>

<p>18-200? Absolutely not, unless you aren't ever going to zoom all the way in wide open and/or print above about 5 x 7.</p> <p>The 18-200 was a good lens with 6MP was the state of the art (when I owned one), but I wouldn't own one today.</p> <p>Traveling a lot? I have to say, I'm seriously thinking about chucking it all for an OMD, since you can get so much more in such a smaller space. I have found myself only traveling with one or two lenses when I carry my D90 around... I'd rather have more lenses with me in smaller space.</p>

<p>looking at the list and your comments, I'd go with 17-50, 10-20, 35, and then either the 105 or 70-300 (depending on whether you needed macro or reach more... you say you don't shoot long FLs a lot.</p> <p>And yes, if it were me, I'd ditch the 10-20 and get the excellent 11-16.</p> <p>I'm mystified as to why you can't just bring it all, though. Will you be traveling around a lot?</p> <p>If so, I'd ditch DX and get a µ43 setup.</p>

<p>Bob Dein,</p> <p>How is continuous shooting on that OM-D? It's okay on the D90, on the little PEN E-PM1 it's worthless.</p>

<p>Phil Evans writes</p> <blockquote> <p>The 18-70mm DX G is a very good lens for likely under $200 used. It is not VR but in my experience VR is not necessary or even helpful until around 85mm or 105mm. I would add the 35mm f1.8 that Wouter suggests as soon after as possible.</p> </blockquote> <p>My main carry-around lenses are those two on a D90. Work just dandy. I do wish the 18-70 had VR though, to be honest.</p>

<p>If really small size is a factor, and you don't already have a lot of lenses, there are other systems out there. I have a little Oly µ4/3 that I carry with me that is a lot of fun, and Fuji, Sony have some good options, too.</p> <p>Seriously, I DESPERATELY want a Nikon mirrorless DX camera that doesn't currently exist (think a Nikon version of the Fuji X-series). Maybe someday.</p>

<p>Dilip,</p> <p>It depends on how you use your images.</p> <p>How big do you print? How tight do you crop.</p> <p>With the right lenses and great technique, FX will look better than equivalent DX and it will be noticeable printing above 8 x 10 or cropping in heavily.</p> <p>With budget lenses and/or handheld not-so-awesome technique (like mine usually is) there is no real difference.</p> <p>f8 and be there!</p>

<p>Back up as far as you can and then zoom in to get them all in. Depends on the room. I would want 35mm or longer on DX for that, but you have to work with the space you have, too.</p> <p>I've seen people "undistort" the people at the edges in post production, too.</p>

<p>Thanks all, for a great discussion.</p> <p>At this point, I'm going to hold onto all my Nikon stuff (I have most of the lenses I could ever hope to want at this point), and possibly build the Oly kit very very slowly (and used and cheap and only the real small stuff). </p> <p>But for now, it's a bargain point and shoot for me, for less than a bargain point and shoot (yes, I got a SCREAMING deal...)</p>

<p>Too complicated if you aren't shooting action.</p> <p>Multiple cards, shoot raw and jpg to the same card, backup periodically, fill cards, go to next step.</p> <p>traveling with a laptop and external hard drive (and "cloud" backup) even better.</p>

<p>telephoto? the 70-300 VR is a good match for that camera. hard to shoot indoor sports with that, though.</p>

<p>very cool collection, btw...</p> <p>I believe that the color of light reflection does in fact reflect which kind of coating was used, but others who know for sure will chime in.</p>

<blockquote> <p>@Peter Hamm: Peter, what you are talking about and what Thomas said are two very different things. There is no mention of sensor size in Thomas's statement or in my reply to it, only a mention of DSLRs being better than mirrorless.</p> </blockquote> <p>Now we're going down a lot of bunny trails. Let's remember what the original poster was asking about (oh yeah, I remember because it was me).</p> <p>The micro 4/3 is a much smaller sensor than the DX sensor in my D90. Two cameras, one µ43 and the other DX, made from the SAME GENERATION in about the SAME YEAR... I have no doubt that under pixel-peeping careful testing, the DX will win.</p>

<p>Laurentiu,</p> <p>In most mirrorless situations (specifically the Olympus I'm talking about) the sensor in the camera is far smaller than is used even in crop frame DSLRs. </p> <p>The bigger sensor takes a better photo, in general, if you pixel peep, which I don't usually.</p>

<p>Thank you,</p> <p>The differing opinions here are what REALLY makes Photo.net useful. Lex, you bring up some EXCELLENT points for sure.</p> <p>I do wonder how happy I'd be, long-term, without my Nikons.</p> <p>More thinking about this is required for sure.</p>

<p>I probably won't move TOO quickly, but I'm now finding that my D90 and lenses tend to stay at home (I have a bunch of lenses, 11-16 Tok, 18-70, 70-300VR, 35 DX G, 50 1.8D, and a couple MF lenses, 55mm micro and 105mm f2.5)</p> <p>I haven't gotten some of those lenses out in a year or more... This E-PM1 fits easily in the bag I carry back and forth to work with lens and flash. to carry the D90 I have to bring a separate bag.</p> <p>Small is pretty important to me these days.</p> <p>The alternative (which I'll probably try first) is to just get the Olympus 40 - 150 (I know other options are better, but they are really big... the point of µ4/3 in my opinion is small size.</p> <p>I'm floored that the image quality in my quick test was pretty much the same as my D90, maybe just a touch better at 1600 and 3200 even.</p>

<p>I am a long time Nikon fan, been shooting their DSLRs since 2006. I shot pentax before that and liked the way they handled.</p> <p>I recently found an insane deal on an Olympus E-PM1 so I had to try it. So cheap that if I sold it used I'd make money and still give someone a swell deal. It came with the little clip on flash and the 14-42 kit lens (the II lens).<br /> I did some comparisons. there is no way you can see the difference between an image shot with this camera and my D90 except maybe bokeh.</p> <p>I stopped by a camera store to look at the 40 - 150, thinking that I would have a little extra kit that I could travel back and forth to work and such with and tried it on an OM-D body.</p> <p>HOly man... the handling of that camera is insane. The size of the little lenses (I am NOT interested so much in the "big" lenses like some of Panasonics, the whole point of this little camera is that it's tiny and solid.</p> <p>Who has switched from Nikon and liked it... I am thinking of divesting myself of my nikon stuff and loading up on a tele zoom and maybe a portrait prime and/or ultrawide and an OM-D.</p> <p>Alternatively, I might just keep this little PEN and add the tele zoom and keep all the Nikon stuff for more "serious" photography.</p> <p>I don't print above 8 x 10 much, and only occasionally crop very seriously in. I don't really shoot sports or birds or stuff. I am an amateur, definitely.</p>