I know the rule is glass 1st, camera second, but...

[Ra5cal]

This is my first post here and I guess it's not a novel one. Currently deciding between a used E-M5 III for US $729.20 or a used 60mm macro for $260. Both in immaculate condition from a reputable store.

I am using an E-M1.1, 17mm, 45mm and 40-150 R Zuikos, and an original Fuji X100. I'm tempted to buy the M5 III as it is a newer model with the potential to replace both my old cameras. However my existing gear is working fine for me - after all I am just shooting moonshots, birds in my back yard and our mostly dead winter garden - but both cameras are more than 5 years old so I think it may be prudent to take advantage of a good deal on a contemporary model. I'd certainly appreciate the improved AF and ISO as well as the video functionality.

As for the 60 macro, it would be a fun lens to shoot and one that would be a part of my kit for many years to come. It's been on my purchasing roadmap for a while but because I mainly photographed street I couldn't find a use-case for it. But now, thanks to the lockdown...

And this is my dilemma. Perhaps I'm not seeing the value in buying new gear because I haven't bought any new equipment in a very long time and don't know what I am missing. It's true to say that if I stay with my M1.1 and X100.1 I would be happy to keep on using them until they fail. The question is, will my ignorance give me bliss?

Thoughts, comments welcome.

Cheers.

 

[994]

I think a new lens would be more fun and exploring macro stuck at home would be a great new direction.

 

[994]

And welcome to the forum, too!

 

[Avondale87]

Can't really help other than would a 60mm still be about elsewhere if needed, but good EM5 111 are rare(r) and thus less likely to find one when the need arises?

Knowing what I have (5 2, 1 2) I'd opt for the 5 111 if I only had the 1 1.
You would notice a difference with the 5 3.
Given what I've seen, read, I'd take the 5 3 over the 1 1.

Trust you can nut that rattle out.

 

[Carbonman]

I liked my E-M1 Mk.1 but the Mk.2 was a big improvement with a pile of iterative changes - the grip is much better, a small but important increase in pixel count, lots of new features, especially the C1, C2, C3 instead of Mysets, High Res mode etc. I still sort of miss the tilt screen but the fully articulated version is better for vertical orientation low-angle shots.
The 60mm f2.8 macro is a really good lens that I use with a light box and in similar conditions but I use the 12-40, 40-150 Pro and 300mm for most macro type shooting.

 

[doady]

Photographer first, lens second, camera third. Don't think too much upgrading gear. Seriously. Plan your gear around your photography, not your photography around your gear. I think it is too easy to blame one's camera instead of oneself for holding us back. A few months ago, I upgraded from Olympus C-7070WZ to E-M1 mk2 and 12-100mm F4 IS. Certainly, it is a much better camera in many aspects, but did it drastically change my photography? Probably not. I doubt you guys would be able to see much difference either. That's not because of the shortcomings of the camera, it's just my shortcomings as a photographer.

 

[JensM]

Given the circumstances, I think I would go for the EM-D 5MkIII, it is proper upgrade over the camera you have and it would serve you well in the years to come. The 60mm lens is a good one, but it is regularly to be found at that price or even lower, the camera not so much yet. If the Macro urges are in dire needs of scratching, get a set of extension rings and combine them with the 45.

 

[ac12]

Camera depends on WHAT you want to do and if there is an issue.
I have an EM1-mk1, and it does 99% of what I normally shoot.
BUT, when I took it to school, it failed badly when shooting fast sports. That is where the mk2 solved the problem.
If I am not shooting fast sports, I have no problem using the mk1.

I'm not a macro/closeup shooter, so for me, a macro lens was way way down the list.
In fact my macro lens is an OLD manual focus Nikon 55 micro Nikkor that I got for less than $50.
For as little as I shoot macro, it is "good enough."
If I shot macro a lot more, I might get the Olympus 60mm macro.

I guess what I am saying is, where is your NEED.
When I ran into the sport problem with the mk1, the camera suddenly became an PROBLEM, that needed to be fixed.
If I did not shoot fast sports, I would likely never have run into that "problem." Because I am still happily using the mk1.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Photographer first, lens second, camera third. Don't think too much upgrading gear. Seriously. Plan your gear around your photography, not your photography around your gear. I think it is too easy to blame one's camera instead of oneself for holding us back. A few months ago, I upgraded from Olympus C-7070WZ to E-M1 mk2 and 12-100mm F4 IS. Certainly, it is a much better camera in many aspects, but did it drastically change my photography? Probably not. I doubt you guys would be able to see much difference either. That's not because of the shortcomings of the camera, it's just my shortcomings as a photographer.

I actually did a little bit of this recently. I had good short teles in my fold, but I took my long tele out so much that I never used the others. So I went with primes for the short end to either pocket on the go or for the indoor work where they offer wider apertures. More lens swapping, but I’ve used them all quite a bit more. I do think once you get your lens array sorted out, the choice of body becomes more apparent. If you find yourself with a bunch of heavier lenses, the light body may not make as much sense, and vice versa.

 

[Holoholo55]

I used an EM1 I and a ZD 50-200 SWD to shoot my son's team soccer games for a couple of years. Maybe not the fastest sports shooting combo, but it did well enough with C-AF to get a lot of shots that pleased the players and their families. I even shot in raging downpours and it survived. Sure, the EM1 II and III are better, and so would the EM5 III, but the EM1 was much better than the EM5 that I started with.

I dunno what to tell you. You can get good shots with good glass with almost any camera, but the camera makes a difference too. It's a balancing act. With a limited budget, one has to make a tradeoff.

 

[Acraftman]

I have the 60mm and I think its a very versatile lens and am enjoying it for macro, portraiture and product I use it with the em5mkll . I think if you got the macro it would keep you busy while you replenish you funds which you could do a lot quicker having cash still in hand. I am including this link though it may be irrelevant since you already know you want it . Also a shot from this weekend trying product work.Also as a portrait lens.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[rezatravilla]

This is my first post here and I guess it's not a novel one. Currently deciding between a used E-M5 III for US $729.20 or a used 60mm macro for $260. Both in immaculate condition from a reputable store.

I am using an E-M1.1, 17mm, 45mm and 40-150 R Zuikos, and an original Fuji X100. I'm tempted to buy the M5 III as it is a newer model with the potential to replace both my old cameras. However my existing gear is working fine for me - after all I am just shooting moonshots, birds in my back yard and our mostly dead winter garden - but both cameras are more than 5 years old so I think it may be prudent to take advantage of a good deal on a contemporary model. I'd certainly appreciate the improved AF and ISO as well as the video functionality.

As for the 60 macro, it would be a fun lens to shoot and one that would be a part of my kit for many years to come. It's been on my purchasing roadmap for a while but because I mainly photographed street I couldn't find a use-case for it. But now, thanks to the lockdown...

And this is my dilemma. Perhaps I'm not seeing the value in buying new gear because I haven't bought any new equipment in a very long time and don't know what I am missing. It's true to say that if I stay with my M1.1 and X100.1 I would be happy to keep on using them until they fail. The question is, will my ignorance give me bliss?

Thoughts, comments welcome.

Cheers.

Why don't you buy both and free your self from dilemma?.....okay joking

From your article it's clear that what you really need is 60mm macro since now days's lockdown.

 

[demiro]

@Ra5cal welcome aboard. The lens almost always makes sense if you want/need it. But, if you are looking for something to do a new camera can keep you busy for quite a while. If you want to try macro you can find a cheap MF lens.

 

[CyVan]

That's a great price for the EM5 III. I say buy it. Sell one of the others if need be and get the 60mm or keep all 3 and get a Raynox DCR-250 and slap it onto the end of the 40-150 @150mm to get a taste of macro. Unitl you can buy the O60mm. That lens should be close to being its sharpest @f8 anyways which is where u'd want to start for macro. lighting could be an issue with the telescoping barrel tho.

 

[Ed Diaz]

As for the 60 macro, it would be a fun lens to shoot and one that would be a part of my kit for many years to come. It's been on my purchasing roadmap for a while but because I mainly photographed street I couldn't find a use-case for it. But now, thanks to the lockdown...

Since you mostly shoot street, and most of your lenses are on the compact side, not really sure the 60 makes sense, especially since you didn't have a use case for it before lock down. So, between the lens and the body, I'd opt for the body. If you're just looking for a macro diversion during lock down, a Raynox on your 40-150 would be an even cheaper option.

 

[mike3996]

Shooting streets with a mid tele is totally a valid option, though.

 

[algold]

welcome to the forum.
imho go for a much newer body, it will be more fun. If you want to give macro a try - search for a cheap and good 30mm/3.5 macro.

 

[Acraftman]

I think some of my reasoning for the lens vs the camera at this time was based on the olympus going out of business and as evidenced here and elsewhere people dumping their gear , I have been wanting the 1mkll for some time but tbh I have been thinking about that a lot more, my first dslr which I paid 1k for can now be bought for $30, my second body $1200 is now worth maybe $250 if I am lucky.

 

[Growltiger]

The 60mm is a superb and tiny lens. Great for macro and for portraits. You can always get a camera another time.

 

[threeOh]

Just one piece of the puzzle. If you enjoy using the X100 and value the render of its Bayer sensor, I sure would not part with it. It may have a lot of worts, but the files it produces have a soul that's unique to that particular model.