1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Sell my Nikon FX stuff?

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by SjonnisKroket, Mar 21, 2015.

  1. SjonnisKroket

    SjonnisKroket New to Mu-43

    Oct 1, 2012
    Hello all,

    My name is Gideon and i am a Nikon shooter. I use the Nikon D600 with some good lenses, 24-70 / 70-200 and some primes.

    Now im thinking of selling my gear and buy a E-M1. With the 12-40 / 40-150 / 25 panny, and the 45mm.

    I am a bit affraid of the image quality. Anybody made the same step?
  2. m43happy

    m43happy Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Feb 18, 2012
    I went from a D700 w/ 24-70, Nikkor 50 f1.4G, and the Nikkor 85 f1.8G to the E-M5 when it first came out back in 2012 and never looked back. The m4/3 lens selection wasn't as diverse with higher grade glass back then as it is now, but I made due with just the PL25 and O75. I've since filled the gaps with a couple more primes and the two Olympus Pro zooms and I feel like I have a complete system. I think you just have to have realistic expectations when moving to a new system. There are a lot of plus/minuses on both sides of the equation, and you have to just decide what's important to you in regards to certain aspects (ie high iso, DoF, system size/weight, etc).
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    I could echo m43happy's post (see my sig below). I hesitated for a couple of years and had all the Nikon FX and DX gear alongside the m4/3 gear, but it never got used - and that was a message to me. There are some things FX does better but if you're on the fence those few things probably aren't a big issue for you.

    It was a big step for me mentally. I had been using Nikon SLRs and DSLRs for 45 years when I finally sold them all...
  4. swede

    swede Mu-43 Veteran

    Oct 25, 2014
    I switched from nikon just last year fall 2014. I had d600, 28, 35, 50 and 85 1.8g and 70-200 f/4 and two sb700.

    I made the switch mostly to come down in size and weight and also for the economy of it all. I only photograph my kids.... Thats it. I was just not happy, even though the nikon system was superior in many ways my opinion is that if you dont like or feel uncomfortable using the gear, them move on.

    For me it was just not worth it... The contionous af system, flash system, dynamic range, FF dof (wich is the easiest problem to work around).
    It was just to expensive, heavy and uncomfortable for me just for documenting my family life. Most of the time i felt like an idiot carrying around FF gear at parks and places. I just couldnt stand it and ended up not taking photos. That made the system worthless to me.

    I was still afraid of what the change would result in, in terms of bokeh, image quality, af performance. The biggest step is to overcome all that, and realise whats important to you and of course learn to work around and compromize.
    I was convinced by looking at pictures taken by mu-4/3 members. Theres the proof... I found BLX and his stunning flickriver made me turn over. I ordered an em-10 and the oly 25 1.8.

    Of course, there are many differences between what i have now and what i had before, but it all can be overcome if you set your mind to it.

    The technical and scientific parts? Yes... Image sensor quality is not as good as many FF sensorns, dynamic range and noise and so on....

    But everyone needs to work out what matters the most for them.

    I post pictures in another forum i've been a member in for many years. The people there didnt even noticed the change i made. I didnt tell them, just kept posting pictures and they was chocked when i told them i have been shooting m4/3 for 6 months.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    I use both systems together, relying on the strengths of each where needed.

    Then again, I shoot professionally and my retirement are different than others might be.

    The only issue that most seem to have a problem with is high ISO noise. True, the FX sensor at higher ISO will be cleaner, but the need for high ISO can be mitigated somewhat by the fact that not including the Oly 17/2.8 pancake prime, you get great wide open performance with the m43 primes that I've not seen in anything in FX at the same price range.

    I have no problems recommending m43 great to anyone, pro or not. It always comes down to the right tool for the job. If you feel that FX is overkill, then rent an EM1 and some lenses that you might be interested in and shoot with them for a weekend. That should help you decide.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. tyrphoto

    tyrphoto Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 25, 2014
    Seoul | NYC
    I've been a Canon DSLR shooter for well over a decade and for the most part shoot with L zooms along with a few primes. It wasn't until I bought my Ricoh GRD3 in 2009 that I rediscovered the joy of shooting with a smaller camera. I bought into the m43 system a year ago with the E-M1 and love the portability of the system. No regrets about m43 and have even thought about parting ways with my Canon rig. Even if I don't end up selling anytime soon, I doubt I would ever buy another DSLR body.

    For me personally, smaller cameras from Olympus, Fuji and Ricoh do just about all I would ever want for my needs. In fact, I just recently used my Canon gear for the first time in a year and the only reason was because I knew I would be using flashes that day and I'm more comfortable with using strobes with my Canon gear. It was a 3 hour photo shoot at the gym and didn't want to take any chances.

    If I had more time under my belt with the Olympus and Fuji using strobes, I have no doubt that those cameras could have done just as well as my Canon 5D Mk.II. This is a SOOC JPG with just a slight contrast boost and vignette added post from that day's shoot. Two flashes used with umbrellas.

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

    davidzvi Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    The D600 will have better technical "images quality", it's kind of hard to argue the 5th top rated sensor DXO has tested. Dynamic range, color depth, ISO all favor the D600.

    But without knowing what subjects you shoot it's hard to make any recommendation. Also what do you do with the images you shoot? I love my Nikon gear for my professional work, but I also love my E-M10 for my personal stuff. For what I use the m4/3 stuff for I don't miss the Nikon.
  8. swede

    swede Mu-43 Veteran

    Oct 25, 2014
    So now you have a few people telling you their storys :) 
    I think that in order to give you more advice, you should really let us know some more things.

    Why are you looking at m4/3?
    What problems do you have with your Nikon gear?
    What do you photograph?
    What are your priorities? (economy, weight, image quality)
    Do you work with photography?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. cputeq

    cputeq Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 27, 2012
    Albuquerque, NM
    Yes, I've made that step multiple times actually - 3 to be exact (I've switched entire systems probably 23 or so times in the past 7 years or so -- it's almost a hobby!) I'm on my second time owning an EM5 and I think I'm staying m43 for good.

    m43 image quality is fine. It's not D600 fine, but that's what you give up to have a MUCH SMALLER system.
    In fact, on my most recent move back to m43, I sold my Nikon D800 setup. No regrets - stuff was way too heavy for me to carry around for fun.

    The APS-C mirrorless will give you slightly better IQ than m43, but their lenses start getting big in a hurry - once you pass about 100mm equivalent FOV, it's game over. For instance, I'd love to own a Fuji XT1 again (yes, I've owned it before), but their 50-140/2.8 is MASSIVE compared to my 35-100/2.8.

    Speaking of that lens -- if you want a small version of the 70-200, get the Panasonic 35-100/2.8. It's much smaller than the Olympus 40-150 (not that the Oly is a bad lens, but petite it's not). Of course the Oly gives you a bit more range.

    Here's one I nabbed today (barely) as he flew overhead, EM5 and 35-100. Accidentally had ISO at 400.

    Jet approach.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
    • Like Like x 1
  10. tkbslc

    tkbslc Super Moderator

    Shoot your zooms at f5.6 for a month and then ask yourself if you think that is a good tradeoff for moving to a much smaller setup. That's pretty much the difference.

    Or buy the camera + one lens and see how you get along with it before jumping in with both feet.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Nov 7, 2010
    I'm going to just quote this wisdom rather than trying to communicate the same thing myself. Well said David.
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  12. swede

    swede Mu-43 Veteran

    Oct 25, 2014
    or f/3.6 as most primes in m4/3 are f/1.8

    Imho the dof part is the easiest, and most overblown by internet dilema, to overcome...
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Growltiger

    Growltiger Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 26, 2014
    You refer of course to depth of field, not exposure. But there are many cases where one wants more depth of field, not less. In those cases M43 wins by 2 stops.
  14. ManofKent

    ManofKent Hopefully still learning

    Dec 26, 2014
    Faversham, Kent, UK
    I moved from a Nikon D700 in December (still got it and haven't decided whether to keep it, but it's getting dusty). In the past three months I've probably shot as many shots with the GM1's as I did in the preceeding 18 months with the D700, and obtained shots I wouldn't have got with the Nikon gear. I've been a long time Nikon user (since early 80's when I bought a used FE).

    Why did I move to m4/3? Size and weight. I'm now carrying a camera almost everywhere.

    I've not used the D600, all I can say is that compared to the D700, the GM1 produces better files at 200, at 400 ISO the GM1 still has the edge in resolution. 800 and above the D700's sensor does start to win but in you're not going to see any real difference in A4 prints until you get fairly high.

    The DoF issue is pretty much a non-issue for me. Dynamic range is pretty much on a par with the Kodachrome I used to use - it's good enough for the vast majority of shots.

    Basically - that sums up m4/3 - it's good enough for most things, certainly my needs.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. mcasan

    mcasan Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 26, 2014
    The wife and I both sold off our extensive Canon collections last spring and went with E-M1 and Pro lens. Could not be happier.
  16. cptobvious

    cptobvious Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 8, 2013
    In the past couple of years, I've bought and sold the D610 and 6D, as well as various others (A7, MFT and APS-C setups). FF is nice for the higher resolution, cleaner pixels, and shallower DOF, but comes at the cost of size and weight, especially when carrying multiple lenses. MFT is the easiest to carry, and is also the most forgiving in terms of shot discipline if you have an Olympus 3- or 5-axis body due to the IBIS. I would consider image quality to be sufficient - it's pretty good if you view it on its own, and the superiority of FF is only evident when you compare them side-by-side.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. davidzvi

    davidzvi Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    Not a bad idea. While the E-M1 uses a different sensor (as I recall) than other m4/3 bodies it might not be a bad idea to get something to try. Anything from an E-PM2 for $150 through and E-P5/E-M5 for $350-$400. Maybe add the 45 and a m4/3 to Nikon adapter for your primes and try it out.

    My personal pick would be the E-P5. Great camera, real deal now as it originally sold for about $1000. Has many of the advanced features like the E-M1. Uses the same batteries as the E-M1. It's a nice complement to the E-M1 since you know that's what you're looking for in the end.
  18. jeffryscott

    jeffryscott Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jul 2, 2010
    I originally came to the E-M5 from the original Canon 5D in 2012 and had all the same questions, and had zero regrets. I strayed and went DX for better CAF with a Nikon D7000. While performance was better, I ended up hardly taking it anywhere. The E-M1 addresses nearly all the performance issues the E-M5 lacked but it still doesn't have as good of CAF tracking, even after FW 3.0, but it is mostly good enough for my needs.

    And I carry my kit everywhere, and want to use it, instead of dreading bringing it along.
  19. Pecos

    Pecos Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 20, 2013
    The Natural State
    It seems most folks using m4/3 came from APS-C or even FF and have no major regrets. I can't imagine a significantly better looking print from larger systems than m4/3. 99% of the time - for me, anyway - it boils down to composition, lighting, subject matter, mood.
    • Like Like x 2
  20. tkbslc

    tkbslc Super Moderator

    m43 never wins because you can stop FF down two more stops before diffraction wins. Exposure difference is compensated by highs ISO noise ceiling.

    I like m43, but smaller sensors do have trade offs.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.