Unsure if I want to stay with the OMD or not

gardengirl13

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
200
Location
US
As the title says I'm just not feeling it lately. I'm missing my old canon DSLR and am toying with the idea of going back. My main reason for coming over to the M4/3 is due to my health. I needed to keep shooting and in order to do it I had to go lighter. I had sold off all my wonderful (ie heavy) L glass and went to consumer lenses, and it wasn't really enough. I had just go lighter. Things haven't changed health wise and I'm in fact not doing so hot, but I miss that canon look to my photos. But I'm not sure I should go back due to the weight. If weight wasn't an issue I wouldn't have left, sure I might have the OMD as a backup or every day camera, but not as my one and only. If weight wasn't an issue I'd have a 6D and all the L glass I can't afford!

Last week I got the 9-18 and macro to see if it would spark some more interest. But it hasn't. Lots of other things have been going on, so it might not be 100% just the camera. I'm not sure if I'm just feeling nostalgic for the old camera, or if I really do feel a difference in the photos.

One question I have is would getting better M4/3 glass make up most of that difference? I currently have the 12-50 kit, 40-150 (due to weight) and now the 9-18 and 60 macro. Would upgrading to primes make my photos have that magical pop and canon look a little more then these lenses? I'd still need a general walk around lens that's light for my day to day stuff, so I'd keep the 12-50, but what about when I go out shooting? Would the 12, 17, 25, 45, or whatever be THAT much better? If I stay but try to deal with the weight I might consider the 100-300 too for birds.

I've looked through the forums here for the last week to see what others are doing, but it's hard to judge. Maybe it's in PPing, but I can't get my images to really look like the old shots from my canons.

Sorry to bother you guys with this crap. But I'm worried I'll just get extremely frustrated with the heavier kit and regret doing it. I wonder if I could make up for it with better glass?
 

gardengirl13

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
200
Location
US
No the IQ from the 60 is great. That's not really the issue. I'm more wondering if getting (using) more primes would bring me closer to that DSLR feel that I'm missing a bit. I plan on keeping the macro if I stay with the OMD! Some of the images from that even without using it more then a couple hours are fantastic! Which is why I'm thinking if the primes are more to my liking would it be better to stay and not have that DSLR weight.

ETA: that DSLR feeling I'm meaning is hard to explain. It's a magical feel to the images that seems to be harder to get on the OMD. It's a cool dreamy feeling. The OMD shoots warmer (which I have that set to not really shoot warm and can edit that in PPing) It's hard to explain, it's more a feeling, not IQ.
 

Wisertime

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
2,807
Location
Philly
Real Name
Steve
You might need to check and mess around with some of your settings. Would be best if you posted some samples, so people can guide you.

IMO the 60 has lots of pop and even the 12-50 at the wide end can have some. The 40-150 is very solid as well. I do have a few PP tweaks I like to use that add pop, but all depends on the subject/lighting. Some of my best photos are with the 60mm.

For starters, be sure you have auto gradation off..(this can cause lots of noise). Keep warm colors on (personal preference)...RAW for best results. What are you using for PP?

If you look through the image galleries you can compare what you're getting vs. what the lens potential is for starters.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
1,167
Real Name
Emily
Speaking as someone who also has to deal with the weight issue -- give yourself some more time with the system, and see if you grow to love it, or learn to tweak it to love it. If you go back to the heavier system, you may find that you're leaving it at home more often because you don't feel up to lugging it around. Isn't a system that you actually use, even if it doesn't thrill you, better than one that sits on a shelf at home?

Also bear in mind that poor health can cause low spirits, so maybe you're feeling dispirited about the camera because you're just feeling dispirited in general. (Been there, done that.)
 

demiro

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
2,693
Location
northeast US
This is an easy and difficult question. For the easy, yes, faster primes will give you more pop (which I define as shallow DOF/separating subject from background). Will it be good enough vs Canon (full frame?) and L glass? That's tougher. For example, I loved the images from my 5D + 85/1.8 when I shot Canon. Is the E-M5 + 45/1.8 as good? No, imo, but the difference is not enough for me to worry about, especially given all the benefits the E-M5 brings. Now maybe if I was comparing an 85/1.2 I would have a different opinion.

I think it is worth checking out some m4/3s primes. The ones you list are all good, but you also have choices that get you more in the L price class, if you are interested. You can also consider Fuji X.
 

sebs_color

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jan 5, 2014
Messages
191
Location
Virginia Beach, Virginia
Real Name
Sebastian
Im sorry to hear you're feeling low lately, and I really hope your health improves.
I normally don't have too much input on most of the post in this forum considering I'm fairly new to photography, but from my short experience, primes are absolutely fulfilling. And although I've never shot full frame, the comments I get from my friends and family on the pictures I take are pretty comforting and reassuring that M43 is where I want to stay. I started with the OM 50mm 1.8 and loved it. It was cheap and definitely worth having around. I later bought the PL 25mm 1.4 and it is always on my camera. I've been learning so much with it and get asked All the time what kind of camera I shoot with. Most of them have never even heard of m43.
Sorry to ramble on here, but basically, to answer your question, with the limited experience I have, I would say primes are excellent and can really create some great images. I hope this helps and I really hope you get better!


Sent from my iPhone using Mu-43
 

gardengirl13

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
200
Location
US
Here are some examples of the look I'm missing and not getting. With the canon this was no real PPing, just messing a little with the levels, then USM mostly. With the OMD it takes more in camera and out to come close. Not saying these are great or even good images. But they have that feel.

and no this was taken with the 28 on a crop, not FF with an L, so cheaper lenses can look good.
http://www.pbase.com/gardengirl13/image/126913393

this was the L though
http://www.pbase.com/gardengirl13/image/100151806

http://www.pbase.com/gardengirl13/image/99974363

http://www.pbase.com/gardengirl13/image/108565991

http://www.pbase.com/gardengirl13/image/116306034

comparison, yes the settings are not the same but you can see the look I'm trying for compared to what I'm getting, this is the same bit of snowdrops taken with the cheap 55-250 on the 60D first the second is the OMD the next year.

http://www.pbase.com/gardengirl13/image/142036947

http://www.pbase.com/gardengirl13/image/149361888
 

gardengirl13

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
200
Location
US
Well to answer part of this, no I will not get better. It's a progressive disease that is getting worse since I came to M4/3. I've been using the OMD for just over 2 years. So I know it fairly well. My PPing could be MUCH better I know this! If I could get it to a point where it would go easier maybe it would be easier for me to PP.

flamingfish yes it can get your spirits down, not sure if this is part of the problem right now or not since it's been a bad few weeks and a new medication that was working great has decided to stop working. so this might be part of it too.

demiro what better primes would you suggest? I can't afford Leica type stuff. I'd also prefer to stay native. Is there anything else out there that would come closer to the Ls?
 

fransglans

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
1,208
Location
Sweden
Real Name
gus
my suggestion is to buy O25 and sell of some gear to afford it. and lock in the rest of your kit and shoot olympus 25 only for one month. use the constraints and find beautie within that.
 

WendyK

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 28, 2014
Messages
1,566
Location
Northern Virginia
Real Name
Wendy
Hi Gardengirl13,

I am a gardener myself, and gardens are my favorite subject. Here are a few samples of shots from my primes in the garden

Oly 45mm (many of my garden shots from this lens have a "special" quality, in my opinion, especially when used wide open)









I also like the 25mm for a wider view that shows plant groupings



Oly 60mm





I don't know if these examples help, but I hope so.

Wendy
 

nstelemark

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,298
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
Real Name
Larry
I think the O25 or PL25 and the O75 would do along way to generating the sort of look you want. Even the 12-35 or 12-40 can be very very good as well. As an example from the 12-35:

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


And the O75:

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


Another option would be the P20f1.7:

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


There are lots of options for background separation. For example in the two flower pictures your lighting was quite different, the canon shot had a much darker background.

This is the 12-35 @f5.6 ie not with a shallow aperture with flash:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
1,937
Location
Maryland
Real Name
Loren
I'm sorry to hear about your situation. As someone who has gone through two battles with cancer, I can understand how you must be feeling. I have to say I applaud you for continuing to do what you love through this ordeal.

As for the camera question, after viewing your photography style I agree with the others that you need faster primes than what you currently have to get that DSLR DOF. Sadly, you would have to go with the Pan-Leicas to truly get to that territory, but the Oly 25 and 45 will at least get you much closer. The 75mm would do it, but you may find the focal length too in-between the wider angles you use in most your shots, and the telephoto you do for wildlife.

I am almost tempted to suggest selling enough of your gear to (I know you said you can't afford it) aim for the P-L 42.5, and that's it. That lens would serve a lot of your needs by itself, and definitely give you the look you are wanting. But even as I type this I think that's probably too extreme. The Oly 25 and 45 will get you mostly there for much less. If you add the 75 to that list you are over the price of the 42.5, but at least you would have three great lenses instead of one world-beating lens. Anyway, something to consider...
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
1,937
Location
Maryland
Real Name
Loren
One more off-the-wall suggestion would be the 75-300. Not because it's fast (it's the opposite of fast) but because it is a fun and relatively light lens that will give you much more opportunity to photograph the birds in your garden. In good light the lens is great; it's only in poor lighting (such as overcast days) that it's limitations emerge. Especially at the extreme end, it will also give you great background separation despite its slow aperture (albeit in a very tight frame). I've had great success with it for dragonflies and the like, too.
 

gardengirl13

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
200
Location
US
Well realistically the voightlander 17.5 is $350 cheaper, or so I think, then the canon 35L I would get. My favorite lens on the crop was 28 1.8 so I really do like shooting around 35mm. But manual focusing again sounds daunting! I used an A1 from the time I was 5 to 2006, so I know how to MF well, but it's been since 2006 since I've really done it! But for that L look I think that lens might be as close as I can get. At least it's not Zeiss $2000-5000 lenses!! The 42.5 might be too long, it's fine for macro but I have the 60 for that. I'm thinking for primes I'd love to match what I had on film 35, 50 and 85. But I don't shoot the 85 range much any more. I go shorter or longer. I'd just use the 60 macro for that FL. I might see about the 100-300 for the birds though. I'd keep the 40-150 for my bad days, but when I go our local bird migration place I'd love having something longer!

Yes these lenses are heavy, and will basically double the weight of the OMD, but the 6D does that without any lenses on it! I'd keep the lighter lenses for days when I can't deal with the weight. I don't think it'd be worth selling them when I might still need that range. I do think the faster zooms are out though. I'd rather have the primes for better IQ and stick with the cheaper zooms for zooms so I can have the camera with me all the time.

I'd rather get a cheaper 17mm, but I'm not sure how close the 17 1.8 gets to the 0.95. If I can get results close to it I'd probably take the cheaper one so I could afford to get another lens or two, like the 25 1.4 (which I did have at one point and sold because at the time I didn't use it as much as I thought I would- but I think now wanting better images I would use it more) and the 100-300.
 

gardengirl13

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
200
Location
US
how does the 75-300 compare to the 100-300? That's another lens I was thinking of, but everyone says the 100-300 is the best.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
1,937
Location
Maryland
Real Name
Loren
Well realistically the voightlander 17.5 is $350 cheaper, or so I think, then the canon 35L I would get. My favorite lens on the crop was 28 1.8 so I really do like shooting around 35mm. But manual focusing again sounds daunting! I used an A1 from the time I was 5 to 2006, so I know how to MF well, but it's been since 2006 since I've really done it! But for that L look I think that lens might be as close as I can get. At least it's not Zeiss $2000-5000 lenses!! The 42.5 might be too long, it's fine for macro but I have the 60 for that. I'm thinking for primes I'd love to match what I had on film 35, 50 and 85. But I don't shoot the 85 range much any more. I go shorter or longer. I'd just use the 60 macro for that FL. I might see about the 100-300 for the birds though. I'd keep the 40-150 for my bad days, but when I go our local bird migration place I'd love having something longer!

Yes these lenses are heavy, and will basically double the weight of the OMD, but the 6D does that without any lenses on it! I'd keep the lighter lenses for days when I can't deal with the weight. I don't think it'd be worth selling them when I might still need that range. I do think the faster zooms are out though. I'd rather have the primes for better IQ and stick with the cheaper zooms for zooms so I can have the camera with me all the time.

I'd rather get a cheaper 17mm, but I'm not sure how close the 17 1.8 gets to the 0.95. If I can get results close to it I'd probably take the cheaper one so I could afford to get another lens or two, like the 25 1.4 (which I did have at one point and sold because at the time I didn't use it as much as I thought I would- but I think now wanting better images I would use it more) and the 100-300.
MF is even easier on m4/3 with focus peaking and MF assist magnification options, but I've steered clear of the voigtlanders for the same reason. The 17 is supposed to be really nice, though. Probably would allow you to do the night star shots you were doing, if you are ever still up for that.

The Oly 12, 17, 25 and 45 weigh nothing. For your bad days, those would all be great options, and they really are gems. My personal preference is the 12-40 f2.8, but that's because I don't like having to change lenses, and at those focal lengths I am mostly doing landscapes and don't need the speed. I do have the 12 and 45, though.

I would still suggest going to the PL 42.5 thread and take a look at what people are doing with it. To my eye, it just seemed to be a good fit for a lot of the shots in your gallery. I think it will beat the 60 (one of my favorite lenses btw) in DOF, and is wide enough for a bit more general use. It's only weakness is minimum focus distance, so for macro it can't hold a candle next to a dedicated macro lens like the 60.
 

broody

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
388
The 12-50mm isn't really a lens applauded for its rendering - you could do much, much better if you want a lens with character. IMO the 15mm/25mm/42.5mm Pana-Leicas are unbeatable for this quality, but the 25mm Zuiko and all three of the cheapy Sigmas are easily in the same league.
 
Top Bottom