Would I lose anything going OMD versus DSLR

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by TexChappy, Jul 1, 2012.

  1. TexChappy

    TexChappy Mu-43 Regular

    125
    Jun 30, 2012
    I currently have a Nikon D40 with the 2 'kit' lenses (18-55, 55-200). It's a fine camera and served me well over the last 5 years. However, I'm thinking of getting something different for a few reasons:

    1. I have neck and back problems and would like something lighter.
    2. Wife wants something she can carry around that would be more portable.
    3. 'Better' lenses are not only mucho expensive but weigh as much as a gallon of milk
    4. Great video would be a great bonus.
    5. related to #3, great IQ as I go into an early retirement from the Army (see #1)

    After looking at a lot of choices, I've predominantly decided on the Oly OM-D E-M5.

    So BLOB (bottom line on bottom) Question: Would I loose anything going from a DSLR to M4/3 and if so what?


    Also any thing to push me (and my wife) over the edge would be ok too ;)
     
  2. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    Sorta depends on what you shoot. If you shoot sports/action especially indoor/night stuff, yeah the dSLR's have much better tracking and much better long and fast lenses required for low light action photography.

    For most everything else, "Generally" ... you will not see any difference or be handicapped in any way (that I can immediately think of), between a dSLR and the OM-D.

    For what and how most enthusiasts shoot, there won't any significant advantage or difference between the two formats (other than noted above).

    Gary
     
  3. TexChappy

    TexChappy Mu-43 Regular

    125
    Jun 30, 2012
    Thanks. Meant to post what I shoot - wildlife, kids, and miscellaneous. No low-light sports at the moment. Old boy is more of a piano and lego sort of kid, younger might be but he's only 4.

    Bonus question: is there any sort of remote for the OM-D's?
     
  4. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    In the abstract, perhaps. But compared to your current kit, not really, no. The D40 was an excellent camera in its day, but its day was almost 6 years ago. I can't think of any area other than perhaps lens variety that the D40 bests the E-M5 in.

    If size and weight are a big issue, I see very little downside in going mirrorless. Probably the only drawback I can think of is the pricing of lenses, which tends to be high (especially since there are few good 3rd party lenses yet).

    DH
     
  5. TexChappy

    TexChappy Mu-43 Regular

    125
    Jun 30, 2012
    DH, the price of the lenses actually compares pretty well to Nikon. The PannyLeica 25/1,4 is about the same and if you get into the upper realms there is no comparison at all. If I kept the Nikon the next lens I'd get would be a 300/f4 at $1,700.
     
  6. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Yes, you will lose a lot.

    You will lose a ton of weight. You will lose your neck and back pain. You will lose your oversized camera bag. You will lose a use for your extensive camera raingear. You will lose the need for your expensive sensor cleaning kit or regular service stops. Oh, and you'll also lose the respect of your macho peers for carrying around such a dinky little camera. ;)
     
    • Like Like x 3
  7. Chrisnmn

    Chrisnmn Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 26, 2012
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Chris
    Are you going to shoot anything faster than this?

    Attacke 3 - 1600 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

    are you going to get prints bigger than 1m?

    if no is the answer to those questions, then the OMD is the one for you. mind you, the image above was shot with an OMD. of course half the size and lower prices on glass than a DSLR system. :2thumbs:

    please note i still have a Canon 5DMKII and a OMD. guess which one is going to retirement sometime soon...
     
  8. m43dex

    m43dex Mu-43 Veteran

    242
    Mar 5, 2011
    Michigan
    Dropped D200 to go M43 with EPL2. I had remorse there, just got OMD and the regret is fading pretty fast. Tracking kids may be a little challenging but not impossible. It's still not as fast as my D200 to me but it's very, very close. I love losing all that body and lens weight.

    Warning there will be a learning curve going from Nikon to Olympus. Menus are different but Olympus offers much customization. To push you over.... Besides lightening your load, Jpejs rock straight out of the camera so you will also gain back time you use to spend post processing.... I rarely shoot raw with OMD like I did with Nikon. Images are simply amazing... Go for it!!!
     
  9. TexChappy

    TexChappy Mu-43 Regular

    125
    Jun 30, 2012
    I have some good lenses with my Nikon F2 photomic kit (large part of the reason I got the D40). However, looking through some of the adapter threads and images I get the feeling that my pre-ai and Ai lenses will work better with the Om-D than the D40. Is that a fair analysis.

    I hope so since trying to use them on the D40 is a pain in the tuckus.
     
  10. SRHEdD

    SRHEdD Mu-43 Top Veteran

    967
    Feb 24, 2011
    Viera, Florida USA
    Steve
    One problem reared its ugly head again for me... took my OM-D out for its first day trip to Universal Orlando on Friday. With my polarized sunglasses, the VF has huge dark blobs in it. NOT as bad as the VF-2 on my E-P3, so it is at least useable, but an annoyance I didn't have with my Nikon. Just an FYI.

    (Yes, I dialed in the diopter and tipped my glasses to shoot, or left the diopter alone and looked "around" the dark blobs. Either worked fine, but still an annoyance compared to a pentaprism viewfinder.)


    Worth the minor hassle for those jpegs though!!
     
  11. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Yes. The EVF is larger than the OVF on the D40, and you get full metering (where the D40 provides none). Most importantly, you can magnify the view in the EVF to precisely focus. You will of course need an adapter, but they are inexpensive and easy to get.

    DH
     
  12. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    You're not going to save much weight going from a D40 to an OM-D, at least as far as the body is concerned. The D40 is the smallest of Nikon's DSLRs, and weighs only an ounce or two more than the OM-D. You and/or your wife may find the controls of the OM-D a little more fiddly than the D40.

    On the other hand, the D40 (though still capable of making pictures better than many people need) is technologically now very old, and the OM-D will run circles around it at speeds that will crack the windows and leave only smoke visible.

    The D40 is, with no slight intended, a very "intro"-level camera. The OM-D is a very capable and sophisticated "enthusiast's" camera. If you put some time into learning your way around the OM-D it will reward you with excellent handling and images. I haven't really explored the alternative with the OM-D, but I would also guess there's a good chance that if you make a couple of setting choices (iAuto mode, auto ISO, etc.) you can probably get a very useful camera that a non-enthusiast would feel comfortable with.

    Getting the OM-D and good lenses is not necessarily going to be a low-budget exercise, though...something to budget out ahead of time.
     
  13. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Hi there and welcome to the world of MFT fanatics ..lol
    Yes you will lose very important things if you choose Olympus OMD
    1) Mirror - :rofl:
    2) Ugly DSLR body
    3) Huge weight of lenses
    Cheers
    Bhupinder
    :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
     
  14. applemint

    applemint Mu-43 Veteran

    345
    Jan 24, 2012
    124 grams apparently - but as you say that doesn't take into account the lens/es.
    Compare camera dimensions side by side
     
  15. TexChappy

    TexChappy Mu-43 Regular

    125
    Jun 30, 2012
    The D40 itself is pretty light but it's form factor seems to make it look/feel clunkier. Without the grip the E-M5, it looks much more svelte. The killer on the D40 is the size factor of the Nikon glass. I was watching a video on youtube concerning the Nikon Trinity of fast zooms and they looked massive and I know they are quite hefty to lug around.

    I'm hoping from the stats that an OM-D set up could and would be much easier to hang around my neck and carry for a day with the family.
     
  16. trondkj

    trondkj Mu-43 Rookie

    16
    May 8, 2012
    I sold my Canon 5D MkII and lenses, and bought the OM-D. Have not had any big regrets after that. In fact I am very happy with my new camera. A lot less weight to carry around :smile:
    Have had to supply the OM-D with the grip, though, and have bought a couple of lenses in addition to the 12-50mm (Panny 7-14, and Panny 14mm). For the tele side I use my old OM lenses: 50/1.4, 100/2.8 and 200/4, occasionally with a 2x teleconverter.
     
  17. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    You're exactly right. The high end Nikon zooms are big and heavy. On the other hand, Micro 4/3 doesn't have a complete set of high end zooms yet. I think you'll be very happy with the OM-D plus one or two light zooms and one or two nice primes. I suggest starting with either the 12-50 kit zoom or the 14-150 zoom as a first zoom and the Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4 or Olympus 45/1.8 as a first prime. Not cheap, but I'm confident you'll love it. For the purposes you described, I don't think you'll be giving up anything.
     
  18. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    From manufacturer's specs, I am seeing 475g (D40) vs. 425g (OM-D), which I couldn't detect without a scale. ;) However, it's not clear whether the D40 weight listed by Nikon includes a battery or not - it only excludes the lens as listed, but who knows...
     
  19. Fmrvette

    Fmrvette This Space For Rent

    May 26, 2012
    Detroit, Michigan
    Jim
    I have moved from a D300 with the battery grip and assorted lenses to the OM-D.

    The OM-D with the grip and the Panasonic 45-200 lens weighs three quarters of a pound less than the 70-200 VR lens alone.

    That lens (the 70-200 2.8) was perfect for shooting indoor sports and band concerts. I could get shots of the grand-kids w/o worrying about flash, and the D300 with AA's in the grip could continuously focus at 8 fps.

    The penalty, other than cost, was weight. Schlepping that rig around all day while sight seeing was not much fun. (For those who don't shoot Nikon glass, the 70-200 VR 2.8 ran $1900 U.S.).

    I'm not missing the Nikon. Even with a small lens, such as the 50mm 1.8, and without the grip the camera was still a handful.

    I weaned myself off of the Nikon over the last few months by carrying the EPL-1 with the Panasonic 20mm, 14-42mm or 40-150mm mounted. Once I found that the Olympus gear could get me most of the photos I wanted to make I was comfortable in selling the Nikon gear.

    The OM-D, having a newer sensor, weatherproofing (the Nikon was weatherproofed), better controls, and an available grip gives me just about everything I need.

    Currently (in addition to the EPL-1 lenses) I've got the 12-50mm and the Panasonic 45-200mm. Those will easily hold me until the availability of :43: native lenses improves.

    While not quite up to D300 standards, the Olympus feels very much like a shrunken down Nikon (the D300 dial controls are in the same position as the OM-D controls).

    Unless you're in need of something along the lines of the Nikon Holy Trinity of lenses, I don't think you'll lose anything in making the transition to Olympus.

    HTH

    Jim
     
  20. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    I'm still thinking that the big question is whether the OP and his wife will find the UI of the OM-D agreeable. Whatever its other advantages and disadvantages, the D40 is a pretty straightforward camera to use. The OM-D is (IMO/for my uses) a clearly better camera, but if someone doesn't find it a pleasant or at least reasonable camera to use, it won't get used, and if that's true it won't produce any pictures of their kids or anything else.