Nikon to E-M1 Mark Ii

[Ian]

Not sure when this was originally published but, anyway

https://www.joeedelman.com/olympus

Ian

[NEO_1]

What a well written and balanced viewpoint this article is. I do suspect so many photographers have been sucked into the 'biggest is best' race and this has helped feed the megapixel race; I do recall seeing a Fellowship Panel a few years ago all printed at A3 size taken on barely a 2Mp camera; viewed from what might be described as an 'appropriate distance' (ie not with your nose almost touching the print surface) they were beautiful. Interesting to see the name Gavin Hoey mentioned - he is a fellow Kent club member close to me (I am in Ashford; I believe he is still in Maidstone) and it was surprising to see he is also an OM Ambassador. I'll have to take a trip to Maidstone at some point!
Finally - I can't help recalling an article written quite a few years ago now by the late, great, Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape fame - he cited then the M43 was the 'dark horse' of the sensor 'race' that was going on and held the view that it had the most to offer the serious photographer as well as the enthusiast. Perhaps those views are now starting to come home?
Thanks for the posting Ian - very useful.
Best regards, Neil.

[Geo]

This article must be at least 6 or 7 years old as it was before the Nikon Z7 was launched in 2018 so is very out of date.

It would be interesting if he did a modern comparison!!

[Ian]

This article must be at least 6 or 7 years old as it was before the Nikon Z7 was launched in 2018 so is very out of date.

It would be interesting if he did a modern comparison!!

Unfortunately, the article only has an 'updated' date, which is reasonably recent.

Ian

[Bobblejack]

It's horses for courses. I've never seen the need for full-frame anyway. Surely the 'full frame' harks back to the days of film, with all the requirements of resolution that that entailed. I had a C8080W bridge camera years ago which was 8 megapixels and that produced excellent results. I absolutely think that micro four thirds is more than adequate for 99% of photography for most people. It's a bit like audiophile equipment; where people are listening for the ultimate purity of sound without actually hearing the music.

[blackfox]

Commonly known as Willy waving .. unless your selling your photos there’s no need for FF which as we all know comes with two major problems weight and cost , and while our gear may have increased in price over the years it’s still more than competitive on both the above counts

[Geo]

There is more to choosing a system than weight and cost!!

I've gone back to FF for wildlife, I bought a Nikon Z8 and 600mm lens for less than I paid for my OM-1 and 150-400 and this combo is slightly lighter! I find the AF of the Z8 much better than the OM-1 Mk2!!

I still use OM gear for macro and landscapes where it is lighter and cheaper.

[drmarkf]

Yes, there’s plenty of willie-waving involved for some individuals in most male pastimes 🤣
For sure it’s a fairly reliable red flag that you’re talking to one when someone tells you within 5’ of first meeting them that they ‘shoot full frame’…

I’ve always owned 4/3, APSC and FF bodies for various purposes, choosing the best or most convenient tool for the particular task at hand, yet I’d be the first to say that with adequate skill and practice you can make any modern system work well for any purpose. It’s always a matter of learning how to maximise the advantages and minimise the disadvantages.

Having said all that, you can’t defeat the laws of physics (although good post-processing skills can go some way towards that, eg producing attractive and natural-looking background blur or removing noise in a wildlife image taken with a 4/3 sensor).

[Harold Gough]

It's horses for courses. I've never seen the need for full-frame anyway. Surely the 'full frame' harks back to the days of film, with all the requirements of resolution that that entailed. I had a C8080W bridge camera years ago which was 8 megapixels and that produced excellent results. I absolutely think that micro four thirds is more than adequate for 99% of photography for most people. It's a bit like audiophile equipment; where people are listening for the ultimate purity of sound without actually hearing the music.

I use mostly m4/3 but I use FF to get the correct perspective with my old UWA lenses, and new (Laowa) ones. The Sony A7r and A7r3 can adapt at least as many legacy lenses as m4/3 so I have never invested in Sony lenses. I have no FF AF lenses and only a couple for m4/3 and rely a lot on focus peaking.

Harold