Thinking of switching.

[ardvorlich]

For the past couple of weeks I've been pondering selling my Oly gear and moving on (Nikon).
However after a lot of thought I have decided to stay with Olympus,mainly for three reasons.

1.Optics.We are spoiled by glass regardless of "equivalence" arguments etc.The cost of replacing the quality of lens in another system for me is prohibitive

2.What could I really do with another system that I can't do now given the right tools and technique.Not a lot is my answer.

3.The main one for me.This place! Over the last 18 months to 2yrs I have learned,observed,been helped and advised by the people on here that I don't think my interest or thirst for advancement would have survived anywhere else.
So many of you of you have been very forthcoming with advice and help that I would just like to take this oportunity to say thanks all and here's to many more years of enjoyment.
Cheers Iain

[benvendetta]

Re: Thinking of switching.

I think many of us have gone through the same thought processes as you either in the past or more recently. Including me.
Yes I would love a full frame Canon or Nikon but the cost that I would incur to get the 'equivalent' of what i already have is the main stumpling block.
I would miss the flip out screen on my E-3 as there is no FF camera with this - I love this feature and make regular use of it.

[andym]

Re: Thinking of switching.

I love this feature and make regular use of it.

Agreed.For macro I couldn't do without it.

[Zuiko]

Re: Thinking of switching.

I think many of us have gone through the same thought processes as you either in the past or more recently. Including me.
Yes I would love a full frame Canon or Nikon but the cost that I would incur to get the 'equivalent' of what i already have is the main stumpling block.
I would miss the flip out screen on my E-3 as there is no FF camera with this - I love this feature and make regular use of it.

[Greytop]

Re: Thinking of switching.

The thought of changing had briefly occurred to me too but having only recently returned to Oly from another brand it's pretty much unthinkable.

I returned with good reason, Olympus 4/3 lenses, a reason that still remains.

The new E-5 is also of interest as I was also hoping for a weather sealed body with 'current' technology. I'm just disappointed that it isn't a little more compact (you can't have everything I guess).

Lastly I'm not really sure what other system would now satisfy my appetite for stunning optics without bankrupting me

So I've pretty much decided to stay put and see what Olympus develops...

[OlyPaul]

Re: Thinking of switching.

I returned with good reason, Olympus 4/3 lenses, a reason that still remains.

The new E-5 is also of interest as I was also hoping for a weather sealed body with 'current' technology. I'm just disappointed that it isn't a little more compact (you can't have everything I guess).

Lastly I'm not really sure what other system would now satisfy my appetite for stunning optics without bankrupting me

So I've pretty much decided to stay put and see what Olympus develops...

Pretty much my thinking as well, plus the fully articulated screen.

So here I stay, or at least till I learn if the standard four thirds mount is to stay in the new modular form or further DSLR's.

I know this will not go down well with some but if it goes all micro 4/3ds Mount I will have to think again as in my opinion making the mount smaller and placing the lens closer to the sensor and increasing the angle of incidence goes against everything that Olympus were commited to to get the best out of a sensor and optics . And from what I have seen it will be a long time if ever before m4t optics compete with the traditional 4/3 lenses and regardless of what they say placing any adaptor on a lens mount compromises optical performance to a degree.

I'm in no hurry to change systems as what I have will last a good many years, but pumping more money into my Olympus system makes no sense for me now.

[Guest]

Re: Thinking of switching.

And from what I have seen it will be a long time if ever before m4t optics compete with the traditional 4/3 lenses and regardless of what they say placing any adaptor on a lens mount compromises optical performance to a degree.

But the 4/3rd to m4/3'rd adapter is just an empty tube, I just stuck a finger through mine and nothing went crack. It's hard to see how this empty space could have any adverse impact on performance.

Nick

[Greytop]

Re: Thinking of switching.

But the 4/3rd to m4/3'rd adapter is just an empty tube, I just stuck a finger through mine and nothing went crack. It's hard to see how this empty space could have any adverse impact on performance.

Nick

I think you are probably correct Nick in that the adapter doesn't influence the near telecentric optical path to any great degree. However I do think that perhaps Olympus is struggling to some degree with trying to make m4/3 lenses build compact and light enough to match the bodies whilst maintaining optical quality.
In addition pretty much all the m4/3 lenses are slower because of the size limitation and I also worry about the robustness compared to 4/3 lenses (even to the std grade).

Olympus have indicated that they plan to improve the m4/3 lens line quality to match the 4/3 Pro and Top Pro range, I think they have some way to go yet. That's not to say they will not achieve it, lets see how it develops.

[OlyPaul]

Re: Thinking of switching.

But the 4/3rd to m4/3'rd adapter is just an empty tube, I just stuck a finger through mine and nothing went crack. It's hard to see how this empty space could have any adverse impact on performance.

Nick

You may be correct Nick, but it is basicly a step down ring to take a larger mount size down to a smaller one and alter the lens to sensor distance and at best a compromise, and no ones crowing about the micro 4TF lens quality, even the new kit 40-150 does not seem to compete opticly with the standard 4TF one.

Be that as it may I intend to soldier on with what I have as I like using it and it will last me quite a while, but I have no intention of investing further in 4TF or in Micro 4TF just to have Olympus make another U turn on there direction, but thats just me and as i said I will wait untill there direction is clear as far as STD 4TF is concerned.

[Janet]

Re: Thinking of switching.

The more I hear about all this, the more I'm beginning to think that I made a huge mistake and bought into a soon to be obsolete system...

I'm suffering from information overload at the moment!

Janet

[Pete Riley]

Re: Thinking of switching.

It doesn't matter if your current set up is soon to be obsolete, it is still excellent gear. I have a very old Practika TL. It was out of date thirty years ago, but it still takes wonderful photographs.That's all that matters. Just because there is now an E5 doesn't mean that the E1 has become rubbish. Just ask E1 owners.

[theMusicMan]

Re: Thinking of switching.

The more I hear about all this, the more I'm beginning to think that I made a huge mistake and bought into a soon to be obsolete system...

I'm suffering from information overload at the moment!

Janet

Janet

Whatever happens to Olympus and their strategy for 4/3, will happen. But the question I ask you and anyone else who is considering a move... is this...

Has whatever the talk has been about over the last few weeks regarding Olympus, actually caused your current camera to stop working, or become 'less good'. Are any lenses that were available to you two weeks ago, no longer available, or are they performing worse now...? What will change in your photography requirements over the next year or two or three that cannot be met by the functionality of the current Olympus line up of cameras or lenses...?

Don't let what is currently being discussed affect your photography. Your kit will perform in exactly the same manner as it did 2 weeks ago.

[Guest]

Re: Thinking of switching.

Well I find it difficult to understand the 'compromise' as far as optical quality is concerned, all that is replaced is one bit of space (the mirror box) with another bit of space (the adapter), if anything the adapter is optically better as it's a totally empty matt painted narrowing tube, without light leaking in from the viewfinder and reflecting from the mirror/prism. If the lens design was telecentric to start with then it will still be telecentric.

The compromise is that focus performance has yet to be fully lifted to the same level across the systems, and the way focus is arrived at suits existing 4/3'rds lenses less well. This is a challenge that Olympus will have to meet in future cameras if it is to fullfill our ambitions. But I don't think these are necessarily insurmountable (or even that they haven't yet been solved in the lab). And for most purposes (excluding fast action scenes) the solution is already pretty workable.

I would concur that Olympus have concentrated too much on lens size (and its attempt to keep that down) in its current standard lens range. Though reviews and comments have suggested that the m4/3'rds 9-18 actually equals/exceeds the performance of the 4/3'rds version.

If/when Olympus introduce HG/SHG into this format I would like to see emphasis shift to optical perfection and comfort of use. In the meantime I've invested a bit over a hundred quid in OM lenses (28 2.8, 50 1.8, 100 2.8), ideal partners for the format and easily carryable (along with the camera/viewfinder) in a midi NG bag.

I think we often forget how large camera equipment has grown through the digital age. At one time cameras and lenses were routinely likened to jewellry, our current generation of 'professional' products more easily take comparison with hammers and crowbars.

Six/Seven years ago it was not difficult to find professional photographers telling us that 'digital' couldn't/wouldn't meet the requirements for professional use, it lacked the resolution and character of film. Few could anticipate how quickly technology, and experience in how to implement that technology, would develop.

I don't think there is a real disagreement here (certainly far too little for any of us to fall out and take entrenched positions) I would accept that m4/3'rds is a developing system yet to demonstrate it's full potential and yet to be fully supported with dedicated lenses. I'm taking an optimistic view as to the potential and timescale, there is a possibility I will be left looking foolish and feeling disapointed; others are more cautious, perhaps drawing on experience of when change has failed to deliver actual improvement.

Nick

[Greytop]

Re: Thinking of switching.

The more I hear about all this, the more I'm beginning to think that I made a huge mistake and bought into a soon to be obsolete system...

I'm suffering from information overload at the moment!

Janet

I can understand your comment and to a degree I feel the same way having recently quite heavily invested in 4/3 again. But the virtues of the system hasn't changed, it is still an excellent performing camera system and in my view one of the best.
Olympus will continue to manufacture their excellent 4/3 lens range which is pretty comprehensive (with a few possible exceptions.).

The problem really lies with the body upgrade path as it seems that the only one that will remain in production is the new E-5. This will be a major obstacle to Olympus from the point of view of interesting potential new users to the system due the cost and in some cases the size and mass (of the E-5). There was some indication from Olympus that they may make another high grade 4/3 body at some point if development of m4/3 range doesn't meet their expectations and milestones.

In my opinion they should have introduced a similar 'E-5 style' upgrade to the 620 and kept a dual body line up running. This would have been a minimal investment to Olympus and help continue to interest new users to the 4/3 system.

[Who's_E]

Re: Thinking of switching.

I agree with John (MM) and Nick. The 4/3 format still works just fine and, according to the Frank Spath book mentioned on another thread, provides uncompromised optical quality. Stick with it!

One final thought: Billy goats gruff.

Nick