Nikon FX versus Olympus OM D... contemplating the compromises

[Alexanderson]

Hi all,
Which camera system to choose when upgrading?  Nikon's latest full frame offerings, or the Olympus OM D system for compact finesse? I guess this is a common thread, but each has their personal shooting style and subject preferences, so I would really appreciate any thoughts or comments anyone might have after reading below about my situation...  I currently shoot a Nikon D90, (w/Sigma 18-50 macro + Sigma 120-400)... For some examples, see here: http://alexanderson.zenfolio.com.

I am a biologist professionally, so I started out shooting mostly wildlife (especially birds, which is my field of research), macro, and landscapes...  but I'm increasingly getting interested in portraiture, street, and fine art photography... (So a pretty broad range of shooting requirements, ranging from high resolution, to fast shutter speeds and autofocus, and good low-light performance).  A lot of my work takes me to remote montane and tropical locations, so weight and durability are a big issue (my current lenses are pretty much dead after 4-5 years in and out of rainforest and Himalayas for example). 

As far as outputs go, I mostly share online and provide to magazines and researchers for smaller prints, but I love printing bigger, especially bw, and have some aspirations to take things further in the fine art direction... for example, at the moment I'm working on a fundraising project for Nepal Earthquake relief , during which I've run up against my limits for printing size (pushing things at 16 inches short edge for crops at least) partly due to the 12.3mp sensor in the D90, hence my decision to upgrade...  I've looked at the D750 (at 24.3mp, 2x the resolution my current sensor, and not that much bigger to carry) but... I also see that it has the anti-aliasing filter still, and perhaps for the big landscapes etc, and at this price bracket, I ought to be going for the 36mp anyway?...  Then the Olympus has a smaller sensor, but very solid build, weather sealed, and so compact and light, very appealing for the alpine treks...  Other factors I guess are the cost of good lenses to go with it, a nice tele for example... sorry for the missive! wanted to give as much background as possible.  I would REALLY appreciate any tips or advice anyone might have :)
best regards,
Alex

[HSakols]

I also became interested in landscape photography while doing my field work as a biology student.  I found taking photographs was more interesting than counting sticks, rocks, trees, grasses, etc...

I use both a Nikon D800 and an Olympus EPL5.  Just this weekend I made a print on 17x22 paper that was hand held using theEPL5.  I was pleasantly surprised how well it held up side by side with prints made with the D800.  It almost makes me think why bother with the heavier camera.  However, I find that for many images the D800 files are smoother to work with in lightroom and photoshop.  Maybe the d800 holds the dynamic range better ( I don't know what term I should use) and is clearly the winner when it comes to low light.  Now I like using both.  The olympus I use handheld with fast primes and the D800 is always on a tripod using solid zooms.  Now more of the difference is the style of shooting I use with both cameras. 

www.yosemitecollection.com

[Paulo Bizarro]

From what you describe, I would suggest the Fuji XT1 camera plus the recent crop of "weatherized" lenses. Olympus has a similar kit, but the sensor gets to its limits more quickly.

For FF mirrorless, the Sony A7 system is the obvious choice, but the weather proofing is not there yet.

[Jack Hogan]

Hi Alex,

Nice stuff in your portfolio, I like to go on extended hikes and capture similar images.  I also came from a D90 and moved to FF mainly because of the better dynamic range, resolution, noise and options available on the larger format.  I got some great (to me:) shots with the D90 but I miss all of the above every time I pick it up again, so I assume I would miss them if moving to a smaller format.

As you know it just comes down to size, weight and pixel pitch: if the D90 was not too much of a burden and you carry a tripod (as it appears you do), I doubt moving to a D750 will feel much different, and pitch is about the same.  My setup is a 24-120mm f/4 while moving (used mostly in its sweetspot of 24-50mm, f/4-f/8) and a few dedicated primes once 'there'.  D610+24-120/4 weighs about 1.6Kg ready to go.

If you need smaller/lighter, Sony has some outstanding Zeiss lenses at non-Zeiss prices (still...), and the A7II is one fine piece of kit.  If you need much smaller and lighter, semi-pocketable: LX100 or RX100III.  In the middle you have micro four thirds.

Jack

PS Don't worry about the AA (the D750 has half of one), it's there to give you better real IQ. 

[dwswager]

Hi all,
Which camera system to choose when upgrading?  Nikon's latest full frame offerings, or the Olympus OM D system for compact finesse? I guess this is a common thread, but each has their personal shooting style and subject preferences, so I would really appreciate any thoughts or comments anyone might have after reading below about my situation...  I currently shoot a Nikon D90, (w/Sigma 18-50 macro + Sigma 120-400)... For some examples, see here: http://alexanderson.zenfolio.com.

I am a biologist professionally, so I started out shooting mostly wildlife (especially birds, which is my field of research), macro, and landscapes...  but I'm increasingly getting interested in portraiture, street, and fine art photography... (So a pretty broad range of shooting requirements, ranging from high resolution, to fast shutter speeds and autofocus, and good low-light performance).  A lot of my work takes me to remote montane and tropical locations, so weight and durability are a big issue (my current lenses are pretty much dead after 4-5 years in and out of rainforest and Himalayas for example). 

As far as outputs go, I mostly share online and provide to magazines and researchers for smaller prints, but I love printing bigger, especially bw, and have some aspirations to take things further in the fine art direction... for example, at the moment I'm working on a fundraising project for Nepal Earthquake relief , during which I've run up against my limits for printing size (pushing things at 16 inches short edge for crops at least) partly due to the 12.3mp sensor in the D90, hence my decision to upgrade...  I've looked at the D750 (at 24.3mp, 2x the resolution my current sensor, and not that much bigger to carry) but... I also see that it has the anti-aliasing filter still, and perhaps for the big landscapes etc, and at this price bracket, I ought to be going for the 36mp anyway?...  Then the Olympus has a smaller sensor, but very solid build, weather sealed, and so compact and light, very appealing for the alpine treks...  Other factors I guess are the cost of good lenses to go with it, a nice tele for example... sorry for the missive! wanted to give as much background as possible.  I would REALLY appreciate any tips or advice anyone might have
best regards,
Alex

I would suggest the Nikon D810.  It is IMHO the best general purpose on the planet so it will meet all your needs, though some better than others.  I use it for almost everything I do.  With 36MP, I can shoot it at 1.2x crop and get a 25MP image and a little more reach in addition to 6 (or 7 w/ battery grip) frames per second.

Obviously size and weight are factors.  If you're willing and able to carry it, then hard to go wrong with it.  The D810 is not big, but not small either.  The 24-70mm f/2.8 weighs more than the camera body.    If you're moving to fine art and portraiture, the 36MPs are nice, especially if you are printing big.

[Alexanderson]

Wow, great,
Thanks so much to everyone for taking the time to reply... having some opinions from people who actually use these cameras, and understand a little about what I am trying to do is very different from just reading a lot of reviews!  So it seems there are two votes for the Nikon 800 series, one for the 750, two for the Olympus,  one each for the for the Fuji XT1 and Sony A7...

The olympus I use handheld with fast primes and the D800 is always on a tripod using solid zooms.  Now more of the difference is the style of shooting I use with both cameras. 

Thanks Hugh, (and congratulations on a beautiful portfolio btw!)  It seems you and I do have a similar subject range...  and I like your solution of both... if one can afford it! (both in terms of cost and weight, but it sounds like you don't go carrying a full set of lenses for both?) I guess I just have to consider my budget for deciding btw the D750 and the 800 series... then perhaps leave getting the smaller, more portable mirorless for later...

From what you describe, I would suggest the Fuji XT1 camera plus the recent crop of "weatherized" lenses. Olympus has a similar kit, but the sensor gets to its limits more quickly.

Thanks Paulo, (and great shots in your portfolio too btw! I love Mexico, yet to post my galleries from there )... If I was going mirrorless, I think I would have to go with to the Olympus OM-D series... I started on a 1979 OM 10, shooting slide film, so have a strong affinity for these already, it would feel like going home )

Nice stuff in your portfolio, I like to go on extended hikes and capture similar images.  I also came from a D90 and moved to FF mainly because of the better dynamic range, resolution, noise and options available on the larger format.

Thanks so much for having a look Jack. I do indeed carry a tripod often (actually a carbon "transfunctional" Benro, and I use the monopod for a lot of bird work, stalking in forest for example, makes a huge difference... actually it is what brought me to see the sensor limitations of my setup). I agree re the portability: I hefted the OMD,  D810, and D750 in a shop yesterday beside my tattered D90, and there really was nothing btw D90 and D750 for weight.  I  also like the sound of your setup too, though I would have to go for a longer tele I think... (see below)...

So... I guess I will hit the web looking for some deals on the Nikon again...  If anyone has anything to add about lenses, that would be great too.  If I go D750/800/810 I will be looking at something like the Nikkor AF-s 24-85mm f3.5-4.5G ED VR Lens, and a NikkorAF 50mm f1.8D Lens... this leaves me to decide on a longer tele... for portability x range I was tempted by the Nikon AF 80-200mm F2.8D ED Lens, relying on a 2x teleconverter to get met to the birds, but I have never used a teleconverter, so don't know if that compromise will be worth it...  I guess at the end of the day its all motivation to develop my skills and technique, inspired by people like yourselves

Thanks again
A

[luxborealis]

Hi Alex,

I'm approaching photography from a similar perspective as you but with a geo and zoology background. Recently I moved from Olympus (after over 20 years!) to the D800E and haven't looked back. The gain in smoothness of tones, especially in B&W is substantial as is the added dynamic range and the smoothness of ISO 400.

Lens-wise, I've gradually picked up lenses over the past 3 years. For telephoto, I've had great success with the AF-S Nikkor 300/4 (bought used) - even with the TC-14 it is tack-sharp (see Florida Birds, for e.g.). Having the extra "room" to crop from 36mp is an additional bonus. For landscapes, I use the AF-S Nikkor 18-35/3.-4.5 and for general purpose shooting, the AF-S Nikkor 24-85/3.5-4.5. although it's not as sharp in the corners at overlapping focal lengths. I also keep a Micro-Nikkor-D 105/2.8 handy which I also picked up used. It is equally sharp compared to the newer AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105, but is smaller in size.

Recently, I bought the Tamron 70-200/2.8 which quickly became my go-to lens on Galápagos and is also tack-sharp. I understand the AF-S Nikkor 70-200/4 is lighter in weight and equally sharp.

I must admit to feeling the extra weight of the larger lenses for full frame, especially in Galápagos where I didn't have the luxury of my usual slower, more contemplative, tripod-mounted style of field photography as I was on-the-go with 23 students. But I certainly do appreciate the extra image quality, even when backpacking.

Hope this helps.

[brandtb]

Alex - there are huge plusses for both and not really any minuses generally speaking. I use both  Nikon D810 and also a OMD - EM1. I will say the EM1 is one of the best cameras I've ever shot with - and used it for a book project or Rizzoli publishing this past year with the Zuiko 12-40 lens. That lens is very sharp and the whole system very very light. The quality of the image through its electronic viewfinder is very good...and you get "spoiled" getting to see all your camera readings and the playback through it. It's a little small in the hand - but I have a RRS L bracket on it which gives a little more hand grip on the bottom. The image files are fantastic and this Oly seems to deal with higher ISO noise better than previous iterations - i.e. you can deal with it fairly well in post. Zuiko now has a wide zoom and a medium tele - and these lenses will no doubt be very very good. The D810 is simply one of the best DSLRs for high resolution imaging/large printing. It extremely nice to handle.  I use it with the Nikkor 24-70 primarily and while it is heavy - I wouldn't say it's over the top. Nikkor's 14-24 2.8 is one of the sharpest wide lenses out there...and the 70-200 VR excellent as well. Bottom line these are two excellent cams/systems - you would have to consider what is your output going to be primarily...really large prints on a continual basis, or more web or small scale prints...and of course the cost. The Nikon system is going to be at least twice the cost. /Brandt

[AFairley]

Bottom line, really, is that for prints on 17x22, you are hard pressed to see a significant difference on the print between the D800e and E-M5 (I have owned and used both).  Yes, up close you can see that the Nikon resolves a little more and has slightly smoother shadows and tonal gradations, but on the wall, not really.  The question is whether that difference is worth the substantial weight penalty of the Nikon.  Where I came out was the crop sensor is my walkaround camera, the Nikon my "hunting" camera.

[Telecaster]

For handheld photography I've dumped all the big stuff. An Oly E-M1 along with various lenses, mainly the 12–40mm & 40–150mm f/2.8s, does most of what I want & need to do. A few other small-ish cameras handle the rest. For tripod work I've skipped past 35mm, opting instead for a Pentax 645D. (Although my avatar shows me handholding the Pentax…go figure!) Note that I already had a nice set of 645 lenses from film days, which certainly influenced this choice. Andrew's comments are dead-on regarding prints in the 17x22" range, and what he says about the D800e applies to the 645D as well.

-Dave-

[dwswager]

Thanks so much to everyone for taking the time to reply... having some opinions from people who actually use these cameras, and understand a little about what I am trying to do is very different from just reading a lot of reviews!  So it seems there are two votes for the Nikon 800 series, one for the 750, two for the Olympus,  one each for the for the Fuji XT1 and Sony A7...

Warning...The D810 is a whole different critter than the D800/D800e.  The previous generation cameras are great and perfectly fine, but the D810 is better in dozens of little ways.  Think of it as the D910 and you have the just of it.  Other than the 36MP sensor and similar body styles, it is a new camera. 

Discussion of the differences between the D810 and D800

[MatthewCromer]

I would not buy into a dSLR system at this point for someone who doesn't already have a significant investment in gear. Mirrorless is the future, I would recommend Sony FE or E, Fuji or Micro 4/3. I guess Samsung is probably in it for the long haul too.

With mirrorless, you can adapt any of the dSLR lenses you want, sometimes they are a lot better to use on mirrorless, such as any manual focus lenses and tilt/shift lenses.

With dSLR gear you are dealing with stuff like

- the autofocus isn't reliable for landscape photography, so you have to use MF, which isn't reliable with the OVF, so you have to MF on the back LCD
- mirror slap, unless you shoot with MLU, which means you pretty much must use a tripod, or else squint at the back of your camera while holding several pounds of gear away from your body.
- impossible to judge results of the picture by looking at the VF
- no video without the viewfinder
- much bigger and bulkier bodies

On the plus side, tracking AF for long focal lengths is better on dSLRs right now (and the Sony A77M2, which is a sort of hybrid between dSLRs and mirrorless)

In the world of mirrorless, Micro 4/3 is very nice for a very portable solution with small lenses and bodies. Samsung seems to be filling out a high quality system, although not a particularly small and compact one. And Fuji's lens lineup gets very high marks for consistent high quality and no "duds".

Sony offers the highest potential IQ of mirrorless platforms, with the largest sensor. Some of the latest FE lenses are world-class, and of course you can take any dSLR lens. You don't have the autofocus accuracy problems that plague fast normal and UWA lenses on dSLRs either, since mirrorless cameras AF on the image capturing sensor.

I personally prefer the Sony E-mount system best overall, as it offers a mix of tiny, high-featured bodies (Alpha 6000, Alpha 5100), tiny walkabout lenses (16-50), and higher-end potential A7II, A7s, A7r and successors due shortly. The Sony camera and lens ecosystem is not fully mature, but is attracting enormous interest and mindshare and some of the lenses are the best AF lenses available in their class (FE55/1.8, FE35/1.4, FE90/). For almost any manual focus glass, the Sony provides a better platform than a Canon or Nikon dSLR, since you can critically focus in the viewfinder, which is extremely difficult with today's OVFs.

And of course for video use, which is increasingly important, EVF trumps OVF, which shows nothing but black while recording video.

If you choose a Sony, I'd recommend you buy a A7II or Alpha 6000 or wait for the A7r replacement due imminently. The A7R has a bothersome shutter slap because of no EFCS.

[telyt]

I would not buy into a dSLR system at this point for someone who doesn't already have a significant investment in gear. Mirrorless is the future, I would recommend Sony FE or E, Fuji or Micro 4/3. I guess Samsung is probably in it for the long haul too.
…
I personally prefer the Sony E-mount system best overall, as it offers a mix of tiny, high-featured bodies (Alpha 6000, Alpha 5100), tiny walkabout lenses (16-50), and higher-end potential A7II, A7s, A7r and successors due shortly.

I agree that mirrorless is the future and I personally am reluctant to buy into a DSLR system at this time.  What would you (or others advocating for an E-mount system) recommend for a birding lens?

[Rory]

It appears to me that you have the following objectives:

• Fine art, portraits, landscapes and bird photography
• Compact and light system for travel and hiking
• Robust system for tough conditions
• Limited budget

Bird photography and a limited budget are not really compatible.  You really do not have enough equipment to remain married to Nikon.  In my view the best solution for you is a compromise of systems to meet the bird photography and other types of photography.  For bird photography it is all about getting lots of good pixels on the subject.  At full frame you will need a 600mm lens to match your current field of view with the D90 and sigma zoom.  If you can get around the budget issues I would suggest a Canon 7DMKII and the 400 DO as a light, super high quality birding option.  Get a second system: either Olympus, Fuji or Sony for your other photography - I'm sure you will be happy with any of them.

A second option which would be lower cost would be to go with the Nikon D750 or D810 as an all rounder camera.  Based on what I've seen of your photography I suspect the D750 would be more than sufficient.  Take the money you save over the D810 and spend it on your telephoto lens of choice.  The reason I suggested Canon above is because Nikon does not currently have a really good, light weight birder package.  Maybe look at a D7200 / 300 PF VR, although this is not enough focal length for optimal bird shooting.

My first decision would be to evaluate how important the bird photography is.  I did not see much on your site compared to the other genres but that may have been due to the limitations of your existing equipment.  If the birding is important than there really are no serious options available other than Nikon and Canon, with Canon being a little better at present. 

FYI, I shoot with both Canon and Nikon equipment and have dipped my toe into mirrorless a few times.

[PeterAit]

Which is more important to you - the technical quality of your prints or the subject matter? Some may say that need not be a compromise, but it real life it usually is. Carrying a full-frame kit versus the equivalent M4/3 kit is a huge difference in bulk and weight (not to mention expense). On recent trips to Alaska, Nicaragua, and Japan, I was so glad to have taken my 4/3 gear. There were many times I just would not have wanted to climb that last staircase, hike the last mile, or climb the last hill if I had my FF gear, and the result was some great photos. And - not unimportant - I would not have enjoyed myself as much! Yes, some pixel-peepers would look at my photos and complain about not seeing "that gnat's eye over there," but these folks get all the attention they deserve (i.e., none).

[Rand47]

...If I was going mirrorless, I think I would have to go with to the Olympus OM-D series... I started on a 1979 OM 10, shooting slide film, so have a strong affinity for these already, it would feel like going home ?..

Oddly enough, when going lighter from FF recently (and having loved my Olympus OM film cameras) I found the Fuji X-T1 much more "Oly-OM-like" in feel and controls than the EM-1. If you do move toward mirrorless, be sure to put the X-T1 on the "try out" list, at least.  You might be surprised.  

Rand

[Internaut]

I don't see the important differences, between the formats, being about quality at the pixel level.  That only really matters if you're printing really quite big.  Full frame matters for extreme low light performance, and either format could matter more to you with respect to DoF characteristics.  If you do a lot of subject isolation, using narrow depth of field (or creative exposure using very thin DoF), then full frame can actually be more cost effective than the smaller format.  Very fast lenses, for Micro Four Thirds, are expensive.

Me? I'm very happy with my Olympus and Panasonic gear, but I'm looking to also get myself s modest full frame setup. The D610 can be had very reasonably, and there are good, inexpensive 50mm options to start with.

[MatthewCromer]

I agree that mirrorless is the future and I personally am reluctant to buy into a DSLR system at this time.  What would you (or others advocating for an E-mount system) recommend for a birding lens?

For E-mount, I'd buy a Tamron 150-600 Alpha mount + LA-EA4 adapter (with fast autofocus) and use it on an Alpha 6000 for birds. That will also make a good backup body for a Sony Alpha 7II.

[Rory]

For E-mount, I'd buy a Tamron 150-600 Alpha mount + LA-EA4 adapter (with fast autofocus) and use it on an Alpha 6000 for birds. That will also make a good backup body for a Sony Alpha 7II.

Mathew - can you show some examples with this combo?

[DanLehman]

Just some thoughts :

Do you want 36mpx file size (seems to have led many
users to computer upgrades to match), on every shot?
(I know a good wedding pro who's a Nikon pro.sys. user
who had the D800 but favors the D4.)

Do you think that having two bodies + lenses would be
helpful in some expected situations (vs. swapping lenses
in/out of one body)?   --which suggests going w/lighter gear
that can share lenses.

Dave wrote " An Oly E-M1 along with various lenses, mainly the 12–40mm
& 40–150mm f/2.8s, does most of what I want & need to do" ::
Dave, have you lost your GX7 & E-M5 (I think you once had both)?
Wouldn't they do well as back-ups/2nds in the 4/3 stable to the E-M1?
(And are both available for $500 or less 2nd-hand.)
16mpx of good quality; both bodies have stabilization, too.

Could a Pany FZ1000's impressive, 1"-sensor'd 20mpx 25-450mm? eq.
range suffice for as much BIF shooting you need?  (Seems that
some find it acceptable, and of course way lighter than full-135 body
+ 200-400mm lens, say.)  Handy in walkaround use, of course.

As for B&W, Ricoh GR (fixed 28mm eq. APS-C 16mpx) gets raves,
and is quite compact.

Keep in mind that there are some weatherized options
w/mirrorless4/3 as has been noted.  Even some 40mpx options
with the E-M5 v.II for tripod use when wanted.


Meanwhile, that D90 might be retired to some specific use
with dedicated lens --studio macros or something, and 12mpx
should be fine.  (There are those frustrated multitudes sitting
w/like-sensor'd D300 painfully hoping still for a "D400", after all.)

--dl*
====