A new beginning...

[luxborealis]

Over the past six months, various aspects of my photographic and non-photographic life have caused me to think hard about where I am going with my photography and the equipment I am using.

Up until 2004, I was an ardent film user. The Olympus OM system with its small bodies and prime lenses was ideal for carrying alongside my 4×5 system which I began using in the mid-1990s for my serious work.

In 2004, I made the leap and bought a digital SLR. I agonized over the decision and lamented the fact that my Olympus lenses would not work on their new line of 4/3s DSLRs. However, Olympus once again won out as I could get the full range of focal lengths from 28mm to 400mm in two zooms that also had the same filter size – an ideal kit for travelling as by that time we were living and working overseas. It meant giving up my wonderful prime lenses, but zooms made sense at the time. Not long after returning to Canada, I upgraded that system to a 12mp body with a zoom that finally allowed be to reach 24mm – my personal “sweet-spot” for landscapes. In fact, the 12-60mm f/2.8-4 (24 to 120mm equivalent in 35mm terms) is one of the finest zooms ever made – a brilliant range for the nature and landscape work I do.

But alas, the writing was on the wall. With Olympus’ new “flagship” E-5 only carrying 12mp (although a very sharp 12mp), the 4/3s system was quickly being out-paced by APS systems and Olympus began putting its efforts into mirrorles-4/3s. Many argue that it’s not megapixels that make an image and they are absolutely correct for the vast majority of photographers. However, I come from a 6×7 and 4×5 background where image quality and every little detail is absolutely essential.

With the demise of the 4/3s system and my quest for ultimate image quality at a price I could afford, I began looking seriously at the Sony a900 and 850 bodies and the wonderful Zeiss zooms available for them. But even those cameras are looking outdated. I'm sure Sony has something wonderful up their sleeves (a square sensor to make ultimate use of image circle??). Word also began to spread of a new Nikon body with megapixels galore. Really – 36mp! You’ve got to be joking!

So, now I’m thinking – while I’ve done some very rewarding work with zoom lenses, I enjoyed photography even more when shooting 6×7 and 4×5 (and 35mm) on a tripod with prime lenses. There is something about prime lenses and working on at tripod that makes you slow down, think and look a lot more closely. It’s not that you can’t do that when hand-holding a zoom lens, it’s just that with primes and a tripod, a certain discipline develops and that discipline of careful thought and placement and composition begins to seep into all areas of the craft and vision of photography. I, for one, benefit from that discipline.

Thus, the various alignments of the demise of 4/3s, my move into creating fine art prints, the arrival of a breakthrough, full frame 36mp DSLR at a relatively affordable price and my recommitment to prime lenses have resulted in this new beginning. Over the past week or so, I have begun that metamorphosis by purchasing a variety of Nikkor prime lenses and selling my Olympus gear (thanks eBay and Kijiji). The metamorphosis will be complete when I begin shooting with the Nikon D800e that is currently on order and not yet available.

I know this post will not be popular amongst Olympus enthusiasts. I have done very well with Olympus over my 30 years of photography and am sad to leave it behind. I'm disappointed that the E system never really matured like the wonderful OM system of film days. It's upsetting to admit, but perhaps the prognosticators of 10 years ago were correct when they could foresee digital photography outgrowing the 4/3s sensor – it hasn't yet and it never will for a vast majority of photographers, but the time has come for me to move on with nothing but admiration and affection for a system that travelled the world with me.

All the best Olympus! Hello, again, Nikon! While my photos won't necessarily improve with a new system (that's up to me), I'm betting image quality will take a giant leap forward and I'll finally have a bit of breathing space with large prints.

[SpiritShooter]

Sounds like a plan.....

I received my D800 about 2 weeks ago. I also have a D800E on order. With the exception of the Nikkor 7-200 AF-S f/2.8g VR II all my lenses are primes. I have the AF-S 50 f/1.4g, AF-S 24 f/1.4g, AF-S 85 f/1.4g, PC-E 24 f/3.5D and PC-E 45 f/2.8D ED.

I love all of the lenses and have to say that the D800 is right up there with my Leica M9 which has a special place in my heart. The D800 is a very special camera, handles great and keeps amazing me on a daily basis.

Steve

[Fips]

It's upsetting to admit, but perhaps the prognosticators of 10 years ago were correct when they could foresee digital photography outgrowing the 4/3s sensor [...]

I'm not so sure about this. I agree that currently the m4/3 system is lacking i) more manufacturers and ii) a very good sensor, and iii) more bodies for different needs. But all of that has nothing to do with the intrinsic limitation of the system and its sensor size. In fact, the only real, i.e. physical, limitations are the large depth of field and the maximum attainable SNR which is simply dictated by shot noise (both photonic and electronic). Without having done the math, a sensor that produces low enough noise at ISO 1600 for good looking prints up to A3 should be feasible. This together with the small size of the body AND lens makes the m4/3 system very compelling for a very large audience.
A propos lenses: they are the weakest point in the APS-C EVIL systems. There's a reason why Sony doesn't have a convincing set of glass for their E-mount. It is physically extremely hard and expensive to build cheap, very small, large aperture, wide angle lenses for such a short flange distance. That's very old physics and not likely to be overcome in the near future unless you consider adaptive optics or other very advanced stuff.

So besides all this technical mumbo-jumbo: I too have a Olympus OM system which is gathering dust (expect for some lenses which I used on a Sony Nex with mixed results) and I'm really looking forward to the new OM-D. This is a step in the right direction. Not only from a technical point of view but also marketing wise. The system simply needs a more higher end camera for increased street cred and upgrade perspective.

 

[BernardLanguillier]

I'm not so sure about this. I agree that currently the m4/3 system is lacking i) more manufacturers and ii) a very good sensor, and iii) more bodies for different needs. But all of that has nothing to do with the intrinsic limitation of the system and its sensor size. In fact, the only real, i.e. physical, limitations are the large depth of field and the maximum attainable SNR which is simply dictated by shot noise (both photonic and electronic). Without having done the math, a sensor that produces low enough noise at ISO 1600 for good looking prints up to A3 should be feasible.

From what I have seen, I believe that the Olympus OM-D has already reached this level.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Fips]

q.e.d. 

[Alan Matuka]

I know exactly where you're coming from.

I also tried to stick with film for as long as I could, and most of my work was done either on Sinar 5 x 4 or Mamiya RB. In the end I started loosing clients because of that, and in the nick of time I switched to digital.
Coming from large and medium format background I foolishly refused to buy 35 mm DSLR, thinking I'd be better off with Hasselbladt and Sinar 54 m digital back. That was definitely a capital mistake.

After 18 months working with this system I replaced it with Canon 5D mk II - and was very pleasantly surprised.
Nowadays I still sometimes shoot on 5 x 4, but only on instant film for my personal work.

I guess all they said about digital is true - it can produce good results and it is much faster and cheaper.
Still, I do miss looking through the ground glass.

Phase One or digital Hasselblad would be my first choice, but it is too much of an ivestment for me at this moment. 

[luxborealis]

Interesting that you mention the OM-D. It is the very reason I am leaving Olympus. I bought into the 4/3s system with 4/3s lenses and now Olympus is putting their R&D into yet a different lens standard. Sure my OM lenses would work on the 4/3s and my 4/3s would work on m4/3s but it's not what they were designed for. If I am going to invest in new lenses that work properly on the m4/3s bodies, I may as well dump the system and buy into a new system that will more properly accommodate my needs without the fear of the system standard changing again.

It's not that Nikon hasn't changed their lens standard, but at least lenses from 30 years ago will work as designed on at least the better bodies made today.

[BernardLanguillier]

Interesting that you mention the OM-D. It is the very reason I am leaving Olympus. I bought into the 4/3s system with 4/3s lenses and now Olympus is putting their R&D into yet a different lens standard.

Sure my OM lenses would work on the 4/3s and my 4/3s would work on m4/3s but it's not what they were designed for. If I am going to invest in new lenses that work properly on the m4/3s bodies, I may as well dump the system and buy into a new system that will more properly accommodate my needs without the fear of the system standard changing again.

I am not sure to get the point but that is probably because I am not familiar enough with 4/3.

- What was changed with the OM-D in terms of lens mount?
- What impact is there for you?

Thanks.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BJL]

Sure my OM lenses would work on the 4/3s and my 4/3s would work on m4/3s but it's not what they were designed for. ...

It's not that Nikon hasn't changed their lens standard, but at least lenses from 30 years ago will work as designed on at least the better bodies made today.

I see you point about your 4/3 SLR lenses not being fully functional on a micro 4/3 body, but the only loss is slowish auto-focus, whereas Nikon (or Olympus OM or Canon or Minolta or Pentax) lenses from 30 years ago do not auto-focus at all on modern bodies!

As far as the prognostications from 10 years ago about the 4/3" sensor being too small: if anybody expected it to cover all needs of SLR users, that was crazy, and not what was claimed. But as far as meeting the needs of a good chunk of interchangeable lens camera users, the success of micro 4/3 and Nikon's decision to adopt 1" format suggest the the problem was not the sensor being too small, but the cameras and lenses not being small enough -- not taking enough advantage of the small format. Micro 4/3 seems to be fixing that quite well.

P. S. not that I have any disagreement with your choice of new system, given your priorities. I imagine that if you had instead chosen Nikon DX or Canon EF-S or Pentax DA body and lenses, you would likewise now be replacing that gear by 35mm format gear.

[John Camp]

I am not sure to get the point but that is probably because I am not familiar enough with 4/3.

- What was changed with the OM-D in terms of lens mount?
- What impact is there for you?

Bernard,
I think he was referring to the fact that Olympus 4/3 and m4/3 (as used on the OMD) systems use different mounts, so the 4/3 lenses need an adapter to work on m4/3, and even then, it's not exactly seamless. Olympus shows all the signs of having given up on SLR 4/3, going to mirrorless m4/3 instead.
 

[luxborealis]

As John pointed out... The OM-D is micro4/3s not standard 4/3s which means my 4/3s lenses need an adapter to work. I think Olympus came up with a great idea in the 4/3s system but then found a better idea in the micro4/3s but in doing so is now leaving it's users out in the cold, once again. I must admit to some bitterness as I was quite a fan of the 4/3s system right from the beginning despite having to leave behind my OM gear. I'm not willing to get burned again by a company that now has a bad habit of changing standards on loyal users.

[luxborealis]

I see your point about your 4/3 SLR lenses not being fully functional on a micro 4/3 body, but the only loss is slowish auto-focus, whereas Nikon lenses from 30 years ago do not auto-focus at all on modern bodies!

Nikkor lenses from 30 years ago do work on modern Nikon bodies and without an adapter (unlike Zuikos). Obviously the manual focus ones won't autofocus, but they still work. Yes, there are AI issues with even older Nikkors, but by the 1980s (30 years ago) Nikkor lenses had advanced enough to work on today's bodies from mid-range and up. In fact, I've just purchased some great AF-D prime Nikkors for a great price. It seems prices are lower because they are not the latest AF-S, yet the optics are every bit as good and they work perfectly well on the mid- to high-end bodies.

[BJL]

Nikkor lenses from 30 years ago do work on modern Nikon bodies and without an adapter (unlike Zuikos). Obviously the manual focus ones won't autofocus, but they still work. ...

My comment was about the transition from 4/3 SLR to m4/3, not from OM to 4/3. In that, all you lose is some AF speed, so the 4/3 SLR lenses are overall more functional on m4/3 bodies than the non-AF Nikon lenses from 30 years ago that you referred to are on modern Nikon bodies. I do not see the need for an adaptor as a big problem for either cost or bulk --- especially not compared to the far greater cost and bulk of the 35mm format system that you are going to instead. (And for the mainstream DSLR formats like DX, all the SLR makers including Olympus have made the bodies bulkier than they need with the depth from lens mount to sensor being far greater than needed: 4/3 SLR mount downsized it some, but not nearly as much as it could have. But that is not relevant to you 35mm format choice of course; only to the other 90% or so of DSLR users.)


The choice between more backward compatibility vs greater technological change and modernization is clearly a matter of personal priorities. I prefer the approach taken by Minolta and Canon in the 80's and eventually by Olympus with Four Thirds in their transitions to auto-focus: breaking backward compatibility with old manual focus lens mount designs for the sake of a more modern, all electronic lens-body interface; others prefer the approach of Pentax and Nikon, keeping mechanical aperture coupling, aperture rings on lenses, and AF motors in bodies for much longer.

[luxborealis]

I could go on with a list of technologies that Olympus has not kept up to; e.g.

• proper follow-focus technology
• the hopes of a more usable sensor size for high IQ landscape photography
• a lens standard on which my lenses do not "autofocus more slowly" - why would I continue to buy into a system that offers me slower AF?

No - the time for change is here. As I said previously, I don't disparage Olympus as I have had more than two decades of great photography with Olympus equipment.

[Etrsi_645]

I moved away from Oly also.. I bought a Pentax K-5.  Not top of the line gear-to be sure-but I am happy.

[AFairley]

If I had the money to spend, I would run dual systems myself, m4/3 and the D800e.  I am abandoning the Oly E-5 for the E-M5 for most uses as it is.  I think the m4/3 system displaces 4/3, unless you want the fast SHG glass or the fast teles for wildlife.  Olympus is making some killer primes for the system.     

[BJL]

No - the time for change is here.

Terry, in case there is any misunderstanding, I have no disagreement with your choice in your situation. And I wish m4/3 could offer faster AF with my 14-54/2.8-3.5 and 50-200/2.8-3.5 --- but a m4/3 body is still the best way forward for me with those lenses, if no further suitable 4/3 SLR bodies are forthcoming. Conceivably, Olympus could add in-sensor PDAF (following the Fujifilm and Nikon strategy) or develop a m43-to-43 adaptor with PDAF (as Sony has done with NEX-Alpha) but there is no evidence of either so far.

The bigger issue, I suppose, is Olympus (and Pentax) not choosing to enter the 35mm format digital market. Given that this is a distinctly smaller and more high end sector than the 35mm film SLR market, and that Pentax and Olympus (and indeed Minolta and Konica) were struggling to be profitable even with 35mm film SLRs, the decisions to concentrate on smaller, more mainstream interchangeable lens formats probably makes sense for those companies, but it does mean that the higher level photographers who can benefit from a more expensive, larger format kit are left with a narrower choice of 35mm format DSLR systems: mostly Nikon and Canon.

[richarddd]

I could go on with a list of technologies that Olympus has not kept up to; e.g.

• proper follow-focus technology
• the hopes of a more usable sensor size for high IQ landscape photography
• a lens standard on which my lenses do not "autofocus more slowly" - why would I continue to buy into a system that offers me slower AF?

No m43 does proper follow-focus. At the moment, you need PDAF.   If you're mainly interested in shooting landscapes on a tripod, is this really a problem for you?

Current m43 lenses do a great job of AF with static subjects.  They don't have any focus alignment issues, which is an advantage.

High IQ covers a variety of issues.  If you want 36mp, then the D800 is clearly the way to go, as no m43 comes close.  m43 seems fine for dynamic range for landscape photo, assuming you're shooting at base ISO.

Old lenses often don't do everything current lenses do.  m43 seems one of the most flexible systems for using older lenses, as you can mount almost anything with a simple adapter.

If size and weight, and equipment cost, is not a concern, then a D800 (or something in a larger format) would seem ideal. 

I believe m43 sensors are now good enough, although clearly this is not a universal view.  I'd like a few more lenses, although Panasonic is supposed to be coming out with 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8 (24-70 and 70-200 35mm equivalent) lenses later this year and Olympus is coming out with some medium telephoto primes.

[Deep]

I really understand this.  I have had several 4/3 bodies and one m4/3 body and have invested much in Olympus lenses over the last half dozen years or so.  Generally, I have been very happy, especially with the seemingly bullet-proof E3 and 12-60 and 50-200 lenses. But.....

.... there are problems, indeed.  The much-disparaged 10 and 12Mp sensors were very capable and produced great images but they are not forgiving.  Last Saturday, I was shooting a wedding.  As the bride and her father walked up the aisle, the nightmare we all dread happened - my 12-60 lens stopped down all by itself!  Of course, I carry back-up but it was an awkward and nerve-wracking wedding.  Looking at the images last night, I realised that a number of other sensors could actually have rescued some of the bad exposures.  Trouble is, none of those are 4/3 sensors (it seems the EM5 may have a forgiving sensor, but would I shoot a wedding with CDAF??).  Will they put the EM5 sensor in an E5 replacement?  Very likely, but it will cost an arm and a leg, like an E5 does.  Really, I'd be better off with an old 5D and some pretty cheap glass!  In fact, currently, a 5DII is very little more expensive than an E5!

So, quite suddenly, I'm thinking I may not replace the EP1 I dropped with an EM5, as I thought.  I have all but decided to sell everything and move to another manufacturer, probably Canon.  And that move will probably start with a G1X as a pocket camera.  Sad indeed.  I'll miss that amazing Zuiko glass - but not the price of some of it!

Don

[luxborealis]

You've raised an issue I failed to mention when describing my decision to move from Olympus to Nikon - that of sensor "forgiveness". For me it was the added noise from ISO 100 to 200 (obvious, but not unusable) or worse, the shadow noise that became apparent when using ETTR, but increasing shadow detail (e.g. using fill light) by even a small amount.