Migrating from Nikon FF to MFT? (longish post)

[OldRoy]

Warning: It's unlikely that you'll learn anything useful from this post!

I've been using a D700 since it was first released. I have a reasonable selection of non-exotic lenses like the three 2.8 zooms and various legacy MF examples, a couple of 1.8 primes etc but nothing long except a Sigma 150-500 for casual wildlife use. Most of my photography is for my own entertainment. I do a little remunerative stuff, mainly VR panoramas which have developed into a bit of a speciality. In connection with this I also shoot some available-light conventional interiors, frequently using the 14-24 - a magnificent if unwieldy beast. But, compared to a lot of the people who post here I'm no great photographer. When I shoot something decent, which happens occasionally, I recognise it, but mediocrity's the best I usually achieve and I'm reluctant to offer up hostages to fortune on web forums. Anyway, that's the context.

Recently I bought an OM-D after months of dithering about what to buy that I can carry with me most of the time (in a bag or round my neck). I'm utterly sick of the weight of an FF DSLR, even when I can manage to restrict myself to using a single prime. In my seventh decade, even if reasonably fit, this burden almost obliterates my enjoyment of photography - and wandering about in The Great Outdoors. The OM-D came with the slow 12-50 kit lens, which is OK but no great shakes at the long end, and I also have a couple of Panasonic primes, the 14 and 20mm. I find the OM-D itself a joy to use although its limitations, particularly in terms of low light and noise, are quite apparent when I've been used to a D700. The DOF issue doesn't bother me that much. Like many other people I've probably blown more shots because of inadequate dof than excessive. I need some decent RAW conversion software too.

I've just sent off requests for quotations on my whole Nikon system. I'm seriously considering migrating entirely to MFT. This obviously means taking a heavy hit on my original outlay but I imagine the longer I wait, the heavier this hit will be. Given the range of current and proposed MFT lenses - assuming MFT survives, which I think it might, given the OM-D as evidence - it's likely that there's a long-term commitment to development of these sensors - which must surely improve (along with all the others).

Which raises the question that I've been contemplating. Is there a likelihood that before too long MFT sized sensors will arrive at the point where the sensitivity, DR and noise characteristics match or exceed those of current FF cameras - or at least the D3/700's which is where my own benchmark lies? Or are there physically limiting boundaries? Resolution isn't an issue for me. I'm thinking here about these characteristics as perceived in "normal" use - ie printed up to about A3.

I am reaching a state of financial decrepitude where I really want to step, to some extent, off the "upgrade" down-escalator. MFT systems are about the right size I think. Any smaller and there will be ergonomic limitations - indeed there are already quite a few complaints about the button size on the OM-D. The Nikon Cx format might just evolve into something decent but right now, er, no thanks. So the prospect of trading in my Nikon gear for a set of decent MFT lenses, and occasionally upgrading the body would make sense - as with any other format.

I've come to accept that my own limitations and photographic opportunities hugely outweigh marginal differences in system performance. MFT may well be just about "good enough" for me and there's a reasonable prospect that I'll still be able to totter around bearing the weight of an MFT system for a few years yet...

Roy

[degrub]

i would be tempted to hold onto the glass if you don't need the automation. With the in-body stabilization, they should be usable if you can control the aperture manually or if there is an adapter available that will let you set it. i just picked up a Canon FD 500 f/4.5 to use just that way.

Check the prices on ebay, FredMiranda, dpreview, etc. You may get a better price than selling to a commercial concern if you are willing to deal with shipping. If you know someone local who sells on one of the above, that could be easier.

A local camera club is another possibility for selling.

[Rob C]

Roy, all I can tell you is that I have lived long enough to regret - often - trading in equipment.

I've got a D700 too, and it's as perfect a camera as I will ever need; I also have a D200 that was my first toe-in-the-digital-waters. When I bought the D200 it cost more or less what the D700 was to cost (both new). I still have that D200 because I refuse to give it away - offensive trade-in offers helped me steel myself to keeping it. Like you, the years, and health (in my case), have taken their toll and the most I carry when contemplating serious shots is the D700 and one prime. The result is that it mostly stays in its locker and the cellphone gets the casual snaps.

I'd have loved an M9 had I had the nerve to waste the kids' inheritance, but I've been reliably informed that it isn't a digital M3 at all but a friggin' brick, which would leave me more or less where I came in, but much the poorer!

I suspect that for us oldies adults, the ideal walkies camera has yet to be invented. Yesterday, walking after lunch, I toyed with the idea of getting an old M6 or like that; then, I realised two things: my scanner didn't work the last time I tried it; each E6 shot costs around €8 here, and with a cassette of slide stuff at around the same cost, I'm looking at €16 for 36 happy snaps? Sorry; not after digital.

Rob C

[Ken Bennett]

Which raises the question that I've been contemplating. Is there a likelihood that before too long MFT sized sensors will arrive at the point where the sensitivity, DR and noise characteristics match or exceed those of current FF cameras - or at least the D3/700's which is where my own benchmark lies?

Given the rate of improvement in sensors over the last ten years, then sure, of course the MFT sensor will improve enough to be as good as a current D700 sensor. They are already every bit as good as a previous-generation FF or APS sensor.

The problem is that, at that point, the FF sensors will be significantly improved, too, much beyond what a D700 can do right now, and beyond the improved MFT sensor. Size matters a lot in the case of sensors.

I think the important question, at least for me, is this: is the MFT system good enough for the kind of photography I do, compared to other choices that I can purchase right now? For me, the answer is yes - MFT makes a great walk-around, travel, and daily carry camera. It won't replace my bigger cameras for many assignments (can't really shoot sports with it, for example), but what it does, it does well.

BTW, if you like the short tele focal length, get the Oly 45/1.8. It's become one of my favorite lenses ever.

[Rand47]

Given the rate of improvement in sensors over the last ten years, then sure, of course the MFT sensor will improve enough to be as good as a current D700 sensor. They are already every bit as good as a previous-generation FF or APS sensor.

The problem is that, at that point, the FF sensors will be significantly improved, too, much beyond what a D700 can do right now, and beyond the improved MFT sensor. Size matters a lot in the case of sensors.

I think the important question, at least for me, is this: is the MFT system good enough for the kind of photography I do, compared to other choices that I can purchase right now? For me, the answer is yes - MFT makes a great walk-around, travel, and daily carry camera. It won't replace my bigger cameras for many assignments (can't really shoot sports with it, for example), but what it does, it does well.

BTW, if you like the short tele focal length, get the Oly 45/1.8. It's become one of my favorite lenses ever.

I think it all comes down to "how good is good enough."   MR called 4/3 a dead-end when he first reviewed the Olympus E-1, and in a way he was right.  I migrated from 4/3 to FF because my E-3 and SHQ Olympus lenses provided ZERO benefit in size and weight, and reduced benefit in DR and resolution.  But, now . . . the 4/3 sensors are getting better and better in both arenas, and the m4/3 is finally realizing the size/weight benefits originally promised with 4/3.  While smaller sensors will always be chasing larger sensors in terms of absolute IQ at any "given" state of technological development - I think m4/3 is certainly "good enough" right now for professional level image quality for most general photographic missions.  And it will only get better.  While I love my a900 and Zeiss lenses, and nothing else I own (or have seen - including the D800e) is a big enough improvement to make me spend big money to change for landscape / studio work, I can say that I've had more fun and absolutely stunning results in dragging about the little Fuji X-100 I bought.  It certainly is "good enough" for pretty much whatever, and by absolute standards is "better than" almost any camera I've owned (film or digital) in my 65 years.  I even bought an L-plate for it and a good cable release and use it for landscapes.  The results are pretty amazing up to 13x19" prints.

Heck, in our 70's we don't even buy green bananas anymore!  So, dump the D700 and glass, get some good Oly glass for that OMD and go have fun.  Tempis fugit.

This is an exciting time for photographers!

[rmyers]

I sold my Canon 7d and several nice lenses with the intent of buying a D800 and 14-24 to start a FF kit.  I picked up an OMD to use while i was waiting for the D800 to become available, and so that I would have it for hiking and rafting trips.  I still haven't bought a D800.  I have bought some more nice lenses for the OMD, however.

Most of my photography takes place on hike in or floating fly fishing trips, sometimes rafting a river for 5-10 days in wilderness areas.  When trying to fit everything in my raft, the size of the OMD with some pretty nice glass is a real treat when you are trying to save space and weight.  I bought the OMD thinking it would work for the times I couldn't haul the full DSLR kit.  After tinkering with it for a while, I decided it was good enough for most stuff I do.  I decided to hold off on the D800 and really try to learn this system and then see if I still want a FF system.  Is the IQ as good as a FF DSLR?  No.  Is it good enough?  For me the answer is yes for now.  If I outgrow it, I may still end up with a FF.  By then the D800 might not be the hottest thing in town.

Try renting the Panny 7-14 and the Oly 45.  I think these two lenses really show the capabilities of this camera.  There are some lenses on the horizon that look interesting as well.

[Guillermo Luijk]

Welcome to the wise side of (advanced) amateur photography. Carrying a FF digital camera with tons of 2.8 zooms is IMO an oversized option for non professional purposes.

Regards

[theguywitha645d]

Is there a likelihood that before too long MFT sized sensors will arrive at the point where the sensitivity, DR and noise characteristics match or exceed those of current FF cameras - or at least the D3/700's which is where my own benchmark lies?

Wrong question. Does the m4/3 provide you with the quality you are satisfied with? The grass will always be greener on the other side of the fence.

[Paulo Bizarro]

I have played with a mini MFT system for a while (GH2 plus 14-45 and 100-300 lenses), the sensor and lenses were very good, and the whole package was certainly light for my hiking and travels. No doubt the current generation of MFT cameras and lenses would provide excellent results for most of us.

However, I have been using Canon EOS since 1990, so using a EOS camera is second nature to me. So, for me, MFT was nver to be a full replacement for a SLR system. These days, I have found that APSC is good enough for me, so I only have a 7D, 60D, 10-22 and 70-300L lenses. And I carry a G1X for those ocasions when traveling light is mandatory.

As others have said, only you can decide whether or not you would be happy with a MFT-only option. Personally, I know I would miss the clear optical VF, the easier way of using a square filter system, and so on. If you want to keep using a DSLR system, but want to lighten your backpack, why not consider a Pentax system? The K5 (and the new K30) are small, have a high quality sensor, and Pentax is second to none in their range of fantastic pancake lenses.

[david loble]

About 2 years ago I sold my D300 and an assortment of lenses in favor of a GH1 w/ 14-140 lens. I have never been a FF digital guy. The reason for selling was to lighten the load. I now have 2 GH1s and a frequently used GH2.  Very content with them for my urban landscape/altered landscape and travel photography. All for my own purpose, occasionally showing in local group shows.
The 14-140 hasn't been used in a year. Instead I use the 20/14/45 lenses and started playing with a Voigtlander 25/0.95.

The greatest frustration with this equipment has come from an unexpected area: night photography. This is something I never did and have found it great fun and rewarding. But. The GH2 is unacceptable to me over ISO800. Sticking with MFT, waiting to see if Panny will have an improved sensor. If not, taking a long look at the OMD.

[peterpix]

I've  been using EOS since film days and currently have a 5dMKII with 7-8 lenses.  Also have GH2 and EP3 with a bunch of lenses.  Just made an 80 min film mostly with the Canon; looks great, b ut at age 71 , just can't lug that stuff around anymore. On a recent trip to NZ, I just took the MFT equipment and I'm pleased with the quality of the images from those cameras, made prints up to 17 x 22 on my 3800. My Canon gear will be going soon. Holding off on the Olympus untilI see what the new GH3 brings. Photography should be fun and lugging heavy equipment is not fun. I shot a book on Ghana a few years ago and did most everything with the 5D and the 24-105, but i could do the same thing today with MFT.

[scooby70]

The greatest frustration with this equipment has come from an unexpected area: night photography.

I've had APS-C DSLR's, currently have a 5D and a bag full of nice lenses and I also have a G1 plus 20mm f1.7, 14-42mm and Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 which I use 95% of the time. For me the biggest issue with the G1 is shooting at night as with the EVF it's effectively like shooting with a small torch shining directly into my eye. It's a pain and it destroys my night vision. In just low light it's great as I can manually focus long after it's become impossible with my 5D but when the light level drops still further the EVF is uncomfortable for me.

I've been thinking of getting an OMD but I've held off as I spotted that the lowest ISO is 200 and the fastest shutter speed as usual for MFT is 1/4000 sec. As I like using wider apertures even in good light I have to use ND's with my G1 to avoid exceeding the max shutter speed and with a base ISO of 200 I'll probably be using ND's a lot more. Hopefully the GH3 will come near the OMD's performance and offer ISO 100 although I suppose a 1/8000 sec shutter speed will be too much to hope for.

[deejjjaaaa]

They are already every bit as good as a previous-generation FF or APS sensor.

Sony 16mp APS-C sensor (Pentax K5 / Nikon D7000) is already 1-2 generations old... does any 2x crop sensor touch it in "every bit as good as" sense   ?

[John Camp]

I have a D800e (just got it) and a lot of Nikon equipment, including a D3 and the 3 f2.8 zooms and a half-dozen primes, and various bits and pieces. I also have a very complete Panasonic set, including 2 G1Xs and a GH2. This is going to sound odd, but when I'm doing photography for photography's sake, I now always use the Pannys. (At this moment, I am sitting in a hotel room in Jerusalem, killing time before I get on a flight back to NY. I have with me the 2 D1Xs and four lenses, and no Nikon equipment.)

The Nikons I use because I'm a painter, and though I spend a lot of time looking at things, I find that photographs can often teach me more about what I'm looking at than the eye can, especially with landscapes. You can do all sorts of on-the-spot sketches, but when you're back at the studio, you almost always find that there is something that you don't understand. A photograph, especially one that is capable of massive enlargement, will usually explain the problem. That's where the D800e will prove invaluable. The thing is, you often do not know where the problem is going to be, so you take overall photos and then go deep into them to solve your problem.

So my answer to the OP is, it all depends...for the kinds of *photographic* things I do, the Panasonics are good enough now, and they will get better. I will be quite disappointed if the next generation of Pannys (the DH3 and the D2X) don't match or better the OMD. If I were to print larger than I do, or cropped more severely, or shot a lot in very low light, then they wouldn't be good enough, and it might be a couple of generations before they do get good enough.

If you can afford to, I'd keep both systems. They are really quite different, and both are excellent for what they do.

As to the technical quality...the D800e is nearly as good in low light as the D3, and some will say better. Since the pixel (or sensel) size is roughly the same as in the Panny sensors, that means the Panny sensors should eventually be able to perform as well as the D800e. Of course, they will still be smaller sensors, with fewer pixels, so you will not be able to print as large with the same level of fidelity...but you should still be able to make very substantial prints with resolution as good as the D800e's...eventually. How long? Who knows? By 2015? Maybe.

[allegretto]

Wow, just authored a post along these lines.

Replaced wifey's EP-3 with an RX-100 and need Big Glass for some things. The really good Oly glass isn't much cheaper, so as a cost thing it's mainly the difference in the 800e vs. OM-D body.

But of course the bulk is an issue too, a big one and I am tired of a 30 lb gear bag

I suppose I could rent both for the next time I need such a camera and just see if it makes sense

FWIW, my new love is a Fuji X Pro-1. I love it!. Can't quite color balance as well as my M9, but AF and high ISO capabilities are just sooooo good. So the Fuji will be my all-arounder and the TTL just for special purposes.

[tived]

Hi OldRoy,

just stumpled aross this, I had a back injury earlier this year. Which means that my Canon 1D with 2.8 and faster lenses is going to be almost too heavy to carry around...incredibile frustrating, if not too heavy.
So I am sitting on the fence and wondering if I should just sell it all and get a MFT kit. Its a tough decision for me, i really like me fast prime's and I love my 300 f/2.8LIS... 

But what will be a good system to use, where you have fast lenses and also lenses with good reach? and then there is the sensor?

I do a lot of pano and HDR work, how will it affect me

thanks

Henrik

[Pingang]

IMHO with all the tools, it is a matter of adaptation!  Sometimes, quality is overrated! Not that quality is not important, sometimes they are things more important, like, at least get the shot!
One can have non-stop obsession on quality, but quality itself often raise yet more debate. Yes, a cellphone is in no comparison to IQ180 but it often get the shots IQ180 could not, and vice versa.
For example the new RX100, small size, large sensor, 20mpx, it is a handy macro camera that is truly mobile, it might not produce absolutely better image than say a D800E with AF-S 105/2.8 ED VR but it can be always in your pocket when you need it.
Truth to be told, there are little argument that medium format digital produce visibly superior images than the FF, the APS-C, is a fact most of the master pieces - not all of them but big percentage of them, we're produced by more handy cameras says a lot!

Pingang

Warning: It's unlikely that you'll learn anything useful from this post!

I've been using a D700 since it was first released. I have a reasonable selection of non-exotic lenses like the three 2.8 zooms and various legacy MF examples, a couple of 1.8 primes etc but nothing long except a Sigma 150-500 for casual wildlife use. Most of my photography is for my own entertainment. I do a little remunerative stuff, mainly VR panoramas which have developed into a bit of a speciality. In connection with this I also shoot some available-light conventional interiors, frequently using the 14-24 - a magnificent if unwieldy beast. But, compared to a lot of the people who post here I'm no great photographer. When I shoot something decent, which happens occasionally, I recognise it, but mediocrity's the best I usually achieve and I'm reluctant to offer up hostages to fortune on web forums. Anyway, that's the context.

Recently I bought an OM-D after months of dithering about what to buy that I can carry with me most of the time (in a bag or round my neck). I'm utterly sick of the weight of an FF DSLR, even when I can manage to restrict myself to using a single prime. In my seventh decade, even if reasonably fit, this burden almost obliterates my enjoyment of photography - and wandering about in The Great Outdoors. The OM-D came with the slow 12-50 kit lens, which is OK but no great shakes at the long end, and I also have a couple of Panasonic primes, the 14 and 20mm. I find the OM-D itself a joy to use although its limitations, particularly in terms of low light and noise, are quite apparent when I've been used to a D700. The DOF issue doesn't bother me that much. Like many other people I've probably blown more shots because of inadequate dof than excessive. I need some decent RAW conversion software too.

I've just sent off requests for quotations on my whole Nikon system. I'm seriously considering migrating entirely to MFT. This obviously means taking a heavy hit on my original outlay but I imagine the longer I wait, the heavier this hit will be. Given the range of current and proposed MFT lenses - assuming MFT survives, which I think it might, given the OM-D as evidence - it's likely that there's a long-term commitment to development of these sensors - which must surely improve (along with all the others).

Which raises the question that I've been contemplating. Is there a likelihood that before too long MFT sized sensors will arrive at the point where the sensitivity, DR and noise characteristics match or exceed those of current FF cameras - or at least the D3/700's which is where my own benchmark lies? Or are there physically limiting boundaries? Resolution isn't an issue for me. I'm thinking here about these characteristics as perceived in "normal" use - ie printed up to about A3.

I am reaching a state of financial decrepitude where I really want to step, to some extent, off the "upgrade" down-escalator. MFT systems are about the right size I think. Any smaller and there will be ergonomic limitations - indeed there are already quite a few complaints about the button size on the OM-D. The Nikon Cx format might just evolve into something decent but right now, er, no thanks. So the prospect of trading in my Nikon gear for a set of decent MFT lenses, and occasionally upgrading the body would make sense - as with any other format.

I've come to accept that my own limitations and photographic opportunities hugely outweigh marginal differences in system performance. MFT may well be just about "good enough" for me and there's a reasonable prospect that I'll still be able to totter around bearing the weight of an MFT system for a few years yet...

Roy

[OldRoy]

I'd almost forgotten posting this. It was symptomatic of the mania associated with gear acquisition syndrome. In the end I didn't dispose of my Nikon gear - with the exception of the Sigma 150-500; and now regret even that. The offers from dealers were pitiful. I am the kind of person who would rather give it all away than accept these offers. In any case I imagine that if (more likely when) I reach the point of having to unload possessions to meet routine living expenses I will be more likely to tolerate the eBay nonsense and probably still receive a similar return (not for the bodies of course.) Meanwhile I have the gear to use. There's an airshow coming up though and that Sigma would have been handy... the Panasonic 100-300 combined with the OMD, whilst fine for casual wildlife use (providing the wildlife doesn't move too quickly) isn't going to be as much use at airshows.

I'm really happy with the OMD. I've got 3  half decent primes (Panasonic 14 & 20, Olympus 45) the original 12-50 kit lens - which I wish I liked more than I do - plus the Panasonic mega-zoom and the astonishingly good Samyang 7.5 Fisheye. The latter is an absolute bargain; of the 3 other FEs I've used (mainly for VR panos) only the Nikon 10.5 matches it, at double the price. In fact the Nikkor has substantially worse CA but slightly better flare characteristics.

CA and fringing seem to be the biggest deficiencies of the mFT lenses. I tried a few Nikon primes via an adaptor which also exhibited this problem to a far greater degree than I ever recall seeing before, however shooting RAW and processing in CNX2 masks this property entirely. I bit the bullet and bought LR4 for processing the Olympus files. It appears to be an essential tool although I don't particularly like the interface design: lack of familiarity I guess. Messing about with non-native MF primes just isn't my bag at all.

It really is stating the obvious but in comparison with opportunities and motivation, gear really doesn't mean that much except with regard to the inherently interesting qualities of technology. Unfortunately, for me, the latter frequently overwhelms the former.

Right now life is very difficult for me and all this non-essential stuff appears in different perspective. Health, relationships and optimism are at a low point. I imagine MR feels a lot worse though and I wish him well in his recovery having once been through a year of serious and protracted surgery myself.

Roy

[LesPalenik]

Sony 16mp APS-C sensor (Pentax K5 / Nikon D7000) is already 1-2 generations old

Some of the parts on my body are also 1-2 generations older than I'd like, but with judicious use, I think I can squeeze in another generation without any major upgrades.
 

[Mike Raub]

DXO now supports the OM-D and most m4/3 lenses. It will fix most the lenses problems automatically and very well. It's mainly aimed at RAW shooters, but also has JPG modules.

I added up the weight difference between the 5DII gear I had been using and an OM-D kit with the same lens coverage range. The OM-D gear weighs 65% less than the Canon gear. That's surely going to make an upcoming trip to Thailand and Laos a much more enjoyable experience. Hauling all the Canon gear through the heat and humidity last year about killed me.