Hey guys,
I'm pondering a few weeks already if I should get a OM-D
At the moment I have a 5D2 and very good glass (17-40, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 2xTCIII, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 100L Macro) and my gf has a rebel with 17-50 2.8. There isn't anything we couldn't do with it. Landscape, Macro, Wedding, Zoo, Street, Party and Walkaround. Most use lenses are 35 1.4, 100L and 70-200
And while appr. 60% of my pictures are done at ISO100-200 there are many cases where I need 800-5000)
But my biggest concern with Olympus is not the High ISO noise - it's the "image impression" . Heck, what does that even mean?
Well, I know most photographers think shallow depht of field doesn't make good photo and they are correct. But I really like the creative component of it and image impression of wide open lenses. I hate the "digi cam look" where nearly everythings sharp for what I shoot. I know there are 0,95 and good primes. But 20 1.7 is still different from my beloved 35 1.4 often used at 1.4 on FF. And I'm certainly not a prime only shooter!
I'm looking for an OM-D5II with 7-14, 12-40 and 35-100 2.8 and two primes. It would be much lighter for walk around and travelling...But is 2.8 on Olympus good enough for me (=5,6 on FF)?
Since the OM-D option isn't cheap either, I would have to see which lenses to keep and which Oly lenses are better suited. Just buy it in addition wont do the trick.
Like if the 35-100 2.8 (360g!!) is good enough....I could get rid of my 70-200. But is it good enough for wedding and Portrait? thats a different beast.
Someone in a similar spot? I am a perfectionist and if I travel to exciting countries and locations I don'T want to regret it and think: Now, if I only had my FF collection with me...fuck the extra weight, i can shoot anything I want when I want.
PS: I guess I need to buy a OM-D and see it myself (and sell it if it isn't for me) but I always like some opinions and discussion.