Barn Owl

In a serendipitous phone call with a Nat Geographic career photographer, he told me that he is retiring his Canon gear for an Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II Mirrorless Micro Four Thirds Digital Camera and several of the professional M. Zuiko lenses. Over the last few months, the photographer has field tested the Olympus system, under harsh conditions, and is Impressed. Another major positive factor is the significant less weight of the Olympus gear compared with Canon. I’m not promoting for any photo corporation or brand, I just am in the process, perhaps like a few other “Hoggers”, of making difficult decisions.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

I have a friend who has shot a few stories for Nat Geo, before m4/3, maybe before digital.
He now does 99% of his documentary work with the Olympus.
Shot several covers for other magazines with the system.
I tried one for a while, but my old brain had trouble with the menu system.
Awesome camera, non the less.
Built like a rugged jewel.

pesfls Loc: Oregon, USA

Interesting. Our eldest son is a biological researcher. He spends extended periods of time working in the jungles of SE Asia each year. He gets research grants from Nat Geo for the research but not as a Nat Geo photographer. Indonesia & Borneo mostly the last few years. He spends as much as two months at a time in the bush in uninhabited, roadless areas on foot living under blue tarps and in tents and in the course of his work photographically documents his findings. He has experienced dead Nikons & Canons due to environmental conditions. Plus weight is an issue as everything must be carried by the scientists or porters on their backs. Consequently and along with the mono capabilities I recently bought an Oly. Haven't owned one since the 70's. It's a dandy and am pleasantly surprised by the capability of the 4/3 setup. Seems like they make a quality product.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

If you have specific questions ask away. It’s a great camera (better than most think) especially coupled with pro lenses.

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

Pagans. Where is the joy of bumping people while looking down the viewfinder of your Twin Lens Reflex? Or doing a wedding with your Rapid Omega and seeing the bright eyed looks after you pump another neg thru (sounds like a 1911 being cycled) followed by that flash! from your 8" reflector. The subtle tones of grief using your Kiev88 on a remote site. Again. *sigh*
I think it's called evolution. We remember the quality from 10 to 20 (or more!) years ago, and try to compare that with the modern equipment. It's the 21st Century. Better sensors, electronics, software, glass, manufacturing tolerances; and then it's post processing time. My A900 takes better pictures than my big old D80, and fits in my pocket. Except for some low light issues with newbies, that Oly is slowly beating the pants off the Sony FX cameras.
I too am divesting myself of the good old backpack required system cameras. I use my Iskra on occasion- and I still enjoy my Kiev60. But my next camera will be something like that Oly. Mirrorless, 4/3, 20mp (or more) small zoom- full kit in a velvet Royal Crown bag.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Love your style! (Though I hated the Koni)
Welcome to the hog!

tdekany Loc: Oregon

With high iso noise, m4/3 is still way behind Sony FF, but the hi res feature will beat FF, but it is usable only with mostly static subjects. Otherwise, each has advantages and disadvantages. Lots of very good choices. Unfortunately, gear can’t help you with subject matter, composition or light.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Jay Dickman and Larry Price are two Olympus Visionaries that have 3 Pulitzer Prizes between the two of them. UHH member gwilliams6 confirmed my opinion that Larry Price would not shoot mirrorless or Olympus unless the equipment would still allow him a chance at another Pulitzer Prize (gwilliams6 worked with Larry Price). If these two Pulitzer Prize winning gentleman think mirrorless and Olympus are good enough for them and their needs, it should be able to do the job for most of us if it matches up to our needs. If you are looking for a smaller, lighter, and less costly camera system, both Olympus and Panasonic are two system you must look at. For a still camera, the Olympus E-M1 mrII offers the most control of any camera in any format. That control comes with a learn curve, but the results for learning it are amazing. If video is also something that you want, you need to look at the Panasonics (Olympus shoots video but Panasonic is better). If you needs something a little larger, look at Fuji and Sony APS-Cs. But with the APS-Cs, you are starting to move away from smaller, lighter, and less costly.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

M4/3 is great for photojournalism, street photography (mostly), and now with better EVF, and new sensor and AF technologies, it is possible to use them for sports and active subjects. The benefits of using lenses that are half the focal lengths of their full frame distant cousins are real - when shooting macro - you are working with really short lenses that provide great depth of field. I believe Olympus was first to include easy focus stacking, and lots of other cool features. Yes the cameras are smaller and lighter, and many have in body stabilization. However, for really good photography of any sort where you are in poor to awful lighting and you have to use high ISO, or if you need shallow depth of field for subject isolation, or if you shoot lots of landscape, I think the larger sensor cameras easily exceed the capabilities of any M4/3.

I have not tried shooting with any of the latest from Panasonic or Olympus, but I was seriously considering downsizing in 2016 and was not happy with the cameras I tested back then. Extra-fine detail clumping was my biggest complaint - which shows up with any highly textured subject, or landscapes where trees and foliage lose their definition. While it's true that at a normal viewing distance you can't really see those details in large prints anyway, I would still like to have the option to see them, and maybe even crop my images - sometimes considerably - if I need to.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

It’s great for landscape work. As it’s lightweight and the superb IS also makes it possible to get away without using a tripod (sometimes).

taffthetooth Loc: U.K

As I'm getting older and with a severely arthritic hip, I also left Canon for the above and have no regrets. Yes the menu system takes a bit of getting used to, but it's a great system and would recommend it. IT can take an 80mp high res shot though I haven't tried that yet.

rayr

I went from a Nikon D750 with a Tamron 150-600 G2 lens to the Olympus EM1 Mark ll and the Panasonic 100-400 a year ago, and I really enjoy getting out and shooting wildlife and BIF and landscape photos again. The size and weight of the equipment has my back and shoulders thanking me. The last software update was a great improvement to the CAF of the EM1 Mark ll. This is a fantastic camera, and the folks that are saying that yeah it's ok for this but it won't do this or that, have not had this camera in their hands. Olympus continues to listen to their users and continues to work on software updates to make this camera even better that it was from the beginning. If you are still on the fence, rent one and the 12-100 F4 lens and test drive it for a week or two, I dare you not to be impressed.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I had the E-M1 and it impressed me until I tried the D800E. I gave it up and never looked back.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

As good as the em1 was, the mk2 version is a lot better. That said the 800 series is excellent, unless you want something compact.

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

I shoot with a D810 and E-M1 mk 1. Both are excellent bodies and have their advantages/disadvantage. I use pro lenses with each body (share the Oly lenses with my wife!). Can’t say one or the other is “better”.