I need help - camera systems (Page 7): A few of you messaged me and asked me to post a few pics in order to see why I was contemplating the OM1 system. Here are a few of my recent ones...

JimBart Loc: Western Michigan

A few of you messaged me and asked me to post a few pics in order to see why I was contemplating the OM1 system.
Here are a few of my recent ones And you can see why.

(Download)

User ID

Guess it would take nearly exactly the same pix but with occasional slight improvement.

If you are moving toward more daring stuff, then something such as a high end OM could greatly help support that.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

jaredjacobson wrote:

I was curious about your statement, because I own ... (show quote)

Terrible comparisons and inconsistent, even claiming some FF lenses are brighter when the opposite is true and never mentioning any M4/3 being brighter when it is. Why are you comparing the 12-40 f/2.8 to the 24-70 f/4 instead of the f/2.8?

jaredjacobson

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Terrible comparisons and inconsistent, even claiming some FF lenses are brighter when the opposite is true and never mentioning any M4/3 being brighter when it yis. Why are you comparing the 12-40 f/2.8 to the 24-70 f/4 instead of the f/2.8?

I compared the f/2.8 to the f/4 because in my experience with Micro 4/3 compared to my APS-C cameras to get the same shutter speed and ISO for a given shot I need an extra stop of light.

So for my purposes, f/2.8 on M4/3 is most comparable to f/4 on APS-C and none of the M4/3 lenses I’ve chosen are effectively faster than the corresponding lenses for the Z.

There IBIS in my Olympus cameras is much more effective so I can hand-hold for longer periods of time, but if I’m trying to get a specific shutter speed to stop motion blur that doesn’t really help. YMMV.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

jaredjacobson wrote:

I compared the f/2.8 to the f/4 because in my expe... (show quote)

I certainly haven’t had that experience between my OM-1 and FF Z’s.

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

JimBart wrote:

Currently I possess a Nikon 7100 with Nikon lens of 18-140 and 55-300 plus a Sigma 150-300 and enjoy it. I shoot mainly wildlife and landscapes
I am however ThINKING of purchasing a OM 1 or a Mark ll but it seems like no one can tell me the difference between the 2 systems. I like the clarity/sharpness of the OM system and know I’ll need a new lens but nothing more. Is it worth a change?
HELP!!

I have suggested that it is important to hold a camera in your hand before buying. This is a quote from a recent Scott Kelby interview.
"...I think your choice of camera is a very personal thing. This is the tool you use to make your art, and it has to connect with you. It has to feel right in your hands, and the menus have to make sense to you. ..."

User ID

charles brown wrote:

I have suggested that it is important to hold a camera in your hand before buying. This is a quote from a recent Scott Kelby interview.
"...I think your choice of camera is a very personal thing. This is the tool you use to make your art, and it has to connect with you. It has to feel right in your hands, and the menus have to make sense to you. ..."

Bottom line: Kelby is just parroting BS so he can look like some kinda dispenser of wisdom. And apparently youre among those he fools.

The Capt.

Retired CPO wrote:

Save your money and buy a Nikon 200~500mm f/5.6! Good used ones can be had for around $750. Nothing wrong with a Nikon 7100 and you won't need to do a lot of cropping. You will have 750mm equivalent.

No. You will have a 500mm image cropped to the sensor size.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

The Capt. wrote:

No. You will have a 500mm image cropped to the sensor size.

Nitpicking, splitting some fine hairs.

User ID

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Nitpicking, splitting some fine hairs.

Honoring UHH Sacred Tradition !

Red6

JimBart wrote:

Currently I possess a Nikon 7100 with Nikon lens of 18-140 and 55-300 plus a Sigma 150-300 and enjoy it. I shoot mainly wildlife and landscapes
I am however ThINKING of purchasing a OM 1 or a Mark ll but it seems like no one can tell me the difference between the 2 systems. I like the clarity/sharpness of the OM system and know I’ll need a new lens but nothing more. Is it worth a change?
HELP!!

One thing you can count on is that there are no bad systems out there today. I have used Nikon, Sony, and Canon and they all have their strengths and trade-offs. I have never been a "fanboy" of any particular brand and enjoy trying a variety of systems. It is mostly a matter of what works for you. I also try to never feel stuck with anything I do not enjoy. It is kind of like buying a shirt or pair of pants that turns out to not fit properly or be uncomfortable. If that happens I usually donate them to a thrift store. Life is too short to tolerate things we do not like. The used market for camera gear is a very good place to sell and buy other gear to try.

My first real camera was a Nikon 7100 and I loved it. The feel of the Nikon and the menus just seemed natural and easy. But I wanted to try others and have migrated through Sony and Canon. All of these systems will work well, but they just have to feel right to you.

I have never tried an OM camera, but do have some interest due to their smaller size and weight. But I do understand that there will be some trade-offs in ANY system you try.

The best thing is to keep shooting with your Nikon for now, study, and develop a sense of what is important to you and what trade-offs you are willing to accept for whatever system you select.

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

User ID wrote:

Bottom line: Kelby is just parroting BS so he can look like some kinda dispenser of wisdom. And apparently youre among those he fools.

Why don’t you list your qualifications and achievements in the field of photography so people can made an informed decision as to the validity of your comments.

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

jaredjacobson wrote:

I was curious about your statement, because I own ... (show quote)

I agree with superfly--your comparisons are not really apples to apples. in the lst example, comparing a pro lens to a consumer lens is not realistic, and you left out the built in TC which actually makes it longer eqv (1000mm) than the Nikon, and even at 5.6, faster. Cheaper? Heck no, but a better equivalent would be the 500 0r 600 f/4 models, which are a great deal larger, heavier, and more expensive.

In some of your other comparisons, Oly came out ahead as well.

I don't reallly care, I shot Nikon for twenty years, and i think they're great. But i stand by my statement that overall, m4/3 will save size, weight, and a lot of money.

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

JimBart wrote:

A few of you messaged me and asked me to post a few pics in order to see why I was contemplating the OM1 system.
Here are a few of my recent ones And you can see why.

There's some room for improvement there, but not a lot. Ibis could help, for sure, but mostly I think you will improve with just getting out there and taking pictures.

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

jaredjacobson wrote:

I compared the f/2.8 to the f/4 because in my expe... (show quote)

You lost me here. At the same ISO and shutter speed, f/2.8 is f/2.8 on any camera, and f/4 is f/4 on any camera. DOF will certainly vary between formats, but unless I misread you, you were referring to exposure. the "exposure triangle" is format independent, which is why it is so useful.