Leland22 Loc: Texas

When I upgraded years ago, after much research, I decided to go with Oly (E-30) for several reasons-quality of lens, in camera stabilization which lowers lens size, weight and price and a camera that did what I wanted. This was offset by low light capabilities and higher noise at higher ISOs-a limitation of the 4/3rds. Since I normally shoot landscape with a tripod, I could adapt. However, I now see OLY go strictly to mirrorless with no upgrades to the DSLR line and no intent to do so. Since I carry the tripod with camera attached, I have concerns that mirrorless would not hold up to my current heavier lens and the overall micro sizes. As a backup to my body, I have purchased another used E+ body from KEH for the immediate future.
Thoughts from other Oly owners??

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

I have both the Oly E-5 and the mirrorless OM-D E-M1.
With the E-5 I used both the 14-54mm lens and the 50-200mm, and because of the price of the E-M1 alone, I got just the camera with adapter to begin with, then used the above two 4/3 lenses.
The 50-200 mm has a tripod collar, so weight of lens on camera is no problem on a tripod, it's rather the other way around. Even though the 14-54mm is also quite hefty, I have not found it a problem on the E-M1. Now, I must say that I prefer to shoot hand-held and while I have a good tripod, I use it relatively few times.
Not sure what you mean by "the overall micro sizes" - are you referring to the M4/3 lenses, or are you referring to macro lenses...

In any case: My E-5 with its lenses has now been promoted to do tripod work only, as they are now too heavy for my to carry around (arthritis), while I use the E-M1 for everything else. With the camera strap over my shoulder and the camera hanging at my left hip, I find I still hold on to the lens, but that's habit, not any "thought-out plan."

I have never used the E-30, but even so, I dare say you won't be disappointed if you decided to add, or switch to, the E-M1. If you start with the camera plus adapter, you can add dedicated M4/3 lenses later.
Just be prepared for some new "learning" - yes, you can start shooting right away, but to learn all the features of that camera is going to take time!

Frapha Loc: Tulsa, Oklahoma

I feel your pain. I was a 'diehard' Oly fan/user since 1979 and ended up with the E-30 & E-520. Always impressed with their image quality & color rendition. However, after a couple years of frustration about Oly's reluctance to address the low light performance and way too much noise at any ISO above 400, I finally made the decision to abandon Oly. So, in 2013, I sold or traded ALL my Oly gear and, after much research, decided that Nikon was my direction. Now the very happy owner of a D7100 and D610, and have never regretted the decision .... well I did regret the LOW prices I had to settle for in divesting myself of all that Oly gear. Good luck on whatever route you decide to take.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

I shared your angst, fussed about their abandoning us, swore I would never use an EVF. That is, until I got the EM1. It's a great upgrade from the E30, uses all my excellent old Oly lenses as well as the nice small m43 lenses I've added. I would never want to go back to an OVF. The EVF has improved my photography and my fun that much. Remember how we used to complain that there weren't enough choices for primes? Well, those days are gone we have fast sharp lightweight primes and they are very reasonably priced. The EM1 has been a fine solution for me.

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

Simple answer, they weren't selling enough dslr cameras and couldn't compete with Canon and Nikon.

Kuzano

I am happy for Olympus. They did what they needed to do. The sensor they developed was excellent, but would not stand up to the test of High ISO users.

Mirrorless was their solution, and I gladly adapted to the PEN and OMD models. Excellent move for Olympus. I shoot landscape as well and don't know how one thinks the DSLR was a better choice over mirrorless micro 4/3 sensor, other than the common complaint of lens investment.

I did recently pick up a Fujifilm with the APS sized X trans sensor, and like a lot of features of the camera. I will not however say that the image quality is better than Olympus 4/3 sensor, particularly the early Kodak models.

I suggest that had you adopted the move to micro, and mirrorless you may not have been as disappointed as your move to Nikon, particularly on the money portion of the issue.

Oly is doing just fine without those who abandoned the platform.

And by the way, I had the following Olympus DSLR bodies:

E1 (5)
E300 (2)
E500 (2)
E510 (2)
E520 (1)
E400 (2)
E410 (1)
E420 (2)

I never purchased any of the higher end DSLR's as they never had better Sensors or Process engines, only control differences for the most part.

Any of the camera's I listed above produced IQ results equal to the higher end DSLR's when uses with the SHG lenses that I did buy.

The real plus for me on the Olympus was the lighter weight and lower prices overall. I tested IQ many times against APSc sensors from CaNikon and except for those who shoot in low and dark light, never found the 4/3 sensor lacking. The m4/3 sensor was always the same sensor as those found in the DSLR bodies. The PEN and OMD used those same DSLR sensors at the beginning of Mirrorless, which Olympus and Panasonic pioneered as a new market. First in mirrorless.

The other major plus in Olympus/Pana was the extra apparent reach for lenses that I did buy in the high end category, the AOV factor. Birders and Wildlife photogs like that aspect of the 4/3 sensor, combined with the lower lens weights.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

I switched from the e5 to the em5, after they decided to discontinue the 4/3 line. I haven't looked back since buying it a year ago.

CEAA

I wanted to upgrade from an e520 to the e5 but for a camera with only 12 mpx and the inflated price for even used, I decided to go with EM-1. The low light issues are solved and the sharpness and clarity are so much better. I am still learning but I find I am using it more and more even with the dslr lenses. I bet that the next OMD camera will be a full frame one as that is rumored for an olympus "i-phone". If you are able, try some of these cameras out.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I choose to disagree. Olympus deliberately chose to go 4/3rds rather than go full frame. Like wise they deliberately chose to go mirrorless. The reasons that I believe they went mirrorless were the EVFs reached the levels 1.4 and 2.4 millom dots (one cannot readily discern the individual dots at those volumes), had refresh rates of 60 or 120 per second, provided the ability to "see" at light levels impossible for optical viewfinder, and offered a reduction in size, weight, complexity, and cost. They waited a long time before really entering the true digital market. I personally would not have continued with Olympus if I had purchased more Canon lenses for my A-2E. But from a lense and size consideration, it only made sense to continue with the largest lense system I had. How can I ask someone with a bunch of Canon or Nikon lenses to dump them and change their camera systems when I would not do the same? What I am seeing is many photographers buying APS-C and 4/3rds walk-about cameras, based on their needs and styles, when they do not want to carry they full systems. There are advantages and disadvantages to either choice of an EVF or optical viewfinder. For me, I like the ability to "see" the scene when I can barely see it without the camera.