User ID

They go obsolete on their own so whatz the dif

User ID

If you lack capable IS then thaz very true.

User ID

Rodeo lives part time under a rock.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Kinda.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

First, no desperation. You already have a good system. You can take your time. You can spend time at the camera store and maybe even rent to see how various cameras and lenses fit your needs.

Second, the main differences between 4/3rds and full frame and APS-C is size, weight, cost, depth of field, ISO, and occasionally megapixels (20mp and 25mp is max for 4/3rds at this time). Size and weight of the camera bodies tend to be similar for just about any format. But the size, weight, and cost of the 4/3rds lenses tend to be less, especially for the larger telephoto lenses. Because of the sensor size difference, the smaller 4/3rds sensor results in a relatively larger depth of field than full frame or APS-C for the same aperture. If you do a lot of heavy cropping, that is when the higher megapixel sensors (30+) are a savior. Because of the shape of the 4/3rds sensor, most standard print formats require less image (megapixels) loss than full frame or APS-C. And ISO tends to be noisier at higher ISOs as the sensor gets smaller. ISOs less than 3200 tends to be more than acceptable in 4/3rds.These are the very basic differences in the formats. And as far as image quality goes, there are a lot of UHHers that love the image quality of their Sony RX10s and RX100s which has an even smaller sensor than 4/3rds. Image quality is really one of least important concerns between all formats at this digital point in time.

Third, many UHHers have both a full frame camera and a 4/3rds camera. And there are photographers
on even other photo sites that have both a full frame and a 4/3rds camera. Some photographers have even given up their full frame cameras after spending time with their 4/3rds camera. And as a travel camera, especially international travel, 4/3rds is one of the favorites because of the 4/3rds size and weight.

And fourth and last, all 4/3rds is interchangeable for all basic functions. An OM body or Panasonic body can use an OM lens or Panasonic lens. This allows for a lot more choices in bodies and lens. OM specializes in still shooting with good video. Panasonic now shoots very good stills and specializes in some of the very best camera video.

How have fun taking a look at 4/3rds. And if you want less shoulder weight when walking around, definitely consider buying something like an OM-1 mkII with a 12-40 or 12-100 lens.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I concur.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

Totally worth it! The stabilization alone is worth the switch from Nikon. As to OM1 or OM1 II, look at the features of each, weight, expense. Are you a birder? The II has better tracking, but both are good. I own the Olympus mI III, which I bought at the same time as the OM I. My choice was based on price primarily. The features were similar enough that I didn’t want to spend an additional $1500. As to a lens, it depends on what you shoot, obviously. My go to lens is the 12-100 PRO.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

I think your wider ranging photographic interests require a wider ranging system! With the modern technological advances of fixed zoom lens cameras ( e.g., Sony RX10 iv with Zeiss f2.8, 24-600 equiv. zoom, 20MB) - such would be worthy of your consideration.
As a recommendation, I recently swapped my Leica 109 for the Sony RX10 ii (f2.8, 24-200equiv) - which might have been designed specially for my landscapes! The Zeiss lens compares favorably with that of the Leica it replaced. You can set canera to 4/3 if desired.
Fixed lenses are the future.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

1. What is the reason to change anything?
2. Why OM system? Is it weight?
3. Clarity and sharpness can often be the lens and only less often the body. BTW hang onto the 18-140 if you have a good copy. I sold mine and regretted it.
4. The Nikon D7100 is a good camera with 24mp. I can't see a need to change to a new system or a new body.
5. The Nikon 200-500 is a decent lens; but if it's sharpness you're looking for, then you might also have to invest in a good tripod. It's heavy and for distant shots hand holding is difficult.
6. changing systems can often lead to a steep learning curve to know the controls and definitely includes buying lenses.
7. Finally you need to be assured that the OM system has a long future. Burk photo can comment on this since I believe he is an OM user and his posts here are often very valuable.

Hip Coyote

I do agree with this. The stabilization is darn near voodoo. I can hand hold a long time. If I brace against a pole or something a very long time. The smaller sensor helps in this regard as well. There are some innovations in the OMD systems that are quite amazing and often copied by other manufacturers. It is an innovative company. The pro glass is unparalleled in excellence...highly water resistant and uncannily sharp. I never use a cover when shooting in foul weather...even at Niagara Falls...the system keeps in ticking even when quite wet.

One thing, perhaps, to consider are the smaller bodied OMD such as the OMD 5 with the smaller lenses. The lenses are dirt cheap on the used market and quite good. They take good pics and are very very light weight. The beauty of the m43 system is being able to mix and match...small body with big lens, big body with small lens, small body with small lens. It fun to mess around with. As the saying goes, "its more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow." The m43 system is roughly equivalent to driving a slow car fast...takes a bit of skill and can be fun.

But low light shooting is pretty tough. Thankfully denoise programs and such help in that regard. I can also up-size images if I want to blow one up.

People need to know what they're getting into with a micro 43 system. There are a lot of plusses and minuses to compare. For me, Oly works fine. I travel, am a casual shooter, hate tripods, am ok with post processing, etc. I know some birders like the system as well. But jumping ship, for no good reason, doesn't make good financial sense to me. Nikon is, of course, makes fantastic gear (who doesn't really). If I were invested in Nikon or any of the big names like Canon or Sony, I'd just stick with it unless I needed the smaller m43 gear. Then again, if we all shot with what we needed and not what we wanted, the vast majority of us (me) would be using our 2013 iPhones or something. So who am I to say?

User ID

Fixed lens zoom cameras are the future ??!??!
Dont quit your day job :-(

RolandDieter

Everyone has a bias: here's mine. For wildlife you will probably want a camera with fast response for autofocus and shutter. A system oriented towards sports and action was my choice. I have two systems, OM-1 with a fast lens for lighter weight and convenience (mostly for sports) and Sony a9 to get the wider angles offered by some full-frame lenses (mostly for landscapes). Both of these cameras are very highly rated for sports/action so I sometimes use the Sony for some sports. As you probably guessed, the lenses I have for each have different focal lengths, OM longer, Sony wider. I also generally use the OM for general, everyday photography, again for less weight and bulk. Don't take my bias or anyone else's as your final answer but maybe consider it in your personal equation.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Apart from laughing at your puerile waste-of-time comments, my personal experiences regarding recent changes in my equipment show that passing on such food for thought may be of benefit to interested parties - not you, of course, but real photographers.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Just get a descent long lens - unless you are disabled or otherwise cannot manage the weight of a longer/better/heavier lens.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Decent at what price? I agree this could be a solution - but a fixed quality zoom camera could also be the answer, with the trade-in being a major contribution to cost. Serious photographers should keep an open mind to new innovation - such as the Sony RX10 iv. Looking hurts nobody!