Marionsho Loc: Kansas

Thanks for the info. Jerry. Now I'll hope I never have to follow all these steps. :lol:

YoungEsqr Loc: Minnesota

Sorry about your experience. I have the D7000+18-270mm+D7000 camera skin+special eyepiece + shoulder strap.
Good luck.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

The only reluctance to Jerry's excellent instructions is the use of heat. Applying heat will accelerate water evaporation that will leave behind any substances that were in the water. The water quality will have much to do with the end result. A risky procedure would be to immerse the lenseless and open body camera in distilled water - dip and drain twice or more and then slow drying. Another risk with heating is the thermal expansion of both the water and the camera parts - where parts join could be forced apart, forever. Speed in removing batteries and SD cards and draining, even of those openings with rubber-ish caps is of paramount importance.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

And its still a 4/3's sensor at almost triple the price. Even $300 more than the D7100 which offers a LOT more resolution.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Correct...at 2X the weight :-) And that sensor is no slouch...more than enough for probably 85% of the users on this site.

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/olympus_om_d_e_m1_v_nikon_d7100/

Peter1972m Loc: Essex, England, UK

I've moved from a D3100 to a D7100, but I fill you would not really appreciate the kind of difference I'm noticing, as I did borrow a D5100 for a couple of months first, if I was in your pestion is would buy the best lens I could afford ie a F2.8 14-24, 24-70 or a 70-300 obviously the best range to suit your needs, Cannon has the best glass and Nikon has the best body if you make the huge jump to a D810 so it don't matter what make you go for, forget all I just said and get an iPhone 6 it will shoot round corners.
Only joking.
It's all about Glass, Glass,Glass. My D7100 (24.1Mpx) has only got a 3.5-5.6 70-300 on it, it's now the worlds most expensive 9Mpx camera.
I need a glass!
SOMEONE GET ME A GLASS!!!

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

but not ThomHogan proof :wink:

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Not sure what this means...since he recommends it:
http://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/a-note-about-camera-reviews/olympus-camera-reviews/olympus-e-m1-review.html

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

no he says it's a good camera but there are other ones out there that are less costly and a lot easier to operator that can do the same things . he says he wouldent get one . the average user will get bogged down trying to learn all the in's and outs , that are much easer on other cameras and layed out more
sensible and it's still only a 4/3 camera .

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Straight from site...read the last word.

Bottom Line

Olympus did a lot of things right with the original OM-D (the E-M5) and brought mirrorless much closer to the DSLR experience. The E-M1 continues that and gets Olympus even closer. For some users, it may even be “there.”

The two warts in the E-M1 are (1) complexity of menus/customization, and (2) not-quite-DSLR focus performance. Pretty much everything else is where I’d want it to be with this camera. It’s a nice size and weight (and the smaller m4/3 lenses make that really obvious when going back and forth between the E-M1 and one of my DSLRs). Yet it gives up very little.

The controls on the E-M1 are nice, usable, configurable, and pretty much where I’d want them to be. The EVF and titling touchscreen have plenty of benefits over DSLRs, though lag is still not as small as I’d like it to be (240Hz refresh, anyone?).

As I was packing my bag for yet another trip as I was writing this, I’ll use this moment to once again castigate Canon and Nikon for their dearth of crop-sensor lenses other than convenience ones. My m4/3 travel kit is just smaller, lighter, and much more compact than even my crop sensor DSLR kit. Given all the limitations airlines are putting on us these days smaller mirrorless cameras just get more appealing every day that passes. With a couple more lenses, m4/3 will get me to the point where I don’t think I need DX cameras any more. Well, okay, I’m spoiled by the continuous autofocus performance and 24mp of my D7100, but I’m also tired of carrying huge loads in my backpack, too.

The E-M5 was my camera of choice for long hikes, and it’s looking like the E-M1 will supplant that.

Wait a second, you say, what about the Fujifilm X-T1? Yeah, I like it, too. But with it’s 16mp APS X-Trans sensor it shows a few liabilities and a few bonuses compared to the E-M1.

The liability is the bigger sensor means bigger lenses. Fortunately, Fujifilm doesn’t have an FX lens lineup they can use a crutch (I’m looking at you Nikon), so they’ve built appropriately-sized APS lenses. Still, that’s a bigger imaging circle than m4/3, which means somewhat bigger lenses at the same aperture size. No, I’m not going to get into another equivalency discussion here. From a pragmatic standpoint, most people are going to compare the size of a 70-200mm (equivalent) f/2.8 lens across systems. Yes, I’ll lose a stop of DOF isolation with m4/3 versus DX doing that, but I gain smaller size and weight.

The bonus is that the Fujifilm’s larger and X-Trans sensor means lower noise. Though it is X-Trans, and I still have issues with very low level color smear, especially with the usual suspects of raw converters.

So the problem is trying to balance the pluses and minuses for the type of shooting you’re doing.

Personally, I’d say this: if you’re mostly looking for small and light, consider the E-M1 first. If you’re mostly shooting in low light, consider the X-T1 first. Beyond that, the differences start to get pretty tough to decipher. You could be swayed one way or the other based upon something very specific to your needs.

I know that some are a little reluctant to buy into m4/3 because of Olympus’ continued losses in its camera group and what that might portend, but I have two responses to that. First, a camera as good as the E-M1 should last you a long time, and it’s already got a wide range of lenses that can be used with it. Second, no Japanese camera company (indeed electronics high tech company) is immune from what’s happening in the market these days. In some ways, Olympus is better off than Nikon, as cameras aren’t Olympus prime business and their prime business is very healthy and profitable. That’s not true of Nikon, where they are mostly reliant on how their camera business does. Just as the camera world changed very rapidly in the late 90’s and early 00’s, it’s likely to happen again, so there’s no “sure bet” nor is there a “bad bet.” Buy based upon what you need and what you want and what’s available today.

Recommended

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

I read all that but he list more than that . the problems that most would have
and sure if you want to go through the hassel of learning it , and want that
smaller size .but that doesent means he recommends it for every one . and he sure would not be recommending it to a first time user . or a new camera user as you do every time some one ask what camera should I get , it's almost like you have shares in there company . and Thom also says that company is in trouble . if they don't smarten up

jmw44 Loc: Princeton, NJ USA

My mistake. I did mistype. The D7100 is definitely heavier. Personally, I don't miss the articulated screen much and I don't find the little screen unreadable, I use it all the time (but then I got used to the one on the D200). For me the better quality of the photos is worth the upgrade to the D7100.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

D5100 images are the same as D7100? :?: :roll: :thumbdown:

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

Yes, but what a killer combo the D7100 with 18-300 is.

It's my "lightweight" backup to my D810 plus whatever.

I guess the whole weight thing is relative.

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

and the d90 is no different tell you get to the high iso , and then only if your blowing them above 16 x20 . but we keep buying . and there hasent been a change photos in the mag's for 50 years the photos then are just starting to be equals of the cameras of today . but only by the hi end stuff like the 36 Meg d800 , canon mk111 etc , wow pictures in popular photography , modern photograph , outdoor photogography etc . in 1965 . were better than most of
the stuff today , that is until the big guns come into play in the last year or two at most . what took them so long , could it be that it was all for seen, and they just milked the system all these years for what they could . come on when was the first digital introduced , late seventies , early eighties , what ever . the point is if it took that long to perfect penacillean . there would be a lot less people around . maybe some key camerea designers , who knows .