mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

I too was a Nikon person. After lugging around all my gear through 9 national parks, I found I wasn't using what I brought because of the weight. I remembered a Nat Geo photographer talking about how he started using the OMD for his shoots. I traded in all my Nikon gear for the OMD Mark 5II. I am thrilled with my decision!!! The Mark 5 has a weatherproof body, dust sealed, 5 axis image stabilization and a host of other features. I paired it with a 14-150 II zoom, which is also dust, water, sealed. I've used it now for more than a year and love the quality of images, it's portability, everything. The fun is back. I've added a super zoom and a couple of fast primes since. The camera has a setting to produce a 60mp image and it will do a live composite image (it's the only camera that will do this). My whole kit weighs less than my beloved Nikon and just the 70-200 f4.

If you do go this route, be sure to get Mastering the Olympus OMD Mark 5 II and really read it. The capabilities of this camera are vast! I'm still discovering new functions.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

I remember that Maitani was all about creating a smaller, lighter full line SLR system back in the 80s. And Zuiko lenses always tested very well. My main question would be with the smaller sensor size and what that does to low-light gathering ability and resolution at larger print/projection sizes. I use Nikon FF and to cut down on size and weight, I bought a Nikon Df which is FF but only 10oz heavier than a OM-D E-M5 Mark II (wow, there's a mouthful). Same 16Mps as the Oly and uses all my Nikon glass.

RowYourVold

If you're coming from FF I'd imagine you will notice a significant change in the high ISO shots (I've never shot full frame) but having come from Nikon APS-C with a D3300 to now having an Oly EM10 Mark II, I actually tend to like the Oly shots better than the Nikon shots in the ISO 3200-6400 range. Not because of noise, which is prevalent on both, but because the Oly seems to retain better colors and *much* better white balance when really pushed. This is consistent across RAW and JPG from what I've seen.

Sometimes I miss the pure image quality of an outdoors ISO-100 detailed shot with the nice 24mp sensor on the Nikon, but since having a baby most of my shots are now indoors in low to terrible light, and I've been pleasantly surprised by how usable the Oly files are. In terms of printing, I recently shot an engagement session and the couple had printed 16 x 20 photos for the wedding that I attended, and everyone loved the pictures. Were they the absolute sharpest at that size, suitable for a gallery? Probably not. But they got the job done, which is enough for what I do.

Final note: depending on your subjects, the in-body stabilization is the real deal. I regularly take crisp 1/2 second exposures on a 50mm equivalent (25mm native) lens when the baby is asleep. At that level, unless you always have your tripod handy, you may even be matching or beating what you'd get from the FF in such a dark scenario.

taxman Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

Picked up an EM-10 MkII a year ago & love it. Have and still use a Canon 7D, but seem to be migrating toward the Oly. Very nice camera!

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

I am currently a Nikon digital user but have been an Olympus fan since the 70s-90s for the film SLR series OM-2n/2S/4T - love those cameras. I recently handled an OM-D OM-1 mk ii in the store...very reminiscent of the original OM series but my impressions are:

Pros:
feels great in the hand (however not the same feel in the lower models -5 -10 - those models should have a deeper grip too)
intuitive controls
very fast and responsive, quieter
lightweight, even with a "long" lens
IBIS
can use other lenses/brands including the older OM ZUIKO series (I still have a couple of those!) with some limitations.

Cons:
EVF very distracting (I guess there is a way to limit this in the menus)
M43 - sorry I am kind of biased against the M43 format - limited with upper ISO range, MPs - tops out at 20 MP or so, etc.

I know the reasons Oly went with the M43 format as it's been hashed to death before but I think they should have still developed a FF format after all there original OM film series were all "full frame" except for the half frame Pen series (so they should have went with APS-C too).

Chris

photocat Loc: Atlanta, Ga

The Nikon I was using before I switched was a ff d700 with only high end glass

I have several images taken with an omdem1 at 3200 ISO with no noticeable notice even at 16x20 print
Which was the straw that made the decision to sell all that equipment and switch to Olympus. At that time the basic draw back was shooting fast action sports as the Nikon was superior in that area but I understand
The newer model is much better in that area

No the

joegim Loc: Long Island, NY

Tinkwmobile

I have an OM-D, graduated from the first digital Olympus.

The advantages have been pointed out by several contributors. My version has a higher burst rate, useful shooting sports.

Changing some of the shooting options takes some getting used to, but basic shutter, ISO and fstop are very easy. I like the options like scene and art, provides for some "interesting" pictures.