When I notice discussions on scanning, I offer the alternative off copying the slides with a camera. I too used a good slide scanner, but found that some images were not usable once examined with PP software. So I bought a used Nikon ES-2 slide copier, coupled it to my macro lens, and the outcome is far superior. I recovered slides that were almost black, with minimal loss of detail. Also, each and every slide, even if slightly bowed, is in sharp focus, which the scanner would not do. I would suggest you consider this alternative. I actually went back and re-digitized a bunch of slides that were just not acceptable using the scanner. Good luck with your decision. JimR

I have this lens and use it to shoot landscapes in the “portrait” orientation. It is great for getting dynamic foregrounds with the full background.

However, it is not so good for overall use. For example, if you want to get a close up of a feature on a neighboring mountain ridge, it is too wide to bring the subject in close. So I use it as a secondary one, along with my mid-range zoom lens.

I don’t photograph birds or wildlife, so I carry a telephoto zoom, but it is used only for certain things.

Bottom line is that your choice depends on what you intend to be doing.

Hope this helps.

JimR

Companies are bought and sold all the time. Volvo is still a Swedish car, but the company was bought by a Chinese company several years ago. I am not worried about the Olympus system I use, and I would concur that the OM D E 5 Mark ii, which you can get at a good price since there are newer versions, wold be good for your purpose. And I also agree about the 14-150mm lens (which is equivalent to aa 24 to 300 mm in FF format). You would have a weatherproof set. There is also another lens that might be suitable depending on your intent - a 12 to 40 mm f/2.8, also weatherproof. I got into Olympus for the same reason you are considering that line, and I am very pleased with the proven performance of my “system” which I got into in 2018. Good luck with your decision. JimR

Hi Keith. We did the river cruise in Europe just before COVID hit us. I used my Olympus system, but I’ll convert to standard full frame equivalent focal lengths. I kept a 24 mm to 300 mm lens on the camera almost all the time we were on the river boat. The longer reach was really helpful to get, for example, castles, or vineyards up the hillside a bit away from the river. Or even extreme close ups along the river bank. However, in the towns, I put on a 24 mm to 85 mm or so, because it was an f/2.8 lens and gave me more flexibility in handling light at various times of the day, since I could not pick and choose my times. The first lens would probably have worked “in town” nearly as well. But I do agree with another comment that you probably need more reach than what you currently have, unless you have enough resolution to crop later, at home, in post processing. Hope this helps. JimR

I watched the hour long video. The one outdoor lifestyle photographer was extremely pleased with how the lens was wide enough for her landscapes, but could also double as a near macro for her extreme closeups. And of course the fact that is an f/1.4. They basically were saying that with this lens mounted, you would not need to have your 25mm (50mm equiv) or 17 mm (35 mm equiv) lens with you any more. But there are disadvantages that would be important to some. One being the lack of a manual focus ring. This 20 mm Olympus lens is also the first one branded (stamped on it) as OM System. JimR

Hello again, Rob. Thank you for your comments on my photos of the Tokyo Tower. Sounds like your trip to Tokyo and other places in Asia was really memorable. Concerning the photos I shared here, that trip was just a week long business trip, and I found myself with a weekend day off. The photos you see that are overlooking Tokyo and the tower were taken from the Disney building near the American Embassy. That building has a rooftop Disney experience that was worth seeing in itself, but the best part was the views you could get from that rooftop. Again, on your end, great shots of the Eiffel Tower! JimR

Hi Rob. Really nice set. You might enjoy some similar approaches used when I visited Tokyo and shot some of the original Tokyo tower. The weather was not as cooperative as desired, but you can see that we had similar views. By the way, you will see both the “new” and original Tokyo tower. The one that resembles the Eiffel Tower is the original one. Best. JimR.

https://jimrphoto.weebly.com/destinations.html

I see at least one other UHHer has commented on announced future plans. There was an item in the most recent DP Review with a story about what’s happening with Olympus. That same story mentioned their upcoming new top of the line camera, also expected to continue the MFT system. I must say, I am extremely happy with my three Olympus camera bodies, and several lenses. I am not at all worried about them becoming obsolete. I still have and use all my Canon full frame gear, but the big advantage of Olympus is the small size (for portability and carrying), and also the great built in features. Too many for one person to use all of them, I sometimes think. JimR

I have bought from them several times, all used equipment. Everything was as stated, or even better than expected. Prices seem fair. They are prompt also. And if you call them, they are very helpful in providing information. JimR

As a long time Canon user (who has also had Nikon during film days), rather than switch to M4/3 I added a basic set of body and lenses for a European trip. I got the Olympus PEN-F with two lenses at first. Now I’m at the point where I have three Olympus bodies, and a small set of lenses, including two by Panasonic LUMIX. I am really pleased with the Olympus system and the features it has, in addition to the small size and weight. For example, I can carry two Olympus bodies and 5 lenses in one camera bag, but with my Canon full frame outfit, I need a big backpack. I hesitate to give up the Canon setup, but at this point if I had to choose one over the other (after several years of having both) I’d go with the Olympus system. Of course, each person is different with different needs. But my suggestion would be to try it out first before you decide. JimR

Thank you for sharing. It looks like it was a beautiful, and meaningful event for you all.

Really nice set, Paul. The last one is particularly beautiful. Thank you for posting.

Thank you minniev and ChrisKet. I just looked at my photos setting. At the bottom, I did have “keep originals” chosen. Also, all the slider switches above that, in the photos setting page, are slid to “off” so none of them is active. But as I say, I think somehow, the iPad program assumes I want to export to a cloud or send the file and is thus reducing the file size. The lesson learned for me is to never edit with the Apple software, as in about five years of my method of doing backups (onto the SanDisk stick using the iPad) never before have I seen this issue. Thanks again to all. JimR.

Hello Talborough. Normally, I transfer the images from the camera (by wire) to the iPad as an intermediate step. SanDisk makes a product that has a lightning connector on one side, and usb on the other. I then transfer all my photos to the SanDisk. That becomes my backup. When I get home to a computer, I upload all my trip’s photos, multi days, to the computer. NO LOSS of image size or quality at all. But this one time, in order to share some photos while away, I did edit on the iPad. As one of you points out, perhaps once those photos are saved on the iPad after editing, and then exported from the iPad to the computer, something in the Apple software reduces the size. This happens only for the edited photos. Thanks again to all. JimR

Thank you all for commenting. I think I might have not been clear as to why I even use the iPad to copy my photos onto. When I travel with my Canon system, every day I copy my photos onto the iPad. Then I use the SanDisk two sided device (lightning on one side, and USB on the other) and copy all the photos from the iPad onto the SanDisk. That is my backup, the SanDisk. USUALLY, I then delete all the photos from the iPad each day. This way, I don’t carry a computer around, and I have a backup for all my photos. I never use the cloud. It is not enabled. Maybe others of you do, but I do not. THIS ONE TIME, I decided to do some edits on the photos on the iPad, originally taken with the Canon 5Dii. It is not my imagination. The photos, once edited, are under 1 megabyte. The originals are 7 to 10 megabytes. So for some reason, it is not preposterous, as one of you thinks, but the editing on the iPad greatly reduced the file size of the photos. UNEDITED, the photos are original size. Once edited, they are greatly reduced in size. So far, I have not seen any reason for this. And once again, I am not at all interested in using the cloud for any purpose such as this. The one and only question is, why are the file sizes reduced when edited on the iPad. Thanks again for reading this, and I’m sorry if I was not clear from the outset. JimR