Thinking about moving to Olympus OMD-EM1 from 70D

AndrewSt

AndrewSt

Messages
1,261
Edit My Images
No
I currently have a 70D with 18-135stm and sigma 35mm 1.4 Art. I love this sigma but then whole system is still quite bulky. If i stay with the current system I probably want to add an 85mm prime and a 70-200 to complete the lens collection that I would use. Again, this is a fairly weighty system

Thinking about moving to the EM1 with 12-40 pro zoom, a couple of smaller primes for portraits and the 40-150 when it is released. The main reasons is weight and portability, I know the EM1 is not the smallest but a significant difference to the 70D kit.

Anyone done this or similar, any regrets?

My photography is mostly days out, travel, portraits. Occasional weddings et but not as a pro. I had thought about going FF and looking into doing some more professional work but I just dont know if that will happen.
 
Hi,

I have done something similar in terms of moving from a DSLR to Mirrorless.
Having just checked the price for the EM1 on camerapricebuster I am totally shocked how expensive it is for a M4/3 system :eek:

I bought a Sony A7 with the Zeiss 24-70mm and paid very similar money..... have you considered the Sony A7? :) Ok the AF Tracking might not be as quick as the EM1 but for me going FF was more important.

I don't miss my Nikon one bit as it was a very heavy bit of kit paired with the 17-55mm f2.8 lens, it was a good combo though.
It was just too big and heavy.
 
Last edited:
It the lens selection nd price of them that puts me off the sony. I want a good quality zoom for travel, landscape and general photography along with s decent short and long prime for portraits, that is going to cost a lot more with sony.

I can get a EM1 with 12-40 pro lens for about £1200 grey.
 
I have a sony a7r and a olympus e-m5. Totally different beasts! The olly is perfect for street, travel, candid portraits... anything that needs to be taken on the spur of the moment. The quality of the a7r files are much much better, I use it for landscapes, macro, portraits.
I got my e-m5 second hand quite cheaply with the 20mm panasonic and 45mm olympus. All I need really.
 
A7r with a 35mm and 55mm is going to push me way over budget, shame as it looks great. Hard to know what to do, I want the portability that the OMD has but don't want to loose picture quality compared to the 70D with my 35mm Sigma 1.4
 
This thread should help http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/help-me-move-to-m43-or-not.546437/
I don't think you would lose much if anything in comparison to your 70D. The 12-40 f/2.8 is class act and there is a myriad of quality lenses in the m4/3rd stable.
Both Olympus and Panasonic have quality primes at 25 mm or if if you feel a little inclined to fully manual then there is the stunning Voigtlander f/0.95
 
winsnick said:
The e-m1 has a better score in dynamic range and color depth compared to the 70d
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-versus-Canon-EOS-70D___909_895

M43 looses in low iso. The sony a7r is so much better in all three... But it has it's quirks too
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have thought that low ISO's are a problem. Even my first generation Panny G1 is excellent at low to medium ISO's and I only expect problems when using the higher ISO's.

Just my view on the cost... The Oly O-M5/1 are top end products with good quality lenses that are useable wide open and IMVHO it isn't really fair to compare the price with mid range DSLR's and what could be said to be rather ho-hum lenses. I suppose image quality wise you can compare a higher end MFT body with a mid range DSLR but the same could be said of mid range DSLR v higher end DSLR's, it's the additional spec and features of the higher end models that bump the price up.
 
Last edited:
The comparison with the e-m1 may not be fair, I agree. The e-m5 or e-m10 are close in iq to the e-m1 and can be a very good choice. As they are cheaper, it leaves more to spend on the important part: the lenses.
 
Well, Whilst I haven't replaced my Nikon full frame kit with M4/3, I've added it to compliment the Nikon's (at least that was the plan). Purchased a GX7, then a OMD-EM1 (with the free Olympus promotion Grip), and a few nice lenses (Panny 7-14 F4, Oly 12+40 F2.8 & Panny 35-100 F2.8 to name but three), and since getting into M4/3, I haven't used my Nikon kit once.

Does that mean it's better than or as good as a decent DSLR, well yes and no. For me at least, so long as the ISO is kept to 3200 or less, I'm not finding any real issues with noise, that a decent NR program can't handle, and certainly up to ISO 800-1600, very little if any noise reduction needs to be done. The burst rate, autofocus, build and specs of the EM1 (and GX7 for that matter) are superb, and easily a match for a mid or upper end APC-C DSLR. I haven't yet found a situation where I'd wished for my D800 or D3s. The Panny and Olympus lenses are absolute belters, and combined with the three I mentioned, the Olympus 45mm F1.8, 75mm F1.8 & 60mm F2.8 Macro, as well as the Panny 20 F1.7, 14mm F2.5 & The Panny / Leica 25mm F1.4 are all superb (I have them all except the 75mm and 25mm Leica.

What takes you by surprise no matter how many times you might hear it or read it, is how small and light a decent M4/3 kit is. My gripped OMD-EM1 with 7-14, 12-40, 35-100 & 100-300 kit weighs just over 2kg, where as my Gripped D800 with 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and 80-400 VR weighs in at over 6kg, and is about 4 times the size.

Where the DSLR's's do beat M4'3 in my opinion is in really low light (above 3200 ISO) as sheer physics dictate that the larger sensor sizes mean better low light performance (although until you reach full frame, the difference isn't quite as big as you might think). Also, continuous AF tracking on the best Canon & Nikon DSLR's still beat in my opinion the best that M43 has to offer. One other main area I think where the big boys beat Olympus and Panasonic is long lenses. Currently in the line up there's a 300 F2.8 from Olympus's 4/3 range (which can be used with a appropriate adapter), but it's rare as hens' teeth and a kings ransom in price, or a 50-200 (100-400 effective) Olympus 43 unit. Panasonic has only really the 100-300 (which I have), and in good light it's great, but in poor light, it's F5.6 aperture coupled with M4/3 average very high ISO performance, means that images can get noisy. Both Nikon & Canon have decent F4 telephoto units (300mm) and seriously good 300, 400 & 500mm F2.8 & F4 primes, all of which can be had less than the Olympus 300mm F2.8 new. To be fair, Olympus have announced a Pro 300mm F4 (600mm effective) for later this year, but no announcement on price.

the other thing which may affect some people is resolution. Whilst the image quality from M4/3 at low to medium ISO wrings the absolute best out of the sensor and quite often belies it's size, M4'/3 currently tops at 16mp (4:3 aspect ratio) and if like me you like to shoot in 3:2 aspect, that drops to 14mp. Now whilst I've still produced lovely landscapes with the EM1 and GX7, which would blow up to A3 and well beyond, there's no getting away from the fact that a 24mp or 36mp sensor (as my D800) captures an astonishing amount of details that the M4/3 simply can't (namely leaf and grass detail) in landscape scenes. But here's the rub, to get the very best out of these cameras (specially my D800), I have to use top of the line lenses (24-70, 14-24 etc), which are very pricey, as well as top notch camera techniques (tripod, mirror lock-up, cable release etc), where as the EM1 especially with it's brilliant Image Stabilisation, quite often allows me to shoot hand held without worries.

So in summary, unless you are a birder, shooting fast sports etc, I don't really thing M4'3 will hold your photography back, indeed quite the opposite as I've found myself always carrying an M4/3 body and a couple of lenses with me all the time, as they are so small and light, something I couldn't really say with my Nikon kit.

Obviously the above are purely my views and YMMV of course.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, lots to think about. I am mainly a travel, documentary style shooter who dabbles in landscapes and portraits. I think an EM1 pretty much covers those bases and is more portable than then the 70D. Now I need to see what I can get for my kit and see if I can do this without loosing loads of money.
 
Check out the e-m5 and e-m10 seriously before going for the e-m1. The differences are not that many...
 
Only had my E-M1 for less than a week and I'm getting better results than when I had my D700, D7100 and NEX-7.

The 12-40 is absolutely lovely (I need to learn to zoom in the opposite direction that I'm used to though!) and the 25mm 1.4 is perfect in low light - both focus in an instant.

The body fits my hand naturally and although small, has a reassuring weight to it with the controls where they should be.

Didn't try out the E-M5 or E-M10 but I would have required an additional hand grip for my preference (I use a Canon S95 with the Richard Franiec grip)
 
Don't dismiss the GH4 either. It isn't just a video camera and is capable of very good results. It may suit your hands better and the controls are more ergonomic IMHO.

I agree with Sootchucker - unless you are out on the edges of ISO or where DSLRs and their long lenses bring huge benefit, micro 4/3 is just as good as an SLR....
 
Any opinions on the EM1 for longer exposure landscape shots? I have read it was not great?

Just looking at the lens lineups:

Any suggestions on lenses to look at for an upcoming trip to Iceland (northern lights and landscapes) and the Canadian Rockeis (Landscapes and wildlife)? Obviously these are covered quite easily on a canon DSLR but the bulk is a significant issue when travelling.

All round zoom for travel, weddings, portraits - 12-40 seems about perfect? Not going to have the dof and low light capability of my Sigma 35mm 1.4 but a good range.

Portraits? - Seems to be that the 12-40 does a reasonable job but a 75mm 1.8 is the best option?
 
AndrewSt said:
All round zoom for travel, weddings, portraits - 12-40 seems about perfect? Not going to have the dof and low light capability of my Sigma 35mm 1.4 but a good range.

Portraits? - Seems to be that the 12-40 does a reasonable job but a 75mm 1.8 is the best option?
Click to expand...

I don't shoot wide angle very often - the 12-40 suffices for me with my E-M5. The 75mm f1.8 is a gem for portraits if you have the room but the 45mm f1.8 is remarkably good and much cheaper. The shallower DoF both offer is worth having if you already have the 12-40. I also like the Panasonic / Leica 25 f1.4 and used to use it a lot, but now I have the 12-40 it doesn't come out so often.

This was taken with the 45 at f1.8:


S5110283-Edit-Edit-Edit by balancer100, on Flickr

And this was with the 75 at f8ish


S4280716-WM by balancer100, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I upgraded from a compact to the E-M5 rather than downsizing. For me the choice was between m4/3 and FF; I couldn't see any good reason to consider a crop sensor. If I was buying now I'd definitely go for the E-M1 for the improved viewfinder. The differences in image quality are supposedly only in the in-camera jpeg processing.

The two downsides of the E-M5 and E-M1 are
  1. That the base ISO is 200 (though that's a conservative 200, it's nearer 100 by some measures), coupled with a lower diffraction limit. Sharpness can start to suffer at f11, depending on lens - though note that the DoF is deeper at f11 than it is with a larger sensor. The problem is that you may find you need an ND filter in bright conditions or under studio lights to maximise image quality.
  2. The depth of field is never going to be as wafer-thin as you'll get on a full frame sensor, if that's your thing. For me, though, f1.8 at 45mm is sufficiently shallow that getting both eyes in focus in a headshot can be a challenge so I rarely feel the need to open up more than that.
16 mega pixels is plenty for my needs - which occasionally includes printing up to 50cm x 70cm.
 
Excellent portraits. What sort of lighting did you use for those? I guess the 12-40 and the 45mm prime would make a good starting kit for travel and portraits, I could always add the 75mm at a later date.

Whats the best wide angle lens, bearing in mind a trip to the Canadian Rockies and to Iceland
 
AndrewSt said:
Excellent portraits. What sort of lighting did you use for those? I guess the 12-40 and the 45mm prime would make a good starting kit for travel and portraits, I could always add the 75mm at a later date.
Click to expand...

Thanks - the top image was overcast window light, the bottom one was two softboxes facing each other and feathered right off the model, plus a heavily flagged hair light.

You could also consider the 60mm f2.8 macro if small things excite you - it also makes a good portrait lens but I much prefer the background blurring and bokeh of the 75.

AndrewSt said:
Whats the best wide angle lens, bearing in mind a trip to the Canadian Rockies and to Iceland
Click to expand...

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/08/18/the-best-micro-43-lenses-reviewed-in-case-you-missed-them/ reviews what he thinks are the best m4/3 lenses. When I want wide angle - which isn't often - I stick with the 12-40 but the Oly 12mm is highly regarded. I doubt I'd notice the difference without pixel peeping, other than the fact that the 12-40 is relatively heavy for the m4/3 system.

It's worth noting that the 12-40 is weatherproofed but the 12mm isn't. The 12-40 needs a small grip on the E-M5 to balance it but is fine on the E-M1.

The 75 is great for both candid and posed portraits but it's a bit specialist and heavy so you're unlikely to want to take it travelling.
Note that there are some quality zooms either available or due soon which cover the 75mm range. I'm sticking with the 75, though.
The 45 focuses fairly close and makes a good impromptu macro lens with an extension tube or two.

I think your decision will come down to how lightweight and how wide an aperture you need.
Superlight: 12mm & 45mm.
Just lighter than a DSLR: 12-40.

There's a variety of wide angle zooms and telephotos too. Other than the cheap 40-150 I've not had enough experience of those to offer any advice though.
 
Sootchucker said:
Well, Whilst I haven't replaced my Nikon full frame kit with M4/3, I've added it to compliment the Nikon's (at least that was the plan). Purchased a GX7, then a OMD-EM1 (with the free Olympus promotion Grip), and a few nice lenses (Panny 7-14 F4, Oly 12+40 F2.8 & Panny 35-100 F2.8 to name but three), and since getting into M4/3, I haven't used my Nikon kit once.

Does that mean it's better than or as good as a decent DSLR, well yes and no. For me at least, so long as the ISO is kept to 3200 or less, I'm not finding any real issues with noise, that a decent NR program can't handle, and certainly up to ISO 800-1600, very little if any noise reduction needs to be done. The burst rate, autofocus, build and specs of the EM1 (and GX7 for that matter) are superb, and easily a match for a mid or upper end APC-C DSLR. I haven't yet found a situation where I'd wished for my D800 or D3s. The Panny and Olympus lenses are absolute belters, and combined with the three I mentioned, the Olympus 45mm F1.8, 75mm F1.8 & 60mm F2.8 Macro, as well as the Panny 20 F1.7, 14mm F2.5 & The Panny / Leica 25mm F1.4 are all superb (I have them all except the 75mm and 25mm Leica.

What takes you by surprise no matter how many times you might hear it or read it, is how small and light a decent M4/3 kit is. My gripped OMD-EM1 with 7-14, 12-40, 35-100 & 100-300 kit weighs just over 2kg, where as my Gripped D800 with 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and 80-400 VR weighs in at over 6kg, and is about 4 times the size.

Where the DSLR's's do beat M4'3 in my opinion is in really low light (above 3200 ISO) as sheer physics dictate that the larger sensor sizes mean better low light performance (although until you reach full frame, the difference isn't quite as big as you might think). Also, continuous AF tracking on the best Canon & Nikon DSLR's still beat in my opinion the best that M43 has to offer. One other main area I think where the big boys beat Olympus and Panasonic is long lenses. Currently in the line up there's a 300 F2.8 from Olympus's 4/3 range (which can be used with a appropriate adapter), but it's rare as hens' teeth and a kings ransom in price, or a 50-200 (100-400 effective) Olympus 43 unit. Panasonic has only really the 100-300 (which I have), and in good light it's great, but in poor light, it's F5.6 aperture coupled with M4/3 average very high ISO performance, means that images can get noisy. Both Nikon & Canon have decent F4 telephoto units (300mm) and seriously good 300, 400 & 500mm F2.8 & F4 primes, all of which can be had less than the Olympus 300mm F2.8 new. To be fair, Olympus have announced a Pro 300mm F4 (600mm effective) for later this year, but no announcement on price.

the other thing which may affect some people is resolution. Whilst the image quality from M4/3 at low to medium ISO wrings the absolute best out of the sensor and quite often belies it's size, M4'/3 currently tops at 16mp (4:3 aspect ratio) and if like me you like to shoot in 3:2 aspect, that drops to 14mp. Now whilst I've still produced lovely landscapes with the EM1 and GX7, which would blow up to A3 and well beyond, there's no getting away from the fact that a 24mp or 36mp sensor (as my D800) captures an astonishing amount of details that the M4/3 simply can't (namely leaf and grass detail) in landscape scenes. But here's the rub, to get the very best out of these cameras (specially my D800), I have to use top of the line lenses (24-70, 14-24 etc), which are very pricey, as well as top notch camera techniques (tripod, mirror lock-up, cable release etc), where as the EM1 especially with it's brilliant Image Stabilisation, quite often allows me to shoot hand held without worries.

So in summary, unless you are a birder, shooting fast sports etc, I don't really thing M4'3 will hold your photography back, indeed quite the opposite as I've found myself always carrying an M4/3 body and a couple of lenses with me all the time, as they are so small and light, something I couldn't really say with my Nikon kit.

Obviously the above are purely my views and YMMV of course.
Click to expand...

My experience mirrors Andrews.

I've said it in previous threads and I'll say it again, it's the nicest camera to use that I've ever owned and the E-M1/12-40mm combo is fantastic. Much like Andrew, the E-M1 gets more outings than the D800 now.
 
I have £450 waiting for your 70D :ty:
 
AndrewSt said:
A7r with a 35mm and 55mm is going to push me way over budget, shame as it looks great. Hard to know what to do, I want the portability that the OMD has but don't want to loose picture quality compared to the 70D with my 35mm Sigma 1.4
Click to expand...
If you use the viewfinder think about a new E-M10 or used E-M5 instead of the E-M1,
or if you use the LCD simply go for the e-pL5 : bargain!
Later buy the E-M1 or the VF-4 viewfinder.

AndrewSt said:
Any opinions on the EM1 for longer exposure landscape shots? I have read it was not great?
Click to expand...
For something like 60-second night exposures the older cheaper E-M5 was better : different sensor.
No big deal.
 
Ulfric M Douglas said:
For something like 60-second night exposures the older cheaper E-M5 was better : different sensor.
No big deal.
Click to expand...

You're right but I thought it was only true if the NR was turned off :thinking: ? Also, I thought they had tackled that with one of the firmware updates..........I may have imagined that bit though.
 
Gupster said:
You're right but I thought it was only true if the NR was turned off :thinking: ? Also, I thought they had tackled that with one of the firmware updates..........I may have imagined that bit though.
Click to expand...

Yes only with the NR turned off.
 
Considering this or a XT-1, also looks like an impressive camera. Not the lens line up of the Olympus yet but, looks good. Need to try and have a play with both.
 
I went from a 50D to an e-M5 too. I love the sheer portability of the Oly and just gets taken out so much more than the Canon would have done.

Picture quality is fantastic (using it mainly with the Panasonic 25mm).

Only gripe is that 4:3 isn't really a great aspect ratio and you end up having to crop. Fine if you run all your photos through lightroom etc. but if you just want an OoC jpeg then it's a pain.
 
JYC said:
Only gripe is that 4:3 isn't really a great aspect ratio ...
Click to expand...
You have got to be freaking joking!

Telly's are better than letterboxes ... old-style of course :p

Honestly I prefer 4:3 vastly over 3:2 as a ratio.
The significant change of ratio going from APS-C sensor to 4/3rds sensor means you really only lose out on a load of width and a smidgen of height.
If width is important just don't do it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top