OUT: DSLR // IN: Micro 4/3

[dryanparker]

I'm trying to find a reason NOT to do this:

Sell: 5D2, TS-E 24/3.5L II, 24-105/4L, 40/2.8
Buy: Oly OM-D, Oly 12/2, Pan/Leica 25/1.4, Oly 75/1.8

Size, weight, price and general flexibility seem to outweigh the advantages of an all-out DSLR system. I'm finding you have to dig pretty deep to find significant differences in IQ in practical use. Has anyone made this kind of change?

Qualifier: I'm not a full-time pro. I don't make my living in photography. It's only a small part of my job, but it's a huge part of my life. I shoot for the enjoyment of shooting: typically landscapes, nature, travel and cityscapes.

 

[1DSLR]

I'm trying to find a reason NOT to do this:

Sell: 5D2, TS-E 24/3.5L II, ... typically landscapes, nature, travel and cityscapes.

Do you use the tilt and/or shift on this lens? If so, you might miss having those options.

 

[quartzie]

matter of priorities.

If you like the feel and operation of m4/3, go ahead, but I prefer the full frame IQ and DOF. I wonder why did you own a TS-E if you are not going to miss it.

Also - if you shoot anything that moves fast, mirrorless is still NOT the way to go.

If the key limiting factor for you is weight and size of your gear, then you might actually win by going small.

 

[LostArk]

If high ISO image quality, autofocus, frame rate, or bokeh don't matter to you, go ahead and switch. Personally I don't see it as an either-or decision. If photography is a huge part of your life as you claim, I question how you could even consider getting rid of the TS-E 24 II under any circumstances? Sell your 24-105 and 40 2.8, pick up a 50 1.8 and put the rest toward your mirrorless kit.

PS - Wait till after photokina to buy anything.

 

[dr croubie]

Buy: Oly OM-D, Oly 12/2, Pan/Leica 25/1.4, Oly 75/1.8

Don't forget to take crop-factor into account, for aperture as well; in effect you're getting a 24mm f/4.0, 50mm f/2.8, 150mm f/3.6.
If you want wider, there's always the Sigma 8-16 (i've got one that balances perfectly on my 7D, on a µ4/3 it's going to dwarf the camera). And longer is never a problem.
But if you want faster lenses for thin DOF, you're probably out of luck without going to a Lecia M 50/0.95 (which on µ4/3 is going to give you an FF-equivalent 100mm f/1.8).

But then, seeing as you don't have anything particularly fast or wide, you won't miss it much. You can probably get adapters to mount the ts-e on µ4/3 if you want (not sure about making the aperture work though). Or if you really want to carry over the ts-e capability, get an adapter from Zörk or Mirex, even a Lensbaby Tilt-Transformer and a nikon lens will do you good...

 

[elflord]

I'm trying to find a reason NOT to do this:

Sell: 5D2, TS-E 24/3.5L II, 24-105/4L, 40/2.8
Buy: Oly OM-D, Oly 12/2, Pan/Leica 25/1.4, Oly 75/1.8

Size, weight, price and general flexibility seem to outweigh the advantages of an all-out DSLR system. I'm finding you have to dig pretty deep to find significant differences in IQ in practical use. Has anyone made this kind of change?

I have both a 5DII and an m43 (Panasonic GF2). But my 5DII glass includes 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/2. There isn't any equivalent on m43. The GF2 (with the 20mm f/1.7, Olympus 45mm f/1.8 and occasionally an adapted canon 50mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/2) is a nice compact camera (and movie mode works very nicely on it)

However, ISO can't really be cranked up high, AF isn't as fast, doesn't feel as snappy over all, the built in flash is nice but doesn't compare to the 430EX I use on the 5DII. The glass is nice (and I can adapt my canon lenses) but the FF sensor really takes it up a level.

Much like the advice I give on Canon bodies, I'd recommend against buying the atest and greatest m43. They seem to run on very short product life cycles, so you can buy an older model for peanuts (and then buy the OM-D for peanuts a year from now).

Same applies though to a lesser extent to the m43 glass -- the brand new lenses tend to sell at a premium because there are always a handful of people who are prepared to eat a $100 or so premium for the shiniest toy. If you're interested in dabbling in m43, my advice would be to pick up an older body and don't get sucked into buying the just released lenses yet.

 

[PixelReaper]

I'm trying to find a reason NOT to do this:

Sell: 5D2, TS-E 24/3.5L II, 24-105/4L, 40/2.8
Buy: Oly OM-D, Oly 12/2, Pan/Leica 25/1.4, Oly 75/1.8

Size, weight, price and general flexibility seem to outweigh the advantages of an all-out DSLR system. I'm finding you have to dig pretty deep to find significant differences in IQ in practical use. Has anyone made this kind of change?

I have both a 5DII and an m43 (Panasonic GF2). But my 5DII glass includes 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/2. There isn't any equivalent on m43. The GF2 (with the 20mm f/1.7, Olympus 45mm f/1.8 and occasionally an adapted canon 50mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/2) is a nice compact camera (and movie mode works very nicely on it)

However, ISO can't really be cranked up high, AF isn't as fast, doesn't feel as snappy over all, the built in flash is nice but doesn't compare to the 430EX I use on the 5DII. The glass is nice (and I can adapt my canon lenses) but the FF sensor really takes it up a level.

Much like the advice I give on Canon bodies, I'd recommend against buying the atest and greatest m43. They seem to run on very short product life cycles, so you can buy an older model for peanuts (and then buy the OM-D for peanuts a year from now).

Same applies though to a lesser extent to the m43 glass -- the brand new lenses tend to sell at a premium because there are always a handful of people who are prepared to eat a $100 or so premium for the shiniest toy. If you're interested in dabbling in m43, my advice would be to pick up an older body and don't get sucked into buying the just released lenses yet.

I have to disagree elflord on this one.

I own both the 5D II w/ 35 L, 24-105L and my baby the 70-200 II and the OM-D E-M5 (25 1.4, 12-35 2.8 and 45 1.8 ). The only comprable M43rd camera would be the GH2 and only in Video. The OMD is a better stills camera than the GH2 by a mile

Regarding AF speed and accuracy, the OM-D easily bests the 5D II for single exposures, but it does lack in focus tracking/servo performance.

As far as the glass is concerned, the higher end lenses are cheaper than L glass, rightfully so given their proportions. The glass is just as sharp though, and the optics are much easier to produce given the smaller sensor. The M43 Glass (specifically the Pani Leica 25 1.4 and the 12-35 2.8, and i expect the Oly 75 1.8 ) is easily comparable to the 35 L (which I own) and the 24-70 L mark I. In fact I would say that at wide open apertures, the 25 is considerably sharper than the 35 L. Also the DOF on M43 at 25mm 1.4 is still very shallow, and I would say more usable than a 50mm 1.4 on a FF camera (m43rd crop factor is 2x)

ISO is almost as good as 5D II, very comfortable shooting at 1600 and 3200 in a pinch. The biggest change with the OM-D is the RAW file quality is awesome. so much headroom for highlight / lowlight recover and better dynamic range than the 5D II.


The 5D is still better for large print pixel peeping and m43 still does not have a native 70-200 L Mark II equivalent (soon to be released 35-100x2.8 ), but I find my 5D spending a lot of time on the shelf these days.

I would also say the IQ on the OM-D is easily usable for professional use outside of large scale printing.

I do agree though it is probably worth waiting for Photokina

 

[PixelReaper]

I'm trying to find a reason NOT to do this:

Sell: 5D2, TS-E 24/3.5L II, ... typically landscapes, nature, travel and cityscapes.

Do you use the tilt and/or shift on this lens? If so, you might miss having those options.

A good point 1DSLR, but I hear Schnieder is working on a tilt shift for m43

 

[dr croubie]

A good point 1DSLR, but I hear Schnieder is working on a tilt shift for m43

Well, they do exist already:
Arax 35/2.8

Or just put M42 lenses T/S on u4/3, Nikon lenses T/S on u4/3, or tilt-only.

 

[Tim Larsen]

Have you looked through the viewfinder?

Uff, I hated the tiny viewfinder of the Oly.

 

[dryanparker]

DEFINITELY waiting for Photokina before doing anything, btw. Just kicking the idea around. I will say I do like the prospects of making the move.

I'd definitely miss the TS-E 24L, as it's a miracle of engineering, but it's really not enough to keep me from switching things up a bit. I like the idea of shooting MORE. And I think that happens with a change like this.

 

[dryanparker]

Have you looked through the viewfinder?

Uff, I hated the tiny viewfinder of the Oly.

Agreed. Not a fan. Rumblings of a "pro-grade" M4/3 body at Photokina. Pretty interested to see how that goes.

 

[dryanparker]

If high ISO image quality, autofocus, frame rate, or bokeh don't matter to you, go ahead and switch. Personally I don't see it as an either-or decision. If photography is a huge part of your life as you claim, I question how you could even consider getting rid of the TS-E 24 II under any circumstances? Sell your 24-105 and 40 2.8, pick up a 50 1.8 and put the rest toward your mirrorless kit.

PS - Wait till after photokina to buy anything.

Let's not be a hater. It's not an unreasonable move. And I'm afraid I won't be buying any cheap toy lenses any time soon. Appreciate the recommendation though.

 

[cliffwang]

I'm trying to find a reason NOT to do this:

Sell: 5D2, TS-E 24/3.5L II, 24-105/4L, 40/2.8
Buy: Oly OM-D, Oly 12/2, Pan/Leica 25/1.4, Oly 75/1.8

Size, weight, price and general flexibility seem to outweigh the advantages of an all-out DSLR system. I'm finding you have to dig pretty deep to find significant differences in IQ in practical use. Has anyone made this kind of change?

Qualifier: I'm not a full-time pro. I don't make my living in photography. It's only a small part of my job, but it's a huge part of my life. I shoot for the enjoyment of shooting: typically landscapes, nature, travel and cityscapes.

I have 5D2 and also want to get a M43 camera for my wife. My wife always complains the 5D2 is too heavy and difficult to use for her. I think I will just keep my 5D2 and get a good M43 camera for her. I know the IQ of current M43 cameras are very good. However, I just don't want to miss my 70-200mm MK2 and coming Tamron 24-70mm.

 

[Shizam]

If high ISO image quality, autofocus, frame rate, or bokeh don't matter to you, go ahead and switch. Personally I don't see it as an either-or decision. If photography is a huge part of your life as you claim, I question how you could even consider getting rid of the TS-E 24 II under any circumstances? Sell your 24-105 and 40 2.8, pick up a 50 1.8 and put the rest toward your mirrorless kit.

PS - Wait till after photokina to buy anything.

Let's not be a hater. It's not an unreasonable move. And I'm afraid I won't be buying any cheap toy lenses any time soon. Appreciate the recommendation though.

Long time reader, first time poster, I registered just so I could reply to this thread. 100% agree with LostArk, the 'reason NOT to do this' is you want quality over convenience especially given the gear you have, the entire cost:benefit analysis chart would be quantitative quality in pretty much every way on the DSLR side and size/price on the m43 side, especially as somebody who owns a TSE lens. I'm not saying its wrong to want convenience, I just don't want you convincing yourself you're not going to miss something.

As hyperbolic as it sounds it seems pretty black and white, anybody who says otherwise is wearing a blue polo shirt that says BestBuy.

Sam

 

[Hillsilly]

I picked up a micro 4/3 camera a while back (an older EPL-1). I thought it would be the be-all and end-all. Sadly, while I like it a lot, I just use it occassionally. Ultimately, I've found the image quality just isn't quite as good. Its not bad, just not excellent. I know the OM-D is better than the EPL-1, but I'd still suggest taking baby steps. Buy the OM-D before selling the 5Dii just to make sure you are 100% happy. Plus, there's no reason you can't have two cameras. Your Canon lenses will work fine on both cameras (obviously without AF, but not a problem with the tilt shift). The OM-D is one feature packed little camera. I wish Canon noticed it when designing the EF-M.

 

[elflord]

I have to disagree elflord on this one.

I own both the 5D II w/ 35 L, 24-105L and my baby the 70-200 II and the OM-D E-M5 (25 1.4, 12-35 2.8 and 45 1.8 ). The only comprable M43rd camera would be the GH2 and only in Video. The OMD is a better stills camera than the GH2 by a mile

My comments were about the GF2 (which I have). I'm have not used the OM-D. Reviews look promising, but until I see the DxO numbers, I'm a bit skeptical about claims of its performance at high ISO.

It doesn't surprise me that AF is more accurate -- contrast detect is typically more accurate than phase detect (though seldom as fast)

Regarding depreciation of these m43 bodies -- the EP3 which is only about a year old sells for about $400 used these days (less than half its price at launch). The 5DII which is about 4 years old sells for well over half its launch price.

Unless Olympus commit a marketing faux pas and fail to release a successor to the OM-D, the OM-D will join the EP3 in the bargain bins in a year or so. Not because it's a bad camera, but because Olympus's products have very short product cycles. That's not a reason to avoid the OM-D -- it's a reason to wait a little bit until the demand cools off a bit. It's still back-ordered now.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'm trying to find a reason NOT to do this:

Sell: 5D2, TS-E 24/3.5L II, 24-105/4L, 40/2.8
Buy: Oly OM-D, Oly 12/2, Pan/Leica 25/1.4, Oly 75/1.8

Size, weight, price and general flexibility seem to outweigh the advantages of an all-out DSLR system. I'm finding you have to dig pretty deep to find significant differences in IQ in practical use. Has anyone made this kind of change?

Qualifier: I'm not a full-time pro. I don't make my living in photography. It's only a small part of my job, but it's a huge part of my life. I shoot for the enjoyment of shooting: typically landscapes, nature, travel and cityscapes.

My view is simple. There are many camera offerings because different photographers value different things. I think that having broad choices is good.
Do what works for you, and don't worry about what others are doing, they have their reasons and once again, they should do what works for them.

 

[Aglet]

I'm a gear collector more than I like, and I tend to buy the next camera before parting with my previous, if at all.

I agree with what LostArk said; liquidate the 24-105 if you need to fund the 4/3 system, it'll almost pay for the OM D5. If you don't like the 4/3 after all, you may have a bit of a loss selling the thing but you can buy back another 24-105 for about you'd have sold yours for.

I agree with PixelReaper too, the OMD5 is getting really good reviews on its IQ and may be exceeding the performance of the 5D2 at lower ISO by a noticeable amount. (not all that hard to do, IMO)
I've read that it's raw IQ is comparable to, and may be even a little better for low ISO noise, than Nikon's D7000 which is pretty impressive and far ahead of Canon's anything.

I love the way the OMD5 fits in my hand w the optional grip and extra battery attached. I'd like to shoot with it, it just feels inspiring to me.
I'll wait until DxOmark's test results for it are published as I didn't get to record any files from the pre-production demo unit I played with back in spring. That could be in September or October. And that'll be after Photokina so I should have good info to work with regarding whether I'll step into the 4/3 system as well. I could fund one by selling off some low end Canon gear I rarely use.

I think the OMD5 is the first 4/3 body to really fulfill most customers' expectations of what that system should be able to achieve. Any Oly' may bring out something even better soon so worth keeping an eye on them.

If some good T&S wide glass comes along for 4/3 then I'm sure you'll enjoy using it more than the beastly EOS gear. You're not likely to miss the marginal difference in DoF for the majority of your shooting either.

 

[PixelReaper]

If some good T&S wide glass comes along for 4/3 then I'm sure you'll enjoy using it more than the beastly EOS gear. You're not likely to miss the marginal difference in DoF for the majority of your shooting either.

+1 on not missing depth of field in most shooting. At 1.4 or 1.8, the best M43 glass is as sharp as the canon glass at f2 and the depth of field is actually more usable