Reading mode: Light Dark

Switching from full-frame DSLR to E-M1 II? Regrets?

Go to last post
J

Jim Lee

Senior Member
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
31
Location
IA, US
Has anyone here switched from a full-frame camera system to micro four-thirds? If so, have you had any regrets?


I'm a professional newspaper photographer, and I love my Canon system. But I turn 52 in a few weeks and I have bad arthritis in my back and knees. I love the results I get with my f/2.8 lenses, especially my 300/2.8, but the past few years my arthritis has gotten really bad and I would really like to find a lighter system.

I am really attracted to the Olympus OM-D E-M1 II camera and the Olympus Pro lenses. I've been reading lots of reviews, mostly good, some bad, and have tried the camera in the store. I know I would be giving up some shallow depth of field control, and sacrificing some high ISO quality. But overall it appears to be a good system.


Has anyone here also made the switch from a full-frame DSLR to a micro four-thirds camera? If so, I would like to hear feedback on your experiences and how you feel about the new system. And if anyone has samples of indoor or night sports shot with an Olympus, I'd love to see some more samples from real world experience.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
There are plenty of reviews and photos available online, here on dpr and elsewhere. Why do you need more?

And if you are a professional newspaper photographer, you should know better than most here on the forum if E-M1 ll is good enough for you.

But the short answer is yes, m4/3 system is good enough for a newspaper photographer.
 
Okapi001 said:
There are plenty of reviews and photos available online, here on dpr and elsewhere. Why do you need more?
Click to expand...
Yes, there are lots of online reviews. And many of the reviews are written by photographers who are sponsored by Olympus or don't want to ruffle feathers and risk loosing ad revenue. I'd like to hear more feedback from real world users who are in the same situation as I am.

 
I've shot full frame in the past. At low ISO, I honestly think (partly because I've seen techradars graphs) that m43 keeps up with Canon 5Diii level full frame. It helps that the lenses are excellent.

Focusing speed is now very good by my standards, but I'm not a sports shooter.

High ISO work - a lot depends on the aperture you can use. If you were shooting with a 2.8 for focus but stopping it down to f4 or 5.6 to get adequate dof and you can now shoot open at 2.8 - and a lot of mirrorless lenses are designed to shoot well open - then you may have equal apparent image quality at sane sizes.

..But this gets very specific and dependent! I think you really have to try for yourself to get any further. So have two suggestions -

1. Buy a GX85 body (because https://blog.mingthein.com/2017/06/25/the-un-camera-camera/) and carry it with an everyday lens. A 25mm or a used 12-40 pro zoom, kit zoom, whatever.

2. Rent an EM1.2 and lenses and test drive them. Lensrentals has some gear - not a great choice, but you should be able to extrapolate from what they have

..Then if that goes well, buy from a place with a strong return policy. Manage your risk, but try something because your health is at stake!
 
Jim Lee said:
I'm a professional newspaper photographer
Click to expand...
A little warning about E-M1 II. It takes ages to power on (or wake up) and be ready to shoot. At least compared to my little GM5 (which can take a shot a just a small fraction of a second after I flip the switch). I imagine this might be a big issue for photojournalistic kind of use. It is very annoying to an amateur like me and cost me a few shots here and there. If I were a pro, that would be a deal breaker to me. I imagine there is nothing worse than looking at the event you want to capture and not being able to because the camera does god only knows what and will simply not take a shot.
 
When I hit 70 (and as a result of various incremental bits of decrepitude) I switched in stages from canon 5Dmk2 + 7Dmk2 with various long L lenses to the EM series. 5Dmk2 went first and by the time I got to the EM-1 I had traded my 7Dmk2 but then I panicked and got another (worried about lack of birding /sport potential)

Now the EM-1 mk2 has arrived I have finally got rid of all my canon bodies and L lenses and couldn't be happier

Current kit: EM-1 + EM-1 mk2, the mk2 mostly used with the PL100-400 for all my birding / sport work and the EM-1 with my 12-100 for travel and walk-about use, (I gave various other lenses like the 60mm macro)

By doing it in stages I was sure that the EM's could do what I wanted and my body has thanked me by beginning to work a bit more easily :)
 
umptious said:
1. Buy a GX85 body (because https://blog.mingthein.com/2017/06/25/the-un-camera-camera/) and carry it with an everyday lens. A 25mm or a used 12-40 pro zoom, kit zoom, whatever.

2. Rent an EM1.2 and lenses and test drive them. Lensrentals has some gear - not a great choice, but you should be able to extrapolate from what they have

..Then if that goes well, buy from a place with a strong return policy. Manage your risk, but try something because your health is at stake!
Click to expand...
If the 85 doesn't go well for you, you should only be out a tiny amount of cash - especially if you buy a used or refurb body. Then you're only risking a couple of hundred bucks on rental. Cheap compared to medical costs or lost income due to disability.

..I take your point about Internet reports, but forums are often even worse. Some people suffer will to believe, and other times ideas about acceptable performance differ too much.
 
Starting to get some really good feedback. It's greatly appreciated. I tried out an E-M1 II in a camera store a few weeks ago and almost bought one right then because I was so impressed with it and the lenses. But since this is my career, I don't want to make any rash decisions.

I'm going to make sure I test one out before I make the switch, and I'm glad done of you are pointing out downfalls I need to look at. I'm willing to make some sacrifices to get a lighter system. I just hope to avoid any unpleasant surprises that would be a deal breaker.
 
Jim Lee said:
Has anyone here switched from a full-frame camera system to micro four-thirds? If so, have you had any regrets?

I'm a professional newspaper photographer, and I love my Canon system. But I turn 52 in a few weeks and I have bad arthritis in my back and knees. I love the results I get with my f/2.8 lenses, especially my 300/2.8, but the past few years my arthritis has gotten really bad and I would really like to find a lighter system.

I am really attracted to the Olympus OM-D E-M1 II camera and the Olympus Pro lenses. I've been reading lots of reviews, mostly good, some bad, and have tried the camera in the store. I know I would be giving up some shallow depth of field control, and sacrificing some high ISO quality. But overall it appears to be a good system.

Has anyone here also made the switch from a full-frame DSLR to a micro four-thirds camera? If so, I would like to hear feedback on your experiences and how you feel about the new system. And if anyone has samples of indoor or night sports shot with an Olympus, I'd love to see some more samples from real world experience.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Just a few minutes ago I found this article written by one of Sweden´s better known nature photogs, Claes Grundsten, about his latest "friend", the E-M1 mk2 and a bunch of (predominantly) PRO Oly glass. "Half a year in nature with the E-M1 mk2"


Maybe you can dechiffre enough of his writings with Gooogle translate...(?)

If not, his images aren´t that bad ;-) (albeit they are, in this article, not published at very hi res)

In short, he has used next o all formats, mostly FF and some APS-C, only to now find the Oly system do very good for his needs, both photographically and useability wise

Hi states among his reasons for going m4/3:

Less weight, more and longer foot hikes possible, making it easier to get more and better photos. Especially do he promote the, in his words, fantastic image stabilisation, using it for large DOF and yet great handholdability. Also he likes the manual focus solutions of the PRO lenses, and more.

(The site where this blog is published, is also the site working with Hasselblad for the making and publication of a large number of lens (MTF)tests. Back in time they were published in the magazine "FOTO", and after that have gone down one of "FOTO"´s journalists run this site, "objektivtest.se" and keeps going with those tests).
 
...if not perfect...some wordings did come through a bit strange. Hope you will yet benefit from the read..

And, of course a nature photog may have quite different needs and wants than a photojournalist has. Anyway I think this little story has its points which many more who not dominantly shoot nature would appreciate.

From what I know, Claes G. is not commercially bound to any camera manufacturer, by the way. If I do find he is, I could update such info.

--
Aim & Frame ;-)
 
Last edited:
revio said:
...if not perfect...some wordings did come through a bit strange. Hope you will yet benefit from the read..

And, of course a nature photog may have quite different needs and wants than a photojournalist has. Anyway I think this little story has its points which many more who not dominantly shoot nature would appreciate.

From what I know, Claes G. is not commercially bound to any camera manufacturer, by the way. If I do find he is, I could update such info.
Click to expand...
 
m.youtube.com

David Thorpe

The main part of my channel is the Photography Playlist. I have a special interest in Micro Four Thirds system cameras, lenses and accessories because I find their particular blend of size, weight and image quality ideally suited to my needs. I have a wide experience of the system now and this...
m.youtube.com m.youtube.com

Jim:

Would Suggest you go to this link and watch the YouTube reviews by David Thorp on both the E-M1ii and the GH5. I own Oly (have had on and off since the original E-1 (currently have an E-M1 Mark 1 and going to move to a next gen model soon. Now that more assessments are starting to come out on the GH5 you would be doing yourself a service by considering both .

The strides Panasonic has made in the Stills end appear dramatic, and their handling/controls features are significantly different from the Oly. All of this is subjective and one size does not fit all. But since you are not married to either Oly or Panasonic - IMHO - you should check both out before you invest.

I've considered moving to FF Sony, Fuji (have an X-T1) but the lens selections and lens size/weight are a challenge - I'm getting older and dragging around heavy lenses just has lost it's appeal - to me.

Hope this is helpful and enjoy your choice!

Bob
 
Jim Lee said:
Has anyone here switched from a full-frame camera system to micro four-thirds? If so, have you had any regrets?

I'm a professional newspaper photographer, and I love my Canon system. But I turn 52 in a few weeks and I have bad arthritis in my back and knees. I love the results I get with my f/2.8 lenses, especially my 300/2.8, but the past few years my arthritis has gotten really bad and I would really like to find a lighter system.

I am really attracted to the Olympus OM-D E-M1 II camera and the Olympus Pro lenses. I've been reading lots of reviews, mostly good, some bad, and have tried the camera in the store. I know I would be giving up some shallow depth of field control, and sacrificing some high ISO quality. But overall it appears to be a good system.

Has anyone here also made the switch from a full-frame DSLR to a micro four-thirds camera? If so, I would like to hear feedback on your experiences and how you feel about the new system. And if anyone has samples of indoor or night sports shot with an Olympus, I'd love to see some more samples from real world experience.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
I've been slowly switching from Nikon full frame to M43 over past two years, where this year greater than 90% of my 2017 events-sports were done with M43, most with E-M1 Mk II. I don't do any paid work, but I do shot for quite a few charities, mostly with the American Cancer Society. I also do events and sports for a local Christian grammar school. You decide if the following two links to grammar school basketball game with exception of team photos using the E-M1 MK II with various Panasonic lenses, mostly 35-1002.8 meets your criteria. I also used 25/1.4, 42.5/1.2 and 40-150/2.8.

www.brianric.com

2017 ACA Boys Basketball - brianric

Brian Richards Photo Shoots
www.brianric.com www.brianric.com

www.brianric.com

2017 ACA Girls Basketball - brianric

Brian Richards Photo Shoots
www.brianric.com www.brianric.com
 
Astrotripper said:
Jim Lee said:
I'm a professional newspaper photographer
Click to expand...
A little warning about E-M1 II. It takes ages to power on (or wake up) and be ready to shoot. At least compared to my little GM5 (which can take a shot a just a small fraction of a second after I flip the switch). I imagine this might be a big issue for photojournalistic kind of use. It is very annoying to an amateur like me and cost me a few shots here and there. If I were a pro, that would be a deal breaker to me. I imagine there is nothing worse than looking at the event you want to capture and not being able to because the camera does god only knows what and will simply not take a shot.
Click to expand...
In cases like that I just leave the camera on and carry extra batteries. I can go 2.5 to 3 hours with the camera continuously on. Get the grip and you can double your on time.
 
Does the GH5 come on faster? And is there really any difference when it comes to stills? For that matter, might the GX8 be worth considering?
 
brianric said:
I've been slowly switching from Nikon full frame to M43 over past two years, where this year greater than 90% of my 2017 events-sports were done with M43, most with E-M1 Mk II. I don't do any paid work, but I do shot for quite a few charities, mostly with the American Cancer Society. I also do events and sports for a local Christian grammar school. You decide if the following two links to grammar school basketball game with exception of team photos using the E-M1 MK II with various Panasonic lenses, mostly 35-1002.8 meets your criteria. I also used 25/1.4, 42.5/1.2 and 40-150/2.8.

http://www.brianric.com/Ambassador-Christian-Academy/2017-ACA-Events/2017-ACA-Boys-Basketball/

http://www.brianric.com/Ambassador-Christian-Academy/2017-ACA-Events/2017-ACA-Girls-Basketball/
Click to expand...
Thanks for the links. You stuff looks pretty good, but it does make me wonder if the increased depth of field would fit my shooting style. It's hard to get a nice background blur when using a shot lens on the baseline, and my work is far from perfect. But it makes me wonder if I would be able to adapt to it for sports.

Here's some links to a few sports photo galleries from this past year if you want to see how I shoot:



 
Jim Lee said:
Has anyone here switched from a full-frame camera system to micro four-thirds? If so, have you had any regrets?

I'm a professional newspaper photographer, and I love my Canon system. But I turn 52 in a few weeks and I have bad arthritis in my back and knees. I love the results I get with my f/2.8 lenses, especially my 300/2.8, but the past few years my arthritis has gotten really bad and I would really like to find a lighter system.

I am really attracted to the Olympus OM-D E-M1 II camera and the Olympus Pro lenses. I've been reading lots of reviews, mostly good, some bad, and have tried the camera in the store. I know I would be giving up some shallow depth of field control, and sacrificing some high ISO quality. But overall it appears to be a good system.

Has anyone here also made the switch from a full-frame DSLR to a micro four-thirds camera? If so, I would like to hear feedback on your experiences and how you feel about the new system. And if anyone has samples of indoor or night sports shot with an Olympus, I'd love to see some more samples from real world experience.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
For shorter/wider shooting, if you're willing to shoot the excellent f/1.4-1.7 primes, then yes, m4/3 is quite comparable to to full frame with 2.8 glass. And much more compact and light. I've found this over 18 months of shooting my first m4/3 body/system after using Canon full frame for a few years. Still have my Canon gear, just doesn't get used. Much.

For longer, tele work, I'd guess your Canon gear would still produce better results, with 2.8 glass as the light drops off. The only way to really see if m4/3 works for you, is actually buy and use it for a year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
OM-5 ii vs E-M5 iii
Replies
5
Views
37K
Dann-Oh
D
Ysarex
My E-PL9 uses a Sony dual gain sensor.
Replies
7
Views
19K
Ysarex
Ysarex
Trevor Carpenter
what would you like to see next part 2
Replies
6
Views
15K
David5833
D
MJ_Photo38
What Ifs and other alternate history theories
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
38K
Todd Yes
T
A
  • User review User review
OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm F2.8 IS Pro Lens Review
Replies
1
Views
31K
HicHic
HicHic

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top