Lens equivalants from MF3 to Nikkor APS-C

I have an Olympus EM-10 with a Panasonic 14-140 f3.5 (MF3) which I really enjoyed playing with for a year. I am moving to APS-C formfactor (want to buy a Nikon D5500) and I wonder what would be the equivalent lens to use on the Nikon camera that covers the 14-140 focal range of my Panasonic lens.

Does anyone also knows a web link that does this all sorts of conversion?

Cheers/

Ed

MFT crop factor relative to Nikon APS-C is 1.31. So you just multiply by that and you get the equivalent focal length for DX. Mind you, due to the different aspect ratio (4:3 vs 3:2), it's not really exactly equivalent.

So I guess DX replacement for you Panasonic lens would be one of the 18-200 superzooms.

Fri13 wrote:

Nikon 28-200 or 28-300

No that would be in the 135 (Full Frame) system. In APS-C it should be something like 18-180.

To the OP: To find the APS equivalent you need onlyy to multiply the M43 focal length with 4/3. That ratio is a coincedence. You can multiply with 2 (M43 crop factor) to get to the 135 (Full frame) focal length, than divide by 1.5 (APS-C crop factor) to get to APC-C. And 2 divided by 1.5 is 4/3.

TomFid wrote:

ThePalindrome wrote:

No that would be in the 135 (Full Frame) system. In APS-C it should be something like 18-180.

Right. This means you want something like the Nikkor 18-200:

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1281/cat/13

Be careful, because there are very few superzooms that are as good as the 14-140, on any platform.

+1.  You'll gain some resolution but I'd never give up twin dials and really wouldn't trade the evf for a pentamirror.  I had the Nikon 14-140 on a 24mpx d7100 ( which is supposedly better than the 18-200) and sold it.  It just didn't compare with primes on that dense a sensor.  The 14-140 penny 3.5 is really an exceptional 10x and combined with the m10 is hard to beat.

Plus size wise there is just no comparison.

Yes, I agree, I really like the image output this lens is giving me. The things that frustrates me with EM-10 is the confusing menu (lots of hidden stuff that each time you have to go to different levels of access) and its weak performance on auto-focus tracking; especially focusing on moving targets on continues shooting is almost impossible. So I thought to move to D5500 which is lightweight and quite close to EM-10 dimensions with a larger sensor and not as expensive as D7200 but almost having the same properties.

Thanks again to all for very good descriptions. Mind asking you if my move from the current system I have (EM-10, Panasonic 14-140 f3.5) to Nikon D5500 is right or not?

I'm 63 and have shot everything from 8x10 View camera to cell phone and all the FF, APS-C and various mini formats over the years.

I can understand wanting to get better moving object shots but education and experience is the key. Some of the best bird in flight pix I've seen were taken with a manual lens by our own Danny (nzmacro) on this board.  The ability to predict is paramount because the brain to finger lag is the bottleneck. If you can't get an action shot with what you have even a Canon 1Dx won't help. Now it is possible that you might be more comfortable with the Nikon and that in itself might help but it will be the experience, not what you read in a spec sheet.

Sooo - my suggestion is rent ! Try out the camera and lens you think will do the trick and put 'er to the test. BEFORE you spend the big bucks. Some years back I was shooting spring training and I managed, after getting to know the hitters, to catch the bat connecting with the ball - camera was an early digicam, the Olympus 600L. You could get a cup of coffee (in Brazil) before it would allow you to get the second shot. The great wildlife shots you've seen are by people who know their equipment and REALLY know their subject.

The best use of funds will be for education and getting to where you have the best chance of getting the shot you want - not equipment.

Regards,

Kurt

I would go to the G7. It has DFD for improved continuous autofocus and thePanasonic menues are supposedly easier, too.

Thanks Kurt for the piece of advice. I agree with some of that, especially the education part, but sometimes when I come across with a quickly missing scene I feel this camera does not take commands as fast as I want especially focusing on moving objects.

Olymguy wrote:

Thanks again to all for very good descriptions. Mind asking you if my move from the current system I have (EM-10, Panasonic 14-140 f3.5) to Nikon D5500 is right or not?

Only you can decide if it's right or not. From where I stand, that doesn't strike me like a particularly great upgrade. Or an upgrade at all, frankly.

If you switch to DX 18-200 zooms to get the same level of convenience as your current kit, you will not even gain anything in image quality. On 24 mpx DX sensor, DXO rates such super-zooms at 6-7 P-Mpix, which is pretty much the same as your E-M10 with 14-140 (rated at 6 P-Mpix).

I just don't see you gaining anything with this switch. But it's your choice, you probably have your reasons.

Olymguy wrote:

I have an Olympus EM-10 with a Panasonic 14-140 f3.5 (MF3) which I really enjoyed playing with for a year. I am moving to APS-C formfactor (want to buy a Nikon D5500) and I wonder what would be the equivalent lens to use on the Nikon camera that covers the 14-140 focal range of my Panasonic lens.

Does anyone also knows a web link that does this all sorts of conversion?

Cheers/

Ed

Just a note that DX is sort of a red-headed stepchild in Nikon's lineup: Nikon doesn't (and apparently never will) fill out the lineup of DX specific lenses. Instead they want you to buy FX lenses that end up with awkward focal lengths on DX, so that you'll eventually just say "screw it!" and buy an FX body, which apparently has better profit margins.

Bottom line: if you are going to move to a larger sensor, skip DX and just get FX. It will save you money in the long (and even medium) term. You'll progress more as a photographer going FX with better lenses than going with DX and continuing to use consumer lenses. Of course, I suspect that you'll get the most bang/buck by staying with the E-M10 and picking up the 12-40, unless you have a really specific need that the D5500 can fill that the E-M10 can't.

If APS-C is really your thing, then go with Fuji or Samsung, as they are actually serious about that format, and are making quality lenses for it. But CaNikOny don't believe in it at all, and just use it as a gateway drug for FF.

The "Maslow's Hierarchy" of photography is a good eye, followed by a good lens. The body the lens is attached to means next to nothing. Concentrate on lenses, not bodies.

Thanks that was really helpful. What I really need is a snappier camera on taking focused shots on moving objects. The last painful moments I had with this camera (EM-10) was when I was taking photos of the royal wedding recently in Stockholm when the camera got easily distracted by other objects and I lost focus on most of my shots.

Olymguy wrote:

Thanks that was really helpful. What I really need is a snappier camera on taking focused shots on moving objects. The last painful moments I had with this camera (EM-10) was when I was taking photos of the royal wedding recently in Stockholm when the camera got easily distracted by other objects and I lost focus on most of my shots.

The 12-40 will help a lot, then. The focus system on the E-M10 is more than adequate unless you are using C-AF, in which case the Nikon is a better choice.