My petty enthusiasms do have a habit of rubbing off on people; usually to the detriment of their wallets. I make no apologies for this, serves people right for listening to me.
My most successful conversions over the past few years have been in convincing people as to the merits of the Micro Four Thirds system. It’s an easy sell because they are bloody brilliant little cameras, and I stopped counting after I had convinced fifteen lucky souls to see the light and travel light.
But there have been failures, most recently with one of my readers known as “The Lightweight”. He had been hanging around a fifty page thread on another forum where gearheads spent a lot of time wanking on about how wonderful their full-frame cameras were, and almost no time at all posting photos from these cameras; an always suspicious trend. There was also much misinformation being posted about Micro Four Thirds; so I felt I had to wade in and give him some facts. So it was pleasing when he eventually announced his decision, he was to purchase an E-M5.
Another satisfied customer I thought and added him to my list of converts; and then un-added him when he changed his posting name to “The Heavyweight” after admitting he had gone for a Nikon D600. I can’t personally see the attraction of oily sensors, and after having seen an E-M5/D600 comparison here I am even less convinced; but good luck to him and I look forward to going for a shoot with him soon.
Meantime, Kevin came to visit and as we sat and compared kit, he did wonder about the merits of something smaller for his vacation shooting. I was tired from my recent failed conversion of The Heavyweight so didn’t push anything, and anyway Kevin is a professional wedding photographer and needs to flash big gear to justify his fees. Even so, after we had finished our Ancient City shoot, I decided to send him an image to look at.
I chose this, not because it was anything special, but because I knew that Kevin had taken a similar shot and so could compare with the output from his full frame Nikon:
And it did show how much detail the E-M5 can display (100% crop):
Having sent it, I forgot about it; until the phone rang from overseas a couple of days later; it was Kevin.
“It’s better” said a slightly emotional voice. “What’s better Kevin?” I asked in a concerned tone. “Your haemorrhoids? The weather?” “That E-M5 image you sent me; it’s better than the Nikon”. “Oh. What are you going to do?” “Do? I went straight out and bought an E-M5 of course. Just wanted to let you know. Off to read the manual now. Byeee.”
Welcome to the club Kevin; and if it ever stops snowing in the UK I hope you get a chance to use your new toy.
Comments 🔗
2013-03-12| Grant saysThere used to be a word for what you do — that’s it, Sedition. Well done, another convert, it must be like listening to the crash of falling trees…
2013-03-12| The Heavyweight saysI think the D600’s image is sharper and has more detail ;-) ;-)
But seriously, it was a bit ‘once bitten, twice shy’ for me. After my 1100d showed green grass as yellow patches due to lacking dynamic range, I wanted to buy safety. I was worried that an m43 sensor, being that much smaller than an FF sensor, might disappoint me in lighting conditions where both very dark and very bright areas are present, which is not uncommon where I live. Although I have to admit, even my little compact Lumix took better pictures than that.
Spike’s images show how wonderful m43 and the OMD can perform. But I feel safer now. And I’m not going to wimp out because of some occasional oil on the sensor - are we men or what ;-) Btw, did I mention this utterly cool artificial horizon? :-D
2013-03-12| Kevin Moore saysAs Spike has mentioned in an earlier post when we first met, I do earn the bulk of my living shooting weddings here in the UK and the occasional one abroad. I also earn a reasonable amount shooting wildlife images in Kenya and Tanzania along with some underwater work together with general travel images all of which, I upload to various stock libraries.
When shooting weddings, I’m always accompanied by my loveley wife Anita. A normal wedding will see me carrying two Nikon D3’s one, with a 24-70 f2.8 and the other with a 70-200 f2.8. Anita will shoot with a Nikon D700 ( same sensor and IQ as the D3 but less weight ) with a 24-120 fitted. In the kit bag will be a spare D700 along with 16-35 f4, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.4 and maybe a 105mm macro. Together with three SB 800 flashguns spare cards and batteries this adds up to a lot of gear to lug around.
For our normal travel trips most of which these days seem to find us in Thailand the kit consists of the following. Two D700’s, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 and 50 1.4 covering those low light situations. Again add spare batteries, CF cards, card reader, laptop and small back up hard drive and chargers it’s still a lot of gear.
Although all our kit is well insured, there’s always the worry about looking after it. It’s always stored in Packsafes with very good padlocks but it’s difficult to disguise all this kit and not draw attention to it. Talking of drawing attention to the kit you’re carrying, I recently spent a couple of days sat on beach road in Pattaya trying to capture some of life’s shall we say more excentric charachters. It’s really difficult to make a D700 with a 70-200 stuck on the front of it look inconspicous and many shots were simply not attempted. As Spike has pointed out before, there are many reasons why some of the people walking along beach road or the coconut bar as some refer to it don’t want their picture taken and a D700 with long lens will hurt if shoved in the wrong place.
Along with all the issues of carrying larger kit that I’ve already mentioned, there’s the big factor of all this kit being carried in the heat of some of the places we visit. There are times where it simply ceases to be any pleasure at all and and any interest in taking photographs dissapears quickly folowed by kit being secured and a source of cold beer found instead.
I’ve been looking for sometime now for an alternative to carrying all the gear around yet still be able to produce the goods with IQ that my stock libraries would be happy with. I’ve always enjoyed Spike’s images and thought the IQ was very good although I’d obvioulsy only seen the files as posted here. I then notice even better IQ with the arrival of his new Olympus and was keen to see more.
Having first met Spike and played show me yours and I’ll show you mine ( in a public place I may add ) I then went onto spending a day in the Anicient city with him. You may recall it took some finding with my appalling navigational skills and lack of reading glasses. Spike was using his Olympus and me a D700 with a variety of Nikon glass.
Having compared the images nad being able to compare RAW files side by side, I’m convinced that the new Olympus with quality glass can produce the goods. I compared the image in this post as a RAW file against the same Nikon RAW shot with a 24-70 f2.8 which is a good piece of Nikon glass and had to conclude, the Olympus produced a sharper more detailed result even allowing for the 12 mil vs 16 mil pixels on the relevant cameras. I wouldn’t say they were by any means miles apart but the Olympus had the edge for me,
As a result of this, I now own a shiny new Olympus with currenlt one lens the Sumilux 25mm f1.4 which is unquestionably a nice piece of glass with high IQ rendering ability. I also bought the HLD-6 grip which completely transforms the ergonomics of th ecamera for me. The big issue now remaining for me is futher lens purchases.
For the immediate future as I’ll go onto explain the Olympus will become my travel / stock camera of choice. As with most systems the glass on the front of any camera plays a huge part in IQ. My current plans are to aquire the following lenses to give me a reasonable kit to travel with. 7-14mm, 75mm f1.4 and currently looking into reviews of the 35-100 for something a bit longer. This is all subject to gaining approval of Anita who is far more business minded than me and reminds me that these items would actually have to be paid for.
For my wedding work at present, the Nikon system will be earning it’s keep although in the current economic climate that’s certainly not easy here in the UK at present. So many people are now watching the pennies that weddings are now around half of what they were three years ago. Those that are getting married are being extremely careful with their budgets and quite regularly uncle bob and his digital camera are doing my job for me although what the results are like I dread to think in some cases.
There are currently numerous people who have started up as “wedding photographers” a lot of them sporting an old Nikon D70 and one 18-300 lens. These guys are charging peanuts, supplying cheap albums from Tesco’s and all the images on a disk to boot. A small percentage of clients are aware of these so called professionals and their kit and there are times where also looking the part does help. Also on the big day itself, being recognised as the working professional on the day does avoid some problems with the numerous uncle bob’s and all their gear who, if allowed will try and take over and make your day a nightmare so it helps to look in charge from the start. Saying that, have a look at the following link. Not sure if i found it through one of Spike’s posts in the first place but it’s a professional wedding photographer shooting entirely on the new Olympus or three of them actually.
Is looking the part the only reason for keeping the full frame system for me? No is the answer. There are times when I really need to drop the background out of a shot. There’s plenty of occasions where weddings are shot within some awfull settings. I currently live near Lytham St Annes not a million miles from Blackpool which for me is a pretty tacky place to get married. By no means particulary senic there’s many occasions where I need to cut out traffic, street signs or general crap to try and reduce the effect of an awfull background. There are other occasions where I want to do this simply to make a couple leap out from an image and although not impossible with the 4/3 system and the right lens it’s just so much easier on a full frame sensor.
Other situations I find myself in require real enviromental protection for the kit. Next year hopefully will see me back with my real passion of wildlife in Kenya and Tanzania. The dust levels alone can be incredible at times. So much so, that I’ll take 3 or 4 bodies and never change lenses if at all possible. Then there’s the lenses themselves. The longest lens I actually own, is the Nikon 200-400 f4 which is a real workhorse for me. When I need longer lenses than that then it’s time to hire as I simply can’t afford to own anything longer that isn’t being used regularly and earning it’s keep ( although it would be nice )
I think finding the new Olympus has without doubt been the answer to many prayers for me. Once I manage to pursuade Anita to let me add just a few pieces of glass as I put it to her then I’ll have the travel kit I hoped for for many years.
I think anyone who has doubts that the 4/3 system is nocking on the door of good DSLR land and in some cases now properly entered the room needs to look again. Yes there are still some benefits with a full frame sensor, DOF is one and also for high ISO my D3 in low light takes some beating but you need to ask yourself how much and how often do you need these advantages. Also weigh the difference in cost between the two systems and the pain invoved in lugging all the gear around as well.
If IQ is paramount for you, then choose your glass wisely. The 4/3 sytem like any other is only as good as the glass it’s looking through so don’t expect to buy a set of cheap zooms to cover a vast range of focals lengths and expect the best possible IQ.
2013-03-13| Spike saysThanks for the summary Kevin; but no mention of the haemorrhoids? I think we should be told.
2013-03-13| Grant saysOoh yes, blood and gore please! You can tell he wrote that standing up…
2013-03-13| david saysOk, but now do a comparison with a Nikon 800 or Canon 5d MK II or even a Fujifilm EX-1 in LOW light and let’s see if you get the same results too.
2013-03-13| Spike saysI don’t have access to any of those cameras, but as Kevin mentions, his full frame is better when shooting at higher ISOs; that’s just physics.
All cameras are compromises; you just have to choose the best compromise for you. I prefer the smaller size and weight and am prepared to trade that off against low light performance. Having said that, I shot with my GX1 extensively in dark conditions and found it an adequate performer for my purposes; (and noise cleans up so nicely in Lightroom 4). The E-M5 takes things a step further with better high ISO performance, noise that looks almost pleasantly grain-like, and stabilisation which allows ridiculously low shutter speeds and thus lower ISO. Plus of course all those lovely F1.8 and F1.4 primes.
2013-03-13| Kevin Moore saysAs Spike has pointed out, it’s all about compromises. What I needed was a system that would make life so much easier for my travel / stock photography. It had to be a system that would be much easier for travelling with. It had to be light enough to allow me to carry a reasonable range of lenses, not give me greif when checking in with some airlines who are a pain with hand luggage and not be too difficult to disguise and secure in hotels. That was my goal when looking at this system which I’ve hopefully achieved. For my particular needs, the new Olymus produces the goods and at the end of the day that’s all that matters to me. Yes there are without doubt a few areas where full frame will be better but for the few occasions where the Olympus isn’t scoring 10 / 10 there’ll be hundreds of times where I’m glad to be far less weighed down and as a result will probably relax and take better images anyway.
2013-03-17| Spike saysAmen