Nikon FF to Olympus M43 - is it worth considering?

[Dr_J]

Interested in peoples views in respect of considering a move to Oly M43, OM-1 based, from Nikon D5/6 based FF, where overall weight is not a consideration at this time. Are there any other advantages to be had? Anyone actually made this move?

Thanks, J

 

[DRwyoming]

Interested in peoples views in respect of considering a move to Oly M43, OM-1 based, from Nikon D5/6 based FF, where overall weight is not a consideration at this time. Are there any other advantages to be had? Anyone actually made this move?

Thanks, J

I know a couple of folks that have either supplemented their full frame cameras or switched completely to micro 4/3 for wildlife and a lightweight hiking or travel kit.

The advantages are narrower field of view (aka longer reach) using modest focal length lenses and of course a light weight package and with those shorter focal length lenses cost is often lower for equivalent field of view. All of this can be very helpful for wildlife, especially when photographing smaller subjects like birds or working away from the car while on long hikes. The downsides are changes to DoF for the same subject size in frame when working from the same distance and of course low light noise performance where the smaller sensor cameras struggle a bit for the same size output image.

The low light differences will be especially apparent when comparing a D5/D6 which are amazing cameras in low light to a micro 4/3 setup. If you look at the dynamic range charts on PhotonstoPhotos you'll see that at low ISO settings the Olympus OM-D EM-1 Mark III holds it own compared to a D5 at low ISO but as ISO climbs as it often does in low light wildlife work, the D5 pulls roughly two stops ahead. IOW, for the same dynamic range as a D5 shot at ISO 3200 you'd have to shoot the micro 4/3 camera at roughly ISO 800 and since dynamic range is referenced to the noise floor for same size output images that's basically saying you'd need to work almost two ISO stops lower to maintain the same noise performance for the same size output image.

Bottom line, for a low weight walk around wildlife kit when shooting in good light it's really hard to beat the micro 4/3 gear but if low light shooting is something you do a lot of, the full frame gear has a pretty big advantage though everything including lenses get a lot bigger and typically a lot more expensive when shooting full frame DSLRs or mirrorless cameras.

 

[Dr_J]

Absolutely although IRO ‘though everything including lenses get a lot bigger and typically a lot more expensive when shooting full frame DSLRs or mirrorless cameras.’ I would point to the 300mm and 500mm PF’s as perhaps a happy medium between M43 and FF, * although there’s no getting around that the D5/6’s are big bruisers…… And, of course, they lack the flexibility of zooms encompassing their focal lengths, though they definitely tend to be in the heavyweights category and or expensive ; eg 100-500mm, 180-400mm.

* excluding size, if not weight, and (new) price of course

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I switched from a D-500/500pf. The switch was primarily due to needing the flexibility of a zoom and the Nikon 200-500 was too big and heavy for me.

I shoot 95% birds and this is what I found with the OM-1/100-400 F/5-6.3 zoom compared to the D-500/500pf

The plusses:
1-Excellent subject detect capabilities all over the frame. The OM-1 will find a bird anywhere in the frame and the eye, if available, even with a dark bird in low light. The camera is MUCH better at finding the bird's eye and focusing on it.
2-Electronic shutter capabilities, 20-25f/s (Some lenses allow 50 f/s)
3-ProCapture is very flexible with multiple modes.
4-Size, weight


The minuses
1-The D-500/500pf IQ is at least as good at a stop or two lower ISO. (The D5/6 would be even lower). I need an additional processing step to reduce noise at high ISO. The process works but is more time consuming.

Versus the Z-9 (which I don't have)
--------------------------------------
To sum it up, the OM-1 is a state-of-the-art camera with Z-9 level capabilities that has a 20mp m43 sensor. The strengths and weaknesses of the OM-1 versus the Z-9 are directly related to the size of the sensor. A Z-9 with an 800pf will have exactly the same field of view as the OM-1/100-400 @400mm and the same physical f/stop (f/6.3) but the Z-9 will have a much higher MP image at a lower ISO and shorter DOF.

On the other hand, the OM-1/100 is absolutely tiny compared to the Z-9/800pf so it can be carried further and easier and physically will get on the bird faster.

My conclusion: To take the best pictures, Z-9. To have the most fun, OM-1

 

[Chris K]

To make a huge generalization I feel M43's benefits are generally that they're either smaller or better at the same size. If size truly is of no concern to you, then a larger sensor's benefits are likely going to be more attractive to you. Namely, a lower noise floor, access to higher megapixel cameras, and better short DOF possibilities with zooms.

I shot Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds for years. I shoot Fuji and Nikon now. I regret selling my Olympus kit. If I had a pile of cash laying around, I'd get back into it for the OM-1 and a few standout lenses:

Olympus 9-18: I know you say weight doesn't matter, but have you seen this thing? Why would you ever not bring your UWA along if it were this size? It's about as small as a teleconverter, and it performs pretty well. I rarely carry my Fuji 10-24 and don't even own a Nikon 14-24, but I always brought my 9-18.

Olympus 60/2.8: You get 17mm frame coverage (essentially "2x"), a good amount of DOF at f/8 (so, low ISOs and flash power), nice controls, and a tiny package. Best macro lens I've ever used.

Olympus 150-400/4.5 1.25x: If this beast was generally available, I'd probably sell my 100-400 and 500PF and consider selling my Z9. I refuse to pay used scalper prices.

 

[tmac]

Absolutely although IRO ‘though everything including lenses get a lot bigger and typically a lot more expensive when shooting full frame DSLRs or mirrorless cameras.’ I would point to the 300mm and 500mm PF’s as perhaps a happy medium between M43 and FF, * although there’s no getting around that the D5/6’s are big bruisers…… And, of course, they lack the flexibility of zooms encompassing their focal lengths, though they definitely tend to be in the heavyweights category and or expensive ; eg 100-500mm, 180-400mm.

* excluding size, if not weight, and (new) price of course

 

[tmac]

Hello everyone I've just this thread and have found it most helpful. I have a D780 and a dodgy shoulder and am tempted by the weight difference. I'll take all your views on board . Thanks again

 

[Tom Reynolds]

The weight difference is substantial. I removed the lens foot from the 100-400 f/6.3 and it plus my OM-1 mk2 with cards and batteries plus the lens hood weighs 3.9# on my scale. I like the flexibility of the zoom and the FF equivalent reach of 800mm. It is an ideal hiking around rig for birds.

There are other advantages as well for birds/wildlife:
1-The subject ID for birds is very accurate, maybe the best in the business or nearly so.
2-The 250 frames buffer is virtually unlimited considering that the 100-400 f/6.3's maximum frame rate is 25f/s
3-ProCapture (pre-capture) is well developed and captures in RAW
4-Pixel-shift actually works and produces larger, lower noise images for stationary birds as long as you can keep the camera steady.

And disadvantages:
1-The smaller sensor means less megapixels meaning less crop ability, less low light capability and lower dynamic range
2-F/6.3 @ 400mm gives lots of reach but little subject separation. It is essentially at an f/stop of 12.2 in FF terms.

 

[splatbass]

I moved last year from Nikon to OM-1, although I still have the Nikon. The big reason for me, besides weight and size, is reach. That 2x crop factor helps a lot, especially for small birds.

 

[tmac]

Thank you splatbass that sounds a good option

 

[Barbara]

I am using both. Nikon FF (Z9, Z8 + various teles) for best quality in low light or with far-off subjects, but I really can't handhold any of it, so I have to be able to set up a tripod and not walk far with the kit. Olympus MFT when I need to handhold and/or am not concerned about absolute best quality. However, the OM-1 plus their 150-400 mm lens is nearly as good IQ wise as the Nikon in most situations. I do have to pay attention to ergonomics when switching back and forth -- and I never use both kits on the same day.

 

[GrandNagus50]

I use both Nikon FF and M43 systems. The biggest advantage of the latter is that it packs up smaller and lighter for air travel. I usually use the OM1 and the 150-400 (500) zoom and get great bird photos. For Nikon, however, the Z8 with the 800mm PF lens is also a great combination. I just used this in Churchill, Manitoba. I did not find it hard to hand hold at all. With a large FF sensor you can crop a lot of the image and still have a quality bird photo. The high-density full frame sensors have a LOT more pixels than the M43 cameras.

With high quality noise reduction software available I find the difference in image noise between M43 and FF to be pretty minor.

 

[Laurence Jackson]

I moved from Nikon a couple of years ago, as I found the prices insane for what they were/are asking to upgrade to the Z9 from the D500/D5/850. I thought the OM-1 mark 1 was amazing, but having just acquired the mark 2....for BIF I'm blown away (with the 150-400), for me it's a real step up in acquisition from the mark 1. Like a mark 1 on steroids!

I am also amazed at the results, having just bought PureRAW 4 to initially process the images. Even better results that Photo AI. The difference in noise between FF and the OM-1 is really narrowing now and I think it will continue to do so. I do miss sometimes those lovely Nikon colors though

 

[StefanSC]

Are there any other advantages to be had?

Plenty of advantages in m43rds, both Olympus (OMDS as it is called these days) and Panasonic.

But first you must decide what and how you are shooting and what is your final output.

If you mostly shoot low light, wide open f2.8 or faster lenses and/or you like ultra-shallow depth of field and/or you need to make A3 or larger prints of things that move... Then sorry, m43rds is not for you. As the old saying goes "There is no replacement for displacement". Basically I can't in good conscience recommend m43rds to wedding and sports photographers (even though I know a few that use it).

If you mostly shoot at f4 or stopped down at f5.6 or slower, you're happy to have more than just the iris of your subject in focus and/or you keep your output for web and A4 prints then you might actually be better off with m43rds than FF.

And that's because :

1) m43rds can be better value than FF ... for example, if I were to match my current main m43rds kit with one based around Nikon Z6 III I'd pay between 50% and 100% more (list prices) and I'd get at best around 1 stop better light gathering capabilities, similar build quality, similar sharpness from lenses, more weight to cart around, less features, less speed.

2) m43rds can be better featured than FF ... the high end cameras m43rds have the best implementations on the market of things like High-Res mode (getting you up to around 80Mpx with noise and dynamic range comparable to FF cameras), focus stacking and dual-IS. Also a lot of unique features that, while situational, can help a lot, like a simulated ND filter for those times you want long exposures but you don't have the filters with you, Live-Comp to remove the guess-work from long exposure and light paint scenarios, a software distance limiter that can be configured to where you want it and enabled quickly by a button and so on...

3) m43rds has some rather unique lenses ... like the Panasonic 10-25 and 25-50 f1.7 that plenty of videographers seem to be enamored with, the OMDS 8-25mm f4, the OMDS 12-100mm f4 lens that most people praise as the best all-round zoom ever made, the OMDS 90mm f3.5 2x macro with AF that can take TCs.

4) Finally size... yes, m43rds lenses can be small. But the rule of thumb says for similar light gathering capabilities, lenses will be of similar sizes (e.g: OMDS's 1.2 primes are comparable in size with Nikon's 1.8 primes, while they offer similar DoF and light gathering abilities).
Then again, the biggest m43rds body with the standard macro lens vs a Z6 with a 105mm f2.8 ... :

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

And in a blind test you couldn't tell which image was shot with which kit.

Now, to close this, I'm gonna put it like this: I've shot plenty of FF, APS-C and m43rds over time. And there are situations where a larger sensor (especially FF ones) will get you better image quality. But the difference between them is not as much at the end of the day as people believe.

And when it comes to value for money, features for money and just having a complete kit that can tackle most of the challenges of an advanced amateur photographer/videographer and even a pro one, m43rds is hard to beat.

 

[EricBowles]

One other factor to consider is the impact on the backgrounds. That was one of the main reasons I originally moved to full frame. With a full frame camera you are always going to be using a longer focal length for the same framing as an APS-C or M43rd camera. That means your DOF is shallower and your backgrounds are cleaner. It's only when you are cropping to APS-C or 4/3 proportions or beyond that they become equal. To get the same background, you need to use a faster lens on APS-C or 4/3 - and this requires a larger size and more cost.

I'll never forget standing next to Bill Lea photographing an elk in Cataloochee Valley. We were both using the same lens - a 200-400mm at the time. He had a D700 and I was using a D300. My image at 240mm or so was a throw away and his at close to 400mm looked great. Same subject, same lens, same light, same background. APS-C or m43rds can have a benefit of more pixels on subject when you are looking at deeper crops, but that implies you can't get close enough. For small birds that might be true - you always want to be closer - but for other subjects long lenses and full frame cameras have an edge until you get to extreme distances.

 

[tmac]

Wow thete is just so much to take into account. Thanks everyone for all the in depth help. No elks here in Ireland but I take your point.

 

[StefanSC]

To get the same background, you need to use a faster lens on APS-C or 4/3 - and this requires a larger size and more cost.

Indeed, that and the overall ho-hum image quality is why I am not a big fan of the 100-400 mm f6.3 zooms for m43.

Then again, at 50m, an Olympus 300mm f4 will have a DoF of 3.32m while a Nikon Z 600mm f6.3PF will have 2.62m. A deer (which do live in Ireland) is about 2m in length so with both lenses you'll have a nice sharp nose tip to tail animal and with both you'll need it to wait for it to move away from the tree line in order to get a nice isolated background.

Both lenses have similar weights but the Nikon one is 2 or even 3 times more expensive (depending on where you live).
Oh and the Olympus has 1.4m minimum focus distance compared to Nikon's 4m ...

So while m43rds really doesn't have an answear for the 400mm f2.8/600mm f4 lenses (unless you count the old 43rds large primes... I wouldn't), it can get close enough to the more common f5.6/6.3 solutions that many people use where you will need to put into balance cost, features and what and how you are shooting...