Downgrade Dslr to micro 4/3?

A

asadhumayun85

Suspended / Banned
Messages
36
Edit My Images
No
Hi Guys!

I'm currently thinking about selling my Nikon d3000 kit for a micro 4/3 kit. Why ? Well because I'm not using it to its maximum potential and some micros offer similar picture quality.m

What are your thoughts?
 
Personally, I'd say do it. I've "downgraded" from a 5D2+L lenses to a m4/3 system. No the pictures aren't quite as good, but you only really see that when you pixel peep. At least I take this camera out with me now...
 
I wouldn't bother from a size point of view as the D3000 is hardly a big DSLR, unless you have a habit of using monster lenses.

Not sure what you mean by not using to maximum as the m4/3 would do the same functions as a DSLR so you wouldn't use that to it's maximum either?

However, if you fancy a change then why not.
 
I knew before opening this thread that both arad85 and ernesto would both have had there say.:)

There is a huge size difference between arad85's 5d and f2.8 L lenses and his m4/3 with f2.8 lenses. But if your just using your kit lens on your relatively compact d3000, your not going to save huge amounts of weight and size. How many lenses do you own?
 
Last edited:
I had a Lumix G2 to use on holiday. When I realized that the Nikon D3100 was not much bigger or heavier I bought one and sold the G2. The image quality is better and I found the Nikon easier to use.
 
I'm like Andy (Arad85), downgrading from a 5d2 and L lenses. Quality wise I'm as impressed with most m43 images as I was with the 5d2. For me it's the best move I've made and I'm even more serious about my photography than I was before, but don't regret owning a full frame camera. I dare say this thread will attract trolls or end up with heated comments.

But advice to the OP would be to try and figure out why it is that you aren't using your current Nikon gear. In addition to handling and using m43s before you swap.
 
Been looking at the D3100 myself. Lots of good reviews of it. Or the 550D. Both seem to be regarded highly
 
rjbell said:
There is a huge size difference between arad85's 5d and f2.8 L lenses and his m4/3 with f2.8 lenses. But if your just using your kit lens on your relatively compact d3000, your not going to save huge amounts of weight and size.
Click to expand...
I'd mostly agree with this - there are still weight and size savings to be made though but they're in the 20%-50% range rather than the 100%+ range... BTW: I only had f4 lenses with the 5D2 ;)

I have the 12-35 f2.8 equivalent of the Canon 17-55 f2.8 on my G5 now and it weighs 733grams all in (camera/lens/battery). That's only just a bit more than the 17-55 on its own. It's also way smaller - fitting on the palm of my hand.

I think the m4/3 system is great as it allows the use of high quality lenses that are small by comparison to other lenses. If you're only ever going to use the kit lens, it's swings and roundabouts. Move outside of that and the benefits can be quite large (err.. small :D).

BTW: I think there's little difference in picture quality between M4/3 and DSLRs used at base ISOs and with well exposed images. It's when you move outside these parameters that things change.
 
I've just gone the other way and bought a 60d again! I found my g2 and lenses no less intrusive than a bigger canon so I went back to what I know and figured if I'm making an effort to take it out id rather have a DSLR! And I prefer a DSLR for Motorsport...

On the other hand though the GF3 with 14mm pancake lens that I own is bloody marvellous!! It really is my grab and go camera and the image quality is fantastic! So I do have some love for the m4/3 system :)
 
ozyboyross said:
And I prefer a DSLR for Motorsport...
Click to expand...
That's a good point. I don't take pictures of anything that moves really. DSLRs are better for tracking moving objects due to the better focusing system (phase detect as opposed to contrast) - for the moment anyway....
 
I think the key point remains - what is meant by "because I'm not using it to its maximum potential"
A m4/3 and DSLR have similar potential and it doesn't matter if you are not using all the features and functionality really. It is difficult to buy a camera without a lot of potential these days.
 
Thanks for your comments so far.

I'm using the kit lens 18-55mm and also the fantastic 50mm f1.8 lens. I would seriously miss the 50mm, it's sharpness and it's ability to take good pictures in low light.

In terms of use Im not a pro but the reason for getting an slr was to take good quality pictures. There's nothing worse than the pics you see of *** staring straight into a point n shoot... You know , the stand ones. There's no story, no memory , no art but no offence to anyone because it's all about what you as an individual want.

Ideally I want the same images from a smaller package
 
I'm willing to sacrifice a viewfinder . Not too keen on the gh2 to be honest....not sure what the images are like though.
What about an Olympus pen or gf1 as a replacement
 
Have you considered the NEX too? If your planning on only using the kit lens and a prime there a great option. They share the same sensor found in the d5100 and d7000.
 
I tried and failed with the m4/3rds experiment, I sold all my DSLR gear last year and bought into the idea of smaller and lighter = easier to carry for the same IQ. Unfortunately, in my experience it isn't yet totally comparable.

I ended up using the same bag, so size wise, gained very little over something like a 500D (or your 3200). IQ wise, it was OK at smallish sizes (up to maybe A4), I couldn't really fault it at those small sizes (or web size). Unfortunately I found anything larger to really show up noise and it just didn't look as good.

I have had images with the Canon kit lens printed at 30"x40" which look excellent, unfortunately not once did I feel happy with even A3 from m4/3rds.

Those that love m4/3rds will jump in with comments about technique and post examples, all I can say is my technique hasn't changed since the 80's and and as a P/T wedding photographer for almost 15 years didn't have a client unhappy with any enlargement I supplied. Perhaps my standards are just higher than others.

With regard the kit, there are compromises as well, I bought a EP-L2 first, but found AF to be very leisurely and the body was pretty useless in bright sunlight. I then bought a Lumix G2 ( it was cheaper than buying an EVF) and found the EVF fairly annoying to use in low light, and the colours were slightly off as well. Where I found images on my Canon bodies to be pretty usable straight out the camera I found I was editing even JPEGs for colour balance.

I also eventually lost patience with the AF system, if something dared to be moving in the image it would invariably struggle, as it would also do when trying to focus on small items against a plain background (like a spider in a web against a wall).

I lost out quite badly financially, so am probably slightly biased, but feel I gave it a fair trial (EP-L2 with 14-42, Lumix G2 with 14-42, Oly 40-150, Oly 45 f1.8).

I might well try m4/3 again in the future when the newer 16MP sensor bodies get to a reasonable price, but I wouldn't sell my DSLR to do so.
 
I compared my g3 viewfinder to the d5100 before I sold it - side by side in real life - not reading someone else's waffle :lol: and was amazed that the g3 was bigger, brighter and had more useful info displayed (such as a live histogram).

It still feels too clinical/detached from reality and also tears and lags when waving the camera around widly and gains up in lowlight to become quite grainy.

But I'm actually growing to like it (despite only using it a couple of times) - I much prefer the gx1
 
Rjbell - what do you mean by 'they'? Do you mean the nex's?

Dave - appreciate your comments. So we're saying it'd be compromising on image quality? This was the point I was making. I don't think I get amazing pics out my d3000 so I might not lose out by downgrading . That's only because I'm not a pro photographer ...not because the camera is no good. It's fantastic for what it is
 
Yes both the nexc3 and 5n and there replacements share the d5100/d7000 image sensor and the nex7 shares the d3200 sensor. So in sensor performance it would be a uprgrade from your d3000 where as the m4/3 would not be.
 
Last edited:
The only way you're going to know for certain is by trying, but I would say that if you're not happy with the quality of the images you're getting out of the Nikon, you may be less happy with M4/3. The issue is more likely to be your skill than the equipment.
The only thing is that as you have a relatively small entry level DSLR, the size difference is negligible and you may well find yourself having spent a lot of money, being in exactly the same position you are now.
Ultimately though, it's personal preference. Pretty much any camera and lens combo with give decent results providing the person operating the camera is up to the challenge. :)
 
Dave1 said:
I tried and failed with the m4/3rds experiment, I sold all my DSLR gear last year and bought into the idea of smaller and lighter = easier to carry for the same IQ. Unfortunately, in my experience it isn't yet totally comparable.

I ended up using the same bag, so size wise, gained very little over something like a 500D (or your 3200). IQ wise, it was OK at smallish sizes (up to maybe A4), I couldn't really fault it at those small sizes (or web size). Unfortunately I found anything larger to really show up noise and it just didn't look as good.

I have had images with the Canon kit lens printed at 30"x40" which look excellent, unfortunately not once did I feel happy with even A3 from m4/3rds.

Those that love m4/3rds will jump in with comments about technique and post examples, all I can say is my technique hasn't changed since the 80's and and as a P/T wedding photographer for almost 15 years didn't have a client unhappy with any enlargement I supplied. Perhaps my standards are just higher than others.

With regard the kit, there are compromises as well, I bought a EP-L2 first, but found AF to be very leisurely and the body was pretty useless in bright sunlight. I then bought a Lumix G2 ( it was cheaper than buying an EVF) and found the EVF fairly annoying to use in low light, and the colours were slightly off as well. Where I found images on my Canon bodies to be pretty usable straight out the camera I found I was editing even JPEGs for colour balance.

I also eventually lost patience with the AF system, if something dared to be moving in the image it would invariably struggle, as it would also do when trying to focus on small items against a plain background (like a spider in a web against a wall).

I lost out quite badly financially, so am probably slightly biased, but feel I gave it a fair trial (EP-L2 with 14-42, Lumix G2 with 14-42, Oly 40-150, Oly 45 f1.8).

I might well try m4/3 again in the future when the newer 16MP sensor bodies get to a reasonable price, but I wouldn't sell my DSLR to do so.
Click to expand...

Dave, all that m43 gear you used I'd not class any of it as the best, so maybe that's why. There's far better m43 kit than you had, apart from what I assume is the Oly 45mm 1.8

Anyway it's like any consumer products, some like some don't
 
Last edited:
asadhumayun85 said:
I don't think I get amazing pics out my d3000 so I might not lose out by downgrading . That's only because I'm not a pro photographer ...not because the camera is no good. It's fantastic for what it is
Click to expand...

unfortunately it might be the opposite, if you think poor technique is holding back your picture taking it will be shown up even more on m4/3rds. As an example, say you are already missing correct exposure and under exposing your image, whilst this will have some detrimental effect on IQ with regard to noise it won't be as apparent on the APS sensor as on the inherently more noisy m4/3 sensor.
 
ShrubMonkey said:
Dave, all that m43 gear you used I'd not class any of it as the best, so maybe that's why. There's far better m43 kit than you had, apart from what I assume is the Oly 45mm 1.8

Anyway it's like any consumer products, some like some don't
Click to expand...

I know that ( but I did partake in the experiment last year when it was a lot more current). But it is worthwhile as a comparison to someone considering a downgrade from a sub £500 DSLR.

The odds are that person isn't going to be spending a grand on a EM5.
 
A tough decision.

If I end up with a glorified point n shoot ....I'll end my armature career
 
asadhumayun85 said:
If only one could try before they buy
Click to expand...

Keep the DSLR and save for a few months. The majority of people (who have posted about doing so across forums) have regretted selling their DSLR and not being totally happy with the downgrade.

When you can afford it, buy the m4/3 camera as an addition, not a replacement to the DSLR.

If you really have to save the 20% or so weight/size difference compared to a small DSLR, consider buying into the NEX system, or even the new EOS-M.
 
asadhumayun85 said:
If only one could try before they buy
Click to expand...

If you use eBay you sort of can. Buy used, use for a month or two and if don't like then sell. Get back what you paid minus the fees.

That's what I did and got to try around 6 or 7 cameras in the last year. The fees do add up but still a cheap way of being able to properly try out cameras and I also enjoy trying out/getting to know different cameras so that is an added benefit. I now know exactly what camera I like and haven't even thought about changing it (well, maybe a couple of times :) )
 
Dave1 said:
Keep the DSLR and save for a few months. The majority of people (who have posted about doing so across forums) have regretted selling their DSLR and not being totally happy with the downgrade.

When you can afford it, buy the m4/3 camera as an addition, not a replacement to the DSLR.
Click to expand...

Kind of what I did when I bought a Panasonic G2 as a lightweight sidekick to my 5D early last year.

I have ended up using the G2 far more; especially once I got an adapter to use my old manual focus Canon FD lenses. The G2 with an FD 35-105mm f/3.5 weighs nearly a third of the 5D with a grip and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS attached and fits easily into a small shoulder bag rather than the LowePro backpack I carry the 5D in. TBH, it's made my photography more fun and I can take a relatively compact FD film body like an A-1 with me and shoot digital and film in parallel.

I have considered selling up the 5D, but while good, the G2 isn't quite there on quality, notably for long exposures at night. The new generation of CSCs could just fit the bill, though. Keeping a keen eye on the releases round Photokina...
 
For ages, I used a Canon 40D + 17-55 f2.8, 70-200 f4 L IS, 10-20 Siggy, 50mm f1.8 mk2, and with a GF1 + 20mm f1.7 pancake lens as second body. The quality from the GF1 was never worse than any of the shots from my SLR I found, and it was a much smaller package.

I've always wanted to upgrade the 40D to a 5D2 and go full frame, but never had enough money to take the plunge and thought it'd be a bit of a waste, £1600 for body only is steep. The lenses I had weren't exactly cheap either. I then realised that I could sell off all my Canon gear and purchase an OM-D E-M5 kit, and switch completely to M43, and I'm completely glad I did. I also bought an E-PL3 double zoom kit for my wife so she can share the lenses that I invest in.

No more lugging the big body and giant lenses about, I can carry a small shoulder bag that can fit everything in, rather than a big backpack. The weight and size alone is a big factor for most people moving to M43, and it's a good reason too. I enjoy using my E-M5 just as much as I did my SLR, maybe even more, it's tiny in comparison, the image quality is just as good if not better than my 40D even with the so called cheaper M43 kit lenses, and my wife can use the lenses also and vice versa. So for me personally, I'd say it was worth the switch over and I don't regret it at all. Chances are I'll stay on M43 for a while because there are always more lenses to upgrade to now to keep things interesting.

Kit: OM-D E-M5 + 12-50 kit lens, Oly 45mm f1.8, Panny 20mm f1.7, GF1 spare body.

Wife Kit: E-PL3, Oly 14-42 II R, Oly 40-150mm

You need to decide if you will be throwing any more cash into your Nikon SLR set up, or if you will just keep your current set up forever. If you do think you will want better lenses in the future, then Nikon glass isn't cheap, and they will add weight/bulk to your camera bag, whereas, building up various lenses in M43 will probably be cheaper and take up much less space. I can fit all of my kit listed above apart from the GF1 into a tiny shoulder bag. Also, you may be in a situation like me where you may want to buy a 2nd body in the future for your wife/partner and then you could share lenses but still keep the size/weight to a minimum.

The only major downsides in my opinion is the lack of an optical view finder compared to cheaper M43 bodies with no viewfinders at all, but I find the EVF on the E-M5 to be good enough. Also, the lack of dials on cheaper/smaller bodies to change settings quicker is a downside too, but not completely unworkable, and if you need to shoot sports or fast moving objects, then they can't match the SLRs. But in my opinion, if you buy a decent or a few decent M43 lenses, image quality is up there with the SLR's.
 
I tried the micro 43rd route but came back. The compact size and weight was the reason, but soon realised that I missed having a decent fast viewfinder and then when I wanted big zoom it all got a bit front heavy.

I think if your not after zoom of larger proportions or thinking of doing sports you can't go wrong with the format.
 
icnoble said:
I had a Lumix G2 to use on holiday. When I realized that the Nikon D3100 was not much bigger or heavier I bought one and sold the G2. The image quality is better and I found the Nikon easier to use.
Click to expand...

Easier to use than a G2. Come off it :D What's hard about a G2 I just don't know :thinking:
 
Just MVHO on 4/3 image quality. I keep reading about noise and 4/3 being no good for anything but small images and APS-C being better etc... and (IMVHO) it's mostly because people haven't tried to (or can't) get the best out of 4/3.

I'm not the greatest shooter (no... honest :D) but even I can produce a 4/3 shot that'll be next to indistinguishable from a shot from my 5D at all but the higher ISO's. Most of the woe is IMVHO in the mind.
 
woof woof said:
Just MVHO on 4/3 image quality. I keep reading about noise and 4/3 being no good for anything but small images and APS-C being better etc... and (IMVHO) it's mostly because people haven't tried to (or can't) get the best out of 4/3.

I'm not the greatest shooter (no... honest :D) but even I can produce a 4/3 shot that'll be next to indistinguishable from a shot from my 5D at all but the higher ISO's. Most of the woe is IMVHO in the mind.
Click to expand...

Yes, it must be user error, I've only been shooting since the early 80s and have had large enlargements made since then (probably many hundred over the 15 or so years I shot weddings and portraits professionally) and hundreds of large prints and canvases since then for myself, friends and family.

But suddenly after changing to m4/3rds my technique went to hell and I forgot how to shoot properly. Luckily I got my mind back after selling the m4/3rds and buying some Canon gear again and I managed to shoot well enough to produce 30x40" prints again.

It must have been some sort of virus ;)
 
I would consider 30 x 40 as large prints and not the norm. What size would you consider you could print m4/3rds up to? Also, which camera was this? The newer sensors are supposedly much better than the old.

I have to say I'm doing less colour/exposure type post processing with m4/3rds over the 5D2 images - the raw processing in LR is pretty good as is. I am however doing more noise management - even at base ISO - with the G5.
 
Interesting discussion and I am also going through similar dilemma.

I am currently 'system-less' - and the key for me is system. So something that has good flash, good macro lens plus the usual accessories and lens selection.

In an ideal scenario I would love both a mirrorless 'light' set-up as well as a Full Frame for the more creative photography.

Alas, funds are not infinite so compromises have to be made. The new D600 would be very nice but I frankly dislike heavy camera/lens despite the huge advantages the CLS system brings.

And this is what tempts me to the OM-D EM5 - good sized equipment and image quality that is more than good enough for me. Of course light enough for travel as well. It also has a decent wireless flash capabilities. I'm waiting to see how the new 60mm macro lens is. But should be noted both options are not exactly cheap....
 
I've just been through this thinking myself. I had a k-x with the kit lenses 18-55 and 55-300 and found that even that was a nuisance to carry on days out with the kids at theme parks etc. I was considering getting something like a g3 (or even a used gh2) with a 14-140 as a 'do-it-all' option.

In the end I've kept the k-x and gone for a tamron 18-250 lens. The combination is a compromise but one that I'm currently happy with and it should be a minimal cost to change after selling my 2 kit lenses.

There are smaller micro 4/3 but I still wanted a decent lens range, usable flash and reasonable handling. That means that I was really looking at the micro 4/3 that look and feel like small DSLR's and compared to my k-x or another 'small' DSLR there just wasn't enough difference for me and I'd lose the optical viewfinder.
 
Last edited:
The om-d looks overpriced already, but if the £650 suggested price of the xe-1 is correct. The om-d looks wildly expensive!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top