In a quandary

[Bebop]

I was about to say the same as @Nod, just enjoy your new toy @the black fox. Sometimes it's just fun to have something else to play with that offers new challenges.

I still keep my older Olympus Pen F - the quality and function have been superceded by other models, but it's just fun to use and challenging in a different way to my other cameras.

 

[Erty]

In terms of wildlife, in spite of what I said in my post, Olympus is still hard to beat.

In terms of Nikon I've always had a yearning for a D700, just to try it out and see if the sensor is as special as many people say it is.

If you go on the D700 review on DPreview they have a colour check chart that allows you to compare cameras from that period. I think DPreview might have stopped doing it because the in-camera colours matter less when you play on lightroom. This chart seems to suggest that the D3, D300s and D90 colours are almost identical to the D700. The D3x and D300 are a bit different. The more modern Nikon cameras are more different again.

 

[myotis]

If you go on the D700 review on DPreview they have a colour check chart that allows you to compare cameras from that period. I think DPreview might have stopped doing it because the in-camera colours matter less when you play on lightroom. This chart seems to suggest that the D3, D300s and D90 colours are almost identical to the D700. The D3x and D300 are a bit different. The more modern Nikon cameras are more different again.

Thanks, interesting but I think it's more than just colours.

It's a much broader holistic feeling of them being different, which you could probably break down into measurable things e.g tonal and colour gradation, microcontrast, highlight roll off etc.

All of which probably set a different "fixed" starting point for the raw image characteristics that depends on sensor and processor characteristics. Albeit with a very subtle effects on the final image. The processor is probably as important than the sensor as you can see subtle and not so subtle differences where Nikon reuse the same sensor, but with an updated processor.

The Nikon D3100, D3200, D700, D3, D4 and Df, were all low resolution sensors (ie large photosites) designed and built by Nikon, All have reputations (not sure about the D3100/D3200) of being a bit different to their other cameras.

The D700, D3 and D300 all use the same processor (EI-142) and the D4, D4s and Df have the same processor (Expeed 3).

The D4 and Df share the same sensor, and the D3 and D700 share the same sensor

Modern Nikon sensors, as you know, are mainly built by Sony, with varying degrees of input into their design from Nikon, but they still of course use Nikon built and designed processors.

Nikon and Sony now seem to be in a fairly stable relationship ( ie they have shared patents, and Nikon make the equipment that Sony use to make the sensors), But Nikon still researches and builds sensors (Nikon have their own research scale fabrication capability) which feeds into the Sony built sensors.

I don't know if Sony make all of Nikon's sensors e.g. for their industrial cameras, but the regular rumours of Nikon using Tower for a new sensor never seems to come to anything.

None of this is, of course, of much relevance to making photographs, but it's interesting, and I think, at a "very nuanced" level, the sensor/processor still sets a constraint on the final image qualities.

EDIT: having written all of the above, I've now read that it seems it is uncertain who made these sensors (they are badged Nikon) but they might have been fabricated by Sony or Panasonic.

 

[the black fox]

well the lens arrived mid day and put on camera ,took a few test shots and decided I needed to make some adjustments to menu ,now done . the camera is working o.k the lens a tamron 70-300 vc di is o.k but not exceptional but for the price paid its great . might try to find a Nikon lens to see if that improves things . I did find initially the photos were over exposed so now changed that in menu but it may well have been todays glaring light so will keep an eye on it . here's one after tuning.
fine tune by jeff cohen, on Flickr

 

[Nod]

Looks a touch over-sharpened to me (look at the edge of the roof against the estuary) but that's probably a Flickrization!

 

[the black fox]

Looks a touch over-sharpened to me (look at the edge of the roof against the estuary) but that's probably a Flickrization!

We shall get it right with time

 

[snerkler]

As lots will know I have been going a long time and had more than my fair share of cameras and lenses over the years , six years ago I changed to Olympus mirrorless after heart failure and surgery .. due mainly to weight .but now recovered and although older still fairly mobile .. I love my Olympus gear but got an itch that needs scratching , I keep looking at the shots I got with my old Nikon D300s and various lenses 300mm f4 and sigma 150-600 variants .
I know that M/L is the rage these days and fully committed to it but the itch keeps saying scratch me ..what to do ??.

I was the same as you, had FF and m4/3 and no matter how good m4/3 is it still can't compare to FF in a number of areas imo, most important for me is 3D look and pop.

Due to health issues I too struggle with heavy gear, but FF mirrorless was the answer for me as there's not much of a weight penalty vs m4/3 for a number of lenses I use. The only area where there is more of a difference is with wildlife lenses, my FF wildlife setup is 2132g vs 1559g I had with m4/3. Still noticeably lighter than the 2956g for my old DSLR wildlife setup though.

 

[Nod]

To be fair, Toby, there's only a pound or so difference between the FF and M4/3 wildlife kits now and only a couple more lb on the DSLR kit. I'm pretty sure I could lose that much in a month! It's my back that starts aching after an hour or so toting pretty much any kit bag these days.

 

[snerkler]

To be fair, Toby, there's only a pound or so difference between the FF and M4/3 wildlife kits now and only a couple more lb on the DSLR kit. I'm pretty sure I could lose that much in a month! It's my back that starts aching after an hour or so toting pretty much any kit bag these days.

I get what you’re saying but it’s different carrying a few pounds extra body weight compared to carrying a few pounds in your hands or on your shoulders. Of course this will depend on the particular condition one is suffering.

 

[woof woof]

I was the same as you, had FF and m4/3 and no matter how good m4/3 is it still can't compare to FF in a number of areas imo, most important for me is 3D look and pop.

To me this is colour, contrast and depth and although you can't get the very thin DoF you get from FF I think you can certainly get pop. If it's enough or not is a personal thing. I took this today with MFT and a 14mm f2.5. TBH I don't think I'd be any happier with this if I'd taken it with FF.

 

[the black fox]

I still manage to get about but fast approaching the big 8 zero and with a dodgy heart and now diabetes to contend with lugging heavy gear about loses its appeal , but I get there you learn to adjust, got diagnosed at xmas with type 2 and have with strict dieting lost over 3 stone and dropped between 4 to 6 inches off my waist size , expensive clothes wise but getting there ,bloods are nearly back to normal levels

 

[snerkler]

To me this is colour, contrast and depth and although you can't get the very thin DoF you get from FF I think you can certainly get pop. If it's enough or not is a personal thing. I took this today with MFT and a 14mm f2.5. TBH I don't think I'd be any happier with this if I'd taken it with FF.

View attachment 452167

Not everyone wants the same thing and for a lot of people m4/3 ticks all the boxes. I remember when I shot the London Marathon for a charity and even they could tell the difference between those shot with m4/3 and FF

 

[Nod]

I still manage to get about but fast approaching the big 8 zero and with a dodgy heart and now diabetes to contend with lugging heavy gear about loses its appeal , but I get there you learn to adjust, got diagnosed at xmas with type 2 and have with strict dieting lost over 3 stone and dropped between 4 to 6 inches off my waist size , expensive clothes wise but getting there ,bloods are nearly back to normal levels

Well done on the 3 stone!

 

[snerkler]

Well done on the 3 stone!

^^^ this

 

[myotis]

Not everyone wants the same thing and for a lot of people m4/3 ticks all the boxes. I remember when I shot the London Marathon for a charity and even they could tell the difference between those shot with m4/3 and FF

As I've said in another post, if you pixel peep, the differences between sensors are far less obvious, than if you compare the "whole" picture.

As well as seeing this for myself, when you read comparative reviews by photographers they tend to look at sharpness and detail, to decide there are only small differences, but when the reviews include buyers of photography (or non-photographers), they tend to prefer the "look" provided by the larger sensor.

But no sensors produces "poor" results so it's only really noticeable when you can make direct comparisons.

 

[snerkler]

As I've said in another post, if you pixel peep, the differences between sensors are far less obvious, than if you compare the "whole" picture.

As well as seeing this for myself, when you read comparative reviews by photographers they tend to look at sharpness and detail, to decide there are only small differences, but when the reviews include buyers of photography (or non-photographers), they tend to prefer the "look" provided by the larger sensor.

But no sensors produces "poor" results so it's only really noticeable when you can make direct comparisons.

TBH when pixel peeping I think there's quite a difference in sharpness and detail, but in print not so much

With regards to the look it is a hard thing to quantify. I've heard it said that large sensors render better and maybe they do as they'll have better micro contrast due to less noise, but I wonder if it's more a case of different focal lengths and/or apertures giving different appearances, different fall off etc etc

 

[GreenNinja67]

There definitely is a "look" to full frame (on my Sony there was anyway) and sometimes I miss it.

But not enough to spend loads on a 2nd system.

In the studio under strobes it's more difficult to tell the difference.

 

[LeeRatters]

There is certainly a "look" relating to sensor size including the 'pop' without a doubt.

Whether that's noticeable to someone or whether they care is another thing. But you can't deny it exists.

I'll take the A7Riii and 35GM at f/1.4 every time from my kit if I could. I'm happy with what my lightweight everyday X100f gives me, I just have to accept that it can't compare and enjoy using it, which I do

 

[myotis]

TBH when pixel peeping I think there's quite a difference in sharpness and detail, but in print not so much

I tend to agree, but I've also seen many reviews refer to only subtle differences. And for most applications, it probably doesn't matter that much.

With regards to the look it is a hard thing to quantify. I've heard it said that large sensors render better and maybe they do as they'll have better micro contrast due to less noise, but I wonder if it's more a case of different focal lengths and/or apertures giving different appearances, different fall off etc etc

As per my earlier post, I think it's a lot to do with tonal and colour gradation. There is a increasing "smoothness" of tonal/colour changes as you increase sensor size. That has been the most obvious differences for me, but I suspect several things are contributing to the overall 'feel".

 

[woof woof]

Not everyone wants the same thing and for a lot of people m4/3 ticks all the boxes. I remember when I shot the London Marathon for a charity and even they could tell the difference between those shot with m4/3 and FF

How?

 

[woof woof]

There is certainly a "look" relating to sensor size including the 'pop' without a doubt.

Whether that's noticeable to someone or whether they care is another thing. But you can't deny it exists.

I'll take the A7Riii and 35GM at f/1.4 every time from my kit if I could. I'm happy with what my lightweight everyday X100f gives me, I just have to accept that it can't compare and enjoy using it, which I do

I think we need to specify what it is and when it does and doesn't exist. If we are talking a combination of colour, contrast and dof then some shots will be affected more by the conditions and the composition than others and there's only so far you can push the sliders post capture but if the conditions and the composition are more friendly then imo pop is possible with MFT but you'll certainly struggle to get paper thin dof from MFT which you'd get from FF. I prefer appropriate to the shot dof and not f1.2 for everything but this is a preference which will vary.

Another MFT 14mm f2.5 picture.

 

[snerkler]

How?

They said the images look flat and don't look as good quality, here's an example. Shot on the 40-150mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8


Screenshot 2025-05-02 at 14.22.45 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

I think we need to specify what it is and when. It does and doesn't exist. If we are talking a combination of colour contrast and dof then some shots will be affected more by condition and composition than others and there's only so far you can push the sliders post capture but if the conditions and composition are mft friendly then imo pop is possible but you'll certainly struggle to get paper thin dof from mft. I prefer appropriate to the shot dof and this is a preference which will vary.

There's more to it than DOF. Even with landscapes with maximum DOF FF shots appear to have more depth/3D. I didn't used to be able to see it, I can remember posting an example (see below) with one image shot on the D850 and 24-70mm f2.8 and the other on the EM1 Mark II and 12-40mm f2.8 and thought they looked very similar. @ancient_mariner saw it straight away but I struggled. These days it does appear more obvious to me, however at times it's not always obvious to see on a standalone image whether it was shot on m4/3, FF, medium format etc


Screenshot 2025-05-02 at 14.18.07 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

 

[woof woof]

With the runners the dof is obvious and I think for me it overpowers anything and everything else. With the rocks, I don't know. There are certainly differences but if these are 100% down to the size of the format I don't know.

For years I've used MFT by whenever possible applying the crop factor to the aperture I choose. As the conditions become more difficult then noise and the more fragile nature of smaller format files and what can be done post capture will come into play and of course often we're looking at different manufacturers of camera with different ideas about what the files should look like and different lenses too and we should realise the effect that lenses have on the look of a file.

Years back I tried comparison shots, MFT to FF, using the same lens. One problem is that a 50mm on MFT is a different thing to a 50mm on FF but I thought it was worth doing to eliminate one variable even if introducing another.

My main point is that I think it is possible to get "pop" from smaller formats even if only when the stars align. I think another point I'm trying to make is that it's important to try and quantify and understand what we're talking about as if we can we can hopefully at least sometimes get better results than if we don't know what we are really looking at and seeing or not seeing.

 

[LeeRatters]

I think we need to specify what it is and when it does and doesn't exist. If we are talking a combination of colour, contrast and dof then some shots will be affected more by the conditions and the composition than others and there's only so far you can push the sliders post capture but if the conditions and the composition are more friendly then imo pop is possible with MFT but you'll certainly struggle to get paper thin dof from MFT which you'd get from FF. I prefer appropriate to the shot dof and not f1.2 for everything but this is a preference which will vary.

Another MFT 14mm f2.5 picture.

View attachment 452209

Side by side, the difference between the 35GM at f/1.4 and an equivalent MFT focal length is going to be pretty obvious. As I said, earlier, whether someone cares is a different thing.

The difference between the 23/2 of the X100f is obvious just at a glance.

In the same way, that a large format camera will make the 35GM look inferior......

 

[woof woof]

Side by side, the difference between the 35GM at f/1.4 and an equivalent MFT focal length is going to be pretty obvious. As I said, earlier, whether someone cares is a different thing.

The difference between the 23/2 of the X100f is obvious just at a glance.

In the same way, that a large format camera will make the 35GM look inferior......

Can you try and describe the differences you are seeing? Apart from the obvious difference in dof.

I don't really care all that much what people like as long as they're happy and I'm free to like whatever I like but if we can't make a better job of describing what we're seeing it becomes very difficult to talk about these differences.

 

[myotis]

They said the images look flat and don't look as good quality, here's an example. Shot on the 40-150mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8


Screenshot 2025-05-02 at 14.22.45 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr




There's more to it than DOF. Even with landscapes with maximum DOF FF shots appear to have more depth/3D. I didn't used to be able to see it, I can remember posting an example (see below) with one image shot on the D850 and 24-70mm f2.8 and the other on the EM1 Mark II and 12-40mm f2.8 and thought they looked very similar. @ancient_mariner saw it straight away but I struggled. These days it does appear more obvious to me, however at times it's not always obvious to see on a standalone image whether it was shot on m4/3, FF, medium format etc


Screenshot 2025-05-02 at 14.18.07 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

I think the runners illustrate the difference well, because the smaller sensor actually looks contrastier because of blown highlights and blocked up blacks,than the FF image. But the FF image has a much better tonal range than the m43 image, while not looking flat (compare the skin tones of the main subject in each picture).

Some of this could be fixed in the processing, but one of the reasons I gave up on m43 was that I found the Olympus/panasonic files needed much more work than my Nikon files, to still not get as good results.

 

[woof woof]

I think the runners illustrate the difference well, because the smaller sensor actually looks contrastier because of blown highlights and blocked up blacks,than the FF image. But the FF image has a much better tonal range than the m43 image, while not looking flat (compare the skin tones of the main subject in each picture).

Some of this could be fixed in the processing, but one of the reasons I gave up on m43 was that I found the Olympus/panasonic files needed much more work than my Nikon files, to still not get as good results.

Some MFT cameras have for example a higher DR than some FF cameras of the past. My last word on this is that I think it's important to try and identify exactly what we're talking about so that we can if possible close any gaps that do appear by doing things differently when using different systems.

 

[tijuana taxi]

I only use m4/3 and have no means (or inclination) to compare it with FF.
Ignorance is bliss in my case, more than happy with the A3 prints my G9 produces.
Not sure why this debate happens so often, don't see it for instance with MF versus FF.

 

[myotis]

Some MFT cameras have for example a higher DR than some FF cameras of the past. My last word on this is that I think it's important to try and identify exactly what we're talking about so that we can if possible close any gaps that do appear by doing things differently when using different systems.

I don't think it's just dynamic range, depending on what you exactly mean by that, and it may well have an impact on what I, and others are seeing.However, I'm not sure if I can explain any better than the several posts I've already made about tonal and colour gradation, because I think this is the key difference for me.

You could see it in the film days when you moved from 35 to roll film to sheet film, and the same applies to sensor sizes, though I think it's complicated by pixel density and bit depth.

I used to be able to go through books of photographs, and pick out the photographs made on sheet film, (as opposed to roll film or 35mm) based purely on the colour/tonal gradation qualities of the images.

As I said in an earlier post, the difference is most noticeable, but not exclusively so, in areas of similar tone and colour. e.g water, skies, skin tones, etc.. With smaller sensors, tones/ colours change fairly abruptly, but as sensor sizes increase there is a smoother change between colours/tones.. This often has the effect of making the global contrast appear flatter, but local contrast higher. Giving a "soft" pop to the print, rather than a "harsh" pop to the print.

It's certainly more noticeable with some subject matter over others. but possibly the most glaring example for me was a photograph of a kestrel on a perch. One with a Nikon one V3 and the 70-300 lens, the other with a Nikon D7000 and the 28-200. The 1" sensor on the Nikon gave me a pin sharp, grain free A4 print, which I was really impressed with. Much better than I had expected from the 1" sensor.

But the print from the Nikon D7000 file, although not as sharp, had nuances of colour in the feathers that the Nikon V3 just didn't have. Feather areas that looked a homogenous brown in the V3 print had multiple gradations of brown in the D7000 print. Looking at the wo print at normal viewing distances, the D7000 one was clearly nicer to look at.

It's an experience I've repeated over and over again, and for me, almost all the time the larger sensor results have an obviously different look to them, which just looks "nicer". They are also easier to process. I used to spend a long time working on 1" and M43 files, trying to get them to good starting point .

As I said in an earlier post, I've just got a Fuji GFX 50s, and so far, it's showing a noticeable improvement in colour/tonal gradation over my Nikon Z8. Which is what I was hoping for, I have a specific project in mind for it.

Obviously, how important these difference are, depends on what you are doing, there are many reasons to buy one system over another

In terms of closing gaps, I'm not sure it 's possibl. I have found in the past that making custom camera profiles can help (using Lumariver) which in my case with Nikon cameras improved the tonal/colour gradations in the greens. I have also found that Capture One (regardless of camera), gives slightly better colour/tonal gradations and micro contrast control than Lightroom or DXO PL can manage, but both these things aren't really a substitute for a bigger sensor.

 

[myotis]

I only use m4/3 and have no means (or inclination) to compare it with FF.
Ignorance is bliss in my case, more than happy with the A3 prints my G9 produces.
Not sure why this debate happens so often, don't see it for instance with MF versus FF.

I have often seen MF vs FF debated. And I've mentioned comparisons in an earlier post.

I suspect the debate happens often because people want some help/assurance that they are making the right choice of camera system, especially as there is no "bad" choice, between the different camera systems available.

M43 stands out as being a bit different because of it's smaller sensor, while at the same time offering lots of good reasons to own one. So the most obvious potentially negative aspect of M43 (among many positive ones) is the sensor size, and how much quality you might be giving up.

So it seems natural to me that there will be a lot of debate on the subject..

Having said that, the discussion here is discussing a very nuanced aspect of sensor size that isn't just about M43 vs FF, it;'s about the wder differences of moving up in sensor size: from 1" to M43, to APS, to Full Frame, to cropped MF, and to Full Frame MF

 

[snerkler]

Can you try and describe the differences you are seeing? Apart from the obvious difference in dof.

I don't really care all that much what people like as long as they're happy and I'm free to like whatever I like but if we can't make a better job of describing what we're seeing it becomes very difficult to talk about these differences.

For me it's simply an image has more of a 3D appearance rather than looking a bit flat, it's very difficult to describe but it's definitely there. I have nothing but praise for m4/3 and shot with it for a number of years, but the images do look different a lot of the time.

Here's some runners with a more shallow DOF on m4/3


P4280582 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

P4280783 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

To me they look flat compared to these below


DSC_8743 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

DSC_8945 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

 

[LeeRatters]

Can you try and describe the differences you are seeing? Apart from the obvious difference in dof.

I don't really care all that much what people like as long as they're happy and I'm free to like whatever I like but if we can't make a better job of describing what we're seeing it becomes very difficult to talk about these differences.

The first person that comes to mind is Bryan Birks.

I don't need to put it into words, you compare this image below with a similar framed MFT image....

Bryan Birks IG

 

[tijuana taxi]

For me it's simply an image has more of a 3D appearance rather than looking a bit flat, it's very difficult to describe but it's definitely there. I have nothing but praise for m4/3 and shot with it for a number of years, but the images do look different a lot of the time.

Here's some runners with a more shallow DOF on m4/3


P4280582 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

P4280783 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

To me they look flat compared to these below


DSC_8743 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

DSC_8945 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

I can see the difference you are talking about.
Another consideration to explain the variance might be the cost of the equipment?
The Sony gear you list costs a fair few quid more than the comparable M4/3 cameras and lenses.
As an example your 70-200 costs three times the equivalent Panasonic version (35-100 ii 2.8)
For me that outlay wouldn't be worth the extra "pop" especially when printed at A3 where its less noticeable

 

[John_M]

The first person that comes to mind is Bryan Birks.

I don't need to put it into words, you compare this image below with a similar framed MFT image....

Bryan Birks IG

Is the depth there coming from the viewpoint and/or the focal length? The relatively distant background and composition (absence of clutter) help.

I think that's why I like my 16-35 on FF.

TBH I couldn't really see the 'depth' difference in the two similar landscape shots.

 

[snerkler]

Another consideration to explain the variance might be the cost of the equipment?
The Sony gear you list costs a fair few quid more than the comparable M4/3 cameras and lenses.
As an example your 70-200 costs three times the equivalent Panasonic version (35-100 ii 2.8)
For me that outlay wouldn't be worth the extra "pop" especially when printed at A3 where its less noticeable

Those FF photos were taken with the D850 and 70-200mm f2.8 which cost about the same as the m4/3 gear I shot with.

I appreciate there is now a csot difference but I don't think that's down to quality, the Olympus Pro lenses are absolute top quality and I think the only reason they are cheaper is that they are smaller and so cost less to produce.

I don't think that I'll ever know what the difference is, but I see it and that's all that matters

 

[snerkler]

Another consideration to explain the variance might be the cost of the equipment?

Maybe this is a fairer comparison in terms of cost, the Olympus 300mm f4 va Sony 100-400mm


P2130011 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

A7R09986 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

 

[LeeRatters]

Is the depth there coming from the viewpoint and/or the focal length? The relatively distant background and composition (absence of clutter) help.

I think that's why I like my 16-35 on FF.

TBH I couldn't really see the 'depth' difference in the two similar landscape shots.

You forgot to mention the "sensor size"

i can assure you, if you stood in the same spot with a MFT it would not look the same.

I haven't owned a 17-40mm type zoom since about 2013

 

[the black fox]

update required .. well the d300s didn't stand the test of time and although quiet good close up it quickly fell off the planet when a bit of range was introduced ,, so last weekend I met up with a old buddy of mine who has a large arsenal of Nikon f mount lenses and had a play and a chat .. the outcome was I got talked into a D7500.. again from WEX ( who have been a superb company to deal with ) and bought Saturday arrived Monday .. tried it out in the garden and quickly realised there was something wrong it wouldn't sustain a burst mode and kept giving ERR messages , phoned up wex and got told to send it back for credit .
I was now left with two options go for a d7200 which I have had before nice but not exciting or bite the bullet and get a D500 which I did it arrived today and a quick set up saw me down the estuary playing feed the gulls .. at the moment I only have two Nikon lenses the tamron 70-300vc and a Nikon 24-120VR which is a nice bit of kit .. .. so over the next week or two I will be looking for a Nikon long range lens either the 200-500 or a sigma 150-600 ..both pushing my luck weight wise but my health has improved immensely this year having lost 4 stone in weight since xmas so there ya go
the olympus OM1 and 300mm f4 plus tc's is staying but I now have a useable alternative when needed

 

[dibbly dobbler]

update required .. well the d300s didn't stand the test of time and although quiet good close up it quickly fell off the planet when a bit of range was introduced ,, so last weekend I met up with a old buddy of mine who has a large arsenal of Nikon f mount lenses and had a play and a chat .. the outcome was I got talked into a D7500.. again from WEX ( who have been a superb company to deal with ) and bought Saturday arrived Monday .. tried it out in the garden and quickly realised there was something wrong it wouldn't sustain a burst mode and kept giving ERR messages , phoned up wex and got told to send it back for credit .
I was now left with two options go for a d7200 which I have had before nice but not exciting or bite the bullet and get a D500 which I did it arrived today and a quick set up saw me down the estuary playing feed the gulls .. at the moment I only have two Nikon lenses the tamron 70-300vc and a Nikon 24-120VR which is a nice bit of kit .. .. so over the next week or two I will be looking for a Nikon long range lens either the 200-500 or a sigma 150-600 ..both pushing my luck weight wise but my health has improved immensely this year having lost 4 stone in weight since xmas so there ya go
the olympus OM1 and 300mm f4 plus tc's is staying but I now have a useable alternative when needed

Be interested to see what you can do with the 'new' (old!) kit Jeff compared to your M43 setup - hope it's fun in any event

 

[snerkler]

update required .. well the d300s didn't stand the test of time and although quiet good close up it quickly fell off the planet when a bit of range was introduced ,, so last weekend I met up with a old buddy of mine who has a large arsenal of Nikon f mount lenses and had a play and a chat .. the outcome was I got talked into a D7500.. again from WEX ( who have been a superb company to deal with ) and bought Saturday arrived Monday .. tried it out in the garden and quickly realised there was something wrong it wouldn't sustain a burst mode and kept giving ERR messages , phoned up wex and got told to send it back for credit .
I was now left with two options go for a d7200 which I have had before nice but not exciting or bite the bullet and get a D500 which I did it arrived today and a quick set up saw me down the estuary playing feed the gulls .. at the moment I only have two Nikon lenses the tamron 70-300vc and a Nikon 24-120VR which is a nice bit of kit .. .. so over the next week or two I will be looking for a Nikon long range lens either the 200-500 or a sigma 150-600 ..both pushing my luck weight wise but my health has improved immensely this year having lost 4 stone in weight since xmas so there ya go
the olympus OM1 and 300mm f4 plus tc's is staying but I now have a useable alternative when needed

The D500 is an excellent camera. I’m a bit surprised Wex only offered credit, they should have offered a full refund. Not only was the camera faulty you were still within your 14 day distant sale act.