running two systems

the black fox

the black fox

Suspended / Banned
Messages
17,082
Name
Jeff
Edit My Images
No
as some will have seen after several years of using purely olympus gear I recently decided to buy into a retro nikon D500 and now had a couple of months running the two systems side by side so was it worth it and what's my opinion .
first off I have the olympus OM1 plus a 300mm f4 and 1.4 tc plus a few other lenses it all works well and gives good results
the reason to backtrack on gear ? it started with a nostalgia trip with a nikon D300s which I got very cheaply . but obviously it was lacking in performance , so after a couple of trial and errors sessions with a mate I went for a d7500 from wex , this turned out to be faulty on day one so after a phone consult with there customer services I ended up paying extra and getting a D500 good move ??? yeah great camera works well but not as fast as my olympus gear .
o.k what lenses my first one was a tamron 70-300vc good lens but lacking reach .. so I plumbed for a 300 pf with a 1.4 tc and a 1.7 tc worked well but it left me with the same reach as my olympus set up so not gained anything , but while on holiday in Devon I took the opportunity to visit mifsuds shop in Brixham as he had the nikon 200-500 sigma 150-600 and tamron 150-600 g2 . he offered me a very good trade in price for the 300mm pf and 1.7 tc so which lens the tamron had the best write up it was also the lightest of the 3 so I bought it
initial testing on holiday didn't give that good a result and I nearly took it back . but I stuck with it and once home established it was front focussing .. so a micro adjust session followed and im now over the moon with it .. I have also changed to a XQD card and reader that is lightning fast . all in all the D500 and 150-600 lens cost me a lot less than buying an equivalent zoom lens for the olympus so im quite happy running the two systems side by side and getting some very good results from both , its been a hard slog couple of months but well worth doing both financially and mentally as im now thinking more about how I do things.
will I eventually change to nikon Z I honestly don't think I will gain anything by doing so as cost always comes into the equation
 
Last edited:
Kinda nice that someone else has had a similar but different experience.

I got an OM-D E-M10 iv to see if I was happy with image quality = weight saving compared to my D610. Image quality isn't the same, but such a saving on weight considering i hike with the camera.

But then felt the AF wasn't so good for me, or I wasn't very good at it....so got the OM1 and never looked back and the EM10 iv has gathered dust, recently I've been taking it out with the 40-150 and extension tube and the OM1 with the 300mm you (the black fox) 'made' me get :)

Feel like the EM10 can be the 'macro' camera and keep the long lens on the AF king.

​

 
I run Nikon Z (with old lenses) and OM side by side. I choose what I use depending on what I am out to capture. Muscle memory is an issue, but I've largely got over that. Strengths of one system versus strengths of the other for whatever I am doing at the time. Sometimes both systems carried at once.
 
I run Sony and now Nikon having recently purchased the ZF.
 
I'm glad to hear that the experiment with the D500 is working out well Jeff.
I find the "horses for courses" mantra works well for me, switching between the Olympus (EM1ii) and Nikon (D500 and D850) outfits as the task requires. I probably will upgrade the Olly to an OM1ii at some point but at present it's not getting enough use to make that worthwhile (been too busy with other things to go togging)
 
I think this will all depend on what you are running. I used to run two systems, the Olympus m4/3 and Nikon FF DSLR as the weight and size difference was substantial and the Olympus was great for when I wanted to travel light. I then swapped the Nikon DSLR FF to Sony mirrorless FF and all of a sudden the size and weight difference of the Olympus wasn't very significant (for the lenses I use) and so went all in with just Sony.
 
Only slightly off topic, here is an interesting comparison between the OM1 and Nikon Z8 from Mike Lane. The latter, which he has been using alongside his OM1 for a few weeks/months.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xBaqnHgqiI


He is wrong when he complains about not being able to quickly switch set ups with the Z8 (giving Olympus an advantage). The situation he describes is what the Nikon memory banks are designed for. The Olympus still does it better as they offer both custom settings AND the equivalent of the Nikon memory banks.

However, Nikon also offers an option to set up a function key, that will allow you to instantly switch to a pre-saved set of settings, so in practice they offer memory banks plus "one" custom setting.
 
If you include all formats, I shoot with a handful of systems depending on when, where and what I'm doing.

Sony A7Riii and A7 bodies with 24GM 35GM 85/1.8 and Tamron 70-180/2.8 - 35GM is my main lens, 85mm for cars, 24mm for night skies, zoom range usually for longer landscapes alongside the 35mm.

Fuji X100f for street, everyday, dog walking, beach day type stuff.

Yashica 35mm film I'll just usually take alongside a digital or sometimes just on its own and depending on my mood.

Yashica Mat 124g 6x6 I tend to just use for more special events or locations - ie a festival or show or visiting somewhere like Castle Combe Village or something.

So yeah, a fairly wide range but all enjoyable for what I use them for.
 
IMHO unless the two ILC systems have completely different use cases, then it is inevitable that you start doubling up on lens focal lengths (just in case, FOMO, etc) - this is what has happened to me (and many others in the past) and often leads to £1,000s of gear just sitting at home being idle.

I came to the conclusion that the 2nd system either needs specialist use case or needs to be a fixed lens (more compact) camera

Obviously if money is less of a concern then this might not apply.
 
For around ten years I’ve been using/running the Fuji X system and enjoying it very much…….so four months ago I bought a Nikon D700 due to the file output and so enjoy shooting with it, I really don’t mind chunky cameras.

I’ve found now that my Fuji system has taken a back step as I haven’t used it since the Nikon arrived on the scene, I’ve still a few more Nikkor lenses yet to purchase - a very happy man.
 
That was the reason I bought the Megadap ETZ 21 Pro +, so that I can utilise my Sony lenses on the Nikon ZF.
 
macvisual said:
For around ten years I’ve been using/running the Fuji X system and enjoying it very much…….so four months ago I bought a Nikon D700 due to the file output and so enjoy shooting with it, I really don’t mind chunky cameras.

I’ve found now that my Fuji system has taken a back step as I haven’t used it since the Nikon arrived on the scene, I’ve still a few more Nikkor lenses yet to purchase - a very happy man.
Click to expand...
Precisely both my set ups are roughly equal in focal length and in MP ,but I’m finding the Nikon files give a slightly superior rendition to the finished photos , the Olympus is possibly superior for action and close focus work .
And thankfully the change to Nikon z mount lenses mean that you can now get Nikon F mount lenses at very good prices ,though it’s the normal take care what your buying
 
I've used completely different systems for years - LF, MF and DSLR without any problems, but I just can't manage to switch, intuitively, between different models of the same type of camera, let alone different makes.

It's probably just me, but switching between my old D3 and D700, although very similar, always slows me down and my D7200 just adds to the complications. Obviously I know them all pretty well, but it always slows me down and makes me think about the camera controls instead of the subject.
 
I sold my Lumix FF kit and moved to OM / Olympus primarily for the Macro (best system for it in my opinion) then brought a couple more lenses and have been quite happy using the OM1 as my only camera.

I have since purchased a Z8 and will run this alongside my OM system. My OM1 is for my macro and light travel set up. My new Nikon will be for pet photography. I need to save for a 70-200 F2.8 and probably the 85 F1.8 or 135 F1.8 Plena and until then will use my OM1 and 40-150 F2.8 for the pet photos also / as back up.

There is a noticeable difference in the image quality (OM1 raw file sizes are around 20/25 MB and the Z8 are 55-60 MB).

Just booked my first ever cruise to the Norwegian Fjords so unsure which system to take now though...although may get away with both as the wife said she will want a camera lol
 
Sony A7 FF and MFT for me.

When I just had the A7 I used my RF style MFT when I wanted a faster system as the A7 is quite sluggish by modern standards. These days I have an A7III too which is fast but I hang on to MFT because it still has some advantages as fitted with a small lens it is smaller and fitted with longer lenses it's smaller and much cheaper and also my MFT cameras have a built in flash which you can tilt and bounce which comes in handy for some pictures.

I think having two systems can be a very nice thing,
 
Garry Edwards said:
I've used completely different systems for years - LF, MF and DSLR without any problems, but I just can't manage to switch, intuitively, between different models of the same type of camera, let alone different makes.

It's probably just me, but switching between my old D and D700, although very similar, always slows me down and my D7200 just adds to the complications. Obviously I know them all pretty well, but it always slows me down and makes me think about the camera controls instead of the subject.
Click to expand...
I'm much the same and in some cases I find working with different models from the same manufacturer can be more frustrating than different camera manufacturers entirely because the same make feels similar but then can have significant differences. Between the Nikon D750, Sony A9 and Nikon Z8 I've used more recently in some cases the Nikon and Sony share more than the two Nikon models do. I can still switch between the cameras but I prefer not to since as you say rather than just press a button or control without thinking about it, I need to stop and check.
 
JohnMcL7 said:
I'm much the same and in some cases I find working with different models from the same manufacturer can be more frustrating than different camera manufacturers entirely because the same make feels similar but then can have significant differences. Between the Nikon D750, Sony A9 and Nikon Z8 I've used more recently in some cases the Nikon and Sony share more than the two Nikon models do. I can still switch between the cameras but I prefer not to since as you say rather than just press a button or control without thinking about it, I need to stop and check.
Click to expand...

I think that makes sense now you mention it. I can go from the A7Riii to the X100f & my film stuff without thinking about it. But on the odd occasion I have the 35GM on the A7Riii & the 85mm on the A7 at the same time it can be more confusing because of button placement, lens button functions, the joystick etc
 
I used full frame Nikons and Fuji’s for many years - Nikon was my primary system and Fuji as the more compact alternative when I didn’t want to carry a heavy camera and lens round all day.

It worked well and in some instances I thought the Fuji’s held up well in terms of image quality to the Nikon but I never found them as intuitive to use.

However, I sold both systems and moved to Nikon Z and now have the best of both worlds. I can’t see myself ever using two interchangeable lens systems again, but I do have an X100 and a Fuji RX100 when I do want to just stick something in my pocket.
 
I've got a long term shoulder problem so I'm looking for a lighter alternative to my Nikon z 100-400, which is an excellent lens.
I've tried the OM 100-400 but it felt unbalanced on the OM-1 ii. The Panny 100-400 is lighter but I read varying reports of its sharpness.
I see no point in buying the OM 300 F4 to replace my Z 600mm PF as they are the same weight.

So, I've just bought a Fuji 70-300 to see how I like it. (On X-T5)

All suggestions welcome.

I won't be giving up my Nikon kit though.
 
I now normally go away with a Minolta film camera and lenses, plus a Sony A7 and adapter so I can use the same lenses on that camera too.

I kind of almost wish I hadn't bought my Canon R6ii as I almost never use it - despite also having an adapter for my Minolta lenses for that. I should really use it more than the Sony as it has in-body stabilisation which could help me out massively at times.
 
Peter123 said:
I've got a long term shoulder problem so I'm looking for a lighter alternative to my Nikon z 100-400, which is an excellent lens.
I've tried the OM 100-400 but it felt unbalanced on the OM-1 ii. The Panny 100-400 is lighter but I read varying reports of its sharpness.
I see no point in buying the OM 300 F4 to replace my Z 600mm PF as they are the same weight.

So, I've just bought a Fuji 70-300 to see how I like it. (On X-T5)

All suggestions welcome.

I won't be giving up my Nikon kit though.
Click to expand...
Sony aps body and a 70-300mm? Approx. 1400g all in?
 
Well X-T5 with 70-300 is not the answer. I took it out for 2 hours yesterday and compared to any of my Nikons it is slow to focus.
Not good enough for wildlife.
For the time being my lightweight kit will be Nikon Z5ii with the 28-400.

So if anyone wants an "as new" Fuji 70-300 get in touch.
 
Peter123 said:
Well X-T5 with 70-300 is not the answer. I took it out for 2 hours yesterday and compared to any of my Nikons it is slow to focus.
Not good enough for wildlife.
For the time being my lightweight kit will be Nikon Z5ii with the 28-400.

So if anyone wants an "as new" Fuji 70-300 get in touch.
Click to expand...
I was going to suggest a Z5II or Z6III with a Nikon 28-400, or a Tamron 50-400. I'm sure you have thought this through and wondered what it is that is driving you still searching.

I'm thinking of a Z50II with the 28-400 as my "carry every where" wildlife setup.
 
yes it's good for that.
I suppose I'm still looking as the 28-400 quickly reaches F8.
I've used it when the light is good and it is fine.
I suppose I need use it over the coming winter to fully draw conclusions.
It's also probably a bit of "the grass is greener on the other side" syndrome.
 
Peter123 said:
yes it's good for that.
I suppose I'm still looking as the 28-400 quickly reaches F8.
I've used it when the light is good and it is fine.
I suppose I need use it over the coming winter to fully draw conclusions.
It's also probably a bit of "the grass is greener on the other side" syndrome.
Click to expand...
Yes, I've thought about the f8, but as I understand it, the performance, at least in the centre, is pretty good at f8, and for me it would replace the 50-250, which is f6.3. so I'm only losing 2/3rds of a stop, and given what I want it for, I'm happy to bump up the iSO when needed, and really f8 is probably a better aperture for dragonflies etc than a wider one.

If I were looking for a slightly wider aperture and image quality (rather than the small size/weight/all in one 28-400), I would look at the Tamron 50-400.
 
myotis said:
Yes, I've thought about the f8, but as I understand it, the performance, at least in the centre, is pretty good at f8, and for me it would replace the 50-250, which is f6.3. so I'm only losing 2/3rds of a stop, and given what I want it for, I'm happy to bump up the iSO when needed, and really f8 is probably a better aperture for dragonflies etc than a wider one.

If I were looking for a slightly wider aperture and image quality (rather than the small size/weight/all in one 28-400), I would look at the Tamron 50-400.
Click to expand...
I think that's the most relevant part since I know I was concerned about the early drop to F8 on the 28-400mm lens but in practice as you say it's not as bad as it sounds. Furthermore I think they've done a good job balancing cost, size/weight and image quality with the lens remaining relatively compact for its range and to me the IQ is noticeably better than the Nikon 28-300mm. While it is a struggle to get enough light at the far end at times when I think about it I was much the same with the faster 100-400mm lens, if I need a much brighter aperture then I changed to the 70-200mm F2.8 and lose a good bit of reach.
 
JohnMcL7 said:
I think that's the most relevant part since I know I was concerned about the early drop to F8 on the 28-400mm lens but in practice as you say it's not as bad as it sounds. Furthermore I think they've done a good job balancing cost, size/weight and image quality with the lens remaining relatively compact for its range and to me the IQ is noticeably better than the Nikon 28-300mm. While it is a struggle to get enough light at the far end at times when I think about it I was much the same with the faster 100-400mm lens, if I need a much brighter aperture then I changed to the 70-200mm F2.8 and lose a good bit of reach.
Click to expand...
At first. I reacted with a bit of horror with that f8 aperture, especially as I remember it comes in at about 200mm.

After thinking about it I realised it was the size and weight that was primarily attracting me to this lens (along with a wildlife usable focal length), and it would have been much bigger with an f6.3 aperture, while not giving that much greater light gathering. I can't see it ever being bigger than f6.3 and still fill the same super zoom niche.

I've seen a few videos from pro-wildlife photographers, used to exotic primes, who have taken this lens on trips where they needed to go compact (non-photographic trips) and it gets good (better than expected) feedback.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top