Getting 'retro' with Digital - the Olympus Evolt E-300

Generally speaking I'm not one of those photographers who worries about the megapixel rating of a camera. I don't feel the need to shoot at 50, 40 or even 20 megapixels to take a 'good' image. Great photos have nothing to do with megapixels. I'll say that again in case you missed it - great photos have NOTHING to do with megapixels.

I have, from time to time, been known to take out a 6MP Nikon D70 and take photos with it. And despite its 'limitations' (tiny, low-res lcd screen ) I still really enjoy shooting with it. You can get some cracking images out of it. I even posted a video about my experiences with it on my Youtube channel here.

And why not? The D70 didn't stop being a camera when it was 'replaced' by the D80, or the D90 etc... Ok, 6MP won't let you print billboards, but it will let you print up to A3. And who but a handful are printing anything nowadays anyway?

Which leads me, I guess, to the subject of this post - the Olympus Evolt E-300. Which was also released the same year as the Nikon D70 (2004), and which also didn't stop being a camera when the newer E-330 was released  a couple of years later.

But why am I posting about it now - you ask? Well, I've only gone and bought one, haven't I! And why would you do that - you ask (again). That's a very good question, and I'm still trying to figure that out I suppose. But I have a few ideas....

Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, it was darn cheap. I mean throw-away cheap. Of course there are a few reasons for that. A) its age - yes, it's an old camera from 2004 - practically a dinosaur technologically speaking (although you already know what I feel about that line of reasoning). We live in such a consumer-driven throw-away society, that any technology older than a few years is seen very quickly as redundant and un-useable. Which makes some of these old digital cameras a complete bargain. Ironically, they are even cheaper than old film cameras. But, of course, old technology does come with a few risks. That leads me nicely into point B) its condition. It's not in a good state. In fact giving it the term 'beater-camera' might be doing it a favour? So buying it as-is was a bit of a gamble. It may not even work at all? The seller made no promises - but did say that it was powering on when the battery was charged. So that's something I guess?

As you can see from the photos, which are of the actual camera I've purchased, it has had a pretty hard life by the looks. As seen above, the CF card door looks busted and held together by tape, and general overall condition is poor. I'm hoping that it's only cosmetic, and I won't mind using tape to keep the CF card door closed if I have to.

Actually what concerns me the most is the lens. It comes with the standard 14-45mm f3.5/5.6 kit lens, but there's something very wrong with it in the pictures supplied for the auction. For a start, it's on upside down! And it also appears to have some sort of adapter between it and the camera body? The guy selling it 'seems' to not know much about cameras. He's being very vague anyway - which also may not be a great sign. But, once again, I'm hoping that it's all purely cosmetic, and a functional camera will arrive in the post. Wishful thinking? I hope not.

So why did I but it then? I guess GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) had something to do with it. I just like buying and trying cameras. Despite all my reservations with the condition, auction images and seller, ultimately I suppose I smelled a bargain, and it was too good to refuse. Which takes me back to my original point - it was cheap. So even if it turns up DOA, I'm not really in it for much and can chalk it up to experience. But if it actually works...

Second reason I decided to get the Olympus E-300 is simple - I've always wanted one. I remember vividly when they first came out, and I wanted one then. Some reviewers at the time called the camera ugly, and it's certainly unconventional. But I like the look of it. I also like the fact that it's different from most other DSLR's - both then and now. I guess it reminds me a little of my Fuji X-E2, with its rectangular shape and viewfinder off to the left-hand side. And although it might look like a rangefinder styled mirrorless camera, it's certainly not.

The Evolt E-300 uses a rather unique mirror system instead of a pentaprism to create the view through the optical viewfinder. Olympus called it an Optical Porro Finder, and its sideways swinging mirror lends to the camera's flat-top profile. Instead of the image from the lens being directed upwards to the viewfinder prism it is directed rightwards and then up to the viewfinder which is offset from the lens axis. A similar system was used by Olympus in their Pen series of film cameras. To my knowledge, the Olympus E-300 and E-330 are the only DSLR's to ever use this unique mirror design (I could be wrong), so that alone makes me want to try the camera out. Some may think it's ugly. I actually think it's kinda cool looking. And it looks positively bad-ass with the optional grip attached!

It has an 8MP 4/3rds sensor from Kodak, and was the second DSLR Olympus released using the 4/3rds sensor mount (the original 4/3rds, not micro 4/3rds). ISO's go from 100 to 400, with a boost up to 1600 which isn't advisable. It has no IS - that came a little later. And there's also no live-view, but I'm not bothered by that. The lcd on the back is only 1.8" and low-res, so wouldn't be much good for live view anyway. It does have a silent-wave sensor cleaning system. shutter speeds up to 1/4000th, and a +/-5 EV exposure compensation range! It shoots in RAW, RAW+Jpeg, and Tiff - although I'll probably try to get the best out of the sensor by processing the RAW file.

The seller online described the camera as a 'project' for somebody, and that's exactly how I'm viewing it. I'll clean it up, hopefully get it to work, and then take it out and see what kind of images I can make with it. IF it's a working unit, and IF I enjoy using it, then it may just be the start of my journey into 4/3rds? Zuiko glass is top quality, and apparently some of the 4/3rds lenses are right up there with Canon 'L' series at a fraction of the price. I'm not put off by a 4/3rds sensor, just as I wasn't put off by micro four thirds. At the end of the day, they are all just tools you can use to create your own vision. I just hope that this tool actually works!?

=================================================================

UPDATE

The camera arrived not longer after publishing this post - and nope - it didn't work! DOA 😱😠

Oh well, you win some, and you loose some....

And back to Canon again... again

I've been re-reading my blogposts from the last 10 years (yes, I really have been blogging for that long), and I think I've used the title of this particular post on at least three other occasions (apart from the extra 'again' at the end).

And yes, it's true. After about 2 years as an Olympus micro-four-thirds mirrorless user, I've once again moved camps and switched allegiances back to Canon DLSR's. "How come"? - I hear no one ask. Well, it's slightly bewildering to me as well, but let me explain as succinctly as I can....

I loved using my Olympus E-M1, and E-M5 II. They are truly outstanding cameras.I've extolled the virtues of said cameras on this blog (and in other guest posts) and will continue to do so. But, I have also written on this blog about my continued (and almost impossible to shake) love affair with the DLSR. And even though I've pretty much used them all, the one system I seem to keep coming back to, is Canon.

As the top dog in camera manufacturers (sales figures and Sony be damned), everyone loves to hate Canon. They have, as the saying goes, the furthest to fall. Yet in the same breath, almost everyone praises Canon's IQ and colour science. They just produce beautiful image files. Not to mention the ergonomics.

But I will - mention the ergonomics I mean. Because the ergonomics of a Canon enthusiast range to top end DLSR are exceptional. The large back control wheel and joystick combination on most of their cameras is ingenious. Best end user-experience bar none (IMHO). And this is where I think the Olympus E-M1 and E-M5 was let down a little - ergonomically. At least for me. Even with the grip attached, my E-M1 just didn't feel all that comfortable in the hand. Canon's DLSR's, however, certainly do (again, to me).

Also, looking back on my previous blogposts, I always seem to come to a crucial decision over camera systems when wedding season is approaching. I might not be a wedding shooter anymore, but it seems that this trend has continued. Because I have a wedding coming up - next weekend in fact (as I write this), and here I am, changing back to Canon just before I have a wedding to shoot.

I was quite happy - and would have been quite happy, to shoot the wedding with my Olympus E-M1. I had no intention of changing a week out from the big day. Honest. So why did I, and what changed my mind?

Last weekend, my wife and I had to go to Christchurch for a medical appointment. I was planning a trip to Photo and Video in Merivale to check out (drool over) the new Olympus E-M1x. Simple enough. But, literally the night before we were due to head off, I woke up at 4am with one thought in my mind - 'trade in your Olympus gear for a Canon DLSR before the wedding'. Try as I might, I couldn't get this thought out of my head, and I couldn't get back to sleep. I honestly hadn't thought about anything other than checking out the new E-M1x prior to waking at 4am - but there it was, and it wouldn't go away.

I've written previously about how, as a Christian, I believe God often leads me with my photography. Whether you believe this or not, I do believe that he is interested in all aspects of our lives. As a creative God, I feel his presence most deeply when I'm outside being creative myself. And I also believe that if the Holy Spirit prompts you at 4am, then you would do well to listen.

I eventually got up a couple of hours later and had a workout on the exercise bike. While cycling on the spot, I looked up Photo and Video's website to see what they had available in their second hand department. I had decided that if I couldn't walk away with an almost identical Canon kit after trading in my Olympus gear, then I wasn't interested (I was listening to God's prompting, but I'm not stupid! 😇). Not surprisingly (sorry God), they had everything I wanted in stock (second-hand) if I could get the right price for my trade-in.

I decided on a Canon 50D body (I already have a very well-used one on permanent loan) with a Sigma 17-50mm HSM OS f2.8 lens and Canon 430EX II flash. This would basically give me like-for-like (roughly), and actually get me a more comprehensive kit because I already have a Canon 10-22mm EF-S, Canon 90-300mm f4.5/5.6 USM and BG-E2 vertical grip for the 50D.

As mentioned earlier, I love the ergonomics of the 50D. It's the last of the pro-sumer magnesium-alloy bodied XXD cameras (released in 2008). From the 60D onwards they've changed the materials and control wheel design slightly, and I like it less. So it's the 15MP, magnesium alloyed 50D for me!

The 50D at Photo & Video was in good condition, with a low shutter count (just over 9000 actuation's), at a great price. The Canon 430EX II speedlite was similarly in good condition at a good price - and even more importantly, it looked like they were going to offer me a great deal on my Olympus kit (in absolute mint condition). So, much to my surprise (and growing excitement), the deal was almost done! And now to the lens...

Again, I was adamant that I didn't want to loose out on the quality that I had, so a constant f2.8 mid-range zoom to replace the outstanding Olympus Zuiko 12-40mm f2.8 Pro was a must. Trouble is, these lenses don't tend to be cheap - even the third-party offerings. But the website indicated they had a couple of Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 lenses available, and a quick check of lens reviews for the Sigma on Youtube looked promising. To my surprise, however, the salesman helping me out with the deal (thanks Adam) reached in the case and pulled out a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC lens. I hadn't even considered a Tamron (it wasn't listed on their website), but what a beast! Attached to the 50D it's a monster of a lens - exceptionally well made, very heavy, and quite imposing. Almost - dare I say it - a little 'too' heavy? Yeah, I know - what did I expect. Isn't it what I wanted, after all? But I was coming from micro four thirds remember - and even I have my limits for weight in a camera 😳

Regardless, I was willing to take his advice, and so the deal was struck. An Olympus OM-D E-M1 with HLD-7 Grip and M.Zuiko 12-40mm f2.8 Pro (plus camera remote release, spare battery and accessory flash) traded in for a Canon 50D with Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC lens and Canon 430EX II flashgun. Good deal!

That night, back at the Hotel, I checked over my 'new' Canon kit and started to set up the 50D how I like to shoot (I may do a post on that another time?). Looking over the Tamron, I was still impressed/surprised at the weight of the lens, but on closer inspection I thought I could detect quite a few blemishes on the front lens element. Nothing a quick clean wouldn't fix - I thought. But... on even closer inspection, it appeared to me that there was the start of some fungal blooming on the inside of the front lens elements. Not good!

Long story short - I returned the lens the next day, and swapped it for the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 that I thought I would go for in the first place. The Sigma is in pristine condition, has an even bigger front lens element (77mm rather than the 72mm of the Tamron), but is, in fact, lighter than the Tamron - and apparently a little sharper if the online reviews are to be believed. I am much happier with the Sigma lens over the Tamron - fungal issues of the Tamron aside. The Sigma just seems to be a better match with the Canon 50D. Quick example; the Tamron lens doesn't 'talk' to the Canon 430EZ flash for distance information when zooming the flash head, whereas the Sigma does. Go figure?

So yes, I've made the switch back to Canon - again. And, as I've written quite a few times on this blog, I couldn't be happier. With the 50D body and grip, Sigma 17-50mm f2.8, Canon 10-22mm EF-S, Canon 90-300mm f4.5/5.6 USM and Canon 430EZ II Speedlite, I've got a comprehensive system for the wedding this weekend (it's a 'freebie' for friends). I've even got a little store credit at Photo & Video left over than I might put to good use soon if/when a fast prime (nifty 50?) turns up in their second-hand department. I'm already thinking about possible future lens purchases (fast prime, macro, fisheye). Good times 👍     

 

OMG - I brought a D200!

Ok, I'll admit it. I've got too many camera systems. Way too many.

For a start, I have a medium format Bronica ERTS 6x45 (with a standard and wide angle lens) for my 120 medium format film fix. As well as a Nikon F4 and F90 for my 35mm film hankerings. An IS-3000 Olympus 'Bridge' camera was a bit of a crazy purchase recently, and a Fujifilm Instax 210 Wide camera rounds out the film portion of my collection. That's quite a few film cameras.

The situation isn't much better when it comes to digital. Of course my main kit is my Olympus OM-D EM-1 micro four thirds with several lenses and accessories etc - but I also have a battered and bruised (but still working) Canon 50D with grip and several lenses, as well as a Nikon D70 that I hold on to for sentimental reasons (it was my first DSLR). So I don't need anymore cameras - right?

But who am I kidding? I established with myself a long time ago that when it comes to camera gear, it's never really about what I 'need', and much more about what I 'want'. And what I found that I 'wanted' was a fully featured 'pro' Nikon DSLR body to work in tandem with my F4 so I could swap lenses and shoot both film and digital at the same time. Why not...?

Enter the Nikon D200. A 13yr old (released in 2005), 10.2MP CCD sensor, 5fps, weather-sealed, magnesium alloy bodied, CF card shooting beast of a camera!

Many reading this in 2018 and beyond will more than likely be suffering from the 'but it's only's'. But it's only 10.2MP. But it only has one CF card slot. But it only has 11 focus points. But it's only 5fps. But it only shoots images (no video - and no live view!). But it's screen is only 230,000px. But it only shoots up to ISO1600 natively (and even then it's best not to go over 800ISO). But it's 13 years old!

I grant you every last one of those 'but it's only's', how could I not? They're all true.

BUT - in all honesty, do ANY of the points mentioned above stop this from being a drop-dead amazing image making machine? No, people - no, they do not. I don't know how many times I've written on this blog that I believe 10MP to be MORE THAN ENOUGH for 90% of the worlds photographers. Who are you shooting for that you need more? Seriously.

Maybe you regularly take photos and then crop in heavily on just a small portion of the image to blow it up to a 10x12" print. If that's you, then stop it. Seriously - stop it. Compose, frame and crop in-camera. Then you'll find that 10MP is plenty enough for an A3 sized print. I crop about 5% of my images. 95% of the images I shoot are composed and cropped in-camera. But what if, I hear you say, you can't get close enough? I have two responses to that. First - get a longer telephoto lens. That's what they're for. And second - you'll just have to be content with not getting the shot. Tuff. Here's a news flash for you - you're going to miss a lot of shots. Either because you didn't have the 'right' gear for the job, you couldn't get close enough, or you weren't quick enough. Get over it.

The rear of the D200. Ergonomic perfection

The 'old sensor' low-ISO performance complaint is another one of my pet hates (sorry - I'm  about to rant again...). I can hear it now - "the D200 is too old. Low-light performance will suck".... blah,blah, blah. Who the hell are these people? Why has being able to shoot a black cat in a coal mine 'noise'-free become a 'thing 'that concerns so many damn photographers?

Ok, maybe that's a bit extreme? Other, more measured critics might say something like "it won't be any good for weddings in low-light church environments". This argument seems to suggest that once a camera has been replaced by a 'newer' model, it instantly becomes unfit for any 'serious' photography. I have no doubt that Nikon's D500 is a 'superior' camera than the D200 in every respect. It damn well better be, since it's 12 years newer. But does that really mean that the D200 is now no longer capable of being used as a professional tool? Of course not! I shot weddings for 10 years, and started with a Nikon D70! Yes folks, I shot weddings 'professionally' with a 6MP D70 for a couple of seasons, and never, ever had a client complain - or even comment - about 'noise' in an image. Never. The only people who care about noise in a photograph are other photographers. Period.

Jessie. D200 with 18-55mm 3.5/5.6 G II. F4.5 @ 1/30th, ISO 800.

All the rest of the 'stuff' that the D200 lacks over more modern DSLR's is just 'fluff' as far as I'm concerned. No, it doesn't have Live-view. You don't need it. Millions of photographers lived without live-view before it was ever an option. It therefore doesn't shoot video. Don't get me started on that rant. You want video, buy a Go Pro. You want to make movies - buy a movie camera. Nuff said.

What I'm trying to say is that for 'most' photographers, the D200 - even at 12 years old - is more camera than most of us need - despite what we may want. I would seriously encourage anyone who may be looking at buying an 'entry-level' DSLR to consider something like a used D200 (or D80, D90, D300) instead. And on the Canon side, an older 40D, 50D or even 5D Mk1 would be a much better choice - for less money - than the latest digital Rebel.

The used D200 I just purchased was $200NZ body only. It's in immaculate condition, and has a 15,000 shutter count. That's 15% of the shutter's 100,000 shot life expectancy. The entry level D3400 with 18-55mm kit lens is $699NZ retail at the time of writing this. That's basically a $500NZ difference. For another $100NZ I also purchased a Nikkor 50mm f1.8. The D3400 has 24MP, Full HD video, Bluetooth connection etc. The D200 doesn't. And yet, with only $300 invested, I could also get an 85mm F1.8 Nikkor and have a prime lens kit that would run rings around the D3400.

When it was released all those years ago, the D200 was second-only to Nikon's D2x Pro body. In fact Nikon packed so much into the D200 that many 'pros' called it the baby D2x and used it as a back-up body. Pick one up and you will understand why. It's an ergonomic masterpiece - a joyous photography tool to handle and use. It inspires confidence and screams professionalism. It may not have Bluetooth connectivity or Live-view, but what it lacks for in techno-frippery it more than makes up for in ergonomic superiority.

I guess it's obvious how I feel about the Nikon D200. Is it a 'modern' classic? Yes, it is. Is it the cutting edge of techno-wizardry in camera technology? No it's not. But does that therefore make it an obsolete, outdated, unusable camera? Oh no. No, it does not....

Sometimes simple is better.

Recently I ended my love affair with the Olympus OM-D E-M5 MkII, swapping it for the Nikon D7100. I was pining for a DSLR again, and although I now do miss the mirrorless experience (more specifically the evf), I still think it was the right move to make. Just not with the D7100. Let me explain…

Many reviewers still claim that the Nikon D7100 (D7200) is the best DSLR you can buy (in terms of features for the price), and I can’t say that I disagree. It’s got everything but the kitchen sink thrown into a very well made, solid, yet compact(ish) camera. Sure, the buffer could be better. But that’s about where the complaining ends. And I expected to love using it, after enjoying cameras like the D200 and D300 which share a very similar design aesthetic. Trouble is, I didn’t enjoy using it – at all. In fact, I found it confusing and difficult to use. And this is from someone coming from the menu nightmare on the Olympus!

I don’t know what it is – I really don’t. But I just couldn’t get my head around navigation of the D7100. Every time I used it, I would find myself fumbling to access or change the most basic of settings. This came to a head recently when I went to take some photos of my daughter and her friends before their senior ball. It was tricky lighting, I’ll admit – inside, at night, with only the camera’s pop-up flash, and everyone anxious to get going to the ball. So not the easiest of shoots. But even so, it’s something that I should have handled without breaking a sweat.

Except I didn’t handle it – at all. Every shot I took looked grossly over-exposed on the back of the camera, while I frantically tried to dial back the exposure compensation on both the camera and the flash. Nothing seemed to be working, and so I forged on regardless, thinking that I could pull ‘something’ decent out later in post since I was shooting RAW. I was wrong. They are all practically useless. The first few are ok, but it goes down-hill swiftly from there.

I went home after this abysmal fiasco and had to do it all over again with my son who was also going to the ball. Perfect exposures – every time!? I still have no idea how or why it went so terribly wrong at one moment, and so easy the next. Just no idea. And that freaks me out. And the D7100 freaks me out because of it. So I have sold it. And it was probably the easiest decision I’ve ever had to make selling a camera kit. The D7100 and I did not become friends.

In the time-honoured tradition of breaking up, I’d just like to clarify that it’s not you (D7100), it’s me. I’m the one with the problem. I’m sure you will go on to have a beautiful relationship with someone who will look after you and know how to treat you right. I wish you nothing but the best, and I’m sure you’ll both be very happy together.

Me? Well, rather callously, I’ve already moved on. And, not wanting to flog this break-up analogy to death (but I’m going to anyway), I’ve gone back to an old flame. They say the first love is always the best. My first love was with Canon. I already ‘own’ a well-used Canon 50D with 10-22mm lens (on permanent loan from a friend who has gone full-frame), and I have managed to pick up a really mint 40D body for a steal on-line ($180NZ). It’s probably the third time I’ve owned this camera (as well as the 20D and 30D), and that should tell you something.

I guess many will read this and see the move from a 24MP Nikon D7100 to a 10MP Canon 40D as a HUGE step backwards. And maybe it is? But I’ve said this in my blogs often enough – and I’ll quite happily say it again – it’s NOT about megapixels! And, depending on the type of shooting you do, it’s also NOT about high ISO noise performance either! I’ve always said that, for me, the sweet spot with megapixels is about 10 to 12. Plenty enough for a crisp A3 print. I hardly ever crop in to my images. Coming from the film days, I have had the mantra of ‘compose in-camera’ firmly ingrained in my psyche. I don’t need (or want) 24MP. To be honest, all those megapixels make me nervous (yeah, I know – weird).

The Canon 40D with Grip. My 'Goldilocks' DSLR

The 40D (and 50D) is ‘my’ sweet-spot for a DSLR. The Goldilocks of cameras if you will. Not too big and not too small. Just right. As well as having 10MP, the 40D; shoots at 6.5fps with a decent buffer (I like to shoot sports occasionally), has a weather-sealed magnesium alloy body (great for landscape work), takes CF cards (I still prefer them over the flimsier SD cards), has excellent battery life (a relief coming from mirrorless), has live-view with exposure simulation, grid lines and a histogram readout (surprisingly better than the D7100 implementation), exceptional ergonomics (Canon’s control wheel and joystick are ingenious), and no video modes to get in the way (I ain’t a video guy). Everything I need, and nothing I don’t.

So no, I don’t see it as a step backwards at all. I see it as a positive affirmation of the kind of gear I like to use, to create the kind of images I like to make. Also, the great news for me is that the ‘older’ gear is always cheaper – leaving more money for what really matters – lenses.

If you really want to see a distinct improvement in your photos, then spend more money on glass and less on your camera body. Unfortunately, this equation has been flipped on its head over the last decade with the proliferation of cheap, plastic, do-it-all, slow, low-quality zoom lenses. Yes, they look pretty, and yes, they are sharp enough. But they have computer-designed everything to within an inch of its life, resulting in bland ‘good enough’ image quality. The ‘you get what you pay for’ advice is never truer than with camera lenses. I’ll take a nice piece of glass on a 40D over a cheap plastic zoom on a 1Dx any day of the week – and so should you.

As already mentioned, I have the use of a Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM that will work perfectly for landscapes. Now the hunt is on for a good mid-range lens to compliment the 10-22 (something like a 24-105mm f4L), a longer telephoto (maybe the 70-200mm f4L), and a Canon Speedlite (the 430 EX II) to make the kit complete. I think I’d like to buy EF (rather than EF-S) lenses to allow a future upgrade path to full-frame (remember the EF-S 10-22 is just on-loan), as well as for complete compatibility with my Canon EOS 1 film camera (which won’t take EF-S lenses). Not sure my budget will stretch to all of the above, but I’ll give it a good go.

Alas poor Olympus, I knew it well...

I've gone nuts. Stark raving mad. Seriously. How mad you ask? So crazy, that I'm swapping my Olympus OM-D E-M5 MkII for a Nikon D7100! I'm leaving micro four thirds and going back to a DSLR! Something that I have said many times on this blog that I would never do. In fact, I've also been one of 'those' guys who has smugly claimed that the SLR is dead. See, I told you I was crazy. But as always, there is some method to my madness.

My OM-D E-M5 MkII all boxed up to send away!

Right away I want to state, for the record, one more time, that I LOVE my OM-D E-M5 MkII. It is, has been, and always will be, a fantastically capable camera that is a joy to use (mostly), and a glowing testament to why mirrorless is the future of photography. I do still believe that to be true. So why am I going 'backwards' (some might say) to a DLSR?

Actually, it all has to do with shooting film. Yep, that's right - actual 35mm film. Bear with me while I explain...

I have another blog; filmisback.blogspot.com where I post about just that - shooting film again. And this year (2017), I've been doing a lot of exactly that. And enjoying it immensely. So much so, that I have dubbed 2017 'The Year of Film". I'll be shooting a lot more of it over the course of this year, and hopefully on into the future. This doesn't mean that I will stop shooting digital though - far from it. I plan to continue enjoying both mediums. And therein lies the crux of my decision to change from Olympus gear to Nikon.

My 'new' Nikon gear

I'm not a professional photographer (although I have been in the past), so my 'budget' for photography is extremely limited. I've written about this often on the blog. Whenever I start accumulating gear, it gets to a point of critical mass, where I have to step back and really think seriously about how I can maximize my kit. Fortunately, I have also been blessed in 2017 with some amazing gifts. I have literally been given a Pentax SV, Bronica ETRS medium format 6x45, and Nikon F4s. I have also recently acquired a Canon EOS 1 film camera for a song - all of which has helped to rekindle my passion and interest in film photography again.

That's a lot of different systems all at once - Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Bronica - and, of course, my Olympus digital gear. Probably too many different systems if I'm honest. Which, of course, got me thinking. I intend to use the EOS 1 and Nikon F4 as much as possible - they are just such amazing cameras and I actually feel somewhat honored to own them. I am 50 this year (don't tell anyone), and when the EOS 1 and F4 were first released (around 1989) I was 22. As an aspiring professional photographer, in my early 20s, the F4 and EOS 1 were cameras that I could only dream of owning. And now I do. It may be almost 30 years later, but the thrill of owning the best pro film cameras of that era hasn't waned. And they are every bit as thrilling to use as I thought they would be.

Two film legends - the Nikon F4 and Canon EOS 1.

I have a very good friend who owns some serious Canon 'L' glass, that I can borrow whenever I want (as long as she's not using it), so the need to outfit the Canon isn't pressing. But the Nikon is a different story. Luckily the F4 came with a Nikkor 24mm f2.8 and a Nikkor 70-210mm f4/5.6, but that's it. And as I discovered recently at a Rodeo, the 70-210mm isn't quite 'fast' enough if I'm shooting low ISO film. So I'd like some faster glass for the F4 to bring it up to speed with the Canon - especially if I can't actually borrow my friends lenses for whatever reason.

If I want some more lenses for the F4, wouldn't it be good ( I mused), if those lenses could also be used on a digital body - thereby doing double-duty? Problem is, my digital gear is Olympus micro-four-thirds. You can see where I'm going with this now, right?

As much as I love my Olympus OM-D, I have also always loved Nikon's DLSR's. Have done since I bought my first digital camera, the Nikon D70. The D300 is still one of the best cameras I've ever owned, and I only sold it to stay with Canon because I chose full frame (with the Canon 5D) over APS-C (with the D300). I'm definitely sad to see the OM-D E-M5 Mk2 go, but I'm also very excited about getting my new acquisition, the Nikon D7100.

On the very day that I was contemplating the possibility of letting go of the Olympus for a Nikon, a guy on a New Zealand Photography Facebook page posted his Nikon D7100, with grip, 50mm f1.8G Nikkor and Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro. He was looking to move to a mirrorless system, and would consider a straight swap. I replied and said I was interested - told him what I had - and it snowballed from there.

Since changing to mirrorless, I have to say that I haven't really kept up with the latest DLSR models. But when I checked out the D7100 brochure, I got rather excited! And really, what's not to like? A 24MP sensor, with no low-pass filter, excellent low-light performance, a x1.3 crop mode that gives 15MP files at 7fps (about 5.5fps otherwise), dual SD card slots, decent video and an outstanding 51 point autofocus system rounds out an impressive list of features. The Nikkor 50mm f1.8G will be a great lens, while the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 has somewhat mixed reviews. It's said to have very good image quality, even at f2.8 (bonus), but a somewhat slow and noisy autofocus system?

Tamron 70-200mm f2.8

Ironically, I've made the decision to move back to a Nikon DLSR at a very interesting time for the Japanese camera manufacturer. About a week ago they made an announcement of 'Extraordinary losses' (their words), which, they said, would lead to 'fundamental company-wide restructuring' (again, their words). 1000 workers were let go, their new digital compact line was scrapped, and many saw this as the beginning of the end for the camera company. However, just today (as I write this), Nikon have released some details about what the fundamental restructure might look like. And it actually bodes well for photographers. They are apparently going to concentrate on mid to high-end DLSR's, lenses and mirrorless, with fewer models in the future. Sounds good to me.  

I love photography as a hobby. I love creating images. But I am also a camera enthusiast. I love using, and owning, different cameras. As much as I've said things like 'never again', or 'finally this is it', I've actually come to understand that I just can't help myself. I like the fact that I've owned and used a tonne of different cameras, from every major manufacturer. I love that I've owned (and therefore used) a Canon 1D Mk2, a 5D, a 30D, 40D and 50D, as well as a Nikon D2x, D70, D200, D300 and now D7100. And I also love that I owned an Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mk2. It is an amazing camera, and I shall remember it well...