Monday, March 25, 2013

A Tale Of Seven Cameras, And One Subject

One camera to rule them all!

Welcome to one of my fairly long posts, but I promise you this will be an interesting one. There has been a lot of changes in my life recently, in some ways, I am re-calculating my priorities in my life, a lot of changes have resulted from this, selling all of my full frame gear was one of those changes, it's not about money, but rather time and much needed optimization, for example I sold my iPad since it consumes too much time that I could spend with my family instead, another thing I did was to remove a lot of blogs from my RSS feed. I am now giving less priority to photography (and photography blogging) than I used to do, that's why my last post was almost one month ago, and I apologize for this delay, but I admit I cannot spare time to blogging more than once or twice a month (there might be exceptions of course), and this takes us to the main topic of this blog, the tale of seven cameras, and my daughter.

Now that my older daughter is almost five years old, and since this is nearly when I started digital photography, I stopped for a while to take a look back, and see how how my photography has progressed through out the years, and throughout the different cameras, seven cameras in total, not including the various mobile phone cameras over the years. I wanted to see how getting more expensive cameras and lenses improved my photography, and how much did I lose by abandoning the full-frame club and carrying on with micro-four-thirds, as a lot of people would believe.

I believe this is one post that really fits the name of the blog, I give you the tale of the seven cameras, and the pursuit of better family photos, and we start with my first ever digital camera I bought from my own hard-earned money.


Sony T10, room lights (incandescent) + fill flash, 1/50, f/4, ISO 320

Sony T10, available evening light + fill flash, 1/50, f/3.5, ISO 125

As you can see, pictures were sort of mmm-kay, and mind you, I've picked the best two examples of the usual shooting scenarios, first picture is indoors, lit with room light and direct fill-flash, the second picture makes use of the soft evening light as the sun goes down.

I have had my share of horrible flash lit photos with the shadows on the wall behind the subject, mixed white balance and all that. The Sony T10, just like regular P&S, didn't have any advanced controls beyond the program mode, where you can select exposure compensation and other stuff like white balance and so on, this was the extent of my skills.

The camera didn't focus quickly, nor did it perform well beyond base ISO, the faster my daughter was able to move, the more I yearned for a better camera, until the day came where I broke the bank and bought the Canon G11, and sold my slim Sony T10 to one of my friends.

During the time, I used to shoot with good camera phones (Nokia N95 8GB, Nokia N86 & Sony Ericsson C905), the picture below is taken with the C905, I did a comparison once to one of the famous mobile phone blogs of yesteryear (wow, just checked now and the post is still up, check it here, you can see how photography-ignorant I was back then), and the C905 was as good as my Sony T10 apart from the fact that it didn't have optical zoom.

Sony Ericsson C905, evening light, 1/640, f/2.8, ISO 64

2. CANON G11

Canon G11, evening light + fill flash, 1/60, f/5.6, ISO 200

Canon G11, 1/25, f/4, ISO 1600

Canon G11, 1/100, f/4.5, ISO 100

I was very happy when I got the G11, I was learning all about aperture, shutter speed and ISO, I also heard about depth of field, and understood that I would not get the backgrounds blurred like a DSLR could, but I didn't care, I imagined the G11 would outlive me and that we'd be partners forever.

I learned advanced shooting and lighting with the G11, I bought a couple of Canon flashes (a used 580EX and a brand new 430EX) and went all strobist style, this was when I posted my first post here after I stumbled on Mic's blog when searching for flash tutorials. One other important thing I learned with the G11 was RAW processing in lightroom, thanks to Zack Arias, it made a huge difference in my photos.

The G11 lived a relatively long time with me, and after trying out a few of my friends' DSLRs, I finally decided to buy a DSLR because of the incredibly slow focusing speed and the usual back focusing issues. I was choosing back then between the Canon 550D and the Nikon D90 since their price were similar, and I decided to go for the new Canon sensor, better video modes, and keep both my Canon flashes.

3. Canon 550D

Canon 550D + 50mm f/1.8 II, room light + bounce flash, 1/80, f/2.5, ISO 400

Canon 550D + 60mm Macro, 1/800, f/3.2, ISO 200

I suppose my portrait shooting style have become obvious by now, I love shooting tight head shots and they are my favorite types of pictures, and sometimes I do wider shots when there is context that I want to show through the picture.

I learned Neil's bounce flash technique with the 550D, and it quickly became my favorite shooting technique whenever possible, I became quite good at getting the pictures I need with just one flash and started abandoning the more complicated light setups since they required time and space. My favorite lenses were the 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8 and the 60mm f/2.8 Macro that replaced it.

Next came my trip to Malaysia, and I took the chance to sell the 550D and upgrade to the 60D with it's better focusing system, better controls, tilt screen, top LCD, and just about everything else, this was also when I bought my 3rd Canon flash, a brand new 580EX II.

4. Canon 60D

Canon 60D + 35mm f/2, available light + bounce flash camera right, 1/160, f/2.5, ISO 500

Canon 60D + Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 (adapter & manual focusing), 1/200, f/2.8 probably, ISO 800

Canon 60D + 85mm f/1.8, 1/1600, f/2.2, ISO 100

Canon 60D + 60mm f/2.8 Macro, 1/250, f/2.8, ISO 100

The 60D was a much better camera to use than the 550D ever was, and this was the second time I believed I'd live with the camera forever, it was really good, all I had to do to fulfill my gear lust was to buy more/better lenses.

One of those lenses that I bought against my own logic was the Canon 85mm f/1.8, I wanted to see for myself what was all the fuss about, what creamy backgrounds were people talking about, and after the initial wide-open-insane-purple-fringing shock, it quickly became my favorite portrait (read: head shots) lens, and I discovered that I enjoyed the background compression a telephoto lens caused.

Living happily in my Canon world, Michael started messing with my mind, until I surrendered against all my logic, once again, and bought into the full frame world, dreaming to go up another step in the photography ladder, little did I know. I sold all of my EF-S lenses and bought a 5D Mark II (the Mark III was just released and I didn't like the price) with the 24-105 kit lens and the famous Canon 50mm f/1.4.

5. Canon 5D Mark II

Canon 5D Mark II + 50mm f/1.4, 1/100, f/2.8, ISO 200

Canon 5D Mark II + 50mm f/1.4, bed light only, 1/60, f/1.4, ISO 3200

Canon 5D Mark II + 200mm f/2.8, 1/500, f/2.8, ISO 200

You can immediately notice the difference, shallow depth of field everywhere, even at f/2.8, a huge step up in the noise department, the 60D sucked at ISOs above 800, while the 5D Mark II had insanely clean files at ISO 800, and was very good up to ISO 3200, this gave me more opportunities which I would have discarded with the 60D. The best advantage for me was the excellent auto WB and the pleasant skin tones in mixed lighting scenarios.

I sold both of my 35 f/2 and 85 f/1.8 remaining from the 60D days, I didn't like these focal lengths, instead I got the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS and the 200mm f/2.8L primes, both lenses are easily the best Canon lenses I have ever used, ever. I did enjoy shooting with the 50mm f/1.4 after getting it to focus correctly, but it had to be stopped down a bit to be sharp, not a problem for the high ISO capable 5D Mark II. This camera quickly became my favorite, and I really fell in love with it, and if I was in the market for another full frame, I would probably choose this one again.

However, life wasn't all flowers and chocolate, through the incremental upgrades, everything got slowly heavier and larger, the bag that used to take my 60D with two lenses and a flash can now only take the 5D2 and one lens, lenses became longer, larger and heavier, even the lens hoods became larger, people started being more alert when I got the camera out of the bag, but having my feet already deep in the mud, I only looked ahead, more is better, isn't it?

The internet kept messing more with my head and showing how radically better the 5D Mark III was compared to its predecessor regarding everything, focusing, speed, better noise performance, dual cards, better screen, better movie modes, etc... Once the price reached $3000 at my local camera shop, I bit the bullet and made the switch.

6. Canon 5D Mark III

Canon 5D Mark III + 200mm f/2.8, 1/400, f/2.8, ISO 800

Canon 5D Mark III + 50mm f/1.4, 1/200, f/2, ISO 3200

The 5D Mark III was technically better than the 5D Mark II in almost every conceivable way, but I never really warmed up to it. It handled high ISO really good that I never thought twice about choosing ISO 3200. Bounce flash indoors? ISO 3200. Hand holding the 200 f/2.8, even in good light? ISO 3200. Want a high enough shutter speed? Why think, ISO 3200. And so on.

AWB, colors and skin tones were slightly better than the 5D2, but I started suffering from the weight I had to lug around, the fear factor of losing expensive camera gear, or having it stolen, and the need to close down the aperture and lose valuable shutter speed to get adequate depth of field, mind you, apart from the 100mm Macro, all my other lenses that I used had no image stabilization, and this forced me to use as high a shutter speed as I can to get sharp photos, for example when shooting the 200mm f/2.8 indoors with available light, I had to increase the shutter speed up to 1/800 to get a sharp shot, etc...

Then in a sudden turn of heart, I decided to sell everything and switch to micro four thirds for the reasons I have stated in great detail in the full story of my switch.

7. Olympus OM-D EM-5

OMD + 45mm f/1.8, 2 light setup, I wish I had introduced any sort of catch lights, 1/200, f/1.8, ISO 200

OMD + 45mm f/1.8, 1/2500, f/2.2, ISO 200

OMD + 45mm f/1.8, 1/4000, f/1.8, ISO 800 (a mistake, forgot to reset the ISO from a previous shot)

OMD + 25mm f/1.4, 1/320, f/3.2, ISO 200

OMD + 25mm f/1.4, lit with an iPad with a white screen, 1/20, f/2.2, ISO 800

OMD + 45mm f/1.8, ugly street lights, it was too dark, 1/13, f/1.8, ISO 3200

Before I talk about the OMD, please, have a look again at all of the images I have shown here, and give me your honest opinion, have I lost, or missed anything by switching to a small MFT sensor, given my shooting style and the illustrative pictures shown here?

In my opinion, not much, maybe I have lost the obviously shallow DOF (especially at wide angles, and large apertures) a full frame sensor easily generates. The other loss is obvious, and it is tracking rapidly moving subjects.

On the positive side, the gains are HUGE, the whole system is really tiny, and the OMD is a fantastic camera:
  • Very quick to focus, even in low light.
  • Focuses on faces and the near-eye on its own, I don't care anymore about focusing points, I just compose and shoot.
  • Amazing image stabilization (the best I have ever used), I usually now shoot at 2-stops lower shutter speed than the "1/eff. focal length" rule dictates.
  • Amazing noise performance, I dare say it is almost as good as my 5D2 at ISO 3200, and it tolerates shadows pushing way better than all of the Canon sensors I have used.
  • Olympus colors, now I understand where did this phrase come from, I really like the colors I am getting out of this camera.
  • Magical AWB, the best one I have ever used, and it is the only one that gets accurate colors under tungsten lighting.
  • Did I mention it's small and tiny?
  • The EVF shows you real-time exposure and color effects, when I shoot in B&W, I see everything in B&W, it shows you a live histogram, it shows you blocked shadows and clipped highlights in real-time, it shows you horizontal and vertical levels, it plays back the picture in the finder without having to remove your eye.
  • For some reason the MFT prime lenses are sharp wide-open, I just checked all the pictures I've taken with the 45mm f/1.8, and 71% of the shots are taken wide-open, there is no reason for me to stop-down anymore, unless I need more DOF, obviously.
  • And that brings me to shutter speed, having no need to stop-down the lens, and a smaller sensor with adequate shallow DOF, I can easily shoot at higher shutter speeds or lower light conditions than a full frame camera could.
  • I can get shallow DOF if you want, not as difficult as the internet would make you believe.
  • Cheap, the whole kit I have bought (OMD + 12-50 kit lens + 40-150 zoom lens + 25 1.4 + 45 1.8 + FL-600R flash + Sony RX100) are cheaper than what I paid for the 5D3 body alone.
So, to draw a conclusion, by looking back at the pictures of my daughter over the years and the different cameras, I don't see a huge difference or advantage to one camera over the other since I started using DSLRs, of course each camera has its pluses and minuses, but the end result is the same, I like each of the pictures shown here since I started using a DSLR equally, and that is what matters.

If you are not a working photographer, and you seek better photos, then learn to use what you have and don't fuss a lot about what more expensive equipment will gain you, they all work just fine.


First Impressions: Canon 60D + 35mm f/2 in Malaysia
Canon 60D vs 550D (and 600D): Real World Usage

Canon 5D Mark II: First Impressions
Story & Review: Canon 5D Mark II vs Canon 60D & Canon 6D
A Tribute To The 5D Mark III

The Truth Behind The Migration
From Canon 5D Mark III to MFT: The Truth Behind The Migration
Olympus OM-D: First Impressions & Comments on DOF
OM-D: Macro Fun @ Home
OM-D, Bits & Pieces
Phone Photography, Mirorrless Happiness And The OM-D EM-6
A New Audio Toy: Zoom H2n

Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4 Summilux
Olympus M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 Mini Review
A Fish-eye, A Dell Monitor & Wireless Printing
Fisheye Fun
Fishing with the E-M1 and the 12-40 f/2.8
Olympus E-M1 Touch Focus for Stills & Video
Dorifto Kingu Egypt (or how well the EM1 can track drifting BMWs)

Review: Sony RX100
Sony RX100: Pocket Rocket
2013: The Camera Year

Canon Lenses Chat - Part 1: Standard Zoom Lenses
Canon Lenses Chat - Part 2: Telephoto Zoom Lenses
Canon Lenses Chat - Part 3: Prime Lenses
Canon EF 35mm f/2 Review
Hands On: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Pancake
Macro Talk: Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Quick Review: Canon 85mm f/1.8
Canon EF Lenses Chat: Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Review
Canon EF Lenses Chat: Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Review
Flash Series - Part 1: Canon Speedlites Chat (580EX II vs 580EX vs 430EX)


  1. Appreciate your post. I'm in a similar process. Family, Kids, busy Job (not photographer ;)) and just want to take standing snap shots. Mainly of my Family and friends. At the moment I'm on Nikon DX.

    I fully agree with you. Regarding to what you are mainly shooting, switching to lightweight, less expensive system which is still giving you a great pleasure to use it (hey I mean did use a Mark III, wow) was a really smart decision.

    I recently was on a play ground with my kids and had my d5100/18-55 kit with me, which let's say would not make my crying if it would break or get stolen (if I was able to first download the pictures ;)). So I was able to pay more attention to my sweet kids climbing, running, laughing ... than taking care to my gear. The result are beautiful memories. Hey I mean also a pro would rather take the risk to break his expensive gear that missing a shot. Why not acting the same way but just using less expensive material. The results can be amazing.

    I like to repeat what Jay Maisel said in a KelbyTraining video:

    "It's about picture quality, not pixel quality".

    It's so true in my opinion.

    Regards, Erol

    1. Thanks Erol for sharing your thoughts, I am in a similar situation as yours, the only difference is that I don't like using zoom lenses. :p

    2. My fast kids and my slow legs are forcing me to use a good zoom ;o)

    3. I understand, but for some reason it doesn't work well for me, here's one reply I wrote regarding this issue on dpreview:

      "Hear hear, after I tried my first prime, I detested using zoom lenses, they are the sort of the black duck in my bag, with the APS-C Canons, I had the excellent 15-85, but I never used it except when I went somewhere where I needed to shoot wide and telephoto at the same time (like my desert trips). With the full frame Canon, the 24-105 stayed in the bag most of the time. Same here with the Olympus, I have hardly used the 12-50 except for video.

      Apart from the speed & sharpness advantages of primes, my brain thinks better with a fixed focal length, I compose & see the picture in my mind before I raise the camera to my eye, but with a zoom, it doesn't work well for me."

  2. You can achieve similar shallow depth of field on your OMD by using your Canon 5D Mark III's or other camera's prime lenses on your OMD with an adapter.

    I use my old manual Nikkor lenses on my GH3 with beautiful results.

    1. I wanted to do this while I had my 100L Macro still (it was the last item I sold and it took some time), but it sort of defeats the purpose of a small camera, it might make sense to play with it if you have several systems and lenses around, and of course it lacks auto focus and aperture control (for Canon).

    2. You won't get the same exact depth of field anyway, because to achieve a comparable viewpoint with the OMD you would have to take a few steps back due to the crop factor, which increases depth of field. I don't think there's any reason to try to mount say a Canon 50mm f/1.4 on an OMD anyway, when you have the 45mm f/1.8 which will give you the same perspective. Or the 25mm f/1.4 lens, which is basically equivalent to using the 50mm f/1.4 on a 5D.

  3. Admire your courage to move from FF to MFT.
    The MFT photos look good, it is a livable compromise. I have 2 kids, and when I take the SLR out they usually run away.

    1. Yeah, I took a lot of courage pills to do it, I was all teary eyed and sentimental when I was boxing all of the items that have stayed with me for several years.

  4. Sorry, but I don't care for the OMD photos as posted. They appear to carry a magenta cast that I find distracting. Also, I can discern the difference in color fidelity and depth too. All told, if you like you current set up then enjoy - that's what is important. Personally, I wouldn't trade my 5d3 but understand your reasoning.

    1. Sorry for the delayed comment publish, somehow I missed it.
      You're entitled to your opinion of course, enjoy your 5D3.

  5. You said: "give me your honest opinion, have I lost, or missed anything by switching to a small MFT sensor"

    What you have lost?:
    1. A lot of money
    2. half the resolution and ability to crop
    3. 2 stops of background blur
    4. 2 stops of clean ISO
    5. The best portrait camera and overall camera ever made. (5D Mark III)

    You shoot portraits of your daughter and you like to blur the background, this switch to m4/3 makes no sense from an image quality point of view and the size of the 5D3 plus a small prime like the 35/2, 40/2.8, 50/1.4, or 85 1.8 is not hard to manage. I just don't get it.

    1. Hmm, you have a point regarding the technical differences between a full frame and a micro four thirds sensor, but the point is that I can still get the images I like with either a crop DSLR, a FF DSLR or a small MFT.

      You might get more insight, if you like, by checking the reasons behind my switch.

      And I disagree with you about two points:

      1- OM-D is not lacking behind the 5D3 in image quality as you might think, one example is the shadow recovery, where all of the Canon sensors I have owned would show banding and noise when pushing the shadows, the OM-D is much cleaner.

      2- Losing a lot of money, how comes? All of my OMD system (including TTL flash) and a nice Sony RX100 cost me the same just as the 5D3 body. I saved A LOT of money in that switch.

  6. I love the article! It was a great idea to review all your different cameras through the years. I actually like the 5D II/III shots the best, but I think it has less to do with the camera characteristics and more just to do with the individual photos. I think if your preference is tighter shots, then the M43 lenses you have are actually provide as shallow DOF as you really need. Plus all the advantages...

    I think an example of where the sensor size can be seen is your last 5D III shot (which I really like!), and the 2nd OMD shot. It's hard to judge background distance, but I like how background is more thrown out of focus in the first (yet is still an environmental portrait type shot.) I love those kinds of shots, you see them with film photos a lot. I have an old 45mm f/1.8 rangefinder in the closet, maybe I should pull it out sometime...

    At the end of the day, I still have photos taken with my 2MP Casio from 1999 that are absolute favorites of mine, shots that I don't care were taken with that camera instead of a later DLSR or whatever.

    1. Thanks for the comments Syl, and yes, you have a point regarding the OMD shots, I got mine in the winter, and I haven't had an opportunity to shoot in various outdoor situations, that would come in this summer hopefully.

  7. Thank you for posting such a well written chronicle of your recent photographic experience. Your little girl is adorable! I too moved from a much larger/heavier DSLR system to micro four thirds and I am enjoying my photographic world at a higher level.

    I use an Olympus E-PL5 and a Panasonic G5 with a range of native M43 lenses. I take at least a camera and one or two lenses everywhere.

    Use your E-M5 and just have fun!

    Portland, Oregon USA

    1. Thank you Dan, it is a relief to have a small camera for casual shots, I am replying to you from the club, and I only have the Sony RX100 with me, great quality in such a small size.

  8. Loved that pic of the merry-go-round!!

    1. I agree, out of focus backgrounds look all that better when there are different colored lights there.

  9. First P&S around $500, G11 under $1000, 60D around $1500, 5D2 over $2000, 5D3 over $3000, the subject... priceless :) Now you have to spend more time than money and enjoy before she grows up (believe me it goes fast). As Erol quoted, enjoy the picture quality not the pixel quality.

    Personally, I liked the first shot from 5D3 the best... the colors, just enough DOF, the boy in background just a bit out of focus but very much there. I find the 5D3 shots remarkably better than all others.

    Important thing to focus on is how the images of life are captured over the years.

    Thanks for sharing the interesting story.


  10. I think you just saved my a few thousand dollars on camera gear. I was looking to enter into the DSLR space because I didn't like the photos that an iPhone and my cheap $99 point and shoot produced for family events.
    I do have a question about Black and White pictures. I don't plan on shooting much B&W but am curious if it's just me or am I seeing more graininess in the ones that you took with the OM-D vs your other cameras?

    Thanks again for this blog.

    1. You're welcome, no more graininess, it just happened I didn't show low light photos from the other cameras. I don't like to remove all noise, since it removes a lot of detail, instead I like this look you see here.

      In fact the, OMD is better than all of my cameras in noise performance except for the full frames.

  11. Good writeup,

    I had the same learning curve for my own landscape photography :-) ... i was tired of carrying so much gear around and I even made a weight comparison:

    With the recently released speed booster I am now even able to use Nikon mount fisheye lenses for my spheric panoramas with mft, so no need to get back to dslrs

    1. Thanks Henrik, I've checked your post, and yes, the weight difference is huge, even with my usage where I usually pick the body and only one lens, I can easily feel the difference.

  12. Really great story! :-)
    Thank you for tale and photos of every step.

    Amazing child photos :-)

  13. These pictures are so good, I forget you're in Egypt. Sorry... spent 5 years living in Cairo and many of your backgrounds look "too clean" for the streets of Cairo. :-)

    Oh, that shot of your daughter with the green "heavily bokeh-ed" background is about as good as it gets. Magical.

    1. I hardly shoot in the streets of Cairo, I'm too self conscious to bring out the camera in a street, only in resorts, clubs, hotels, etc... where it is normal to have a camera.

  14. Interesting journey. I switched from a Canon 7D + G12 to an Olympus OM-D and haven't regretted it. I agree that with careful prime lens selection you can get all the shallow depth of field you might want, unless you crave 85mm f/1.2 type backgrounds (but who can afford to take that lens anywhere with the kids?).

    I typically travel with a small Crumpler bag with the OM-D, 14mm f/2.5, 20mm f/1.7, 45mm f/1.8 and the other day I weighed this and found it to be similar to a Canon 6D body only! I love the small size, and it is more than enough for most photographic endeavors. I do miss the larger size of the dSLRs for studio work, but then we now have the EM-1 if you want that...

    1. Thanks for sharing your story Brad, most cameras today are very good image quality wise, provided you have a good lens and good light. What differs are the features/handling differences between each.

  15. Wow, you've went through what I have! I started off a Nikon P&S, Canon t1i, Canon 7D, Canon 5DMKII, and to Canon 6D + Panasonic Lumix G5, over the course of 4 years. My reasoning of doing so was the same as you stated, the bigger the better, plus the opinions of others on the net. In the process, I turned into a semi-professional to earn some $ from my images while using 5DMKII, and I remain so, so the choice of camera is important. Everything changed when I decided to buy Lumix G5 as a side camera that I can keep in my car and don't have to worry about it too much. I bought it for just $299 with the kit lens over Black Friday deal. The first 2 months, I HATED it so much and only thing I was thinking was to return it or sell it ASAP. But I kept using it as it was so small and easy to carry. Then clicked, I got how touch screen works and got used to live view shooting. Long story short, I have been AMAZED about the image quality this little camera with little sensor delivers. I'm a pixel peeper, and can't see the difference in full size screen. I don't know how, it should not be considering the sensor size! Now I'm considering to switch entirely to M43, but still bit scared. Can the image that I take from M43 be really sold? But I think all my clients care is the good image. Like you, I LOVED 5DMKII, I still do, even after 6D. Now I'm considering 3 options - 1, going back to used 5DMKII, 2, buy GH3 or 4, and/or 3. buy OMD EM5. I've been going over the pros and cons for about 3 months now... Sorry for the long comment....

    1. Hello Kay, wow, so excited to find someone else who did the same and also loves the 5D2.
      Now considering the options you stated, I would say if you don't need the shallowest depth of field possible, and you're not shooting at ISO 3200 all day long, then the EM5 (or EM10 for that matter, which I suggest in place of the EM5) will make you very happy. Olympus produces great lenses, and the cameras are very flexible and easy to operate.

      My ultimate suggestion is to rent one for a few days, or buy a used one and sell it if you don't like it, and check it out for yourself, be it the EM5 or the GH3 (which I have never seen or used).

  16. Hi. Owning a nikon d600 and a lumix g6, and one of my few hobbies i have still time for is hounting my doughter with a camera. I'd really enjoy reading your posts. In good light, i'm perfectly pleased with the result of the g6 (mostly with 20mm pana). At home with less light, the story is different. For that reason, i dont think of giving the d600 away. And for that i prefer 30-40mm most, where FF makes more of a difference, i think.
    I mostly agree with what you wrote and really like your results. Thank you for sharing.

    1. Hi Stefan. I hope you don't mind if I chime in. I had a D600 and MFT too and I agree that in low light there is no comparison between ff and mft. I also agree that the shallow dof of ff is most noticeable at wider angles (part of why I really liked the Sigma 35 1.4 on the D600 -- the DOF for that focal length was unmistakably FF :) ). As for whether mft is "good enough" I think it's very subjective.

      Best regards,

    2. Hi Mic.
      When i start thinking of probably buying a FF, the sigma 35 1,4 was the main pro reason. I had kind of wet-dreams shooting a FF with this lense:-)
      I still love it. Kind of magic.

    3. Hi Stefan. Yes I agree the Sigma 35 1.4 is an awesome lens! Very sharp even wide open, nice bokeh. And I like the 35mm perspective for people photos.

      Best regards,


Thanks for your comment. It will be published as soon as we get a chance to review it, sorry for that, but we get lots of spam with malicious links.