Olympus OM-D or DSLR when up grading from point and shoot

I am trying to decide if I should go with the Olympus OM-D-E-M-10 or a Canon or Nikon DSLR camera. I have been using a Nikon Coolpix and a Panasonic and want to get better action photos of dogs. The reset time is slow on my old cameras and the focus is difficult to get with my present cameras. I like the idea of the small mirror-less Olympus but is it good for action photos?

 

The OM-D E-M10, with its standard 3x zoom lens, costs about $800. For that price you can purchase the Canon T5i with the standard 3x zoom lens and have $50 left over, the Nikon D3300 with the 3x zoom lens and have $150 left over. The OM-D E-M10 has a few advantages over the other two - it's smaller and lighter in weight (though not much lighter than the Nikon), it's quieter because it doesn't use a movable mirror and it has built-in WiFi. The OM-D E M10 takes nice quality JPG images, but no better than the T5i and the D3300. The Olympus is a speedy camera, but so are the other two. The Olympus has a flip out LCD, but the Canon has a fully articulated LCD (the LCD on the Nikon is fixed). The Canon and Nikon take better videos than the Olympus and have optical viewfinders, compared to the electronic viewfinder of the OM-D E-M10 (which is good quality but is essentially a small LCD - some people love them, some hate them). The Olympus's battery life is significantly worse than the Canon and much worse than the Nikon. Also the Olympus has a very shallow grip, compared to the deep, comfortable grips of the Canon and Nikon.

The OM-D E-M10 is a fine camera but, unless its small size and light weight are very important to you, the T5i and D3300 give you more for your money, in my opinion.

 

Very tough call. These will all be a bunch better for action than what you are used to now. For action you may also want to pay attention to the "drive" rate in continuous mode.

Not only is the M10 body more compact, so are the lenses for it. So a bag with 2 or 3 lenses can be smaller and lighter weight than for any DSLR. Thus the M10 would be a clear pick for a long hike.

For nerds who want to dive into advanced JPG settings, Olympus is quite a bit ahead of Canon and Nikon. Of course if you are shooting RAW anyways, this is moot.

With any of these I use a camera bag. Which will have room for a spare battery, then any battery life issue is moot. Battery life is really only key for pocket cameras.

For a light camera I prefer a modest grip (the Canon SL1 may be ideal). The extra deep grips are nice for extra heavy lenses.

The Olympus control layout expects you to depend more on menus. But if you are shooting RAW or are in manual mode then the menus can be ignored for the most part. Both Canon and Nikon expect you to work the numerous settings on the main mode wheel, which implies you are avoiding manual mode. Manual mode is the preference of many advanced photographers, but not really a "must" for effective photography. Having the sole data wheel near the shutter button on the Nikon makes it nice for adjusting the basic setting (shutter speed, whatever) while using the viewfinder. The Canons and M10 make this wheel more accessible from the back of the body, which is nice for working with menus on the LCD. Depends on your style of photography.

Autofocus lenses for the M10 will be more expensive than for Canon and Nikon. If you are Ok with manual focus lenses, then there is a deep selection of inexpensive lenses from the old SLR days that will work nicely with the M10 with the right adapter.

If you are keen on advanced flash (known as speedlights), that will be another advantage for Canon and Nikon. Of course the M10 does have a standard flash hotshoe, so it can work with any flash that has manual control.

Tough call.

Kelly Cook

 

Thanks, I will look into these options. I am willing to spend up to $1500.00 with lenses included. Speed is a factor in agility and weight is a factor when hiking.

 

It's a good idea to check out the cameras in person. Every DSLR will give you excellent image quality but they vary greatly in appearance, feel, and other ergonomic factors.

 

I think you're right to be concerned about action photos with a mirrorless vs DSLR - focus tracking would be my worry when shooting action photos of dogs. Continuous AF is pretty good on even the entry level DSLRs and you can reasonably expect a high percentage of burst shots to be in focus; the DSLR viewfinder is real time, you see the subject live between shots which is important if you have to follow a moving subject to keep it framed.

Mirrorless tend to lag a bit in what they display to you in the EVF - after an initial delay you see the last shot taken, not what is going on at that instant. I'm also not convinced that the contrast detection AF system (which is what the Olympus you're looking at has) is quite as good at continuous AF and tracking as a phase detection system typically employed in a DSLR. I shoot a lot of surfers and fast moving subjects at airshows with DSLRs, and I also have a couple Nikon V1 mirrorless bodies. The V1 has pretty good continuous AF as mirrorless cameras go, but the DSLRs are better for the stuff I shoot.

The Olympus will probably do the job you envision (dog action) but I'd definitely see if you can arrange a "try before you buy" as action might be the one area where the mirrorless may come up short of your expectations.