So, I think I'm going to trade in my pristine Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR1 for ...

[sleist]

... the Olympus E-P5 Kit.

I think it will be a better use of ~ $1400 worth of gear. At least it will get more use.
Not easy to part with this lens.

Thoughts?

 

[Trever1t]

I have no idea what the Oly kit is BUT there aren't too many lenses that match the quality of the 70-200.

 

[AlexanderB]

I'm dumping my D700 kit for the upcoming Olymous E-M1. So you are not alone!

 

[sleist]

I have no idea what the Oly kit is BUT there aren't too many lenses that match the quality of the 70-200.

Agreed, but if I keep leaving it at home because it's so f'ing big ...
I want a quality, small body with interchangeable lenses (X100s is out for this reason) and I just can justify adding more kit without streamlining.
I like the E-P5 over the E-M5 for the removable VF4 and 1/8000 shutter speed.

If I keep choosing the Nikon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR over the 70-200 for both my DSLR bodies (D700 and D7100) it gets hard justifying it.

 

[Derrel]

Yeah, if ya gotta travel LIGHT AND small, the Oly is a good option instead of a d-slr that uses a big, 70-200 zoom. I've found myself choosing the 70-300 VR as well, and leaving the 70-200 behind, mostly with reasonable trade-offs. I was reading The Online Photographer earlier this week, the link they have there on the right-hand side, to Kirk Tuck. Kirk's columns for TOP number only five or six, but they have some insight into mirrorless photography, as well as some lenses. I'm not really sure what lenses fit what system in mirrorless, but Kirk has a select few lenses he has written about, and by gosh, those lenses LOOK and SOUND very,very nice. I'm talking about some of the small,light, and yet FAST, high-performance prime lenses he has acquired.

His new Visual Science Lab blog also has some good mirrorless articles and lens and camera columns. Olympus is a fine,fine lens-making company, with a good tradition of designing lenses that are really wonderful in the real world, so I think it makes sense to consider them in the smaller-sensor, mirrorless category, over say, NIKON, or Canon, both of which have their heads up an orifice in terms of mirrorless offerings.

The Online Photographer: Kirk Tuck

Kirk is very fond of the Leica 25mm f/1.4 summilux, and the Olympus 45mm f/1.8

 

[sleist]

I'm dumping my D700 kit for the upcoming Olymous E-M1. So you are not alone!

My current thinking is different - multiple bodies for use with specific lenses.
I'm keeping the D700 and D7100 and streamlining the glass for specific uses and needs.

 

[Overread]

I've often found that I just have to leave the big DSLR (with battery grip) and 70-200mm f2.8 at home when generally going out and about because its just too big. Good if you've got a car and are going alone; but if you're out with friends or family its just too much camera at times (and if you do take it half the time you never use it).

I can see great appeal in the M4/3rds setup and would like one myself; but I see it as a compliment not a replacement to a DSLR setup. It won't do quite the same as the DSLR will, but it will compliment it by being able to be there when the DSLR can't. So be careful if you sell your 70-200mm as it coul be one of those short term choices that ends up with you re-buying it later.

 

[sleist]

Yeah, if ya gotta travel LIGHT AND small, the Oly is a good option instead of a d-slr that uses a big, 70-200 zoom. I've found myself choosing the 70-300 VR as well, and leaving the 70-200 behind, mostly with reasonable trade-offs. I was reading The Online Photographer earlier this week, the link they have there on the right-hand side, to Kirk Tuck. Kirk's columns for TOP number only five or six, but they have some insight into mirrorless photography, as well as some lenses. I'm not really sure what lenses fit what system in mirrorless, but Kirk has a select few lenses he has written about, and by gosh, those lenses LOOK and SOUND very,very nice. I'm talking about some of the small,light, and yet FAST, high-performance prime lenses he has acquired.

His new Visual Science Lab blog also has some good mirrorless articles and lens and camera columns. Olympus is a fine,fine lens-making company, with a good tradition of designing lenses that are really wonderful in the real world, so I think it makes sense to consider them in the smaller-sensor, mirrorless category, over say, NIKON, or Canon, both of which have their heads up an orifice in terms of mirrorless offerings.

The Online Photographer: Kirk Tuck

Kirk is very fond of the Leica 25mm f/1.4 summilux, and the Olympus 45mm f/1.8

I've been thinking of doing this for a while now so I'm sure I've read just about everything out there. My lens kit will probably be:

Oly 17mm 1.8 (E-P5 kit)
Oly 45mm 1.8
Oly 60mm macro
Oly 75mm 1.8

The 1/8000 shutter in the E-P5 will help make use of the 1.8 aperture in bright light.

The lenses do look quite good.

 

[Derrel]

I thought the most interesting thing at the link I posted above was Kirk's demonstration of how a "normal" lens on that format could be used from a bit close-up to look sort of like a telephoto, OR used from a bit farther back, to look more like a wider-angle lens. For me, the photos he had in that one article were worth as much as the text. I'm not all that familiar with that format, so I am wondering about the gap you have between 17mm and 45mm...that seems like a very large open space. But then again, I'm not familiar with this format. I can see though how sweet it'd be to have a camera and a three-lens kit that would fit into a fanny pack, with room to spare.

 

[sleist]

The crop factor of 2X makes the angle of view for the 17 and 45 approximately 35mm and 90mm. I routinely go out with a 24, 35, and 85mm primes on my D700 so I don't really see the gap as an issue.
The Panasonic 20mm would fill the gap, but I dislike the 40mm focal length so I'm still not sure I care. There are some nice zoom options too, but I prefer primes more these days.

 

[AlexanderB]

I'm dumping my D700 kit for the upcoming Olymous E-M1. So you are not alone!

My current thinking is different - multiple bodies for use with specific lenses.
I'm keeping the D700 and D7100 and streamlining the glass for specific uses and needs.

My back hurts after a day with D700 and several primes. So the time has come.

 

[sleist]

So a quick follow-up.

On my way to go shoot yesterday afternoon, I stopped at the local camera store to see what they would give me for the lens and how close to a straight-up trade I could get for the E-P5 Kit.
The lens is at least an EX if not an EX+/LN-. No marks on glass of body. Still, I wasn't expecting much, but you never know. Plus, I wanted a chance to play with the camera a bit.
KEH lists these for between $1475 and $1550 and the Olympus E-P5 kit is $1450.

They would only give me $1100. Which meant the camera would cost me the lens plus $350. I said thanks but no thanks, left the store, and won't be back.
I expected to be reamed, but not quite so hard. Lens for camera body is not the best trade off in the first place, but that was a sucker pitch.

The camera is very nice by the way. They had a used 45mm f/1.8 I got to play with too - awesome.
The VF4 viewfinder is surprisingly good and the rear screen tilts to 90 degrees making shooting from the hip (instead of holding the cam out in front) very easy.

I'll be getting this camera I think - just not from there.
May just keep the 70-200 too for that matter.

 

[Trever1t]

I bought a PERFECT Nikkor 70-200f2.8 Vr1 for $1350. A store has to ensure it's fully operational before selling to profit. I think the offer reasonable for a store....they are in business to make money after all.

 

[sleist]

I bought a PERFECT Nikkor 70-200f2.8 Vr1 for $1350. A store has to ensure it's fully operational before selling to profit. I think the offer reasonable for a store....they are in business to make money after all.

I agree with you in principle. It's the math I have a problem with.

If I walk in and buy the camera for $1450 cash he makes some profit X.
If I give him a lens he can sell for $1350 (or more) plus $100 he still makes X from the sale of the camera.
If I give him the lens plus the $350 he wanted, he's asking me pay $1700 (or more) for a $1450 camera.
He still makes X of the camera sale, plus he makes another $250 (or more depending on what he gets for the lens).
Now he has a camera sitting on a shelf and a buyer that will be getting his stuff elsewhere just because he saw this as two transactions instead of one and wanted to max his profit on both.

Yes, it's business. But no sale is still no sale.

 

[peterjrs]

You could always try selling it on eBay. The $1100 is just a little bit low. $1250 to $1300 is more reasonable, but there are a lot out there for sale so it maybe tuff sale.