Joe Edelman Could Be My Twin Switching From Nikon to Micro Four Thirds

Posted Dec. 7th, 2017 (2 weeks ago) by Daniel J. Cox

Switching from Nikon to Micro Four Thirds

Seems Joe Edelman had an almost identical path in photography as I have. He started in the mid 70’s with a Nikon F2AS, just like me. He shot the Nikon system for over 40 years, just like me. He relied on Nikon cameras to actually earn a living from photography, just like me. And, just like me, he got tired of Nikon’s costly gear, heavy weight, and lack of current cutting edge technology like 4K video. So… like me, he made the switch, and boy is he fired up and loving his photography again.

Just like me, Joe loves the small, compact, and highly sophisticated technology he’s found in his Micro Four Thirds camera of choice, the Olympus OM-D EM-1 Mark ll. Virtually every comment out of Joe’s mouth sounds like a recording of what I’ve also been saying since I first picked up a Lumix camera back in 2008. And just like me, he’s now shooting professional, paid assignments using the much smaller, compact cameras with no issues expressed by his clients. Take a look at the video Joe produced to share his thoughts about breaking up with Nikon in a humorous, lighthearted way. The only thing Joe and I differ on is his choice of camera, but either way, this guy could be my rebellious twin. No earrings or tattoos for me though.

Add Your Voice!
There are 7 comments on this post…
  1. Lee HarrisOn Dec. 11th, 2017 (6 days ago)

    I switched in 2012 when the EM5 came out, best move I ever made.

  2. Paul H. HenningOn Dec. 11th, 2017 (6 days ago)

    I was a “Nikon guy” from the time I was a teenager. Actually owning one seemed like a breakthrough…”NOW I’m a pro!” And I happily used them from the very early 1970s until the mid-80s. Then I got seduced by Olympus: the OM-1 and OM-2 were very cool, light-weight and affordable, and Olympus had some terrific lenses. Sooooo….I gritted my teeth, dumped my entire Nikon system and bought all brand-new Oly gear. Mistake! Yes, the cameras were light and fun to use, but what I discovered as a location shooter running lots and lots of film through my cameras, as well as subjecting them to the rigors of travel, was that the Olys simply could not take the pounding that the Nikons could. It seemed like at least once a month we were sending in a body or motor drive for repair. As they say, “you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.” The Nikons were built for pros and the demanding use we made of ‘em, sooooooooo…after about a year I dumped the Olympus system, bought back into Nikon and never looked back. That was three decades ago (I retired as a shooter in 1990) and I know much has changed in the interim (Film? What’s that???), but I’m just sayin’: be careful of falling victim to the “grass is greener” syndrome.

    • Portrait of Daniel J. Cox

      Daniel J. CoxOn Dec. 14th, 2017 (4 days ago)

      Durability is not an issue with the LUMIX gear I’ve been shooting. My first Camera was an Olympus way back in 1976. I had three different OM-2 bodies over a two year period and after the third one one broke down the second time I traded my entire kit in for a Nikon F2AS and a 50mm lens and never looked back. Until 2008 when I tried the LUMIX GF1 on a lark. That was the start of my LUMIX infatuation and it’s still going strong.

      I’ve been extremely impressed with LUMIX reliability. This subject was important to me and was just one of many reasons I didn’t jump in whole hog from day one. But over the last almost ten years I’ve come to completly trust LUMIX cameras to take a beating and hold up in difficult conditions. If any of you have used Panasonic office equipment, as I did in the 90s, you know they make very durable equipment. I used a Panasonic dot matrix printer and Panasonic phone machine for ten years before finally replacing them with newer devices. I eventually recycled them even though they were still working with no issues.

      You’re point is well taken Paul but thankfully, it’s a nonissue with Panasonic LUMIX Camera bodies and lenses. Thanks for adding your voice to the conversation.

  3. DeanOn Dec. 8th, 2017 (1 week ago)

    Joe said what you (Dan) and I have been writing for quite a while. MFT has made photography “fun” again. Whether it’s with Olympus bodies like I prefer, or the Panasonic/Lumix cameras you like, MFT has made it easier (lighter, smaller, less expensive) for photographers like us to have “fun” again! And, the lenses from Olympus, Lumix, and third-parties are spectacular! How refreshing it is that two big companies (Olympus and Panasonic) compete and still cooperate with each other to deliver better products. As Joe suggested, it’s too bad that behemoths Canon and Nikon didn’t join forces and resources in a similar fashion. Oh what fun it is to be along for the MFT ride!

    • Portrait of Daniel J. Cox

      Daniel J. CoxOn Dec. 8th, 2017 (1 week ago)

      I agree Dean. When I watched this video I was stunned by the virtual list I was ticking off in my head of the exact reasons I did the switch. And one of the main ones was the smaller gear made photography fun again. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Come travel with us again someday.

  4. Anastas TarpanovOn Dec. 8th, 2017 (1 week ago)

    I’m doing exactly the same for two years now and all of my friends said that I need to use Sony full frame or at least Fuji if I’m creative and m4/3 is very-very small, can’t be professional system. Well the fact is that I love the compact lenses. You don’t have that with any other system, especially the tele lenses. Daniel I think you will understand me perfect.

    • Portrait of Daniel J. Cox

      Daniel J. CoxOn Dec. 8th, 2017 (1 week ago)

      You are preaching to the choir Anastas. The problem with photographers is they seldom want to break out of the box they typically find themselves in. In my opinion we’ve all been brainwashed in to thinking we need the full frame or even the APS-C sized sensors. The major benefits of the MFT are for those of us using longer lenses. If big lenses aren’t something you use than maybe the Sony mirrorless or fuji would be an option. But having 800mm’s in a lens the size of a Nikkor 70-200mm is an absolute dream.

Add your voice to this conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In an effort to combat spam, your comment may be held for a brief moderation period.

Natural Exposures, Inc.