When thinking of a title for this blog, I purposely did not want to use the classic “Why I switched from micro four thirds to full frame” because that would suggest the switch was based solely on sensor size, which it wasn’t. A micro four thirds sensor is highly capable for landscape photography and has never held me back.

This decision was not made lightly. Changing systems can be expensive and the way modern sensors are made nowadays, depending on your needs, you may not notice a huge benefit or change in your work by switching. The most important element in quality photographs is the person behind the camera, end of story. I was a mentor for Olympus Uk which meant I possibly could of had the chance to work with the company and other photographers, an exciting prospect and something a lot of us hobbyist photographers aim towards. So the decision to give up my Olympus kit and switch fully over to the Nikon Z system was not an easy one. But in this blog I will try to rationalise my decision to you the reader and perhaps it will help you make a similar decision if needs be.

Before we jump in I want to clear one thing up: Nearly all modern day cameras now can be used for a variety of applications in photography and in the right hands produce stunning images no matter what brand or sensor size. It is not always the case that one system can only shoot this genre or another system is the best at that genre. The Olympus gear I used provided me with some of my favourite ever landscape images and images that have helped build me a strong credible portfolio. So this blog is not about why the Olympus system can’t be used for landscape photography, it is about how I made an informed decision based on my primary needs as a landscape photographer.

Let’s cut straight to the point: the gear you use should more or less align with your needs as a photographer and when you are a hobbyist then you must try squeeze the most value out of your money as you can when buying photography gear. So I done a cost to needs analysis. I’m not sure that is an official term because I just made it up however it does make sense. I wrote down my needs as a photographer and then I wrote down the flagship features of my Olympus system because it is these features that you are paying your hard earned money for. What I found was that even though it was a highly capable system for me as a landscape photographer, many of the high end features I was paying for simply were not being utilised such as the high speed 60 fps frame rate, the fast autofocus, incredible IBIS, high res mode etc and this prompted me to look at other systems and got me thinking.

I had previously been a Nikon D750 shooter before I left for Olympus so naturally I gravitated back to Nikon and began my cost to needs analysis on that. I saw that the Nikon Z6 had a larger and brighter electronic viewfinder (EVF) than my EM1 Mark II and III, it had better high ISO performance, it had a larger full frame sensor with better dynamic range, it had slightly better video specs (not a huge dealbreaker I loved the Oly for video work) all this for more or less the same price as the Olympus setup and those features I just mentioned are much more likely to benefit me as a landscape photographer. In terms of similar costing I’ll give you an example:

The Olympus EM1 Mark II and 12-40 F2.8 lens costs €2499

The Nikon Z6 and 24-70 F4 costs €2556

Both those prices are from the respective company retailers. The reason I chose this combo is because it is my most used combo in the field. Now you might say “Hang on Sean, you are comparing a non weather sealed Nikon 24-70 F4 against a solid weather sealed F2.8 pro lens from Olympus” and yes you would be correct. However, that F2.8 aperture really does not bother me. I am a Landscape Photographer who shoots between F8 and F16 most of the time. I do like to shoot astrophotography but with the excellent high iso performance of the Z6 and stacking of images in programs like Sequator, the need for that F2.8 aperture is not as urgent. Also for dedicated astro work I plan on using a fast F1.8 prime lens along with a tracker. My point is that for nearly the same money I have a system that is catering more for my needs as a Landscape photographer, this means that I am getting better value for my hard earned money and it really is as simple as that.

“But Sean” I hear you say again “full frame is big and heavy and not nearly as portable as micro four thirds”. Welcome to mirrorless my friend, the days of comparing heavy clunky DSLR’s to super lightweight small cameras are gone. The Z6 and 24-70 F4 weigh 1,152g while the Olympus EM1 Mark II and 12-40 F2.8 weigh 984g. So a difference of 204g which I can live with. Yes if you want to purchase a heavy 24-70 f2.8 from Nikon it will weigh significantly more than the f4 lens but again it comes back to your needs, I will use a fast prime for my astro and night photography, aside from that I don’t need a fast lens for my landscapes. The F4 Z mount lenses such as the 14-30 and 24-70 are super light and very sharp. The beauty of the mirrorless world is that now even full frame setups can be portable and lightweight.

On the topic of portability if you are a wildlife photographer or sports then I’m sure you can appreciate the portability of the Olympus telephotos. I had the 40-150 F2.8 pro lens giving me an 80-300 full frame equivalent and it was quite light in comparison to most fast telelphoto lenses these days. If you were to compare that to the Nikon equivalent such as the 70-200 F2.8 or something along those lines then you would notice a huge weight difference. The olympus 300mm F4 prime, a 600mm FF equivalent, could be stored neatly in my camera bag but look at the huge clunking 200-500 F5.6 from Nikon and you will start to understand some of the benefits a smaller micro four thirds system has to offer.

But I digress, bringing it back to my needs as a landscape photographer. For a telephoto lens I don’t need a fast F2.8, I use the Nikon 70-300 F4.5-5.6 AF-P lens with the FTZ adapter. It is tack sharp, lightweight and suits my needs perfectly.

So if you have gotten this far I hope you will have an insight into why I switched systems. It is not a case of Olympus being a bad choice for landscapes, it is more about me selecting the best bang for buck system I could find for my landscape photography. Of course this is all subjective and you could completely disagree with me, I would love to hear your thoughts in the comments below!

I would also like to take this chance to thank the Olympus Uk team for taking me on board and deeming me worthy of becoming an Olympus mentor, our paths may cross again in the future! But for now, I simply want to focus on my work to continue to grow and improve as a photographer.

Thanks for reading

Sean.

If you enjoyed this blog and would like to buy me a coffee then please consider leaving a pay-pal donation. It helps support me and my work. Thank you :-)

Blog

Why I switched to Nikon Z6 from Olympus OM-D for Landscape Photography