Anyone ever switch SLR systems?

[alex66]

I only ever used to change systems when my camera got stolen, first it was a Cosina CSM (M42) then Canons (FD) that I bought a couple of low end Olympus to replace them with. I did not get on with it and sold them ending up buying early Pentax AF that I used for about 8-10 years. Since the dawn of digital I stupidly sold the Pentax to get a digi cam and then ended up getting a Canon FD again and a Cosina CSM for old times sake. I bought a few others as they were so cheep, I did not consider an Oly but we found an OM1 with a 50 1.4 for a bargain price so bought it. I wanted a 1.4 so thought I would try and get on with a camera I did not get on with, well I have bought 4 back up bodies and an OM2 it became my main system, I enjoyed it so much. I use the Canon as I have a 24mm that was bought for a mega bargain price. I would consider getting a low cost Canon to see if you like it as it may feel too alien to you, an AE1 can be had for little money these days.

 

[puketronic]

Actually.

I'm not going to switch anymore. OM gear is pricey but they're great cameras so I'm just going to stick with it. I have this problem for lusting for too many cameras, systems, formats, and fast glass!

If I do decide to switch, then I think it'd be wise idea to purchase an FD outfit first to ensure that I really do like the handling and lenses.

 

[mopar_guy]

I started with Olympus almost 30 years ago and never wanted to sell any of it. Just spend the money on Zuiko lenses. About $10,000 should get you going. Less than the price of a new car.

 

[Ralph Javins]

Good morning;

What an embarrassing question. Who came up with this thing, any way? Oh, yeah. OK.

Well, the truthful answer is; "No." I mean that. I have never "switched." All I have ever done is add or supplement. Oh, I admit that there were some lines that I just chose not to follow, but even that changed at times. I started out with Minolta, and that has grown to an impressive listing. Then the Nikon stuff that I always wanted back in the 1960s was added. There has always been an interest in rangefinder cameras, so they have been around for a while. And the rangefinder type was what I started with originally. A few years back Medium Format was added. Then about four years ago, a Large Format view camera appeared. Recently I chose to do something for the young guy who is the closest thing I have to a kid brother who had a Canon F-1 system earlier, but it "disappeared." In an effort to rekindle his interest in film, I bought a modest Canon F-1 system for him. Foolish me; I played with the Canon F-1 for a while. Now I have one also. The M-42 stuff began with things people just gave to me.

There is one thing that I have somehow resisted so far. Back in the early 1960s, I remember looking at an Olympus Pen F. A nice small SLR camera with a mirror that swung sideways and the appearance of a rangefinder camera. I still have not done it. Yet.

Oh, there is an Olympus Pencorder here that uses 1/4 inch magnetic recording tape. Does that count?

 

[Sirius Glass]

You definitely need to switch gear regularly. There's no better way to distract yourself from actually taking pictures.

If you DO stick with the same system for any period of time then you will HAVE to actually take pictures and possibly even deal with your mediocrity as a photographer. Then there's the whole self analysis thing that follows, 'am I good enough', 'are my pictures really that bad', 'why do I even bother' etc etc. NO ONE WANTS THAT. Keep swapping gear, testing, trying new things. The grass really is greener, or at least keep telling yourself that...

Olympus, Mamiya 645, Nikon, Canon FD, Yashica, Contax, Leica R, Mamiya RZ, Canon EF, Sinar, in chronological order, have all distracted me quite nicely. Oddly I'm back to using the Olympus and Mamiya 645 gear that I started with about 30 years ago, albeit adapted to Canon EF bodies. If only I'd been actually taking pictures the whole time, maybe I'd be half decent at it by now. Maybe.

Frankly, if I had your Olympus gear, and I do have the OM2n, 28/2 and 50/1.4 (and others), I'd keep it and use it.

JJ

I completely disagree with your hypothesis and erroneous conclusion. Every time I have changed camera systems or added camera systems, I have learned much more about photography because the new systems brought new capabilities.

 

[fstop]

I completely disagree with your hypothesis and erroneous conclusion. Every time I have changed camera systems or added camera systems, I have learned much more about photography because the new systems brought new capabilities.

I agree.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Pentax all the time. Never needed anything else, so I never looked elsewhere.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I started In 1979) with the Olympus OM10, then OM1, OM1N, OM2 until 1984, then OM4. Then switched to Nikon F3HP. Lost that in a boating accident in Tasmania while on a bicycle tour. Along came a Nikon F401 (worse camera I've ever used). Nikon FA, FE2 followed. 1989 saw Minolta Dynax 9000i; dumped that after a few months and got a Canon T90, which I owned until 1995 when I picked up a Canon EOS 5 (amid much doubt as to my sanity in going for the new Canon bodies at the time) and then an EOS1N (EOS 5 has gone, but 1N remains in-service and uber-reliable). Why go through several systems? I wanted to personally experience what camera (irrespective of name/marque) best suited me as an active, solo-travelling photographer, and one with small hands. I didn't have any influence on choices other than salesperson spin: I had to take my risk and move through the systems until I found comfort and satisfaction. The OM series were delightful but rudimentary (certainly not the OM4, which provided a solid foundation for analytical metering and careful thought); the Nikons were just so-so while the Canon bodies — starting with that old chestnut, the T90, I warmed to immediately — and still do, but not the digital ones.

Along came the humungous SLR-on-steroids, a Pentax 67, and I had to refine my level of tolerance and capacity in handling a very heavy camera with brutally poor ergonomics. So it is a true delight to pick up the 1N and still get that warm inner glow of it feeling like an extension of my hands. Apart from that I know it inside-out and have memorised most of the common custom function settings over a long period of use.

 

[Wade D]

I've changed systems several times. My parents bought me a Petri Flex V in 1968 when I was in Jr. high school. A nice upgrade from the Instamatic camera to start with but not a system per se. When I saved up a little I bought several Exakta VX's which were much more capable as a system with 5 lenses and a macro bellows.
In 1984 I bought 2 Minolta X-700's and various lenses for a trip to Europe. They worked out so well that I have stuck with Minolta since then. 2 SRT 101b's, an SRT 201, an XD-11, a Maxxum 7000 AF and a Maxxum 8000i AF.
I won't list the lenses but I have 14, mostly primes and a few zooms.
With what I have invested in the Minolta system I don't really see a need to change course now.
I've kept all of the previous cameras including the Instamatic.

 

[EASmithV]

I've never been a huge Canon Fan, and FD mount camera bodies and lenses is no exception.

 

[edge-t]

Thought about, never acted out. I still use 2 Minolta XD11. 35mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.7---2 of the cheapest lens you can get, for 99% of my photographs.

 

[Steve Smith]

I completely disagree.

I also completely agree with your disagreement!

If you DO stick with the same system for any period of time then you will HAVE to actually take pictures and possibly even deal with your mediocrity as a photographer.

Try to find a working guitarist who only owns one guitar, or a golf player with one golf bat (or whatever they are called) etc, etc.


Steve.

 

[clayne]

I've never switched per se, just added systems to gain access to different glass.

 

[edge-t]

You definitely need to switch gear regularly. There's no better way to distract yourself from actually taking pictures.

If you DO stick with the same system for any period of time then you will HAVE to actually take pictures and possibly even deal with your mediocrity as a photographer. Then there's the whole self analysis thing that follows, 'am I good enough', 'are my pictures really that bad', 'why do I even bother' etc etc. NO ONE WANTS THAT. Keep swapping gear, testing, trying new things. The grass really is greener, or at least keep telling yourself that...

Olympus, Mamiya 645, Nikon, Canon FD, Yashica, Contax, Leica R, Mamiya RZ, Canon EF, Sinar, in chronological order, have all distracted me quite nicely. Oddly I'm back to using the Olympus and Mamiya 645 gear that I started with about 30 years ago, albeit adapted to Canon EF bodies. If only I'd been actually taking pictures the whole time, maybe I'd be half decent at it by now. Maybe.

Frankly, if I had your Olympus gear, and I do have the OM2n, 28/2 and 50/1.4 (and others), I'd keep it and use it.

JJ

I actually agree with what jj wrote. When I was contemplating switching system, I spent so much time reading online about lens reviews, when the time could be better spent shooting. So, I decided to spend the money on photobooks and film. Like I said, the 35mm and 50mm fulfill most of my needs. that's my personal opinion.

 

[John Austin]

The final word - This thread has gone on too long and shows me too many people have too many cameras - I quote here from my website

"Every so often I still hear the mouldy old phrase "The camera makes no difference. . ." etc. Try selling this idea to a concert pianist, or a cabinet maker, or painter, or car mechanic. The properties of tools do affect the the nature of a work, so a pianist might choose a broken piano for specific effects or a photographer use a pinhole camera because of its particular properties. The point of this is that cameras chosen do affect the work produced and must be chosen with as much mindfulness as a violinist would choose between a Stradivarius or Guarneri"

I worked out what I need and can afford and have stuck with that, Sinar from 1972, Rollei from 1976 and Nikon from 1982, keeping the original cameras working and serviced - Knowing the camera so well I could focus by feel during a wedding through a 10 pint of Guinness hangover (I have to thank Rollei for that ability, yes, it happened too often)

 

[eSPhotos]

Not switched but trimmed.
I used to have EF (film & digital), F, OM, PK, M42 and Contax.
Now I trimmed to EF, F and Contax only.

 

[fstop]

The final word - This thread has gone on too long and shows me too many people have too many cameras - I quote here from my website

"Every so often I still hear the mouldy old phrase "The camera makes no difference. . ." etc. Try selling this idea to a concert pianist, or a cabinet maker, or painter, or car mechanic. The properties of tools do affect the the nature of a work, so a pianist might choose a broken piano for specific effects or a photographer use a pinhole camera because of its particular properties. The point of this is that cameras chosen do affect the work produced and must be chosen with as much mindfulness as a violinist would choose between a Stradivarius or Guarneri"

I worked out what I need and can afford and have stuck with that, Sinar from 1972, Rollei from 1976 and Nikon from 1982, keeping the original cameras working and serviced - Knowing the camera so well I could focus by feel during a wedding through a 10 pint of Guinness hangover (I have to thank Rollei for that ability, yes, it happened too often)

Too many cameras? thats like telling a mechanic he has too many tools.

 

[thegman]

I had a Leica R8 for a short time, and now I'm getting an M42 camera. The R8 for me was waaaay too electronic, and the lenses are very pricey, being Leica. I wanted something simpler, where the lenses are cheap and the whole kaboodle is mechanical.

 

[jjphoto]

I completely disagree with your hypothesis and erroneous conclusion….

I didn’t realise it was a hypothesis. I thought it was just an opinion so how can that be ‘erroneous’ (ie wrong)?

The gist of my previous post, less the tongue-in-cheek bit, is that ‘changing from like to like camera systems is a waste of time and a distraction from actual photography’. That seems a fair and realistic statement to me, and certainly based on experience. The Canon FD and Olympus Zuiko systems are quite similar both optically and in many functional respects (I’ve had both for many years). There are of course many differences and one system will always have certain specific advantages over any other in certain specialised applications, but that wasn’t the gist of the OP’s question anyway. My understanding is that he questioned the sense in changing over to FD with similar lenses to those he already had (although I did misunderstand the OP’s question in that I though he already had the OM 50/1.4 and 85/2, not that he lusted for them, my bad).

…Every time I have changed camera systems or added camera systems, I have learned much more about photography because the new systems brought new capabilities.

I don’t recall saying otherwise? I fully agree. I also have way more lenses and gear than I will realistically use and that's because its fun and as you said, educational. But that’s not really relevant to anything I’d said previously so I don’t understand how it is an argument against my previous post.

Capability and performance are different things. A T/S lens, AF super tele or dedicated macro lens are all capable of things a simple prime isn't. There will always be a specialised and 'perfect' solution, usually with it's own limitations or 'costs', be they financial or otherwise (size, weight etc). But again, this isn't what the OP's question or my reply was about. It was about essentially switching from like to like.

The reality is that most 'decent' lenses from 'decent' makers (Pentax, Minolta, Canon FD/EF, Leica, Nikon etc etc) are in about the same ball park. Yes there are all kinds of differences and some times the differences really do matter, but for general or normal photographic purposes, they usually don't.

JJ

 

[Les Sarile]

I actually agree with what jj wrote. When I was contemplating switching system, I spent so much time reading online about lens reviews, when the time could be better spent shooting. So, I decided to spend the money on photobooks and film.

Recommendations and reviews are worthwhile but nothing beats actually using it. Get lots of film and have fun!

 

[urbantarzan]

I shoot both nikon and canon. I prefer nikon digital (when I have to shoot events and portraits commercially), but 35mm is all canon. The EOS 3 nearly made me go canon digital to consolidate lenses and bodies, but I don't like canon digital (just my oppinion). I love using nikon, but the EOS3 with eye controlled focus and beautiful handling made it my 35mm of choice. I also use an original rebel 35mm film camera as my light weight cary everywhere film camera. I am experimenting with a Mamiya C220 right now, so if I like it, I might just sell all this nikon and canon SLR nonsense and make the switch to that (just kidding).

 

[cjbecker]

No I have never switched SLR systems. Besides going from 35mm to medium format.

 

[benjiboy]

The O.P. can change SLR systems as much as he likes, as long as he doesn't expect it to make him a better photographer .

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The O.P. can change SLR systems as much as he likes, as long as he doesn't expect it to make him a better photographer .

That's a really great summary, Ben. To me, the essential quality of the camera is that it's intuitive to use (comes with use and experience), and that it works every time. In my world the camera is the very least important piece of the whole process, yet it stirs so much conversation and passionate debate.

Here's what's not taught enough, discussed enough, and practiced enough: printing.
Thank you, Max, for this link: http://theliteratelens.com/2012/02/17/magnum-and-the-dying-art-of-darkroom-printing/
Or go to YouTube and make a search for Gene Nocon, and listen to his 30 minutes interview with Anthony Mournian of Photographer's Formulary. Forget about the camera - go make your prints better!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The O.P. can change SLR systems as much as he likes, as long as he doesn't expect it to make him a better photographer .

Precisely.

I went from OM to Nikon F in the early 90s. I started with an OM 2 in 1978, having had fixed lens 35mm rangefinders. The reason for my shift was twofold, primarily the OM 4 and secondarily the size of my hands, I can hold the Nikons easier than the tiny OM bodies. The OM 4 was and is a great camera, however mine was an early one and every time I went to use it, I had to put the battery in, it would kill the battery in a few weeks, so I left it out unless I was actually using the thing. An OM 4 with a dead battery is a paperweight.

I now have multiple Nikon bodies and lenses. I recently inherited an OM 3, an OM 4, and a box of Oly lenses.