Anyone ever switch SLR systems?

[puketronic]

Just curious and for what reasons?

I'm thinking of switching to Canon FD system (from the OM system). Maybe it's a bad idea--not sure but my primary reason is because it's cheaper overall. Which glass is better? Who knows? My feeling is that they'll render images the similarly unless you're shooting to test.

I bought into the OM system because they are pretty and rangefinderesque. OM is probably the most rangefinderesque SLR but it's not a rangefinder, and I lust for my lenses! I'd stay in the system if the glass were cheap, but they aren't. Originally I thought I'd be happy with a 35mm f2 but then I got a 28mm f2 and now I want a 50mm f1.4 and an 85mm f2. I have no plans for digital so if I were to switch to FD now, then I can probably sell these lenses and my two OM2 bodies and have a complete suite of fast lenses (28/35/50/85) with two Canon F1 bodies.

 

[Steve Mack]

Sure! Every other day! I go from SLR to rangefinder to TLR and back again. Sort of like the old Murphy's Law variation: After things have gone from bad to worse, the cycle will repeat itself.

With best regards.

Stephen

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I'm all over the place. But my main systems are nikon F Olympus om and canon ef.

I never really thought too much about the fd system. I had a ftb my grandpa gave me that I don't use but keep around and two random fa bodies. The lenses used to be super cheap. Still kinda are now too.

You should keep your om system, the canon fd system would be geared more for bigger motor drives or for longer teles. Zuiko lenses are beautiful and you have a really nice fast kit going. I wish I can get more now but the prices on them are crazy. It's fun but a pain recollecting if you don't have a backup system to shoot on, you'll be hurting without that lens/focal length your used too.

 

[Rick A]

I got rid of all my Canon FD gear and only have an OM system for 35mm these days. When all my 135 film is gone, I'll sell my Oly gear(soon).

 

[Bob-D659]

Not switched systems as such, started with Nikon in 67 and added a Pentax 645 and three lenses a couple of years ago. Both are good.

 

[AFenvy]

I have done it quite a lot, but instead of selling one system and moving on to the next, I simplify my gear and each system has its different uses. I have a nice collection of the fast and rare Olympus OM lenses to go with my OM-4Ti, I have a nice set of the original Pre-Ai lenses for my Nikon F, and some Contax/Yashica lenses for my FX-3 Super. They each have their own purposes and character. I thought about the Canon FD, but it really doesn't do anything for me, if anything I'd pick up some Rokkor lenses and a Minolta before I went with any FD gear.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Many times and for various reasons.

In most cases you can't simply state that "system X's lenses are better than system Y's": all systems have their stellar and much less stellar lenses and choosing individual lenses wisely is important (even in the case of Leica).

If I were starting again, I 'd probably choose Olympus as my travel kit, for its compact size, viewfinders and general philosophy (whereas Canon takes a very different approach).

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Pentax K to Nikon to Contax, and now went back to Nikon for the older 60's glass but kept the Contax for the modern Zeiss glass. I mostly switch for the glass being able myself to adapt to differing button placement and such but some swear by certain systems and ergonomics and that can be just as important.

 

[BrianShaw]

Nope... not in 35mm and not in MF either. Still working with either the same SLR equipment or the same brand I originally started with. Same with LF too. For all I've expanded a bit and retired one, but never abandoned any of them.

 

[msbarnes]

Actually...I'm thinking twice about switching. The OM system is a beautiful system...

Still, I like to hear your experiences XP.

 

[Pumalite]

Stick to what you are used to. I have Olympus; the crystal is great. Sometimes I use Nikon F or Nikkormat. I have the complete FD System, but, oddly I never use it.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I only switched once from a Canon T90 to a Nikon FM2.

I did it because I wanted a simpler camera that would last an age, I didn't realise that the lenses would be three times as much! That was in '98 or so and I'm still using the same camera now.

 

[elcabezagrande]

I don't know about switching, I think that I have just never really "decided" on a bayonet-mount system. I will always have an M42 mount camera, but I think that I have dabbled in every modern bayonet mount system, with the exception of Olympus. It's not any prejudice about OM, just one has not managed to fall into my hands as of yet. There is good stuff in every system that I have tried, but I seem to be gravitating toward Nikon and C/Y stuff at the moment.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I switched from Minolta SLR to Nikon SLR. Then I added a Hasselblad SLR. After that I added a Graflex Model D [SLR]. I find that I can still find my way out of bed in the morning without help. I can still take photographs and process film. I can still operate several kinds of computers. My intelligence has increased; my looks have improved to the point that I am now incredibly handsome; and I have even become humble! Therefore there is no downside to change from one brand of SLR to another.

Steve

 

[mcgrattan]

I started out with m42, then switched to Canon EF film slrs, often using m42 lenses with adapters. Then a few years ago I bought a Pentax P50 to make use of a 50mm f1.7 I found cheap, and have stuck with Pentax K ever since. I like the lenses, I like the ergonomics and viewfinders of the ME/MX and P5/P50 series. I do occasionally get a yen for other systems. It's lens driven. 35mm SLRs, with the exception of collectable stuff, are generally so cheap that if I spotted a desirable lens at a cheap price, I might buy a body to go with it. But it's been Pentax K alone for half a dozen years or so now.

I did dabble, briefly, with a Leica R body and lens, but didn't like it.

Matt

 

[Moopheus]

Not so much switching as accumulating. I started with Nikon 'cause my dad gave me his F long ago. I recently got an OM-1 because I always wanted one and now they're cheap. It's a nice lighter alternative to the Nikons, but I don't think I'll ever give up the Nikons completely. Now I have a bunch of MF and LF stuff to occupy my time too.

 

[wblynch]

I bought my first 35mm slr in 1975, an Olympus OM-1.

Until now, Olympus OM's are the only 35mm film slr I have ever owned.

I think most people stick with their original choice for life.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Speaking only of 35mm, I suppose I've been making a slow transition from Canon FD to Canon EOS, still using a few FD lenses with FD-EOS adapters (macro and the original Canon FD-EOS for telephotos) and with one or two with interchangeable mounts that can work on either system. I have no interest in autofocus, but there are some EF lenses like the four TS-E lenses (I have the 24mm-II and the 45mm) that are just greatly improved or don't exist for FD (which had a 35mm T-S), and Zeiss is offering more of their SLR lenses in EF mount than in M42, which can be adapted to FD or EF (I have the 35/2.0 Planar in M42 mount, the 85/1.4 Planar in EF mount). I suppose that at this point I could sell my New F-1, but as I've had it for almost 30 years now, I use it more intuitively than any other camera--even as those occasions are ever more rare--and the focusing screen is way better than my EOS focusing screens for manual focus.

Part of the reason I like shooting mainly large format is that cameras don't have proprietary lens mounts, and any lens works on any camera, so long as there are no obvious physical obstacles like the lens being too large to fit on the lensboard or too heavy to be supported on the front standard or unable to cover the desired format.

 

[MattKing]

Get yourself a Canon AE-1 with a decent 50mm lens (f/1.8 or f/1.4 if you can find a reasonably priced one.).

Use it for a bit.

Then decide.

Personally, I have kept my OM stuff and added some Canon EOS film stuff. The Olympus kit (24 f/2.8, 35 f/2, 50 f/1.4 and 50 f/3.5 macro, 85 f/2 and 75-150 f/4 zoom) is all I really want. The Canon EOS stuff adds convenience (AF and motor wind and built-in flash) and lens usability on my single digital body.

 

[blockend]

Most of my 35mm film photography is done on 28mm and 50mm lenses. I have the same set up in Nikon (manual and AF), Canon FD and Contax-Yashica. Each of those manufacturers make good lenses in those focal lengths. The FD 50mm f1.4 is a lot of lens for the money, because it can't easily be used as a DSLR lens.

 

[flatulent1]

Sure. Back in '86 I switched from Minolta AF to Canon FD. Around '92 I sold the FD and switched to the Olympus IS-1, dumped it and switched again to Canon EOS. About five or six years ago I switched from film to digital, then back to film, then acquired another set of Canon FD. Shoulda just stayed there. Still have my EOS, acquired and sold some Nikon gear, acquired some Minolta MD, Contax, and Mamiya gear, but FD is my main system, until I switch to LF...

 

[CGW]

Started with Minolta in the mid-90s and added Nikon in the late 90s. Shot both but put way more bodies, lenses and accessories on the Nikon pile before falling for medium format around 2006. Minolta MC/MD lenses are getting used more via adapters on M4/3s than on my old SRT 101. With 35mm gear is getting so cheap it's almost foolish not indulge yourself if it's affordable.

 

[BrianL]

I have but, did not sell the other systems. My 1st was a pentax Spotmatic with an assortment of lenses. It replace a Kodak Pony, my 1st serious camera. I sold the Pentax as the money was needed for school.

Some years later, I picked up the Konica Autoreflex that was switchable between full and half frame. Loved the half frame and started collecting the Konica lenses and almost any half frame I could find. I loved the Bell & Howell 1/2 frame with wind up autowinder; so odd. Also, most Olympus 1/2 frames including complete F collections and then expanded to their full frame non-SLRs. About that time, I picked up an Exacta and switched to putting a system/collection together, the 1st since the Konica. At the time for some reason Exacta was thick on every camera stores' used shelf for really steep bargain prices. For $50, you could get a late body with wlf finder, metered prism, and something like a 35, 50 and 135 lens set that about that time was the norm.

My entire collection was traded for my current Bronica ETRS well eqiped system, a Minox ML and, LX systems. At the time thought a great deal considering my investment cost vs the then pricing of the Bronica alone. The complete system turnover was no big deal for me, though a few of my traded cameras I miss.

Since then, I added systems, Leica CL, Yashica FX-3, Rolleiflex, even a half frame and most recently back to my M42 beginnings with a Asahi S1a (pre-Spotmatic w/ no meter). I am preparing to trim down and think the Bronica will be the 1st to go and my last camera will be either the Leica or my Rolleiflex both of which I have a decent lineup of accessories. This selloff will hurt, though.

 

[John Austin]

Without reading all the posts, I would recommend that if you need to change, and answer this question first, I would recommend you go for the most common system, which is Nikon - I type this as there is a plethora of bodies, lenses and fruit at very reasonable prices and the system is rugged and proven

John

 

[jjphoto]

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