I'll start out saying that I don't own the OM-D, but have the E-PL1 and E-P2. I own the 12-50/3.5-6.3. I have two other M4/3 lenses: Lumix 14-42 (very good) and Oly 40-150 (outstanding), as well as a number of Minolta MC/MD, Canon FD, and adapters for Leica R and other manual focus lenses.

I used to own the T2i, but moved up to 60D. I also have 1D2 in 1.3X format, and two full frame Canons. In that 1.6X crop format, my favored lens is the 15-85 IS, and found the 60 Macro and 10-22 to be awesome.

In my experience, the 12-50 on the M4/3 format can't compete with the 15-85 on the T2i or 60D.

Sorry, but if I were given the choice between only having one system, between the T2i and OM-D, I'd take the T2i (T4i now). IQ was outstanding, and it was much easier to hold and adjust controls. The M4/3 is still a bit of an awkward toy for me, and I find my holding hand's thumb constantly shifting buttons or rotating dials when I don't want. IQ was better with the 18MP Canon compared to the 12MP M4/3. Granted, the 16MP M4/3 may equal the 18MP Canon sensor. So, given the ultimate choice, I'm going with a full frame Canon 5D2 with L glass over any M4/3.

Price of the best lenses in M4/3 pretty closely match "L" lenses, so that's a strong deterrent for me as well.

I admire much of the work I've seen presented in M4/3 here on the forum, and I've been having a terrific time with the M4/3, but I can't imagine relying on it for serious assignments or tough treatment. Even the OM-D with the added grip is tiny in my hand (I like DSLRs with added battery grip, or 1D series). I'm sure if you evaluate and decide the M4/3 format is for you, you'll love it -- it's my favorite system for personal travel. But I don't see how it can really be seriously compared to larger formats from Nikon and Canon.

But if small size, modern design controls, and added weather proofing are main considerations, get the OM-D with 12-50. I'm sure you'll have a great time and less hassle than trying to keep the T2i dry!

To be fair, Gunzorro, the reason you can't imagine relying on it for serious work is because you're using the worst m4/3 sensor and none of the best glass. The only lenses that are comparable to L lenses price wise are the 7-14, which is similar in price to the 17-40L, but it's wider and better optically; and the 75/1.8 compared to the 135L...and they too are comparable optically.

The 45/1.8 and 25/1.4 are better than the equivalent Canon lenses. While m4/3 can't replace modern full frame cameras in a lot of situations, it certainly can do that with a cam like the T2i.

My OMD has made me almost three times the amount I cash it cost me to buy. It has handled 6 hour event shoot in low light with no issues at all.

Everyone, thanks for the feedback. I am specifically looking at filling a niche. Not a professional, more of an obsessive hobbyist. This is not intended to be my primary landscape camera. I am waiting for the fullframe dust to settle before choosing so I can go back to using the 24 shift I loved best. The T2i was purchased as a backup to the 5D before a trip to New Zealand. Over the next few trips I found more and more that I was happier with the files from my backup camera and the 5D got mothballed and sold. I really do like what that particular 18MP sensor produces. The 15-85 is fantastic. But no tilting screen and the water issue keeps cropping up. Nothing like opening a waterproof bag to find your camera sitting in a puddle (several hours with a hair dryer finally resolved the problem). I have no intention of submerging the OMD, just don't want to have to worry as much. But if I get a camera which does not produce as good a file as what I currently have, it will end up getting mothballed as well. The OMD with the 12-60 is tempting but now bumping up around $2K. That is starting to cut into the money that will likely go towards a D800 and 24 shift. The options are really endless and no system at any price does everything I want. So, is the consensus that the OMD with 12-50 is not the equal to my current camera but the OMD with better glass is better than the T2i?
Thanks again for all the feedback.

FlyPenFly wrote:
That's weird, the Panasonic 14-45mm is one of the most loved lenses of the platform if you go to any MFT board and is universally reviewed well.
If I didn't have the 12-35mm and the P-L 45mm (along with a Canon 200mm f/4-FD macro) I would take the 12-50mm over the 14-45mm for the same reasons:
A damn good macro mode and weather sealing. I think the IQ of the 12-50 is just as good as the 14-45. The 12-35mm is just better than the 12-50 & 14-45, but still it isn't as good as the 12/14/20/25 primes. 12-50mm is a bargain around $300 and on the OM-D is does awesome for video too.

The value equation on the 12-35mm....well I bought a new "Japanese Import" which means no warranty for $1,000 and I'm still not sure it's worth it. Especially with the usually prime suspects.

I haven't used the T2i and can not offer an informed opinion of the OMD or other m43 glass/bodies vs. any of the crop sensor DSLR's.

mstout wrote:
So, is the consensus that the OMD with 12-50 is not the equal to my current camera but the OMD with better glass is better than the T2i?
Thanks again for all the feedback.

Having sdones loads of pixel peeping on the 15-85 because it was a purchase candidate, but never owned, I would say it is better optically than the Oly 12-50. That Canon lens is pretty good for optics.

OMD with good glass would be better, but weather sealing limits you to either 43 glass, Oly 12-50, or Pany 12-35 and presumably 35-100

Jman13 wrote:
To be fair, Gunzorro, the reason you can't imagine relying on it for serious work is because you're using the worst m4/3 sensor and none of the best glass. The only lenses that are comparable to L lenses price wise are the 7-14, which is similar in price to the 17-40L, but it's wider and better optically; and the 75/1.8 compared to the 135L...and they too are comparable optically.

The 45/1.8 and 25/1.4 are better than the equivalent Canon lenses. While m4/3 can't replace modern full frame cameras in a lot of situations, it certainly can do that with a cam like the T2i.

Jordan -- Those are fair points. As far as M4/3 lenses, I only have those three. But I've mounted some fine full frame lenses too and done the manual focus thing too. So, I've had a chance to see what the 12MP sensor can do, enough to anticipate the OM-D's better resolution -- especially with plenty of nice examples from you and others.

I should have mentioned that I love the M4/3, but part of my apreciation is that I can shoot without a viewfinder, a la P&S rear screen. I like that breezy style of shooting as a change of pace. And I very much like the DOF, color and exposure of these Oly's.

True, I've stuck to the inexpensive route, but even so, I've put in more money than buying a used T2i with kit lens and 15-85 IS. If I were to move up to the OM-D with a simple range of primes 12/2, 25/1.4, 45/1.8, plus kit lens and grip, I'd be up near what, $3000? And of course I want a 7-14, and a 12-35/2.8! That's the point I start realizing I need a 17 TS-E, a 50/1.2L, a 24-105L . . . a 5D3. . . It never ends! So my M4/3 approach has been the inexpensive toe-dip in the shallow end, less than $1500.

The OM-D might have better ergonomics than these other models. But I have had serious troubles keeping from making changes on the back of the cameras with my thumb. The other day, I set the aperture to 8.0, only to find my thumb had inadvertently rolled the wheel of the E-P2 to near f/16! On the E-PL1, I was always turning on the video accidentally. And in manual focus mode for both Oly's, I'm constantly moving the 7X or 10X focusing box up/down, left/right. The T2i was always too small for me to work seriously with, and these are nearly half again as small.

I'm not disputing that the M4/3 can take beautiful and marketable pictures -- Jordan and others have shown they can. But be prepared to buy professional glass and a decent body -- the OM-D being the best candidate.

True that adding an OM-D with the best primes is not a cheap investment, though he's talking about a replacement for his DSLR. And the zooms are fine. I don't know how good the 15-85 is...if it's fantastic, it may give a little higher overall image quality than the OM-D with something like the 12-50 or 14-45, but if expanding the system a little bit, it's not much more expensive to get some good primes like the 14/2.5, 20/1.7 and 45/1.8 than it would be in Canon land (of course, you can get the 50/1.8, but that lens is nowhere near the 45/1.8 optically).

I will say that the position of the dials on the OM-D does lend itself to far less accidental settings changes than the Pens, though accidental moving of the focus box could happen with the palm of your hand if you hold it pressed tightly there.

I just bought a OM-D/12-50 kit a week or two ago, and it's been amazing. This is the most satisfying (digital) camera purchase i've made in several years.

I would take OM-D over any crop sensor Canon body, and even over any 5D. It is a great camera.
The lens options with M4/3 are astounding.

The 12-50 is not as bad as pixel peepers make it out to be. The AF is blazingly fast, faster than any Nikon lens i've ever used, and on par or better than many Canon USM's. I dont know if everybody else has a soft one, or if they are just pixel peeping (prob the latter), but in real use, the 12-50 is plenty sharp.
I want to sell mine to help fund a 25/1.4 PanLeica, but just don't think i'm ready to part with it. It is a VERY good kit lens.

Jman13 wrote:
...the 7-14, which is similar in price to the 17-40L, but it's wider and better optically...
Better optically? Even in flare and ghosting resistance? And what about filters?

If I could only have the OM-D or the D700, I'd choose the OM-D without hesitation. Image quality isn't everything.

mirkoc wrote:
Jman13 wrote:
...the 7-14, which is similar in price to the 17-40L, but it's wider and better optically...
Better optically? Even in flare and ghosting resistance? And what about filters?

It can't use filters, though I find something like a polarizer on an ultra-wide to not be a good idea anyway. It's been a while now since I sold my 17-40L, so I can't do a direct comparison, but I haven't noticed any issues with flare or ghosting with the 7-14.

But I found the 7-14 to be a nice step up from the 17-40L. I had the 17-40L for about two years, using it on the 1D II and 1Ds II.

The 7-14 is significantly sharper in the corners, but similar in the center.

This was a quick comparison I did with two shots (taken two years apart) with the GH2 + 7-14 and 1Ds II + 17-40, both at 17mm equivalent with aperture set to equivalent settings (f/8 on m4/3, f/16 on FF). Centers look the same, but the corners on the 17-40 were always a bit smeared, which doesn't really happen with the 7-14. These are 100% upper right corner crops - 7-14 on left, 17-40 on right (note that I have a good size print of the 17-40L version on my wall, and the minor softening in the corners doesn't detract from the printed image, though it could at really large print sizes):

I still have a D700 and a 7D but I haven't been using them for a while . I had an E-PL1 I liked it a lot but it focused pretty slow and couldn't handle highlights. Bought a used OM-D yes I then spent some thousands of $$ on some really good lenses and flashes, I like this system a lot, my back thanks me. Very light system that I can carry on my early morning biking. I've downsized my DSLR lenses since then .

I'll be going on a long vacation this December without a DSLR . I'll be bringing OM-D + 4 lenses + 2 flashes on a small backpack lighter than a D700 + 24-70 AF-S.

Jman13 wrote:
mirkoc wrote:
Jman13 wrote:
...the 7-14, which is similar in price to the 17-40L, but it's wider and better optically...
Better optically? Even in flare and ghosting resistance? And what about filters?

It can't use filters, though I find something like a polarizer on an ultra-wide to not be a good idea anyway. It's been a while now since I sold my 17-40L, so I can't do a direct comparison, but I haven't noticed any issues with flare or ghosting with the 7-14.

But I found the 7-14 to be a nice step up from the 17-40L. I had the 17-40L for about two years, using it on the 1D II and 1Ds II.

The 7-14 is significantly sharper in the corners, but similar in the center.

This was a quick comparison I did with two shots (taken a year apart) with the GH2 + 7-14 and 1Ds II + 17-40, both at 17mm equivalent with aperture set to equivalent settings (f/8 on m4/3, f/16 on FF). Centers look the same, but the corners on the 17-40 were always a bit smeared, which doesn't really happen with the 7-14. These are 100% upper right corner crops - 7-14 on left, 17-40 on right (note that I have a good size print of the 17-40L version on my wall, and the minor softening in the corners doesn't detract from the printed image, though it could at really large print sizes):

Remember, this is the extreme corner at 100%. Corner softness is pretty much the standard on the 17-40L, though I never had it really ruin an image in the 2 years I owned the lens, and it really is only that last 5% of the image (and even then, it's not BAD...it's just not exceptional). Go inside the corners just a bit, and it would be very sharp. If yours is tack sharp in the corners, you do have an unusually good 17-40L. (also remember that your 5D has lower resolution than the 1Ds II, so wouldn't be quite as demanding on the lens.)

My 17-40L was also this soft even stopped well down, but like Jman it was only extreme corners.

mirkoc wrote:
Jman13 wrote:
...the 7-14, which is similar in price to the 17-40L, but it's wider and better optically...
Better optically? Even in flare and ghosting resistance? And what about filters?

I have not used the 7-14 much but I thought it handled flare/ghosting pretty well ... and it is most definitely sharper than the 17-40L. It's sharp across the frame even wide open.

Exactly! I chose the OM-D after 6-7 years of using a FF Canon DSLR with some of the best L-lenses.

Makten wrote:
If I could only have the OM-D or the D700, I'd choose the OM-D without hesitation. Image quality isn't everything.

bobbytan wrote:
Exactly! I chose the OM-D after 6-7 years of using a FF Canon DSLR with some of the best L-lenses.

Makten wrote:
If I could only have the OM-D or the D700, I'd choose the OM-D without hesitation. Image quality isn't everything.


because of size or ergonomics? (the question is for both you and martin)

sebboh wrote:
bobbytan wrote:
Exactly! I chose the OM-D after 6-7 years of using a FF Canon DSLR with some of the best L-lenses.

Makten wrote:
If I could only have the OM-D or the D700, I'd choose the OM-D without hesitation. Image quality isn't everything.


because of size or ergonomics? (the question is for both you and martin)

For me it's all about size and weight. I travel quite a bit and I am just fed up and tired of lugging around 30-40 lbs of equipment on my back. I can have twice as much fun with the OM-D as I could with my 5D II. I am more than happy to invest just as much money on the m43 system as I did on my FF DSLR ... so my DSLR has to go ... sooner rather than later!