How things started
I had the luxury of being able to try out a number of cameras in my process of learning about photography. I knew I wanted something with a larger sensor than a point and shoot, even a high-end one, mainly for the ability to take precise control over the depth of field within a photograph. I experimented with the Canon T2i, the 60D, and the Nikon D7000. All of these cameras are phenomenal and take incredible pictures, but they didn’t feel right for me. I started looking into the Micro Four Thirds standard of camera. They intrigued me for their size-to-image-quality ratio, being in most cases much smaller than DSLR’s but still taking near DSLR quality photos. The ‘near’ was the problem though. There weren’t any on the market that could take pictures up to the quality of a traditional DSLR. Until the OM-D, that is.
Finding the OM-D
Upon hearing about the release of this camera from Olympus earlier this year, I was immediately hooked. I fell in love with the retro style it possessed and had recently picked up an old OM-10 35mm film camera. The resemblance between the two was uncanny and I appreciated that Olympus was reviving the OM title and design in a digital format. The only question was whether it would have the image quality to match it’s price, to compete directly with APS-sized DSLRs.
A New standard
As the reviews started pouring in, negative ones were absent entirely. The camera received universal praise. Not only was it a new standard for Micro Four Thirds cameras, the leap in image quality over it’s predecessors made the gap between APS and Micro Four Thirds nearly imperceptible. Needless to say, it is my main camera now and I am completely satisfied with it.