I've lost count of the number of times people have advised me to "get a Canon" or asked "why don't you shot with Nikon". In the photography world, I'm part of a very small minority who uses Olympus cameras professionally and probably a much smaller minority that doesn't use anything else. Amongst microstock photographers, I'm one of the best-selling photographers who shoot only with Olympus DSL-Rs. That isn't to boast about my sales, more than to highlight the scarcity of people who use Olympus as a professional tool.

Each time I go to upgrade cameras, I confess that I'm tempted to switch. Each time I've resisted the urge and chosen another Olympus camera. Two years ago I was tempted by a Nikon D300 - only to opt for an Olympus E420 (and 2 very, very nice lenses). This time around I was tempted by the Canon 5DII, but again stuck with Oly and upgraded to an E30 and a 9-18mm lens to go with it.

The question many people ask is... why?

Photography is about personality and passion

Choosing Olympus was the same sort of process that let me to get an Alfa Romeo instead of a Toyota when I first got my license. On just about every objective measure of "what makes a good car" a 1990s Toyota Camry would probably have won out over my rusty red 1977 Alfa Sud. In hindsight I'd still go with the Alfa. With a Camry I would have been driving the same thing that mum & dads choose because its the normal, safe option that everyone else is driving. The memories wouldn't have been the same though.

Shooting with Olympus camera is similar. It works a little differently - has a different image format and a smaller sensor. Objectively speaking it has a little bit more noise and arguably the best zoom lenses available. They are thankfully a company that have been prepared to take risks and innovate with features like sensor cleaning, live-view, and now small mirror-less interchangeable lens cameras (ie. the EP-1). Trying to explain what it is I like about Olympus cameras to non-Olympus fans is trying to explain why an Alfa is a better car than a Toyota to someone who just wants something to go shopping in. There's no point. The Toyota is the better option for them.

When comparing the specs of an E500 and a Canon 350D 4 years ago, I'd still actually argue that the Oly was a better camera, came with better lenses and had sensor cleaning which was a bit of a deal-breaker for someone who was planing to go travel distant and dusty countries.

When it came time to upgrade last time around, there's no way that I could still objectively argue that an E30 is a better "camera than a 5DII" when looking at the specs. I spent quite a bit of time playing with a 5DII, as well as other full frame options. On just about every objective measure the full frame cameras win. While there was a price difference in the cameras, this wasn't really the factor that put me off the canon either.

The bottom line is that with the camera and lenses in hand, the Olympus just felt right. Throw on my meaty 50-200mm SWD, and its a truly a marvelous combination. it suited my personality and was enough to inspire me to o out and take photos. While its not a decision I can justify when pixel peeping and measuring the microns at ISO 1600 - its good enough for my needs. While there's no disputing that a 5DII is a great camera, I doubt that I'd take better photos with it, because its just not my style of camera.

Am I loosing money shooting Olympus?

One of the main reasons many successful stock shooters like the 5DII is the resolution of the files it produces. Looking at the statistics objectively, I actually think that once your sales reach a certain level (somewhere around 10,000 downloads on Istock if you're independent, 20,000 if you're not), financially you're better off with a higher resolution camera. This isn't just because of the higher price of large file sizes, but also because of the more favorable placement of large images in certain search algorithms mean that you'll get more sales overall. This is particularly true if you shoot brick walls and other textures that may later be used in raster images.

Its hard to argue that shooting with Olympus is not costing some downloads and higher file royalties. Although I earn money from photography, that isn't my main motivation. If I wanted to get rich, I wouldn't be doing it in the first place. Instead I'd probably go back to Sydney and practicing law. If I wanted to get rich from stock I'd probably set up a sausage-factory style studio in a greenhouse and produce plastic images of fake people doing fake things that sell well, and yes... buy a Canon or Nikon camera. It wouldn't be much fun though.

Photography and microstock is about giving me independence - and the freedom to go out into the middle of nowhere for weeks or months at a time and not have to worry that my income dries up. It allows me to do something creative and leads the sort of lifestyle where my friends ask me "When are you ever going to go back to work? (you ba$tard!)". In that context I'm much happier shooting with a camera that I enjoy using and that suits my style and that I've grown with as a photographer. For me at the moment its still Olympus that fits my personality and passion.