Should I experience MFT?

[CliveC]

I have to admit, I've really looked down at MFT cameras simply because of its sensor size. My main shooters are APS-C (Canon crop DSLR, Fuji X-Pro1) and I recently added an older FF Sony.

That said, I am a fan of old-school Olympus OM cameras and I really like the looks of the OM-D EM5. The lenses are small and pretty affordable too (relatively speaking of course). They also say Olympus has great IBIS.

I do my share of low light shooting, which is my primary concern with MFT. They say FF is a stop better than APS-C, which in turn is a stop better than MFT.

Is it worth for me to try out the MFT system? Or do I simply have GAS? (Yes to both perhaps?) Perhaps more importantly, does MFT have a future when mirrorless is moving FF and even small cameras have APS-C sensors?

 

[FranZ]

Hi Clive,
since you already own a X-Pro1, why would you add yet another system to your collection? An X-T1 gives you the same form factor as an OM-D EM5 and the fuji lenses are stunning.

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

I have to admit, I've really looked down at MFT cameras simply because of its sensor size. My main shooters are APS-C (Canon crop DSLR, Fuji X-Pro1) and I recently added an older FF Sony.

That said, I am a fan of old-school Olympus OM cameras and I really like the looks of the OM-D EM5. The lenses are small and pretty affordable too (relatively speaking of course). They also say Olympus has great IBIS.

I do my share of low light shooting, which is my primary concern with MFT. They say FF is a stop better than APS-C, which in turn is a stop better than MFT.

Is it worth for me to try out the MFT system? Or do I simply have GAS? (Yes to both perhaps?) Perhaps more importantly, does MFT have a future when mirrorless is moving FF and even small cameras have APS-C sensors?

The newer Sony sensors used by MFT bodies are pretty good (not far behind APS) and some of the lenses are gorgeous, and as you mentioned Oly IBIS is awesome, so it manages to make a solid low light kit despite the sensor size. That said, if you're already invested in Fuji it's going to end up being much of a muchness.

 

[nongfuspring]

With decreasing m43 body costs I occasionally ask myself the same question. Low light they're comparable, but in normal conditions IMO fuji has an advantage. I don't see much point in getting m43 unless you want better AF (though I imagine your Sony is fast anyway).

Also, the going rate for a second hand EM5 body is around $500, adding one decent lens onto that is an extra $200+. All together that you're almost spending enough to buy a new, latest generation APSC or Panasonic M43 kit.

 

[gavinlg]

It's a nice system severely limited by its sensor size. If you don't mind or prefer constantly having a large field of depth, it's excellent.

 

[Keith]

It's a nice system severely limited by its sensor size. If you don't mind or prefer constantly having a large field of depth, it's excellent.

That about sums it up Gav.

I thought the IQ of my OMD was amazing when I had it ... but the camera felt like a toy!

 

[rbelyell]

starting from scratch theres not much difference between m4/3 and apsc--ive had loads of both. the big leap is between either and FF.

having said that, the advantages of m4/3 are size, af speed, lens choices, ibis and tele ability. ive had an xp1 and i can say on a resolution basis and high iso basis, i actually might give the nod to m4/3. on the other hand fuji has a 'look' that if youve come to expect it cant be easily duplicated.

having been through this m4/3 vs apsc vs ff for several years now, i came to the conclusion m4/3 might complement ff in ones bag because of size and large difference in tele ability (0 vs 2x). it really doesnt add so much to an apsc-centric bag, unless the plan is just to use m4/3 for extreme tele coupled with ibis ability, and apsc for everything else.

tbh, i think too much is made about the DOF ability. ive got no dog in this fight, but for example the oly 75/1.8 is no different in DOF than any other 75/1.8, and there arent many of those are there? yeah, the m4/3 equivalent for DOF purposes is 150/3.6, but the DOF wide open is exactly the same as shooting a 75mm lens at 1.8. thats not an opinion, thats science. honestly this provides an advantage because for iso and SS purposes one can shoot these fast m4/3 lenses faster than most if not all equivalent focal legnth ff lenses. in our example, are there any ff or apsc lenses that let in 1.8 light at 150mm? i think not. and there are many other similarly situated m4/3 lenses like a 42.5/.95 etc.

 

[rparmar]

It's a nice system severely limited by its sensor size. If you don't mind or prefer constantly having a large field of depth, it's excellent.

Wrong.

Have you actually used one of these cameras? Or looked at any of the tens of thousands of photos produced with them? You can have DOF as thin as you like. Not too many systems have f/0.95 lenses, let alone three of them covering the focal range.

While I acknowledge the importance of sensor size (I have shot 645), for 99.9% of all users it is a non issue.

 

[mh2000]

Not to get into an "equivelancy war" here on Rangefinder Forum (there are plenty at DPreview), but I guess I have to say that if the point of your photography is getting super shallow DoF, then m43 is probably not for you. Yes, you can get it with the right lens choices (but most people aren't willing to shoot f0.95 manual focus only!), but the system is certainly not ideal for it. On the cheap, a Canon 100/2 on a cropped body will give it to you quite inexpensively. On the other hand, with my m43, shooting either my 25/1.8 or 45/1.8, I often need more DoF than I get even at f5.6... mixed bag.

Personally, I love the m43 system, but mostly because I love the Oly 25 & 45. Beautiful lenses in my most used FL's for an affordable price! Add a cheap 14 or 17 for your travel kit and you have perfect classic rangefinder-esque kit.

Granted it was a step down from my then current Canon crop bodies, but even my old E-P1 can still take a great photo! I love the classic Oly styling and feel... come for the style, stay for the lenses! 🙂

 

[Godfrey]

My experience is that the Olympus E-M1 produces quality on par to the Sony A7 up to about ISO 6400 from a sensor perspective. Use the fast lenses to obtain focus zone control.. My mFT lenses are all primes with f/2.8 or faster apertures (14/2.5, 25/1.4, 45/2.8 macro, and 75/1.8). That plus the Olympus IBIS is good enough for anything I need.

Yes, I have and use both cameras.

G

I have to admit, I've really looked down at MFT cameras simply because of its sensor size. My main shooters are APS-C (Canon crop DSLR, Fuji X-Pro1) and I recently added an older FF Sony.

That said, I am a fan of old-school Olympus OM cameras and I really like the looks of the OM-D EM5. The lenses are small and pretty affordable too (relatively speaking of course). They also say Olympus has great IBIS.

I do my share of low light shooting, which is my primary concern with MFT. They say FF is a stop better than APS-C, which in turn is a stop better than MFT.

Is it worth for me to try out the MFT system? Or do I simply have GAS? (Yes to both perhaps?) Perhaps more importantly, does MFT have a future when mirrorless is moving FF and even small cameras have APS-C sensors?

 

[sevres_babylone]

I have the E-M5. My APS-C camera is the Ricoh GR. The Ricoh is sharper at higher ISOs, but I believe that is due to the absence of an anti-aliasing filter, rather than sensor-size. My full-frame camera is the M9, and both the Oly and the Ricoh are much better at high ISOs (not surprisingly).

I also used film OM cameras for over 30 years. The E-M5 is comparable in size, but you might not like the placement of controls. I don't. The newer larger E-M1 is supposed to be better in this respect.

I think the size advantage of MFT is more important if you use longer telephotos or zooms. My main lens is the Panaleica 25mm F1.4 (50mm equivalent) which is quite big, especially with its gigantic hood. On the other hand, it's a superb lens; expensive for an MFT lens, but much cheaper than an RF equivalent like the Planar. (Also, the recently introduced Oly 25mm is supposed to be as good, or nearly as good as the "Panaleica", and smaller to boot.)

Depth of field. I don't find narrow depth of field to be that big of a concern. When it is I switch to my Leica. There are some very fast lenses now for MFT, if you decide you like the system.

I don't own any Fuji cameras. I am tempted by the colour rendition, especially in night shots, of photographs I've seen taken with them. I don't think that has anything to do with sensor-size though; and for that matter, it may be due to the photographers. If I were to get a Fuji, it would be the X100t. I will stick to MFT as my non-Leica system.

 

[jsrockit]

For me, there are a few things that M43 offers vs other digital formats in its price range... small, fast lenses, fastest mirrorless AF, and a 4:3 RAW ratio. If those appeal to you, then go for it. If not, you have better options already.

 

[Lss]

YMMV, but my conclusion from OM-D E-M5 use is that your MFT system is as good as your set of MFT (and possibly FT) lenses, which there are many to choose from. The significant crop and mediocre performance with most of my existing lenses however did not provide much in terms of enjoyment or overall image quality. I quite liked the Panasonic 14/2.5, though, and could have built a usable system by buying some of the more expensive lenses.

 

[JoeFriday]

I've had an EP2 for about 7 years (whenever it first came out) and I really enjoy it. With an appropriate adapter, I can use just about any lens in my collection. In some cases, the depth of field is razor thin.

Also, I can use macro tubes to achieve images I could never get with a traditional RF. Here's a good example, shot with a Summicron 50/2..

https://www.flickr.com/photos/joefriday/5845370297/

For me, the sensor size isn't an issue. However, I feel it lacks slightly in tonal range. But it's a convenient format that considering the lens compatibility and digital output. It's all a matter of what is important to you.

 

[Godfrey]

I've had an EP2 for about 7 years (whenever it first came out) and I really enjoy it. With an appropriate adapter, I can use just about any lens in my collection. In some cases, the depth of field is razor thin.

Also, I can use macro tubes to achieve images I could never get with a traditional RF. Here's a good example, shot with a Summicron 50/2..

https://www.flickr.com/photos/joefriday/5845370297/

For me, the sensor size isn't an issue. However, I feel it lacks slightly in tonal range. But it's a convenient format that considering the lens compatibility and digital output. It's all a matter of what is important to you.

The E-P2 dates from 2009-2010. Current mFT sensors have more sensitivity and tonal range, as well as a 25% boost in pixel resolution.

G

 

[Turtle]

I'm afraid this is not true and the person you quote is more right than you are!

A Panasonic 45 f1.2 has DOF deeper than an 85mm f2.4. Doubling the focal length and adding two stops gets you close, but tests show that a canon 85 at f2.4 on FF gives less DOF. The Fuji 56mm f1.2 has a very visible reduction in DOF wide open compared to the Panny. What's more, a FF 85 f1.8 lens costs about a 40% what the Panny 42.5mm costs.

A 25mm f0.95 is only just (possibly) comparable to a 50mm f2 on FF, yet with FF you can choose from many f1.4, f1.2 or a rare few f1.0/0.95 options. A 50mm f2 gives the same DOF, roughly, and can also be had for a fraction of what a 25mm 0.95 costs.

The Oly 75mm f1.8 comes nowhere close to the shallow DOF of an 85mm 1.4, never mind the Canon 85 f1.2, or the Canon 135 f2.

Don't get me wrong, I love m43 and have a great time with my GM-1 (which I use for critical work at my highest level), but also enjoy other formats. If shallow DOF matters to you, good luck with M43. Also, all the very fast f0.95 CV lenses are manual focus too, so one should also consider how many shots are actually in focus.

Personally, I find the deep DOF of M43 can be a huge advantage for certain work and this, combined with many small, affordable, excellent lens, means in some areas it really is without peer.

Back to the OP, the answer is YES. It may not be everything you want it to be, but for me, I have chosen M43 as my idea pocket and 'invisible take everywhere' set up in the form of the GM-1. I will add the new compact 35-100mm collapsible lens in the not too distant future too.

PS If the OP is interested in low light work, I would consider ditching the X system, forgetting M43 and considering Sony FE mount. IBIS has come to the A7II, high ISO is stunning with the Sony sensors and there will be a lot of great innovation to come. Personally, I find the rendering of the Sony sensors far nicer than the X-trans too and M43 is quite some way off Sony FF performance with regard to high ISO. With the new A7II you can stabilise the image with about any lens ever made. Just a thought and would help simplify your systems. Watch Sony though, they are innovating at an astonishing pace....

Wrong.

Have you actually used one of these cameras? Or looked at any of the tens of thousands of photos produced with them? You can have DOF as thin as you like. Not too many systems have f/0.95 lenses, let alone three of them covering the focal range.

While I acknowledge the importance of sensor size (I have shot 645), for 99.9% of all users it is a non issue.

 

[CliveC]

Thanks everyone for your input. From the sounds of it, it seems m43 is not for me, at least not at current prices. I may pick up the OM-D at some point just for fun, but I think right now I will be saving my pennies for Sony's FF mirrorless.

I could always change my mind if I come across a good deal of course...

 

[GaryLH]

It's a nice system severely limited by its sensor size. If you don't mind or prefer constantly having a large field of depth, it's excellent.

It is actually this larger depth of field plus the 2x fov and 5 axis ibis that has kept an Olympus m5 in my collection to use for nature, wildlife and bird photography.

Gary

 

[GaryLH]

Thanks everyone for your input. From the sounds of it, it seems m43 is not for me, at least not at current prices. I may pick up the OM-D at some point just for fun, but I think right now I will be saving my pennies for Sony's FF mirrorless.

I could always change my mind if I come across a good deal of course...

Compared to only a couple of months ago, the em5 has dropped a lot in price. There is a rumor about the em5 replacement.

Gary

 

[GaryLH]

starting from scratch theres not much difference between m4/3 and apsc--ive had loads of both. the big leap is between either and FF.

having said that, the advantages of m4/3 are size, af speed, lens choices, ibis and tele ability. ive had an xp1 and i can say on a resolution basis and high iso basis, i actually might give the nod to m4/3. on the other hand fuji has a 'look' that if youve come to expect it cant be easily duplicated.

having been through this m4/3 vs apsc vs ff for several years now, i came to the conclusion m4/3 might complement ff in ones bag because of size and large difference in tele ability (0 vs 2x). it really doesnt add so much to an apsc-centric bag, unless the plan is just to use m4/3 for extreme tele coupled with ibis ability, and apsc for everything else.

I mostly agree here.. In general m43 sensors are getting closer to apsc in terms of high iso capability.. Pixel density could be an issue to those that want greater than 16mp for while.. Which is where 24mp apsc comes in for those that want more. The other area is in dynamic range.. While it is getting better, so is apsc and ff sensors.

For me 16mp, is good enough for me needs these days. The trade off in the other areas I am willing to accept for type of shooting I do w/ this camera. The best Olympus camera these days maybe the em1, if one is after the best a 16mp m43 sensor can do given there is no aa, as well as the other aspects in play, since this is a generation newer sensor design then em5 and the other digital paths have been improved.

Gary