traveler_101
American abroad
I've been tempted at times by the same and for the same reason - the finder, but hell it's an APS-C size sensor, which means you end up with a larger package (when you consider lens diameter). Fuji also costs more money for the camera; the prime lenses are great but quite expensive. With the Olympus E-P5 and small primes for the quarter-frame sensor, I am able to stay small and pay quite a bit less.
biomed
Veteran
I have been a u4/3 user for a bit more than seven years. I have gotten rid of a lot of older cameras I dearly loved. Started out with a GF1, and now my GH3 and GX7 bodies suit my style very well. I like the size and handling. The lenses more than meet my needs. My daily kit is a GX7, 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8. Other favored lenses include the 7-14/4, 24/1.4 and Sigma 60/2.8. This gear is like a pair of comfortable shoes and has become a very integral part of my photo experience. I know the cameras well enough to produce the images I like. No explanations, technical or otherwise, except we get on well together.
Mike
Mike
paulfish4570
Veteran
yes, mike, you are the hallmark 4/3 user here. i remain jealous of your skillage ... 
reala_fan
Well-known
The Panasonic Way
The Panasonic Way
I think the m43 cams do a fine job. Love my Panasonic G5 and Panasonic 20mm f1.7.
I have a nice "little used" OMD E-M5 inbound, hope it is as good as everyone says
.
The Panasonic Way
I think the m43 cams do a fine job. Love my Panasonic G5 and Panasonic 20mm f1.7.
I have a nice "little used" OMD E-M5 inbound, hope it is as good as everyone says
.
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
your new Olympus
your new Olympus
I've been using an E-M5 for a while, with the Lumix G Fisheye 3.5/8, and the Oly 45/1.8, plus a variety of kit and legacy lenses. I also bought a grip from a Chinese source, for very cheap money, and find it helps with my fairly large hands. The camera is very well made, as is the grip, and they make a nice handling pair.
I like it a lot. Even with the added grip, it is quick handling, and much smaller than my DSLR's.
Harry
your new Olympus
I've been using an E-M5 for a while, with the Lumix G Fisheye 3.5/8, and the Oly 45/1.8, plus a variety of kit and legacy lenses. I also bought a grip from a Chinese source, for very cheap money, and find it helps with my fairly large hands. The camera is very well made, as is the grip, and they make a nice handling pair.
I like it a lot. Even with the added grip, it is quick handling, and much smaller than my DSLR's.
Harry
Frankd
Established
I think it depends on what you need from a camera and what you need for a finished photo.
I do a diverse range of jobs and projects--some for work and some personal. I find that some cameras are good for some things and not for others. For very large landscape prints my Canon 5D mkii works well or medium/large format film. For street I still like my Leica M4-2. The Canon is also nice for tethered portraits.
But that being said I recently bought a used Panasonic GX7 and like it very much. I like the image quality and some of the modern features like wifi and the ability to fire it by smart phone. I actually used that feature on a job. The silent electronic shutter is great for event shooting and probably would be good for street. I generally hate touch screens but actually like it on the GX7. The touch screen interface is very well thought out. I think 16MP is sufficient for many applications. After using the GX7 for a while the Canon 5DmkII seems like a real burden to use--even though it is a good camera.
I enjoy using the GX7 am very satisfied with the images that I am producing with it and plan to keep it or upgrade it.
I do a diverse range of jobs and projects--some for work and some personal. I find that some cameras are good for some things and not for others. For very large landscape prints my Canon 5D mkii works well or medium/large format film. For street I still like my Leica M4-2. The Canon is also nice for tethered portraits.
But that being said I recently bought a used Panasonic GX7 and like it very much. I like the image quality and some of the modern features like wifi and the ability to fire it by smart phone. I actually used that feature on a job. The silent electronic shutter is great for event shooting and probably would be good for street. I generally hate touch screens but actually like it on the GX7. The touch screen interface is very well thought out. I think 16MP is sufficient for many applications. After using the GX7 for a while the Canon 5DmkII seems like a real burden to use--even though it is a good camera.
I enjoy using the GX7 am very satisfied with the images that I am producing with it and plan to keep it or upgrade it.
rbelyell
Well-known
i believe that to seriously try to argue IQ is just silly. as the articles R Blu cited above, long time pros have no issue in this regard at this point in the tech curve. so its not really about IQ, but rather and very simply its about the subjective nature of finding a look that draws each individual person. the only objective IQ issue in m4/3 is DOF (and im not entirely certain that is an IQ issue): the lovely oly 17/1.8 will never have a more shallow DOF than a 35mm lens shot at about 3.6. there are some for whom this is simply a non starter, just as the inability of the m8/9 to shoot at high iso were nonstarters for some. thats fine, its an objective matter and seems to me theres no need to try to convince them they dont want what the equipment cannot deliver. same for those whom lack of weatherproofed primes is an issue, though i am curious how those folk ended up on a rangefinder forum. ):
at the end of the day, like everything else, there are objective reasons to not choose any system--FF, apsc, or m4/3. but general IQ is really no longer one of them.
at the end of the day, like everything else, there are objective reasons to not choose any system--FF, apsc, or m4/3. but general IQ is really no longer one of them.
jarski
Veteran
New Olympus Pen-F has made me reconsider the m4/3!
as aspect ratio, am fan of 3:2 because it allows flexible crop to both more square (4:3) or rectangular (16:9).
as aspect ratio, am fan of 3:2 because it allows flexible crop to both more square (4:3) or rectangular (16:9).
Dogman
Veteran
I've owned several micro 4/3--Olympus and Panasonic--as well as several Olympus 4/3 DSLRs. Image quality was great, not denying. I actually loved the Olympus Evolt better than any of the micro 4/3 models--ergonomically they handled perfectly and I prefer optical to electronic viewing. But I came to realize I like the 3:2 aspect ratio better than the 4:3. It seemed every time I printed one of my Olympus photos, it looked better when cropped. Also, when I printed a 4/3 format photo up to 12x18 inches, it never looked quite as clean as an APS-C format image printed the same size.
In summary, I liked micro 4/3 and standard 4/3 while I was using them. But APS-C format just seems to be the sweet spot for me in both image quality and in format dimensions.
In summary, I liked micro 4/3 and standard 4/3 while I was using them. But APS-C format just seems to be the sweet spot for me in both image quality and in format dimensions.
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
"135 format" of 21st century.
mich rassena
Well-known
I've wanted a m4/3 camera for a couple of years now, and finally the prices of the used models dropped below a $100. So last month I bought one and your statement is looking like the truth.
I've already stuck different lenses on it from film rangefinders and SLRs. This is stuff that I've had for awhile and with cheap adapters now I have what feels like an exotic luxury item. One day I'm using a 35mm Leitz lens, another a 100mm tele-Sandmar, yet another a 25mm Wollensak cine lens. What other camera system has this kind of versatility? The only thing lacking are cheap wide-angles (wider than 35mm equivalent).
kshapero
South Florida Man
As a street shooter, I am impressed my Micro 4/3 format.
darya151
Established
I've used an Em5 for about 4 years or so. It's a really well made camera, my issue is that I hate the menu system! It is overly complex and for me, sometimes gets in the way of what I am doing. Take into consideration I'm not much of techie either! Under certain light, dusk in autumn, I've gotten some really lovely saturated color.
Don Springer, from Inspired Eye uses the new Pen-F. He's taken some wonderful bw images with it. (He is on flickr). It really is a beautiful camera, although reviews have stated that AF tracking isn't that good, I have never used one. I do think whatever camera Don uses works it magic in his hands, he took some really lovely ones with the XT1, as well.
Some people really like the LX100 or the Leica 109 (essentially the same camera, except that the Leica comes with their firmware). Ming Thein has an excellent review of both the LX100, Leica 109. Of course all his images look terrific which only makes it more difficult to figure out if it really matters to spend twice as much on a 109!
Darya
Don Springer, from Inspired Eye uses the new Pen-F. He's taken some wonderful bw images with it. (He is on flickr). It really is a beautiful camera, although reviews have stated that AF tracking isn't that good, I have never used one. I do think whatever camera Don uses works it magic in his hands, he took some really lovely ones with the XT1, as well.
Some people really like the LX100 or the Leica 109 (essentially the same camera, except that the Leica comes with their firmware). Ming Thein has an excellent review of both the LX100, Leica 109. Of course all his images look terrific which only makes it more difficult to figure out if it really matters to spend twice as much on a 109!
Darya
Kent
Finally at home...
When 4/3 came on the market with the first Olympus 4/3 SLR cams, I liked the idea, mainly because of the genuinely telecentric approach in lens design. What I did not really like was the 2x crop, because I mainly shot with adapted manual lenses in those times on my Canon EOS DSLR. The 2x crop "turned" any 50mm lens into a 100mm, any 35mm still into a 70mm tele and even a 24mm worked like a "normal" lens. It was almost impossible to shoot in wide angles when you shot manual lenses on 4/3. (The only way, before Samyang, were extremely expensive and heavy older 14mm lenses.)
So, I respected 4/3 but never went for it.
When Olympus came out with the first PEN as a µ4/3 system, I was kind of thrilled, because the camera looked fantastic, I loved the idea of using such a compact system that still offered a performance unmatched by any compact digital camera of that time.
I still did not invest in the system. APS-C had become the best compromise for me between size, performance, features and prize. First with Canon EOS DSLRs and later with Sony NEX system-cameras.
In order to try out and play with µ4/3, though, I later bought a used Panasonic GF3 for little money - and it basically it was just that for me, a toy.
After some time, I had the chance to start a cooperation with Olympus and was sent three of their cameras and several lenses for testing reasons and writing about them on my blog. Those cameras (OM 10, OM 1, PEN 5), really amazed me and most of the lenses as well. I was surprised by both the quality of the built and of the images. But since I already had more than enough systems (after a change, I shot with Nikon, Fuji and Leica), I did resist buying one of those cams.
Since some months ago, I every now and then shoot and write for Meyer Optik Görlitz. They send me lenses, I take photos and write short texts for their website. When they told me that I was about to receive a Nocturnus 0,95/35 for µ4/3, I quickly had to organise another camera, because I thought that the Lumix GF3 would not be an appropriate machine for that lens. On the other hand, I did not want to spend too much money on another µ4/3 cam. Fortunately, I found a mint Olympus PEN E-P3 for a really good price.
This cam then really convinced me (again). The µ4/3 system is a highly capable one that offers almost anything you might want for.
I do shoot with "fullframe" (Nikon Df), APS 1.3 (Leica M8), APS 1.5 (Fuji X-series, Nikon D7000...) and µ4/3 and in the same way that Megapixelnumbers have lost all their importance for me - "enough" is allright, I don't care if it is 10, 12, 16 or 20 - the sensor size is also secondary for me - "big enough" is mostly enough. (Again, only with vintage lenses, I prefer fullframe.)
I even have replaced my excellent Fuji X-T1 (APS) with the equally excellent Leica D-LUX 109 (µ4/3). Sometimes, portability is most important, esp. if it is combined with amazing performance.
So, I respected 4/3 but never went for it.
When Olympus came out with the first PEN as a µ4/3 system, I was kind of thrilled, because the camera looked fantastic, I loved the idea of using such a compact system that still offered a performance unmatched by any compact digital camera of that time.
I still did not invest in the system. APS-C had become the best compromise for me between size, performance, features and prize. First with Canon EOS DSLRs and later with Sony NEX system-cameras.
In order to try out and play with µ4/3, though, I later bought a used Panasonic GF3 for little money - and it basically it was just that for me, a toy.
After some time, I had the chance to start a cooperation with Olympus and was sent three of their cameras and several lenses for testing reasons and writing about them on my blog. Those cameras (OM 10, OM 1, PEN 5), really amazed me and most of the lenses as well. I was surprised by both the quality of the built and of the images. But since I already had more than enough systems (after a change, I shot with Nikon, Fuji and Leica), I did resist buying one of those cams.
Since some months ago, I every now and then shoot and write for Meyer Optik Görlitz. They send me lenses, I take photos and write short texts for their website. When they told me that I was about to receive a Nocturnus 0,95/35 for µ4/3, I quickly had to organise another camera, because I thought that the Lumix GF3 would not be an appropriate machine for that lens. On the other hand, I did not want to spend too much money on another µ4/3 cam. Fortunately, I found a mint Olympus PEN E-P3 for a really good price.
This cam then really convinced me (again). The µ4/3 system is a highly capable one that offers almost anything you might want for.
I do shoot with "fullframe" (Nikon Df), APS 1.3 (Leica M8), APS 1.5 (Fuji X-series, Nikon D7000...) and µ4/3 and in the same way that Megapixelnumbers have lost all their importance for me - "enough" is allright, I don't care if it is 10, 12, 16 or 20 - the sensor size is also secondary for me - "big enough" is mostly enough. (Again, only with vintage lenses, I prefer fullframe.)
I even have replaced my excellent Fuji X-T1 (APS) with the equally excellent Leica D-LUX 109 (µ4/3). Sometimes, portability is most important, esp. if it is combined with amazing performance.