what do you really think of m4/3?

[coelacanth]

I've been in and out of m4/3 system since E-P1. I like the size of the overall system with the given feature-set. I don't like the native aspect ratio and very deep DOF per effective FOV for general use.

I currently use E-M5 II for underwater photography because I like 4:3 aspect ratio and deeper DOF for underwater photo. The format and its characteristics work for the specific purpose. Olympus offers their official underwater housings and the overall cost for underwater photography is significantly lower than many other systems out there (most of time you'll have to buy 3rd party housing that costs $$$$), and decisively smaller physical size compared to FF is quite a bit of attraction when you are diving with heavy gear in sub 50F water. Also I'm now using E-M5 II to digitalize my wife's paintings and drawings. Again, the format makes sense for this purpose.

For general photography (travel, daily carry, street, etc), I like 3:2 ratio, and although I know I can just crop it, there is a bit of weird feeling about not using the naive format of the system. I'm aware it's a very naive idea to many, but still. I'm finding Fuji's APS-C sensor system with fast lenses to be the sweet spot for me for general photography, and keeping the m4/3 for specialized purposes.

 

[JoeV]

JoeV,

One possible answer could be the size of the pixel well itself. Remember that most micro 4/3 sensors are 16 megapixels or so. If you quadruple that, to full-frame size, that would be the equivalent pixel density of packing 64 megapixels into a full frame sensor.

Conversely, if you take one of those high pixel density Sony FF chips, like the 42mp example, and divide it by 4, should it perform the same as a 1st generation, 10mp m4/3 sensor from 2008? Heck no, it'll still perform way better. Because the difference has to do with the technology node, not the sensor size.

I agree that pixel well size has something to do with it, but recent advances in sensor tech, like backside illumination and metal lines behind the sensor wells, has much more to do with the difference. It's just that, thus far, Olympus and Panasonic haven't been able to justify in their business models the highest advancements in sensor tech. Or Sony won't sell it to them in m4/3 sizes.

~Joe

PS: If I were Sony, I'd be damned if I ever sold my best sensor tech to a micro-4/3 consortium manufacturer. Because Sony themselves are trying to dominate the mirrorless market with a competing product line. I contend it's a strategic business decision why m4/3 cameras perform worse in dynamic range and ISO noise. Olympus and Panasonic would have to source (or develop themselves) an equivalent performing sensor tech that doesn't violate Sony's patents.

And so my contention is that the conventional wisdom in the digital camera world, that m4/3 intrinsically underperforms FF for dynamic range and ISO noise, is not based on physics but economics and politics.

 

[seakayaker1]

I still have a Panasonic GF1, a great little camera.

They have some great lenses and as someone mentioned there is an adaptor for just about any type of lenses that can be used on the M4/3. Loved the Contax 45/2 and 90/2.8 on the GF1 as well as many others.'

Used M4/3 cameras can be pretty inexpensive as well.

 

[JoeV]

Okay, I haven't beat this horse dead enough...but here's a thought experiment that, if you have a few spare thousands of dollars just burning a hole in your pocket, you could do yourself.

Go purchase the latest Sony FF mirrorless offering. Take off the lens and apply some black electrical tape to the periphery of the sensor, leaving an open area in the middle the same size as a m4/3 sensor.

Now, assuming you haven't damaged the sensor - and ignoring resolutions differences - the dynamic range and high ISO noise should still be the same as before, easily outperforming the best m4/3 sensor offered to date.

So the differences have little or nothing to do with sensor size, but with the technology node, which is driven by Sony's huge, multi-billions of dollars investment, over decades, in sensor tech. It's their strategic advantage, and they aren't selling it out easily.

I'm done for now. 🙂

~Joe

 

[Doug]

5 years ago I got my wife a Panasonic G2 with 14-45mm. The articulated rear screen was a must-have. She's still happily using it, suffering not a trace of GAS, bless her!

 

[sevres_babylone]

For the last couple of months, I've been using my Oly E-M5 with my Cosina Voigtlander 40mm in my concert kit (along with an M9 and 50mm and GR for 28mm). I like the handling of the other other 2 cameras better, but am not complaining about the results.
Erika Werry - Joe Strummer Tribute by sevres babylone, en Flickr

 

[arseniii]

I hardly shoot digital now, bu my Oly E-P1 and Zuiko 17/2.8 is probably my all time favorite digital camera. I sold 12x16 prints in a gallery from my E-P1.
I find the Oly 12mp sensor produces the most film (color negative) like results of any digital that I've used.

I agree, E-P1 is one hell of the camera. Solid and simple, almost as a Leica M. I love mine, paired with an OVF and a 20mm Panasonic lens this combo is heaven. Didn't find any other m43 camera to my liking yet. Tried E-P5 but it had a different sensor characteristics and an annoying shutter shock issue...

 

[Manuel Patino]

I went from a Nikon D60 to the EM-5 and I was totally enamored with the m43 system. Tried the GX7 Pany and the EP-5 (wonderful camera). Finally I got the EM-1. I've had a good number of native M43 lenses including the PL 25 f1.4, PL 20 f1.7, Oly 17 f1.7, Oly 12-40f2.8 Pany 35-100 f2.8 and several other zoom lenses up 30mm.

The weakness of the m43 system for me is the low light capabilities, dynamic range. I also find myself cropping the images to compose the shot and the small sensor just does not provide me with the images I often want.

To be sure, the m43 system has wonderful cameras and I've captured many great images with my Olympus cameras. I guess I just want more than the system can provide. Anyway, I ended up buying a used Leica M240 and soon followed it with several Leica lenses. Now I shoot almost exclusively with the M240 and I am mostly thrilled with the results.

I still have the EM-1, the 12-40 f2.8 as well as a few more primes and zooms. Of course, I can use all my M mount lenses as well as other adapted lenses, but why bother? I rather use my Leica lenses on the FF camera.. Yes, m43 is a good system, but it's not really what I want...

 

[uhoh7]

You mean the diseases they brought to America and that killed off most locals? 🙄

Any big event is a matter of multiple factors. How do you think they transported those diseases?

Tools matter.

So, why does it seem that mostly FF sensors are using the more sophisticated sensor technologies - making it SEEM as if it had something to do intrinsically with sensor size itself? I think it's because of the economics of the camera market. A FF sensor can be sold to the consumer, as part of the overall cost of the camera, for much more than 4x its die-cost, as compared to a m4/3 sensor. So the newer design and manufacturing processes can be employed with making FF chips, and more easily paid for with FF cameras. So there's market acceptance for a bigger mark-up with FF cameras. It's what people expect. You can't easily make money selling Chevy sedans with Porsche engines, the market won't bear with the cost. So you put a cheaper engine, less sophisticated, in a cheaper car.

~Joe

M43 is perfectly fine, but let's not pretend it can equal FF any more than the FF can produce the results of a good medium format camera, in certain circumstances.

There is always a better camera. We each decide what we will use. Yes, a great photographer will out shoot me with his M43, and me with my M9. Who cares? What's important to me personally is that I like my own FF images better than my crops ones. I'd bet I would like my own MF images better yet, but that's a bridge too far for me. But if I had alot of extra money, I would go there, for sure.

Today, many photographers use more than one system anyway. Lots of DSLR shooters use M43 for daily use because they are nice and small. But there are some FF machines, like the RX1 which are just as small, and we will seem so smaller interchangeable EVILs pretty soon I wager. They won't be as affordable as M43. But they may not have as high profit margins either. I'd wager most M43s have a higher profit margin as a percent of cost than the Leica SL.

 

[tyrone.s]

Go purchase the latest Sony FF mirrorless offering. Take off the lens and apply some black electrical tape to the periphery of the sensor, leaving an open area in the middle the same size as a m4/3 sensor.

Now, assuming you haven't damaged the sensor - and ignoring resolutions differences - the dynamic range and high ISO noise should still be the same as before, easily outperforming the best m4/3 sensor offered to date.

So the differences have little or nothing to do with sensor size, but with the technology node, which is driven by Sony's huge, multi-billions of dollars investment, over decades, in sensor tech. It's their strategic advantage, and they aren't selling it out easily.

I'm done for now. 🙂

~Joe

Fair point Joe. Although it also supports why m4/3 is also 'good enough'. I much prefer the performance of my Pen e-p3 over my old APC sized Pentax *istDL. Technology has moved on and although the Pentax is still fine, the Pen puts it in the shade in many respects, especially sensor noise. But also I don't have to drag a whole big DSLR around with anymore either. If I had the money for a Sony A7, I'd be there. Man, FF and pixel peeping!

M43 is perfectly fine, but let's not pretend it can equal FF any more than the FF can produce the results of a good medium format camera, in certain circumstances.

There is always a better camera. We each decide what we will use. Yes, a great photographer will out shoot me with his M43, and me with my M9. Who cares? What's important to me personally is that I like my own FF images better than my crops ones. I'd bet I would like my own MF images better yet, but that's a bridge too far for me. But if I had alot of extra money, I would go there, for sure.

There are some good points here. There's always better, more resolution, dynamic range and so on. I take a lot of photo's of the kids with my m4/3 but I also do a lot still life, candid street, landscape and some art type photography. I like the convenience and the size and the quality of m4/3 as a collection of compromises. A good series of tradeoffs for me. But I still shoot film, develop and catalogue negative 35mm. I think film is better but I wouldn't want to give up either and m4/3 is the only digital I shoot.

 

[btgc]

Fair point Joe. Although it also supports why m4/3 is also 'good enough'. I much prefer the performance of my Pen e-p3 over my old APC sized Pentax *istDL. Technology has moved on and although the Pentax is still fine, the Pen puts it in the shade in many respects, especially sensor noise. But also I don't have to drag a whole big DSLR around with anymore either. If I had the money for a Sony A7, I'd be there. Man, FF and pixel peeping!

IstDL is quite historical, several gens behind E-P3. In digital world that means a lot. Tiny K-S1 has shown me how outdated my other Pentax, IstD, is. Price and features of K-S1 leave me with no questions if I spent money right way. And someone would have to work very very hard to just spark my interest in FF.

 

[ianstamatic]

All the doubters need to go taking some photos with m34.
I use GH series m34 lots. On paid professional shoots.
Here are some shots from a recent GMC TV commercial, i was unit photographer on, all panny m34 + kit lens. The guy with the cameras is Michael Avedon - Richard's grandson. I hate using sound blimps and my Nikon DSLR was too noisy, spitting out light AF assist beams and still missing focus. I used the panasonic instead. The shots where used for the PR campaign and widely published (Details Magazine, NYTimes etc)

m34 is unobtrusive and quiet. a very effective tool.

It can also do awesome video like this, which again i shot on m34

https://youtu.be/hgr0ILaOSns

 

[coelacanth]

ianstamatic, great showcase of what m4/3 can do!

Here are some example of the (kinda) opposite end of the spectrum of m4/3 use case.

Most of them are shot with tiny and cheap E-PM1 with the kit lens or 9-18mm Zuiko.


Not so little Squishy by Suguru Nishioka, on Flickr


Grumpy Fish is grumpy. by Suguru Nishioka, on Flickr


Enjoy Your Stay by Suguru Nishioka, on Flickr


Nap Time by Suguru Nishioka, on Flickr


Holly Jelly by Suguru Nishioka, on Flickr


Servants of the Nightmare by Suguru Nishioka, on Flickr


Lost in the forest by Suguru Nishioka, on Flickr


White Star by Suguru Nishioka, on Flickr
Last one is with E-M5 II + 25/1.8 combo that I just started using for underwater.

 

[ianstamatic]

Awesome underwater shots !! Great color and some fantastic composition
Lost in the forest shot is especially well done.
Agreed opposite ends of the spectrum but goes to show how versatile m34 cameras can be !!

 

[wojtek]

I can't imagine better travel kit than my trusty OM-D EM5, however recently I started going with Ricoh GR as it's even smaller and lighter. I have D610 with all kinds of expensive glass but I hate it. If I didn't do commercial jobs from time to time where I have to rely on high ISO settings I wouldn't even bother keeping it. Having said that, I did rather big commercial jobs with EM5, reportage style (like the documentary from Edinburgh International Fashion Festival) and it was fine.

EM-5 with the pancake zoom is the travel wonder. But I loved 45mm 1.8 and 25mm 1.8 I no longer have, too. I used it a lot with my old Pentax 50mm lens, too, before I got 45mm Zuiko. This was lovely.

People complain about Oly's menus and they are a nightmare but since setting it up I use it only for formatting of the card. I see no reason to dwell in them, the 'Quick menu' provides everything I need.

I don't have a problem with depth of field, either. There's plenty of it at 1.8 or so (more than I need) and most of my stuff I am shooting around 5.6-8 anyway.

I am actually thinking about re-investing in lenses as I miss them a lot.

EM5 with SMC-M Pentax 50mm 1.4

EM5 with the pancake zoom, Australia 2015:

I travelled through Vietnam with just Oly and 45mm 1.8. It was that good. The only camera (other than small compacts) that I can carry whole day without going bonkers.

Omnomnom. ;D

Most of the photographs in my book were taken with OMD and Ricoh... Nice combo.

If Olympus cranked up their high iso capabilities, there would be no better camera system on Earth (imo).

 

[Oscuro]

I love the responsiveness, the size, and the little lenses. That 14/2.5 is a beaut.
My biggest complaint is the jpg color rendition. Bear in mind my only experience is with the Panasonic line. Love the G1 and GF1, the Gx1 not so much.
Anyone else here struggle with Panasonic's color approach?
Full disclosure: I would rather drink snot than shoot raw.

 

[fireblade]

Nice grabs Wojtek.

 

[Oscuro]

I can't imagine better travel kit than my trusty OM-D EM5, however recently I started going with Ricoh GR as it's even smaller and lighter. I have D610 with all kinds of expensive glass but I hate it. If I didn't do commercial jobs from time to time where I have to rely on high ISO settings I wouldn't even bother keeping it. Having said that, I did rather big commercial jobs with EM5, reportage style (like the documentary from Edinburgh International Fashion Festival) and it was fine. EM-5 with the pancake zoom is the travel wonder. But I loved 45mm 1.8 and 25mm 1.8 I no longer have, too. I used it a lot with my old Pentax 50mm lens, too, before I got 45mm Zuiko. This was lovely. People complain about Oly's menus and they are a nightmare but since setting it up I use it only for formatting of the card. I see no reason to dwell in them, the 'Quick menu' provides everything I need. I don't have a problem with depth of field, either. There's plenty of it at 1.8 or so (more than I need) and most of my stuff I am shooting around 5.6-8 anyway. I am actually thinking about re-investing in lenses as I miss them a lot. EM5 with SMC-M Pentax 50mm 1.4 EM5 with the pancake zoom, Australia 2015: I travelled through Vietnam with just Oly and 45mm 1.8. It was that good. The only camera (other than small compacts) that I can carry whole day without going bonkers. Omnomnom. ;D Most of the photographs in my book were taken with OMD and Ricoh... Nice combo. If Olympus cranked up their high iso capabilities, there would be no better camera system on Earth (imo).

Nice. Are those SOOC jpegs?

 

[wojtek]

Nice. Are those SOOC jpegs?

Nope. I only shoot raw. I don't think I shot a single jpeg in last 10 years... Haha.

Have a couple more... Most shot with either the kit, 25mm 1.8 or 45 1.8, in no particular order. Some old Pentax glass as before, too.

(excuse framing with white, these were for Instagram).

 

[Oscuro]

Nope. I only shoot raw. I don't think I shot a single jpeg in last 10 years... Haha. Have a couple more... Most shot with either the kit, 25mm 1.8 or 45 1.8, in no particular order. Some old Pentax glass as before, too. (excuse framing with white, these were for Instagram).

Haha, indeed. Let me ask you, do you spend a lot of time on WB in post?