Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
Well I apologise for not being serious about photography during the decade or so that I’ve used MFT...
For myself, I’ll be continuing to use my Pen F and Zuiko 60mm Macro as a hugely capable orchid kit
Of course, I speak from my own point of view, but I stand corrected by any who find M43 their tool of choice.
Again, while I personally never had any use or it, that doesn't mean it's not for anyone.
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
M4/3 is a great system for travel photography, but also for shooting wildlife (a far reaching birding lens will fit in a small bag), for macro photography (the small sensor provides greater appearent magnification), for architecture (more depth of field), for street photography (small sized and nearly silent bodies) etc.
In fact I use a lot my M4/3 cameras for all sorts of things. A couple of Panasonic GM5 with a 7-14/4 zoom and a 25/0.95 Nokton make a wonderfully compact and versatile travel kit perfectly capable of taking flawless pictures in most circumstances.
Modern sensors, progress made in optics and better image processing have considerably enhanced image quality in recent M4/3 cameras and lenses. Of course, this is also true for other systems (including smartphones), but I think the M4/3 system sits just at the right spot midway between smartphones (still limited in performance ans versatility) and larger (and admittedly more capable) formats like 24x36 or MF.
Cheers!
Abbazz
In fact I use a lot my M4/3 cameras for all sorts of things. A couple of Panasonic GM5 with a 7-14/4 zoom and a 25/0.95 Nokton make a wonderfully compact and versatile travel kit perfectly capable of taking flawless pictures in most circumstances.
Modern sensors, progress made in optics and better image processing have considerably enhanced image quality in recent M4/3 cameras and lenses. Of course, this is also true for other systems (including smartphones), but I think the M4/3 system sits just at the right spot midway between smartphones (still limited in performance ans versatility) and larger (and admittedly more capable) formats like 24x36 or MF.
Cheers!
Abbazz
aizan
Veteran
When I got tired of waiting for the Fuji X100 to be released, I started using micro 4/3 cameras. Loved the lenses, loved the images, but could not depend on the bodies. The bodies kept breaking. Eventually, I dumped the micro 4/3 cameras for Fuji APS-C cameras.
Candid Wedding Cameras by Narsuitus, on Flickr
The build quality and industrial design of the Pens was never as good as enthusiasts wanted. They looked too cheap! They had the plethora of lenses that we like, but not the cameras.
If M4/3 wants a nice piece of the amateur, still photo pie, I think they have to hire a new designer on the same level as Mr. Maitani. It's such a bummer since the E-1 is a classic.
fireblade
Vincenzo.
BillBingham2
Registered User
zuiko85
Veteran
I was hoping prices would drop as panicked Olympus M4:3 users rushed to get rid of their cameras two or three generations back. Unfortunately that happened yet.
Ah, give it time, maybe I can pick up a bargain second body.
But I’m really old, no use worrying about this stuff now, it will last long enough.
I even have a couple of Pen F half frame bodies and six half frame Zuikos that are also used on the M4:3 body.
Ah, give it time, maybe I can pick up a bargain second body.
But I’m really old, no use worrying about this stuff now, it will last long enough.
I even have a couple of Pen F half frame bodies and six half frame Zuikos that are also used on the M4:3 body.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Bill,
I have used Micro four thirds for ALL of my color work for the last two years. I've sold a lot of 16x20 prints made with those cameras, and they were actually sharper than ones I made with a fullframe Canon 5DmkII. The Olympus lenses I have are AMAZINGLY sharp. My two Olympus bodies are the Pen-F and the OM-D E-M1 mark II; both are 20mp cameras, just like the Canon 5DmkII I used previously.
Why did I trade the 5DmkII for a micro four thirds system? Weight and size. I have never liked the huge Canon body. I have tiny hands that don't fit it well. On top of that, I have a lot of health problems. Since a small stroke in 2013, I have been shaky holding a heavy camera and it has become increasingly hard for me to carry the big fullframe dslr all the time. I keep a camera with me at all times in a shoulder bag, in case I see something interesting. It was just too much to carry.
I can carry the OM-D E-M1 mark II, a large body by Micro Four Thirds standards, and the 12-40mm f2.8 Olympus Pro lens all day with no pain and it is easy for me to handhold thanks to its small size grips, light weight, and built-in image stabilization. It is a system that just plain works for me. I do care about image quality, and would not use the system if it did not deliver the high quality files I need for large fine-art prints.
jmilkins
Digited User
Chris - your writing on the M43 system in the RRF M43 forum was very helpful as I considered what would work for me. Many thanks for that.
And kudos to RFF for being a place where discussion of individual choices doesn't immediately become a fanboy flame war.
And kudos to RFF for being a place where discussion of individual choices doesn't immediately become a fanboy flame war.
gavinlg
Veteran
While I absolutely love the look of, and using the olympus cameras, I could just never get into the small sensor compressed look. I have thousands of photos taken with an e-3 and an e-p1 and not one of them is used in my portfolio - every time I go back and look at them I just wish I had used a bigger sensor camera.
Not to say they don’t work for people - the IQ is technically good, just the Small sensor look is not for me.
An OM-D with a 35mm sensor and compact zuiko primes is my dream digital camera, but Olympus has stubbornly stuck to the small sensor thing till the end I guess. I don’t see them making any sort of progress in the market without either ditching m4/3 or creating a new system with a bigger sensor.
Not to say they don’t work for people - the IQ is technically good, just the Small sensor look is not for me.
An OM-D with a 35mm sensor and compact zuiko primes is my dream digital camera, but Olympus has stubbornly stuck to the small sensor thing till the end I guess. I don’t see them making any sort of progress in the market without either ditching m4/3 or creating a new system with a bigger sensor.
Ricoh
Well-known
Sensor development appears to be stuck at 20MP and it’s been that way for several years. Many advocates of MFT would love to see an update such as BSI to inject new life.
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
Bit of an observation... I always imagined that the market perception of FT/MFT as inferior (with regard to sensor size) would diminish as sensor technology improved. Ie. the better the sensors, the smaller sensor required to meet a 'good enough' performance baseline.
However, the opposite seems to have been true. At the same time as sensor tech has matured, the enthusiast market has moved more and more towards full frame.
However, the opposite seems to have been true. At the same time as sensor tech has matured, the enthusiast market has moved more and more towards full frame.
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
I have both FF and M43 and I am most happy with M43 even for photo. There is a lot of detail and I love the larger DOF.
For video there is no story. M43 at affordable level reigns offering professional features and quality and most of all the intraframe compression. Which for me is night and day.
For video there is no story. M43 at affordable level reigns offering professional features and quality and most of all the intraframe compression. Which for me is night and day.
Rick Waldroup
Well-known
I sold all my Nikon gear years ago and moved to the M4/3 system when Panasonic introduced the GF1. There were two main reasons- the much smaller size of the Panasonic cameras and the excellent lenses at very affordable prices. I currently shoot a Panasonic GX9 with several different lenses. I shoot mostly street stuff and the system is excellent for that.
Larry H-L
Well-known
It's another tool in the drawer. I don't buy into the either / or argument. M4/3 certainly has its strengths such as greater depth of field, fantastic video from the GH series, small size and weight, and it truly is the universal body capable of using most any lens with adapters.
I use them for commercial work right alongside full-frame gear. Because so much commercial work is now for web use, big files are not required. Short video clips are in high demand, but I cannot remember the last time a client asked for a large print. In the past two years I have made more income from the m4/3 system than from full-frame gear.
Because of hybrid/video, and so many different companies invested in the m4/3 system, I think it is here for a longer stretch of time.
I use them for commercial work right alongside full-frame gear. Because so much commercial work is now for web use, big files are not required. Short video clips are in high demand, but I cannot remember the last time a client asked for a large print. In the past two years I have made more income from the m4/3 system than from full-frame gear.
Because of hybrid/video, and so many different companies invested in the m4/3 system, I think it is here for a longer stretch of time.
jarski
Veteran
not questioning that m43 system cannot produce great results, but seems that for people to be willing to carry something else besides their phone, it better distinguish itself somehow, and sensor size is one of the most obvious factors.
Ricoh
Well-known
Yes, W/m^2
Small sensors are beneficial for video.
Mirrorless cameras, ie the type that display the world as seen by the sensor for stills photography, unlike the Leica M, are always video cameras. A bit of extra heat when you press record, maybe.
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
EDIT: all intraframe compression.
At the time of film, movie was a sequence of photos.
With the all intraframe compression video has become a sequence of photos.
Instead with interframe compression video was not a sequence of photos and had nothing to do with movie
At the time of film, movie was a sequence of photos.
With the all intraframe compression video has become a sequence of photos.
Instead with interframe compression video was not a sequence of photos and had nothing to do with movie
Dogman
Veteran
I loved using the original Olympus 4/3 DSLRs and I bought into the M4/3 system early on. It was apparent to me that the Canon APS-C cameras I also used had better image quality but I liked the size of the smaller format cameras. As time went by the IQ of the M4/3 cameras improved significantly. It was almost if not completely a match for APS-C. But I saw no real reason to keep using M4/3 because the X-T1 I used was the same size as the EM1 I had at the time, especially since I much preferred the Fuji's handling.
Maybe as a "large format" pocket camera but otherwise I can't see M4/3 continuing as a viable format. But I've been wrong before.
Maybe as a "large format" pocket camera but otherwise I can't see M4/3 continuing as a viable format. But I've been wrong before.
Nitroplait
Well-known
Unless the buyers of Olympus soon make a very impactful statement, m4/3 will disappear as a platform for still photography.
No serious photographer dare make a committed investment in the system as long as we are in this undecided limbo, and already committed photographers will begin to make a plan B - which is never good for the continued commitment.
It is not a matter of "is m4/3 good enough" (it is), but rather a matter of mass psychology. When the doubt is hanging in the air, only indifferent uninformed consumers will buy into the system.
No serious photographer dare make a committed investment in the system as long as we are in this undecided limbo, and already committed photographers will begin to make a plan B - which is never good for the continued commitment.
It is not a matter of "is m4/3 good enough" (it is), but rather a matter of mass psychology. When the doubt is hanging in the air, only indifferent uninformed consumers will buy into the system.
Orthogonal
Established
That may have been the case 5+ years ago but now there are a lot of cameras that fit in between a GH5 and a Red/Arri. Every major manufacturer has a body that shoots 4k at 10 bit or more with RAW options from a larger sensor, within the price bracket of the GH5. There's no real advantage to people entering the M43 format for serious filmmaking aside from people that already have an investment in M43 lenses, where larger formats offer quite a few benefits: uncropped usage of super 35mm and FF lenses without focal reducers, much newer sensors, much higher ongoing RnD investment etc., and from the other direction smartphones are competitive for IQ but much smaller and more convenient.
Just to go on a totally tangential rant, the spec wars in video are really skewed towards youtubers and don't have much to do with actual filmmaking priorities. I've worked on a lot of major Hollywood films and even with the ability to work in 6 or even 8k, work is consistently done in 2.5k - often (hilariously) upscaled to 4k for streaming or blu ray. There's little (if any) perceptible or practical benefit to shooting in 4k, but huge additional production costs. What genuinely does matter are things like bit depth, file formats, pipeline integration - the unsexy stuff.