Road Trip Photography Summary; Practical Review of the Micro 4/3 System Part I

Sunken Tug, Gold Beach, Oregon

Part I
After our recent journey, I started thinking, "What lessons have I learned in my photography on this trip and how did I utilize the equipment I took with me?"  I also wanted to assess if I am totally happy with the technical quality of the images I made since this is the first time I have ONLY taken photography gear that is smaller than full-frame or APS-C.  The bottom line for me is, "Could I be totally happy with only a Micro 4/3 system?"  "Does it give me the image quality I need and is it as easy to use as my Nikon D800E?"

So, I thought I would provide a "practical" review and summary of:

a) The equipment I took with me on this 17-day "Planes, Trains and Automobiles Hybrid Road Trip,"

b) A summary of the percentage I used each of the 6 lenses,

c) A summary of which focal lengths I used and how many images were made with each to get a feel for how I "see" with this system,

d) A summary of how often I used each shutter speed, which is pretty much a function of what aperture I used since I mostly use aperture priority mode,

e) A summary of how often I used each aperture value, which is dictated by the subject I am photographing,

f) A summary of how often I used each ISO values, which is dictated by all of the above,

g) The number of images I made that I believe are worthy of submitting to my stock photo agency, and finally

h) How the equipment performed, including pros and cons on use and the images I made with it; how it felt in my hands and ease of use, etc.

I am at the point in my almost 44 year photography career, as well as my age and the nature of my photography, where I want to decide whether or not to keep a full-frame digital camera and lens system or downsize to something smaller.  In the past, I have carried around some pretty heavy equipment for a lot of years and have repeatedly tried to lighten my load over the years, only to be thwarted by not being satisfied with the image quality of smaller, lighter systems.  I think that has now changed.  There are smaller systems available that "should" fully satisfy my needs and wants.

When digital photography arrived, at first, it was relatively primitive, and APS-C was the highest quality of sensor available.  The megapixels count got bigger and quality rose.  Then full-frame (24X36mm) systems became affordable and I moved to them--all for the quality that would satisfy me in the final images I produced.  Now, with the extremely high quality of digital systems, full-frame, along with its size, weight and bulk, is no longer necessary to achieve extremely high image quality.  So the question had become, for me, do I keep my Nikon D800E camera and the various lenses, or see if one of the smaller sensor-sized systems will fully serve my needs?

I know APS-C will serve my demands for the best quality for the kind of photography I do and for stock photo purposes.  The last APS-C camera I owned was the Nikon D7000 and it produced technically great images.  But, can I go smaller and still be happy?  Last year, I bought into the Micro 4/3 system and purchased an Olympus O-MD E-M5, a Panasonic GX-1 (it was on sale for $200!, I couldn't pass it up as a backup although I would normally stick to one brand so the menus and features are similar), and a number of Panasonic lenses.  I chose Panasonic as they were making lenses that, at the time, would better meet my needs.  If I keep this system, I will surely pick up some Olympus lenses as they now have some delicious primes that I would love to use to make images with a shallow depth of field!

After messing around with this system for about 18 months, it is crunch time.  It is time to decide to keep it or find something that would better fit my style of photography and my needs in image quality.  My wife and I had planned a hybrid road trip that would take us from the east coast to the west coast and back, by train, auto and airplane.  This would be the ideal test for this Micro 4/3 system.  I would only take the Micro 4/3 and no full-frame SLR.

Last year, we took a three week road trip from the east coast to the Tetons, Yellowstone, the Black Hills, Badlands, etc., but I took both the Nikon and the Olympus.  A crutch, so to speak.  Now, it is time for the Olympus camera and Panasonic lenses to live or die on their own.  Here are my comments and usage.

Here is a list of equipment I took.  I have not listed sundry items such as lens cleaning cloths etc.

Olympus O-MD E-M5
Panasonic GS-1
Panasonic 7-14mm F/4 lens (no image stabilization)
Panasonic 12-35mm F/2.8 X image stabilized lens
Panasonic 14-45mm F/3.5-5.6 image stabilized lens
Panasonic 20mm F/1.7 (no image stabilization)
Panasonic 35-100mm F/2.8 X image stabilized lens
Panasonic 100-300mm F/3.5-5.6 image stabilized lens
Gitzo GT-2540 6X carbon fiber tripod
Olympus HDL-6 camera grip (only used the non-battery part)
Variable neutral density and polarizing filters to fit the lenses
2 extra batteries for the E-M5
Chargers for the cameras
80 gb of SDHC memory cards

Below is how I used the above equipment over the almost three weeks.

Percentage of Usage of Each Lens

Number of Images Made With Each Lens (same data, different format)

By far I used the 12-35mm lens the most, followed by the 35-100mm lens.  That is expected for the nature of the images I make.  This tells me that a moderate wide-angle to moderate telephoto lens would suit 2/3 of my normal image making needs.  Add a 70-200mm (again, 35mm terms) and over 93% of my needs would be met.

Number of Images Made Using Each Focal Length

I used a total of 58 different focal lengths (a result of careful framing with zoom lenses).  For the graph, I had to group them into 5mm groups because the graphing software would only accommodate 50 entries.  But it is obvious that my most used focal lengths are from 12mm to 35mm.  There is a spike a 100mm, the long end of the 35-100mm lens.  I think that may be a factor of reaching to compose an image, but being lazy and not wanting to change to the 100-300mm lens.  I suspect some of those 100mm images would have been a bit longer if I would have changed lenses.  This tells me I'm a 24mm-70mm (in 35mm terms) shooter for the most par.

Number of Images Made Using Each Shutter Speed

By far, the most frequent shutter speed used was 1/500 second.  The most frequently used range of shutter speeds is from 1/125th to 1/1000th second.  The small number of exposures I made from 21 seconds to 1 second were using a tripod and making images of the stars at night.  I did make some extraordinary images using shutter speeds from 3/10ths of a second to 1/4 second.  The reason they are extraordinary is that they were handheld and as sharp as can be.  That is a testament to the image stabilization in the camera rather than my ability.  I would have to say, however, that at almost 62 years old, I'm still pretty steady!

Number of Images Made Using Each Aperture Value

I'm not surprised by this graph.  I normally set my camera's mode to aperture priority and my aperture to either F/5.6 or F/8, depending upon the estimated depth of field I think I need.  Being primarily a nature and landscape photographer, I try to find the sweet spot for each lens.  That being said, I know the sweet spot for the 12-35 is F/4 to F/8, with F/5.6 being better, by just a tiny bit.  But there are three other things I keep in mind.  a) I am using Micro 4/3 format and the depth of field is different than from full frame, b) sometimes I need to vary the depth of field depending upon the scene--very shallow or very deep.  c) if depth of field is not an issue, I also have to pay attention to the shutter speed so there is no motion or camera blur.

Number of Images Made Using Various ISOs 

The base ISO on the E-M5 is 200.  The base ISO on the GX-1 is 160.  I try to use the base ISO as much as possible for maximum image quality.  Not only is noise affected, but the higher you amplify your ISO, the less dynamic range you have.  As ISOs go up, your ability to capture wide tonal ranges from details in the shadows to delicate highlight detail is reduced.  That being said, I do occasionally use auto ISO.  That would account for the many ISOs used.  I would attribute those other than the three spikes in the chart above, to auto ISO.  I mainly use auto ISO when I put the camera in manual and determine what shutter speed and aperture I need.  Then I let the camera vary the ISO, still while using exposure compensation, to get the exact desired exposure.  That would have been nice during the film days.  But to change ISOs then, you changed film.  That is another story...

I did use 12,800 once.  My wife was in our Amtrak Superliner compartment and it is relatively dark in there.  I let the camera take the ISO up that high to make the image.  You know what, it is certainly usable.  A bit of judicious application of noise reduction and it looks pretty good at a normal viewing or printing size.  Bravo Olympus!

(There is one error above.  The farthest right value is not 128,000, but 12,600.  I accidentally added an extra zero and mis-typed an 8 instead of a 6.  Forgive me if I don't go back and remake the chart.)

What did I learn from this analysis of my usage?  Not much, I guess.  I think I validated what I already knew.  I have been photographing for a long, long time and kind of know which lenses are my bread and butter lenses, which apertures I use most, which shutter speeds I think are best for a particular situation and that the slower an ISO, the better.

Tomorrow, I will post my opinions of how the Micro 4/3 system served my needs.  So, come back as I think you will find it interesting.

Many more of my images can be found here.  Please take a look.

Thanks for looking.  Enjoy!

Dennis Mook


All content on this blog is © Dennis A. Mook.  All Rights Reserved.  Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution.  Permission may be granted for commercial use.  Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.