 |
| Olympus E-M1 Mark II, 12-100mm f/4 PRO lens @ 100mm; 1/125th sec. @ f/8; ISO 200 (click to enlarge) |
Immediately upon their introduction, I became fascinated with the cameras and lenses of the M 4/3 format as well as the apparent image quality I was seeing published. As I’ve stated many times, one of my photographic goals is to go smaller, lighter, less expensive but keep excellent image quality with my gear. I’ve “partially” succeeded with that goal by selling off my big Nikon gear and going mirrorless. When introduced I bought an Olympus E-M5 and three lenses. I remember being rather astounded by the image quality of the photographs I was able to make. Since then, I have not been without an M 4/3 kit and I’ve expanded my M 4/3 gear inventory much more than necessary. No regrets.
Here is where I need your input. Currently, I’m conducting an experiment to ascertain if M 4/3 can now fully meet all of my photographic needs. Recently, due to changes in the submission rules of the U.S. Copyright Office as well as some personal factors, I decided to stop submitting my work for stock licensing. As a result I no longer need the higher resolution sensors on larger format cameras. From now on I will be only photographing for my own enjoyment and for the pleasure of sharing my images with all of you.
For those of you who primarily use M 4/3 cameras and lenses is there anything about your resulting images with which you are dissatisfied? Is there anything about the M 4/3 cameras, lenses or accessories in which you are dissatisfied? What are your complaints? Does M 4/3 serve all of your needs? Do you ever wish you had a larger sensor?
For the next several months, at home, in the area, while traveling long distances, for family events, i.e., for all of my photography, I’m going to exclusively use my Olympus E-M1 Mark II and lenses to really put them through rigorous testing to find out for myself if they really can cut it when encountering all sorts of subjects in all sorts of weather in all sorts of lighting conditions—everything from wildlife to landscapes to small kids darting around to museum exhibits.
After several months, if I am not fully satisfied with my images under all circumstances, I will go back to my Fujifilm gear. If I am fully satisfied, I may just fully switch to M 4/3 gear for the foreseeable future as the smaller format’s size, weight, bulk (it’s the lenses that make the difference, not the camera bodies) is less than my larger format gear. But, I have to be fully satisfied. In the past, with the older 16mp M 4/3 format cameras I’ve owned, there were times and images that frustrated me in not getting the quality I demanded. The other thing to remember is that the image quality for all formats, including M 4/3, will only get better in the future. (Not that I could actually sell my Fujifilm gear at this point. The X-T2 is still my favorite handling camera!)
The upshot of all of this is that I currently own two complete camera systems with 7 or more lenses each and I need to reduce my gear to just one system, whatever that may end up being. I’m fully committed to mirrorless but, in the future, I may end up with M 4/3, my Fujifilm gear or maybe even a full frame Sony A7rIII kit. Your help in pointing out the negatives you’ve found with M 4/3 gear is greatly appreciated.
Thanks for looking. Enjoy!
Dennis A. Mook
All content on this blog is © 2013-2018 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.
I currently shoot m43 exclusively, but I owned all the years Fuji as well since I made the switch to mirrorless. Have been a Nikon shooter for years, but do not miss it a single time.
ReplyDeleteWhat I miss is my Fuji gear (latest was X-T2 with 18-55 and 100-400 plus TC1.4). I would love to get back into Fuji - completely Fuji - with the X-H1 (that is to large for you but would fit me perfectly) with the 16-55, 50-140 an 100-400 and maybe a 56 or 90 sometimes later. I was so HAPPY with Fuji and meanwhile regret that I sold it to get completely into Olympus m43 with Pro lenses, the 4/300 was my latest acquisition.
Now I like what I see as results from Olympus and m43, but I am not really inspired shooting this stuff. Not sure what to do, my main reason was a logical one - only shoot one system and m43 is pretty small, which is no longer true with some of the latest Pro lense like the 4/300. Instead the 4/300 is pretty heavy for m43 and also limiting as it is fixed focal length. Instead the Fuji 100-400 was just so much more versatile and IQ wise equivalent, if not better in my eyes.
Anyway time will tell what I do but maybe I just go fully back to Fuji with the aforementioned gear and just stay completely Fuji - I think I could be very happy camper this way!
ptomsu, thank you very much for your comment and insight. Your story and mine are very similar. I shot Nikons from 1974 until just a few years ago when I sold all of my digital Nikon gear because I had both Fujifilm and Olympus. Like you, I really enjoy using the Fuji gear much more than the Olympus. It just feels good in my hand. It just works for me. I have the X-T2, 16-55, 50-140 and the 100-400 + the 1.4x tele-converter and the lenses are first class. None better. Also, as did you, I am looking to go even smaller than the Fujii gear but am unsure if M 4/3 will fully satisfy me. Hence, this experiment. By the end of September I will have made a final decision as Fuji will have the X-H1, the rumored X-T3 and IBIS will be available, at least on the H1. That is something that is becoming more and more attractive to me as I age.
DeleteAgain, thank you for your insight. I think I can conclude that there is nothing wrong with your M 4/3 images but there are other important considerations which factor in such as which gear just fits you better and feels better to use, I.e., the experience is just as important as the tools you use.
Dennis,
Deleteyou very nicely summed up my considerations and feelings. I am looking forward to your findings and what will be your final decision. Not sure if I can wait so long but I will try :-)
Best regards
Peter
Hi Dennis
ReplyDeleteI use Fuji, Sony FF and Sony 1". But mainly Fuji. I have used Lumix. Like you, I prefer the image ratio of 3:2 for landscape but often 4:3 for portrait. For my purposes M 4/3 image quality is fine. What I cannot quite come to terms with is cropping from M 4/3 when editing to 3:2 landscape. I prefer to start from the APS-C 3:2 image and crop to 4:3 for portrait. Additionally, I favour the Fuji system because of my interest in B&W and the qualities that the Acros simulation brings to images. Kirk Tuck has an interesting post at Visual Science Lab, dated yesterday, on the quality of his images from different sensors, displayed at poster size. I enjoy your posts. Please continue with the insightful commentary. Best wishes from the UK.
That’s another really beautiful photograph, Dennis.
ReplyDeleteI have the original E-M5s, so can’t comment on the larger M4/3s sensors, but I have never found the image quality fully satisfactory. Which is why I have invested in Fuji — which I do find very satisfactory indeed.
Have you been keeping up with Kirk Tuck’s running commentary on M4/3s?
Another great photograph, Dennis.
ReplyDeleteI have the original E-M5 and am not fully satisfied with the image quality. I'm sure the 20-megapixel sensors are better, but don't want to spend the money to find out. On the other hand, I am very satisfied with the image quality of my Fujis, even the 16-megapixel X-Pro 1. The X-T20 is better than my (now departed) Canon 6D.
Sony offers small full-frame bodies, but the lenses are as big as Canon's or Nikon's, so when you put a 100-400 lens on a Sony body the weight difference is negligible. I think I will stay with Fuji, but YMMV.
Dave, thanks for your comment. In my opinion, the 20mp M 4/3 sensors have a bit more “meat” to them, so to speak. As far as Sony goes, the camera bodies are comparable, but the doggone lenses have to be so large for the required image circle of more than 43mm (due to IBIS) to cover the diagonal of the full frame sensor. You just can’t change the laws of physics!
DeleteHi, Dave, as well as Dennis.
DeleteDave, I believe you and I go back quite a ways in several different photography forums and groups, so it's great to se you here, too. :)
Dennis' post raises some interesting observations which all boil down to this question: Is the Micro Four Thirds platform actually as good and as enjoyable as I want it to be? To put it bluntly, probably most who are asking the question are actually setting themselves up to leave the m4/3 platform anyway. IMHO the beauty of the m4/3 cameras has obviously never been about the sensor, but how all of the parts work together so well, the sheer volume of control you have, and of course the broad range of lenses available to the system.
But it is what it is. And we have to start out talking about sensors because that's what a digital workflow has trained us to do. So let's deal with that for a moment: From a sensor standpoint, I completely agree with Dennis. The newer 20mp m4/3 sensors are indeed more effective than the older 16mp sensors. IMHO it's not so much that they pack a significant amount of extra detail, but they're a bit better (almost a full stop) when it comes to higher ISO figures. They're also similarly more effective with long exposures. That extra stop can be the difference between feeling frustrated while you're processing the RAW files vss feeling like you accomplished what you set out to do.
Right now, I shoot Nikon full-frame for most of our pro work (weddings), but I have never felt let down by using the E-M1 Mark II when shooting portraits. Coupled with some of the premium lenses in Olympus PRO lineup, I would feel very comfortable using the Olympus gear for almost any pro project including commercial portraits, product work, landscape, etc. At this point, only the AF system holds it back from my wedding work, where really fast or erratic movement during a poorly lit reception can be a pain.
Mind you, you do need to pay attention to your initial exposures even when shooting RAW on m4/3. The files do NOT have the broad dynamic range of some of the newer larger cameras; in other words, there isn't quite as much headroom to salvage highlights or to bring up the deepest shadows if you make an error. But here is where the excellent EVF of the E-M1 Mark II comes in — the beauty of any mirrorless camera, really.
Additionally, if you're a photographer making use of off-camera flash, this important tool can become what I consider a great equalizer not only in low-light situations, but in ANY situation including broad daylight where you might want to provide some fill for poorly placed shadows. Great lighting technique, lens choice, and good composition can at times completely eliminate any significant differences between an image produced with a m4/3 camera compared with a similar image taken with a camera of larger format.
I think at the end of the day, I also get so much mileage out of the system. There's no other way to get so much range from ultra-wide to long telephoto at the price. Granted, I don't need every lens in the system. But it's nice to know I can take it in any direction I'd like to go for a (sorta) reasonable price and at a lighter weight than any other format. And I can take great quality images while doing so. :)
Thank you for your well reasoned and extensive comment. It is contributors such as yourself that provide valuable additional information to anyone who is struggling with the same question and happen to stumble upon this post.
DeleteI agree with you completely. Since my last post, I have been using the Mark II and lenses exclusively and testing them under every situation with which I encounter. I’ll post about these next week.
One thing I do miss is the 14+ stop dynamic range of my Nikon D810 but in situations I have so far encountered that require extensive dynamic range, I was able to quickly press the function button, switch to 3 exposures, 2 stops apart, press the shutter, then switch back. Worked like a charm, although I know there are fast moving situations where that will not work. That being said, it is kind of amazing how much you, indeed, can pull out of shadows and down from highlights.
Again, thank you for your comment.
Dennis:
ReplyDeleteI have no experience with M 4/3. I left the DSLR world with a Fuji X T-2, but I am not all that happy with the hoops I have to jump through with some of the post processing. I took some photos on a foggy, cloudy day near a pier and it is difficult to get all of the definition I want without noise.
In some respects my Nikon D3300 does almost as well at a fraction of the cost. I will be interested in following along as you go through this process. Olympus is really on a "push" as I am reading a multitude of articles touting their latest and greatest!
I am also interested to hear more about this:
"Recently, due to changes in the submission rules of the U.S. Copyright Office as well as some personal factors, I decided to stop submitting my work for stock licensing."
I know you are concerned about people "taking" your images. Is it the cost of registering the images with the copyright office to which you refer?
BTW - Thanks for sharing all that you do. I look forward to reading your posts!
Regards,
J. Ross
Jeff, thanks for the comment. You are welcome to come along through this little journey. Yes, the Copyright Office now limits each submission, at $55 US, to only 750 files. A prolific digital photographer could easily shoot a couple of thousand each day. Just yesterday, I was outside photographing my youngest granddaughter, age 2, chasing large bubbles trying to catch them and break them with her tongue (I didn’t ask why and a 2-year old couldn’t explain!). I made over 300 image files during that 30 minute time frame just trying to catch some precise moments. Imagine a wedding photographer! Now, I know I don’t have to register all of my images, but that has been my procedure as often times I find myself going back through my catalog and pulling out images from years ago that may have not looked so great at the time but now have some specialness to them. If I didn’t register them all, I couldn’t submit them to the stock agency.
DeleteHi Dennis,
ReplyDeleteI Shoot Fuji, Sony FF and 1”. But mainly Fuji. I have owned a Lumix camera. For my needs M 4/3 images are fine. Like you I prefer the 3:2 image format for landscape but quite often like 4:3 in portrait orientation. What I cannot come to terms with is cropping from a M 4/3 image to create a 3:2 landscape. I prefer to start with an APS-C 3:2 file and crop to 4:3 for portrait. I am committed to Fuji because of my interest in B&W and the qualities that the Acros formulation brings to images. Kirk Tuck has an interesting post at Visual Science Lab on 25 February, about the quality of his images from different sensor sizes, displayed at poster size as part of a marketing campaign. I enjoy your blog. Please continue with your insightful posts. Best wishes from the UK.
Alan, thank you for your comment. Like you, I like the 3:2 ratio for horizontal but I find it too long vertically, which I often crop. Funny, but I used to shoot mainly with a 6x7 medium format camera which reflects the 8x10” print size pretty closely. Time changes things, I guess.
DeleteIt has been observed that the 35mm / 3:2 image ratio provides for the creation of photographs that are proportionally close to the golden rectangle. So maybe the aesthetic appeal of the golden ratio helps explain the allure of 3:2 images.
DeleteDennis, for the most part I have been a 4/3 or m4/3 shooter for at least 15 years. I did own a Nikon 7100 for a while, and even though I only had the 16-85 and 70-300 consumer lens, I can see the difference in image quality compared to the E-M1 and E-M5 II than I currently own. My primary lens that I now use are the Panny 8-18 and 35-100, and the Oly 12-40, as well as the 25 1.8, 60 macro and the 75 1.8.
ReplyDeleteI've been pretty happy with what I have, though there are two situations that frustrate me. One if the dynamic range limitations of the small sensor, and the other is that sometimes the details in landscape shots look mushy. I do use a tripod, cable release and pay attention to the aperture and shutter speed, but there are times when grasses or leaves don't have the detail that I would like. And I'll confess that I don't want to spend the computer time necessary to export separate files for the highlights and shadows and merge them to help with dynamic range.
My E-M1 shutter count is getting up there, so I'll have a decision to make as well. Will the Mark II version help with some of the concerns, or do I have a different decision to make? I'm with you in that I don't care for bulk, especially with lenses, and a balky lower back may make my decision for me.
Jim
Jim, thank you for your detailed insight. I think you have pointed out what I’ve seen in the past, i.e., I want to see a bit more detail and see it definitively, but sometimes, not all the time, it just seems to be lacking. For me so far, that has been my only real issue with M 4/3. I don’t shoot high ISO very often so I don’t encounter lots of digital noise. I try to keep my ISO at 800 or less.
DeleteI’ll be sharing my experiences so join the ride. Again, thanks for your detailed comment. I’m sure others will find it helpful as well.