Only Took M4/3 Gear On A Road Trip; Summary Of My Thoughts On M4/3 As Your Primary System

(click to enlarge)
I've included about 30 images to illustrate the high quality of M4/3 cameras and lenses. The images displayed with this post all were made with M4/3 cameras and lenses at a variety of ISOs from 200 to 6400.  I didn't include any images made with the latest 20mp sensors!  These were all made with 16mp sensors in the Olympus E-M5 or E-M1.  Additionally, none were made with the Olympus PRO lenses or Panasonic/Leica lenses, but consumer grade Olympus and Panasonic lenses.  As Nice as these images are, they could be even technically better with the latest and greatest gear.  What's not to like about them? 

NEW! As of January 1st, I've started an Instagram feed. I'll be posting photos daily so please follow at dennisamook. Thank you. 

The road trip is over, M4/3 gear's performance in a variety of situations has been tested and I have some thoughts about the efficacy of only using a smaller format camera for all of my photography and travel.  

Thanks for riding along with me as I wanted to find out for myself if I could be happy if I only owned and used an micro 4/3 system.  If you are just joining this discussion, here is some background.  During my wife's and my recent road trip, I put my Olympus E-M1 Mark II and lenses through a series of tests.  These series of "tests," well, not really tests, that I put the camera and lens through were not rigorous nor were they meant to be.  The tests were merely the types of situations I normally encounter for the kind of photography I do.  Your situation may be completely different and, therefore, your opinion as to whether or not M4/3 could fully serve your photographic needs would also differ.

The situations through which I put the camera and lenses were photo walks, street photography, birds-in-flight photography and landscape photography.  In fact, I posted two articles on birds-in-flight, one using the Olympus 12-100mm f/4 PRO lens and the other using the Olympus 300mm f/4 PRO lens plus the Olympus 1.4X tele-converter.  If you are interested in reading more about this series along with some of the images I made as examples, you can find the posts here, here, here, here and here.

Additionally, I've been using this camera and lens combination almost exclusively in sall types of situations since the February.  If you go back through this blog over the 
past couple of months, you will see more of the images I've made with this gear.  

Let's get on with it...

(click to enlarge)

In a nutshell, if I was not aware of, or had never used, an APS-C or full format digital camera, I would be thrilled to death with the quality, versatility and results I get from this M4/3 system.  Simple as that.  I first started photographing with M4/3 gear in May, 2012.  Yes, it has been almost 6 years ago that I bought an Olympus OMD E-M5.  However, the problem is that I have used full frame and other sensor formats larger than M4/3.  I'll explain that later.  That being said, I've concluded that the quality, performance and features of my Olympus E-M1 Mark II, as well as the wide variety and extremely high image quality of the lenses available for M4/3, really do meet my needs with a small caveat.  What surprised me the most was how well the image files held up under severe cropping.  I think that is another indication just how good the "M4/3 system," working together, really is.  But...  M4/3 may not fill all of your needs as I'll explain.

There is a built-in photographic cultural bias against M4/3.  That bias is hard for the format to overcome.  Even I still have that niggling feeling that keeps telling me that M4/3 couldn't possibly get the job done in all circumstances.  This has to do with our bias that newer, bigger, more expensive and most popular is better.  Smaller can't possibly be as good.  That alone precludes photographers from buying or finding out for themselves if M4/3 can fulfill their needs.  I'm going to write more about this bias next week.  Even though my feeling has been that M4/3 couldn't possibly get the job done, my brain and eyes were speaking an entirely different language of disagreement!  It does get the job done and done well.

The situations through which I did not test the M4/3 system was in very low light or at very high ISOs.  That is because I do very little low light or high ISO photography.  But we all know that is where a larger sensor has advantages because larger photosites means more light gathering ability, less digital noise and better dynamic range.

(click to enlarge)

Looking back through my Lightroom catalog for the past 2 1/2 years, I have only used ISOs at 3200 or higher for about 10% of my photography.  That 10% represents mostly wildlife images where I have the camera set to 10 FPS and am ripping off images like crazy trying to capture birds-in-flight, moving mammals, etc.  It is one of those situations in which I am engaged rarely so it is not common for me to use high ISOs.  The other situation where I have used high ISOs was photographing family events indoors without a flash.  An example would be at dance recitals in which my two older granddaughters perform which is held in a fairly dark high school auditorium.  The 10% doesn't really reflect my everyday "Opportunist" photographic endeavors.  High ISOs and low light are not of critical concern for me.  They may be for you, however.

To get to the point, I found that I could be happy with my gear if I only owned and used M4/3 gear and practiced the types of photography I now do.  The camera and lenses performed as I needed and never let me down.  The images were of high quality with low digital noise, good color, producing very sharp and detailed images.  The images pretty much speak for themselves.  

The camera and lenses are small, lightweight and don't cost nearly as much as their larger format counterparts. Carrying my gear all day was transparent, so to speak.  My bag was so light that I forgot it was over my shoulder.  That, in and of itself, would encourage me to carry my bag with me everywhere rather than lamenting carrying gear and trying to figure out what I am going to do with it halfway through a long day after my shoulders get sore. 

The Olympus cameras are of very high quality, made of the best materials, and have more features and abilities than most of us will ever use.  I believe their reliability is as good if not better than any on the market.  I feel safe in saying exactly the same thing about the Panasonic lenses as I've owned and used many over the past several years.  Another nice thing about a common format, it seems Olympus and Panasonic are not duplicating lens selection.  They each are producing very high quality lenses but with different focal lengths and different attributes, both primes and zoom lenses.  Additionally, more independent manufacturers are now producing M4/3 lenses.  This all contributes to us as photographers benefiting. 

(click to enlarge)

The Olympus lenses I own and use are of the highest quality and produce contrasty, detailed, excellent images.  Autofocus focus fast and sure.  I found no fault with any of my images as far as quality goes.  The lenses are well made of the proper materials and of professional caliber.  I found my real world images to very sharp from center to corner at most apertures.

  NOTE: and when I write "real world" I'm not talking about photographing  brick walls.  A quick lens lesson and a comment on lens testers who photograph brick walls and such, then judge a lens as to its sharpness in the center and edges.  With the exception of macro lenses, which are flat field lenses for the purpose of copying flat art, paper, coins, etc., almost all lenses are a curved field design, which means they focus sharply at a different distance in the center than at the edges, which means if you focus on a flat surface you will think the edges are not sharp.  Bull hockey!  They are sharp but they focus at a different point than the center.  Try this: On a flat surface focus a lens at its edge and you will see the edge is now sharp but the center is no longer sharp.  A curved field of focus.  Before putting out lens tests, reviewers need understand the construction and design of the lenses! For a more detailed explanation and illustrations look at this and this posts.

Now back to the regularly scheduled program....

Only when I stopped down to about f/11 did I see start to see a tiny bit of image degradation from diffraction softening, which is not a lens issue, but a physics of light issue.  All lenses, when stopped way down, will produce diffraction softening of an image.  Even though I start to see a tiny bit of diffraction softening at f/11, I will use that aperture as I can pretty easily counteract that in editing.  I normally don't stop any of my M4/3 lenses past f/11, unless I really have to (and its better to get a shot which is slightly soft than not get it at all!)  Also, using f/11 is a rarity for me as that equates to f/22 on a full frame camera and I almost never stop down that far.  F/16 was my normal limit and f/8 is my normal limit for M4/3.  The bottom line is that you would be pleased with almost all of the lenses Olympus and Panasonic produce from wide open to f/11.

I wish I could afford the trio of new Olympus f/1.2 prime lenses.  In my heart, I'm an old "prime" lens guy, only using primes for most of my 48 years photographing.  But being retired, some things have become unaffordable.  Shame as I would love to use and write about them and show you what quality is attainable with them.

The other things we worry about with mirrorless cameras?  Battery life is excellent.  I've never gone through a battery in any full day of photography.  Some of them have been making over 1000 images.  Moving from autofocus to manual focus is really easy with my Olympus lenses as the sliding AF/MF ring on the lenses is a wonderful feature.  I wish that was on all of the my AF lenses from all manufacturers.  Very handy.  Finally, the ability to configure my Olympus camera in literally thousands of ways.  I can set it up in so many ways for any kind of situation.  

How abut the menus?  Many, including me, in the past have complained about the complexity of the Olympus menus.  No longer a problem for me.  When I first started using Olympus it was a bit daunting using the menus.  With so many configuration options and advanced features, it comes with the territory.  But very soon, I came to understand how Olympus set them up and I can find and change just about any setting very quickly.  But I must say I almost never have to go into the menus as all of the configurable buttons and dials, along with the Super Control Panel on the LCD, gives me just about everything at my fingertips I may need to change.  No issue here for me.

What is missing?

(click to enlarge)

Besides the E-M1 Mark II, I use a Fujifilm X-T2 and several excellent Fujifilm lenses.  I like the philosophy of engineering with which Fujifilm built their cameras as my X-T2 is probably my favorite camera of all time to hold and use.  I like the aperture rings on the lenses and I like the dials.  I like being able to see all of my settings without having to turn the camera on.  I suspect I like it so much is because every film camera I ever owned and used for three decades basically had these exact same controls in the same positions.  Using the X-T2 is intuitive for me.  When changing a setting, I never have to really think where to find it or to change a dial.  But there is nothing wrong with modern electronic cameras without aperture rings and such.  It comes down to simplicity and lack of advanced features versus modern design and a huge number of features that allow you to do things with your photography that you never thought possible.  The nice thing about it is we get to choose!

There are five features that I like about my Olympus E-M1 Mark II that I wish my Fujifilm X-T2 possessed.  First, in-body-image-stabilization (IBIS).  I don't need to say anymore about that but as one ages, one can come to appreciate a little electronic help at slow shutter speeds.  

Second, an LCD touch screen.  I like the ability to touch a particular area on the LCD at which time the camera will immediately focus on that precise spot and the shutter will fire.  I use this feature with the 2-second self-timer mode when the camera is mounted on a tripod and high precision focus is required.  

In all fairness, Fujifilm has added these two features to their new X-H1 camera.  If I wanted them in a Fujifilm camera, I could buy this new body.

Third, Olympus' Pro Capture.  The ability, upon half-press of the shutter, to buffer as many as 35 images continuously before fully pressing the shutter means you never miss peak action.  I still find that amazing.  The only time I use this feature is for wildlife, but it works beautifully when needed.  

Fourth, the automatic focus stacking and focus bracketing.  I'm a landscape photographer and auto focus stacking and bracketing is very, very convenient.  If you aren't sure what these are or what the differences between the two are, there are plenty of examples and explanation on the Internet.

Fifth, settable custom modes.  It is so handy to be able to place into memory a large number of settings that you can recall with one turn of a dial.  For example, On my E-M1 mark II I have the custom mode "C1" setting set for my general photography, which is what I use when walking around.  The camera is set for aperture priority, ISO 200, S-AF, Anti-shock L advance, auto white balance, etc.  It serves me well when I'm out and about wandering and looking for interesting images in a wide variety of situations.  But if all of a sudden I see something that is moving quickly, such as a Bald Eagle or something similar, I can turn the dial to "C2" and all of the settings change instantly.  I now have a camera set for shutter priority that I set to default at 1/1600th sec., Auto ISO, 10 FPS, C-AF + Tracking, etc.  This feature is very convenient and very fast.  By design, this is not possible with the Fujifilm X-T2.  But I would like at least one custom setting.

(click to enlarge)

I also found the focusing with my Olympus E-M1 Mark II and lenses to be faster and more accurate than my Fujifilm gear.  That goes for S-AF as well as C-AF and C-AF + Tracking.  This is a subjective judgment and I don't have any timing to back up that opinion, but I think I have a higher hit rate with moving subjects with the Olympus than with the Fujifilm.  The difference seems small, but that is my impression.  

Both companies are continuously improving their cameras and focusing abilities, so this probably won't be much of an issue in the future.  In fact, I predict that mirrorless cameras will catch DSLRs for focusing speed in the near future.  Already, focusing off the front of the sensor with a mirrorless camera is more accurate than using a separate focusing module to achieve focus as does a DSLR.  Equalization is coming quickly and the trend is mirrorless will continue to rise while DSLRs sales and use will continue to fall.

Okay, what nits do I have to pick with the M4/3 gear?  Not many.  Remember I wrote that if I had never used a full frame or APS-C digital camera I would be completely happy with M4/3.  Well, I have used full frame and APS-C extensively and that changes one's perspective.  Frankly, I have been spoiled by the full frame 36mp of my Nikon D800E and D810.  The "WOW" factor of looking at those extremely detailed and clean files with almost 15 stops of dynamic range remains in my mind.  Kind of spoiled me.  That being said, there were reasons I sold my full frame gear and downsized.  So, I try to keep those thoughts out of my mind—as best I can!  

(click to enlarge)

There are times when I am editing my M4/3 images, that I see some noise in the image files that I think shouldn't be there.  Very subtle noise patterns.  It doesn't happen often and it only happens in certain images, but it is aggravating to me.  This occurs at ISOs above ISO 200.  ISO 200 seems to be always clean.  The noise is subtle and you only see it at 100% viewing but my sense is that it shouldn't be there at all at ISO 400, etc.  This is not a big issue and it only occurs on certain images and one won't see it unless one pixel peeps, but as I mentioned above, it is one of those psychological biases that smaller can't possibly be better.  I am absolutely certain that what I am talking about would never show up in prints of any size.  But it is one of those little niggles that bugs me.  Thinking rationally about it should preclude any aggravation but sometimes we aren't all rational all the time!  Also, using some judicious noise reduction in editing pretty much eliminates it.  I just don't like to have to use noise reduction if I don't have to.

The only other real nit to pick is that when there is a backlit subject that is dark in nature, I wish the sensor gave me a bit better detail and less digital noise when I try to lighten that dark, backlit main subject.  I can only describe what I get is not as crisp as I would like it.  Maybe I could describe what I see as a tad muddy in nature.  I can reduce the digital noise, but that just slightly obscures detail further.  You may be fine with what I am describing as it normally only is an issue with me on very small areas in the image.  Larger areas seem fine.  Thinking about this, I may have a solution that I will test in the future.  I think the answer is ETTR—expose to the right.  That will put maximum information onto the sensor in those darker areas.  Currently, my usual practice is to set my exposure so the image looks about right in the EVF and no shadows or highlights are clipped.  Here is a further explanation for those of you who may wonder to what I'm referring and why. 

Normally, when photographing, and because the sensors are now so good, I normally expose so that the image on my EVF looks good to my eye, in other words, properly exposed, not too bright and not too dark.  The nature of digital capture is that the brightest tones in your screen contain almost all of the digital information captured by your sensor.  The dark tones have almost none.  For example, 50% of the digital information recorded by your sensor is in the brightest f/stop of your scene.  The next brightest f/stop holds 25% more of your image information, the third 12.5%, etc.  When you get to the darker areas of your image, there really is very little information recorded as compared to the brightest areas.  That is why ETTR was developed to maximize the amount of information captured by your sensor.  It is better to have to set your exposure so your images is brighter than normal, then darken the image during editing than have to brighten it.  Setting your camera to capture the brightest image you can without blowing out the highlights is still ideal, although most of the time it doesn't make a difference.  In this case, I think it is the answer and will make a difference.  I just have to remember to ETTR!

(NOTE: I did subsequently test this and it seems to clear up this issue for me.  I just have to remember to ETTR when encountering a situation such as this.)

(click to enlarge)

Those two things really are the only nits I have to pick with my experience with M4/3 gear.  For general photography, I think M4/3 is an excellent choice for the vast majority of us and if you are curious, I would encourage you to rent the latest version of an Olympus or Panasonic body and one of their best lenses and see for yourself.  A small investment in rental could potentially save you thousands in future camera and lens purchases—and sore muscles from carrying around those heavy full frame lenses!

That's it.  I'm happy with M4/3.  Will I sell my Fujifilm gear.  No.  I have it and I will keep it.  I have two great systems that have different design philosophies and I win in every way!

I hope this series was helpful to those who are considering buying M4/3 in the future.  Also, remember that for every doubt you have and any issues you may have, the next generation of cameras and sensors will be better than the current ones.  It will only get better and better in the future!  Again, we all win.

NOTE:  I am not paid nor do I get any gear, discounts or anything else from Olympus or Fuji.  I just buy what I can afford because I love photography and I love to share my experiences with all of you hoping that my experiences can help you be a better photographer.

ISO 6400 (click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

Again, the images displayed here were all made with M4/3 cameras and lenses.  But...  None was made with the latest 20mp sensors.  These were all made with 16mp sensors in the Olympus E-M5 or E-M1.  Additionally, none were made with the Olympus PRO lenses or Panasonic Leica lenses, but consumer grade Olympus and Panasonic lenses.  I think these images from my files are a testament to the M4/3 system's quality and professional 
capabilities.

Would I use M4/3 as my primary and only system?  Absolutely.

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.