Wednesday, April 4, 2018

The Reluctance To Accept And Use Micro 4/3 Camera Gear Or The Fear Of Missing Out; The Case For M4/3


At the end of this post I've included a number of images randomly pulled from the thousands I've made in a wide variety of situations during my wanderings merely to illustrate that M4/3 is as versatile as any other format.  For additional images from M4/3, look at this gallery on my website. All of these images were made using an Olympus E-M5, E-M1 or E-M1 Mark II.  Most of these images were shot for stock.  I'm certainly not the best photographer in the world and I've been around the block more than a few times but there is no one more enthusiastic about photography than me!
NEW! As of January 1st, I've started an Instagram feed. I'll be posting photos daily so please follow at dennisamook. Thank you. 

This post is about an issue that should no longer be one, but the issue remains.  It is all about psychology and human nature.  I find the human species is an interesting lot for many reasons.

Recently, my wife and I took a road trip to the southern U.S.  Along with just wanting to escape the dreary winter weather of Virginia, I wanted to conduct an experiment to find out if I could be completely happy with taking and using only my micro 4/3 gear.  In the distant past I used only "full frame" digital cameras (real photographers used full frame, right?) and recently, I've been using both APS-C and M4/3 digital cameras.  My main "go to" camera over the past few years has been first, a Fujifilm X-T1 then a Fujifilm X-T2.  However, I've always kept my M4/3 gear as it continues to "pull" at me for its high quality, small size and weight as well as its versatility.  Could I be happy if I no longer owned APS-C format cameras?  I wanted to find out.

I won't go into what I've previously posted but you can read all about this trip, the tests through which I put my M4/3 gear and the conclusions I reached in the posts found herehereherehere and here.  

In short, I found that for my types of photography, which is travel, nature, landscape, wildlife and stock, M4/3 can meet my every need.  I found the image quality to be more than I need.  Image quality is more than "sufficient." My stock agency has always been happy with the image files as well.  Now, M4/3 may not meet your every need as your photography may be different than mine but for mine, it fits the bill nicely for several reasons.  That is okay.  You get to choose and buy what is best for you and your specific circumstances.

I believe today's M4/3 format gear is first class and second to none in quality. The superb selection of lenses is nothing less than extraordinary.  The technology as well as build quality of the cameras is as good as any format and better than most.  Olympus and Panasonic have been leaders in developing and introducing new technology into digital cameras.  Others then follow.  As a bonus, the images stand up extremely well to severe cropping, as you could see if you look at the posts mentioned above.  

But there seems to be a major problem with M4/3 gear.  Contrary to all of the evidence out there in the form of extraordinary published images, testimonials from respected photographers, workshop leaders and photographic teachers using M4/3 gear, displays of prints by Olympus as large as 6 ft. X 9 ft. (roughly 2 X 3 meters), professional photographers using the M4/3 gear in all for all sorts of assignments to reading and seeing how versatile the gear is in a wide variety of situations, people are still reluctant to believe that it could possibly be true that a sensor roughly 1/4 the size of a 35mm-sized sensor could produce images as good as it does!

Evidently, it doesn't matter what the objective evidence shows, people "think" the sensor is too small and a sensor that size cannot possibly produce professional level results!  That is just patently false today.  I think I know why.

The M4/3 format has a built-in bias against it but it survives and flourishes in spite of this bias.  Even the name implies the sensor is too small with the moniker of "micro", which is a misnomer as the sensor is the same size as sensors in 4/3 cameras.  There is nothing "micro" about it.  For example, your iPhone has a "micro" sized sensor but I only hear people touting how great the images are from that device.  The area of an iPhone sensor consists of less than 15% of the M4/3 sensor (32.8mm² versus 225mm²).  But the iPhone is well accepted to carry around as a legitimate camera.  Books and museum exhibits have been created with iPhone images.  I believe M4/3 format would be much better served being called "Mirrorless 4/3" as there is no difference between sensor size in 4/3 cameras and M4/3 camera.  Same sensor.  However, M4/3 has a big advantage as the format leaves out the camera's mirror and mirror box, reflex housing and optical viewfinder of the 4/3 format.  This allows the cameras and lenses to be smaller and lighter with equal high quality.  Less expensive in some circumstances, as well.

To the point of this post, I think the reason why there is the disbelief and bias against M4/3 is due to what is called "FOMO."  It is a psychological phenomenon called, "Fear Of Missing Out."  Not only do I believe it explains this bias but it may also explain the proliferation of what we call "Gear Acquisition Syndrome" or GAS.

Fear of Missing Out has largely been studied in the area of why so many people are so intimately tied to their social media accounts and by proxy, to their digital telephones and other devices that allow them to "connect" and "stay connected" with everyone and everything else.  It seems that individuals feel a real anxiety if they don't know what's going on with everyone in their social circles.  They fear that they may be missing out on experiences and happenings of others so they stay constantly connected to social media.  Another example is the 24-hour continuous news cycle.  There are people who keep the news on their TV all day so they don't miss anything that might be happening.  They need to know immediately when something around the world is occurring.  I suspect this is one of the reasons Facebook is so popular and prolific with everyone.  (I refuse to use Facebook but that is just me.)

When we look at the definition from Dictionary.com of Fear of Missing Out we find: 

nounSlang.

1.
a feeling of anxiety or insecurity over the possibility of missing out on 
something, as an event or an opportunity

I think that FOMO can be applied to explain why M4/3 has the bias against it.  I think some of those who may consider, but then decide against M4/3, have a fear that they may be missing out on the experiences, quality, reputation, bragging rights and other attributes we assign to full frame digital cameras.  They fear they might miss out on that once in a lifetime circumstance when they will need a billboard sized print.  Bigger is better.  It has to be, right?  In a lesser way, I think that this can also be applied to APS-C sized sensor cameras.  There still seems to be a bit of a bias against that format lingering as well.  

To further extend this, FOMO may explain why GAS is so prevalent.  We don't want to be left out of the newest, latest, greatest and best gear and miss the experiences others are having with their new wunder gear.  In the past, we never had a tenth of the information that flows to us about photography gear as we do today.  The depth and breadth of information just didn't exist and what did exist had to be found through talking to other photographers or by buying magazines, etc.  It was not at our fingertips.  Now, through the internet we are inundated with information about new, latest and greatest gear and through You Tube we can see and hear all about the new gear.  Everyone you read and hear seems to be touting how great the new gear is and so the thought process becomes, "I don't have it so I want it," so I can share in those same experiences!  "I don't want to miss out!" All of this great information we now have at our fingertips, in one way at least, may be doing us a disservice.

If you own and use a smaller format digital camera system you will miss out on the opportunity to make billboard-sized prints, have the world's narrowest bokeh and your friends won't like you and respect you every again!  Go big or go home!

Back to M4/3 gear....

The bias against M4/3 is totally unjust.  The quality of the cameras and lenses are as good as any manufacturer in any format.  The algorithms developed by Olympus and Panasonic take the information from those M4/3 sensors and, I think through what must be magic, produce files that are outstanding.

In May, I will have used M4/3 for the past 6 years.  A lot of improvements have been made to the sensors, in-camera processors, editing software, i.e., the entire image chain has been improved.  Many photographers who would not have considered M4/3 when I first began using it, now have jumped into it with both feet.  (I would say "they have seen the light" but that is too much of a pun!)  Not only are many professional photographers, most famously Pulitzer Prize winning and National Geographic photographer Jay Dickman using M4/3, but the quality, versatility, selection, construction and image file output of the gear is mostly indistinguishable from larger format cameras, with a few exceptions.  Otherwise, these noted photographers would put themselves out of business.

Next time you are browsing the Internet, take a look at what renowned bird photographer Scott Bourne is doing with M4/3 and listen to what he is saying about it on his PPN blog.  In my opinion, M4/3 gear can fully meet the needs of the vast majority of photographers today.  Not all, but the vast majority.

Back in February 2014, I did comparison tests with 24" X 30" (61 X 72 cm) custom prints from my Olympus E-M1 with identical custom prints from my Nikon D800E, shot under identical conditions, side by side, and no one I showed them to could see a difference between them.  No one could pick out which was made with which camera.  I was more than surprised, to say the least.  That pretty much convinced me then as to the high quality, but even I had lingering doubts.  Today's sensors are even better than those.  If you go back to the February 3, and February 10, 2014 posts on this blog, you can read part I and part II of those comparison tests.  Not scientific, no instrumentation, but a practical visual comparison as anyone would experience when looking at the prints.

We know full frame and M4/3 formats are not totally equal.  That goes without saying.  But they don't have to be equal.  That is because of human intervention.  We don't take unedited images from our memory cards and use them as is.  We edit them.  That human intervention makes a huge difference.  Listen to Lenswork publisher and noted fine art photographer Brooks Jensen's podcast #1076 published on 3/23/2018.  He goes into detail as to how human intervention can be the great equalizer between formats.  You can find it here

But what are the few exceptions that set full frame and M4/3 apart?  I would say photographing in extremely low light and with very high ISOs.  Also, focus tracking still has some differences.  Those are really the only places where larger format cameras beat M4/3, in my opinion.  As with all mirrorless cameras right now (and this is changing rapidly), continuous and tracking focus is still a tad behind the best DSLRs.  But, as I mentioned, this is changing rapidly and I suspect the next generation of Olympus' and Panasonic's best camera bodies will track as good, if not better, than all but the over $6000 US DSLRs from Canon and Nikon.

Nonetheless, no matter what the evidence, we do seem to want the best.  M4/3 is not the best as the sensor is basically 1/4 the size of a full frame sensor.  APS-C is criticized as well for being a compromise.  Well, if you want the best, why do you "settle" for full frame?  Using that logic you must use a medium format digital camera!  Correct?  After all, you do want the best, don't you?  You can't have it both ways.  Psychologically, the cards are stacked against M4/3 because of FOMO even though it can fully meet almost all of our needs!  That's why I say I find the human species interesting!  Lol.  

I think we all realize that there is just too much going on for us to know everything.  Smart people know they are always missing out on things.  They don't worry about what they may be missing.  One just needs to recognize that we always miss out on things.  We have to understand why we want that newest, best and biggest thing that someone else might have and mitigate those feelings with a dose or reality.  If you don't, thinking and feeling as though you are missing out can steal your joy of photography and keep you thinking that you can't possibly be happy or make good images with other than with that latest gear with the biggest sensors or those cutting edge extremely fast lenses.  That feeling of inadequacy can ruin your passion.  But, of course, in your head you know better.  Or now you do.

If you are interested in reading more about FOMO, you can find an interesting article by Linda Sapadin, Ph.D entitled, "Fear Of Missing Out, published on Psych Central here and another interesting article by clinical psychologist Anita Sanz on Slate entitled, "What's the Psychology Behind The Fear OFMissing Out?" here

Now remember, all of this is my opinion and opinions are just that—not right nor wrong, just my thoughts and conclusions as to why I believe things are the way they are.  But as some struggle to come up with money to buy the latest and greatest, I plan on fully exploiting and enjoying my excellent Olympus gear and won't, for a minute, worry about missing out on anything!

I grabbed some pretty much randomly chosen images from my Lightroom catalog to post here for illustration.  Almost all of these were taken for stock photography purposes.  Some for my own pleasure and experimentation.  The point is to illustrate that for visual consumption in most all of the ways we look at images, M4/3 is sufficient.

(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)

(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)
I hope you found this post interesting.  It was an interesting exercise for me to write it.

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.

10 comments:

  1. Dennis, it was interesting, and thanks for sharing. I can tell you that FOMO rises up in me every time I hear or read about a professional who's been shooting with m4/3, and is now re-purchasing full frame cameras (see Kirk Tuck). LOL
    Jim

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim, ha! I don’t think Tuck is the best example. He changes camera and camera systems as fast as I change shirts! That being said, I like Tuck’s writing and enjoy his points of view.

      One of the points that is more implied rather than explicit in my post is that for most people M4/3 is sufficient, but that doesn’t negate the desire to trying something new or completely different. I think M4/3 can fully meet my needs but that doesn’t mean I will rule out buying a full frame Sony mirrorless or the next Fuji that comes down the pike. I was just trying to explain what I thought one of the causes could be.

      Thanks for your comment.

      Delete
  2. Dennis, will your extensive evaluation of whether the M 4/3 meets your needs result in your using that format exclusively or will the APS-C format still be your go to camera?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Howard, I don’t have a good answer for you at this minute. I have two terrific camera systems that serve me well. Either is more than sufficient for my needs. I love the size, weight, features and lenses of the M4/3 gear and I love how the X-T2 handles with its controls, dials and menus. For the time being, I plan on using my Olympus gear exclusively. The underlying issue is that I’ve developed an irrational desire to buy one of those Sony A7rIIIs. Maybe I can satisfy my desire to own and use one by renting one for a time. Back to your question—I will use the M4/3 for the foreseeable future. No reason not to.

      Delete
  3. Wonderful article and awesome photos. As you know, I'm in your camp. After all, it's all about the light, not the camera. That being said, and human behavior being what it is, I do plan to rent an A7iii this summer just out of "fear of missing out" *chuckle*

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the kind words, Peter. Read the article about the A7III at DPReview. I found it a very interesting comparison to the A7rIII and the A7II. The thing that jumped out at me is that Sony is still reducing the file from a 14-bit file to a 12-bit file when using Compressed RAW setting. Also, the dynamic range is reduced as well. Finally, the image quality dichotomy at ISOs below 500 and above 500 was very interesting in how they have their algorithms implemented.

      Delete
  4. Interesting article and believe you make a good argument based on image quality in the end print. Pictures on a computer screen are no real criteria due to the compression used in the internet systems. I currently have an Olympus OM-DE-M1, Fuji XT2, and X-pro2 plus a Nikon D750. Each system has a selection of lenses. I have tested many times the difference in final print quality from each system and concluded they are comparable at least up to A3 size, my largest printer. I never need to make major cropping so the benefits of the larger format are not needed. So from a quality of print point of view, you are right.
    However there is another aspect, which you touch on, and that is the what I see as the soul of a system.The three systems have a different feel and response and I love them all at different times and moods. Olympus is small, jewel like, and complicated. The Fuji has a wonderful control layout and I feels solid and professional. The digital Nikon is the latest of a long line of Nikon bodies owned over 50 years. Therefore my Nikon gives me a feeling of nostalgia especially when using my old manual lenses.
    I am lucky to have three systems which all make wonderful pictures. I use them all from time to time and will never sell off a complete system, rather up date from time to time.I have sold things in the past and often regretted it afterwards. Maybe you should be happy with you two systems and enjoy their differences. Regards David

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David, thank you for your thoughtful comment. There is nothing you wrote with which I can disagree. Like you, I thoroughly enjoy my Olympus system for entirely different reasons than my Fujifilm gear. Also, I was a Nikon user since 1974 but I sold my Nikon digital gear after not using it at all for over a year. I thought someone else may enjoy it more than I was.

      A question for you. If you were no longer a man of means and was forced to sell two of your systems, which one would you keep and why? I’m interested in hearing your answer.

      Again, thank you for your comment.

      Delete
    2. Dennis, Yes, a very interesting question, one which I have never considered so far. I will try to answer as simply as possible, but I may cheat a little. If I consider only my digital equipment, then my first sale would be my Nikon D750 and all my auto focus lenses.They are now, in my old age, getting too heavy to carry around. As I have some film bodies and older AIS manual lenses , I would still keep them for old time sake and use some film now and then.
      My second sale would be the Olympus. I have enjoyed this system but never really identified with it. I have the original M5 and the M1.The menus are too complicated and different than each other and their features are far more than I need. It is also a system which you have to keep up to date and renew like an iPhone. Maybe if it was my only system I would learn to use it more efficiently and not need to often refer to the manuals. I also think that the micro 4/3rds system is nearly peaking out on quality and Olympus will probably never extend into another format.
      This would leave me with the Fuji system. This system is user friendly. I like the Fuji design with manual controls and reasonably simple menus. I love to follow the various Fuji websites and feel part of a community. I also appreciate their concept to upgrade the software and the features of the camera. I also feel Fuji is really developing with users in mind, something missing in todays technological race. I said I might cheat. My Fuji system comprises a XT2, X-pro2 and X100F plus 8 lenses, so I can cover all types of photography with this one system.
      Hope this theoretical answer will never be realised as I enjoy all the systems, for different reasons. I wish you luck with any decision you might make in the future. I also appreciate the work you do on your website. Regards David

      Delete
    3. David, again, thought comments. Thank you. I share your sentiments almost exactly. I have already shed my arsenal of gear of my Nikon digital cameras and lenses, but kept an old FE2 and a few AIS prime lenses. I guess just in case I want to dig some film out of my freezer and use it. So far, the urge has not hit me nor do I suspect it will anytime soon.

      As you, I would most likely keep my Fujifilm gear as it provides fewer features, simplicity of use and greater pleasure. As I told someone recently, for 35 years the aperture rings were on the lenses. Adjusting apertures in that manner is intuitive to me as well as changing shutter speeds with a dial on top of a camera. I hardly have to think at all when I need to change a setting. My hands automatically go to the right spots to make changes.

      That being said, I can’t say I don’t like M4/3 as I very much do. The differences in image quality is nonexistent or negligible at best. I could be happy with either system, but when it comes down to holding and using a particular camera, the Fujifilm cameras win.

      Delete