Six Month Micro 4/3 Photo Gear Experiment Now Over; Keep The Gear Or Sell It?

When viewing this image at 100% on my high resolution monitor, all the fine details in the feathers are clearly visible.
Olympus E-M1 Mark II, 12-100mm f/4 PRO lens @ 38mm; 1/1600th sec. @ f/4.5; ISO 200
(click to enlarge)

Back near the beginning of this year I wrote about being at somewhat of a crossroads with my gear.  Currently, I have and use both Olympus micro 4/3 gear (E-M1 Mark II and several lenses) as well as Fujifilm APS-C gear (X-T2 and several lenses).  I really enjoy using both systems, but for different reasons. The image quality from both systems is outstanding.  No complaints there.  However, since I have drastically cut back from submissions for stock photography, I was wondering if M4/3 could fully fulfill my needs for the types of personal photography I do as well as for the occasional submission to my stock agency.  You can read more about what and why in the post located here.

To conduct this experiment, I decided to almost exclusively use my Olympus gear in all of my travels, outings, wanderings, family events and photographic circumstances of which I may encounter, closely analyze the results of my photographic efforts over about 6 months and finally determine if M4/3 will get the job done for me in whatever circumstances in which I may photograph.

(click to enlarge)

For those of you who would want me to get to the conclusion quickly, the answer is yes, with a couple of qualifications.  The Olympus gear and lenses are capable of producing outstanding results in almost all circumstances.  In my opinion better than acceptable results in all circumstances.  That statement can also be evidenced by researching on the Internet and looking at images displayed, as well as statements made, by many professional and non-professional serious enthusiast photographers, You Tube content creators, bloggers and the like around the world who use M4/3 gear exclusively.  I have found professional landscape, street, wedding, portrait, birding and about every other genre of photographer using their M4/3 gear professionally.  I think the argument is long over as to whether or not M4/3 stands up to professional scrutiny.  It certainly does, in my opinion.  In fact, I've submitted hundreds of images to my contracted stock photo agency made with my M4/3 gear and have never once had one rejected on grounds that the format is too small or the images are of not of a high enough technical quality.

I believe the premium Olympus M4/3 cameras are built about as well as any professional camera (I didn't include Panasonic as I have almost no experience with their newest cameras), out of metal, high quality materials and electronics, weather sealed and of quality craftsmanship.  Can you "hammer nails" with it as we used to say when talking about the old Nikon F camera?  No, but you should buy a hammer if you need to hammer nails anyway!  Lol.  

These newest M4/3 cameras are more than fully featured, in fact some may say too many features.  My E-M1 Mark II has more features than about any camera I can think of.  The point is the top of the line M4/3 cameras lack nothing.  The Olympus and Panasonic lenses are as good as any I've found in my 48 years of photographing.  That includes my Leica lenses, both rangefinder and SLR.  The gear isn't the issue.

(click to enlarge)

When considering a M4/3 system, one must first come to the realization that the micro 4/3 format is not medium format, full frame nor APS-C.  If you want a camera for your own specific reasons in one of those formats, I suggest you purchase one.  No, micro 4/3 cameras are micro 4/3, a smaller format capable of really high quality imaging.  You buy M4/3 for different reasons.  

Almost all of the time, micro 4/3 images will be indistinguishable from full frame and APS-C images.  That being said, there are circumstances where the larger sensors will produce better images than the smaller M4/3 sensor.   You can't say the images they make in all circumstances are equal in all respects.  If your photography consists mainly of one of those circumstances, I suggest you buy a full frame or medium format camera and don't consider M4/3.  If you are a stickler for only the absolute best image quality, don't buy a full frame DSLR or mirrorless camera, go right for a medium format digital camera system.

In my experience, there are three circumstances in which micro 4/3 doesn't do as well as full frame.   However, there are workarounds for the format's "less than the best" performance in those few circumstances.  

First, photographing in low light.  M4/3 sensors just don't have the ability to gather light as well as larger sensor cameras.  That is because of the laws of physics, but that isn't the end of the story.  The whiz-bang algorithms produced by Olympus and Panasonic have now largely mitigated this issue.  It is not nearly the issue it was 5 years ago.  They haven't eliminated the difference entirely but the advanced processors in these cameras has reduced the differences greatly over the past several years.  

(click to enlarge)

What differences remain can be reduced even more with judicious noise reduction in a high quality image editing software program.  Lightroom does a pretty good job in reducing visible noise to the point that you only really notice it when viewing an image a 100%.  I find that even at ISO 3200, I can reduce the noise, with very little loss of detail, in Lighroom and when viewing it a normal sizes and distances, the image looks just fine.

An alternative, if you have the time and gumption, try DXO's PRIME noise reduction in their PhotoLab editing program.  It is rather remarkable.  I have found it to be the best digital noise reduction software that I've tried.  In my experience with it so far, in images up to ISO 4000, I can completely remove the digital noise with no real noticeable loss of detail.  At ISO 6400, it also does an excellent job, but I'm still experimenting with the settings to maximize the results (I have a free trail copy so I haven't used it for a long time yet).  With ISO 1600 and 3200, noise is not an issue at all.  The trick, I've found, is not to keep the PRIME noise reduction setting on automatic, but tweak it manually to optimize your results depending upon the image and the ISO.  The downside is it takes time and effort.  I'm still experimenting with images but, so far, I find the program's noise reduction remarkable.  However, if the majority of your photography is in very low light which causes you to consistently use high ISOs, M4/3 might not be for you.  I would suggest possibly a Sony A7SII, which I believe is currently the low light king in the current marketplace.

This is a test image I made for experimenting with DXO's PhotoLab editing software. (click to enlarge)
Olympus E-M1 Mark II, 12-100mm f/4 lens @ 25mm; 1/100th sec. @ f/5.6; ISO 6400

This is about a 100% crop of part of the image above showing the amount of noise that
is in the file.  No noise reduction was applied. (click to enlarge)

This is the resulting image after utilizing only the Prime noise reduction in DXO's PhotoLab
editing (&and RAW converter) software.  (click to enlarge)
At ISOs up to about 5000 the results look great.  I'm still experimenting with ISOs above that to
optimize the settings for best results.

Speaking of DXO PhotoLab, I want to also make mention of another feature of that program I've discovered. DXO includes a "Lens Sharpening" feature that really works wonders. In a similar manner to how Iridient X-Transformer improves and brings out more and sharper detail in Fujifilm RAW files, I've found the Lens Sharpener feature does pretty much the same for my Olympus files. It really can make a good lens look like an outstanding one and a good image file an excellent one in terms of sharpness and fine detail. It seems to be based upon an individual profile DXO creates for each of your lenses (the lens profiles automatically download when you edit an image using a lens you hadn't before used in the program) and uses each lens' particular characteristics to then be sharpened, both globally as well as bringing out small details.  I had no idea this feature existed and I'm surprised more isn't written about DXO's Photolab RAW converter and editing capabilities. It works well. Back to Lens Sharpening...

Using lenses wide open when they aren't their sharpest, I have engaged the Lens Sharpening feature and was able to bring out detail, not only in the center but also at the edges (where lenses don't render as well as in the center) that make the image as sharp as if I were using f/5.6 or so. Truly remarkable. I'm surprised I haven't read more about this feature. It works, but again, it takes a bit of time and experimentation to get it right. 

For both of these features, PRIME noise reduction and Lens Sharpening, you can easily overdo it which will result in funky artifacts in the details of your images. Sometimes less is better. If you want to bring out the best in your images, you need to take time to find out what applications are available and then experiment with them. Don't settle for only an Adobe product.

The other technique to reduce noise with stationary subjects is to make a number of images of the same subject, usually using high speed advance.  In other words, hold the camera still, push your shutter button to fire off about 6-10 shots very quickly.  When you then go to edit the images, you can load them into Photoshop as layers, automatically align them, then Photoshop can calculate the "mean."  What that does is eliminate any differences among the stacked images.  In a practical sense, that eliminates all of your noise as the noise pattern changes with each image.  This works superbly well.  See the image from the Terracotta Warriors exhibit I visited earlier this year I have posted here as an example.  You can read more about how to use this technique here.

From the "Terracotta Warriors" Exhibit in Richmond, Virginia earlier this year. The digital noise is very obtrusive
when viewing this image at 100% on a computer monitor.  The detail, directly below, shows the image with no
noise reduction added in Lightroom. (click to enlarge)
Olympus E-M1 Mark II, 12-40mm f/2.8 lens @ 15mm; 1/100th sec. @ f/4; ISO 6400

Detail of the above image showing the obtrusive noise. (click to enlarge)

Full image using the technique of making about 10 "rapid-fire" identical images, then using Photoshop and Layers
to stack the images and find the "mean."  The noise has all but disappeared.  
No noise reduction was applied to this image or the detail below. (click to enlarge)

Detail of the merged images.  No noise reduction has been applied. (click to enlarge)
The result is a noise free M4/3 image made at ISO 6400.

The second issue that concerns photographers about using M4/3 is the amount of dynamic range available.  It is well known that the smaller the sensor, the less dynamic range it can capture. Again we're talking about physics and electronics here. In general, full frame can capture almost 2 stops more dynamic range and APS-C can capture about 1 stop more. I draw this conclusion from what I've read and graphs I've studied. However, the situations I encounter where I need the extra dynamic range (14 stops) are few and far between. A viable workaround I have used successfully when encountering a potential image with very high contrast is to engage automatic bracketing in my E-M1 Mark II, which will fire off 3 images, 2 stops apart in about a quarter second. That can solve my needs, with the rare exception. When something is moving quickly and there will be movement recorded between shots but even that can be successfully negated with judicious editing in Photoshop. Needed extreme dynamic range is an issue about which I really don't worry, but I wanted to point it out. However, if you need 14 stops of dynamic range on a regular basis, again, M4/3 may not be the right format for you.

Note:  I just recently read an analysis by the site Photons to Photos showing the new Panasonic G9 has about the same dynamic range as the Fujifilm APS-C X-Trans III sensor.  The gap, evidently, continues to close.
The third issue I read photographers complain about is quickly and accurately focusing and locking on fast moving subjects.  I believe this is more of an issue with mirrorless versus DSLRs as opposed to full frame vs. M4/3, but the gap is narrowing greatly.  Most M4/3 cameras now employ the faster Phase Detect Auto Focusing (PDAF) focusing technology as well as the Contrast Detect Auto Focusing (CDAF) focusing technology.  When M4/3 cameras were first introduced, they strictly used the slower CDAF tehcnology.  But that has changed dramatically.  The newest models have a combination of both technologies.  

Olympus E-M1 Mark II, 300mm f/4 PRO lens; 1/1600th sec. @ f/4.5; ISO 200

I find my Olympus camera does a remarkable job in locking on and tracking moving subjects.  In fact, it does better than did my Nikon D810, which was the best focusing camera I had owned up to that time.  Using my E-M1 Mark II with my Olympus 300mm f/4 PRO lens, I have had remarkable success in capturing birds in flight.  More success than I had with my Fuji, Nikon or any other camera I've owned or rented.  

If you are a doubter, look up Scott Bourne's bird and eagles-in-flight images.  Read about what he says about the Mark II and format and how fast and accurately the focus tracks flying birds, arguably the hardest type of photography out there.  Read about his 6 ft. X 8 ft. enlargements of his M4/3 images and what he says about image quality from M4/3.

As for the S-AF, The E-M1 Mark II is as fast or faster as any camera I've owned and I've owned a lot of them.  Also, remember a mirrorless camera will focus right off the front of the sensor but a DSLR will utilize a completely separate module to find focus and those modules aren't as accurate as focusing off the sensor.  Hence, Canon's and Nikon's included feature to micro adjust focus for each individual lens a photographer may own.  Mirrorless focusing, in my experience, is dead on accurate.

Great Blue Heron (click to enlarge)
E-M1 Mark II, 300mm f/4 PRO lens; 1/2500th sec. @ f/4.5; ISO 320

One last thing.  On a personal note, and this is highly subjective and has nothing to do with image quality, in regards to my using my Olympus gear versus my Fujifilm gear. The colors from the Fujifilm cameras I've owned are just a lot more satisfying to me.  Color rendition is a highly personal aspect of a camera system.  The color palate is one of the reasons I've held on to my Fujifilm gear.  I have to work a bit harder in Lightroom Classic CC when editing my Olympus images to get the colors to the point where I am pleased with them.  It is a matter of time expended, not image quality.  

In 2017, I set out to build a series of Lightroom presets that I could apply to my Olympus RAW images that mimicked the Fujifilm film simulations in my X-T2.  If that interests you, you can find the post I wrote about the process here.  I would say I was pretty successful.  That helps with my color difference satisfaction. I can't say the Fujifilm colors are better than the Olympus colors, just different.  I just like the Fujifilm colors much better.

NOTE 2:  The Olympus color palate may be a function of how Lightroom interprets them when demosaicing the RAW files.  I'm suspicious that Lightroom's rendition is the issue, not Olympus engineering.  The reason I postulate this is that when experimenting with DXO PhotoLab, the colors on the same files looked much better.  Different demosaicing algorithm.  That makes me think that Lightroom might not interpret the Olympus color palate as best it could be done or the way Olympus meant it to be interpreted.  Would we be surprised?

Male cardinal (click to enlarge)
E-M1 Mark II, 300mm f/4 PRO lens; 1/2500th sec. @ f/4.5; ISO 400

As a final comment, if Olympus contacted me and asked me for what things I could recommend they could do to improve their next generation cameras, I would tell them a) raise the quality of image files to 14-bit from 12-bit.  Give us more "meat" in the files, as I like to call it and b), make a camera in the style, feel and operation of the Fujifilm X-T2.  Lots of buttons, add more dials, a joystick, simpler menus, etc. and forget the 730,000 features in your cameras. Just give me the option of a basic camera with only my most used, necessary features.  Again, in the vein of the X-T2.  

My experiment is over.  My micro 4/3 gear isn't going anywhere.  I love using it for its high quality imaging capability, features, small size, lighter weight, fast focus and satisfying feeling when using it.  Also I don't have any current plans for selling my Fujifilm gear.  I still enjoy using it as well as how it feels in my hands.  Why keep both?  Both are great systems and I like options.

At the end of my experiment what did I learn?  I learned that my the photographer is the most important part of the imaging chain and that, no matter what the format, a good photographer can make excellent images.  Technique trumps sensor size in today's digital photographic world.  But I already knew that.

I've written about the "M4/3 versus the rest of the photographic world" topic too many times now.  I think this will be the last time I need to write about it unless something big changes.  M4/3 has proven itself to be a professional level format with some of the best cameras and lenses available whether or not your a novice, enthusiast or professional photographer.  Now go out and make images!

Join me over at Instagram @dennisamook or my website, www.dennismook.com.

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.