Evidently Micro 4/3 Camera Users Don't Deserve An Excellent Camera Such As The Olympus E-M1X

Bald Eagle, near historic Jamestown, Virginia (click to enlarge)
Olympus E-M1 Mark II, 300mm f/4 PRO lens; 1/1600th sec. @ f/8; ISO 400; Handheld; 3.6mp crop from a 20mp file
No professional quality in this image or the other images in this post!  Only full frame is any good, or the pundits would have your believe...

Being a M4/3 format camera system user since 2012, I had more than a passing interest in Olympus' latest camera introduction, the E-M1X.  Since the dire predictions of the "death of the M4/3 format" had been cast, I was interested in what Olympus would have to offer.  In fact, I'm interested in everything about photography and the photographic industry. For my knowledge and to keep current for this blog, I try to keep up with all things photographic.  After Olympus' introduction of the E-M1X, followed by the news and opinions presented on the many YouTube channels as well as the popular Internet sites, I was quite surprised by the overall reaction and comments made by the influencers who publish these sites.  You would think Olympus, a 100 year old company this year, has no idea what it is doing.  Hear me out.

In the mid-19th century, several 8" X 20" wet plate photographers who routinely used their wagons and mules to carry around their camera, lens, chemicals and other developing supplies, had gathered together to mull over how the photographic industry was being ruined.  They could be overhead saying that "real" photographers don't compromise, own great mules and wagons and take pride in their 300 lbs. of gear.  "These newby photographers with their newfangled dry plates for taking pictures are posers," one could be heard muttering.  "Everyone knows that you can't take photographs without a good mule and sturdy wagon!  What are they thinking?"

In the early 20th century, a close group of 8" X 10" dry plate photographers could be heard criticizing the young hot shot photographers who were now using a new flexible nitrate based film.  "What do they know?  That stuff will never sell.  In fact, its flammable.  Their entire studios will burn to the ground.  Cameras that you can hold in your hand?  What are they thinking?  A camera has to be on a tripod to make good photographs."

In the mid 20th century "real" photographers who used 4" X 5" sheet film cameras looked down with disdain upon these "lesser" photographers who dared to use what they were calling "medium format" cameras.  "Ha!"  One established professional photographer who was well respected was hear to remark.  "Medium format?  They will be sorry when their customers see the small size of their cameras and never give them any more business!  Why the size of the negatives in those cameras are laughable for professional work!"

In the latter half of the 20th century at a photographic trade show, a room full of "medium format" press, commercial and fine art photographers were talking among themselves and thoroughly giving a tongue lashing to those "upstarts" who think, even for a minute, that they could use one of those so-called "miniature" film cameras for serious work.  "Thirty-five millimeter film?  Why that is laughable.  No one in their right mind would use such a poor quality camera and tiny film.  Real photographers use medium format.  What are they thinking!"

In the late 20th century, a group of photographers at a local camera club were discussing this new "fad" called digital photography.  "Stupid," was the most common remark.  "Real photography is about silver based film, chemical development and gelatin silver prints.  These digital wonders of photographers are wasting their time and money on that electronic junk they are buying.  It will never sell and won't last another year.  What are they thinking?"

In the 21st century, a group of YouTube and Internet pundits who have been repeatedly flown, all expenses paid, to an exotic locations by the big camera companies, were putting forth content remarking on how great today's digital cameras are and how "real" photographers and "professionals" must only buy digital cameras that have sensors that are the same size as a frame of 35mm film.  Across the planet, over and over, it could be heard that a "cropped sensor" camera or a camera with a "4/3" sensor or any cameras smaller than full frame sensors are rubbish, a waste of money, not worth even considering and everyone knows that you have to have a large sensor to make photographs that are any good!  What are these people thinking they can develop and market smaller sensored cameras and think they can be used by anyone but a rank amateur?"

and so it goes.....

I was a bit surprised by the continued and rampant bashing of this new Olympus camera by not only most of the pundits (who, by the way, make money by rattling off on controversial subjects to get you to click on their sites), but by other M4/3 users.  What business has Olympus making a camera for its user base that wants to up their game with wildlife, birds-in-flight and sports?  How dare they?  What a mistake! They are grasping at straws to keep from going bankrupt.  It will never sell.


Which make me think of a couple of other companies and how they are failing with their "different" products...

Porsche has always been known for making terrific 2-door sports cars.  What were they thinking when they decided to make a 4-door car and an SUV?  They will never sell!

Ford makes cars for the "every man."  What was Ford thinking by making and selling a $75,000 US Limited pickup truck or an $80,000 Mustang GT500?  They will never sell!

The automobile market has been fully dominated by internal combustion engines for over 100 years.  What was Tesla thinking by making and selling fully electric automobiles?  They will never sell!

Honda makes great automobiles.  Lawn mowers?  Jet airplanes? What are they thinking?  They will never sell lawn mowers or jets!

Apple has been a computer innovator and manufacturer since its inception.  A music service?  What do they know about music?  An electronic watch? What are they thinking when they developed a watch?  These things will never sell.

You get my point.  Just because M4/3 format was initially developed to take advantage of a lack of mirror and mirror box, thus allowing the original design and manufacture of smaller, lighter and less costly cameras and lenses, that doesn't mean ALL the cameras Olympus or Panasonic develops has to be smaller, lighter and less costly.  There are many different photography markets to accommodate all kinds of photographers who serve all kinds of clients with all kinds of needs.  The M4/3 users are in all of these markets and need gear to fit all types of photography.

I don’t think the E-M1X is a misstep.  I don't think Olympus has made a mistake.  I think it is a purposeful move for two reasons.  First, Olympus now can provide a camera that will match any other manufacturers’ best cameras in advanced technology, focus capability, speed and accuracy, reliability as well as in high demand use.  The only difference is sensor size.  Not everyone needs or wants a full frame sensor.  Let me repeat that.  Not everyone needs or wants a full frame sensor.  Do people not understand that?  This camera is a way of showing the photographic and electronics world, “Look what we can do!  We can match or beat anyone else's best cameras!”  The more I read about this camera from those who have used it since September or so, the more I am impressed.  

Also, making this camera was not a far out stretch in Olympus' research and development budget.  It has the same sensor, same processor and many of the same features as the E-M1 Mark II.  No extra expense there.  As for new and improved features, well, they would be new and improved for whatever the next camera is anyway.  The E-M1 Mark III will have almost all of these same features.  They are coming as they always do.  The big expense was in developing the new body.  This is not like Nikon or Canon developing and introducing their first mirrorless camera and all of the R and D expenses to go along with that kind of new product.

Second, the E-M1X is designed and will be marketed as a niche product intended to sell in low volume to their current users and, maybe, attract a few new ones as a bonus.  This camera is not designed to lure over Nikon D5 or Canon 1DX users.  Olympus' high end and professional user base needed a camera like this to up their game and better compete in sports and wildlife.  I think it will keep those who needed a camera such as this but were thinking about leaving Olympus in the fold, so to speak.  They will probably now stay with Olympus.

I also think, without any specific knowledge, that Olympus has a new camera or two in the works that will use much of this technology at a lower price point and smaller footprint.  Technology always trickes down to lower priced models.  The E-M1X camera is NOT about M4/3 being small, lightweight and less expensive.  This camera is about making a statement to the photographic community and providing a top of the line, fast camera with the latest focusing and other technology because the M4/3 community of users deserve to have one available to them IF they want to buy one.  

Evidently, according to the internet gurus, M4/3 user's don't deserve an extremely high quality camera, capable of the highest performance, fastest autofocus, best and most advanced features.  Evidently, M4/3 camera users are inferior to larger sensor using photographers and are less deserving.  I guess only full frame users deserve to get a great camera like that.

Just my humble opinion...

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 © 2013-2019 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.