Is There Still A Valid Case To Be Made Against The Micro4/3 Format?

Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia (click to enlarge)
Olympus E-M1 Mark II; 12-100mm f/4 PRO lens @ 23mm; 1/125th @ f/11; ISO 200

What do you think?  In today's digital photographic environment, can you make a strong case that the micro4/3 cameras and lenses cannot compete with larger format cameras?  I'm not saying micro4/3 is equal in all ways to larger formats, but I don't think there is any longer a strong case to be made against it.  Additionally, I'll add APS-C format gear to that assertion as well.

Things have changed.  Technology has become the great equalizer.  Ten years ago, I don't think micro4/3 cameras and lenses could fully compete with larger sensored cameras.  The technology was not as advanced, the differences were too great, the lens selection was not in place and the difference in image quality was noticeable.  I no longer believe that, with a very few exceptions.

We continue to read and hear that M4/3 is considered a "stepchild" in photography.  We hear that M4/3 is not worthy of being called a professional photography system.  Also, we hear that M4/3 gear will soon cease to exist as those naysayers predict Olympus (and maybe Panasonic) will soon shutter their doors.  Thinking about how little respect M4/3 gear gets, I started thinking about what it is that causes those critical of the format to still think that way.  I think one major reason is that those who are the staunchest critics have never given the format a serious try.  However, there are other common criticisms.  Here is my break down of those.

1. M4/3's small sensor causes high ISO images to have too much objectionable noise.

2. M4/3's small sensor generally has fewer pixels which restricts the ability to make large prints and use in other applications when a large number of pixels are needed.  Not enough detail is available.

3. M4/3's small sensor's dynamic range is inadequate.

4. M4/3 no longer has a size, bulk and weight advantage over larger sensored cameras.

5. M4/3 gear is overpriced when considering the recent price drops of APS-C and 35mm format gear.  

Fair enough.  Are they still valid criticisms?  Are they still valid criticisms with today's technology?  I'll never say a micro4/3 camera is a "do everything for everyone" format.  But neither are most larger sensor cameras.  But some of the criticisms noted above only apply to a very few photographers in a very few situations.  Therefore, they are not a criticism that can be generally applied across the board.

Let's take these criticisms one at a time and analyze the practical and/or actual effect they have on our photography.

1.  Yes, M4/3 cameras will produce more noise at any given ISO.  Check the laws of physics.  But that has to do with "pixel density" and not the size of the sensor as some misinformed Internet and You Tubers have professed.  Larger sensors do not gather more light.  Larger pixels do.  Sensor size has nothing to do with it.  It is how many pixels per square millimeter that makes the difference.  Typically, micro4/3 have smaller pixels crammed into a smaller area.  That does generate a bit more noise than less dense larger sensors.

That being said, noise only matters at high ISOs.  At lower ISOs it is a non-issue.  Even then, it is not nearly what it was a few years ago.  The M4/3 sensors and image processing engines have improved dramatically.  When there is some noise, the noise reduction in most editing software will remove it with ease.  That being said, if you never or almost never use high ISOs for your photography, this doesn't matter at all to you.  Forget about high ISO noise.  If you do often use high ISOs, and your editor won't get the job done removing the noise as you would like, as I mentioned above, today's technology is the great equalizer.  How?

I have been a user of Topaz Labs products for years.  I cannot say enough good things about Topaz Labs newest version of their plug-ins that use artificial intelligence and/or machine learning to improve images.  DeNoise AI is nothing short of amazing.  It is the best noise reducing program I've ever used and I've tried almost all of them.  After some experimentation and running many of my older high ISO files through the program, I feel confident I can shoot at ISO 3200 and even 6400 then remove the objectionable noise  (even at pixel peeping magnifications) but keep the fine detail.  I don't know how it does it, but it does.  The use of this program, in my opinion, pretty much negates the "high ISO/too much noise" criticism.  

Now, add in the use of Topaz Sharpen AI which can take a file at high ISO (or any ISO) that looks a bit rough and give it new life.  As I've written in the past (here, here and here), it can take a file that is slightly soft, slightly out of focus or even suffers from camera shake and "fix" it.  Not every file I tried was fixed.  However, almost all of the ones that I thought were not publishable, Sharpen AI corrected them to the point of being worthy of publication or display.  Seriously, check out my previous posts for examples.

With both of these programs you can work on one image at a time, or batch process as many as you want.  The apps can be used as stand-alone programs or plug-ins for Lightroom and Photoshop.  Today's technology has neutralized the high ISO noise argument in my opinion.

As an example, here is an image made with my Olympus E-M1 Mark II, 12-100mm f/4 PRO lens at ISO 6400.  The exposure was 1/100th sec. @ f/5.6.  The first image shows the entire edited image and the amount of noise that is present.  Below that image are two side-by-side examples, cropped at 100%, showing parts of the image before and after applying Topaz DeNoise AI.  While not perfect, the noise is almost entirely eliminated while retaining detail.

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

2.  Currently, the newest M4/3 cameras have 20.2mp sensors.  Many will argue that for almost all applications, that is more than enough.  Others never can get enough pixels.  To each his own.  Again, technology becomes the great equalizer.  With the newest Olympus M4/3 cameras, the E-M1X and E-M1 Mark III, not only can you make 80mp tripod mounted high resolution images, but you can make 50mp high resolution images hand held—and those are RAW files.  Enough pixels?

But wait?  That feature is not perfect.  That feature only works if the subject your are photographing is mostly still.  True but it can compensate for slight movement.  Its not a feature that can be used universally to achieve a higher pixel count.  However, again technology and Topaz Labs to the rescue.  Topaz Labs now has an image resizing program called GigaPixel AI.  In my experiments I've doubled or quadrupled the pixels in some of my image files and was amazed at how the program interpolated the content and give me excellent larger files.  Also, I took some of my old 16mp E-M1 files (see below) and resized them to 26mp, around where the Sony A7III, Nikon Z6 and other cameras are.  What I found was that the upsized files actually looked better and revealed detail that I didn't even see in the original smaller files.  With the larger files the tiny detail could now be seen since it had been enlarged.  The program can even sharpen the file if you wish.  Go Gigapixel AI!  The one downside of the program is that unless you have the latest, greatest high powered computer, it takes a long time to process a file as Topaz says the programs makes millions or billions of calculations as it processes the file.  For those few files in which I need to crop heavily but still have a larger final image, this is my go-to technology.  GigaPixel AI comes as a stand alone program only and also can batch process many files if needed.

This was originally a 16mp file upsized in Topaz GigaPixel AI to 26mp.  Below is a highly cropped version showing the
fine detail was not lost in the upscaling process. (click to enlarge)
Olympus E-M1; Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens @ 100mm; 1/800th sec. @ f/5.6; ISO 200

(click to enlarge)

To me, I think this new AI technology pretty much negates any criticism of a 20.2mp sensor as being too small for professional work or for large prints.  Oh!  By the way, I've had custom 20" X 24" enlargements made from a native M4/3 file and they were noise free and extremely detailed.  No problem at all.  Take a look at some of the images Olympus displays from some of their Visionaries at the photo shows that have been printed at 4 ft. X 6 ft.  Again, technology is at such an advanced point that a sensor with 20.2mp is not an issue.

3.  Another criticism of the M4/3 format is lack of dynamic range.  I question that in the way that in all of my travels and use of my M4/3 kit, I've made many M4/3 images of highly backlit or extremely contrasty scenes.  When I think my sensor and image processor can't handle things, I push a button on top left of my camera while rotating the back dial three clicks.  That instantly brings up a 3-exposure, 2-stop differential bracket.  The camera automatically switches to high speed advance at the same time.  One push of the shutter and all three images are ripped off in about 1/3 of a second or less.  Another push and rotate and I'm back to normal.  No hassle to make bracketed exposures if needed.  Now, the thing that has pretty much amazed me is that whenever I've made the three exposure bracket for "insurance," over 90% of the time I've only had to use one of the three images which turns out to edit just fine.  I didn't need to bracket after all.  I could successfully bring down the highlights and bring up the shadows to edit the image exactly as I envisioned.  Are there times when I need to bracket?  Yes.  As there are times when any format camera will need to bracket or add a graduated ND filter.  In my experience, and I use a Nikon Z7 as well, bracketing is almost never necessary and really isn't a valid criticism of the format today.

4.  About size, bulk and weight.  Some say that micro4/3 cameras no longer have an advantage of a smaller size since Sony, Nikon and Canon have entered the mirrorless arena.  That may be true about the cameras themselves, and I think one reason is that, to be comfortable and have some "heft" to it, cameras can only be so small.  Tiny very lightweight cameras are not easy to handhold steadily.  However, there are really tiny M4/3 cameras out there, but they are too small for me.  Others still appreciate the smaller the better.  That said, the real difference is in the lens system.  M4/3 lenses are still smaller, lighter and less expensive than larger format lenses—as a general statement.  There will always be exceptions.  Lens' image circles have to cover just a bit more than the diagonal of the sensor—the sensor diagonal plus a little additional if there is in-body-image-stabilization (IBIS).  For so called "full frame" cameras, that is about 43mm to cover the diagonal and, as I said, a couple of more millimeters to cover the movement of the sensor for the IBIS.  M4/3 sensors only have to cover 21.8mm plus the little extra.  To have a larger image circle requires larger diameter lens elements, which translates to larger and heavier lenses.  I say the advantage remains with micro4/3 over larger sensors for portability, price, size and comfort.

5.  Well, I will agree that the cost of M4/3 has not dropped as have the costs of APS-C and 35mm format cameras in today's market.  Due to competition and year over year fewer sales, no one wants to lose market share so prices for larger format systems have gotten much more attractive.  That benefits all of us photographers.  

However, as far as price is concerned, I agree the difference should be greater but only when the comparison concerns the size of the sensor.  When only comparing sensor size to price, M4/3 seems too expensive as compared to the larger formats in today's market.  However, if you look at "value" and compare feature to feature, M4/3 stands up pretty well.  I may be wrong but I don't think there are any larger sensor cameras that have the utility, breadth, depth and versatility of features found in M4/3 cameras.  With the advent of AI in cameras, and surely as I write this, the companies are working diligently to introduce more of it in future cameras, the need for large sensor cameras will diminish even more.  

Personally, I would like micro4/3 camera prices should be about 20% lower than they currently are.  But, I'm not a marketing expert, just a photographer, writer and traveler.

I just want to mention as couple of other things.  Most of the lenses Olympus, Panasonic the other manufacturers in the Micro4/3 Consortium produce are nothing short of beyond professional quality.  According to the latest Micro4/3 lens catalog there are 69 different lenses from 24 manufacturers now available to M4/3 users with more being introduced each year.  Is there anything lacking?  I would say yes, but the gap is fully closing.  There is a dearth of fast long prime telephoto lenses available for the format.  Again, that said, as it is with high ISO, if you don't need the equivalent of an 800mm f/5.6 lens, then it is a non-issue.

What about focus speed?  M4/3 is absolutely fine except for the fastest needs.  But those needs can't be met with all but three 35mm sized cameras, priced from $4000 to $6500.  The other "professional" DSLRs can't provide the absolute best and fastest tracking focus either.  Same with APS-C format cameras.  That need is a niche.  If you don't need the absolute fastest focusing, then again, it is a non-issue.

As for micro4/3 measuring up to professional standards, there are hundreds if not thousands of professional photographers around the world using the format today.  These include wedding photographers, bird and wildlife photographers, portrait photographers, travel photographers, etc.  The one genre of photography of which I'm not sure is sports photography.  I haven' come across any micro4/3 professional sports photographers but that doesn't mean they don't exist.  The format certainly is fine for most professional photography.  You should always think about buying the right tools for the job you need those tools to do.

Finally, I'm not asserting that micro4/3 could replace larger sensor cameras for every situation.  A Honda Civic can't replace all other automobile models. Sometimes you need a big car to transport a lot of people, sometimes you need 4-wheel drive to navigate rough terrain and sometimes you need Corvette to stay out in front.  However, most of the time a Honda Civic will get you where you want to go, on time, and safely for a lot less money.  Same with micro4/3.  The format will give you excellent image quality under almost all conditions with a lot of advantages added in.

I don't paint a rosy picture for the future of M4/3.  I do believe in the system and I think it will survive as the advantages of lower cost, less overall weight and bulk along with so many features providing so much versatility at no practical loss of image quality will win over more interchangeable lens photographers in the future.  Let's just hope none of the camera companies throw in the towel as sales in every format continue to plummet.

P.S. I've compiled a partial list of professional M4/3 photographers is anyone is interested in seeing their work and/or following them.  Leave a comment if you are and I'll post the names.

DISCLAIMER:  As I've stated many times, I don't have an affiliation, click-through links, advertisements nor get kickbacks or anything else from Olympus, Topaz Labs or any other company.  I pay what you pay.

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 © 2013-2020 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.