 |
| Avenue of the Giants, Humboldt County, California. (click to enlarge) 16mp Olympus E-M5; Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 lens @ 20mm; 1/3 sec. @ f/8; ISO 200 (2013) |
I’ve often wondered why, since 2012, I’ve remained a vocal advocate for Micro4/3 gear when I also own and use APS-C and so-called ‘full frame’ (35mm sized sensors) cameras and lenses. After all, those other two formats are much better, aren't they? That said, I think I have it figured out.
Besides cameras that can do just about everything you could ask of a camera, the excellent image quality, the latest in sensor design, overall the system being lighter weight when compared to the larger formats, generally being less expensive than either APS-C or full frame gear, a plethora of optically excellent and well-built lenses from several manufacturers, terrific color rendition, more features than you’ll find on any other cameras as well as the cameras just feeling great in my hands, I think it has to do with Micro4/3 being the underdog, so to speak.
This not to take anything away from the APS-C and full frame gear. Both are terrific. In fact, just about everything you now buy in regards to digital cameras and lenses is terrific. If you can't make good photographs with just about any of the gear that is now available, it is not the gear that needs improvement. It's you.
It seems from some comments I’m now hearing, APS-C format gear is starting to be slighted by some in the same manner as Micro4/3 throughout its existence. It shouldn’t be as there is little difference among the three formats for the vast majority of us in the vast majority of photographic situations. It is only the extreme situations when the differences ‘noticeably’ arise. Most of us don't photograph in extreme conditions.
I’ve always been one to root for the underdog, whether it be a sports team, company, person, technology or otherwise. My dad was the same way. Maybe I picked up the tendency from him. I like it when the underdog defies the odds, rises to the occasion, shows the world was wrong and comes out on top. To me, it is very satisfying to see the one(s) who are not favored triumph in victory.
In the same manner, decades ago (1976) I bought a Subaru (terrific little car that I later sold at 100,000 miles with nothing but routine maintenance) instead of a Ford or Chevy, stuck with PCs when everyone who was anyone told me that Apple was the only way to go, in 1974 became a police officer to show the world that a police officer can be a ‘community helper,’ role model for kids and a force for positive change rather than seen negatively and I continue to root for the Pittsburgh Pirates all these years when they regularly finish toward the bottom of the standings. Maybe I’m just contrary but that is who I am. Root for the ‘little guy.’ Hope the ‘little guy’ defies the odds and comes out on top.
Mico4/3 is like that for me in the photographic world. I want the format and associated companies to be (even more) successful. The companies who make Micro4/3 gear make terrific products, have been trailblazers in the industry when it comes to new and innovative features, computational abilities and deserve more respect than they receive. Micro4/3 is often disregarded as not a serious format, especially by those who have never tried and used it. I now regularly see videos from photographers who have tried it and are blown away by the results! Many have switched permanently to Micro4/3. Besides, I’ve made some of my absolute best photographs using Micro4/3 cameras and lenses.
With the advent of AI based software to handle noise at high ISO, sharpening and upscaling file sizes, there are very few disadvantages to using Micro4/3 today. As picky about my images as I am, I would not use the format if I got inferior results. I've mentioned before that prior to my retirement I was regularly submitting my images to a stock agency. Many or even most of my images at the time were shot with my Olympus cameras and never were any rejected due to the file being from a Micro4/3 camera.
So, I’ll continue to own and use Micro4/3 gear. In fact, my future plans are, that when I decide to scale back from the frequency and intensity that photography now occupies in my life, Micro4/3, with cameras that ‘can do it all,' lenses that are small, lightweight but provide superb detail, color and sharpness, will be my only system. What’s not to like?
Join me over at my website, https://www.dennismook.com.
Thanks for looking. Enjoy!
Dennis A. Mook
All content on this blog is © 2013-2024 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.
I sold all of my Canon full frame gear back in 2013 for a set of Lumix GH3's and the 12-35 and 35-100 f2.8 lenses and have never looked back.
ReplyDeleteSince then, those cameras and many others in the M4/3 ecosystem, along with a whole collection of lenses have made every dollar of my income providing images for clients, and all of my personal work. From websites, to magazine covers, large format prints, wall wraps, bus wraps, and billboards have all been produced by these tiny sensors.
And there's on thing that I can do with M4/3 gear that I can absolutely not do with full frame gear, carry a full kit of it all day on assignment.
Excellent testimonial Mike. You are proof that Micro4/3 can be every bit a professional’s camera in the right hands. Too many people want to blame their gear as being inadequate but in reality it is their technique that is inadequate. I bought my first Micro4/3 camera in February, 2013 and have loved using the cameras and lenses since. I appreciate your thoughtful comment. ~Dennis
DeleteHi, Dennis: Enjoyed your thoughts and respect your opinion. As a longtime Fuji user, I recently moved to a Nikon Z8 after seriously considering a Fuji X-H2s and OM 1 Mark II. I have been pretty stunned by the Z8, 24-120 and 180-600. The files are a huge improvement in my view, the autofocus unworldly for my nature photography, the ergonomics excellent, the lenses stellar (better) and reasonably priced, and the weather resistance excellent, the increase in camera body weight notwithstanding. The OM 1 really caught my eye for its features, but the telephoto lenses were either pricey and just as heavy, in the case of the 300mm f4 and 150-400 f4.5, or a rebadged Sigma 150-600 which is very heavy and pricey and doesn't internally focus. OM's 100-400 is cheaper, but also a rebadged Sigma which also does not internally focus. Another example: OM's 90mm F3.5 macro is $1200 while Nikon's 105mm f2.8 Z is $850. I don't think the camera features make up for the 20 megapixel sensor (limited crop ability) and need for AI software even at 1600+ ISO. By the way, AI software (DXO for me) is painfully slow on my computer taking 3-4 minutes per file to process. If I am going to routinely need AI processing, then I would need a new computer with its added cost. So, for me, since I can only afford one system, smaller sensors don't make as much sense. In your case, the more the merrier!
ReplyDeleteDoug, thank you for your comment. I can agree with some of what you write but could make valid arguments contrary to other aspects of your comment. The wonderful thing about it all is that today we have a plethora of choices of cameras, formats, lenses and accessories that can more than adequately serve the needs of every photographer no matter what their preference. ~Dennis
DeleteDennis: You are absolutely right about the wonderful options we have and I may find over time that the weight of my Nikon system is more than I want to deal with. If I do, I think I would head in Olympus’ direction because of the amazing features and awesome weather proofing, not to mention the reach on the telephoto end.
DeleteDoug, I didn’t mention it as I thought you already knew but I have a Z8, 24-120mm f/4, 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 lenses along with the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lenses. In my opinion, absolutely wonderful kit. Unbeatable to me for many photo assignments. I’ll pick the Nikon gear up first when shooting wildlife or birds but will pick up my OM-1 and 12-100mm f/4 lens for travel when photography is not the reason for travel. For general, day-to-day photography, I’ll pick up and go out with the Fujifilm X-T5. Each has significant strengths and a few weaknesses. All are terrific picture-taking machines. I try to use the one whose strengths match what I intend to photograph any particular day I go out to photograph. Yes, I admit, I love my gear. Lol. A terrible problem to have…
DeleteDoug, maybe it is better to compare Nikon's 105mm macro with the m.Zuiko 60mm macro, which is an equivalent of 120mm. (The 90mm is 180mm-e). That Olympus lens is not even half the price of the Nikon and if real macro is your thing probably much more versatile. You can get much closer and the autofocus is still usable where most full frame macro lenses become unreliable.
DeleteDennis: Yes, I do know you shoot the Z8, and your thoughts on it are one of the reasons I made the switch from Fuji to Nikon. Since I shoot primarily wildlife, birds and landscapes with some travel thrown in, I like the Z8 a lot. And, I see your point about the tiny Olympus 60mm macro lens. Some of the photos I’ve seen with that lens are spectacular. It’s great that you can shoot three systems because all have their strengths and personalities, so to speak. I’ll definitely have a struggle when I’m ready to purchase a backup camera. It’d be tempted to grab an Olympus with the 12-100 for travel, for example, and maybe throw in a 60mm macro. It’s great to have options. Still, the Z8 files are pretty amazing to work with. :)
DeleteDoug, the 60mm macro comment is not mine. I currently don’t own that lens but have in the past. I do own the Nikon 60mm f/2.8 micro lens which I use primarily for copying slides and negatives. At the end of the day (I really shouldn’t use phrases like this), it’s about what serves each of us best, personal preference and just getting out there making photographs as often as possible. It’s all good! 👍🏻
DeleteDoug, the 60mm macro comment is not mine. I currently don’t own that lens but have in the past. I do own the Nikon 60mm f/2.8 micro lens which I use primarily for copying slides and negatives. At the end of the day (I really shouldn’t use phrases like this), it’s about what serves each of us best, personal preference and just getting out there making photographs as often as possible. It’s all good! 👍🏻 ~Dennis
DeleteReading this blog steered me to Olympus several years ago when severe arthritic issues had me searching for a much smaller camera than my Nikon D750. Since then, a medical miracle has moderated the arthritis, and my daily outfit now is usually a combo of Nikon Z7 and OM/Olympus. The difference is with the images I am able to make with each system. The great truth is that whether in electronic display or in 19" prints, the image quality usually indistinguishable (That fact was revealed on this blog several years ago). In the field, the Z7 with shift lens enables architectural images that I cannot make with Olympus. Very wide lens images also look bigger and are easier to assess in the Nikon EVF. Very low light wildlife images have proven better with the Olympus, despite all the internet opinions.
ReplyDeleteHandheld focus bracketing is a superb tool with the Olympus for close range and longer lens landscapes. I had the idea that 24mp full frame would have a substantial noise advantage for dim light wildlife, but it has not proven so in the field. Otherwise, I would have a Z6 III right now. My opinion, after many camera and lens rentals and field comparisons, is that the best tools are the ones that best enable getting the intended image recorded while providing the basis for creating a quality image in the chosen display medium. My next camera is likely to be an OM-5 for its diminutive size/weight and computational features.
The old Chinese proverb prevails "Have one wife, many cameras".
Thank you for your in-depth and insightful comment. As for me, I’ll always stick with the wife I have. Don’t need another! Lol. ~Dennis
DeleteAh the perils of third party cookies and why folks remain anonymous, but I digress….
ReplyDeleteLike you I use several systems. m43, APS-C, 35 aka FF, and digital MF. I keep coming back to m43, and it’s not solely about weight and size because many of the other options are generally the same size (telephotos excepted). I think it’s about the shooting experience. And, I think this is really underrated by most people.
The ergonomics and operation speed of the OM bodies and the really stellar glass with great edge to edge sharpness is really compelling. Any system that encourages you to get out and shoot is the one to pick. In general all ILC systems now are more than good enough. They all have enough MP and enough DR* to make great images.
Marketing (and Internet forums) have more influence on most photographic decisions than any real use case. And the reviewer community does not help. Unless there are a wide range of new products for system X, they aren’t interested and consider it a failure. M43 has a huge lens lineup. Every new release is really just splitting hairs, or are very much edge cases (the 90 macro and the 150-400 are good examples of this).
I’ve tried many of the new releases and I keep coming back to the now venerable m43.
* But but m43 has terrible DR. Well that depends. For anything mostly static either HHHR or the built in ND will get you to 12 stops. Which is better than everything except the Sony A7R5 and MF. In a lot of other use cases the relatively bright lenses and stabilization allow you to shoot much lower ISO, and this eliminates the DR advantage. Worst case m43 is two stops worse in DR. It doesn’t take much to erase two stops.
I agree with everything you wrote. Nicely done. Thank you. ~Dennis
DeleteI forgot to add the other nail in the coffin. m43 was mirrorless from the start. It's been almost 15 years since the EP-1. That is lot of time to create a mature and complete lens lineup. Canon and Nikon and really just getting going with mirrorless so inevitably the new lenses & bodies give the the reviewers plenty to write about. No one is going to review the Olympus 12-100f4 or the sadly discontinued PL200f2.8 anymore. So no new press means less interest. Add to the general collapse of the photo industry and the lack of ability for most people to try anything in hand (except maybe the big two - Canon and Sony), and you have a really dire situation for the smaller brands (Fuji is the shining example of how good marketing can overcome the limitations).
Delete