Micro Four Thirds Is Not Well -Some Thoughts Why That Is
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 มิ.ย. 2024
- ☕️ Support my channel: www.buymeacoffee.com/sulantoblog
Get a copy of my zine: www.blurb.com/bookstore/invit...
0:00 Intro
0:25 I shoot MFT
1:04 More is better
1:18 Image quality
2:36 MFT lost
3:28 Price
4:29 Size
5:59 Pro Users
6:57 Phone cameras
7:37 Perfect for beginners
8:04 No mid range cameras
9:07 What could be done
9:25 Outro
Subscribe also to my newsletter and get a free preset and camera profile that you can use with LR or PS (ACR). Of course you'll also get my best picks of the latest in the camera and photography world. sulanto.fi/newsletter/
My camera gear, these are affiliate links to Amazon:
Ricoh GR3: amzn.to/3k8UATp
Ricoh GR3x: amzn.to/3DB4Puc
Sony A7IV: amzn.to/3BshuwT
Sony 24mm F2.8 G: amzn.to/3nVqy6y
Sony 40mm F2.5 G: amzn.to/3xGm49E
Sony 50mm F2.5 G: amzn.to/3BQxNBw
Sony ZV-1: amzn.to/3qVgo7H
Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 G2: amzn.to/3DKPsPN
Sirui ST124 tripod: amzn.to/3BuXc5P
NiSi Vario ND: amzn.to/3bGLFUy
Topaz apps: www.topazlabs.com/shop/ref/722/
👕Get something to wear and support my channel at the same time👕
teespring.com/stores/sulantob...
My name is Matti Sulanto, I'm a photographer based in Helsinki Finland.
My Instagram: / sulantoblog
My website: sulanto.fi
What an overwhelming amount of comments! Thanks everyone for leaving your thoughts. I can't reply to each comment individually but I read each one carefully. Many thanks.
My impression why it is not doing well is because of peer pressure. If you have a micro 4/3 camera you know that sooner than better than later you will get comments from other photographers about why you bought such a bad camera. And, let's face it, for the same price you can get a good functioning full-frame camera at about the same size.
@@williamstatt8651 body yes - lenses definitely not.
I think part of the problem is that while they are good for beginners they require an experienced photographer to master them to get truly great results.
Thank you Matt, I totally agree with you. Size matters but the possibility to be increasingly creative while evolving with the experience too. Street photography in this regard represents the natural test bed for evolving creativity and skill. So why exceed the size of a compact and why let it cost as much or more than as src. The pen f could have possibly been the perfect camera if it had been priced less. But we all want speed. I have between the many an old Olympus c 770. It still today could be fine and I would use it if not for its annoying lack in speed and battery life. Switching on, pointing and shooting must be immediate to guarantee a satisfactory experience. This is why people buy a Ricoh GR. This is what phone cameras are pointing to.
Great straight forward video! Thanks for your thoughts and insights, Matti!
The problem with the micro 4/3 and the APC is that many mediocre photographers prefer to blame on the size of the sensor rather than accept their lack of talent.
I think the real problem is that a lot of m43rds owners can’t accept the limitations inherent to the system and instead try to prove again and again the mount is viable. Yes it is, but the manufacturers need to make products that really play to the strengths of the format.
@@Raist3db I can't imagine Cartier-Bresson complaining because Weegee uses a larger negative camera than him.
@@Raist3db It is viable. M43 cameras have several positive traits vs full frame and several negative traits. One positive is lens size. I can bring all my lenses including 100-300 or 100-400, I would hate carrying an 800mm full frame lens. The image stabilization is better due to smaller sensor size, i.e easier to shoot handheld etc. The performance in dark environments is worse due to sensor size and so on.
@@Raist3db
What limitations though? I own all formats even 1 inch sensor pocket cameras, they pretty much do the same, but you wont get as blurry images as compare up full frame at f3.5 since vast majority uses cheap lenses thats what they work with, you might not get as clean ISO at 3200.
But again, most people shoot at auto.
The only limitation on the sensor size matters in jobs that require huge prints.
Had using olympus em1 mk2, and lately om1 since 5 years with pro lenses.. Love the system much more than my ff camera.. Everything is better, the grip, ibis, features, depth of field…
But as a very long exposure photographer, i must admit than the m43 raw files suffer when working on them..
So.. There are limitations..
And believe me, i really wished they were not !
It’s not dead. It’s only dead in people’s eyes who keep saying it is. It’s now a mature system with an incredibly well rounded lens line up. Two incredible leading cameras. Some more entry level ones would be good as would a rangefinder style one. But personally I am incredibly happy with it and their latest offerings.
I think this system takes abit too long to be developed enought for it to convince people its good to buy one. Back then M43 cams were almost non existed because nobody heard of it. The sensor only takes like 12 megapixels and some Lumix bodies dont have in body stabilization... Only now is the time to get one because they get better and better.
Mature = ready to die.
All formats have a life cycle. The four-thirds fans also thought that format would last forever.
I have nothing to dispute, or add, I think you covered it. I guess I've become so used that MFT is dying, or dead, or not doing well, that started ignoring it at this point. And the truth is, even if MFT went away tomorrow, my MFT cameras would probably continue to work for at least another decade, and certainly outlive my next camera purchase(s) anyway.
Yes, but it would be harder to get repairs/FW/software after a while.
Having owned an older car in my youth you get tired of the obstacles.
I recently bought GX8 with 14-140 on a family trip, leaving all my full frame gears at home, and was very happy with the results. For MFT to survive, it has to capitalize on its unique advantages - the lens size. Go after enthusiasts market with retro styling, that’ll be a winning combination. GR3x, Nikon Zf/Zfc are all on top selling lists. Revive pen f, push for smaller/retro styling lens to go with it.
Yes, you can contrast the 14-140 lens [I have two copies] with a 28-280 Sony lens. The Sony is three times the size and feels like four times the weight for no advantage. Yes I have one of those too but while the Panasonic 14-140 10X zoom is my most used lens, I hardly ever use the Sony 10X zoom.
I totally agree. The format's downfall has more to do with poor managements (both Olympus and Panasonic) than the format itself. Make a new Pen-F and new GX9 with PDAF, weather-seal them if possible, and along with some fast pancake lenses that are also weather-sealed, they sure will sell like hot cakes. OM should really use compactness, weatherproofing, and durability as selling points. Another thing that I'd like to point out is that when you purchase a lens from Olympus/OM, you seldom get a bad copy. I think OM should emphasize this when they are marketing their products. Anyway, I hope m43 will do well in the near future with some exciting products that people would desire to own.
I agree. Even tho other systems have caught up with the technology and body size they still can't beat the compact lenses mft has.
After using the Sigma FP I don't wan't a DSLR-style body anymore for general use. I want a compact rangefinder body that can be modded for cinema work if needed.
Yes the larger size for a smaller sensor is making zero sense, a tiny camera is what mft is good for. Give me that with ability to take long videos for reasonable price and I would be sold.
MFT is great for everyday use, especially for its compactness. But what do hobby photographers want to shoot? Sunsets, sunrises, night photos - scenes where the small sensors have their main disadvantages. Compact FF cameras like the A7C have taken over some of the compact size market without the compromises in image quality.
For me it is the lack of smaller MFT cameras…you can largely match or beat the size and weight of new MFT with APSC (ok, maybe not at the long end). So the solution, get back to some smaller cameras. I have a small Sony and it works very well but to quote a recent comment from your friend Robin Wong ‘ Sony has no soul; it delivers results and a lot of pros use it, but when shooting for fun they go for MFT or Fuji etc” I would say that sums up my experience. Kind of reminds me of the iPhone (mft) vs Android arguments. I’ve chosen to wait 3 more months and if no new small MFT I’m off to Sony. As for sensor not good enough I recall a TH-camr who did a comparison of 1 inch, MFT and FF sensors and large prints and there was effectively no difference at all at normal viewing distance… hey wait a minute that was you! I think you raised some good points..and yes folks buy a big sensor camera and then only post on TH-cam, where a camera phone would be more than good enough. We are simply too wealthy perhaps for our needs, especially since probably the biggest purchaser of cameras are recreational users.
I'm waiting too and like you if nothing new soon I'm also off to the "dark side" (Sony).
I agree and my GX80 continues to serve (with the help of gaffer tape). Nevertheless, compact aps-c cameras offer most of the m43 experience, with advantages of their own.
Go for canon! My a7r4 sensor is a dust magnet, I can’t change lenses without having a dust blower on hand. Also not a fan of the non articulating screens, we’re not in 2012 anymore.
I think you've hit the nail on the head, Gordon. Especially the "too wealthy for our needs" comment. It's sad because, as an MFT user, I know that MFT cameras and lenses are capable of producing great image quality, albeit allowing for the sensors' inherent limitations. That said, with the latest software, even noise issues aren't really a limiting factor anymore.
Try the Olympus ep7
Thanks for this video. I have been a Nikon user for 40 years (I started with a Nikkormat FT2) but two years ago I added Olympus to my kit. I have nearly always bought second-hand gear. My biggest Nikon sensor is 36.3 mp, and the files already a challenge to process. I’m not about to give up my Nikon gear for wildlife and macro work, but I am really enjoying using my 3 Olympus cameras - EM5, EM5 ii, and EM1 ii. I value the build quality - especially the solid metal bodies - the portability and the software capabilities. I hope OM Systems and Panasonic keep developing new products, but even if they don’t it won’t be the end of the world for me, because the second-hand market is likely to be strong for many years to come - at least for the rest of my active life. Best wishes for 2024!
The reason to use MFT for me is I can grab a body+lens combo with 800mm equivalent FOV in my hand and walk around for 3 hours without breaking my shoulder and wrist. The image quality is not ideal of course, but with AI de-noise nowadays, it's usable.
Show us how the images from your walks with M43 are lower in quality than full frame without pixel peeping.
@@TrevorEMayo Any photo printed a decent size will show individual pixels and APS-C seems about the smallest sensor to not give you shimmering digital-looking pixels... It is physics which gives you diffraction if the pixel sites are too small... Absolutely, smaller sensors need AI to not look crap!
@@0ooTheMAXXoo0 You haven't included one word in your response to show factually how images from the OP's M43 photo walks are lower in quality than full frame without pixel peeping. Not one word. No facts on what constitutes "decent size". No reference to available light. I doubt you could go over to Flickr and look at the uncropped images of professional photographers taken with modern M43 and full frame cameras at 16x20 print sizes (which is laughable because almost no one prints anymore) and tell the difference without pinching and zooming.
In fact the producer of this video beginning around the 2 minute mark simply admits that people just "want" the IQ when they don't even need it. They are suckers for the industry trying to sell more product.
I just bought an Olympus E-1MX, going to get the 40-150, want to photo sailing racing from a boat. £1100, is going to be good! iPhone rest of time. Niche eh? Good video, but I don’t think you highlighted the quality and value of the lenses?
I live in Southern Africa and spend as much time in the bush as possible. I adore my 100-400 zoom on g95. A FF 800mm prime costs more than my 4x4. Love me my MFT universe.
I think the advantage of MFT cameras is the size of their lenses and their performance relative to FF equivalents, and portability. But in the last two years, both Panasonic and Olympus opted to create camera bodies that are just as big and heavy as FF's, and when using the system's lenses, the imbalance is very noticeable. I used an OM-1 for a few months and although it is an excellent camera I decided not to continue with it. Whenever I had the chance to shoot, whether in my free time or work, I ended up taking my old EM5 and EM10 with me. And for the everyday use, an EPL1 that has been 15 years since it came out. That's the problem with the system, it lost innovation, it gained weight and volume and it's just uncomfortable
I just started again my photography journey with MFT with the EM5.3, and as far as Im concerned it's doing great! As you said though, OM and Pana don't seem to be rushing for innovation, meanwhile powerhouses in other formats are getting smaller and smaller.
For my usecase, the compacity and the format are still a big selling point. I can fit my camera and 4 lenses, including the 12-40 F2.8 Pro and the kit telephoto in an insert bag that fills less than half my backpack, which allows me to carry everything with me all the time. I've also found the MFT community to be incredibly supportive, so it's a great experience for me overall.
The EM5.3 and the 12-40 2.8, a brilliant combination imho. 👍👍👍
@@tomfenn7149 Agree. That was my first MFT camera and lens. Unfortunately I lent the EM-5 Mark III to my wife and I never got it back.
Hello Matti,
Having the chance to possess and use both systems (FF and M4/3) in parallel, what strikes me the most when I use my G9 or my EM-10 is the « fun factor » that I feel in comparison with their FF counterpart (Z5 for me).
Each time I take my M4/3 cameras, I just enjoy the simple act of taking pictures, without any unrealistic expectations, knowing that the overall IQ will be more than enough for my usages, leading me to be much more creative and experimental in my shootings.
With my Nikon, I feel unconsciously that I have to « produce » something much more refined out of it, leading to a less spontaneous experience and less enjoyment for me.
Progressing more and more on my learning journey, I think I will get rid of my Nikon because of this « expected quality » burden that distract me from the real progression axes that I should follow.
Beside this feeling point, I also like this David vs Goliath mindset that comes with the M4/3 and the efficiency aspect embedded in the system (size, cost, solidity)
I hope my comment is understandable :)
Cheers,
Ricardo
Very understandable @MrRicky120985 and it made me smile.
Agree to, that M43 was and still is also a fun factor to use. And at the time of having a big, clunky DSLR as well, that was a big positive difference. But now with a Z7, not being bigger than an M1-III but having a much bigger viewfinder with less noisy and sharper pictures, the fun factor is actually now more on the Z7 side. I still use M43 for its overall compactness but the fun-factor hasn't really been much updated in the M43 world and a little bit of disappointment is when I work on the M43 afterwards at home on an 4k monitor. The differences are unfortunately very obvious and even if it is not a deal breaker, like Matti said, I am not really happy with the result because I know, it could be much better if M43 would update their technology.
@@stefanwagener indeed I cannot deny that the IQ gap between my G9 and my Z5 is noticeable on some occasions. But again for my usages, it still ok.
But in the future, I’ll compare much more in depth both systems as the size factor is indeed less and less relevant. I may check the OM-1 at some point but again not sure that the price is competitive against Nikon or Sony FF.
I really don't understand why MFT should have a bigger 'fun factor' than other systems. You yourself determine the fun factor.
@@PH61a Correct, it is very subjective. And it is not about MFT in general, in my case the fun factor of the M1 compared to
- the M5 is much higher because the M1 has a very comfortable grip and is more ergonomic than the M5 or Pen-F. Otherwise features are basically the same. The Pen-F I take on bicycle tours for its smaller size but otherwise the M1 is more fun to use for its ergonomics.
- the DSLR Nikon D800 because the M1 is again just more comfortable to hold than then much heavier DSLR with a typically heavy lens. While I enjoy more the result of the D800, the M1 is just more fun to use and to hold because of its much lower weight.
So ergonomics and user experience while shooting are the key factors for me to define "fun factor" ... and that is very subjective and not related to sensor format.
I have back problems, so even if the newer bodies are as large a FF, the difference in lenses isn’t to be ignored. But I’d really like to see highend compact m43 bodies being released again (like the gx8, pen-f, or em5ii lines… none of which were upgraded to the same level as when they were the flagships)
I would agree with most of this, especially about having high-end ultra-compact cameras. To go with that, I'd like to see Oly come out with absolutely top-shelf lenses that are very small as well. Instead of the large F1.2 primes, how about a 17mm or 25mm F2? It would be smaller and easier to pack around every day but it wouldnt' work for me unless the glass was stellar. The current 1.8 primes just aren't good enough for me as far as optical quality. For street photography and travel photography, most folks aren't going to be shooting at F1.2 anyway. But I'm afraid it's too late for all of that since Oly was sold to JIP and I don't think there's the same level of commitment to the format of the original Olympus company.
F2.0-2.8 lenses on the FF do not look so bigger than 1.2-1.4 olympus lenses
@@TheDoranX and those f2-2.8 primes let in 1-2 stops less light… yeah no thanks. What’s really fun is to compare the Pany 2.8 zooms to the FF 2.8s, it makes me laugh how comical small that duo is for what you get from it.
@@FieldingSmith not less light... Less light per square inch, but the same amount for the entire sensor.
Of course you will need to set ISO higher to achieve the same brightness. But the (integral) amount of physical light will be the same.
@@TheDoranX shoot with some strobes. Given some variation for how companies measure ISO and F-stops… 2.8 is 2.8 for the amount of light that is exposed, regardless of the sensor size. I’ve tested that on sensors ranging from a cellphone to a MF film camera. The “same amount of light for the entire sensor” argument is just silly, and I’ve seen no proof of it in any real world scenario. Only DoF, pixel performance due to pixel density (ie high iso performance) , and the total number of megapixels that can be squeezed onto the sensor changes due to sensor size.
As Pentax user I find the "MFT is dead arguments" somewhat funny.
Matti and Peter F are clowns. The 5 best MFT cameras in the history of the system have been released in the last 2 years, along with maybe 1/2 dozen excellent lenses, including an amazing macro lens and an ultra long telephoto.
@@Marco_Chiappetta Not a very convincing take. Yeah the cameras are the best that have come out recently, but that's a redundant statement because the best camera of every system has come out in the last 5 years - that's how progressing technology works. The point is that M43 cameras cost the same as full-frame cameras, aren't substantially smaller (body wise), and aren't selling well. Hence the video.
Some years ago I was a Pentax user - I had the original Pentax Q with a range of the lenses, and had rather a lot of fun with those, the quality was generally excellent, surprisingly good - if only they'd bring back a 2024 model
I think it`s because you`re working with a dinosaur, and that what is already dead cannot die again.
Haha, there are different grades of Death :) Pentax style Death, MFT style Death, Nikon style Death :)
You are the first photo gear reviewer I’ve seen in a long time whose photography actually inspires me. I have no opinions on m43, clicked out of curiosity, and I feel like I’ve just stepped away from a top notch art show. Thank you for sharing your expertise and your art ❤
PART I
Matti,
I have followed your videos for years and have great respect for you, so please put my comments into that context. First, we need to determine if there is a problem before trying to solve it. Your title to this video is “Micro Four Thirds Is Not Well…”, but you don’t provide any data or define why you make this claim. Done this way, this video does more harm than good when people just assume your statement is true. You make many interesting points - too many for me to cover in a single reply - so I will comment on four: MFT is “not well”, “Size is not everything”, MFT bodes are “too expensive”, and other camera manufacturers have “caught up”. I’m not avoiding the IQ discussion, but it’s not an issue for 95% of photographers and would require a very long reply. I agree that perception is reality for many, and MFT is still fighting that battle. This is a long post, made in two parts, and I hope some will read it to the end.
MFT IS NOT WELL
Let’s start with your premise. You say “MFT is “not well” but by what measure? At the end of your video, you make a quick reference to “MFT losing market share”. Again, no data, and said out of context or without definition that statement is not helpful. Highly successful and growing companies can lose market share because the market itself is growing. Secondly, companies can identify a specialized market for which they have a competitive advantage and be more financially successful even at the expense of market share. That is exactly what OM Digital Solutions is doing with their MFT camera line and their emphasis on outdoor and wildlife photography. The better question to ask is, “What level of sales are needed for OMDS and Panasonic to be profitable with their MFT products?”
There is an Internet “truth” that cell phones are taking sales away from digital cameras, and all manner of doom comes from that especially a shrinking digital camera market. Certainly, cell phones have all but killed off the traditional point-and-shoot digital camera, but they are also driving a greatly increased appreciation of and demand for ever better photography. As is the growing interest in film photography. The market for digital cameras in growing - not shrinking.
Imarc Group has a report on the digital camera market based on 2022 data: www.imarcgroup.com/digital-camera-market. Anyone interested in this discussion should read the introductory page of this report. They predict significant growth in global digital camera sales, and that interchangeable lens cameras will account for the major part of that growth. They list many reasons for this, but this quote is specific to this discussion. Pay special attention to the last sentence. Apparently, OMDS has because the “adventure market” is exactly the market they are attempting to dominate.
“…the increasing number of people taking photography as a hobby is catalyzing the demand for cameras that can capture high-quality images. Apart from this, the widespread adoption of mirrorless cameras, which are smaller and lighter than traditional DSLR cameras, is gaining traction among both amateur and professional photographers due to their advanced features, portability, and ease of use, which is strengthening the market growth. In addition, photography is used as a means of relaxation and stress relief. As people are becoming more aware of the importance of mental health and well-being, they are adopting photography as a means to cope with stress and anxiety, which is fueling the market growth. Furthermore, the growing interest of people in wildlife and nature photography, which requires specialized equipment and techniques, is increasing the sales of cameras with long zoom lenses, fast autofocus, and rugged, weather-resistant bodies, which is driving the market worldwide.”
I will say that no other camera brand/format is better equipment for “adventure” photography than OMDS/MFT because of their environmental sealing of their newest bodies and lenses, and the inherently much smaller size of longer telephoto lenses, and Lumix cameras are also highly capable.
But, let’s look at other indicators of health of MFT and OMDS in particular. It’s been the case for years that MFT is the top format in Japan. More significant though, is an April 2023 BCNreport report published on www.42rumors.com (www.43rumors.com/bcnreport-mft-lenses-keep-being-the-second-most-sold-mount-lenses-on-the-market/) where their data shows MFT lens are the second highest in sales only behind the E-mount. Read that again. People buy more lenses because they are doing more things with their cameras, and they are committing to that system and showing confidence through their investment. This report also shows that OM Digital Solutions lens sales percentage is larger than Panasonic and Fuji combined. Money is flowing into the MFT market.
Lens share by mount:
E-mount 32.6%
*MFT 13.8%
Canon EF 11.4%
Nikon F 9.3%
Fujifilm X 8.8%
Nikon Z 8.5%
Canon RF 7.7%
Lens share by manufacturer:
Canon 17.1%
Sigma 16.0%
Tamron 15.1%
Sony 14.2%
Nikon 13.8%
*OM Digital Solutions 8.6%
Panasonic 4.6%
Fujifilm 4.2%
PART II of MY COMMENTS:
SIZE DOESN’T MATTER
Some other sensor format mirrorless bodies are as small as some MFT bodies, but MFT bodies are not any smaller because a camera body must be big enough to use. The real difference is with lens sizes, and FF or APC will never “catch up” or match MFT for compact lenses at longer focal lengths. Lens sizes are determined by sensor size. Even when an MFT lens is about the size as a similar focal length FF lens, the MFT lens is almost always a PRO lens with weather sealing, faster max aperture, and metal body. True, some people have all they need at less than 100m (35mm equivalent), and for them lens size may not be significant. But many want and need longer lenses (see the report above about the growing outdoor photo market). For example, I can get the following into a 20-liter Peak Design Everyday Backpack. (www.peakdesign.com/products/everyday-backpack?variant=29743300771884)
1. OM-1 body with Olympus 100-400mm lens.
2. OM-1 body with Olympus 12-100mm lens.
3. E-M1 Mk III body with Pana Leica 9mm f1.7 lens.
4. Both the 1.4x & 2.0x teleconverters.
5. Olympus 60mm macro lens.
6. Godex TT3500 flash.
7. Extra batteries, cables, snacks, iPad, ear buds, and a water bottle.
That gives me THREE bodies and four lenses with focal lengths (35mm equivalent) from 18mm through 1,600mm - ready to shoot out of the bag without changing lenses. I can substitute just about any combination of other MFT lenses other than the Olympus 150-400mm f4.5 in this same bag. This can’t be done with any FF or APS system that I know of.
MFT CAMERAS ARE TOO EXPENSIVE
You say MFT bodies are “too expensive”. Compared to what? Find me any camera that has the features and capabilities of the OM-1 or G9II at anywhere near their prices. According to every video test I’ve seen on TH-cam the OM-1 is the only camera on the market that can produce about as many good bird shots (keepers) as the Sony A1 which is almost three times the cost! The new Nikon Z Nikkor 600mm f4 lens sells for US $15,497.00 and that’s not a zoom lens!!! Compare that with the Olympus/OM System 300mm f3 IS PRO at $2,999.99 (which can go to an equivalent of 1,200mm withthe2x converter). Or the zoom OM System 150-400mm PRO IS f4.5 which is 200mm longer than the Nikkor and half the price at US $7,499.99. Who is more expensive now?
Sure, some small, fun pocket sized MFT cameras would be awesome, and I hope for a PEN-F II, but MFT started with those cameras and has been struggling to overcome the reputation of being cheap and not professional grade ever sense. If a brand has a reputation for owning a piece of the high ground, then that provides a halo effect for the less expensive and used models.
OTHER MANUFACTURERS HAVE CAUGHT UP WITH MFT
You say that other manufactures have “caught up” to MFT. That statement says to me that Olympus/OMDS and the MFT companies have been doing the innovating - not Nikon, Canon, Sony, or Fuji. Would any of them be moving to mirrorless but for the success of the mirrorless MFT format? Dominant companies in a market are NEVER innovators. The major auto makers didn’t innovate Electric Vehicles - Tesla did. IBM did not create the personal computer - Apple did.
Olympus and Panasonic are both innovators. If not for them pioneering mirrorless cameras and advanced technology do you think Canon, etc. would have ever built any? Look at the other MFT innovations: automatic sensor cleaning, still world class IBIS, extreme high-quality lenses with the most lenses of any mirrorless format, extreme weather sealing for many years, professional grade video, and now on the cutting edge of computational photography and AI. Many of the newest non-MFT bodies have many of the MFT features - that’s just competition - I know of no APS or FF camera body will all of the features of either the G9II or OM-1. Instead, the top FF camera in many ways offer less for more money.
SUMMARY
Matti, again, I respect your integrity, but I think in this video you are making some statements which can and should be challenged. You ask for our input about what can or should be done. Let me state that I believe there is no perfect system and there are advantages and limitations to all of them.
Having said that, I believe that current MFT technology and capability, taken as a whole is, more than competitive with any other camera system. The problem is that the camera buying public just doesn't know the truth about MFT. Worse, many vloggers who believe they support MFT seem half-hearted in their support and are always talking from an inferior and defensive position. I think the time is long past to stop defending why its OK to shoot MFT, and rather go on the offensive explaining its advantages and start asking why anyone would want to spend more money for heavier and bulker gear with less features. Thank you for the chance to discuss these things and for all your work.
I just bought a G9 kit for $900 and bought additional 3 very good used lenses. Mint condition. I'm an old film guy and I'm excited about this new system.
You will really enjoy it, especially if the lenses are the higher end ones with a fast aperture
Many good comments! I especially agree with your thoughts about the lack of affordable micro 4/3 cameras being introduced. I'm still happy with my micro 4/3 gear and feel that it meets all my needs. Another reason for folks to choose micro 4/3 gear is the low prices of used cameras and lenses. Your comment about people buying more expensive/higher end gear than they need is something I agree with. For most amateur photographers, the micro 4/3 system is more than capable for 90% or more of the shooting conditions encountered. Thanks for an interesting and thought provoking video!
I chose Sony APS-C over MFT for two reasons. The camera body's (A6000->A6700) are generally smaller than the MFT's I have found and looked at. The prices are also lower for both lenses and the body.
I think something like a PEN-F was the perfect MFT camera. Light, small enough, with a viewfinder. Still like my old PENs for everyday use.
Plus the PEN-F is such a great looking piece of gear 🤩
The problem was that it was overpriced and didn't offer professional features like dual card slots or weather sealing. If it had been about half the price, it would have been immensely popular!
@@keithholland4322 Overpriced, yes. But I don’t need the rest in a PEN.
@@ceaabe In order to sell for that price point, it should have had those features at a minimum. Since it didn't, it should have sold for about half that price.
I switched from Nikon D700 to Olympus EM1 Mk II four and a half years ago.
I agree the mirrorless full frame cameras are becoming less heavy and less expensive nowadays. I cannot promise to stay with MFT and not switch back to full frame in the future. However, at this moment, using my MFT camera and lens is still a good experience for events and weddings shotting. The Olympus f/2.8 pro lens and the Sigma f/1.4 are really enough for those jobs.
Hope there will be something good happening this year for MFT.
I can honestly say, for every 1 person that speaks ill of your picture, there are 12 that love it. Just do what you enjoy. And if people pay you because they love your art, then you're an artist!
A big advantage of the MFT system is that it is the first mirrorless camera and as a result there are a lot of used lenses for sale. I bought an Olympus 25mm f/1.2 for $800 from KEH in like new condition which is $600 less than a new one. The quality of the pro lenses is exceptionally high.
Hi Matti, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this subject. I moved from APS-C to MFT last year, and never looked back. Bought a second hand Lumix GX85, and couldn't be happier: great photos and stunning 4K videos! Even paired the body with a vintage Sigma lens (with adapter) - perfect results.
The main advantage was the small size. I would love a tiny camera like the GM5 (which is next to impossible to get), but with modern features (4k and Panasonic's new autofocus system)! Now that most of their camera bodies are as big or bigger than other manufacturers and just as expensive, I'd rather stick with Sony...
main advantage now is weight (lenses) for telephoto, ibis that absolutely destroys full frame, and the various goodies in video/photography that are exclusive to panasonic and olympus
You always talk sense Matti. A few years ago I switched from Canon to MFT for my bird photography. I’m getting good results with the OM1 and Panasonic 100-400mm lens. Less weight and less cost.
E-M1 MkIII + Pan 100-400 user here. That lens is wonderful, and it's a great combination.
I use an Olympus micro 4/3 camera for bird and wildlife photography. The f4.0 300mm and the f2.8 40-150 lenses plus the 1.4x extender are my most used optics. Weight, amazing IBIS and weather sealing make the system ideal for hiking trails to get images. The shame of their system is the lack of weather sealing on the Olympus f1.8 12, 17, 25 and 45mm primes.
Actually all those primes behave under harsh weather conditions, surprisingly well. The thing you must be weary about is whether or not the front element rotates. If it does, then that lens will not protect against the elements as well. Get a decent rubber collapsible lens hood, as well s a pair of Marigold (gloves) if you're really paranoid, and use the glove parts to fit over the lens. Or use clingfilm! But honestly, you don't really need to bother unless you are shooting during monsoon season!
It’s interesting that you mention bird / wildlife. It’s the G9 II and dual stabilization using surprisingly light tele lenses that finally get me interested in this topic. It would never cross my mind to carry submarines to a location. M43 will allow me to shoot hand-held, which is amazing. Two big problems with m43? 1) Well, tens of millions of users already have plenty of gear. We are unlikely to buy much in the immediate future. 2) Quite a lot of m43 users I know also own FF gear. The opposite is much less likely to happen since people were told that they would be missing out. When I see an impeccably downsampled 4k120p video (from a 19 MP frame!) from my G9 II on an OLED screen, I do realize that I will be using m43 for another decade. Yes, it’s high-end enough - we just had to wait for quite some time.
Just buy the pro versions…. Weatherized!
Why do you need weather-resistant gear?
It's paranoia.
@@formermpc10Haha! Absolutely NOT paranoia! Just common sense. I went to Wales where it chucked it down all week in Snowdon and my E-M1 mk1 got drenched. But it kept on working. Now, if that had've been £1500 of unsealed equipment, say a Ricoh GRIII, I would've kept the camera in my pocket and not taken any pictures at all. So perhaps only paranoia if you are already loaded and can afford multiple non-weather sealed cameras.
I use m4/3 and APS-C. The problem I have with m4/3 is that neither Olympus/OM nor Lumix has made a camera with the features I want. I'm a hobbyist, so 20MP is fine. I prefer the rangefinder style cameras (Pen-F, GX8, GX9), but none of them manages to tick all the boxes. I want weather sealing (I live in Canada so a good number of days in the year involve rain or cold). The GX8 satisfies that requirement. And I want a tilt LCD (I don't use video so the articulating LCD is mostly annoying). The GX9 has the tilt screen. A GX9 successor with weather sealing would be my ideal camera. But maybe that's an uncommon niche. I'd have considered the G9II, but the articulating LCD is a deal-breaker.
For the most part I agree with you. However the screen is not a deal breaker for me and I work with both types and fixed screen cameras. What matters to me is the clarity of screen and touch functionality above all else. Weather sealing of all future bodies and lenses would be a great advantage.
I love how you explained each reason! It's interesting. For me, the pricing and image quality were two big points. Once you compare full-frame images, there is no contest. The companies should offer smaller and faster cameras with some Topaz/DXO/Google Pixel internal features for consumers. Focus on the "snaps" young crowd that can't afford a GR3 lol
I see this as a cost / performance issue.
General photography has been taken over by the Smartphones.
For "enthusiasts / Pro" photography, M43 caramers may be smaller (but not by much) and as you said, they are not substential cheaper. For enthusiasts / prosumers, the full frame sensor just produces better technical images "most of the time". Prosumers will have the skills to create good images regardless of format, but for the general enthusiasts ... full frame has the lattitude to produce "better technical" images will lesser skills ...
The above equally applies to APS-C cameras as well. Full frame and smartphones basically hit the cost / performance sweet spot for now and will continue to own the largest market share.
Just my 2 cents.
Look at the price of the om1 vs a nikon z8 which are very comparable in specs and the prices aren't even remotely close for pro cameras
That's mostly true, but not for real estate photography, macro photography, or sports and wildlife photography, and those are the areas where Panasonic and Olympus need to focus their efforts. Better glass for sports and wildlife photography should be the primary focus now, focusing on bright prime lenses with apertures of f/2.8 or brighter. Also, both companies should have a new MFT camera with dual card slots for around $1,000-$1,200 for real estate photographers. Such a camera need not have a huge buffer, but it should have a high resolution mode and excellent dynamic range. Perhaps wide angle tilt/shift lenses could also be a great addition for that. (Anybody from Laowa reading this?) A macro zoom lens could also be a great way to dominate the world of macro photography since that's something that no other camera manufacturer has ever produced, as far as I am aware.
I've shot only Nikon since the F3 came out. About a year ago I bought a used GH5 and totally fell in love. Not only was it a wonderful camera body, but the huge selection of great lenses that were both small and inexpensive opened up all sorts of options. Yes, more small and "affordable" MFT bodies would be great, but perhaps what is needed is a good old fashioned advertising campaign reminding folks how fun a camera can be.
I use MFT and has just upgraded my MFT system (from EM-5 ii to OM-1, together with a few new lenses). The ultimate reason for me to not to switch to full frame is lens weight and size, as I do mostly travel photography.
Looking forward, I would be very happy if there can be collaboration (if not M&A) between OM Systems and an action cam manufacturer (e.g. dji or Insta360). The Pocket 3 has shown that a larger sensor in another form factor can be a success.
Size and weight apart, do you really think your pics would be that much better with a FF system?
I just got my OM-5 a couple of weeks ago, and it’s my daily camera to capture moments. I also have Sony for professional stuff, and Fujifilm for creative stuff. With these 3 systems I use the OM-5 the most.
Hi Matti
I got into MFT after comparing the cost of Flagship cameras, When I did my comparison, MFT Flagship cameras cost around about a fifth to a quarter of the cost of Full Frame Flagship cameras. I don't think that has changed all that much. Then, I looked at the cost of professional lenses as a comparison and saw that MFT lenses were so much cheaper than Full Frame lenses.
I then did a wish list kit exercise, and the saving by going MFT was between £20,000 and £50,000 at that time.
Then I looked at the secondhand market. Sad to say, the secondhand market for Full Frame mirrorles cameras is pretty dire. The secondhand market for Full Frame mirrorless lenses doesn’t exist, as most Full Frame manufacturers don't even have a full line up of new lenses for people who are investing in a new full Frame mirrorless system.
I think the Canon decision to not let third parties make lenses for its Full Frame miirrorless system reflects how difficult it is for them to make money even when they're charging between 4 and 5 times what MFT manufacturers are charging for a Flagship camera.
Will my photographs improve 4 or 5 folds if I switch to Full Frame, or will I take a real financial beating by paying the inflated prices for Full Frame in the longer term?
That's a hypothetical question, I thankfully will not have to answer as I went MFT secondhand and now possess my wish list kit.
It takes pictures I like, and no one can persuade me to pay 4 or 5 times more for kit to take those same pictures in the ridiculous hope that the pictures will be 4 or 5 times better.
Not exactly true. A Canon R6 Mark ii costs $2,300 at BH. An OM-1 costs..... $2,000 at BH. That's only a $300 difference where the R6 ii gets 4 extra megapixels, the best autofocus and will absolutely destroy the OM-1 in noise levels across the board... and then there's bokeh. Sure, the OM-1 has a few things going for it (HHHR, Live ND, the ergonomics and compact size). But... none of those really trump the R6ii when shooting photos normally. M43 needs to come down in price even more to make up for its shortcomings... OR, the sensors and ISO noise needs to improvement. Hard to swallow a $2,000 price tag when an R6ii is just a bit more.
Why yes, the most expensive MFT bodies are expensive.
@thomasanderson5929 I didn't realise the R6 Mark ii was Canon's Flagship camera?
Why is the R3 £6,000 if it isn't the Canon Flagship?
Are seriously suggesting I get into a Full Frame GAS burn out by spending my money on a none Flagship ie. Inferior camera in a manufacturers product range?
@@malcolmwright6948 but OM's flagship isn't at the Canon flagship feature set. The r6ii would be a decent comparison
@@malcolmwright6948 For the competitively priced Canon lenses of course...
Matti, for MFT to survive their cameras need to outspec bigger cameras at the same price. Problem is for instance every brand has now IBIS, Sync IS or Dual IS, PDAF, Hign Res even with motion compensation, Live Composition, Pro Capture or 4K @60p. Unfortunately the OM-5 isn’t outspending other cameras at the same price point. No animal subject recognition C-AF, no 4K @60p so it difficult to sell. You have explains all points.
One thing that Panasonic has against the others: unlimited recording without overheating.
Isn’t the whole digital camera market, not just MFT, “not doing well”? Last time this was brought to my attention, the story was that mobile phones were killing the consumer camera market. The hobby-enthusiast and professional markets for stand-alone digital cameras are pretty darn small.
Recreational photography (mostly retro film shooters due to cheap film and cameras) surged during COVID. Coming out of the lockdowns the cost of old film cameras (and especially good film) shot up due to the high demand and a lot of people went into digital cameras to get their fix. Just within the past 3ish years the industry has had a small boom (I've heard numbers from last year dipped slightly but this was after a big surge).
While phone cams are now extremely sophisticated, they do still have downsides that even a simple point and shoot can remedy. Things like optical zoom (big one), manual exposure controls, physical dials; cameras with larger sensors unlock even more benefits like more dynamic range (better graduation between color changes), more control over DOF subject separation, vastly improved low light performance, EVF for tough shooting situations, weather proof bodies, etc.
Even from a hobby-enthusiast perspective, having more control over the exposure with the presence of physical controls is more than enough reason to use these digital cameras rather than the phone that is so conveniently always in my pocket, and that's ignoring all the other benefits.
I think a lot of people are waking up to the reality that having something that does 1 thing very well is better than something that conveniently does many jobs okay.
It also has the added benefit that your phone is just a phone and having a ridiculous camera is no longer a selling point to you when choosing one to buy.
Global digital camera market size 2024 is $5.4 Billion dollars set to grow at 4.8% CAGR until 2029 when it will reach $6.8 Billion. The point and shoot cameras declined through phone camera improvements and take up but the enthusiast market is growing at a good rate.
Sony grew from 1% to 24% marketshare in 20 years that the smartphone exists. Please stop making excuses.
@@angeloplayforonesony rised due to the knowledge from konica minolta. original sony cameras where weak.
pana will cut all model lines without perspective and will share a lot between ff and m43 (see g9ii), so m43 can survive. but om has no chance ...
@@angeloplayforone Excuses for what? MFT market share? I am a Sony shooter, with 3 Sony digital cameras, including the RX-100, A7ii, and A7Rii. Is that 24% growth in market share out of a shrinking pie? What’s the net growth in sales & profits? That was my main question.
Hello Matti, thx for your interesting video! I sold some years ago my whole Nikon equipment because of not using it, reasons was too heavy, too big, too much attention … I love my small Lumix Bodies GX800/880 and I am completely satisfied with the results… but my critics would go in the direction of… Why all these big sized Camera bodies with big lenses… my wish would be getting more small lenses… with smaller bodies with up to date sensor technology and a fast autofocus … to get a pocket sized Camera with results you could never get with a smartphone, for example my GX880 with the 1,7/42,5mm is a wonderful combination , a dream would be a Camera with a much better shutter, bit more resolution, flexibel screen in all directions, magnesium body, better AF, some Pancake lenses maybe like a 8mm, 12mm, 18mm, 25mm, 60mm, 100mm… ah sorry I am just daydreaming! However, I just hope MFT will not die the next time!
Interesting timing as I'm considering getting into MFT again, haha. I've got three full-frame bodies and one APS-C body, but I'm looking into selling one of the FF bodies to get a compact kit with good weather sealing for hiking. I think the MFT manufacturers need to focus on keeping the size and price down, since that's arguably what differentiates them from larger sensor systems.
I am more concerned with kit size. The combination G9 II + Pany Leica 12 - 60mm + Olympus 45mm F1.2 is what I use most of the time. Could not be happier with the size and the quality.
Thank you so much for this video. I moved from the Panasonic G9 to the S5 and now S5ii. My main reason for going the full frame route was light sensitivity and training. In learning photography from books and TH-cam, it really helped me understand better what everyone was teaching me in full frame. Lame I know, but my brain just clicked better with full frame, and I got better results photographically. Thanks for such a thought provoking video. Excellent work!
I have a MFT camera I use for arduous hiking situations. I shoot almost exclusively full frame. The MFT weaknesses (as I see them) are ISO limitations and resolution limits caused by the small sensor. The strengths are possible smaller size and weight, less glass and weight and money for long lenses (e.g. An f4 300mm lens is like a 600mm full frame lens and can be a quarter of the size and cost of that 600mm lens). The problem with MFT is that the vendors forgot what made them great, and they made bigger and bigger MFT cameras. I have an Olympus E-PL7 which is teeny tiny and very light. The lenses are also small and light. However, all the latest MFT cameras are much bigger and heavier, making them useless for me. If they weigh the same as a Sigma fp L or more, then I have no interest in them unless they take advantage of their physics edge and make some good, cheap telephoto lenses. The Olympus 300mm f/4 lens is too expensive for what you get. I'm not going to pay full frame prices for MFT. Tamron and Sigma don't seem interested in making one. Here is what needs to happen to keep me interested... Instead of making bigger and bigger MFT cameras, make them smaller and lighter. Think teeny-tiny. Make 200, 300, and 400mm f4 lenses. Maybe a 200 and 300mm f2.8. You won't get full frame bokeh and resolution, but you will get the light gathering and shutter speed. I'm never going to use an MFT camera for anything but situations where weight matters and where their crop factor is an advantage instead of a disadvantage. MFT should rule the world for the birder crowd, but they don't and they won't. The are too busy trying to be like the full frame cameras. That's stoooooooooopid.
I can now use Auto ISO on the G9 II since the sensor is really good.
@@urswuergler3969 The ISO handling of cameras clearly improves with how new the sensor is. An ancient full frame camera, the Canon EOS 1Ds from 2002, has a sports score of 954, which indicates very poor ISO handling. The 5D from 2005 has a sports score of 1368 which is a lot better but still not great by modern FF standards. The Canon EOS R3 has a sports score of 4086. DXOMARK has not yet rated your camera, but gives a score of 1312 to the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II, which is as good as the 5D. Since your camera is very new, I would not be surprised if it approached 2000. The medium format Pentax 645Z has a score of 4505 and it was launched in 2014.
I'm a sports photographer with golf being my big money maker. I switched from Canon a few years ago to a few EM1X's because I was tired of carrying around the long 2.8's. I have the PanLeica 200mm 2.8 and the Oly 40-150mm 2.8 along with a few 1.2 primes and I couldn't be happier. I also have field sports covered, even at night.
You don't need a flagship camera from the big three to match a flagship camera from MFT, that's just the facts!
@@JessDemant Canon and Sony definitely have better subject detection and tracking for sports photography, especially when the subject is wearing a helmet. They also have better low light performance and the ability to blur out the background more, but the downside is you have to carry around bigger, heavier lenses. It's always a trade off. However, in terms of value for money, it's hard to beat an OM-1 or even a G9 II.
The reason why mft or camera sales in general are down is because , company are not focusing on Innovating the cameras any more . If companies can create a compact camera with expectations user interface and easy to use video features and be that can rival iphones or smartphones , with weather sealing, stabilization and quick share we have something to people to consider .
Congratulations on being willing to adopt a provocative stance. My thoughts on M43 are as follows: (1) Smaller lens sizes are a big advantage for many wildlife shooters. I would dread carrying a full-frame 200-400mm lens, but M43? No problemo. Also M43 lenses generally cost less than full frame. So TOTAL system cost is a factor. (2) Panasonic just brought out the G9ii (which I bought, I own a G9 and love it). Usually tech flows from the flagship down to lesser models, so there may be new gear coming with that new tech. OM Systems is another matter and they may be on the ropes, I mean why did Olympus unload it? (3) I see APS-C in more danger. Except for Sony, it's another lens mount for camera makers to support. Even Sony makes APS-C-specific lenses, which costs in R&D. Why go halfway? Either choose ultimate image quality (full frame) or best portability with interchangeable lenses (M43). I think Canon and Nikon will ultimately drop their APS-C lines.
I use a Lumix G9 and OM-1. The OM-1 picture quality is excellent and yes there are a few large MFT lenses but I don’t want to be carrying a FF equivalent lens around with me. 20.3mp is more than enough in most circumstances. The OM-1 performs extremely well at night with the added benefit of computational add-ons that allow for very creative pictures. The latest MFT camera’s have incredible IBIS and offer 50, 80, 100mp modes using pixel shift. That’s something I have used with a tripod taking landscape pictures. Amazing results. All I can say is do your homework and buy a camera that fits your needs. At the end of the day the choice of camera won’t make you a better photographer and you only have to look at pictures taken with film back in the 70’s where the story relies on the picture and not the sensor size!👍
I think the basic issue here is cost of manufacture. For example, building a 25mm f/0.9 lens capable of resolving 24 MPix on a M43 sensor is a massively bigger engineering challenge than building an equivalent 50mm f/1.8 lens capable of resolving the same resolution on a FF sensor. Full frame systems are therefore already becoming the cheaper option, with M43 systems becoming the domain of professional videographers where sensor readout speed is paramount.
Thanks. That's another very good point. Design and build ultra fast aperture lenses is not easy.
I own both a m.four-thirds and a full frame camera. I shoot the m.four-thirds 75% of the time. Very little difference in image quality for everyday shooting. Better for macro for sure. Better for travel too. The full-frame has the edge for landscapes, and no doubt for portraits and low light work. As for size, it's not the difference is camera body size that makes the difference; it's the difference in lens size. That's what makes them better travel cameras. I guess I'm fortunate enough to be able to have both, because both formats have their strengths.
I think the main problem is what you mentioned about the manufacturers pushing out really good flagship cameras but haven’t had much innovation or distinction on their midrange models. Both Panasonic and OM Systems need to push out a decent body around the $1000 USD price range. A rangefinder style camera would make it more distinct and frankly that’s what I’m waiting for to upgrade from my LUMIX GX9. Another camera they can push out would be something like the fujifilm x100 series but make it more compact, fixed prime lens, high quality finish, etc. Basically a Pen F with a fixed lens and a bunch of film simulations. I’d buy that in a heartbeat.
Does it look like the Lumix G9ii is not enough to give enough life to M43? Looking at getting it over the Lumix S5ii
I own three Panasonic GH5S cameras and one GH6 with half a dozen Pana Leica lenses. I shoot mainly event videos and two people sitting interviews. The market in that segment is still quite weak, so I am glad I have not invested heavily into full frame cameras and glass. My planning horizon is 3-5 years so I shall use what I have and see what happens.
In the heyday of film cameras, people carried two cameras: an M Leica with a Summaron 35mm F2.8 and an F-mount Nikon SLR with an 85mm F2. They carried a Nikon 50mm F1.8 lens in their camera bag, so they carried three lenses and two cameras. When Nikon D100 and D200 were introduced, they could continue to use the reliable manual focus lenses they had used for so long. This was because the pixel pitches of the sensors were not so small at the time, so lenses designed and manufactured in the film camera era did not really cause image quality to fail. Even today, good old lenses can be used if used with D300 or D780. However, if you are using a camera with a small pixel pitch like D500 or D850, it is better to buy a newer lens that is bigger and heavier. In other words, it is not necessary really a matter of whether the camera is a micro four thirds, APS-C, or full frame camera, but rather the fact that a lens attached to a camera with too small a pixel pitch will be large, heavy, and expensive. If the Micro Four Thirds system cameras suddenly sell in large quantities for some unknown reasons, the development cost of the new sensor with reduced pixel count can be recovered, and the system can then be made smaller and lighter. Of course, such a thing will not happen in practice, though.
Great video and analysis of the m4/3 reality. I was one of those who sold all my Olympus m4/3 gear and PRO lenses last year. Why? Because a feeling that the community of urban photographers who loved those small primes that Olympus made a decade or more ago, was simply abandoned and neglected in the pursuit of birding, wildlife, and larger gear community. I got tired of waiting for an update of the small primes what brought me into the Olympus family from my Nikon past. When my Olympus 50mm lens became larger, and more expensive, than the Nikon 50mm I used to own, I began to see the writing on the wall on where Olympus (and now OM Systems) were headed. Just happened to be in the opposite direction of my reason to buy into m4/3 a decade ago.
In other words you felt like a change.
I've noticed the same and feel very sorry for that. For me as a former Canon FF-shooter the MFT systems light , compact and affordable lenses and guaranteed water resistance (Oly) and ruggedness of the system has been very welcome for nature and macro work. I still have my Canon for studio-type work or if low light capability is essential. Also human AF-tracing is better on my R6. Actually I don't see a point in selecting one system to do everything. Right tool for the right job! MFT for lightweight travel etc, FF or medium format for serious work were size and weight are less important. For MFT I really miss those GX- and pen type small rangefinder style bodies alongside bigger bodies for casual street and party photography. Not a single model is available!
The dying out of MFT has been a much talked-about topic for the past 5+ years. It always amazes me how people overlook the very fact that photography as we know it is on life support 'thanks' to advancements in AI and facial recognition technology.
MFT is on life support, yes, but fullframe seems doing quite well, with cameras and lenses seeing a lot of investments, in their entire price range latitude.
Facial recognition is something which boosted and boosts fullframe mirrorless market, at least the leading brands there (Sony and Canon). AI internet image generators are only just that, because they don't offer high enough resolution e.g. for larger prints. AI generators are something for web resolution only, for Instagram, Facebook &co.
Your thoughts are solid...no disagreement here.
I have a Panasonic G85, and paired with the 14-140 it has been a great travel companion, amazing range and versatility for the easily packable compact size and weight.
But I did finally switch from m43 to full frame, and what let it happen was unexpected. I thought full frame DSLRs and their lenses were too big and heavy. But when the big names went mirrorless full frame, many of the lower end models were surprisingly compact. I found that the combination of Sony A7c and Tamron 28-200 was compact and light enough for me, and I switched.
So it was not only because new m43 bodies were too large, but some new full frame mirrorless bodies were unexpectedly small, and it was those opposite movements that closed the gap enough for me to jump.
I’m happy with my Sony full frame, but I still can’t imagine giving up my G85. I keep it because its compact versatility is still an advantage for some types of photography.
And there is also a force in the other direction: For those who want to continue with m43, the impressive new AI applications that more effectively reduce noise and upscale resolution can help m43 images close the quality gap with larger sensors.
I think one the major key feature that I love the most in M43 systems is the incredible In body image stabilization. A cheap mirrorless full frame or an old DSLR wont probably have one, and if it does have one, especially for mirrorless, is far too expensive than M43 cameras. I believe M43 are still the best choice for street photography and casual, travel cameras because they are super small. I dont want to carry a "pro FF" camera for travel. Its ridiculous.
You may be right Matti.
I am in the M43 and Fuji systems. I like the RF bodies for street photography. I use small primes. For me, the difference between M43, APSC, and full frame images isn’t all that great. I don’t own a full frame camera due to the additional size and weight compared to crop sensor bodies. I am satisfied with my Panasonic GX bodies and compact 15, 20, 25, and 45mm lenses.
As pointed out by a previous poster, camera sales are in decline. Many people are satisfied with images from their phones. They are good and becoming better. Phone cameras destroyed the point & shoot market. Will they destroy the camera market in general other than for professionals? I hope not.
Mask On Nurse Marty (Ret)
Smartphone may have wiped out the point and shoot cameras but they were being done away by camera makers, I started digital photography 15 years ago with a Canon point and shoot ,it was a way to learn digital photography, but for some reason they started doing away with the view finder and the dials became so small to be useless, then t he shutter lag and the little power zoom lens left me wanting for a camera that I could change lenses on and did not have a micro size sensor, it's one of many reasons why I hate taking photos on a smartphone.
I started my digital journey with the Canon Powershot G3, what a camera that was, I have so many beautiful photos of my son growing up. Like you said they took the view finders away and the nice knobs.
I switched to a M43 system this year from Pentax ASPC. I couldn't be happier. I have a Lumix GX85 and 15 mm and 25 mm panleica and the lumix 42.5. I love the compactness and size and the lenses are of great quality. I am photographic artist aka hobbyist, enthusiast. My out put is the web, photo books and prints for exhibits and print sales. I don't feel the need to print larger than 16 by 20 inches (40 cm by 50 cm). Matti you channel really helped me with lens selection and also your review DXO Pure Raw inspired me to give it ago - game changer! I am good for a few years. I'd like to see an upgrade to the GX85 and GX9 line. I think the value for the beginner and enthusiasts is unparalleled however I'd say the value proposition goes down with the higher end pro cameras. As I stills shooter I am not sure I'd go for a G9II at close to $2,000 when I could get a Sony A7CII or Fuji XT5 almost the same price Anyway I love my 3 prime set up and small body that cost me less than $1300 used for the lot!
Even as big m43 fan I would consider the X-T5 but there is too much compromise related to the Sony. I happen to own the G9 II - its video quality is phenomenal. For video this sensor size really is perfect. 25 MP are perfectly usable for photo, too.
I'm a professional sport photographer using MFT since 2016 when I sold my Nikon FF gears. I never regret that moment because I'm very happy with this syste. I have two E-M1 Mark III with a lot of Pro lenses , simply amazing. The AFC is fast enough for a difficult indoor sport like volleyball and the high iso are not a problem with LR postwork. For me a positive system.
who ever does not get why M43 is relevent and why its a market segment they need to look at the lense to understand the use case. look at the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-400mm f/4.5 TC1.25X IS PRO Lens and the 300mm and the 40-150 and you will get it once you use those.
My very first changeable lens cameras were MFT - an E-M1 Mk 2 and a GX8. Since then I've owned a Sony a7c, a7r4, Canon R5 and Fuji x-H2. I returned to MFT with an OM-1 and, recently, a G9 Mk2. By chance, yesterday, I spent a lot of time rating photos I've taken over the years. Almost every one that I really liked in terms of IQ and 'capturing the moment' was taken with the OM-1. My main subject is wildlife and this is where MFT really shines. The long reach, lightweight lenses, coupled with the speed and technology of the OM-1 are unbeatable. Yes, some full frame cameras have some of that technology, but not all. And for wildlife the equivalent lenses are huge. Let's hope that sports, wildlife and, perhaps, reportage photographers can help maintain this wonderful system's viability.
Lens size Matti is so much more meaningful than body.
I have been shooting Nikon FF and film for 30+ years and have all the right lenses (f mount).
I also have a mft kit
I shoot the mft 90% of the time unless on assignment. It’s the best system for street/travel I’ve found due to the size/quality/PRICE! of the lenses.
The reality is that the mft bodies were so advanced in their time that the older small bodies still compete. A gx85 (e.g.) can be had for peanuts compared to other mirrorless systems who are only catching up now.
I think “real” photographers understand this value and will keep the system alive.
I love your work and your videos. Been watching for years but first post. Much love from Philadelphia have a great new year.
I used to think those small MFT cameras were for beginners. After a few years as an amateur, I have a growing fondness for them and am amazed at the quality of the photos one can get, especially vs phones. I don't see any reason MFT has to be doomed, many "real" photographers are begging for new MFT bodies.
"The reality is that the mft bodies were so advanced in their time that the older small bodies still compete. " Very true. I still use my EM5 M2 and have recently bought some PRO lenses for it rather than upgrading the body. For what I do (mostly hiking, street and travel stills) the body is more than adequate so I have no incentive to upgrade. Having said that, if they put out a PEN F M2 I would snap one up immediately.
I think you`re wrong.
Real photograpers don`t pull the market. Hobbyists that want the best at the moment do. And they don`t even notice MFT.
I use a couple of M4/3 cameras for underwater photography where the size is a huge factor both for traveling and diving purposes.
A lot of good points made. My thoughts :
Cost of M43 is high at the moment. Not a good time to be pushing niche market product further upmarket in price.
Sensor size. There are a distinct shortage of 20MP compact M43 that are affordable.
Camera bodies : too many are too big! GX800 and GX8 size needed! Play to M43 compact strengths.
M43 is not going to be as good as full frame or apsc from a dynamic perspective. Punters do not want to pay the same price for what can be considered (wrongly in my view) to be an inferior system.
Finally... Size matters! These are perfect travel cameras. Don't over bloat!
Fuji has stopped producing compact X cameras. Olympus and Panasonic upsized the 4/3’s. we need a compact Leica like camera that can upload immediately to social media with wifi and Bluetooth. Rangefinder seems to be the domain of Sony and Ricoh right now.
I love m4/3rds and have fully committed to it owning 3 Olympus & 3 Panasonic bodies, mostly bought used plus associated lenses and a few 3rd party ones too ! The system suits my needs especially the compact cameras like my E-P5, Pen-F. GX8 and infra red converted GF1. What I'd like to see is a return to smaller body format but with high end features.
I’ve had all sensor sizes from full frame down. I’m back with an OM5 now. I really enjoy the deeper depth of field.
The Sony α7 series and the new OM-1 are very similar in size but, correct me if I'm wrong, the MFT format allows much smaller lenses.
Shoot with whatever you like. I just bought a vintage Olympus Om1. I have M4/3, APSC and FF camera’s. And yes I think M4/3 will go the way of the dodo’s but that doesn’t matter. It will be good for people who buy used and are not obsessed with better image quality they cannot see.
The advantage of the MFT is the lens. It is indisputable.
Thanks. What lens are you referring to?
Standard zooms, telephoto lens. That’s one area where m43 simple offers a weight advantage for similar focal ranges. I can go out with my 12-40mm oly or 12-60mm and have great range with reasonable speed FF can’t match this. Show me a 24mm-120mm equivalent FF lens that is f4 or below and about 11oz and I will switch to FF. Oh wait, that simply doesn’t exist
I enjoy taking around and shooting around with my LUMIX G100 because of its compactness and the better quality photos I get than my iPhone 14 Pro. My full frame cameras are a bit too cumbersome for carrying daily. I like the flexibility of switching camera systems around for what I’m in the mood for and sometimes pushes my recreational creatively.
I have used MFT for a long time and I loved it.
I simply wanted a better dynamic range and superior low light performance and when my dealer offered a Lumix S1 for a very good price and also gave me a very good price for my MFT system I switched to full frame.
But I always missed the small and compact GX8 with a good Leica 12-60!
I would love to buy an upgraded LX100 III with a completed concept (swiveling screen, great AF etc.) as the ideal 24/7 camera but I fear that Panasonic is not interested in this model anymore.
So I wait until there is a final statement.
If I cannot get a small MFT camera with a fixed lens I will maybe buy something like this with an APSC sensor.
m43 users since 2010, and FF 2-3 years ago.
You are right, mostly. One more crucial point is m43 cannot nail their product positioning correctly.
IMHO, m43 is the best system for
1/ travel, bcos lens are small from wide to long tele
2/ Vlogging, bcos IBIS is far superior
3/ VDO, bcos frame rate & IBIS
Those three are m43 real competitive advantage with huge market size.
Now, OM seems to be static. Their OM5 is big miss opportunity.
Lumix is very clever in sharing the same body as FF (G9II S5II) so they save cost significantly. I think they will pursue this strategy going forward, while focusing on FF.
I will keep my m43 since I love GX9 and few lens. I will use until they are broken.
What I like about 4/3 is the frame aspect ratio to consider at the moment of taking a picture. I have an Olympus E-1 and E-500 (not m4/3) and they have sensors matched to Olympus lenses with their low pixel count. Very film like, and very beautiful. I wouldn’t gain anything with m4/3 except a higher pixel count, and what with the size of the light wells, I am not sure if the upgrade would be worth it.
mft should be the system for the common man or the pro who wants a compact, travel setup. I think keeping the bodies and user interface simple, small and durable while focusing on mechanical controls would always sell well. This is what I'm wanting and I'm being forced to go into the used market to get it at an affordable price.
What appeals most on MFT to me is the compactness of the lenses and the much lower cost of those lenses. It's the main reason I switched from Sony FF to MFT. I do have to admit that I sometimes miss the colours of my Sony - especially my A7S, the A7III less so. Out of the G9, GH6 and EM-1X I do think that the Olympus colours are sometimes better than those of Panasonic. Not sure if there is still a market for mid range bodies? Looking at Olypmus they have the 1, 5 and 10 series, easy to understand but is there still room for the 10 range? Not sure they could remove it and lower the cost of the other two slightly. For Panasonic they have been focussing more on their high end lately with the G9-II and GH6 so next body should be a G85 replacement. Then again plenty of GH5 and G9's out there on the second hand market so the new mid range would need to be positioned at the same price level with some compelling new features. Both my G9 and EM-1X were second hand btw as is most of my glass.
Recently bought a LUMIX G9 m2, have a wide range of leica lenses and especially love the 100-400 mm Leica lens - the new autofocus is insane so are the video features, SSD recording and so on. Has the camera the same body as the FF sister? Yes. Is this a bad thing? No.
I had a GX9 and GX80 and found them to be too small for my rather big hands- they were some centimeters smaller but in the end I always preferred to carry my g9 and now the g9 m2. But the big difference for me is the crop factor, the excellent leica lenses, no rolling shutter and the excellent video quality…
Matti, I agree with almost everything you are saying, however when I'm walking out the door for my morning walk, when I'm going on a trip, when I'm walking one of the Grande Randonnee trails in France I always grab my M4/3 rig first.
Why? Basically its that my EOS-R and RF 24-240 weight in at 3lbs 8oz and my OM-D E-M5iii with M. Zuiko 12-100 Pro weighs a full pound less.
If I'm carrying a backpack with everything I need to live for the next month I cannot carry a full frame camera and live. I can however strap my little Vanguard photo bag as a parasite pack to my usual Osprey pack with: camera body, 4 lenses, flash, filters, batteries and bits and pieces, Peak Design travel tripod, a full water bottle, and lunch and add no more than 14-15lbs to what I have to carry. I can carry that. An equivalent full frame system would kill me.
I guess I'm the exception, but I think the Micro 4/3 people should market themselves more towards people like me, who might not carry a 'real' camera at all because even mirrorless full frame cameras are just too big to be practical unless you are a professional photographer and willing to arrange your entire life around being able to schlep all of that gear.
As M4/3 cameras get bigger and bigger, I get less and less interested in them. If OM System could cram the guts of my E-M5iii into the form factor of my PEN Mini I'd buy it immediately. Remember those early Sony CyberShot DSC F 717 that you held by the lens and the rest of the body would rotate up or down around that? That is an idea worth reexploring as an interchangeable lens camera.
M43 still has its advantages but since several years it is clear that the system is in a death spiral. Sales are down which means no money for innovation, but then without innovation it's unlikely to make a turn around in the business.
Additionally the switch from Olympus to OMS is just the elegant way of Japanese culture to not close down a business and lay off people. But with Olympus selling the camera business, it was clear that Olympus is not making enough money and OMS really hasn't made so attractive new launches that the masses would ditch their Nikon, Canon, Sony system and jump to OMS.
And also Panasonic shows less activities for several years, which confirms that it is not a big successful and attractive business for them anymore.
Some minor updates with minimal development effort (mostly just software updates) will keep some existing customers happy, but will not turn around the m43 system into a new success story.
My experience with Full Frame and most APS-C cameras for video production was terrible. Either the imagery and/or stabilization wasn't up to scratch or the cameras overheated quickly. M4/3 has provided the best results for me personally.
Perhaps the best thing for OM is for it to be acquired by Sony. They already make the sensors, and it provides room for growth. I just don't have a lot of faith in OMDS.
One major thing as well is the other manufacturers are listening to their communities. The one camera Olympus users have been clamoring for is a Pen Fii but we got another OM-1. Panasonic could do something incredible and create a modular system that videographers would love. Incorporate Ai, make sexy looking, retro style cameras and maybe even a new line of retro style lenses. Make something mainstream to get people stoked on the system before blowing people away with a new flagship that revolutionizes the system.
I have always shot a Canon 7D, and I recently decided to acquire a 5D (such a bargain in 2024!) and an R50. Within the next 48 hours or so, I'll have a M4/3 camera, a Lumix G5. I'm looking forward to trying it out. All the formats have their place.
Here’s my take.
Generally the camera industry is professionalizing.
Camera sales are continually going from a big amateur market to a smaller professional market, because of phone cameras.
And MFT is generally the least viable sensor format for professionals.
Sure you can produce the same results, but it’s easier with larger sensors and you have more room for mistakes with larger sensors so professionals will gravitate to gear which will a more reliable.
Weight and size is also not a big concern for professionals since the equipment for professional photographers and videographers is often already more bulky and heavy then the cameras and lenses ever could be.
There are exceptions of course and some pros do care about the weight factor, but a lot don’t.
I say this as an amateur who exclusively shoots with MFT gear. I love the benefits of MFT and if the high ISO/dynamic range performance makes a picture unusable or you would have needed a bit higher resolution like 1 out of a thousand pictures who cares there is always a next time.
But when you’re a professional risk like that can threaten the relationship with clients and even your livelihood.
So as long as regular people don’t start buying cameras again the market for MFT will shrink until it stabilizes in a few niches.
I totally agree - you have made some very good points. I am a retired pro with 49 years of experience. M43 is the perfect camera for me. I get excellent results, I have the versatility of shooting with a variety of lenses and I now carry a fraction of the weight.
@@JimCDC11 I totally agree. I recently was on a long trip. I had the em5 markiii, the 75-300 and two of the 1.8 olympus primes. My buddy had the Canon R5 with a battery grip and the 85mm f1.2
And oh boy, I would have to be paid really good money to carry that R5 around all day.
That thing was heavier then my whole kit.
I was really happy with my photos, just the ability to casually bring a good yet small telezoom with me is why I don't see myself switching to full frame any time soon.
Such a shame that our "use case" is pretty limited.
And amateurs emulate professionals. I've seen many people in my circle who spent $4000+ on the latest Sony A7 with an f/4 zoom and a f/1.4 prime because it's "better than a crop sensor" and because "the pros use it, so it must be good", only to have the camera gather dust because they never use it because it's too big and clunky. Same thing for golf equipment, amateurs emulate the pros and buy the most expensive clubs that the pros use, even though those are designed for pros with scratch handicap.
It's true. I wish I could downsize my system for my professional work, but the reality is I would much rather carry the weight and size than give up even 0.1% on any other metric.
@@elzafir Then why is it it, that OM makes bodies that are heavier bigger and more esxpensive than FF.
Your video confirms something I've been feeling for a time. I've had a G9 for a couple of years and enjoyed it immensely. I've taken several thousand images with it, some of which I've been pleased with. The many bad ones are due to the ineptness of the photographer and not the camera lol. I believe the major advantages of MFT against FF were IBIS, compactness and low expense. When you consider the G9ii is similarly priced to the S5ii then the cost equation is negated. The size of the G9ii is pretty much the same as the S5ii/S5iix (same body practically) so the compactness issue is negated. The IBIS of the G9ii might be possibly be superior to the S5ii (that's speculation on my part as I have no evidence to support that) but the S5ii by all accounts has a much superior IBIS than it's nearest competitors, the Sony A7iV and Canon R6ii and certainly it's found to be more than adequate. So, that's the stability advantage negated. So Why buy a G9ii? I have literally just faced that same decision when moving up from my G9. Fortunately I only have two MFT lenses (14-140ii and PL 100-400) so no great investment. This means the move to FF was an easy one for make to mean I get better low light performance and that shallow depth of field I've been hankering after for some time. I dithered about getting a Sony A7iv for the extra resolution but in the end I couldn't stretch to that budget,. So I'm really pleased with my S5ii and the 20-60mm kit lens and 50mm f/1.8 I got in the bundle. I'm pleased with being able to leave the camera on auto iso to get the shots I want whenever the light is a bit iffy. Which in the UK is like 99.999% of the time.
So where does that leave MFT? I really agree with you Matti - I think it's struggling unless it plays to the one strength it has which is to go for the small compact market. But, it will be interesting to see what happens if the rumours of putting a MFT sensor in a phone turn out to be true.
❤ I've been with panasonic lumix exclusively for the past 10 years. I shoot both micro 4/3 and full frame. each have their own advantage, I don't necessarily prefer one over the other. my choice is always based on the requirements for the situation of the day. zen billings in canada
I would like Pana and OM to work better together on their lenses. They should ensure that: 1) there is no overlap going forward (pana does not need to release a similar lens as OM, and vice versa), 2) Their lenses are fully functional between the two systems, including Lens IS and all the small quirks.
That would create a system and options that the FF would struggle to keep up with.
The advantages of FF are more colors, better dynamic range, better low light, more detail, smaller dof. But you can take photos even if they are not so good. m43 is good enough. In the end, every photo is a compromise image of reality. Which is better is often a matter of faith. The average viewer will not see the difference.
And if you went 5x4 large format you'd get even more colors, dynamic range, low light etc etc.
Yes they need to continue with the smaller bodies. I use the GX80 and Olympus pen cameras and it the size that attracts me to them.
They should also work on a compact camera to rival the Ricoh GX and/or the Fuji X100, these are really popular and if they could do it at a better price I think it would be a hit.
The GX9 with P20 or O17 is as small and light as the X100VI, and a fraction of the price.
Happy new year Matti and thanks for another great video.
Interesting take on the MFT market Matti. I agree on many of the reasons people are choosing FF over MFT but I’m much more optimistic on its future. It’s never been a sales leader (except in Asia) but that doesn’t mean it’s dying. On the size question yes, the bodies are now comparable, to the point where the G9ii and the S5ii use the same body but lenses are still far smaller, lighter and more affordable, they are easier for R&D and production.
I also do feel that for many people that weight and system size is a major factor especially as we get older.
Where I really do agree with you is your last few sentences. Both OMDS and Lumix have left the small camera development behind. I have said for years that a GX8 replacement but with up to date sensors,IBIS, focus and all the other features is long overdue and I’d swap that for my big G9 any day.
Best wishes and thanks for your vision
Perhaps the increasing number of retired people who want minimum weight burdens will help drive more micro 4/3 use.
I have a GX80 and G9. Wouldn’t like to choose between them if it came to choosing only one. They serve different daily circumstances. The GX80 is more compact and discreet but the G9 is a workhorse and satisfying beast to hold and use.
I'm looking for an ILC for travel that is lightweight and good in bad weather. It seems like OM-5 is the best option for that. I currently use an X-T5. Outside of size/weight and weather, there aren't a ton of reasons to use M43 over larger sensor sizes imo.
I haven’t main’d a digital camera in close to a decade that wasn’t m43 mount, no regerts. I’ll take it a step further and say that training oneself to take quality photos on a smaller sensor camera makes one a better photographer.
Traditionally small body cameras are entry level in lineup of any brand. Panasonic and OM declare that one of their important consumer target group is outdoor enthusiasts. But if you go to multi day canoe trip, hiking or mounting climbing you will have hard time to take with you G9, G9 ii, GH6, OM1 etc. But you will not take in your expedition entry level small body camera a well, which are not weather sealed by the way. As a result you will take only smartphone or action camera with you. Cameras for such group of consumers must be small, light, high end, weather sealed and has selection of small, high end and weather sealed lenses. Last very easy to achieve - by introducing mk ii versions of excellent Panasonic and Olympus small primes with f/1.8. The only one camera which more or less comes close to the mentioned above requirements is OM5, but unfortunately it has poor mechanical build (which should be excellent for outdoor adventures) and do not have selection of weather sealed small lenses anyhow.
A while back, I was shooting some photos at a political event with Jill Biden. While waiting for her appearance, I was chatting with a newspaper photographer who was standing next to me. Around her neck were two Canon Mk5's both with significant lenses; I was carrying an Olympus E-M1. I asked her "wouldn't you rather be shooting with something lighter like this?" She responded with "absolutely, I hate lugging these around, but my paper insists that I shoot with a full-frame camera like my Canon's." I bring that up, because even though a m4/3 body, like my current OM-1, isn't that much smaller than several current mirrorless FF bodies, when you couple those bodies to the lenses, you suddenly have a camera system that is quite heavy to carry around all day, or, heaven forbid, have two strapped around one's neck. As a street photographer who often will be holding his camera for several hours at a time, there is no comparison between shooting with a good m4/3 camera and lens and shooting full frame. That real-world advantage needs to be better exploited by Panasonic and OM Systems, as that advantage will be around for the foreseeable future.
It used to be that way but it depends. Look at those F1.2 big primes and look at what you can get lens equivalent on FF. It’s not that simple, plus the bodies aren’t that smaller anymore in m43rds (the high end latest tech bodies).
And that’s what’s really unfortunate. I don’t think it had to end up there.
Hi Matti, I agree with you on many points BUT for me size is very important! My GX80 is simply a dream of a travel camera and the ideal compromise between size, flexibility and image quality. Especially with the new AI options for noise reduction in post-processing, the image quality is simply amazing. I also have an iPhone 15pro, which is nice because you always have it with you in everyday life, but I don't want to take my beautiful travel photos with it either. I have a direct comparison, it's nonsense to pretend that an MFT system can be replaced by an iPhone, the image quality of the GX80 is far, far superior to the iPhone. I also have a TZ101 Premium Compact with a 1-inch sensor, which is also great and I sometimes just have it with me, but even it can't fully replace the GX80 for the really "beautiful" photos. But the GX80 takes these really beautiful photos with everything you need, bokeh, sun stars, etc., simply everything you need. I wouldn't want to lug around comparable full-frame equipment with me on vacation or while traveling, definitely NOT.
MFT should return to its original purpose of "micro". I have a GM1, which is simply CULT! Unfortunately I didn't buy a GM5 when it came out, since then I've been looking for a second-hand GM5 - almost impossible to get in Germany and if so then at fantasy prices far above the new price at the time. Greetings from Hamburg Germany!
My recommendation is to make an ‘REI edition’ that appeals to hikers/outdoors. MFT is a great hiking format, (lightweight) so need to be rugged and weather sealed!
Also, MFT should capitalize on the unique characteristics of the sensor output. Fuji fans seem to be head over heels about film simulations. The Olympus color science for jpgs is great and I think they could go further in jpg. I usually shoot raw on my other cameras, but for Olympus jpg. mft files have a more film-like quality than my FF Nikon, especially on the older 12MP sensors. The noise is grain like.
The demise of four thirds has been foretold since it first came out.
People are brainwashed by reviewers that image features (quality, bokeh, sharpness,....) are the most important aspects of the gear. And "bigger is better" means crop sensors are out of the picture. Very view people analyze their needs but instead follow the general trend.
More MFT and phone cameras and less APS-C and FF is the trend... The brainwashing is against caring about image quality that is good enough for larger images...
As a hobbyists G9 user, sometimes it would be nice to have a simpler menu to use. My wife used the camera and started pushing buttons on the screen, pretty soon it was a mess.
I still wish that it made stronger use of electronic zoom through a good prime for video use
I got into MFT while going back to my Pentax 110 kit (one still works well, though another is jammed), and seeing that my full complement of lens could also be used with MFT adapters. I have had excellent results since, needing only to pick up a well-priced EPL8 body. I also found that with a 25.5-27mm stepring on the 24mm 110 lens could reuse filters and lens adapters from my Contaflex collection. The quality and compactness of the EPL8/Pentax setup suits me very well now. If wanting a bulky camera to do something really special, like hot-air balloon events, there is a Mamiya 645 with telephoto.
I stick with MFT as I love the lenses and the different physical properties of the sensor are actually an advantage for my photography. I switched from Nikon full frame 4 years ago and my photography has never been better. Today I would probably choose another system like Fuji. But as you say, the difference in performance would in real life be irrelevant.
Funny how the main allure of MFT to me is the 3:4 form factor. I don't ever want to return to 3:2. And medium format is genuinely not an option.
Although I have the OM-1 and the M5 MkIII many of my (favourite) pictures are taken with the 16 MP E-PL10... And the lens is much more decisive for the image quality than the resolution of the sensor.
So, MFT is a love story for me and the gear I have will easily carry me through this decade