When the gh6 was coming out I spent dozens of hours considering going to a full frame. Canon R5 and 6. Sony a7iiii and a7iii. I worked and worked and studied and asked question. I made a full time job of it. In the end I got the GH6. At the end of the day none of those camera could touch the specs. Once can work around the low light and focus disadvantages. I'm hooked across the board on M43. Most of the people dissing it simple either don't understand or don't want to. Learn to manipulate the camera you use and I choose M43
I used to shoot Nikon full frame, but changed to micro four thirds, due to low weight and size. I now Shoot with a Panasonic G9 and with only three lenses in a small bag, I can cover 14 to 600mm full frame equivalent. The lenses in my bag are the 7-14, 14-140 and 100-300. I have no complaints about this system.
Like most non-professionals...we buy full frame, but we don't buy the expensive lenses, which make us think that micro 4/3 or APC cameras are of similar image quality. At similar lens prices, there is no comparison between full frame and micro 4/3.
Hey Matti - Good video on micro 4/3. I got my first Olympus OM1 in 1973. I was 13yrs old. Switching over from 35mm film to digital was culture shock for me. My first digital SLR was a D50 Nikon. Now I use a D750 and D500. I mountain bike through the woods with a 600mm lens in my backpack and a 55-300 DX on the D500 strapped to my chest for those sudden encounters with deer, coyotes, etc. It's a workout. I recently picked up an OMD EM5 with a 14-150mm for peanuts ($400). It's great ! I strap that little sucker to my chest and I'm ready for whatever pops up. I still take my backpack loaded with a giant Nikon and Bazooka lens but while I'm riding, I use that tiny EM5. It reminds me of that little OM1 I had 49yrs ago. It's Awesome.
I'm moving from canon dslr to mft system. It's been almost 3 years now. I love how compact is mft system, so i can bring it in almost all occassion. I'm not a professional photographer, just a hobbyist, so i need a system that not weight me when i put it on my bag. It's a good system with wide variety of lenses. Love it.
I am beginning my photography journey with the new OM-1 that I will order tomorrow and one of the big factors for me was size. I previously had another Olympus model that I used for a little bit and I really enjoyed how compact it was and now that I’m back on the market for a camera I was looking at some Olympus cameras. The size of OM-1 is perfect, I don’t like big bulgy cameras. I don’t mind that it’s a 20MP sensor. The size makes up for it for me. Plus the camera just looks so cool aesthetically. It looks simple and also kinda vintage. Can’t wait to get my hands on it!
When I bought a micro four thirds camera I did it due its affordable price. It was the first time in my life that I had a semi professional camera and the beginning of never ending photography self knowledge. After 4 years, I still have that camera and I am using it a lot. Thanks to that camera I love so much photography.
@@hruaitearalte Hey! Well, here's the cruel truth. Lenses are usually expensive no matter the brand. In the Lumix system there are the Leica ones that are excellent. If your main goal is photography both brands are good, but if you want to film too Sony has better auto focus. Also, in low light situations the micro four thirds system could have issues because you have to increase the ISO and have a lot of noise grain, but if you use a tripod and lenses with an aperture of 1,7 or 1,4 you will not have to worry about it. Hope my comment helped you. In the near future I would like to buy another Panasonic Lumix camera, and someday... A Leica 😮
@@TheOneAft thanks. I am an an amateur who is keen more towards video and occasional photo. I love the color science of Lumix more, especially its exposure compensation. However, as an amateur, the Sony's AF is to die for. And judging from the GH6, AF is still not something you can expect to be at Sony's level in the near future. Sigh*
@@hruaitearalte Yes, unfortunately the AF in Lumix still has a few issues that is why I always use Manual Focus when I record video in my Lumix. Hope you can find the right camera for you 😃
Hello again from New Zealand! I agree with your five reasons. The lenses are really tiny no matter how big the bodies are. I have a few more to add: 1) I really-really like the four-thirds format. Vertical shots look like 4x5s. I know I can shoot four-thirds using a larger sensor but it's different when the system's full frame is four-thirds; 2) I notice the systems sensitivity in a way that, in a specific scene, lower ISOs are selected even though the shutter speed and aperture, with equivalence, are the same. I am not sure if that has to do with the fact that the lenses are tele-centric. Even with videography, I notice that sensors in this format are rather sensitive, preferring lower ISOs all the time; 3) As with other photographers who do landscape with a lot of foliage and vegetation, while other formats prefer to showcase their dynamic range, Micro Four-Thirds cameras exhibit a lot of colour separation which is somewhat closer to the colour separation in film when printed. The colour separation is just so pleasing to the eyes, especially when printed. By the way, my other system is Pentax. I shoot MFT and Pentax depending on the conditions but I don't compare the two because I think they compliment each other. Cheers!
I used to shoot on a Nikon full frame but I didnt want to take it out due to the weight. So I picked up an EM5 MKII with a 17mm and it rekindled my love for photography. Now I shoot with a G9 and it goes everywhere with me. Not to mention the amazing lens selection.
Great that you feel that way, but as someone who used to shoot MFT but now has a full frame camera, there are ways to keep it pretty light with full frame as well. Like Sony A7C + Tamron 35mm f2.8 (with half macro ablilities). Weight total is like 700g (1.5 lbs). You get a faster aperture (1.8 on MFT is like f3.6 in full frame terms), and the lens can do half macro (0.5x magnification). But when it comes to the weight of zoom lenses MFT is hard to beat. But there are some from Tamron for FF that only weigh like 400g (14 oz).
@@TerraThink that’s true. I’ve thought a lot about FF primes being a way to keep a FF system weight down….like a Nikon z5 and a plastic fantastic 40mm f2. However, I then glance across at my beautiful collection of m4/3 glass and wonder why swap? Would the Nikon 40mm lens be quantifably better than my Olympus 17mm f1.8 (f3.6) I don’t want less in focus anyway….I need every face in a group photo to be sharp which is twice as hard to achieve with my FF system.
@@TerraThink I'm not sure that what you say is correct regarding f-stop equivalence with respect to speed of lenses. The f number is the ratio between focal length and aperture size, and a 50mm f1.4 is the same whether it's on a 35mm camera or fitted to m3/4 with an adapter. The lens lets the same amount of light in, and the intensity per unit area hitting the sensor is the same- it's just that the sensor is only quarter of the area so only the central part of the image (equivalent to 100mm full frame) is captured. Depth of field is affected by smaller sensors, but in practice this is rarely a problem, as any number of m4/3 images out there will attest. I have a series of photos of butterflies I shot a couple years ago that in retrospect I wish I'd stopped down a stop or two, as in many of them I've got the body sharp but not the head, despite a difference of mm in distance from the camera.
@@chrishowell5718 This is a common argument but there are plenty of youtube channels testing this. While you might technically be correct, f2.8 on MFT will not isolate the subject as much as it does on FF. After looking into this a lot some years ago, I came to the conclusion that at least for practical purposes, you take both the focal length and aperture x2 for MFT and x1.5 (or x1.6 for Canon) for APS-C to get similar field of view and bokeh as full frame.
Commin back to photography after a 20 year break I started with a Nikon z50. It was smal and light and a very good camera and I got a some great photos. Because of it's size I brought it with me everywhere. The problem started when I couldn't take all those photos because it wasn't weather sealed and even worse it couldn't handle low temperatures. When I started to look into how to solve this I realised that there wasn't an easy was to upgrade in the z-system. I couldn't just upgrade lenses or camera bodies as I wanted because of image stabilisation issues. I had to buy both lenses and body from the start. Setting upp an excelfile with parameters which was important. Olympus came out at the top, With the lenses I wanted it was even 7 grams lighter than the z50. Add weather sealing and temperature sealing and a great ibis it was an easy choice.
Hi Matti, I was a Canon shooter from 1983, until a couple of years or so ago and still have an R6 which I rarely use these days, following the switch. I watched a video on Zenography, and was prompted to by an Olympus pen camera. It came with a 14-42mm kit lens. I was really impressed with both the size, but more importantly, the quality of the photo’s I could get with such a small camera setup. I still have the Pen E-PL7, but generally use my E-MD1 Mkiii. I like to shoot birds and wildlife, and as I am not a youngster anymore, the reduction in weight is essential, plus the cost as you pointed out is an added bonus. Just to add, I am an enthusiast, and not a good photographer; I just love photography and Olympus/M4/3 fulfils my ambitions in plenty.
Hi Matti, my first more serious camera was and still is Lumix G9 and thanks to your excellent videos I could learn the system. I owe you a lot in this respect. MFT is reliable and working well even in low light conditions. Except a rather mediocre AF. Unfortunately, telephoto lenses are difficult to exchange between Lumix and Olympus/OM, with their major drawback - stabilization. But for travels MFT is an excellent option. Thanks once again for your contribution that certainly has helped many of us - users.
There are many reasons why I chose MFT. I had to buy new equipment. I am a Nikon old user (FT and EL in the 70's). When I switched to F801 (N8008) in 1990 my Nikkor lenses were not compatible. In 2005 I bought a Lumix FZ5 because it had a Leica lens. I was very happy with it. In 2011, I decided to buy a camera with exchanging lenses. I could have chosen Nikon, Canon but I chose a Lumix G3 with 14-140 mk1 because I wear glasses and was used to take pictures with iPhone just looking at the LCD, I wanted something small and light and the MFT lenses had good reputation. I have now a PEN-F and some lenses. Here are my reasons. 1. MFT cameras and lenses are small and light. I can put in my jacket pocket my PEN-F with the 15mm. I could not if I had a FF with 30mm or APS-C with 20mm. 2. The PEN-F jpg colours are very nice and its B&W capabilities are gorgeous. 3. The lenses are great whatever the brand, Oly, Pany or Leica: 7-14mm Pany, 15mm f1.7, 25mm f1.4 and 45mm f2.8 macro, I like them. 4. The depth of field is better. At f2.8 with a MFT you have the DoF of 5.6 with a FF. It means that for the same DoF you have for exemple 1/30s at f2.8 with a MFT and 1/15s at f5.6 with a FF. This is very important in low light when you know the reason #5. 5. This IBIS or OIS is excellent, the best in the market. 6. The size of the sensor is enough considering what we do with the pictures. We can print large pictures. 7. Many MFT cameras and lenses are weather sealed, splash proof and s.o.. If you add all theses specs, only the MFT can check all the boxes. The only drawbacks are when you have to take pictures in very, very very low light and when you need very, very shallow DoF. But all in all for maybe 98% of my pictures the MFT are just the best choice.
When I was planning 6 years ago a trekking rout in Himalayas in winter, I needed a camera that can could fit under a jacket at low temperatures. The second requirenment was using 80% of time a wide lens around 20mm (in FF scale) and sometimes- a telephoto lens to take pictures of remote high peaks that I cannot reach. Both lenses should be compact because of the trekking conditions in winter. I purchased Lumix GX 9 that was new at the moment and used it 5 years in many situations also adding several lenses of other types. Now I use Olympus EM 5 III, because of weather sealing and 12-45mm PRO Olympus lens that is optimal for hiking in mountains in Lappland.
Size and lightness are the advantages that matter to me. I take 3 cameras with me so I don't have to change lenses (I use primes lenses) and it stays light! The ratio between compactness and IQ is unique. I bought a Fuji X-T4 recently, and despite the incredible IQ, I always come back to the MFT when I need to go far.
I agree with every one of your points Matti! I've been using Micro Four Thirds since the E-P1 and every time I get tempted by the siren song of "full frame", I double down and add to my system. 😄 The lens size and selection is the biggest advantage: I can either buy tiny, sharp primes, or I can buy fast constant f/2.8 zooms (something that I could only dream about back in the SLR days). I can get ridiculously fast f/0.95 and f/1.1 manual lenses without breaking the bank. Fisheyes, once pricey exotic lenses, are now commonplace and affordable (I have three different fisheyes). And powerful AI-powered editing programs erase the advantages that FF has with noise, dynamic range, and bokeh. Can I ever imagine going on a trip with a full frame system? Not on your life!
I dumped my FF Canons and Canon APS bodies and went all in on M4/3s. Above all it was weight but also fell in love with GX7 and GX9 bodies. No one has complained about the portraits I've shot.
Matti, thanks for excellent video which brings back memories of the late David Thorpe, who was positive about MFT but never embellished. After starting photo hobby again, I've stayed with MFT due to excellent glass that cannot be beat for size, weight, & cost, plus IBIS which is best in industry.
Back in the era of 35mm photography, I was a Contax/Yashica photographer/enthusiast/user/collector with an investment in thousands of 1970's and 80's dollars. When that system failed to move forward with compatible digital equipment I became disillusioned with serious photography. I became an orphan with a lot of very good but outdated equipment that just gathered dust. As digital became the standard, I only used compact cameras for simple snap shooting . I said I would never again be lured into system photography and my interests evolved into other pastimes. I even fell into the trap to believe that the only camera I needed was on my phone. I was getting older and the thought of carrying a full system bag around with me to restart my journey back into photography was something that was never going to happen. Then my daughter purchased a mirrorless Sony camera. It was reasonably compact, easy to use, and created great images. This stimulated my reawakening into photography. After looking at the lineups of the various camera systems, I realized that small size was the most important attribute I wanted in a camera system as long as the images were still good quality. Naturally this made Micro 4/3rds the system for me. I now have an OM-D E-M10 and a Panasonic GX85 body, a wide assortment of compact lenses and flashes. None of my equipment is "pro level" like I owned in my Contax days but they shoot great pictures. I have even used some of my old Contax lenses with adapters on occasion. I am retiring soon from my real job and look forward into enjoying my "new" system more. Without Micro 4/3rds in the marketplace, I doubt if I ever would have become a semi-serious photographer again.
Hi Matti- I started with the Panasonic G-1 many years ago, to have a smaller system to use for hiking and travel. I then upgraded to the GX-7 then to the GX-9. I really like the smaller, rangefinder-style body. I have slowly added many lenses, from the 7-14mm ultra-wide zoom, 20mm 1.7, 30mm 2.8 Macro, 12-60mm 3.5-5.6 and the 45-200 zoom. I even got a Laowa 10mm 2.8. All are nice and small, ideal for hiking. I have also added a MFT-EF adapter so that I can use my Canon EF lenses with my GX9 with full autofocus! I still have, use and like my Canon R6 with a selection of EF and RF lenses but the Lumix goes with me more frequently. Thanks for the video. ~Earl
Matti: I shot Micro 4/3 from 2012 to 2019 and loved it. . At that point I switched to Fujifilm because sensors on Micro 4/3 cameras seemed to be stagnating and each new body seemed to get bigger and heavier. If I wiped the slate clean and went shopping today, I don't think I'd go back unless I needed video. (All prices and specs are from B&H and for brand new gear.). Fuji System: Fuji X-T4+18-55mm f 2.8 zoom+75-300mm zoom + 1.4tc teleconverter: Total Cost $3347.00/ Total weight 1554g or 3.42 lbs. Micro 4/3 system: Panasonic GH6+12-35mm f2.8 zoom +100-300mm zoom: Total Cost: $3542.00/ Total weight 1564g or 3.44 lb.
I switzed to Fuji also. Similar weight but a little higher iq and more room for cropping. More dymanic range. Mft has superior ibis. So mft is maybe the easiest format to shoot with. I shoot ff also but not the big heavy glass. The Sony a7c with small light lenses i am interested to try out. Cheers
Thank, Matti. As you helped me to switch to MFT years ago, I'm glad to see you once gain singing the praises of the system that makes the most sense for most photographers at any level. My G9-based "field kit" spans an effective FL range from 16-800 and weighs about 5kg, which means I can take it anywhere under any conditions and get shots others would miss. Even large prints look phenomenal--there is simply no reason to even consider "FF" as it gives me zero advantages (plus it has shortcomings besides size/weight) compared to MFT. I'd still recommend a bridge camera (I still use my Lumix FZ1000) for someone upgrading from a pocket point-and-shoot or phone before jumping to an MILC, but if you're confident that you'll want to start a lens collection, then MFT is definitely that way to go! BtW, as great as the G9 is, it may replace the GX85 as my B cam once the GH6-based G9 replacement arrives (Lumix must realize that photographers aren't too happy with the video-centricity of the GH6).
I agree with most of this! Except the part about the bridge camera, the cheaper m43 models (Pens, GX, etc) often cost less with a kit lens, I'd advise anyone to jump right into m43 from a smartphone hehe
I like your channel and agree with your reasons. I have Full Frame, APS-C and of course M43. My M43 collection, mostly used from Pawn shops but a couple were new purchases include EPL-1, EM10 ii (My EDC camera), GX85 (alternate EDC), G7, and G95. I love how these M43 and also the Sony A6000 cameras can be so easily adapted to use vintage glass. I love collecting older glass and adapting them to get amazing results. I am not a pro photographer but an engineer by trade but just love photography, cameras and lenses.
Another great video! I originally got into m43 for budget and size concerns. But now my favorite setup is the LUMIX G9 with battery grip and the Oly 40-150 2.8 PRO. So the size argument is gone. I have yet to find any reason to switch formats. I’m continually pleased with images the m43 system is capable of producing.
Like many amateurs that are getting on a bit in age I started to feel the weight of my Canon 5diii with a 24-70 mm f 2.8 lens. As a result I saw myself leaving my camera ever more often at home. By accident I saw a video about an Olympus EM5ii and the amazing image quality it could offer for not even half the weight, size and most importantly price. Now I have 4 m4/3 camera’s and a whole collection of lenses, all bought second hand. In normal light I see no difference in IQ but I have found back my pleasure in photography and never leave the house without a camera.
Great video, Matti! 🙂 I chose Micro Four Thirds on the advice of the lovely guy in the camera store. I was in the market for a budget Nikon APSC camera, but he demonstrated that, followed by an Olympus E-M1. That blew my mind! Autofocus speed... check. Fully featured... check. Build quality... check. Budget... blown! 😂 I have never looked back on that choice. It was some of the best advice I've ever had. Paul 😎
I love and only use m43. The reasons are all in this video. There is simply no better option regarding cost-benefit in image quality per amount of money, period. You can choose from almost toy-like mini cameras to professional grade super cameras. And finally and most importantly, even if the camera bodies are not necessarily super small, the lenses are absurdly small, especially the telephoto options, there is nothing like it. You sacrifice 5% in image quality (in some specific situations) for a faster, smaller, cheaper system in m43, it's just a better proposition for almost all photographers, especially with amazing lens selection available.
One of the great things about this channel is that it addresses philosophical elements of photography. Although have not chosen M43 at this stage, I'm considering it because the weight of a larger system is giving me cause to reconsider earlier decisions. Of particular concern is when I travel overseas, as I prefer to have my camera backpack as cabin-luggage/carry-on, rather than risk it with the brutes who call themselves baggage handlers, and my decision brings with it a 7kg limit that nowadays is being rather strictly monitored. As always, thanks for such a considered and valuable clip, and it's wonderful getting glimpses of your beautiful country.
I bought my first MFT camera second-hand as a secondary camera system for the reasons you mentioned: compact size and weight; and affordability. I planned to use it only for backup of my main camera system and as a "toy camera" to carry around when not pursuing "serious" photography. While it is still my backup system, I have acquired a quiver of MFT lenses and have used it as my primary camera on several business trips when photography was not the main goal but I wanted to have a decent camera kit with me. I have produced a photobook of wildlife images shot at a national seashore with just a used Lumix GX85. So much for considering it a "toy" camera system!
I’ve shot m4/3 for awhile as a mom. I use OM (Olympus) and their weather sealing and compact size is great for a mom on the go. People ask me all the time if I’m a photographer because the photos of my kids are way better than a phone (which I use when needed). I actually hang photos of my family up regularly and I love being able to flex between mom photographer of kids and actually taking nature photographs if I feel like it. I still have a purple Olympus epm-1 pen mini! ❤️
I always used Canon to take pictures and had the Gh5 for more advanced video features. Few years ago I went on a long trip with my canon gear and oh boy I found it hard to carry around, I started to question myself about my interest in photography lol! When I came back looked for a new lightweight option without thinking about using my panasonic only because of the sensor size. Then finally one day I went on a video shoot and took pictures for my instagram with the GH5 because my iphone was dead, as soon as I saw the result I was quite impressed, so much that I decided to use it as my main photography camera.
Thanks, Matti. Back in film days, I used medium format an then 35mm Canon, especially loving my F-1n. Reluctantly, I moved to digital, with the Lumix G1, and then went with Olympus for their ergonomics and IBIS. I’ve never looked back. I shoot mostly telephoto and macro in nature, and MFT is far preferable to me than other formats for convenience, DoF (with good flexibility, deep or shallow), optics, weather resistance, and affordability. It’s a fantastic tool for photography, worry-free to carry, great to hold, and just enjoyable to use.
Thanks Matti for an interesting video! I bought my first m43 camera, an Olympus em10 mark II, about 4 years ago at the recommendation of a friend. It was my first serious camera and my intro to photography. I have upgraded to an em5 iii, which I love, and am waiting for my OM1. I love the small size and weight, as well as the image quality. I mainly shoot street photography and m43 is perfect for me.
My first interchangeable lens camera was an Olympus E520 (four thirds system) which I purchased based on the quality of the kit lenses as well as the camera body. When the micro 4/3 system replaced the 4/3 system I made the switch and have owned several different bodies and currently use an M10 Mark II and M1 Mark II. I agree with everything you've said. Most of my gear was purchased used and a result, I've been able to afford to acquire quite a few lenses including some pro lenses that are my workhorses. But at my age (72), I'm not thrilled about carrying a heavy bag, so I enjoy having the capability to customize my bag depending on where and when I will be taking photographs. When I've thought about changing systems, I've concluded that it would be quite costly and as an amateur, the gear I have is more than capable of doing what I need it to do. If I take lousy pictures, and I do at times, it is certainly my fault and not because I don't have a system with a larger sensor or one with more pixels. At this point, I want to spend more time getting better at using the gear I own and don't need to spend a lot of money on gear that isn't going to make me a better photographer. Thanks for a very good video on the benefits of the micro four thirds system!
Matti you nailed it. I still use mFT primarily for it's size/weight and resistance to the elements. If I am going for a hike or a city walk my mFT camera is with me. I generally choose a lens to use before I go out and if I can't decide a small bag is all that is needed bring with some alternatives. Small and light with good ergonomics makes photography fun.
Hi Matti, loved the video; I have been taking pictures for a very long time without knowing much about cameras or photography; 35 mm film cameras (Minolta, Olympus), Kodak and Polaroid cameras with films developed at my local pharmacy. Then I bought a Nikon coolpix 4300 in 2003 as my first digital camera; then, later, a Canon 1000A PowerShot. After that I started out with aOlympus 4/3 cameras (E-510,E-620), and then micro 4/3 cameras (E-PL1, and now OM-D E-M1 Mk II. So I guess I have been used to small and compact camera because they do what I have needed at the time and are easy to carry around. I’m older now and small, compact, light weight camera systems do the job for me. The best camera system is the one you USE and take with you. I really like my Panasonic-Leica 100-400 zoom (my largest lens). So I guess I would say that I check all five boxes for reasons why I prefer MFT systems as an older amateur photographer!
I went for m3/4 because...of you! You convinced me a while ago with your videos. I then got an GX9 and am still exploring lenses and techniques...its fun 🙏🏻🙂🇨🇭
I have a Nikon APS-C D500 (with no IBS). It just sits in the bag with its heavier lenses while I get out with my Lumix m4/3 kit. Instead of following the "influencers" into the world of full frame, I bought a cheap GX85 with 2 kit lenses a couple years ago and enjoyed the "light-weight" experience. Now I have a full G9 kit with lenses (just need to complete with the PANA 100-400) that I love to shoot with. I also have a Lumix LX100m2 for even lighter work, street and travel, and fully 4/3 compatible with my system. Plus the menu system is consistent and logical (sorry, Sony). And I always have my phone! Thanks for your videos, Matti!
Thanks for all the very informative videos. I chose a micro four thirds camera [Lumix G85 / 12-60mm, f 3.5 lens] for the affordable price and so I could learn to use the features of a real camera. I am now hooked, and eager to learn more.
I used to shoot Canon full frame but moved away because of the weight and bulk. I found I just wasnt taking it with me much and ended up just using my phone. Now shoot with an Olympus EM1 and a mix of Panasonic and Olympus lenses. Positives for me: 1) (lack of) size and weight, 2) crazy telephoto on modestly sized lenses, 3) range and quality of lenses. Only con for me is low light performance, but I find I can greatly mitigate that with wide aperture primes and great image stabilization. Very happy with my choice.
I've been shooting with MFT for 10 years and it's always offered the most extensive video capabilities at each point in time. From the start, I've been able to take advantage of readily adaptable full-frame and anamorphic lenses, as well as high-quality MFT and even legacy Four-Thirds lenses (such as the Olympus14-35mm f2 zoom). The introduction of Speedboosters took MFT into ultra-low f-stop zoom regions untouchable by full-frame systems (because their DOF is TOO NARROW to focus at such apertures). With the introduction of the GH5s, Panasonic closed the DR gap between MFT and full-frame sensor performance, and the GH5M2 and GH6 have consolidated those performance gains. Combined with Leica f1.7 zooms and f1.2 primes, MFT becomes a compact, lightweight system that cannot be beat.
I loved the fully articulated back of the G1, and the convenience to use my existing "legacy" lenses. Since then I have purchased several Panasonic lenses, they trigger my couriosty for film lenses, which I still buy. The last one this week: Hexanon 40/1.8
The G9 is heavy and huge. If you want a light camera for the system buy the Olympus OMD 10 mark 4 or the OMD 5 makr 3. The image quality is the same or better and much, much lighter.
Thank you very much for taking about these five reasons. I choose Olympus E M1 as my first system camera for many years. I wanted compact camera, weather safe, best in class stabilization and with really good lenses for reasonable price. I looked att many brands and tested Sony, Nikon, Canon, and choose the E-M1 mark 3. I'm very happy with my choice.
I bought the G1 in an auction to have something very small I could carry instead of my big and heavy Nikon D7000. Its results could easily compete with the Nikon, so after a short time, I switched completely to M43. Never regretted it.
My story is almost identical to yours: I bought a used G1 on a lark to supplement my Nikon D90. I now shoot M43 probably 80% of the time. Oly EM10 ii and EP5, and a Panny GX85, and too many lenses. Other 20% is Nikon D5600, 35mm film, and a Canon G5X ii point and shoot.
The Olympus EM series feels amazing in the hand, so you feel more at one one with your camera, the increased depth of field resolves many issues but you can still get amazing background blur with your F1.4 lenses if you know what you are doing. Currently I did buy a Sony A7Riii, and although there are definite improvements in image quality, the camera lacks any emotion and just feels like a tool, whereas my Olympus system feels like an expression. Hands down I love Olympus
The system has a ton of variety in body sizes, lens specs, and pricing. I hear a lot of negative people comment on how the system isn’t actually much smaller, or the prices aren’t that much cheaper. But typically are comparing the largest lenses/bodies and the most expensive ones. For example, my em1 mark II combined with the 40-150 f2.8 pro isn’t that much smaller (or cheaper) than a Nikon d7200 and 70-200 f2.8. In fact, mine was heavier than that kit when compared to my buddy’s. But the OPTION of size and price are there. You could grab an em5 series body with the new 40-150 f4 and have a truly small yet very powerful setup. Or for pricing, an em10 body with the basic 40-150. You have so many options of what to spend and how big you want the kit, and that freedom of choice is my biggest reason to recommend to anyone! Any size, any budget
Started with a Minolta in the 70s, moved to Canon and had APS-c and then Full Frame digital while keeping film Rebels. Got a few Medium Format film cameras to branch out, then wanted to try the only thing left...M43. I studied the points made by several pro TH-cam photographers and decided to get Olympus (E-M5 Mk II). Size, weight, weather sealing, IBIS, and a highly informative display were the draws. Haven't gotten rid of any of the other stuff, just collecting (accumulating). While I have the 60 macro, I have not yet indulged in faster primes (yet). Love the jpegs SOOC. Your points are very well made and quite valid. M43 needs make no apology and can do quite a lot for the beginner up to the pro. Good video!
@@Centauri27 No, I never got into Pentax or Olympus or any other half-frame cameras. Now thinking about it, I did also have a 110 camera that I put a few rolls through. The image quality was not worth the convenience of the small size, thoroughly forgettable.
@@mikejankowski6321 Actually, the Pentax "Q" system was their recent attempt at making a truly tiny ILC system. It used a 1/7" sensor I believe. The system was a fraction of Micro Four Thirds again, but it was more a novelty than anything else. Come to think of it, Pentax tried the same thing in the 80's by creating a tiny SLR that used 110 film...
I own the Lumix GX9 with: 12-60 Leica - 15mm Leica - 25mm Leica - 42.5 lumix My ten reasons: 1 - The M43 is fun, enjoyable to use 2 - You can get wonderful lenses at a very reasonable cost 3 - If you use the GX line it's really all very compact and you carry it with you all the time 4 - You can have good depth of field even when the light forces you to larger apertures 5 - The M43 system encourages you to use prime lens 6 - The stabilization is fantastic, you can shoot handheld without any problem. 7 - Now that I develop with DXO I can use 3200 iso without worrying about noise. 8 - I love (a little) my Lumix GX9 9 - The second hand market is endless 10 - When you show your photos to full frame enthusiasts you can annihilate them. :D
@@hieronimusbosch2744 mft is 35 mm/2 the original olympus pen F(T) advanced 35 mm. film half as much. to shoot landscape you needed to rotate the camera 90 deg. it was a beautiful thing with a roll of panatomic x.
I grant you every point except #10, which is all brag and no fact. On the one hand, a great photographer is the limit and not the tool. On the other hand, the DXOMARK metrics show that the MFT format is underpowered and lagging in every single respect. If you use your MFT camera for studio portraits or architectural images, you are cheating your client. There is a time and place for every tool. And the MFT camera is a wonderful format. But to say that it puts full frame cameras to shame is simply ignorance. Your MFT camera will outperform a 61 Megapixel Sony A7R IV? This is simply illness that must be treated immediately so that your customers do not suffer from your malady. OK, I see your smiley. But remember that a great portion of the internet audience is smiley impaired.
@@danncorbit3623 Point 10 was actually a simple joke. I think the addition of the smile makes this evident. If someone did not understand that it was a joke it is better that they leave the world of photography and devote themselves to reading Jerome K. Jerome or other great characters of literature who knew how to use humor;). Nice day :)
@@walterzannoni have I been banished? Drat. Well, in my defense, I did acknowledge your smiley. Must I also write a report? How about a photo of the book? After all, a picture is worth 1000 words.
Great video, Matti. 🙂 I chose M43 for all the reasons you gave. For me, it is also that the M43 system components are beautiful - aesthetically and for their quality. The features and capability are supreme in their own right, but especially when you consider their compactness and affordability. Your channel is a source of pleasure and useful learning for me. Keep it up! 🙂 Paul 😎
Backpacking in the wilderness areas of Northern California requires many focal lengths to capture the images I wanted to bring home with me. It seemed simpler to adopt MFT and the 12-100 mm lens to meet my requirements. The kit was a lot smaller and lighter than my previous gear. This is a huge bonus when backpacking many miles for several days. I’m also able to eliminate some filters because the camera is able to simulate them for me. MFT just works better for more and I’m pleased with all of the images I’m making.
Re. My Micro Four Third switch A few years ago, I worked on a project that took me to several countries in Africa. I had my FF Nikon kit (D3 & D700 with a variety of high end zooms) and I picked up an Olympus E-M5 Mk1 (or Mk0, perhaps?) to test out on the trip. I had the Oly 12-50mm kit lens and a 75-150mm ($99 US) with that body. After three months running around Africa shooting with both kits, I came home and began to go through many photos. When I got looking, I realized that I had shot a lot with the Oly and that there were a lot of real good photos from that kit, even considering the lenses I used were not such high quality. After taking a look at some of the higher quality Oly lenses and the E-M1, I sold off most of my Nikon gear and replaced it with Olympus gear. Though I kept some of my Nikon FF DSLR gear for a few years after this, I have since replaced all the Nikon gear with Olympus gear. I am shooting two EM1 MK2 bodies and a variety of lenses these days. For what I have been doing lately and considering the satisfaction I have with the gear I have, updating my MFT gear is not a huge priority at the present time. What I have is meeting my needs, even though the temptation to upgrade is a frightful one! Thanks very much for your videos!
Hi Matti, great video and very nice summary of the benefits of the M43 system. My reason was simple (but maybe ridiculous in retrospect): I owned a Panasonic compact camera I was quite happy with, and when I decided to try and step up, I thought it might be a good idea to stick with the brand, mainly for reasons of software, dials, etx I thought I was already familiar with. So I chose the Panasonic G70 with the 14-140mm zoom as a starter, and although my reasoning was maybe not 100% accurate, I am very happy with the decision! 😂
Hello, and thanks for this video. I choosed M43, 9 years ago, for all 5 reasons. It was at first a backup camera, an Olympus E-PL1 since 2011, which I upgraded to an E-PL5. I found that the image quality from the E-PL5 was on par with my Nikon D7000, so I completely switched to M43 in 2013. So, in fact, the main reason was image quality, given the compactness.
I got into MFT for 3 reasons: The first is actually that I was upgrading from a Panasonic FZ72 bridge camera, which shoots raw and already has many settings, the similarity in dials made the step to the Panasonic G6 really easy. Second is the pure hybridness of Panasonic, it does video as good as it does photo, and I needed that when I upgraded. The third step is really the affordability, as this narrowed down the options, and this meant when choosing my first MFT camera the choice was between the MFT Panasonic G6 with 12-60 or a Nikon 5300 kit.
I had bought into the common belief that a bigger sensor meant better image quality, so I resisted M43 for quite some time. My first M43 camera was a video camera (DVX200), and was actually surprised at how good the images were, and how much bokeh the relatively small apertures produced. So when I started looking for a hybrid photo/video camera for traveling, M43 became a viable choice. Since Lumix GH cameras had the best video features, I bought a GH5M2 and was quickly impressed by the image quality compared to my Nikon D800. Not only did the Lumix camera focus better, the colors looked richer, and the images were just as sharp, even though they were clearly at a lower resolution. In most cases, though, when I want to make a BIG print and impress viewers by fine detail, I'll do a multi-shot panoramic, so the lower resolution of the camera really doesn't matter. In many respects, M43 has proven itself to me to be BETTER than full frame. The only reason I see for going full frame is if you want super-shallow DoF in your images. I don't care about that, so there's no need for me to go that route.
I got tired of compact digital cameras breaking on me, so I looked for a replacement. I could get, yet another compact digital, a large DSLR, or a brand new thing called a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. I chose to purchase an Olympus E-P1 almost the moment they appeared. That was my “real” camera for a long time, granted my phone filled the majority of photographic needs until 2018 rolled around and I wanted to get a better camera. All I knew was I liked the size and price of m4/3, so I bought an OMD EM5 kit. Then the floodgates opened as I had to buy a Panasonic to see what they were about, then I needed to get another, and another,… last year I bought a G9 (thanks to you and James Popsys) - haven’t really thought about buying another body since. Thank you for all you do, Matti.
Hi Matti, first of all, of course, I hope all is well with you and your family! Regarding your video, and your question, I started my photography journey with a Nikon intermediate DSLR, and used it for 8 years straight, besides the fact I had technically surpassed my camera, I felt and urge of change. In 2019 I got out of Nikon DSLR system and jumped to a Fujifilm XT2, I never regretted it... I fell in love with mirrorless and with photography all over again... Then in 2021 I started a 52week 52shots project, and I felt my XT2 was way to big to fit in my pocket during the week while I am commuting to work or going for a walk at lunch time... So in April 2021, 1 years ago I offered myself and Olympus EM10 mkiii with the compact kit lens... Its been my most used camera since then, since I only use my Fuji in the weekends... The Olympus is very compact, the IQ is great, and the color science is spot on with my personal taste. Concluding, I have to say I couldn't be happier with my choice. And the choice of M43 was greatly influenced by you and Peter Forsgard for sure. Eager to see you in Lisbon, all the best to you, your family and this wonderful community.
I switched to full frame because I shoot a lot of video in low light scenarios but for most people who want to shoot good looking images, MFT or APS-C are great. In good light, I loved shooting MFT up until 2020. Many of my best shots were taken on my G85 and my G9.
In additon to the key benefits you highlight in the video I also appreciate the aesthetics and ergonomics of Olympus cameras and have had many models over the last 10 years. I still have my E-1 as well as the OMD EM1 mkii and EM5mk ii. Other benefits include excellent image stabilisation, sensor shift high resolution image. I cant see myself changing formats any time soon for my hobbyist / enthusiast photography.
First of all, I love your TH-cam channel. And thank you for reminding me why I chose the m43. My adventure with DSLRs began with the Olympus E410. Then there was the E510 and the Nikon D80, D90 and D5100. And then I went back to 43 even though it was already m43. Panasonic g3 and gx800. I know that the m43 has a lot of super premium native lenses, but when you combine it with the m39 to m43 adapter and you are not afraid of manual lenses, it doesn't get any better. I recommend trying these lenses :)
I love the compact size of M43 and love to shoot my Panasonic GX9 with the small Leica primes for street photography. It's a great small, discreet kit that doesn't draw too much attention to me as I shoot photos.
I came into digital photography via compact cameras. As a sea kayaker, I wanted something small enough to carry on the deck in a waterproof box. Eventually Olympus produced a very good waterproof camera, the TG5 and that is now my camera for on the water, I was able to get rid of the box! However, I was dissatisfied with the lack of viewfinder and started looking for a good camera with one. This led me to the Panasonic GX8, which had the best viewfinder I had ever experienced and the benefit of being a system camera which is very compact. My camera in the days of film was a Nikon FM and placed side by side it is almost identical in size, though a bit heavier than the Lumix, but the Micro Four Third lenses are much smaller and lighter. I particularly like the mirrorless feature which lets me photograph in monochrome and actually see the B&W image, unlike a a reflex camera. I agree that the selection of lenses is superb and very economically priced. As a keen amateur I can't afford to put too much money into my photography, but have been able to amass a good range of lenses. They are cheap enough that is is easy to buy a s/h lens just to try out what the shooting experience is with it. Sometimes I think about upgrading to a G9 or something, but for now I am more than happy just to take pictures.
I use multiple systems (Nikon Full Frame DSLR and Mirrorless, Fujifilm X100V and all sorts of medium format/35mm film cameras). I recently got the Lumix GX85 to have something small and light to just have with my anywhere. I'm loving it so far.
My first interchangeable lenses camera was an Olympus ep-2. At that time I was short on money and I didn't have any knowledge on cameras, but I was lucky enough to find a camera able to use a living lens system, so I could start getting lenses and improving my gear. Today I own an E-m5 mark III and I have a great collection of lenses to use.
I chose m4/3 because it was the first mirrorless system. I was pretty happy with my Canon 5Dmk2 but wished I had an electronic viewfinder for video and FF lenses were too large, heavy, soft wide open and missed focus. Then I discovered that mirrorless offered "what you see is what you get" and I was convinced it was the future. The sensor size of m4/3 has never been an issue for me. I built a career around shooting with 2/3 inch broadcast video cameras so m4/3 was a step up and I could still get shallow depth of field results with my first m4/3 camera and lens - GH2 + 20mm f1.7 The gap now between a "proper" camera and a smart phone has narrowed. The best smart phones are catching up and arguably only now lack the reach of a longer lens. My recent carry all day - every day camera is a Sony rx100 vii. The quality is astonishingly close to m4/3 in most of my situations and the reach is so much better than my smart phone. However, my m4/3 cameras - EM1 mk3 and EM5mk3 have better handling and the lenses and viewfinders are so much nicer to use - so I can't see myself ever parting with this system. PS. I had the GH5 as well but have sworn myself off Panasonic since they refuse to use phase detect auto focus which is far superior for video. I really appreciate that m4/3 offers different sized bodies. I think marketing has sometimes pushed "bigger is better" to m4/3 detriment. For me the EM5mk3 is a perfect size and offers a small add-on grip for larger hands. Just perfect.
Great video as always. Pretty much all of the reasons you stated apply to me as well. I guess the size of the long lenses and price are the most important, as I've taken to attempt bird photography over the last 2 years or so. Getting a 200-800 in full frame size would just be too much for my old legs to pack on my daily walks. Both OM Systems and Panasonic make great cameras, and the features and performance of the 2 new flagship systems costing around 2200 USD's compare very well to the cameras from Sony, Canon, and Nikon costing well over double. I also love my Olympus EM-5 3 for backpacking, it takes up almost no space, a few small primes, and I'm set.
Thanks for this and the positivity from it and your followers, convinces me that MFT and in particular Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III is the right route for Leisure. But for work and 360 virtual tours in buildings and construction sites, I am told that I must get Full Frame because of the constant chant, Low Light Low Light. But others have been successful with MFT and 360 tours and the camera would be tripod mounted on a Nodal Ninja and the lens would be the expensive low light, Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 8mm f1.8 - f22 Fisheye Pro. Images would be viewed onscreen only and any prints would be A4/pdf size. I want Olympus because of the features and the fun and following and hope I'm not pushed down the FF route, please convince me!
Because size not only body's but also lenses sizes, better possibility to carry more lenses and quality of images are very high, features you can't find in other systemes ... We have so much lenses choice, all those things motivate me to make more photos. I'm pro with this system for years.
I chose four thirds because of the 7-14 lens that was not available on other digital cameras at that time. Olympus had some great lens. So eventually I went four thirds for everything. When the EM1 came out, I switched to m43 as my main camera system. It took awhile to get lens as good as the four thirds lenses. But eventually that happened I liked the mirrorless and adapting other lens back then. It worked wonderfully with the M mount f/4.5 lens for landscapes and scenic work and was so light I could have it and my primes with me anyplace I hiked. I stay with it because it has some awesome lens that give me the look I want. The price helps also. The 1.2s give a look like the 50 APO Summicrons which happened to be my favorite for showing the different lenses and getting walk into type photos. After I had to sell my system and business when I had cancer, I looked at other brands when restarting. There are no bad cameras today. I had a G9 and EM1II when I had to sell them. So when I rented other equipment, nothing felt as good in my hands as the EM1s. When I compared it to the 24mp full frame cameras cropped for a 16X20 print, I could not really see anything better or worse with quality lenses. And m43 has some excellent lenses. Also since cancer and I need a light system and m43 has great synergy so I can get everything I want with the fewest lenses and less overlap which matters since I still use a harness to carry 2 cameras.
New to this format after parking my trusty Pentax MG all those years ago and, like most of humanity, using an iPhone. A bit like going from vinyl to cd and back to records, I’m a camera revivalist and MFT really suits my photographic needs. A bit of an analogue/digital twist, I’m using my Pentax lenses on a Lumix body!
I have been shooting with the system since 2010, starting with a GF1. The reason when wanting to travel lighter when on going on holiday and did not want to use my full frame Canon. Used both for a bit but found myself using more and more and now this is all I use current body OMD 1 mk3 with a few older bodies as back up like you said also converted for infared and a range of lenses L9VE THE SYSTEM ❤️
As a user of MFT with EM5 Mark II and couple of LEICA DG Lenses, I've been absolutely satisfied and happy with them. When it comes to low shutter speed in some places as being in a indoor space, they always provide me pretty sharp images without increasing any ISO numbers at all... It is amazing !! So I am still a huge fan of Micro Four Third system any way...
I agree with all of this. My first 'serious' camera was a hand-me-down Practica MTL5 with a Helios 58mm, back in the days when if you wanted to express the concept of selective depth of field and background blur, you had to use a lot of words. When digital cameras first came out I wasn't in a place financially where I could justify buying a DSLR, especially as it was clear that they were developing rapidly and going out of date fast. I had a 'bridge' super zoom for some trips that reminded me that a lots of the time it's the subject that makes a good picture, not the gear. When I did spash out on a GX8, I could justify several hundred pounds, but not 2-3 thousand for a full frame camera, but also I didn't really want to be lugging a backpack full of gear with me up mountains. I don't always want to take my 100-400 zoom, but if I do want 800mm equivalent reach I don't have to plan my whole trip around transporting it. At the other end, my Olympus 17mm and 45mm lenses are so small doesn't make sense not to pop then in a pocket with my EPL7 pretty much wherever I am going. Image quality is plenty good enough for my purposes and the size of prints I might want to make.
Three years ago, I went from Nikon SLR to 4/3 Lumix. First for weight of equipment, second for the weight of my years. My Lumix and 3 Lumix and Olympus lenses are lighter that the camera and 2 Nikon lenses. I go out in the wild with Lumix GX 9 and the 75-300mm Olympus and 25mm Lumix. For urban photos, I take the 25mm Lumix and the 14-150mm Olympus. Thank you for your videos. Christine from France
Wow, I bought MFT (Lumix G7) just exactly as what you said about it: it is perfect for beginners and affordable. I can say that it is perfect for beginners because I used it very often that sometimes I forgot that I have my smartphone camera for taking photos. It is easy to use and serves greater results. MFT is just perfect for anyone to begin their photography and videography journey! P.S.: You won't regret buying MFT systems!
My reason to go m4/3 was size, lens selection and good enough IQ combination. I love the toy-size lenses like the Oly 45/1.8 and Pana 15/1.7. The cameras are not much bigger and I had photo trips, carrying a camera, 3 lenses and a spare battery without a camera bag - all was inside my winter jacket's pockets. At the end I got more interested in landscape and cityscape type of photography and got attached to the level of detail and DR that new, high-res full frame sensors give. Especially after the big companies started making mirrorless cameras, which I defo prefer to the DSLRs. But sometimes I regret selling the m4/3 system and if I have some spare money, will probably get another one.
MFT was my first interchangeable lens system and I really liked the small size and weight as well as the lens selection. It was also great that it was all very affordable...I still remember when I got the plastic fantastic 40-150mm for my Olympus EM5 Mk1 for 90 euros new and I thought that was an absolute steal :). For travel purposes MFT is a very good choice, although mirrorless full frame systems have caught up a bit when it comes to camera sizes (eg. Sony A7C)...however, the lenses are still often much bigger and heavier...especially the expensive pro-level glass. I switched to Sony FE a few years back now, but may well get another MFT camera in the future for traveling purposes.
My first and only interchangeable lens system is micro 4 3. It's light, and with the 2x full-frame focal length equivalency it is much more practical for bird photography. I occasionally entertain trying out APS-C, but with the recent upgrades made by OMDS and Panasonic, micro 4 3 is staying sufficiently competitive with the bigger systems. So I can continue to keep things simple, and live with the minor disadvantages while benefitting from the advantages of micro 4 3.
I changed from Canon FF to G9 M43 for the telerange advantage while still being better even in UWA range compared to FF. The Leica 8-18 is better in every aspect than the Canon EF L 17-40/4.0. Love it, also the magnificent Sigma 56/1.4 and 16/1.4. Real m43 gems IMHO... 😊 And then there is the unbelievable Oly 40-150/2.8, replacing BOTH the Canon 70-200/2.8 and the Sigma 120-300/2.8 (yes, I understand and appreciate the m43 has double the dof... so the image is not the same. I couldn't care less, for me it's about the focal range!)
Light-weight and affordable. The cameras I have can do so many different things. Animation and long exposure were a big part of my considering a M43 camera. I use a GH5, S5, and G9 at work, and for my personal use I have a G9. I have to admit, I enjoy using the GH5 and the G9 over the S5 for photo work.
I was a Canon DSLR user. As I’ve got older I primarily wanted something lighter, and to switch to mirrorless. The Canon R6 seemed like the perfect solution. Then I looked at pricing. For the price of the R6 I was able to buy two new Olympus EM-1 bodies, and a couple of used primes. The EM-1 isn’t the lightest, but its build quality is amazing and it felt right in my hand. And the image quality is as good as I what I was getting from my old Canon 6D. Maybe the R6 would be better under certain conditions, but as I’m not a full-time pro, the extra expense, especially if I started adding RF lenses would have been unjustifiable to myself or, more importantly, my wife.
I’ve shot M43 since 2013. But I also shoot Fuji digital and some film formats. Why? Great video, unlimited clip length, no overheating, awesome lens selection, different native lens and body manufacturers, 4:3 aspect ratio, incredible ibis is the rule, tiny lens/body combos if you want it…. The list goes on.
With M43, the end result is that I take way more photos than I ever did with full frame (certainly by looking at my Lightroom count). With the compact size, I have the camera with me (and want to take it with me more often) than keeping my larger full frame system at home in a bag. Also, the cost of the lenses is far cheaper. As an enthusiast, this helped me to explore and acquire lenses for a variety of genres (e.g., telephone landscapes, wildlife, macro, wide angle). I am also to be more inconspicuous taking photos at gatherings with family and friends - with small primes or 1.8/2.8 telephoto lenses (and even the 1.2 lenses). Last that wasn't mentioned, the ProCapture feature on Olympus is amazing for kid/group/family and sports shots. It allows me to have way more "keepers" than my FF dslr ever allowed me to do.
I agree with you completely! Micro Four Thirds has this "fun" factor that everyone talks about, but which is hard to describe until you use the system. It really does rekindle the love for photography for many people.
I use 2 or 3 systems...including full frame...I have always had m43 gear since its inception from the original four thirds system. Now in my senior years...my m43 gear has become my main system.
Here is my 5 reason: 1. Larger sensor size in compact boy - GX85 with 14mm for street photograph - fits in coat pocket or small (tiny) shoulder bag. 2. Sharp image - G9 with Lumix Leica 15mm. Excellent I.Q. 3. 2x crop factor - G9 with 80mega pixel mode on Lumix Leica100-400mm, that's equal to 200-800mm in full frame. 4. Availability of lens in compact size - my Nikon 200-500mm lens or 70-200mm are way way heavier than G9 body with Lumix Leica 12-60mm. 5. What you see is what you get. You can preview what image will look like before you take picture, download to your computer - focus peaking, too.
He's right, I researched different systems before I took the plunge and micro four thirds checked all the right boxes for me. Starting with not a lot of money, my camera and lens collection has grown and evolved because of the immense number of le3and cameras
I bought an Olympus EM10 MKII as a small street camera a few years ago (along with the 14-42mm kit lens) as a compliment to my Nikon D300. I was so impressed with the picture quality and aesthetic appeal of the camera that I eventually invested in an Olympus EM1 MKII as well as a total of seven lenses from Olympus, Lumix and Seven Artisans, covering a wide range.
The most important reason for me to use 43 is to be able to choose different lenses from my objectives park every time. This is realy comfotable and of course very light. I use normaly 2 or 3 lenses in my back.
When the gh6 was coming out I spent dozens of hours considering going to a full frame. Canon R5 and 6. Sony a7iiii and a7iii. I worked and worked and studied and asked question. I made a full time job of it. In the end I got the GH6. At the end of the day none of those camera could touch the specs. Once can work around the low light and focus disadvantages. I'm hooked across the board on M43. Most of the people dissing it simple either don't understand or don't want to. Learn to manipulate the camera you use and I choose M43
I used to shoot Nikon full frame, but changed to micro four thirds, due to low weight and size. I now Shoot with a Panasonic G9 and with only three lenses in a small bag, I can cover 14 to 600mm full frame equivalent. The lenses in my bag are the 7-14, 14-140 and 100-300. I have no complaints about this system.
Like most non-professionals...we buy full frame, but we don't buy the expensive lenses, which make us think that micro 4/3 or APC cameras are of similar image quality. At similar lens prices, there is no comparison between full frame and micro 4/3.
Hey Matti - Good video on micro 4/3. I got my first Olympus OM1 in 1973. I was 13yrs old. Switching over from 35mm film to digital was culture shock for me. My first digital SLR was a D50 Nikon. Now I use a D750 and D500. I mountain bike through the woods with a 600mm lens in my backpack and a 55-300 DX on the D500 strapped to my chest for those sudden encounters with deer, coyotes, etc. It's a workout. I recently picked up an OMD EM5 with a 14-150mm for peanuts ($400). It's great ! I strap that little sucker to my chest and I'm ready for whatever pops up. I still take my backpack loaded with a giant Nikon and Bazooka lens but while I'm riding, I use that tiny EM5. It reminds me of that little OM1 I had 49yrs ago. It's Awesome.
Thanks for watching and sharing.
I'm moving from canon dslr to mft system. It's been almost 3 years now. I love how compact is mft system, so i can bring it in almost all occassion. I'm not a professional photographer, just a hobbyist, so i need a system that not weight me when i put it on my bag. It's a good system with wide variety of lenses. Love it.
Thanks.
great video. We love MFT . We love Lumix. Best system for enthousiasts and for video work.
I am beginning my photography journey with the new OM-1 that I will order tomorrow and one of the big factors for me was size. I previously had another Olympus model that I used for a little bit and I really enjoyed how compact it was and now that I’m back on the market for a camera I was looking at some Olympus cameras. The size of OM-1 is perfect, I don’t like big bulgy cameras. I don’t mind that it’s a 20MP sensor. The size makes up for it for me. Plus the camera just looks so cool aesthetically. It looks simple and also kinda vintage. Can’t wait to get my hands on it!
Thanks for sharing and I hope your journey will be good.
When I bought a micro four thirds camera I did it due its affordable price. It was the first time in my life that I had a semi professional camera and the beginning of never ending photography self knowledge.
After 4 years, I still have that camera and I am using it a lot.
Thanks to that camera I love so much photography.
Hi, what about the cost of the lenses? Especially compared to sony e mount lenses for their apsc cameras? Am in a cross between the G95 and a6400.
@@hruaitearalte Hey! Well, here's the cruel truth. Lenses are usually expensive no matter the brand. In the Lumix system there are the Leica ones that are excellent.
If your main goal is photography both brands are good, but if you want to film too Sony has better auto focus. Also, in low light situations the micro four thirds system could have issues because you have to increase the ISO and have a lot of noise grain, but if you use a tripod and lenses with an aperture of 1,7 or 1,4 you will not have to worry about it.
Hope my comment helped you.
In the near future I would like to buy another Panasonic Lumix camera, and someday... A Leica 😮
@@TheOneAft thanks. I am an an amateur who is keen more towards video and occasional photo. I love the color science of Lumix more, especially its exposure compensation. However, as an amateur, the Sony's AF is to die for. And judging from the GH6, AF is still not something you can expect to be at Sony's level in the near future. Sigh*
@@hruaitearalte Yes, unfortunately the AF in Lumix still has a few issues that is why I always use Manual Focus when I record video in my Lumix.
Hope you can find the right camera for you 😃
Hello again from New Zealand! I agree with your five reasons. The lenses are really tiny no matter how big the bodies are. I have a few more to add: 1) I really-really like the four-thirds format. Vertical shots look like 4x5s. I know I can shoot four-thirds using a larger sensor but it's different when the system's full frame is four-thirds; 2) I notice the systems sensitivity in a way that, in a specific scene, lower ISOs are selected even though the shutter speed and aperture, with equivalence, are the same. I am not sure if that has to do with the fact that the lenses are tele-centric. Even with videography, I notice that sensors in this format are rather sensitive, preferring lower ISOs all the time; 3) As with other photographers who do landscape with a lot of foliage and vegetation, while other formats prefer to showcase their dynamic range, Micro Four-Thirds cameras exhibit a lot of colour separation which is somewhat closer to the colour separation in film when printed. The colour separation is just so pleasing to the eyes, especially when printed.
By the way, my other system is Pentax. I shoot MFT and Pentax depending on the conditions but I don't compare the two because I think they compliment each other. Cheers!
I used to shoot on a Nikon full frame but I didnt want to take it out due to the weight. So I picked up an EM5 MKII with a 17mm and it rekindled my love for photography. Now I shoot with a G9 and it goes everywhere with me. Not to mention the amazing lens selection.
Thanks.
Great that you feel that way, but as someone who used to shoot MFT but now has a full frame camera, there are ways to keep it pretty light with full frame as well.
Like Sony A7C + Tamron 35mm f2.8 (with half macro ablilities). Weight total is like 700g (1.5 lbs).
You get a faster aperture (1.8 on MFT is like f3.6 in full frame terms), and the lens can do half macro (0.5x magnification).
But when it comes to the weight of zoom lenses MFT is hard to beat.
But there are some from Tamron for FF that only weigh like 400g (14 oz).
@@TerraThink that’s true. I’ve thought a lot about FF primes being a way to keep a FF system weight down….like a Nikon z5 and a plastic fantastic 40mm f2. However, I then glance across at my beautiful collection of m4/3 glass and wonder why swap? Would the Nikon 40mm lens be quantifably better than my Olympus 17mm f1.8 (f3.6) I don’t want less in focus anyway….I need every face in a group photo to be sharp which is twice as hard to achieve with my FF system.
@@TerraThink I'm not sure that what you say is correct regarding f-stop equivalence with respect to speed of lenses. The f number is the ratio between focal length and aperture size, and a 50mm f1.4 is the same whether it's on a 35mm camera or fitted to m3/4 with an adapter. The lens lets the same amount of light in, and the intensity per unit area hitting the sensor is the same- it's just that the sensor is only quarter of the area so only the central part of the image (equivalent to 100mm full frame) is captured. Depth of field is affected by smaller sensors, but in practice this is rarely a problem, as any number of m4/3 images out there will attest. I have a series of photos of butterflies I shot a couple years ago that in retrospect I wish I'd stopped down a stop or two, as in many of them I've got the body sharp but not the head, despite a difference of mm in distance from the camera.
@@chrishowell5718 This is a common argument but there are plenty of youtube channels testing this. While you might technically be correct, f2.8 on MFT will not isolate the subject as much as it does on FF.
After looking into this a lot some years ago, I came to the conclusion that at least for practical purposes, you take both the focal length and aperture x2 for MFT and x1.5 (or x1.6 for Canon) for APS-C to get similar field of view and bokeh as full frame.
Commin back to photography after a 20 year break I started with a Nikon z50. It was smal and light and a very good camera and I got a some great photos. Because of it's size I brought it with me everywhere. The problem started when I couldn't take all those photos because it wasn't weather sealed and even worse it couldn't handle low temperatures. When I started to look into how to solve this I realised that there wasn't an easy was to upgrade in the z-system. I couldn't just upgrade lenses or camera bodies as I wanted because of image stabilisation issues. I had to buy both lenses and body from the start. Setting upp an excelfile with parameters which was important. Olympus came out at the top, With the lenses I wanted it was even 7 grams lighter than the z50. Add weather sealing and temperature sealing and a great ibis it was an easy choice.
Hi Matti, I was a Canon shooter from 1983, until a couple of years or so ago and still have an R6 which I rarely use these days, following the switch. I watched a video on Zenography, and was prompted to by an Olympus pen camera. It came with a 14-42mm kit lens. I was really impressed with both the size, but more importantly, the quality of the photo’s I could get with such a small camera setup. I still have the Pen E-PL7, but generally use my E-MD1 Mkiii. I like to shoot birds and wildlife, and as I am not a youngster anymore, the reduction in weight is essential, plus the cost as you pointed out is an added bonus. Just to add, I am an enthusiast, and not a good photographer; I just love photography and Olympus/M4/3 fulfils my ambitions in plenty.
Hi Matti, my first more serious camera was and still is Lumix G9 and thanks to your excellent videos I could learn the system. I owe you a lot in this respect. MFT is reliable and working well even in low light conditions. Except a rather mediocre AF. Unfortunately, telephoto lenses are difficult to exchange between Lumix and Olympus/OM, with their major drawback - stabilization. But for travels MFT is an excellent option. Thanks once again for your contribution that certainly has helped many of us - users.
There are many reasons why I chose MFT.
I had to buy new equipment. I am a Nikon old user (FT and EL in the 70's). When I switched to F801 (N8008) in 1990 my Nikkor lenses were not compatible. In 2005 I bought a Lumix FZ5 because it had a Leica lens. I was very happy with it. In 2011, I decided to buy a camera with exchanging lenses. I could have chosen Nikon, Canon but I chose a Lumix G3 with 14-140 mk1 because I wear glasses and was used to take pictures with iPhone just looking at the LCD, I wanted something small and light and the MFT lenses had good reputation. I have now a PEN-F and some lenses. Here are my reasons.
1. MFT cameras and lenses are small and light. I can put in my jacket pocket my PEN-F with the 15mm. I could not if I had a FF with 30mm or APS-C with 20mm.
2. The PEN-F jpg colours are very nice and its B&W capabilities are gorgeous.
3. The lenses are great whatever the brand, Oly, Pany or Leica: 7-14mm Pany, 15mm f1.7, 25mm f1.4 and 45mm f2.8 macro, I like them.
4. The depth of field is better. At f2.8 with a MFT you have the DoF of 5.6 with a FF. It means that for the same DoF you have for exemple 1/30s at f2.8 with a MFT and 1/15s at f5.6 with a FF. This is very important in low light when you know the reason #5.
5. This IBIS or OIS is excellent, the best in the market.
6. The size of the sensor is enough considering what we do with the pictures. We can print large pictures.
7. Many MFT cameras and lenses are weather sealed, splash proof and s.o..
If you add all theses specs, only the MFT can check all the boxes.
The only drawbacks are when you have to take pictures in very, very very low light and when you need very, very shallow DoF.
But all in all for maybe 98% of my pictures the MFT are just the best choice.
Thanks for sharing.
Hi I agree with so much you wrote especially the last two sentences!
When I was planning 6 years ago a trekking rout in Himalayas in winter, I needed a camera that can could fit under a jacket at low temperatures. The second requirenment was using 80% of time a wide lens around 20mm (in FF scale) and sometimes- a telephoto lens to take pictures of remote high peaks that I cannot reach. Both lenses should be compact because of the trekking conditions in winter. I purchased Lumix GX 9 that was new at the moment and used it 5 years in many situations also adding several lenses of other types.
Now I use Olympus EM 5 III, because of weather sealing and 12-45mm PRO Olympus lens that is optimal for hiking in mountains in Lappland.
Size and lightness are the advantages that matter to me. I take 3 cameras with me so I don't have to change lenses (I use primes lenses) and it stays light! The ratio between compactness and IQ is unique. I bought a Fuji X-T4 recently, and despite the incredible IQ, I always come back to the MFT when I need to go far.
I agree with every one of your points Matti! I've been using Micro Four Thirds since the E-P1 and every time I get tempted by the siren song of "full frame", I double down and add to my system. 😄 The lens size and selection is the biggest advantage: I can either buy tiny, sharp primes, or I can buy fast constant f/2.8 zooms (something that I could only dream about back in the SLR days). I can get ridiculously fast f/0.95 and f/1.1 manual lenses without breaking the bank. Fisheyes, once pricey exotic lenses, are now commonplace and affordable (I have three different fisheyes). And powerful AI-powered editing programs erase the advantages that FF has with noise, dynamic range, and bokeh. Can I ever imagine going on a trip with a full frame system? Not on your life!
I dumped my FF Canons and Canon APS bodies and went all in on M4/3s. Above all it was weight but also fell in love with GX7 and GX9 bodies. No one has complained about the portraits I've shot.
Matti, thanks for excellent video which brings back memories of the late David Thorpe, who was positive about MFT but never embellished. After starting photo hobby again, I've stayed with MFT due to excellent glass that cannot be beat for size, weight, & cost, plus IBIS which is best in industry.
Back in the era of 35mm photography, I was a Contax/Yashica photographer/enthusiast/user/collector with an investment in thousands of 1970's and 80's dollars. When that system failed to move forward with compatible digital equipment I became disillusioned with serious photography. I became an orphan with a lot of very good but outdated equipment that just gathered dust. As digital became the standard, I only used compact cameras for simple snap shooting . I said I would never again be lured into system photography and my interests evolved into other pastimes. I even fell into the trap to believe that the only camera I needed was on my phone. I was getting older and the thought of carrying a full system bag around with me to restart my journey back into photography was something that was never going to happen. Then my daughter purchased a mirrorless Sony camera. It was reasonably compact, easy to use, and created great images. This stimulated my reawakening into photography. After looking at the lineups of the various camera systems, I realized that small size was the most important attribute I wanted in a camera system as long as the images were still good quality. Naturally this made Micro 4/3rds the system for me. I now have an OM-D E-M10 and a Panasonic GX85 body, a wide assortment of compact lenses and flashes. None of my equipment is "pro level" like I owned in my Contax days but they shoot great pictures. I have even used some of my old Contax lenses with adapters on occasion. I am retiring soon from my real job and look forward into enjoying my "new" system more. Without Micro 4/3rds in the marketplace, I doubt if I ever would have become a semi-serious photographer again.
Thank you for sharing your story and adventure in photography
Hi Matti- I started with the Panasonic G-1 many years ago, to have a smaller system to use for hiking and travel. I then upgraded to the GX-7 then to the GX-9. I really like the smaller, rangefinder-style body. I have slowly added many lenses, from the 7-14mm ultra-wide zoom, 20mm 1.7, 30mm 2.8 Macro, 12-60mm 3.5-5.6 and the 45-200 zoom. I even got a Laowa 10mm 2.8. All are nice and small, ideal for hiking. I have also added a MFT-EF adapter so that I can use my Canon EF lenses with my GX9 with full autofocus! I still have, use and like my Canon R6 with a selection of EF and RF lenses but the Lumix goes with me more frequently. Thanks for the video. ~Earl
Matti: I shot Micro 4/3 from 2012 to 2019 and loved it. . At that point I switched to Fujifilm because sensors on Micro 4/3 cameras seemed to be stagnating and each new body seemed to get bigger and heavier. If I wiped the slate clean and went shopping today, I don't think I'd go back unless I needed video. (All prices and specs are from B&H and for brand new gear.). Fuji System: Fuji X-T4+18-55mm f 2.8 zoom+75-300mm zoom + 1.4tc teleconverter: Total Cost $3347.00/ Total weight 1554g or 3.42 lbs. Micro 4/3 system: Panasonic GH6+12-35mm f2.8 zoom +100-300mm zoom: Total Cost: $3542.00/ Total weight 1564g or 3.44 lb.
Thanks for sharing. Fujifilm is great, I have the X-T30.
Getting 100mp shots is a nice feature fujifilm doesn't offer though. Especially for the price.
I switzed to Fuji also. Similar weight but a little higher iq and more room for cropping. More dymanic range. Mft has superior ibis. So mft is maybe the easiest format to shoot with. I shoot ff also but not the big heavy glass. The Sony a7c with small light lenses i am interested to try out. Cheers
OM-1 + kit lens $2,800. Sony A7IV + kit lens $2,700. Size & weight are basically the same.
Thank, Matti. As you helped me to switch to MFT years ago, I'm glad to see you once gain singing the praises of the system that makes the most sense for most photographers at any level. My G9-based "field kit" spans an effective FL range from 16-800 and weighs about 5kg, which means I can take it anywhere under any conditions and get shots others would miss. Even large prints look phenomenal--there is simply no reason to even consider "FF" as it gives me zero advantages (plus it has shortcomings besides size/weight) compared to MFT. I'd still recommend a bridge camera (I still use my Lumix FZ1000) for someone upgrading from a pocket point-and-shoot or phone before jumping to an MILC, but if you're confident that you'll want to start a lens collection, then MFT is definitely that way to go!
BtW, as great as the G9 is, it may replace the GX85 as my B cam once the GH6-based G9 replacement arrives (Lumix must realize that photographers aren't too happy with the video-centricity of the GH6).
I agree with most of this! Except the part about the bridge camera, the cheaper m43 models (Pens, GX, etc) often cost less with a kit lens, I'd advise anyone to jump right into m43 from a smartphone hehe
I like your channel and agree with your reasons. I have Full Frame, APS-C and of course M43. My M43 collection, mostly used from Pawn shops but a couple were new purchases include EPL-1, EM10 ii (My EDC camera), GX85 (alternate EDC), G7, and G95. I love how these M43 and also the Sony A6000 cameras can be so easily adapted to use vintage glass. I love collecting older glass and adapting them to get amazing results. I am not a pro photographer but an engineer by trade but just love photography, cameras and lenses.
Another great video! I originally got into m43 for budget and size concerns. But now my favorite setup is the LUMIX G9 with battery grip and the Oly 40-150 2.8 PRO. So the size argument is gone. I have yet to find any reason to switch formats. I’m continually pleased with images the m43 system is capable of producing.
i use it mainly because of panasonics great mft cameras, you cant beat in price and performance
Like many amateurs that are getting on a bit in age I started to feel the weight of my Canon 5diii with a 24-70 mm f 2.8 lens.
As a result I saw myself leaving my camera ever more often at home.
By accident I saw a video about an Olympus EM5ii and the amazing image quality it could offer for not even half the weight, size and most importantly price.
Now I have 4 m4/3 camera’s and a whole collection of lenses, all bought second hand.
In normal light I see no difference in IQ but I have found back my pleasure in photography and never leave the house without a camera.
Thanks for sharing.
Great video, Matti! 🙂 I chose Micro Four Thirds on the advice of the lovely guy in the camera store. I was in the market for a budget Nikon APSC camera, but he demonstrated that, followed by an Olympus E-M1. That blew my mind! Autofocus speed... check. Fully featured... check. Build quality... check. Budget... blown! 😂 I have never looked back on that choice. It was some of the best advice I've ever had.
Paul 😎
Thanks for sharing.
I love and only use m43. The reasons are all in this video. There is simply no better option regarding cost-benefit in image quality per amount of money, period. You can choose from almost toy-like mini cameras to professional grade super cameras. And finally and most importantly, even if the camera bodies are not necessarily super small, the lenses are absurdly small, especially the telephoto options, there is nothing like it. You sacrifice 5% in image quality (in some specific situations) for a faster, smaller, cheaper system in m43, it's just a better proposition for almost all photographers, especially with amazing lens selection available.
Thanks for sharing.
One of the great things about this channel is that it addresses philosophical elements of photography. Although have not chosen M43 at this stage, I'm considering it because the weight of a larger system is giving me cause to reconsider earlier decisions. Of particular concern is when I travel overseas, as I prefer to have my camera backpack as cabin-luggage/carry-on, rather than risk it with the brutes who call themselves baggage handlers, and my decision brings with it a 7kg limit that nowadays is being rather strictly monitored. As always, thanks for such a considered and valuable clip, and it's wonderful getting glimpses of your beautiful country.
Thanks for sharing.
I bought my first MFT camera second-hand as a secondary camera system for the reasons you mentioned: compact size and weight; and affordability. I planned to use it only for backup of my main camera system and as a "toy camera" to carry around when not pursuing "serious" photography. While it is still my backup system, I have acquired a quiver of MFT lenses and have used it as my primary camera on several business trips when photography was not the main goal but I wanted to have a decent camera kit with me. I have produced a photobook of wildlife images shot at a national seashore with just a used Lumix GX85. So much for considering it a "toy" camera system!
I’ve shot m4/3 for awhile as a mom. I use OM (Olympus) and their weather sealing and compact size is great for a mom on the go. People ask me all the time if I’m a photographer because the photos of my kids are way better than a phone (which I use when needed). I actually hang photos of my family up regularly and I love being able to flex between mom photographer of kids and actually taking nature photographs if I feel like it. I still have a purple Olympus epm-1 pen mini! ❤️
I always used Canon to take pictures and had the Gh5 for more advanced video features. Few years ago I went on a long trip with my canon gear and oh boy I found it hard to carry around, I started to question myself about my interest in photography lol! When I came back looked for a new lightweight option without thinking about using my panasonic only because of the sensor size. Then finally one day I went on a video shoot and took pictures for my instagram with the GH5 because my iphone was dead, as soon as I saw the result I was quite impressed, so much that I decided to use it as my main photography camera.
Thanks, Matti. Back in film days, I used medium format an then 35mm Canon, especially loving my F-1n. Reluctantly, I moved to digital, with the Lumix G1, and then went with Olympus for their ergonomics and IBIS. I’ve never looked back. I shoot mostly telephoto and macro in nature, and MFT is far preferable to me than other formats for convenience, DoF (with good flexibility, deep or shallow), optics, weather resistance, and affordability. It’s a fantastic tool for photography, worry-free to carry, great to hold, and just enjoyable to use.
Thanks Matti for an interesting video! I bought my first m43 camera, an Olympus em10 mark II, about 4 years ago at the recommendation of a friend. It was my first serious camera and my intro to photography. I have upgraded to an em5 iii, which I love, and am waiting for my OM1. I love the small size and weight, as well as the image quality. I mainly shoot street photography and m43 is perfect for me.
Thanks for sharing.
My first interchangeable lens camera was an Olympus E520 (four thirds system) which I purchased based on the quality of the kit lenses as well as the camera body. When the micro 4/3 system replaced the 4/3 system I made the switch and have owned several different bodies and currently use an M10 Mark II and M1 Mark II. I agree with everything you've said. Most of my gear was purchased used and a result, I've been able to afford to acquire quite a few lenses including some pro lenses that are my workhorses. But at my age (72), I'm not thrilled about carrying a heavy bag, so I enjoy having the capability to customize my bag depending on where and when I will be taking photographs.
When I've thought about changing systems, I've concluded that it would be quite costly and as an amateur, the gear I have is more than capable of doing what I need it to do. If I take lousy pictures, and I do at times, it is certainly my fault and not because I don't have a system with a larger sensor or one with more pixels. At this point, I want to spend more time getting better at using the gear I own and don't need to spend a lot of money on gear that isn't going to make me a better photographer.
Thanks for a very good video on the benefits of the micro four thirds system!
Thanks for sharing your backstory.
Matti you nailed it. I still use mFT primarily for it's size/weight and resistance to the elements. If I am going for a hike or a city walk my mFT camera is with me. I generally choose a lens to use before I go out and if I can't decide a small bag is all that is needed bring with some alternatives. Small and light with good ergonomics makes photography fun.
Thanks for sharing.
Hi Matti, loved the video; I have been taking pictures for a very long time without knowing
much about cameras or photography; 35 mm film cameras (Minolta, Olympus), Kodak and Polaroid cameras with films developed at my local pharmacy. Then I bought a Nikon coolpix 4300 in 2003 as my first digital camera; then, later, a Canon 1000A PowerShot. After that I started out with aOlympus 4/3 cameras (E-510,E-620), and then micro 4/3 cameras (E-PL1, and now OM-D E-M1 Mk II.
So I guess I have been used to small and compact camera because they do what I have needed at the time and are easy to carry around. I’m older now and small, compact, light weight camera systems do the job for me. The best camera system is the one you USE and take with you. I really like my Panasonic-Leica 100-400 zoom (my largest lens). So I guess I would say that I check all five boxes for reasons why I prefer MFT systems as an older amateur photographer!
I went for m3/4 because...of you! You convinced me a while ago with your videos. I then got an GX9 and am still exploring lenses and techniques...its fun 🙏🏻🙂🇨🇭
Good choice!😀
I have a Nikon APS-C D500 (with no IBS). It just sits in the bag with its heavier lenses while I get out with my Lumix m4/3 kit. Instead of following the "influencers" into the world of full frame, I bought a cheap GX85 with 2 kit lenses a couple years ago and enjoyed the "light-weight" experience. Now I have a full G9 kit with lenses (just need to complete with the PANA 100-400) that I love to shoot with. I also have a Lumix LX100m2 for even lighter work, street and travel, and fully 4/3 compatible with my system. Plus the menu system is consistent and logical (sorry, Sony). And I always have my phone! Thanks for your videos, Matti!
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for all the very informative videos. I chose a micro four thirds camera [Lumix G85 / 12-60mm, f 3.5 lens] for the affordable price and so I could learn to use the features of a real camera. I am now hooked, and eager to learn more.
I used to shoot Canon full frame but moved away because of the weight and bulk. I found I just wasnt taking it with me much and ended up just using my phone. Now shoot with an Olympus EM1 and a mix of Panasonic and Olympus lenses. Positives for me: 1) (lack of) size and weight, 2) crazy telephoto on modestly sized lenses, 3) range and quality of lenses. Only con for me is low light performance, but I find I can greatly mitigate that with wide aperture primes and great image stabilization. Very happy with my choice.
I've been shooting with MFT for 10 years and it's always offered the most extensive video capabilities at each point in time. From the start, I've been able to take advantage of readily adaptable full-frame and anamorphic lenses, as well as high-quality MFT and even legacy Four-Thirds lenses (such as the Olympus14-35mm f2 zoom). The introduction of Speedboosters took MFT into ultra-low f-stop zoom regions untouchable by full-frame systems (because their DOF is TOO NARROW to focus at such apertures). With the introduction of the GH5s, Panasonic closed the DR gap between MFT and full-frame sensor performance, and the GH5M2 and GH6 have consolidated those performance gains. Combined with Leica f1.7 zooms and f1.2 primes, MFT becomes a compact, lightweight system that cannot be beat.
I loved the fully articulated back of the G1, and the convenience to use my existing "legacy" lenses.
Since then I have purchased several Panasonic lenses, they trigger my couriosty for film lenses, which I still buy. The last one this week: Hexanon 40/1.8
We chose the G9 because it was a great camera and we didn’t want to lug around bigger, heavier equipment on our walks and trail hikes.
The G9 is heavy and huge. If you want a light camera for the system buy the Olympus OMD 10 mark 4 or the OMD 5 makr 3. The image quality is the same or better and much, much lighter.
Thank you very much for taking about these five reasons. I choose Olympus E M1 as my first system camera for many years. I wanted compact camera, weather safe, best in class stabilization and with really good lenses for reasonable price.
I looked att many brands and tested Sony, Nikon, Canon, and choose the E-M1 mark 3.
I'm very happy with my choice.
I love my micro 4/3 lenses. They give me great photos without all the bulk and weight of traditional lenses.
I bought the G1 in an auction to have something very small I could carry instead of my big and heavy Nikon D7000. Its results could easily compete with the Nikon, so after a short time, I switched completely to M43. Never regretted it.
Thanks my friend.
My story is almost identical to yours: I bought a used G1 on a lark to supplement my Nikon D90. I now shoot M43 probably 80% of the time. Oly EM10 ii and EP5, and a Panny GX85, and too many lenses. Other 20% is Nikon D5600, 35mm film, and a Canon G5X ii point and shoot.
The Olympus EM series feels amazing in the hand, so you feel more at one one with your camera, the increased depth of field resolves many issues but you can still get amazing background blur with your F1.4 lenses if you know what you are doing. Currently I did buy a Sony A7Riii, and although there are definite improvements in image quality, the camera lacks any emotion and just feels like a tool, whereas my Olympus system feels like an expression. Hands down I love Olympus
The system has a ton of variety in body sizes, lens specs, and pricing. I hear a lot of negative people comment on how the system isn’t actually much smaller, or the prices aren’t that much cheaper. But typically are comparing the largest lenses/bodies and the most expensive ones. For example, my em1 mark II combined with the 40-150 f2.8 pro isn’t that much smaller (or cheaper) than a Nikon d7200 and 70-200 f2.8. In fact, mine was heavier than that kit when compared to my buddy’s. But the OPTION of size and price are there. You could grab an em5 series body with the new 40-150 f4 and have a truly small yet very powerful setup. Or for pricing, an em10 body with the basic 40-150. You have so many options of what to spend and how big you want the kit, and that freedom of choice is my biggest reason to recommend to anyone! Any size, any budget
Very true. The configurability of Micro Four Thirds is endless. You can go big, you can go compact, you can fast....
I have used it for more than 10 years because its weight and also good result. I have old EPL3 and EM5 MKII.
Started with a Minolta in the 70s, moved to Canon and had APS-c and then Full Frame digital while keeping film Rebels. Got a few Medium Format film cameras to branch out, then wanted to try the only thing left...M43. I studied the points made by several pro TH-cam photographers and decided to get Olympus (E-M5 Mk II). Size, weight, weather sealing, IBIS, and a highly informative display were the draws. Haven't gotten rid of any of the other stuff, just collecting (accumulating). While I have the 60 macro, I have not yet indulged in faster primes (yet). Love the jpegs SOOC.
Your points are very well made and quite valid. M43 needs make no apology and can do quite a lot for the beginner up to the pro. Good video!
Wow, you sure had a range of camera formats! Did you ever consider trying the Pentax Q system for a *really* tiny system?
@@Centauri27 No, I never got into Pentax or Olympus or any other half-frame cameras. Now thinking about it, I did also have a 110 camera that I put a few rolls through. The image quality was not worth the convenience of the small size, thoroughly forgettable.
@@mikejankowski6321 Actually, the Pentax "Q" system was their recent attempt at making a truly tiny ILC system. It used a 1/7" sensor I believe. The system was a fraction of Micro Four Thirds again, but it was more a novelty than anything else. Come to think of it, Pentax tried the same thing in the 80's by creating a tiny SLR that used 110 film...
@@Centauri27 I knew of that 110 SLR, crazy stuff!
I own the Lumix GX9 with:
12-60 Leica - 15mm Leica - 25mm Leica - 42.5 lumix
My ten reasons:
1 - The M43 is fun, enjoyable to use
2 - You can get wonderful lenses at a very reasonable cost
3 - If you use the GX line it's really all very compact and you carry it with you all the time
4 - You can have good depth of field even when the light forces you to larger apertures
5 - The M43 system encourages you to use prime lens
6 - The stabilization is fantastic, you can shoot handheld without any problem.
7 - Now that I develop with DXO I can use 3200 iso without worrying about noise.
8 - I love (a little) my Lumix GX9
9 - The second hand market is endless
10 - When you show your photos to full frame enthusiasts you can annihilate them. :D
Your 4th point 👍👍👍, the ones who critics the low light performance of m43 often forgot this point 😉
@@hieronimusbosch2744 mft is 35 mm/2 the original olympus pen F(T) advanced 35 mm. film half as much. to shoot landscape you needed to rotate the camera 90 deg. it was a beautiful thing with a roll of panatomic x.
I grant you every point except #10, which is all brag and no fact. On the one hand, a great photographer is the limit and not the tool. On the other hand, the DXOMARK metrics show that the MFT format is underpowered and lagging in every single respect. If you use your MFT camera for studio portraits or architectural images, you are cheating your client. There is a time and place for every tool. And the MFT camera is a wonderful format. But to say that it puts full frame cameras to shame is simply ignorance. Your MFT camera will outperform a 61 Megapixel Sony A7R IV? This is simply illness that must be treated immediately so that your customers do not suffer from your malady. OK, I see your smiley. But remember that a great portion of the internet audience is smiley impaired.
@@danncorbit3623 Point 10 was actually a simple joke. I think the addition of the smile makes this evident. If someone did not understand that it was a joke it is better that they leave the world of photography and devote themselves to reading Jerome K. Jerome or other great characters of literature who knew how to use humor;). Nice day :)
@@walterzannoni have I been banished? Drat. Well, in my defense, I did acknowledge your smiley. Must I also write a report? How about a photo of the book? After all, a picture is worth 1000 words.
Great video, Matti. 🙂 I chose M43 for all the reasons you gave. For me, it is also that the M43 system components are beautiful - aesthetically and for their quality. The features and capability are supreme in their own right, but especially when you consider their compactness and affordability.
Your channel is a source of pleasure and useful learning for me. Keep it up! 🙂
Paul 😎
Thanks for sharing.
Backpacking in the wilderness areas of Northern California requires many focal lengths to capture the images I wanted to bring home with me. It seemed simpler to adopt MFT and the 12-100 mm lens to meet my requirements. The kit was a lot smaller and lighter than my previous gear. This is a huge bonus when backpacking many miles for several days. I’m also able to eliminate some filters because the camera is able to simulate them for me. MFT just works better for more and I’m pleased with all of the images I’m making.
It's the size and weight. Micro Four-Thirds is a dream when traveling! I was able to check my bag onto a plane with no trouble.
Re. My Micro Four Third switch
A few years ago, I worked on a project that took me to several countries in Africa. I had my FF Nikon kit (D3 & D700 with a variety of high end zooms) and I picked up an Olympus E-M5 Mk1 (or Mk0, perhaps?) to test out on the trip. I had the Oly 12-50mm kit lens and a 75-150mm ($99 US) with that body.
After three months running around Africa shooting with both kits, I came home and began to go through many photos. When I got looking, I realized that I had shot a lot with the Oly and that there were a lot of real good photos from that kit, even considering the lenses I used were not such high quality.
After taking a look at some of the higher quality Oly lenses and the E-M1, I sold off most of my Nikon gear and replaced it with Olympus gear. Though I kept some of my Nikon FF DSLR gear for a few years after this, I have since replaced all the Nikon gear with Olympus gear. I am shooting two EM1 MK2 bodies and a variety of lenses these days. For what I have been doing lately and considering the satisfaction I have with the gear I have, updating my MFT gear is not a huge priority at the present time. What I have is meeting my needs, even though the temptation to upgrade is a frightful one!
Thanks very much for your videos!
Thanks for sharing your backstory.
Hi Matti, great video and very nice summary of the benefits of the M43 system. My reason was simple (but maybe ridiculous in retrospect): I owned a Panasonic compact camera I was quite happy with, and when I decided to try and step up, I thought it might be a good idea to stick with the brand, mainly for reasons of software, dials, etx I thought I was already familiar with. So I chose the Panasonic G70 with the 14-140mm zoom as a starter, and although my reasoning was maybe not 100% accurate, I am very happy with the decision! 😂
Same reasoning with me!! You're not entirely alone and I don't think it's ridiculous at all! :)
Hello, and thanks for this video. I choosed M43, 9 years ago, for all 5 reasons. It was at first a backup camera, an Olympus E-PL1 since 2011, which I upgraded to an E-PL5. I found that the image quality from the E-PL5 was on par with my Nikon D7000, so I completely switched to M43 in 2013. So, in fact, the main reason was image quality, given the compactness.
I got into MFT for 3 reasons: The first is actually that I was upgrading from a Panasonic FZ72 bridge camera, which shoots raw and already has many settings, the similarity in dials made the step to the Panasonic G6 really easy. Second is the pure hybridness of Panasonic, it does video as good as it does photo, and I needed that when I upgraded. The third step is really the affordability, as this narrowed down the options, and this meant when choosing my first MFT camera the choice was between the MFT Panasonic G6 with 12-60 or a Nikon 5300 kit.
Thanks for sharing.
I had bought into the common belief that a bigger sensor meant better image quality, so I resisted M43 for quite some time. My first M43 camera was a video camera (DVX200), and was actually surprised at how good the images were, and how much bokeh the relatively small apertures produced. So when I started looking for a hybrid photo/video camera for traveling, M43 became a viable choice. Since Lumix GH cameras had the best video features, I bought a GH5M2 and was quickly impressed by the image quality compared to my Nikon D800. Not only did the Lumix camera focus better, the colors looked richer, and the images were just as sharp, even though they were clearly at a lower resolution. In most cases, though, when I want to make a BIG print and impress viewers by fine detail, I'll do a multi-shot panoramic, so the lower resolution of the camera really doesn't matter. In many respects, M43 has proven itself to me to be BETTER than full frame. The only reason I see for going full frame is if you want super-shallow DoF in your images. I don't care about that, so there's no need for me to go that route.
Thanks.
I got tired of compact digital cameras breaking on me, so I looked for a replacement. I could get, yet another compact digital, a large DSLR, or a brand new thing called a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. I chose to purchase an Olympus E-P1 almost the moment they appeared. That was my “real” camera for a long time, granted my phone filled the majority of photographic needs until 2018 rolled around and I wanted to get a better camera. All I knew was I liked the size and price of m4/3, so I bought an OMD EM5 kit. Then the floodgates opened as I had to buy a Panasonic to see what they were about, then I needed to get another, and another,… last year I bought a G9 (thanks to you and James Popsys) - haven’t really thought about buying another body since. Thank you for all you do, Matti.
Hi Matti, first of all, of course, I hope all is well with you and your family!
Regarding your video, and your question, I started my photography journey with a Nikon intermediate DSLR, and used it for 8 years straight, besides the fact I had technically surpassed my camera, I felt and urge of change. In 2019 I got out of Nikon DSLR system and jumped to a Fujifilm XT2, I never regretted it... I fell in love with mirrorless and with photography all over again... Then in 2021 I started a 52week 52shots project, and I felt my XT2 was way to big to fit in my pocket during the week while I am commuting to work or going for a walk at lunch time... So in April 2021, 1 years ago I offered myself and Olympus EM10 mkiii with the compact kit lens... Its been my most used camera since then, since I only use my Fuji in the weekends... The Olympus is very compact, the IQ is great, and the color science is spot on with my personal taste.
Concluding, I have to say I couldn't be happier with my choice. And the choice of M43 was greatly influenced by you and Peter Forsgard for sure. Eager to see you in Lisbon, all the best to you, your family and this wonderful community.
I switched to full frame because I shoot a lot of video in low light scenarios but for most people who want to shoot good looking images, MFT or APS-C are great. In good light, I loved shooting MFT up until 2020.
Many of my best shots were taken on my G85 and my G9.
I've chosen the GX9 because of you, thank you for your videos about MFT
Good choice!😀
In additon to the key benefits you highlight in the video I also appreciate the aesthetics and ergonomics of Olympus cameras and have had many models over the last 10 years. I still have my E-1 as well as the OMD EM1 mkii and EM5mk ii. Other benefits include excellent image stabilisation, sensor shift high resolution image. I cant see myself changing formats any time soon for my hobbyist / enthusiast photography.
Thanks for sharing.
First of all, I love your TH-cam channel. And thank you for reminding me why I chose the m43. My adventure with DSLRs began with the Olympus E410. Then there was the E510 and the Nikon D80, D90 and D5100. And then I went back to 43 even though it was already m43. Panasonic g3 and gx800. I know that the m43 has a lot of super premium native lenses, but when you combine it with the m39 to m43 adapter and you are not afraid of manual lenses, it doesn't get any better. I recommend trying these lenses :)
Completely agree! For me, it's mostly about compactness 👍
Thanks.
I love the compact size of M43 and love to shoot my Panasonic GX9 with the small Leica primes for street photography. It's a great small, discreet kit that doesn't draw too much attention to me as I shoot photos.
Thanks for sharing.
I came into digital photography via compact cameras. As a sea kayaker, I wanted something small enough to carry on the deck in a waterproof box. Eventually Olympus produced a very good waterproof camera, the TG5 and that is now my camera for on the water, I was able to get rid of the box! However, I was dissatisfied with the lack of viewfinder and started looking for a good camera with one. This led me to the Panasonic GX8, which had the best viewfinder I had ever experienced and the benefit of being a system camera which is very compact. My camera in the days of film was a Nikon FM and placed side by side it is almost identical in size, though a bit heavier than the Lumix, but the Micro Four Third lenses are much smaller and lighter. I particularly like the mirrorless feature which lets me photograph in monochrome and actually see the B&W image, unlike a a reflex camera. I agree that the selection of lenses is superb and very economically priced. As a keen amateur I can't afford to put too much money into my photography, but have been able to amass a good range of lenses. They are cheap enough that is is easy to buy a s/h lens just to try out what the shooting experience is with it. Sometimes I think about upgrading to a G9 or something, but for now I am more than happy just to take pictures.
Thanks for sharing.
I use multiple systems (Nikon Full Frame DSLR and Mirrorless, Fujifilm X100V and all sorts of medium format/35mm film cameras). I recently got the Lumix GX85 to have something small and light to just have with my anywhere. I'm loving it so far.
My first interchangeable lenses camera was an Olympus ep-2. At that time I was short on money and I didn't have any knowledge on cameras, but I was lucky enough to find a camera able to use a living lens system, so I could start getting lenses and improving my gear. Today I own an E-m5 mark III and I have a great collection of lenses to use.
Thanks.
I chose m4/3 because it was the first mirrorless system. I was pretty happy with my Canon 5Dmk2 but wished I had an electronic viewfinder for video and FF lenses were too large, heavy, soft wide open and missed focus.
Then I discovered that mirrorless offered "what you see is what you get" and I was convinced it was the future. The sensor size of m4/3 has never been an issue for me. I built a career around shooting with 2/3 inch broadcast video cameras so m4/3 was a step up and I could still get shallow depth of field results with my first m4/3 camera and lens - GH2 + 20mm f1.7
The gap now between a "proper" camera and a smart phone has narrowed. The best smart phones are catching up and arguably only now lack the reach of a longer lens. My recent carry all day - every day camera is a Sony rx100 vii. The quality is astonishingly close to m4/3 in most of my situations and the reach is so much better than my smart phone. However, my m4/3 cameras - EM1 mk3 and EM5mk3 have better handling and the lenses and viewfinders are so much nicer to use - so I can't see myself ever parting with this system. PS. I had the GH5 as well but have sworn myself off Panasonic since they refuse to use phase detect auto focus which is far superior for video. I really appreciate that m4/3 offers different sized bodies. I think marketing has sometimes pushed "bigger is better" to m4/3 detriment. For me the EM5mk3 is a perfect size and offers a small add-on grip for larger hands. Just perfect.
Great video as always. Pretty much all of the reasons you stated apply to me as well. I guess the size of the long lenses and price are the most important, as I've taken to attempt bird photography over the last 2 years or so. Getting a 200-800 in full frame size would just be too much for my old legs to pack on my daily walks. Both OM Systems and Panasonic make great cameras, and the features and performance of the 2 new flagship systems costing around 2200 USD's compare very well to the cameras from Sony, Canon, and Nikon costing well over double. I also love my Olympus EM-5 3 for backpacking, it takes up almost no space, a few small primes, and I'm set.
Very good reasons...Size, quality and really good videosystem is really what makes m43 interesting for me
Thanks.
Thanks for this and the positivity from it and your followers, convinces me that MFT and in particular Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III is the right route for Leisure.
But for work and 360 virtual tours in buildings and construction sites, I am told that I must get Full Frame because of the constant chant, Low Light Low Light.
But others have been successful with MFT and 360 tours and the camera would be tripod mounted on a Nodal Ninja and the lens would be the expensive low light, Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 8mm f1.8 - f22 Fisheye Pro.
Images would be viewed onscreen only and any prints would be A4/pdf size.
I want Olympus because of the features and the fun and following and hope I'm not pushed down the FF route, please convince me!
Thanks for sharing.
Because size not only body's but also lenses sizes, better possibility to carry more lenses and quality of images are very high, features you can't find in other systemes ... We have so much lenses choice, all those things motivate me to make more photos. I'm pro with this system for years.
I chose four thirds because of the 7-14 lens that was not available on other digital cameras at that time. Olympus had some great lens. So eventually I went four thirds for everything. When the EM1 came out, I switched to m43 as my main camera system. It took awhile to get lens as good as the four thirds lenses. But eventually that happened I liked the mirrorless and adapting other lens back then. It worked wonderfully with the M mount f/4.5 lens for landscapes and scenic work and was so light I could have it and my primes with me anyplace I hiked. I stay with it because it has some awesome lens that give me the look I want. The price helps also. The 1.2s give a look like the 50 APO Summicrons which happened to be my favorite for showing the different lenses and getting walk into type photos. After I had to sell my system and business when I had cancer, I looked at other brands when restarting. There are no bad cameras today. I had a G9 and EM1II when I had to sell them. So when I rented other equipment, nothing felt as good in my hands as the EM1s. When I compared it to the 24mp full frame cameras cropped for a 16X20 print, I could not really see anything better or worse with quality lenses. And m43 has some excellent lenses. Also since cancer and I need a light system and m43 has great synergy so I can get everything I want with the fewest lenses and less overlap which matters since I still use a harness to carry 2 cameras.
New to this format after parking my trusty Pentax MG all those years ago and, like most of humanity, using an iPhone. A bit like going from vinyl to cd and back to records, I’m a camera revivalist and MFT really suits my photographic needs. A bit of an analogue/digital twist, I’m using my Pentax lenses on a Lumix body!
Thanks and good to hear that mixture of brands work well.
G9 and the 100 to 400mm lenses, for outdoor sports shots, love it.
I have been shooting with the system since 2010, starting with a GF1. The reason when wanting to travel lighter when on going on holiday and did not want to use my full frame Canon. Used both for a bit but found myself using more and more and now this is all I use current body OMD 1 mk3 with a few older bodies as back up like you said also converted for infared and a range of lenses L9VE THE SYSTEM ❤️
As a user of MFT with EM5 Mark II and couple of LEICA DG Lenses, I've been absolutely satisfied and happy with them.
When it comes to low shutter speed in some places as being in a indoor space, they always provide me pretty sharp images without increasing any ISO numbers at all... It is amazing !! So I am still a huge fan of Micro Four Third system any way...
I agree with all of this. My first 'serious' camera was a hand-me-down Practica MTL5 with a Helios 58mm, back in the days when if you wanted to express the concept of selective depth of field and background blur, you had to use a lot of words. When digital cameras first came out I wasn't in a place financially where I could justify buying a DSLR, especially as it was clear that they were developing rapidly and going out of date fast. I had a 'bridge' super zoom for some trips that reminded me that a lots of the time it's the subject that makes a good picture, not the gear. When I did spash out on a GX8, I could justify several hundred pounds, but not 2-3 thousand for a full frame camera, but also I didn't really want to be lugging a backpack full of gear with me up mountains. I don't always want to take my 100-400 zoom, but if I do want 800mm equivalent reach I don't have to plan my whole trip around transporting it. At the other end, my Olympus 17mm and 45mm lenses are so small doesn't make sense not to pop then in a pocket with my EPL7 pretty much wherever I am going. Image quality is plenty good enough for my purposes and the size of prints I might want to make.
Three years ago, I went from Nikon SLR to 4/3 Lumix. First for weight of equipment, second for the weight of my years. My Lumix and 3 Lumix and Olympus lenses are lighter that the camera and 2 Nikon lenses. I go out in the wild with Lumix GX 9 and the 75-300mm Olympus and 25mm Lumix. For urban photos, I take the 25mm Lumix and the 14-150mm Olympus.
Thank you for your videos.
Christine from France
Thanks for sharing.
Reason to choose m43.
Size weight
Price
Variety
IBIS
Tele
Macro
Video
Lens selection
Wow, I bought MFT (Lumix G7) just exactly as what you said about it: it is perfect for beginners and affordable. I can say that it is perfect for beginners because I used it very often that sometimes I forgot that I have my smartphone camera for taking photos. It is easy to use and serves greater results. MFT is just perfect for anyone to begin their photography and videography journey!
P.S.: You won't regret buying MFT systems!
My reason to go m4/3 was size, lens selection and good enough IQ combination. I love the toy-size lenses like the Oly 45/1.8 and Pana 15/1.7. The cameras are not much bigger and I had photo trips, carrying a camera, 3 lenses and a spare battery without a camera bag - all was inside my winter jacket's pockets. At the end I got more interested in landscape and cityscape type of photography and got attached to the level of detail and DR that new, high-res full frame sensors give. Especially after the big companies started making mirrorless cameras, which I defo prefer to the DSLRs. But sometimes I regret selling the m4/3 system and if I have some spare money, will probably get another one.
MFT was my first interchangeable lens system and I really liked the small size and weight as well as the lens selection. It was also great that it was all very affordable...I still remember when I got the plastic fantastic 40-150mm for my Olympus EM5 Mk1 for 90 euros new and I thought that was an absolute steal :). For travel purposes MFT is a very good choice, although mirrorless full frame systems have caught up a bit when it comes to camera sizes (eg. Sony A7C)...however, the lenses are still often much bigger and heavier...especially the expensive pro-level glass. I switched to Sony FE a few years back now, but may well get another MFT camera in the future for traveling purposes.
My first and only interchangeable lens system is micro 4 3. It's light, and with the 2x full-frame focal length equivalency it is much more practical for bird photography. I occasionally entertain trying out APS-C, but with the recent upgrades made by OMDS and Panasonic, micro 4 3 is staying sufficiently competitive with the bigger systems. So I can continue to keep things simple, and live with the minor disadvantages while benefitting from the advantages of micro 4 3.
Former fullframe shooter here. For me M43 is all about the lenses, lenses, lenses....
Thanks.
I changed from Canon FF to G9 M43 for the telerange advantage while still being better even in UWA range compared to FF. The Leica 8-18 is better in every aspect than the Canon EF L 17-40/4.0.
Love it, also the magnificent Sigma 56/1.4 and 16/1.4. Real m43 gems IMHO... 😊
And then there is the unbelievable Oly 40-150/2.8, replacing BOTH the Canon 70-200/2.8 and the Sigma 120-300/2.8 (yes, I understand and appreciate the m43 has double the dof... so the image is not the same. I couldn't care less, for me it's about the focal range!)
I got a G7, thanks for mentioning the great lenses!
Light-weight and affordable. The cameras I have can do so many different things. Animation and long exposure were a big part of my considering a M43 camera. I use a GH5, S5, and G9 at work, and for my personal use I have a G9. I have to admit, I enjoy using the GH5 and the G9 over the S5 for photo work.
I was a Canon DSLR user. As I’ve got older I primarily wanted something lighter, and to switch to mirrorless. The Canon R6 seemed like the perfect solution. Then I looked at pricing. For the price of the R6 I was able to buy two new Olympus EM-1 bodies, and a couple of used primes. The EM-1 isn’t the lightest, but its build quality is amazing and it felt right in my hand. And the image quality is as good as I what I was getting from my old Canon 6D. Maybe the R6 would be better under certain conditions, but as I’m not a full-time pro, the extra expense, especially if I started adding RF lenses would have been unjustifiable to myself or, more importantly, my wife.
Thanks for sharing.
I’ve shot M43 since 2013. But I also shoot Fuji digital and some film formats. Why? Great video, unlimited clip length, no overheating, awesome lens selection, different native lens and body manufacturers, 4:3 aspect ratio, incredible ibis is the rule, tiny lens/body combos if you want it…. The list goes on.
With M43, the end result is that I take way more photos than I ever did with full frame (certainly by looking at my Lightroom count). With the compact size, I have the camera with me (and want to take it with me more often) than keeping my larger full frame system at home in a bag. Also, the cost of the lenses is far cheaper. As an enthusiast, this helped me to explore and acquire lenses for a variety of genres (e.g., telephone landscapes, wildlife, macro, wide angle). I am also to be more inconspicuous taking photos at gatherings with family and friends - with small primes or 1.8/2.8 telephoto lenses (and even the 1.2 lenses). Last that wasn't mentioned, the ProCapture feature on Olympus is amazing for kid/group/family and sports shots. It allows me to have way more "keepers" than my FF dslr ever allowed me to do.
I agree with you completely! Micro Four Thirds has this "fun" factor that everyone talks about, but which is hard to describe until you use the system. It really does rekindle the love for photography for many people.
I use 2 or 3 systems...including full frame...I have always had m43 gear since its inception from the original four thirds system. Now in my senior years...my m43 gear has become my main system.
Here is my 5 reason: 1. Larger sensor size in compact boy - GX85 with 14mm for street photograph - fits in coat pocket or small (tiny) shoulder bag. 2. Sharp image - G9 with Lumix Leica 15mm. Excellent I.Q. 3. 2x crop factor - G9 with 80mega pixel mode on Lumix Leica100-400mm, that's equal to 200-800mm in full frame. 4. Availability of lens in compact size - my Nikon 200-500mm lens or 70-200mm are way way heavier than G9 body with Lumix Leica 12-60mm. 5. What you see is what you get. You can preview what image will look like before you take picture, download to your computer - focus peaking, too.
Thanks for sharing.
I fell in love with the micro 4/3 after I saw a video on TH-cam about the Leica Q2 mini. Thank you for the interesting informative videos! =)
My pleasure!
He's right, I researched different systems before I took the plunge and micro four thirds checked all the right boxes for me. Starting with not a lot of money, my camera and lens collection has grown and evolved because of the immense number of le3and cameras
I bought an Olympus EM10 MKII as a small street camera a few years ago (along with the 14-42mm kit lens) as a compliment to my Nikon D300. I was so impressed with the picture quality and aesthetic appeal of the camera that I eventually invested in an Olympus EM1 MKII as well as a total of seven lenses from Olympus, Lumix and Seven Artisans, covering a wide range.
Thanks for sharing!
The most important reason for me to use 43 is to be able to choose different lenses from my objectives park every time. This is realy comfotable and of course very light. I use normaly 2 or 3 lenses in my back.