M43, and why people are wrong about it

Cagey75

Cagey75

Messages
16,746
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Thought I'd share this, from my fellow Countryman - He has some good points


I do believe/feel there is a snobbishness against M43, as if it was some crappy beginner system, no good for pro work, can't be taken seriously, lousy DOF etc ...

What do you think? Not looking to start a war, enough of them on here as it stands :D Just looking for honest opinions. Do you FF only users think M43 is just too small for any serious work? Do APSC users really imagine that they are a lot better off?

I've used all 3 formats, I don't remember ever thinking 'damn, this sucks worse than the other' - I adjust to what I'm using, I know the limitations going in. Currently shooting M43, and stills only! I shoot a bit of family video here and there, and I have dabbled with colour corrections in post on 4K files, but for the most part I switched to M43 for stills. I wanted a taste of IBIS, I wanted that 'wysiwyg' evf goodness, I wanted small and light with high quality output. I believe I have experienced this, and I shot FF Nikon for years.

Your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Well, he is into video, but one thing that did it for me was the Olympus Pen-F.
I looked at that camera and drooled, in the meantime buying a Canon and not using it much as it was so big.
In the end, and a big birthday, screw it, I need this in my life and haven't looked back since.
Me and my camera go everywhere, it fits in a coat pocket, shoots in low light without a flash and produces great results, It's sitting on my knee while I'm typing this. Best thing I ever bought.
 
As I have said myself ~ the best camera you have is one in your hand at the time!

But yes we all have to make decisions whether amateur or pro. The link below is about a working professional who went entirely MFT for his studio fashion photography.

https://www.joeedelman.com/olympus-6-month-report-card/ the video is approximately half way down the page

I think it addresses from the stils PoV what the video above does for/about videography.
 
Pete B said:
Well, he is into video
Click to expand...

True, and that can become a very one sided view, but that's just it. People overlook M43 as a stills option, I didn't, I was coming from FF to a shorter term APSC to M43 for stills. I had those thoughts, i was ignorant to it - I did the research, I was happy to at least give it a go - 8mths in, I am pondering, but I don't have much to complain about
 
Connor Dunne, the guy in the video, isn't really talking about M4/3 exclusively. He's more specifically hooked on the video capability of Panasonic - and he's being just as evangelical and snobbish about it - inverted snobbery if you like. Panasonic is strong in the video sector but only with a spec sheet that any manufacturer can copy if they choose to. Tony Northrup claims the Canon 6D MkII is better than Panasonic for video - and that's a full-frame DSLR (link below).

M4/3 is in a sticky position. It's all about size and weight, which is the only thing M4/3 had to boast about in the early years. And Oly-Pan did well, but those assets are being increasingly questioned and they're more vulnerable to other smaller formats below them, not least smartphones, while enthusiast cameras are pushing more towards full-frame and away from that chaos as fast as they can. Oly-Pan are both small players overall, Olympus is losing market share and Panasonic is unlikely to have the video sector to themselves for long.

Enthusiasts stills photographers are keen on image quality, pretty obsessive about it in fact, and always have been. Smaller formats are just at an inherent disadvantage when it comes to sharpness, low light performance, dynamic range and shallow depth-of-field. You can argue the toss about that as much as you like, but when it comes to putting your money where your mouth is, full-frame and APS-C are where the cash is going.

FWIW, I don't think there's any ideal format for everything and everybody. They all have pros and cons, and long may they all prosper :)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb1MKvmIujQ&t=2s
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
What do you think? Not looking to start a war, enough of them on here as it stands :D Just looking for honest opinions. Do you FF only users think M43 is just too small for any serious work? Do APSC users really imagine that they are a lot better off?

I've used all 3 formats, I don't remember ever thinking 'damn, this sucks worse than the other' - I adjust to what I'm using, I know the limitations going in
Click to expand...

I love the M43 format but as a wedding shooter I think it's a step too far. There are some fantastic M43 wedding shooters but it's no coincidence that they tend to be in sunny climates with a prominence of outdoor or big open spacious venues. APS-C, Fuji specifically, is now incredibly popular with UK wedding photographers, but it's telling that something like the EM1 MkII and PRO glass hasn't taken off in the same way, despite the specs appearing to be perfectly suited.

For travel, motorsport, family stuff I'd happily invest in M43 (as I have in the past) if two systems were viable for me, I love what Olympus are doing with things like Live Composite, Live Time etc, and the PRO lens range is stunning. But in terms of output I simply couldn't justify, say, an Em1 MkII, 17mm 1.2 and 45mm 1.2 over a Sony equivalent set up, which cost wise isn't even going to be that dissimilar.
 
HoppyUK said:
Connor Dunne, the guy in the video, isn't really talking about M4/3 exclusively. He's more specifically hooked on the video capability of Panasonic - and he's being just as evangelical and snobbish about it - inverted snobbery if you like. Panasonic is strong in the video sector but only with a spec sheet that any manufacturer can copy if they choose to. Tony Northrup claims the Canon 6D MkII is better than Panasonic for video - and that's a full-frame DSLR (link below).

M4/3 is in a sticky position. It's all about size and weight, which is the only thing M4/3 had to boast about in the early years. And Oly-Pan did well, but those assets are being increasingly questioned and they're more vulnerable to other smaller formats below them, not least smartphones, while enthusiast cameras are pushing more towards full-frame and away from that chaos as fast as they can. Oly-Pan are both small players overall, Olympus is losing market share and Panasonic is unlikely to have the video sector to themselves for long.

Enthusiasts stills photographers are keen on image quality, pretty obsessive about it in fact, and always have been. Smaller formats are just at an inherent disadvantage when it comes to sharpness, low light performance, dynamic range and shallow depth-of-field. You can argue the toss about that as much as you like, but when it comes to putting your money where your mouth is, full-frame and APS-C are where the cash is going.

FWIW, I don't think there's any ideal format for everything and everybody. They all have pros and cons, and long may they all prosper :)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb1MKvmIujQ&t=2s
Click to expand...


Ok, first up, using Tony Northrup in any debate is like an auto loss. The man spends 5 minutes with any camera and suddenly has a book available on it! - Nobody makes me want to swear as much ... well, Jared Polin maybe, what is with people following these tools?

Anyway: He [Connor, the dude we're actually following on from] wasn't talking video exclusively only, he does mention that M43 is plenty good enough for photography. If you want to follow on from that, I'm your man, I'm shooting M43 almost exclusively for stills ...

Show me an APSC or FF system with even close to equal IBIS ... go on, I'll wait

What disadvantage? Low light? we learn to work around it, the IBIS helps a hell of a lot. We don't all need to shoot at 6400, I rarely go above 1600 no matter the system. If ISO is your main, then you're not even looking at M43, so why are you even here?
 
Last edited:
ukaskew said:
I love the M43 format but as a wedding shooter I think it's a step too far. There are some fantastic M43 wedding shooters but it's no coincidence that they tend to be in sunny climates with a prominence of outdoor or big open spacious venues. APS-C, Fuji specifically, is now incredibly popular with UK wedding photographers, but it's telling that something like the EM1 MkII and PRO glass hasn't taken off in the same way, despite the specs appearing to be perfectly suited.

For travel, motorsport, family stuff I'd happily invest in M43 (as I have in the past) if two systems were viable for me, I love what Olympus are doing with things like Live Composite, Live Time etc, and the PRO lens range is stunning. But in terms of output I simply couldn't justify, say, an Em1 MkII, 17mm 1.2 and 45mm 1.2 over a Sony equivalent set up, which cost wise isn't even going to be that dissimilar.
Click to expand...


If I was a strictly wedding shooter I wouldn't look to M43 either. The guy in the video does state low light is a weakness. There is so much more to photography than low-light crutches though.
 
A curve ball from me, if only Nikon had taken the CX further ;), tried loads of cameras FF in the D750 many different crop, my favourite being the D500, i dont find m4/3 a step too far.
 
Olympus have a new body due this year ,very much under wraps but alleged to be a game changer . Possibly waiting to see what Nikon’s offering is first , and will Panasonic also be waiting in the wings , time will tell . Things have got to keep pace and outrun mobile phone tech or what’s the point I have already had a comment from a good friend and a Nikon d500 users that he doesn’t bother to take his camera out these days preferring his phone ?
 
the black fox said:
Olympus have a new body due this year ,very much under wraps but alleged to be a game changer . Possibly waiting to see what Nikon’s offering is first , and will Panasonic also be waiting in the wings , time will tell . Things have got to keep pace and outrun mobile phone tech or what’s the point I have already had a comment from a good friend and a Nikon d500 users that he doesn’t bother to take his camera out these days preferring his phone ?
Click to expand...

Quite simply, your friend bought a camera when he didn't need too
 
Pete B said:
Well, he is into video, but one thing that did it for me was the Olympus Pen-F.
I looked at that camera and drooled, in the meantime buying a Canon and not using it much as it was so big.
In the end, and a big birthday, screw it, I need this in my life and haven't looked back since.
Me and my camera go everywhere, it fits in a coat pocket, shoots in low light without a flash and produces great results, It's sitting on my knee while I'm typing this. Best thing I ever bought.
Click to expand...
Do you sleep with it under your pillow? Lol
 
I've not watched either video but here's by twopenneth worth. Snobbishness is there in all walks of life, not just photography. Some of it is ignorance, some of it is insecurity, and some of it is to justify their own purchases and expense. Why 'we' are so negative towards others and other's possessions is beyond me. Not everyone is fortunate enough to buy the latest greatest FF or medium format, or even high end M4/3 and buy the best that they can, to be snobbish about this is just ignorant imo. Some people just choose the smaller format because they prefer it, again to 'laugh' or 'look down' at these folk is just ignorant.

There's no denying that in absolute terms of IQ then the bigger the format the better the outright the IQ is, BUT it's far from the difference that folk try to make it out to be, and this is at the pixel level. Print on 7x5 or 6x4 like most of us did prior to digital format and you're not going to see a difference in IQ (other than the DOF differences). Even printing on A4 you're unlikely to see any difference. In fact in my office I have 3 A3 prints, 2 taken with my old D750 and 1 with my old EM10. For fun I sometimes ask people to see if they can tell which is which and none can.

So this then begs the question why I have FF if I have m4/3 and there's such little difference in IQ? The main reasons are high ISO performance, my love for subject isolation (there is a look about FF that I prefer but this is purely preference), ability to crop (I do take a lot of wildlife) and the AF performance (although this has been negated to a large degree by the EM1-II from what folk say).

Build quality of M4/3 is also top notch, I would trust my EM1 and 12-40mm in far worse weather than I would my Nikon gear. I'm not sure which is actually better tbh, but the Olympus instills more confidence in me.

IMO people should just concentrate on improving their own photography rather than worrying about what other equipment people use and how good it is compared to their own. Sure we all like to have a bit of banter, but this is different to genuine snobbishness.
 
snerkler said:
I've not watched either video but here's by twopenneth worth. Snobbishness is there in all walks of life, not just photography. Some of it is ignorance, some of it is insecurity, and some of it is to justify their own purchases and expense. Why 'we' are so negative towards others and other's possessions is beyond me. Not everyone is fortunate enough to buy the latest greatest FF or medium format, or even high end M4/3 and buy the best that they can, to be snobbish about this is just ignorant imo. Some people just choose the smaller format because they prefer it, again to 'laugh' or 'look down' at these folk is just ignorant.

There's no denying that in absolute terms of IQ then the bigger the format the better the outright the IQ is, BUT it's far from the difference that folk try to make it out to be, and this is at the pixel level. Print on 7x5 or 6x4 like most of us did prior to digital format and you're not going to see a difference in IQ (other than the DOF differences). Even printing on A4 you're unlikely to see any difference. In fact in my office I have 3 A3 prints, 2 taken with my old D750 and 1 with my old EM10. For fun I sometimes ask people to see if they can tell which is which and none can.

So this then begs the question why I have FF if I have m4/3 and there's such little difference in IQ? The main reasons are high ISO performance, my love for subject isolation (there is a look about FF that I prefer but this is purely preference), ability to crop (I do take a lot of wildlife) and the AF performance (although this has been negated to a large degree by the EM1-II from what folk say).

Build quality of M4/3 is also top notch, I would trust my EM1 and 12-40mm in far worse weather than I would my Nikon gear. I'm not sure which is actually better tbh, but the Olympus instills more confidence in me.

IMO people should just concentrate on improving their own photography rather than worrying about what other equipment people use and how good it is compared to their own. Sure we all like to have a bit of banter, but this is different to genuine snobbishness.
Click to expand...

Well said Toby
 
It’s obviously good enough because photographers are earning a living from them. Guy called Ross Grieve lives near me who’s a Panasonic ambassador and professional portrait and commercial photographer. His work is great, so the quality is definitely there.


Most photographers are looking for a system that fills as many of their requirements as possible in a single system. Not everyone can afford to run two complete systems where one does the bits that the other one doesn’t do so well.


In my local camera club there are roughly 5% of members using M4\3, mainly Panasonic but one Olympus. When you ask them why they bought them all of them say for the small size of the bodies and lenses. None of them shoot video just stills so it wasn’t the video spec that attracted them. For a couple of them as their interests have developed then have added D500s to their collection because they found that the Panasonic’s couldn’t give them the results they were after in terms of AF.


I’ve had a chance to try their M4/3 out and I have to say that the Panasonic’s have left me generally underwhelmed. I just didn’t get on with them in any way. The one that I was impressed with was the Oly M1-MkII with the 300 f4 Pro lens. I thought that was excellent. The IS was uncanny, just so much better than my Canons that it made the Canon look like something out of the Ark. AF was good and in good light the results were there too.


The biggest problem for me with M4\3 is that the bodies are too small. I end up having to grip the camera too hard to feel that I’ve actually got it secure which makes my fingers ache.


I recently had some cash to spend on my camera gear and I spent a couple of months debating between the M1 MkII and a couple of lenses and a D850 and a couple of lenses. In the end I chose the D850 simply for the resolution of the sensor which I felt would be better suited to the photography I wanted to do with it. It was close though.


It would be great if Olympus made some grip add ons that you could change out to make it bigger but that’s not likely to happen so at the moment although I’m tempted, the small size is a major stumbling block.
 
Gary @Gaz J not sure whether re grip size you mean to expand its bulge but they do have the HLB-9 battery grip for the EM1 MK2.
 
I personally have not experienced any snobbish behaviour toward the M43 format. However, maybe that's because I wouldn't be bothered with it and possibly end up avoiding it without realising :D

Joking aside, I don't sit there and try to directly compare M43 to APSC or FF. They are all different types of sensors which each have their time and place. I am ignoring the "mirrorless" part as that's an entirely separate discussion :D - nor do I sit here saying that M43 is the best thing since sliced bread. As another member mentioned, the best camera is the one you have with you when you need one. All formats are very capable. From a technological standpoint, I think the progress of M43 in the last 10 years since it was born and since I bought my first one in 2014 has been frankly, staggering. And it, along with all other formats, will only improve as time goes on.

The ultimate ultimate for me, would be a mirrorless camera with FF sensor and M43 size lenses. But this obviously isn't possible due to some fancy smanshy thing called "physics" - although I believe that is a fad, and will never catch on :D

Joking aside. I love my O-MD E-M5 MkII, looking forward to a (hopefully) soon MkIII reveal, if it is a M1 MkII in a M5 body (or with better specs/sensor) I will REALLY want to upgrade. However I hope they focus less on extra shooting abilities and things which will be seldom used and focus on improving noise handling, that, when I think of comparing to my previous FF gear (used to be a Canon shooter for years) is probably the only thing that makes me want to change back to FF. Later this year, Raymond Lin (a close friend in real life who has the Sony A73) and I are going on a photo trip to Vienna in December, so it will be good to put the two cameras head to head and see what happens when comparing outputted files.
 
Box Brownie said:
Gary @Gaz J not sure whether re grip size you mean to expand its bulge but they do have the HLB-9 battery grip for the EM1 MK2.
Click to expand...

Yes to make the bulge bigger. It had the grip on it. What I find is that my fingers touch the body and the bulge of the grip doesn’t reach the bend in my fingers.

However I still find the idea of owning one attractive. May move on some of my Canon gear now I’ve got the D850 and perhaps look at it again.
 
HoppyUK said:
M4/3 is in a sticky position. It's all about size and weight, which is the only thing M4/3 had to boast about in the early years. And Oly-Pan did well, but those assets are being increasingly questioned and they're more vulnerable to other smaller formats below them, not least smartphones, while enthusiast cameras are pushing more towards full-frame and away from that chaos as fast as they can. Oly-Pan are both small players overall, Olympus is losing market share and Panasonic is unlikely to have the video sector to themselves for long.

Enthusiasts stills photographers are keen on image quality, pretty obsessive about it in fact, and always have been. Smaller formats are just at an inherent disadvantage when it comes to sharpness, low light performance, dynamic range and shallow depth-of-field. You can argue the toss about that as much as you like, but when it comes to putting your money where your mouth is, full-frame and APS-C are where the cash is going.
Click to expand...

I have a couple of aging compacts that are probably bettered by smartphones these days, I have a 1" compact with a long range zoom, MFT and a Sony A7.

Mrs WW and her female friends tend to take a lot of pictures with smartphones and tablets and they look lovely on the smartphone and tablet screen but on my pc screen when looking closely they often look quite meh and I'm sure my 1" compact gives much better image quality... caveat… if you go looking for the differences. And then there's the question of focal length, the smartphones and tablets are limited here.

I don't know when we'll see a smartphone that'll give better image quality than MFT, it may happen but in the meantime a GX80 or GX9 both of which I own are useable with a nice compact f1.8 prime or a 12-35mm f2.8 zoom which as a package give image quality that would have been science fiction in the days when I was taking pictures at gigs with my Nikon SLR and would have shocked anyone in the days when the Canon 5D was SOTA.

Maybe MFT is squeezed by smartphones for some uses but for anyone tempted to look closely and for anyone who prefers looking through a VF to the view on and touch screen experience of a smartphone it may be some time before the smartphone catches up in image quality, flexibility and the whole picture taking experience.

At the other end of the market FF will offer better image quality but still at a cost of bulk and weight and that wont change until some disruptive lens technology comes along. Until then MFT will still offer some advantages over FF and possibly over APS-C too.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much what Jake has said..

I've learnt that every system has its compromises - I'd love a FF DSLR like a Nikon D850 but can I afford it or more importantly be arsed to carry it around !

I can understand why Pros would want FF though as presumably IQ is paramount.

I've tried Fuji and they are lovely (indeed I still think about going back) but there lenses are massive and incredibly expensive !

For an amateur like me M43 is the system with the least compromises - (not including the biggest one which is me)

I do wonder how much further M43 can go though - FF and APSC seem to me continuing to improve whereas M43 isnt - even the 20 MP sensors arent a noticable improvement...
 
I think there's been quite an improvement since the early days. I think that my G1 gave excellent image quality at ISO 100-400 but the newer 16 and 20mp (I can't see any significant difference between these two) cameras easily exceed what was possible with the earlier cameras at higher ISO's. I don't know how much more can be achieved with the current technology, maybe a new sensor tech will be needed to significantly move things on.
 
I think the snobbish comments work both ways really. Seen so many people on a micro four thirds bashing full frame cameras because of there size. Technically they produce a better image quality but the cost of that is size and weight. Micro four thirds gives you back that portability at the cost of the image quality. Show me 10 images from a range of sensor size and manufactures and I doubt I could guess what brand and sensor size took each one.
Everyone has there own wants and needs for a camera, just pick the one which best suits your needs now. Not what gets rave reviews or is the latest tech.
 
It's a good system. I was into m4/3 from its inception till 2014. What made me swap to Fuji was, principally, the fact that I could no longer remember what dial or button I'd assigned to what. Fuji's controls are by and large analogue - like the film cameras I used in my youth. You can SEE what they do and what they're set at.
 
Off on a tangent, what's the reason that Panasonic sells better than Olympus? Is it purely due to video, or is there more to it?
 
I didn't know they did.

I prefer the slightly anonymous styling of the Panasonic kit rather than the more overtly styled Olympus stuff.
 
woof woof said:
I didn't know they did.

I prefer the slightly anonymous styling of the Panasonic kit rather than the more overtly styled Olympus stuff.
Click to expand...
I read an article this morning that suggested this was the case, however after reading this article is appears to be the opposite :confused:
https://www.43rumors.com/japanese-sales-ranking-full-2017-year-show-olympus-lead-mirrorless-market/

I think the article I read this morning was US sales though, so maybe they have a 'thing' for Panasonic ;)
 
I always felt that Panasonic bodies were more plasticky and creaky than Olympus. But that's only up to the GH1.
 
It's not about the camera or even the lenses, something I've come to realise.

It's the light and the person behind the camera.

I went from a D7000 to a D700 because I thought I needed a full frame body to produce good work as my photography was improving.

I loved it and with a couple of old FX lenses I was very happy.

Then I started reading about the new Fuji XT-1 and how it managed to keep up with or surpass some full frame cameras and I believed all the marketing hype and sold the D700 kit for the XT-1 and a 18-135mm kit.

I loved the operation of it. Being mirrorless I could see what my image would look like before pressing the shutter. Good times.

I was in Currys near my London office one day (training day) and went in there lunchtime. I saw a new Nikon D750 with 24-120 lens for £803.97. I thought it has to be a mistake and checked with a salesman. It turned out it was on clearance so the credit card came out and I bought it.

I had some fun comparing the output from both cameras but as the XT-2 had been released I sold the XT-1 and traded the D750 kit in for the XT-2 kit and made about £600 on the Nikon.

Unfortunately I noticed artefacts in skin tones and foliage on the XT-2 RAWs and wasn't prepared to live with them. I know others can't see them or aren't affected by them but I was and I fell out of love with the X-Trans system.

So I sold the XT-2 kit on here and bought a Canon 5D MK2 kit from another user on here.

I loved it, especially with the 70-200 f2.8 lens (the sharpest lens I've ever used to this day).

I fancied a change, an update really so sold the body for a 6D. Beautiful colours on skin tones (never got on with the Nikon's skin tones and greens).

Unfortunately as I'm getting older my back's started playing up and found my gear either left at home or long walks curtailed due to the weight of kit.


After a lot of soul searching and research I decided to give the Olympus EM5MK2 M43 a try.



So here I am, with M43.

It's light enough to carry around all day (even with 2 bodies in the bag and all 5 lenses). One body is a Panny G3 IR converted.
The quality is enough for me, I'm not a pro but I do demand a certain level as I'm in a camera club and I don't want anyone thinking, he used to be good, what's happened? (Vain I know).

In the studio I have (big shed) I've come to realise the importance of light and how to use and modify it.

I've taken portraits of my long suffering dog with all the above mentioned formats from the D700 onwards and you'd be hard pushed to tell which format took what image if all are correctly exposed.

I've even taken some astro and Milky Way shots with the Olympus. Sure a D850 would take far better but that's not surprising.
 
Jake said:
I personally have not experienced any snobbish behaviour toward the M43 format. However, maybe that's because I wouldn't be bothered with it and possibly end up avoiding it without realising :D

Joking aside, I don't sit there and try to directly compare M43 to APSC or FF. They are all different types of sensors which each have their time and place. I am ignoring the "mirrorless" part as that's an entirely separate discussion :D - nor do I sit here saying that M43 is the best thing since sliced bread. As another member mentioned, the best camera is the one you have with you when you need one. All formats are very capable. From a technological standpoint, I think the progress of M43 in the last 10 years since it was born and since I bought my first one in 2014 has been frankly, staggering. And it, along with all other formats, will only improve as time goes on.

The ultimate ultimate for me, would be a mirrorless camera with FF sensor and M43 size lenses. But this obviously isn't possible due to some fancy smanshy thing called "physics" - although I believe that is a fad, and will never catch on :D

Joking aside. I love my O-MD E-M5 MkII, looking forward to a (hopefully) soon MkIII reveal, if it is a M1 MkII in a M5 body (or with better specs/sensor) I will REALLY want to upgrade. However I hope they focus less on extra shooting abilities and things which will be seldom used and focus on improving noise handling, that, when I think of comparing to my previous FF gear (used to be a Canon shooter for years) is probably the only thing that makes me want to change back to FF. Later this year, Raymond Lin (a close friend in real life who has the Sony A73) and I are going on a photo trip to Vienna in December, so it will be good to put the two cameras head to head and see what happens when comparing outputted files.
Click to expand...


Watch any M43 camera or lens review, find one without the word "equivalence" scattered throughout and I'd love to see it
 
Stephen L said:
I always felt that Panasonic bodies were more plasticky and creaky than Olympus. But that's only up to the GH1.
Click to expand...

I have the G80, it's all metal-alloy and a lot weightier than it appears. It's better built than all but the EM1 II from Olympus
 
People like to defend what they have and what they use. What they have must be best, everything else is inferior, so even when presented with facts, it's often brushed off as fanboy talk or countered with something else entirely.

I can tell you the pros an cons on each one, but at the end of the day it's pros and cons and what I think and only my opinion, you can take it as snobbery, you can take it as whatever way you want to take it but can I be snobbery on the thing that I own?

vokZJrm.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think these days there are very few "bad" cameras and if you do your research you can find a camera that suits you know matter what the sensor. The thing with M4/3 is it is still a relatively young mount and people get used to what they know. Here is where I think camera manufacturers need to learn some lessons perhaps from the car industry. If i buy a new car which cost thousands of pounds of get to take it for good test drive to see if it suits my need. Companies like Mini will let you drive them for 48hrs !. Now I shoot 2 Sony cameras one FF Amount and one Crop E mount. When the G9 came out I though that perhaps I had found a camera that could do the jobs of both. I contacted my local store to see if I could borrow or even rent one for a few hours to see how I found it and if it generally did suit my needs. The question was asked of Panasonic who said no but I could use it for 30mins in my local store if I wanted. Now on the whole I dont take all my pictures in my local camera store ! I want to to test it my real world environment had i been allowed to I may today have been a G9 owner.
 
I think m43 is a really good system, loads of options for bodies and lenses now. I have had a few over the years but the thing that keeps me going back to a larger camera is always the low light performance and relative noise (all ISOs but higher ones in particular). Ultimately you can't beat physics and if you want one system that can do it all then FF is the best. I still have an X100F for the times I don't want to carry a large DSLR, and I enjoy using the Fuji controls more than m43.
 
Raymond Lin said:
People like to defend what they have and what they use. What they have must be best, everything else is inferior, so even when presented with facts, it's often brushed off as fanboy talk or countered with something else entirely.

I can tell you the pros an cons on each one, but at the end of the day it's pros and cons and what I think and only my opinion, you can take it as snobbery, you can take it as whatever way you want to take it but can I be snobbery on the thing that I own?

vokZJrm.jpg
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense. I've used all formats too, I don't need a photo of gear to enhance any point I may make. It's much more a case of gear snobs looking down on 'lesser' gear, and it happens daily, just go read comment sections on any M43 review
 
Cagey75 said:
Utter nonsense. I've used all formats too, I don't need a photo of gear to enhance any point I may make. It's much more a case of gear snobs looking down on 'lesser' gear, and it happens daily, just go read comment sections on any M43 review
Click to expand...

Which part is nonsense? I haven't actually given any opinion.

The only thing I said is I can list pros and cons? And that you can read it how you like. and why would I read comments section on m4/3 reviews? they are just opinions, opinions aren't facts. I form my own opinions on who I use my cameras and how I use them are FACTS to me. How other people use them is no relevance to me.

It seems you are getting offended over nothing because i've said nothing about m4/3.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
People like to defend what they have and what they use. What they have must be best, everything else is inferior, so even when presented with facts, it's often brushed off as fanboy talk or countered with something else entirely.
Click to expand...

All of this ^^^ I have owned loads of gear I despised and wasn't shy about saying it. I probably won't even be using M43 in a while, but I would still vouch for it as my experience [outside of shoddy QC on my G80] has been pleasantly surprising. Should we be negative just for the sake of it? Ever think that maybe those who praise something are just genuinely satisfied?

I love that you lined up your cameras and took a shot just to make a point lol
 
Cagey75 said:
All of this ^^^ I have owned loads of gear I despised and wasn't shy about saying it. I probably won't even be using M43 in a while, but I would still vouch for it as my experience [outside of shoddy QC on my G80] has been pleasantly surprising. Should we be negative just for the sake of it? Ever think that maybe those who praise something are just genuinely satisfied?

I love that you lined up your cameras and took a shot just to make a point lol
Click to expand...

I took that photo 2 months ago for something else, it's easier to post a photo from IMGUR than to type it all, plus it is current and if I want to, I can compare them side by side, not how my memory of them were.

I still haven't made any comment on any of the formats btw, not knocked any formats.

Your immediate post feels like you want to start a war despite your OP stating otherwise, before I even said anything too? Plus I own m4/3, are you knocking me for having m4/3?

If you start a thread on why people like or dislike m4/3 or what their feelings are towards it, you got to accept that you will hear things you don't want to hear.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Watch any M43 camera or lens review, find one without the word "equivalence" scattered throughout and I'd love to see it
Click to expand...

But 'equivalence' is what it's all about. M4/3 wins on size and weight, but loses on every other aspect of performance. Equivalence explains why, and there's no denying it or ignoring it.

Oly-Pan have been banging the M4/3 drum for ten years and gained a small but significant market share. That's great, good luck to them, but it's not growing, and there's nothing new here.
 
HoppyUK said:
But 'equivalence' is what it's all about. M4/3 wins on size and weight, but loses on every other aspect of performance. Equivalence explains why, and there's no denying it or ignoring it.

Oly-Pan have been banging the M4/3 drum for ten years and gained a small but significant market share. That's great, good luck to them, but it's not growing, and there's nothing new here.
Click to expand...


No, it isn't. If you are only using one format, then that is all that matters. Do you use equivalence for FF Vs MF?

Raymond Lin said:
I took that photo 2 months ago for something else, it's easier to post a photo from IMGUR than to type it all, plus it is current and if I want to, I can compare them side by side, not how my memory of them were.

I still haven't made any comment on any of the formats btw, not knocked any formats.

Your immediate post feels like you want to start a war despite your OP stating otherwise, before I even said anything too? Plus I own m4/3, are you knocking me for having m4/3?

If you start a thread on why people like or dislike m4/3 or what their feelings are towards it, you got to accept that you will hear things you don't want to hear.
Click to expand...

You took it just now, stop lying :D

It doesn't matter what you were referring to it's nonsense. Saying people only defend things because they paid for it, it's a laughable view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top