Micro 4 3rds sell it to me

BADGER.BRAD

BADGER.BRAD

Messages
3,681
Edit My Images
Yes
The idea of micro 4 3rds appeals to me as I like small cameras but am I right , try to sell it to me !
 
They are dinky. The biggest part of owning a camera is how good it feels in the hand.
 
Great for macro, landscape, portraiture.

OK for low light photography with DeNoise software.

What do you want to know?
 
Look in the m4/3 forums to see what they are capable of and get down the camera shop and get the feel for the camera is my advice.
 
Last edited:
As I remember you had a Sony A6xxx of some description?

Sorry if I'm wrong but if I'm right (did you?) you've already had something which should theoretically give you as good and possibly even better image quality.

Other than that... I've been with MFT since the GF1 and currently have GX80, GX9 and GM5 and several lenses. The plus points include relatively small size and weight if you choose your body and lens to give these advantages. I'd list the blisteringly fast operation of these cameras as a plus too. Negatives I suppose include reduced DR and less good higher ISO ability when compared to modern FF cameras but also the newer MFT cameras are better than cameras that were thought to be good not so long ago.

I think we've frequented the same places on the Yorkshire coast before so if you have the time and feel like a meet up I could bring a camera for you to try. If you like.
 
What do you want to shoot with it?
What are you looking for?
Size?
Weight?
Features?
Ruggedness?
Weather sealing?
 
Last edited:
Hmm I changed to MFT for health reasons I.e weight of gear .. would I change back no way Hosea … there lighter , cheaper and just as sharp as FF alternatives .. the FF world is catching up though with smaller lighter bodies , but it’s the lenses that hold them back ….
In the 4 + years since I changed to Olympus I have as yet never had to use a tripod or monopod and thanks to weather sealing on bodies and lenses no covers or bags needed either . I just go walkabout with my OM1 and 300mm f4 + a 1.4 tc which gives a FF equiv reach of 840mm handholdable and still ultra sharp .. plenty Of proof of pudding shots on here .
 
Mine are Panasonic, I couldn't get on with the Olympus (menus and ergonomics), but that is me, not a judgement of the camera. So my comments refer to Panasonic, and G9 in particular :)

It would depend on what you are changing from, and as has been said, what you do with it.

Reasonably compact and light, I changed from Canon APS-C, so quite noticeable.
Best ergonomics I have seen on any camera, a comment often seen (G9)
Intuitive menu system, never struggle to fine anything. The menu system is common across the Lumix range
Fast focus (Many modes and settings that work well)
Dual stabilisation, can handhold the 400mm (800mm FF eq) down to 1/15sec (the lenses can be used across the range, but will only have lens stabilisation on a body without IBIS)
Very customisable, you have custom modes, you can also change the function of most of the buttons
Good range of lenses, which are not expensive in comparison
Lenses are sharp (with one possible exception, but it is not bad)
Very good JPEG processor (and you can turn the parameters right down and process externally, which gives you something between it own JPEG and processed RAW)


When looking at weights, look at the lens/camera combination.


Would I go back to APS-C dSLR? No, never :)
 
I have been smaller M4/3 for about five years now and stepped into Olympus around a year ago. Image quality isn't an issue and for my use Macro, Birds and family it's just superb and the image stabilisation is super helpful
I have big prints of my grandchildren on our wall they look superb
I am doing a photo shoot this weekend for a friend's grandchildren and that's going on their wall
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
The idea of micro 4 3rds appeals to me as I like small cameras but am I right , try to sell it to me !
Click to expand...
No!

I currently have seven of the little boogers (don't leave two in the dark together) but I also use full frame, APS and smaller cameras. They all do the same thing but there are subtle differences in the way they do it, which I enjoy.
 
Horses for courses. I have the OM1 and have just bought the OM1 ii. I also have a good range on olympus lenses. I think the quality of images and usability are spot on for wild life and BIF. As Geoff has mentioned (and he got me into the system in the first place,) there is no need for a tripod in most situations. I have been on a couple of safari trips with the OM1 and the 150-400 lens which gives great reach in a hand holdable package.
With only a 20 megapickle sensor you don't have as much croppability as, say the canon r5 but there again canon shooters can't hold a 800 mm lens for as long.
Where I do struggle with it is with very high ISO. I shoot my granddaughters gymnastics competitions and it doesn't cope well with the need for 12800 ISO. For that the canon r5 is superior.
I also have a fuji GFX for landscape photography, why? because it is fun to use. I have been comparing images from both cameras and the medium format images are superior but only if you look hard. Printed and put on the wall most people would be hard pressed to tell which camera they came from when viewed at normal distance. My family certainly can't.
You will be able to find fault in any system, most of these can be overcome by adapting your style.
The best advice I would give is to find someone near you with a micro 4/3 system and try it.
One thing for certain is that it will save a ton of cash over a good quality ff system, your back will thank you and you will be more inclined to take a range of lenses out.
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
No!

I currently have seven of the little boogers (don't leave two in the dark together) but I also use full frame, APS and smaller cameras. They all do the same thing but there are subtle differences in the way they do it, which I enjoy.
Click to expand...
So you say "no!" but then you say you enjoy them.

Doesn't help the OP really.
 
They'll do macro

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2oTGDnz]Spider by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]



They'll do landscape

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2pwD7tg]Twr Mawr, Llandwyn Island by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]



They'll do portrait

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2oB63t6]Molly by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]



They'll do architecture

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2omgrqA]St. Philips' Cathedral, Birmingham by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]



They'll do low light long exposure

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2oGewah]Time and Tide by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]



They'll do BIF

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2oVNWVZ]Harris Hawk Head On by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]
 
It's not about the camera, it's knowing how to use it and getting the exposure right in the right lighting.

I sold my Sony A7R2 to get back into Micro 4/3 and I only miss the FF for astro and really low light stuff.

But my bank balance is healthier and my back thanks me for the change.
 
To me, the reasons to buy M43 are low weight, cheaper lenses, good image stabilisation, compact size.

The reasons not to are greater noise than the best of the larger formats, slightly one-dimensional images (most can't tell the difference) and small bodies can feel cramped.

I'll probably end up with M43 when I can't hold a heavier camera, but prefer larger sensor and f1.2 lens.
 
I actually find it easier having a larger DOF.

I've never been bothered about ultra smooth bokeh (which you can still get on M4/3 with the right lenses and subject to lens distance.

And now we have great DeNoise software I rarely find high ISO's an issue.
 
Last edited:
GreenNinja67 said:
I actually find it easier having a larger DOF.

I've never been bothered about ultra smooth bokeh (which you can still get on M4/3 with the right lenses and subject to lens distance.
Click to expand...

I think some MFT lenses give very nice and smooth bokeh. You don't get the razon thin DoF you get with larger systems and f1.x lenses but if you reduce the camera to subject distance and if the background is conducive then I do find that nice smooth bokeh is possible. It's obviously lens dependant and within the constraints of the smaller sensor system. Another nice thing about MFT is that many of the lenses are good from wide open. I normally use MFT primes from wide open to f4 and only occasionally smaller and the variable aperture zooms I use wide and only stop down occasionally.
 
Last edited:
I bought the Olympus 40 - 150 F4-5.6 R lens 2nd hand from a cheapy place in Birmingham for £60 quid.

I thought I could get my money back if it was rubbish.

It's ridiculously good for the price. Plastic yes but who cares if the results are good?
 
Plus if you go for the top of the range bodies om1 or om1.mkii you not only have superb subject i.d . Built in ND filters . 7 to 8 stops of i..b.i.s , lightning fast AF , and burst speeds of 50fps or higher which includes pro capture
a good choice of lenses from olympus/ OMS , Panasonic , sigma and lots of Chinese ones to . Most of which are not only lighter than FF but cheaper by substantial amounts .. I have yet to find a olympus lens that’s not sharp ( bar one) but that was a four thirds lens so basically obsolete
 
woof woof said:
As I remember you had a Sony A6xxx of some description?

Sorry if I'm wrong but if I'm right (did you?)
Click to expand...
Your right Alan my main camera is a Sony A6000 but I'm looking for a camera to replace the point and shoot that I carry 24/7. The replacement would need to be small but hopefully produce better images than the point and shoot, I'm looking second hand as there is a good chance the camera could become damaged doing some of the activities I do ( It's happened to quite a few cameras and smart phones in the past ( Hence the reason I generally use hand me down phones)
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
Your right Alan my main camera is a Sony A6000 but I'm looking for a camera to replace the point and shoot that I carry 24/7. The replacement would need to be small but hopefully produce better images than the point and shoot, I'm looking second hand as there is a good chance the camera could become damaged doing some of the activities I do ( It's happened to quite a few cameras and smart phones in the past ( Hence the reason I generally use hand me down phones)
Click to expand...

Ah. I see.

I have and can recommend the 1" sensor Panasonic TZ100 which has a 24-250mm zoom. I don't now what they go for used. I don't think a MFT camera will save you much bulk or weight compared to your A6000.

There's a TZ100 thread with pictures.

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Panasonic TZ100

Recently purchased from the forums - surprised not a bit more chatter about this fine little compact in the Equipment sub-forum. I'll kick off some photographs with a test of the zoom capability: TZ100 zoomed out by Jeff, on Flickr TZ100 zoomed in by Jeff, on Flickr These were after the...
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk
 
GreenNinja67 said:
They'll do macro

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2oTGDnz]Spider by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]



They'll do landscape

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2pwD7tg]Twr Mawr, Llandwyn Island by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]



They'll do portrait

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2oB63t6]Molly by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]



They'll do architecture

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2omgrqA]St. Philips' Cathedral, Birmingham by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]



They'll do low light long exposure

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2oGewah]Time and Tide by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]



They'll do BIF

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2oVNWVZ]Harris Hawk Head On by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]
Click to expand...


They are all a pretty good recommendation!
 
I’ve discussed this a lot over the years, and I’m a very big fan of m4/3, Olympus in particular. However the size and weight advantage is not what it once was as FF mirrorless packages can be small and light too now.

In fact the gap is so small for the lenses I use that I’ve ditched m4/3 and just have FF now.
 
I bought a used Olympus OM-1, 40-150 f/2.8, Sigma 16mm and a Skgma 56mm the other day. While I was impressed with everything about the system in terms of size, build quality etc. Images for me weren’t what I was hoping for but I have been using nothing but full frame for years so it was a tough comparison. The same day I got the equipment I traded it in for a small full frame mirrorless camera.
 
I have spent a lot (too much) time comparing using an G9 for M43 a 5Diii for FF.

The longest Canon lens I have is 300mm (and I won't be getting any longer)
Using 300mm on both, the G9 is much better, using 150mm on the G9, the G9 is better. Using the 100-400 on the G9 is like a different world.
I feel I would have to get an R5 and a 600mm lens to come any where near it.
This was compared on images cropped to the same area on the image.
On images that fill the frame on the 5Diii & 300 and G9 & 300 it is very hard to tell the difference.
(I also tried a Canon 650D, and in light where noise isn't a factor the results were in between the G9 and 5Diii, using the same lens as I did on the 5Diii)

As far as noise goes, there is a difference, though in shots of the street with only streetlamps, using the full frame (no crop) the 5Diii produces nicer JPEGs, but using RAW, the G9 produces sharper shots but with a little more noise.

However both of them have really surprised me in what they can produce in low light, especially the G9 as I had really never tried, as "M43 is too noisy" etc. is sung too often!

The only major differences I can see (though I haven't noticed the results) is the DR, which as someone put it, I am not into "fine art landscape", or making wall paper murals for greasy spoons, and the DoF, ie using a 50mm lens on the 5Diii gives results that you can't get on the G9. This is one of the reasons I am keeping the 5Diii :)

On cropped shots much of the better detail and perceived sharpness of the G9 shots is down to pixel density, better stabilisation (though I did try the 5Diii on a tripod with no noticeable difference) and probably the lenses are better.


I think the decision for me would be based more on the features of the camera and the advantages of the crop factor, and the need for a high MP FF to allow for cropping while retaining detail; than the "disadvantages" of M43 which are not noticeable for most of my uses.
And of course the price, the only Canon FF I can see that I think would give me similar results is the R5, and used that is six times the cost of a G9!


I have not tried any other make FF, but I think the same factors would give a similar conclusion.

If none of your shots need more than a light crop, and do not need more than a 300mm lens to fill the frame, then it is down to camera features, and FF will give an advantage in format, but otherwise M43 will be more useful over a wider range of subjects. (not scientific, but opinion based on looking at the results, which is what I do with photos :) )
 
Sangoma said:
I have spent a lot (too much) time comparing using an G9 for M43 a 5Diii for FF.

The longest Canon lens I have is 300mm (and I won't be getting any longer)
Using 300mm on both, the G9 is much better, using 150mm on the G9, the G9 is better. Using the 100-400 on the G9 is like a different world.
I feel I would have to get an R5 and a 600mm lens to come any where near it.
This was compared on images cropped to the same area on the image.
On images that fill the frame on the 5Diii & 300 and G9 & 300 it is very hard to tell the difference.
(I also tried a Canon 650D, and in light where noise isn't a factor the results were in between the G9 and 5Diii, using the same lens as I did on the 5Diii)

As far as noise goes, there is a difference, though in shots of the street with only streetlamps, using the full frame (no crop) the 5Diii produces nicer JPEGs, but using RAW, the G9 produces sharper shots but with a little more noise.

However both of them have really surprised me in what they can produce in low light, especially the G9 as I had really never tried, as "M43 is too noisy" etc. is sung too often!

The only major differences I can see (though I haven't noticed the results) is the DR, which as someone put it, I am not into "fine art landscape", or making wall paper murals for greasy spoons, and the DoF, ie using a 50mm lens on the 5Diii gives results that you can't get on the G9. This is one of the reasons I am keeping the 5Diii :)

On cropped shots much of the better detail and perceived sharpness of the G9 shots is down to pixel density, better stabilisation (though I did try the 5Diii on a tripod with no noticeable difference) and probably the lenses are better.


I think the decision for me would be based more on the features of the camera and the advantages of the crop factor, and the need for a high MP FF to allow for cropping while retaining detail; than the "disadvantages" of M43 which are not noticeable for most of my uses.
And of course the price, the only Canon FF I can see that I think would give me similar results is the R5, and used that is six times the cost of a G9!


I have not tried any other make FF, but I think the same factors would give a similar conclusion.

If none of your shots need more than a light crop, and do not need more than a 300mm lens to fill the frame, then it is down to camera features, and FF will give an advantage in format, but otherwise M43 will be more useful over a wider range of subjects. (not scientific, but opinion based on looking at the results, which is what I do with photos :) )
Click to expand...
I know you say that you have spent a lot of time comparing this but it's a bit flawed, and I'm not sure I'd agree with some of your results.

When comparing 300mm on both cameras and cropped to the same area on the image you're going to be doing a 2x crop on the Canon meaning you're comparing a 5.6mp Canon image with a 20mp Panasonic image.

I've compared m4/3 against FF many many times and there's no way when using the full resolution that the m4/3 is sharper. When viewed at full screen size it can be hard to tell the difference, but when you start zooming in it soon becomes apparent that the FF is sharper.

In terms of DR I am again surprised by your results, the Canon 5D3 has never had great DR, scoring only 11.7ev on DXO whereas the G9 is said to have around 13ev.

In terms of other makes giving a similar conclusion I can assure you that they don't. Over the years I've compared the Nikon D750, D850, Z7, Sony A7RIV, Sony A9II, Olympus EM1, EM5ii, and Olympus EM1ii (not all compared to each). The FF cameras always have shown better DR and better sharpness.

Now as stated already, when viewing full size it is hard to tell sometimes and I have championed m4/3 many times in the past due to this and this has resulted in me being happy to run m4/3 alongisde FF as my light weight alternative. However, as I mentioned above m4/3 no longer gives you that weight advantage for a lot of lens choices (when comparing similar equivalent lenses) and so it seemed pointless me keeping m4/3.

This isn't bashing m4/3 in any way, I'm still a huge fan and I think it's an excellent system with great IQ, however when making comparisons like this I feel it's best to talk in absolutes and be objective (y)
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I know you say that you have spent a lot of time comparing this but it's a bit flawed, and I'm not sure I'd agree with some of your results.

When comparing 300mm on both cameras and cropped to the same area on the image you're going to be doing a 2x crop on the Canon meaning you're comparing a 5.6mp Canon image with a 20mp Panasonic image.

I've compared m4/3 against FF many many times and there's no way when using the full resolution that the m4/3 is sharper. When viewed at full screen size it can be hard to tell the difference, but when you start zooming in it soon becomes apparent that the FF is sharper.

In terms of DR I am again surprised by your results, the Canon 5D3 has never had great DR, scoring only 11.7ev on DXO whereas the G9 is said to have around 13ev.

In terms of other makes giving a similar conclusion I can assure you that they don't. Over the years I've compared the Nikon D750, D850, Z7, Sony A7RIV, Sony A9II, Olympus EM1, EM5ii, and Olympus EM1ii (not all compared to each). The FF cameras always have shown better DR and better sharpness.

Now as stated already, when viewing full size it is hard to tell sometimes and I have championed m4/3 many times in the past due to this and this has resulted in me being happy to run m4/3 alongisde FF as my light weight alternative. However, as I mentioned above m4/3 no longer gives you that weight advantage for a lot of lens choices (when comparing similar equivalent lenses) and so it seemed pointless me keeping m4/3.

This isn't bashing m4/3 in any way, I'm still a huge fan and I think it's an excellent system with great IQ, however when making comparisons like feel it's best to talk in absolutes and be objective (y)
Click to expand...



When comparing 300mm on both cameras and cropped to the same area on the image you're going to be doing a 2x crop on the Canon meaning you're comparing a 5.6mp Canon image with a 20mp Panasonic image.
Click to expand...
Exactly the point I was making, and the whole basis of my comparisons.
I did say "On cropped shots much of the better detail and perceived sharpness of the G9 shots is down to pixel density........................"

In terms of DR I am again surprised by your results, the Canon 5D3 has never had great DR, scoring only 11.7ev on DXO whereas the G9 is said to have around 13ev.
Click to expand...

I didn't give any results for DR!
The differences are in the specs, and I did say I hadn't noticed the results.



I've compared m4/3 against FF many many times and there's no way when using the full resolution that the m4/3 is sharper. When viewed at full screen size it can be hard to tell the difference, but when you start zooming in it soon becomes apparent that the FF is sharper.
Click to expand...

But when you zoom in, if you zoom in to the same area, as you stated before
When comparing 300mm on both cameras and cropped to the same area on the image you're going to be doing a 2x crop on the Canon meaning you're comparing a 5.6mp Canon image with a 20mp Panasonic image.
Click to expand...




It would appear we are not actually saying different things in most the points!
And I don't think my final sentence disagrees with what you were saying. :)
 
Sangoma said:
Exactly the point I was making, and the whole basis of my comparisons.
I did say "On cropped shots much of the better detail and perceived sharpness of the G9 shots is down to pixel density........................"



I didn't give any results for DR!
The differences are in the specs, and I did say I hadn't noticed the results.





But when you zoom in, if you zoom in to the same area, as you stated before





It would appear we are not actually saying different things in most the points!
And I don't think my final sentence disagrees with what you were saying. :)
Click to expand...
Sorry I must have have misinterpreted your post (y)
 
I am in a different sort of dilemma.

Had an OM 5, OM 1X and currently an OM1.

For macro, which is my preferred genre of photography, then I think it is great.
I also, use the 300mm f4 with the 1.4 converter, for wildlife.

With macro , I find that shooting at ISO 400 or less, with flash and a diffuser gives excellent results.

Wildlife over ISO 800 gets progressively more noise.

I have Topaz AI, which does reduce the noise, but in many cases, especially people, it makes the image a little too unnatural, and I find it needs a touch of grain added back in LR.

As I said, I would keep it for macro without question.

However, I am on the look out for FF really for almost everything else.

I do regret selling my Nikon D780, a 35mm f1.4 prime would suit my needs .

Thinking of selling my OM primes, as I feel that whilst they are very good in ideal light, they don’t deliver in real world use for me.

OM 17.5mm f1.2, Panasonic 42.5 mm f1.2 and the Oly 8mm f1.8 fisheye.
 
If my Nikon D850, 60-600mm and 14-24mm Sigmas weren't so relatively new, I too might start lookikng at MFT as I also use an Olympus OM-E-E10. The Olympus is so light and small and then I pick up the Nikon and feel my muscles bulge with the strain. In truth though, if I'm going out to do 'photography with a purpose' then I tke the Nikon gear and for casual use there is the Olympus because it's so dinky and quiet and unobtrusive -- try getting candid shots with a huge DSLR! I think if weight is a real.

If the OP is starting out then MFT is an excellent idea but if the OP has large amounts of FF gear then perhaps not so much.
 
Denis99 said:
For macro, which is my preferred genre of photography, then I think it is great.
I also, use the 300mm f4 with the 1.4 converter, for wildlife.



As I said, I would keep it for macro without question.

However, I am on the look out for FF really for almost everything else.
Click to expand...


With whatever FF you get, you will need a lens of over 800mm to match the 300 + 1.4 converter?

I'm guessing you meant you would keep it for macro and wildlife?
 
You are right about the practicality of the 300mm f4.

Could be persuaded to forgo the OM 1 for wildlife though.

I only use it in lieu of when the insects in the winter are not about.

So selling up except for macro might be my option.

It’s the noise that kills it for me. ISO 800 is about the limit for me.
 
Sangoma said:
With whatever FF you get, you will need a lens of over 800mm to match the 300 + 1.4 converter?

I'm guessing you meant you would keep it for macro and wildlife?
Click to expand...

But it should be noted that with, for example, a D850 FF with a 600mm lens on it, the cropping of the 45MP sensor will easily outmatch an MFT camera. Cropping to an equivalent of 1200mm can be achieved with no appreciable loss of quality under normal circumstances.
 
Denis99 said:
You are right about the practicality of the 300mm f4.

Could be persuaded to forgo the OM 1 for wildlife though.

I only use it in lieu of when the insects in the winter are not about.

So selling up except for macro might be my option.

It’s the noise that kills it for me. ISO 800 is about the limit for me.
Click to expand...

I don't know the OM1, but the G9 can be used well above that and gives surprisingly good results
 
ShinySideUp said:
But it should be noted that with, for example, a D850 FF with a 600mm lens on it, the cropping of the 45MP sensor will easily outmatch an MFT camera. Cropping to an equivalent of 1200mm can be achieved with no appreciable loss of quality under normal circumstances.
Click to expand...
Yes, very true, that would give you a 10MP picture
 
For me, it's simple ergonomics.
I have large hands and I find them too small, fiddly buttons and they just don't sit right for me.
They are very capable though; at this time the DSLR is very much active.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top