Some cameras are built for power, others for portability. Micro Four Thirds cameras aim to balance both, offering a lightweight system without sacrificing performance. But with full frame cameras becoming more affordable and APS-C sensors improving, is Micro Four Thirds still worth it?
Coming to you from Teo Crawford, this informative video puts the OM System OM-3 to the test in the snowy mountains of Austria. Crawford explores the pros and cons of the system, highlighting why some photographers still prefer it. The biggest advantage is size. Micro Four Thirds sensors allow for compact camera bodies and smaller lenses, making them ideal for travel, outdoor photography, and anyone who wants to keep things light. The crop factor also works in your favor if you shoot at longer focal lengths. A 100-400mm lens effectively becomes a 200-800mm equivalent, giving you extreme reach without the bulk of a full frame telephoto setup.
Another key feature Crawford examines is in-camera color control. The OM-3 allows you to customize color profiles, adjust saturation levels, tweak contrast curves, and create looks straight out of the camera. For anyone who wants minimal post-processing, this can be a major time saver. The video also covers the OM-3’s computational photography features, including in-camera ND filters, focus stacking, and live compositing, which expand what’s possible without extra gear. In extreme cold—minus 14°C—the camera held up, while other equipment, like a GoPro, froze.
Of course, there are trade-offs. Low-light performance is a known limitation of Micro Four Thirds. The smaller sensor struggles with high ISO, making it less ideal for night photography without stabilization or long exposures. The system also maxes out at 20- to 25-megapixel sensors, so if you need ultra-high resolution for large prints, a larger format may be better. However, Crawford points out that the OM-3’s high-resolution mode can capture 50 MP handheld and 80 MP on a tripod, offering a workaround for those needing extra detail. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Crawford.
Im tired of seeing this propaganda to sell cameras. 20MP not enough? Not so long ago photographers were making huge prints with the best pro camera, the Canon EOS-1D Mark II.
An 8MP camera. Nuff said.
As an amateur, I prefer keeping my MP small. Smaller file sizes!
The vast majority of photos today are viewed on computer monitors. You dont need 50Mp to view an image on a 14 to 20 inch monitor. Unless you're a sloppy photog who cant be bothered to compose in the viewfinder, and are constantly cropping most of the image away huge Mp counts just waste disk space and slow processing. With modern AI based NR tools the small pixels aren't much of a handicap either. And nothing else will let you put together as small and light a kit with a few lenses and a couple of bodies. There are certainly niche use cases that "need" full frame and high pixel counts, but for most shooters m43 would serve just fine.
Why can't people just appreciate what a camera can do without throwing unsubstantiated Marketing Hype in?
International Projected Image competitons for Photography clubs restrict the image size to 1,600 by 1,200 pixels. That is less than 2mp and the projected image is the size of a barn door.
International Photography print entrants have to submit the photographs entered mounted within a card mount of 500mm by 400mm approx 20inch by 16inch.
To get the same pixel density of a 4/3 sensor field of view by cropping down the image from a Full Frame sensor would require an 80mp to 100mp sensor.
What should you glean from this, is that all comparisons are a complete waste of time. The advantage claimed for one sysyem is a disadvantage from the view point of another system.
I'm personally happy with 20MP, don't even ever use the high res mode, but do sometimes stitch several shots into panos, that get large quick even with 20MP.
In my own opinion, no. Not because Micro 4/3 cameras aren't as capable as larger formats, but the price. The once affordable prices of Micro 4/3 are gone. Today they are on par, or extremely close to APS-C cameras. With all things else being equal, buying a camera with a larger, better sensor and possibly better 3rd party support matter more than upfront costs. Of course there are some other things to consider when buying a camera, such as megapixels, low light performance and framerates.