You might be surprised to hear that in an era dominated by full-frame sensors, a smaller Micro Four Thirds sensor can still pack quite a punch. If you're doubting whether this compact system can meet your demanding photography needs, it's time to reconsider.
Coming to you from Chris Baitson, this engaging video details one year of hands-on experience with the OM System micro four thirds system. Baitson celebrates its lightweight build, a key advantage for anyone who enjoys outdoor adventures. He notes how his camera's size made him rethink the importance of camera features and sensor size. It's quite the eye-opener for those caught up in pursuing the latest and greatest full-frame offerings.
Baitson also explains how this camera excels in versatile shooting conditions. In one memorable segment, he captures a photograph despite an overcast and windy day. Using aperture priority mode, he achieves impressive depth of field and sharpness. Baitson often uses the OM System 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro lens, a combination that has become indispensable to his toolkit.
Baitson’s insights culminate in a discussion about the broader misconceptions in photography gear. He addresses the pervasive belief that high-quality images can only be achieved with high-end full-frame cameras and lenses. He encourages you to focus on equipment that suits your shooting style and needs rather than following trends. Baitson underscores that understanding and embracing the strengths and limitations of your gear is key to finding joy in photography. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Baitson.
Everybody gets to choose what their tools are and it's great that he can use m43 for maximum effect for his landscapes. I would still prefer even a Canon crop camera and an appropriate lens. mentioning Canon specifically because I'm not a huge fan of the RFS bodies but at the end of the day you still get some pretty good depth of field control for the sensor size, and generally better image quality potential than on m43. otherwise overall maybe you would still even be better to just invest in a Fuji crop system for its selection of higher end lenses and a well-regarded 40 and megapixel sensor especially for crop which is still very unusual.
But yep at the end of the day do what you got to do. Cheers all.
M43 has incredible lenses to choose from. I used to shoot Canon full frame but switched to m43 about 5 years ago. I do street, landscape, macro and outdoor photography (skiing, climbing, hiking, wildlife) and is one of the best decisions I made. The lens selection is amazing, I prefer the depth of field over full frame for my work and the entire system just works. If I got back into portrait work I'd go back to Canon but that's a very, very small part of what I do and what I get out of the system is still great anyway.
M43 is great. When there is gx80/8 sized body with the tech from g9 II, I might switch back too.
Given what modern AI software can do, the supposed advantages of "full frame" are fading faster than a nice sunset. NR software can make M43 images look they MF images, uprezzing can give me 50MP images, and realistic shallow DOF is just around the corner.
And when most images are viewed on computer or phone screens, who needs 50 MP amyway?
For most uses, FF just means unneeded weight and bulk. The criticism of m43 sounds just like the criticism of 35mm from MF shooters way back when.
There might (stress "might") be situations where very large (i.e. medium format) sensors offer enough additional color and dynamic range to noticeable in large prints. However, since 99.999% of photos are only shared on screens or small (<8x10") prints, does that really matter to anyone? Probably not.
MFT format provides more than enough quality for the typical photographer.
I am not a video guy, but I did find the video very distracting as whatever camera was filming it constantly lost focus lock on the host's face and shifted to the background.
MFT for travel & walkabout landscapes. 35mm format for event work. I love 'em both. 20MP yields a crisp, detailed print at least 24", which is as big as I've ever printed. Sold lots of those prints.
Discovering M4/3 was a revelation and a relief. I've used all formats from 10"x8" to 16mm movie - and carried associated hardware around since 1969.
Having switched from Mamiya 645, on going digital, to Nik DX, then the inevitable max-out to FX, schlepping this stuff around became a significant burden.
I have to report, as 75 approaches, that anno domini takes no prisoners. Weight becomes a serious issue.
Image stabilisation in M4/3 lenses and bodies is so good that a tripod is rarely necessary.
Amongst other examples of quality results from M4/3, seeing a print 1m wide convinced me that this format is perfectly capable of superb images.
The range of lenses is excellent. Shooters needing long lenses are particularly well served and at the short end, because of the small size of the optics, wide and wide+ have options that at FX are extremely expensive and very bulky.
The Chinese are beginning to produce real quality optics, especially at extreme w/a.
I guess that to rock up with M4/3 gear on a shoot that will end up on 48-sheet billboards might cause the a/d to question his choice of photographer but for anything destined for screen or print publication M4/3 is entirely adequate and a pleasure to use.