Sensor size talk can trap you into thinking your next camera purchase is the thing standing between you and better images. That mindset quietly changes what you shoot, how often you practice, and how willing you are to try something you might fail at.
Coming to you from Dee Rosa, this blunt video pushes back on the idea that small sensors are a compromise you should avoid. Rosa starts from a question he keeps getting: if sensor size “doesn’t matter,” why not use small-sensor cameras? He points out that people see him with a Leica full frame camera and assume he only shoots full frame, then they see him discuss the Fujifilm GFX 50R and assume it is medium format all the time. Instead, he describes moving his travel and B-roll work to an iPhone 15 Pro Max and taking an OM SYSTEM OM-3 on the road for stills. He frames it as a conversation about the stigma, not a camera review, and that difference shows in what he chooses to focus on.
A lot of the video is less about specs and more about the story you tell yourself when you want to upgrade. Rosa calls out the common belief that a new body, a new lens, or a bigger sensor automatically moves your work “to the next level.” He argues that the bigger gains come from taking on something you do not already know how to do, then sticking with it long enough to get past the awkward early attempts. He uses his own push into landscapes and fine art as the example, including work he admits will never become a book or a defining project. He names the usual temptations, like chasing ultra-wide apertures and huge resolution, then pivots to the less comfortable work of learning composition, light, and intent. He even references other tools he could have used without treating any of them as a status symbol.
The travel section matters because it keeps the argument grounded in real shooting conditions instead of internet hypotheticals. Rosa describes stops around Forks, Washington, including Lake Crescent and coastal locations where weather, distance, and fatigue change what you can realistically carry and use. He talks about long exposures, the problem of people walking through frames, and the way constraints can push you into choices you would not make if you were chasing “perfect” files. Later, he walks through a sunrise stop that turns into a higher-resolution panoramic approach, with an honest admission that timing and luck play a bigger role than brand names. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Rosa.
10 Comments
I think it could be useful to have one of those micro 4/3 sensor cameras. As soon as they get a native lens option that is true wide angle and true macro then I will probably spend a few hundred dollars getting an old used M43 body. By "true wide angle" I mean 10mm or wider (20mm FF equivalent) and by "true macro" I mean actual 1:1 reproduction ratio. If such a lens option existed for M43, I already would have bought one two years ago.
I have the Laowa 15mm macro shift lens for my 1.6 crop and FF bodies and it works great! If only the M34 had an equal option, I would have bought one in early 2023. In this case equivalent means 7.5mm and true 1:1 reproduction close focusing ability. But even the folks on the M43 forum told me there was nothing similar available natively for the M43 format.
Once these M43 systems offer all of the lens options that full frame and 1.5 crop options offer, then it will be time to get on board. But true macro options are still somewhat limited, as are tilt/shift options, macro probe options, and options that offer the same depth of field : field of view as the other systems offer.
I am talking only about native lens options, using adaptors is clunky and does not work just as seamlessly as a lens originally made for the camera mount it is being used with.
As a long time 4/3s and then m43s user, I doubt you will ever see the gear you are looking for in m43s. I don't think that is the part of the market the m43s people are looking to serve. It is NOT a general purpose system, and I'm OK with that.
For me, it has been an ideal hiking camera system. The bodies are small, as are most of the lenses. The close focusing capabilities on the lenses I own, are quite good for those surprise visual finds when I'm out and about.
It sounds like you carry a lot of gear with you, and/or spend a lot of time in the studio. Plus, if I may borrow some terms from the fiction writing world, it sounds like you are a "plotter" rather than a "seat of the pants" photographer who is open to whatever he or she finds that moves them.
I suspect, even if they offered such tools, that you would not be happy with the m43s shooting workflow.
Thank you for a thoughtfully written response to my comment.
I am both a "plotter" and a "seat of my pants" photographer. As a wildlife photographer, which style of image-making I employ is based on how much time the subject gives me and how tolerant the subject is of me getting close to it.
I photograph a broad range of wildlife; small mammals, large mammals, birds of all kinds, reptiles, and amphibians. As well as some insects and arachnids on rare occasions.
My interest in the M43 system is specific to reptile and amphibian photography. Unlike mammal photography and most bird photography, reptile and amphibian photography is where I most often employ the "plotter" method of shooting. Why? Because because most reptiles and amphibians allow me to pick them up and move them around and put them in places that make for the most appealing photographs. So shooting them is a bit like studio shooting ... except that they can always slither or hop away at any moment, so I'm always a bit on edge whilst shooting.
With the reptile and amphibian photography, I almost always want more depth of field, not less. With mammals and birds I am usually trying to blur out backgrounds as much as possible. Whereas with reptiles and amphibians I am usually trying to get as much of the animal in focus as possible, and usually want the background to be in focus, as well. Hence my interest in the M43 system for shooting these small critters.
I actually don't spend much time in "the studio" at all. I don't even have Photoshop CS or Lightroom. I do clean things up a little with Topaz, and once in a while I will use Photoshop Elements to remove a distracting twig or "repair" a broken antler tine.
Anyway, reptile and amphibian photography sometimes calls for a single lens that is both wide angle and macro. That is why I need to hold off on buying into this small format system until such a lens option becomes available (natively).
Why do you think that I would not be happy with the M43 workflow, even if they someday make the lens I need?
Honestly I'm not in agreement with your " It is NOT a general purpose system' comment. I'm not disputing the direction OM seem intent on but rather the gear that is available (from Olympus & OM and from 3rd parties such as Laowa).
There is everything a macro shooter requires, incredible lenses from Laowa and OM.
Everything a travel or Street shooter could want (I am both of those) : wonderful small, relatively discrete, cameras and lenses (even their faster f1.2 or f1.4 lenses aren't large by FF standards). I love to shoot cool, UWA angles - the Laowa 6mm (12mm FF) is superb for that.
Superb computational modes (live compositing is awesome) and world leading IBIS (thanks to both the developer and the smaller sensor) that knocks socks of the IBIS in my Sony A7r5, it's not even close, it's a world away.
Excellent landscape lenses and in camera upscaling to 50mp or 80mp where required (and conditions permit).
Beautiful portrait lenses with low DoF (see below).
Excellent event & wedding lenses with the 12-40/2.8 and 40-150/2.8 for general use (more DoF required) but also lenses such as the (x2 for all for FF equivalents) 17/1.2, 20/1.4, 45/1.2 and 75/1.8. These will all give you sufficient DoF and beautiful bokeh when shot from the optimal distance to subject and subject to BG. Not equivilant to my A7r5 and 85/1.4 if that is the look you ae going for, but most people require more DoF at events not less.
Wildlife - a genre that M43 excels in. I've had Nikon D3s with a 500/4, Pentax with a 550/4.5 and Sony with the 200-600 etc. for safaris. The OM-1i and a 300/4 (w./wo the superb TC14 and TC20) is by far the best of that bunch. So unless you want to pay $15,000 (and suffer the weight) for a top of the range action camera and 600/4 or 400/2.8 from Canon/Nikon/Sony, then the OM options are excellent, light, cost-effective, and will give amazing fps, AF and feather detail.
The ORF files are very malleable and respond very very well to editing and in particular NR and upscaling (where required). I have paid-shoots from gigs and BTS shot at up to 25,600 ISO that after processing were happily accepted by the client (some smoothing is inevitable but also lots of detail was retained). Obviously something I try to avoid but when you're in a windowless basement and no lights are permitted (the band's new video being shot at the same time) it's nice to know you can still get a shot at super high ISOs.
I have shot Pentax, Canon, Nikon (for 10 years+), Sony (for 10 years+) and now OM and Sony. I'm having more fun now than ever.
Don't both of these exist already?
Olympus have both a 7-14 (14-28 FF) and 8-25 (16-50FF) and Panasonic do a 9mm (18mm FF) prime.
For Macro, there are various Olympus Macros are all 1:1 as far as I am aware?
I thought I made it clear that I am looking for a single lens that is both wide angle and true macro. NOT one lens that is a wide angle lens and then another lens that is macro. If you re-read my comment I think that will be clear to you. If you re-read my comment and that is not clear, please let me know so that I can re-write my comment.
And no, no lens exists in a native M43 mount that is a wide angle and also capable of 1:1 reproduction ratio (true macro).
This is silly man. How often are you going to write about the same thing over and over. People will shoot what get them excited. Personally, I love seen more detail and more textural
Pop in the detail, it’s very noticeable to my eye, and I’m always shoot high resolution and larger sensors because of this. Colors are also just general better.
And, Fuji x trans sucks
Great to hear a frank discussion about the merits of ignoring sensor size. People can say what they want, but the bottom line is sensor size has (almost) become irrelevant. What phones can do now is nothing short of amazing. And with all the high-end, pro features built into smaller sensor bodies like the OM-1, anything larger that 20 MP is a waste of pixels and $$. You don’t need a 46- or 60-foot ladder to climb a 20-foot wall.
And let’s face it, the amount of built-in bias across the v/blogosphere in favour of 35mm sensors (which are also crop sensors!!) is so overwhelming, it’s impossible to get a fair reckoning of anything else. The 35mm-sensor myth is becoming harder and harder to support except through ego and pixel-peeping, something no one does, other than photographers needing to prop up a myth.
I disagree. I respect your opinion, inasmuch that I think you would not personally enjoy the results from a FF camera any more than you would the results from a cell phone. Because you basically said as much. But some of us actually do want higher quality at the pixel level. Even if 15% higher quality means 300% more cost and 200% more weight, getting that little bit of better resolved detail is worth it to us. But I accept that it isn't worth it to you. So I am not going to be so ignorant as to tell you what you should be shooting with, or what camera you should consider to be "good enough" for you, because that is a very subjective and personal thing.
The only time a photo is satisfying to me is when all of the fine detail is resolved to perfection. If it isn't, then I don't feel super great about the photograph. I want to love the photos I take, not be a little disappointed in them. Also, I have zero interest in printing anything less than 36" by 24", and I much prefer 48" by 32" prints. I wish that I could get exactly the same quality with a cell phone sensor, at those large sizes, but that just isn't reality yet.
I would actually really LOVE to shoot with medium format, but I don't think there are any 600mm or 800mm lenses for them. And even if there were, that still wouldn't be enough focal length because the angle of view with MF is wider than it is with FF. So to get 600mm results with a MF camera I would need a lens of approximately 900mm. To get 800mm results I would need a lens of approximately 1200mm.
This stuff is all subject to personal tastes and sensitivities. Most people would't understand or appreciate the difference between a $600 suit and an $8,000 custom made tailored suit. But I guarantee you that the guy who pays a tailor or designer $8,000 to make a suit for him really feels and appreciates the difference. And my friend who pays several hundred dollars for a bottle of scotch certainly appreciates the difference between his treasured vintage and a $60 bottle that you get off the shelf at the local liquor store. Just because you wouldn't appreciate the differences in these things doesn't mean that the people whoo pay way way up for the very best are being foolish or getting duped.
It all boils down to this statement you made: “ I have zero interest in printing anything less than 36" by 24", and I much prefer 48" by 32" prints.”
If that’s all that satisfied me, I, too, would only be shooting with 35mm sensor cameras.
Full disclosure: I fully appreciate the potential differences in image quality with phone, 1”, MFT, and 35mm sensors, even 6x7 and 4x5 film as, over the decades, I’ve worked extensively with all of them. As well, I fully appreciate the differences between suits and scotch, even fine vintages of wines. I just choose not to be defined or constrained by them.