Most professional photographers use full frame, medium format, or APS-C cameras, though micro four thirds has been chugging along for a little over a decade now and maintains a loyal contingent of users who value its especially compact size. Are the tradeoffs in sensor size worth the portability and other features? This great video discusses one photographer's experience with the system after two years.
Coming to you from James Popsys, this helpful video discusses his thoughts on the micro four thirds system after using it for the past two years. Micro four thirds carries with it the promise of very portable systems, and it mostly delivers, particularly with its lenses, which are quite compact, making it easy for any photographer or videographer to fill out a gear bag with a wide range of focal lengths without back-breaking weight. On the other hand, the drawback is the small sensor size. A micro four thirds sensor has about a quarter the surface area of a full frame sensor (and a crop factor of two), meaning such cameras tend to lag behind full frame and APS-C counterparts when it comes to low-light performance and depth of field control. You also won't find ultra-high-resolution cameras like you will with larger sensors. Still, they are a great option for certain genres and needs. Check out the video above for Popsys' full thoughts.
Coincidentally, I've just decided to buy into Olympus. It's hard to go past the weather sealing and stabilization. I always try to keep ISO down on any system I use in any case.
Also, good video, I like his style.
I stumbled into Four Thirds first, simply because I wanted to get a digital camera and it had Olympus written on it, the same as my OM4. If I had thought about it more at the time, things like sensor size etc, may have swayed that decision, but no, Olympus it was. So after a few 4/3 cameras I now have a M4/3 OM-D EM5ii. I have all my 4/3 lenses with an adaptor (slow auto-focus for sure. Quicker to do it manually). I also have adaptors for OM glass, M42, M39, C mount and even B4 just for fun (Sony TV ENG mounts). What I don't have is a native M4/3 lens because in the back of my mind is the idea that I might go full frame. Yet, like James Popsys I have never felt that my OMD doesn't perform. I also think that technology will take care of low light performance more readily than defying optical physics will make smaller full frame lenses.
I had originally thought the Micro 4/3 cameras as inferior BUT I have seen the images that are produced with such cameras and have seen the quality that can be printed.
I have even went down a step further to a 1" sensor (RX10 IV) and although I'm not a professional, I find these smaller sensors can still take incredible images.
I have since not been so concerned with sensor size on cameras but now focus on how to use any camera to the best of its abilities.
Spot-on. I, too, started with a GX1, then proceeded through several body upgrades, replacing my Canon 1D3 & 1Ds3 along the way, to wind up with my current GX9 and two GX8s, and assembling a large array of zoom and prime lenses. In decent light, or when working with flash, I keep ISO near base and get plenty of detail for A1 prints. The only reasons why I added some 35mm-format gear to my kit were 1) I came into some money, and 2) I wanted to be able to shoot up to ISO 20,000 in my corporate event work.
MFT makes a fantastic travel kit. I have a 14-140 on my GX9 for a tiny walkabout or hiking camera in good light - no lens-swapping. I can bring tiny f1.7-f2.0 primes for night shooting. IS really helps when the light gets low, so I no longer carry a tripod when traveling. Two bodies, a zoom or two, 2-3 primes, and a small flash all fit in a small bag I can carry while walking all day without fatigue.
FWIW, MFT with zooms and Sony a7R(x) with primes make a nicely complementary kit that covers everything from ultralight scenics work to low-light action.
I bought into M43 three years ago with a Lumix GX8 and three Pana-Leica lenses. The lenses are wonderful, especially the Nocticron. Unfortunately, the GX8 body ergonomics didn't work with my hands. The meat of my thumb overlaid the white balance control and changed settings unknown to me until later in the day, and certainly NOT to my pleasure. Then the G9 was announced. When it was available, I "tried one on" in the local photo shop and found, to my pleasure, that it fit my hands perfectly. I bought the G9 on the spot and traded in the GX8 with no regrets, as well as sold off all of my much older Nikon APS-C gear. The G9 has worked flawlessly in my real estate photography business, as well as in landscape photography. It has even given a surprisingly good account for itself in night sky photography, especially when I consider the limitations of the M43 sensor size.
Olympus was never a serious contender for me for one simple reason - every last Olympus product I have owned since '79 has died or failed spectacularly within two years. The OM2 body I bought and took on a trip to the UK in '81 had a shutter curtain hang up, ruining virtually every photo I took in North Wales, as an example.
So far, I'm absolutely delighted with the performance and versatility of the G9 body with the Pana-Leica lenses. I am especially delighted that my on-the-job system is so light and compact.
If i ever decide to get really serious about astrophotography, it's likely that I'll spring for an S1R or its successor, but for most work, the G9 is ideal in my paradigm.
I've had 4/3s and then m43s ever since the E500 DSLR. My Olympus cameras have never failed me in any way and that elderly E500 with its 8MP Kodak sensor is still capable of producing beautiful images.
Have I thought about switching to something else? Sure! I've thought about it. But the practical difference between a modern m43s sensor and a modern APSC sensor just doesn't seem significant to me. And the extra weight of quality FF lenses is too great for me to consider.
FF enthusiasts are always going on about how similar the bodies are in size and weight, and that's fine. A valid talking point. But there is a HUGE difference, on average, to the size and cost of lenses of similar functionality and quality.
Like everyone else, I make the gear I have work. M43s is less tolerant of sloppy technique, but I think my photos hold up either on the wall or in the online display sites.
Jumped in MFT with the E-PL1 back in 2010. Never regretted it and still use MFT as my only photographic system.
I see no reason to go to another format. It has all the lenses for normal prices with good size and weight advantages. Also there is a good progress in sensors and body styles.
Professional use is such a vague category. For many uses, even 1" sensors will do. Not every pro use requires high ISO, large prints and shallow DoF. Use whatever you like that meets your needs.
Yeah, a lot of hobbyists don't realize how broad the field of professional photography is. Some categories & uses one might not have thought of: medical documentation, law enforcement forensics, insurance case investigation, restaurant menus, textbooks, ads for local businesses, professionals headshots for their firms' websites, etc. Many, many uses have pretty low technical requirements, but still high aesthetic requirements. Even a full page image in a print magazine really needs only about 6 megapixels. Some kinds of work require fast tracking AF, but others don't. Some require rugged gear, others don't. Almost all of the paid work I've ever done in the past 20 years can be handled well by a mid-range Micro Four Thirds kit with a good selection of zooms and brighter prime lenses.
I"m looking to move up from my Canon Powershot, which takes great pics but is limited. The options out there for a mid-level camera are beyond daunting although it has helped my alcohol intake. Your video was excellent and I'm off the give a look at the Lumix G9, I don't have an engineering degree from MIT so I'm a little concerned about the learning curve. But I'll let you know. Thanks!
You'll face a steep learning curve with any ILC (interchangeable lens camera) unless you've already mastered use of ISO, apertures and shutter speeds and RAW processing with your Powershot. And, even then, the amazing variety of custom settings available on modern ILCs will force you to spend quality time with your camera's documentation.
One good resource for learning about this stuff is Gordon Laing's "In Camera" book (https://www.cameralabs.com/in-camera/). Gordon runs the CameraLabs.com website and podcast, both terrific sources of information and insight.
I don't own a G9, but as a professional event and corporate portrait photographer I've used a large number of Panasonic bodies over the past 7 years. The G9 is one of the most capable and full-featured cameras you can buy today. It may be overkill for the average hobbyist, but it's reasonably priced and a great tool for someone like you. If you prefer something smaller and/or cheaper, Panasonic's GX9 is also a terrific camera. Some will tell you that a larger sensor is "better", and technically they're right, but it's like telling a first-time car-buyer that an F250 pickup truck or a Ferrari or a BMW AMG M-series is "better" than, say, an affordable hatchback - not really relevant for folks who just need to bring the kids to school and pick up groceries.
FWIW, I supplemented my MFT (Micro Four Thirds) kit with a 35mm-format kit, but that's because, as a pro, I have VERY specialized needs related to VERY difficult working conditions, and I continue to use both kits side-by-side. If I didn't occasionally have to shoot moving subjects without flash in Bat Cave conditions, I'd still be using MFT exclusively.
I had Olympus cameras going back to the 70s. My OM-1 in High School, my OM-4 bought on a trip to Japan in 1985. Both still working perfecty today! But as Olympus left behind serious cameras, I bought a used Canon EOS Rt to see what increased automation would get me. That ultimately lead to a Rebel Xt, a 60D, and a 6D.
Along the way, I watched Olympus bouncing back in digital. When I broke a Panasonic P&S camera at a rock show, I replaced it with an Olympus E-PM1. Way better images, still short of the 6D. Then the OM-D came out. I waited a year, but I had to have one based on nostalgia alone. And now the Image qualify was up there. A bit later I went for the E-M5 Mark II. I expected Olympus/M43 to fail in low light versus Canon. But between IBIS and faster lenses, as long as I was off tripod, I got better results. More time, more nories and lenses, and by 2018, I let the Canon system go.
Sure, modern FF can outperform M43 on some things. For other users, it's a crutch that kets tgem really get by without understanding photography that deeply. Sometimes not even that ... every month there is a supposed good photographer posting a YouTube video about how the AI in their snartphone beat their knowledge with a DSLR. Yeah. They phrase it differently, but that is what they demonstrate.