Dearly Beloved, Micro Four Thirds is Dead, Long Live Micro Four Thirds 

I can recall in the 1970s as a professional wedding photographer using a Leica m3 with a 35mm summilux lens, the front element measuring less than 3cms. I was invariably surrounded by guests trying to impress with their Nikons, Practicas etc sporting bulky optics, all waving gently in the breeze, desperate to appear super cool and looking askance at my diminutive, solitary rangefinder. The fact that my "gear" would be delivering superbly sharp images was all that mattered. I had the means and the method, the latter being the crucial element.

"High quality stealth" - God, I LOVE that phrase!!!

Getting excessive attention on his gears. Maybe that's what he enjoys!

The 12 to 40 and 40 to 150 with a tele converter are the two lenses I use the most but the 12 to 100 was one of considered.

Beautifully said. I will forever love my g9

I found the Pan GM1 too small and fiddly so I traded it (I kinda wish I hadn't now). I did consider the fast LX but settled on the tiny Oly E-PL7 which is only fractionally bigger than a GM5. The E-PL7/8 are the last of the series that can take the VF4 electronic viewfinder, and unlike the new E-P7 have a metal body. They do lack a second wheel atop so you have to push buttons to set up. Sometimes I do not want to carry the half brick size G9 or GH4 and will opt for the much smaller E-M5ii or the even less obtrusive E-PL7. Do we need all the bells and whistles of the latest cameras? - not always. Regarding shutter life - I must have taken over a million of shots on my GH4, I can shoot over 1000 per day when in use (most of them rubbish), but I've had that since 2014 and the shutter works just fine with none of the problems associated with a certain Nikon. If you think the Leica 100-400 is big, try finding a hernia inducing 4/3 Sigma 50-500 (The original Bigma), it will even AF although it is like a shuttle on a factory loom, and inaccurate.

@@jeffslade1892 g9 isn't half brick at all. Its more compact than reviewers make it seem

@@drivn7974 I do have a G9 and a GH4. They're definitely half brick compared to full brick DSLR and way, way bigger than the most other MFT like E-M5ii.

@@jeffslade1892 ahh well if a FF dslr is on the scale as full brick, i don't mind the half brick g9 lolll.. i own a d3200 apsc nikon and that is for sure too small. G9 fits like a glove

Wait You mean actually use my camera?!? I thought I was supposed to argue specs online with strangers? Jokes aside, I love my G85 and I look forward to the future of the format.

I had a sony a7iii but later a got an olumpus omd em1-iii. I am really happy with the performance of the m43 lenses. Olympus/pana lenses are really good. I have seen my olympus 12-40 pro lenses is sharper than tamron 28-70 zoom for sony. M43 lenses are awesome. Small size but optically excellent.

Same. Has been my only system (GF2...GX1...EM10...GX9...G81) over the last decade and lot's of fun with both LUMIX/OLY lenses plus a small army of vintage glass (w/focal reducers) from Nikkor, Takumar, Canon, Helios, Jupiter...etc. I am an enthusiast, but even many pro's swear by the convenience/portability of M4/3 outside of the comforts of a studio. I really do not need over 20MP and frankly, with the right lens and/or mono/tripod, I can manage the golden hour and low light quite well. As far as I am concerned, the more negative the press...the better the prices!!!!!

v stands for vanity

Sorry to hear of David Thorpe's passing.

But cost too high, until you are not earning good amount of money it is not possible to have z camera

Absolutely.

I just got gifted with an Olympus EP3 and been loving it, I’m planing to buy the Lumix 25mm 1.7, I’ve always loved a dedicated camera over mu phone.

Then there is the LCD shroud...cheap with decent magnification...this hood was essential for manual focusing with vintage glass. I used one of these all the time with my venerable GX1, before moving the an EM-10.

Robert, i think you underestimate how well m4/3 really is. Until 1 year ago i used the E - P5 with non pro lenses and i made every year a calender on A2 format. Those pictures are tack sharp. (If taken well).1 year ago i upgraded to M5 mkiii with 1 pro lens. I think you can make really large prints that are excellent in iq. No worries at all. The new P7 will deliver if handled well.

@@dirkvanhoorn2105 Just the contrary. I know that I easily could print A2 prints. I just haven't had the need or the wish to do that. Comparing a MFT print with a FF print practically no one can see a difference. But everyone can see the differences between a photo coming out of a digital camera and a film camera. And within film cameras, you can very well see the difference of an A3 picture coming from 35mm film or a medium format film. So if you want the look and feel of film on a A3 picture in an acceptable quality you need to use medium format at least. My largest camera, and my favorite one which I use most, is an 11x14 large format camera. With that you get something close to A3 as a contact print. You won't see the difference of a portrait done with a MFT or a FF digital camera in an A3 print. But you very easily see the differences of a portrait done with the MFT camera, a medium format film camera or the 11x14 beast on A3. And that's even more true when you enlarge or print larger than A3.

yes, both the lumix 12-35 f2.8 either mk1 or mk2. mk 1 is excellent value 2nd hand. or the Olympus 12-40 f2.8 again good value 2nd hand. all fixes max aperture. these are equivalent FF to 24-70 and 24-80 respectively

I would say we are in the process of return to the situation 30+ years back. At those times, the technique of chemical process (it is not "analog", especially when talking about B&W photography, which is perfectly digital: silver grain has zero transmitance, film foil has "full" (1) transmitance) was almost fully matured and only progress could be done in autofocus and metering systems. Almost nobody with the exception of pros and several junkies used that hi-end gear - most of general population used fixfocus boxes focused at hyperfocal distance, with 35 mm focal distance and one shutter speed, diaphragm was mostly fixed, too. Dynamic range of the modern films did the trick. Some people bought more expensive compact cameras with real autofocus and sometimes zoom lens, with real metering, real shutter speed/diaphragm automation. Very few people used cameras with interchangeable lenses and these systems were almost untouched for decades (even today it is hard to beat many old lens designs). With the introduction of digital photography, some (many) computer junkies began to think the expertise of skilled photographer is possible to substitute by computer programs and basically photography is about tech specs. We all photographers knew it is not the case, but non-photographers were lured into a marketing trap of repeated acquisitions and system changes instead of mastering skills. After 15-20 years it is finally clear to everyone with a few exception it is - again - not about the gear, we already have reasonable sufficient systems for most applications. Those fixfocus people now have their smartphones (and the results are way better than from the film cameras) and are happy, we "higher level hobbyists" and pros have real cameras. Taking into account already sufficient enough gear, the manufacturers in future will have smaller and smaller chance to lure us to buying something not different (better) enough than already existing systems. What is quite interesting for me, 40 years ago we had tens of manufacturers, often making quite niche cameras and all of them were able to survive. Nowadays it seems like there is no place for more than maybe 5 if not less manufacturers. Boom of sales at the beginning of digital era was an outlier (and it was clear to many it is the case - real skills are impossible to substitute; good shot is not about correct exposure and precise focusing). The bubble finally popped.

@@tulenik71 Interesting thoughts. I would say your mention of more manufacturers in the past may have been due to the centralization of manufacturing in Japan and that cameras were less sophisticated. So, you could make a box and then put it together with all kinds of parts from subcontractors who were eager to sell what they made. Today cameras are far more complex and basically every camera now has to include the film. Sensor suppliers and technology is a big part of making basically a specialized computer we now use as a camera. So, perhaps startup costs and product sophistication and far-flung suppliers and markets has eroded the possibility for competition among businesses. The scale of production can no longer be small. Additionally, video functions add a new layer of complexity. Whatever the situation Canon saw it coming and you can see how they adjusted and remained profitable, Nikon is not doing so well. Oly is a victim of organized crime, financial fraud and market decline - hard for any company to survive. I do feel Panasonic is well run though, or so it seems to me. I think we will see high end expensive, some prosumer and some starter type things forever. But some players will be very niche like Pentax, Ricoh, Sigma. Hard to forecast, if I were betting, it would be on Canon, SONY, Fuji, as best bets mid term. Who can say, but things always change. Any company can Kodak itself to death easily.

You might wanna hurry, the GX9 just got discontinued in Japan.

When you get150-400 you will not look back one of the best I get my 2 weeks ago waiting over a year just like 300 f4 with zoom

for mk 2or 3 battery holder will help to balance the weight wit 150-400

@@chetanunindracusin664 ,..... I just hope my wait isn't a year, but I don't expect anything less .....thanks for the glowing report !

I have some of my doubts about the pricing argument. While some lenses like the Olympus 300mm f/4 or the 40-150mm f/2.8 beat out the likes of 600mm f/4 and 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses on FF systems, the prices for other lenses still remain relatively high. A brand new Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mk III costs the same as a Sony A7III or a Panasonic Lumix S5. Meanwhile, some of the FF manufacturers are releasing f/4 zooms that cost about as much as Olympus' f/4 zooms. The cost argument is starting to really be lost now. And I'm not sure everyone really wants to talk about how the Olympus 150-400 f/4.5 TC ×1.25 is about a fifth of the cost of a FF equivalent when the likes of the Olympus 25mm f/1.2 isn't that much better priced than 50mm f/1.2 on a FF system.

Good points; I guess only time will tell! Keep on making your videos until we no!

There are two things where MFT falls short, and that's in high ISO performance and resolution performance. Even with bright lenses and IBIS, I sometimes have to jump up to ISO 1000 and above in overcast days to just keep a shutter speed above 1/1000. This isn't an everyday use case, but it is a common use case for things like sports, wildlife and the like, where you want to capture a fleeting moment. When it comes to resolution, the thing that comes to mind is that if you're viewing images on a digital medium, then 20mp is still overkill. 4k is only 8 megapixels, yet in certain situations, having the higher resolution gives you either the ability to print on large objects or crop your images in post without any real loss in quality. I sometimes do think that FF has something to offer, but it's at a cost of either user preferences (Nikon, for example, use an anticlockwise focus and zoom ring, and no fully articulated screen on X), overall price (the Canon R6 is obscene) or have some other strange things going on (Panasonic Lumix S cameras still don't have phase detection AF). Maybe in a a year or two, I might look into an FF camera, maybe even something like the Sigma fp as a system that complements what MFT stuff I have, but doesn't replace it.

Sorry no, it was my G9 with Olympus 17mm f1.8. But shot in the way I did I doubt you would see any difference with the GX8. It’s superb

In Japan the EP7 is aimed at ladies who prefer to use cameras as they use their phones. The EP is for the EPL what the Em10 MklV is for the other EM10: a 20MP high performance version. It has no viewfinder and no PD on sensor but other then that is a clone for that female public looking for the smallest possible camera to keep inside a fashion bag, possibly with a collapsible 14-42 kit lens which will probably be bundles with the camera. It adds all the video improvement if the EM counterpart but lacks in AF. The EP was a high end M43 up to the 5 but now if the format will ever be resurrected it will be probably a Pen-F premium line, which would make sense today if built properly as the EM have been pretty lackluster in that department since the MkIII

That had crossed my mind too

I really like tilting screens, not for video, but for low angle or macro shots. The fact that Sony and Nikon have stuck to tilting screens on their FF mirrorless cameras is a negative factor for me... Just to mention - dual or hybrid autofocus requires the presence of phase detection pixels in the sensor. The only MFT cameras that have phase detection pixels in the sensor are the likes of the E-M1 bodies and the E-M5 Mk III. Upgrading the processor in the camera wouldn't really have much of a performance upgrade outside of increasing the cache for writing images to SD card (really only a concern for people who do burst shooting) and doing computational photography tasks, like what is present in the E-M1X, with features like Live-ND, Train, Plane, Car and Bird AF and Stary Sky AF.

@@vaska00762 Loved your thoughts and it was useful to the debate. If it were possible of having the choice of tilt or swing screen , I would order an Em1 mkii. Since there isn’t , I have live with the limitations afforded to me in the 10 series - not that is real hardship .

@@carmenfissenden2530 the other reason I prefer fully articulated screens is that I can leave it closed if I'm only using the EVF. Who wants to leave their faceprints on the rear LCD? But it also can help with battery life.

Why wouldn’t you just buy a used (previously loved?) E-M1 (mark II/III) body, since you are already invested in the system? Just curious. Cheers.

​@@gwarlow A fair question. Tech is moving forward and I want to be part of that advancement. When the E-M1 II is worn out, then I want to experience better tech and more advanced features. Otherwise, I should maybe shoot with my 1979 vintage Pentax KX 35mm. It's a great camera but just can't compete with the E-M1.

OMDS promised that they're making a new pro level camera in 2022, the details of which will be revealed towards the end of the year.

As far as I know only by using a HDMI -USB adaptor. I don't believe the olympus program works with these two cameras for the tethering. I am not 100% sure though as I use neither.

Nikon was rumored dead, not so long ago 😉

@@bamsemh1 they still are today. I watched a video early this morning saying that Nikon have announced they are ceasing DSLR manufacture in Japan. Everyone is shouting that they are going under. But as the presenter of the video points out, they are concentrating on mirrorless cameras instead of DSLR which is a whole different thing. I’m always sceptical on any “news” reports (including my own) as there is always either a slant or an ignorance of facts or even a deliberate agenda in them.

Best advice I can give is this. I am a convert from Canon and a real advocate for M43 not because Canon is bad (total opposite in fact) but because I used M43 and found it fitted MY bill far better than the previous systems did. Notice the emphasis on MY. It may not suit everyone else’s. if you have a large investment in glass and accessories specific to Canon then you must take into account the cost to change, although you may recoup some expense by selling your current system. Go to a good local dealer who sells all platforms and ask if you can have a serious look and feel of them. Maybe even hire a system. Then decide. My “eureka moment” came when I took a youth group to the Normandy beaches and I took both a 7D canon and an EM5/1 Olympus with me with the intention of using each system on alternate days in the field throughout the week and see which I preferred. I ended up using the Canon for one day only and the rest was the Olympus. But remember, it fit my needs. But then I am getting older and weaker! I will never start to pull down the other systems such as APSC or FF or medium format. They really are all excellent but M43 and mirrorless has moved my photography to a whole new place without compromise on my previous shooting. Hope this helps. Oh….and don’t get too hung up on specifications and marketing hype, remember they are all out to sway you to spend money with them. Use your judgment objectively and you should be ok.

@@ThatMicro43Guy thanks for this. Really helpful. I think I am leaning towards 4/3rds quite positively. I usually vacillate between A and B when facing techie choices. Having gone back n forth between FF and APCS for ages something has clicked about the Olympus system that actually probably has helped me know myself better as a photographer. I am not invested massively in ‘glass’. Two kit lenses and an old zoom which isn’t giving me what I want anyway. Bottom line was being able to do what I am doing and get good images for me. Having seen you and D Griff I have been greatly encouraged. Certainly less weight, more up to date tech and less glass needed. Thanks again for your help. Ian

That rather worries me too. So long as they don’t spread it to the pro range though. Having said that everyone who I know who has the EM5/3 loves it and are not bothered by the build

I agree. The plastic cameras are awful. I'm keeping my OMD EM5 II because I love the weight and feel.

@Graham Thompson ‘Grumpy Snapper’ The gx-9 is also good for videos (if you like using MF) I have a kit with 3 lenses and the 100-400 is the only lens I need to complete my collection.

It fits into their lineup of constant aperture f/4 zooms. There is the 7-14mm f/2.8, the 12-40mm f/2.8, and the 40-150mm f/2.8, but the rest are f/4 zooms.

Agreed. In order to get more cameras into more hands, I would have thought that more competitive pricing would be a smart bet, but I don’t sit on their board of directors. We’ll see if this “strategy” pays off. Cheers.

Olympus don't support Sync-IS with the 100-400mm. 5 axis stabilisation is provided, with the lens providing 4 axis stabilisation, and the body only doing roll stabilisation. Sync-IS is only available on the 300mm f/4, the 12-100mm f/4 and the 150-400mm f/4.5 TC ×1.25. Sync-IS works differently, and uses all 5 axis of IBIS in conjunction with 4 IS axis of stabilisation to provide even higher stops of image stabilisation than what would ordinarily be possible.

@@vaska00762 yeah - this is a huge failing of the Olympus Synch-IS system. Panasonic have got Dual-IS working on most of their OIS lenses. Fact is Olympus do have the tech to use Pan's OIS (use Lens-IS) and could implement a form of Dual-IS but choose not to because they want to sell their own lenses; rather ignoring the inter-compatibility standard they and Panasonic wrote together back in 2008.

@@vaska00762 - I stand corrected. So the longest lens from Olympus cannot Synch-IS. So they've shot themselves in the foot. Because the Leica 100-400 does Dual2 on a G9 (and a few others) so you can hand-hold it like a nifty 50. It is quite weird hand holding a lens that long, FF equivalent 800mm.

@@jeffslade1892 Dual IS and Sync-IS are different technologies. Dual IS gives about 5 stops of image stabilisation. As does the image stabilisation in the Olympus 100-400mm. Sync-IS can give anywhere between 5.5 to 6.5 stops of image stabilisation. The main reason why the 100-400 lens doesn't have Sync-IS is because it's not a Pro lens, it's a variable aperture zoom, and it's cheaper than the 300mm f/4 and the 150-400mm f/4.5.

@@vaska00762 - the big advantage to Dual-IS is not gaining stops but stabilising the view when framing the shot, thus enabling almost instant AF-Lock. If using the long lens for birding, it still needs about 1/500s to freeze movement. I feel that this places the Leica 100-400 on a G9 at a great advantage over the same lens on E-M5ii (which I've tried, good but no coconut) or the Oly 100-400 on either make (simply because it is not going to have that full synch). f/4 .5 to f/6.3 is 1 stop. f/4 to f/6.3 is 1.1/3 stops It's not a huge advantage, especially if you have to stop down to f/8 or f/11 because of the sunlight.

Lol

Really? I have an astonishing very old Nikon AIS 85 mm f/1.8 on my EM1 and it is also a good macro replacement with the Marumi close up, And I consider to vy a NEW Laowa 60mm macro lens 2:1! With an F-mount insread the 50 mm MFT version for my OM-D cameras (the Olympus 60 mm macro has no real manual focus).

I’m not sure I fully agree with you there. Yes, new cameras from the big 2 will be using the new lens mount but I can still see their APSC ranges going on for some time and also there are literally millions of users with older cameras who are still hungry to buy new glass without upgrading their bodies so I see the EF/ES-S & F mounts surviving for at least a few more years. Additionally, they are an less expensive option for the new bodies with an adaptor so again I can see an appeal for new mount users too.

Agree, when I look at my D750 with 24-120mm next to my G95 with 12-60, no question which one I would take on a hike. I also picked up a 100-200mm Lumix M43 lens for a great price at a pawn shop. I have most ranges covered with vintage primes as well with adapters.

Bob, you make a great point. I would not switch from cell phone to E-P7 if it had a fixed lens. The fact that it is an ILC, is the compelling reason to upgrade from cell. There is an excessive amount of lens options. My iPhone XR can’t see clearly a subject that is hundreds of meters away.