It’s not you, it’s me! Micro 4/3 

These lenses are seriously shocking to be honest- took me by surprise for sure. Good analogy with 35 film and 120 - been there for that debate.

It is the same I now use an OMD EM2 now for macro. It has greater depth of field and the image stabilization is great and you can do focus stacking in camera, handheld with a compact professional device. Changed my life.

@@victoriankambe3070 I started doing macro after getting an EM-1ii. I would have never considered it using full frame. As fungi are my favourite subject and often in tricky places, using the Zuiko 30mm macro allows me to shoot in places a larger sensor setup wouldn’t easily fit.

Very well put. Agree 100%

If you looked at the MTF and resolution charts for proper MFT lenses, you'd notice that they perform best wide open or within one stop from their max aperture, even zooms are within two stops from wide open. This gives great opportunity for low light high quality imaging. This is brilliant for landscape, product, macro and many other types of photography. Persoanlly, despite having F1.2 and F1.4 lenses for my Leica M and Nikon F cameras, if I really wanted to blur the background, I'd use MF or LF cameras. A medium format camera has atleast two stops of shallow DOF advantage over a 35mm camera, and 4X5 has nearly 4 stops of advantage, so F4 on a 80mm Zeiss planar is nearly the equivalent of shooting a 35 mm camera @ around F2, and F8 on a 4X5 is also roughly the equivalent of F2. I think all this stuff about ' Bukeh ' or whatever is greatly over rated, and a nonsense TBH.

Yea man you can get photos that look just like the micro sensor on your phone with the form factor of a hunk of plastic. Enjoy!

@@arrangearrange just goes to show how much yo know a bout cameras and photography.

My favourite photographer is Liam Wong and he used a 24-105 on a 5Diii so a 1.7 zoom is perfect on M4/3… or 2.8 on APSC. The reason your photos look soft is because they are Mr FF.

I love the system so far - but these lenses are something that shock me every time I use them.

It’s funny, a friend of mine has a restaurant and her “chef” was in construction before getting in the kitchen. He was never trained, just knew how to cook. The restaurant is “the place” for fine dining with (in his own words) a fat cook at the ready. 😂

@@kaskoPhoto hahaha - that's so classic. Like those blind "which is your favorite Leica image" tests. People rant and rave in the comments about how they love them all bc Leica just looks different... then the spoiler comes "by the way guys, all of these are Nikon images." HAHAHA. Woops.

Cracking comment sir.

What a great comparison!

It is so much nicer with gear you want to carry.

I remember saying I’ll never need another camera when we hit 12mp 😂😂

@@kaskoPhoto yes haha, the problem is that pixel peeping is fun, and it's fine to acknowledge that, I'd love a GFX 😂

@@CianMcsweeney it’s a def adrenaline rush. And there isn’t anything wrong with that at all.

An average B&W 35mm negative contains between 10~12 MP of data, not 4 MP. A high resolution 35mm film like TMax 100 or Ilford PanF can contain up to the equivalent 16 MP of data if the developer used was the right one for the scene. Something like the ADOX CMSII can effectively contain as much as 40 MP of data and is best Drum Scanned @ 6000 DPI. The old Kodachrome 25 had about 24 MP of data. Two points to try to remember and understand. An average film outresolves a sensor of 18 MP. A high resolution film will outresolve a 24 MP sensor. A digital sesnor however resolves detail with nearly 100% of contrast where film is at best about 50%. This is why digital appears sharper. Resolution and sharpness are two different things. I too feel that 16MP is more than enough for most photographers. Last winter, I brought out my original Nikon D70 and made some of the best work I have done with it, just in case you didn't know it has a 6 MP CCD sensor.

The z line is amazing. And the Z50 is still one of my favorites in-hand ever.

@@kaskoPhoto My only frustration is finding a equivalent 85-90mm lens, which means finding a 60-70mm prime... I miss the use of the 45mm f1.8 on the OM system.

I admire your candour. Most pretenders, like that chap who likened an Olympus camera to a cheap plastic thing making pictures like a phone, would have claimed how life changing ' upgrading ' from M43 was. I was seriously considering a used Z6II, but I ended up spending half as much on three film cameras, F100, F5, and like new F3HP. There will always be another digital camera, but the supply of decent film cameras are seriously diminishing by the day.

@@lensman5762 Been there did that in 70's and 80's! In those days you would see an Olympus Om1 (film) in my hands. But not going back to film...

On mft, you have the 300mm equivalent lens, so you "crop" live with your zoom ring. But you are right. Just work with the stuff you have. It will work out into nice photos.

Thank you for the info and recommendations. I appreciate you.

For me it really is about enjoying it at the monitor (iPad) only. It’s my own personal adrenaline rush for images that are meant for web/social. For print, there is a difference for the printer themselves and the end product. It may be very subtle at times and it can be obvious at other times - depending on the subject matter. But it is all very subjective and we all see color differently.

Understand that completely. The ZF is just about the best in that 24mp - well it’s just a damn good camera period. I do hope they expand on their lenses to fit this camera a little more. (Aperture ring, size).

😂

Very true. Don’t get me wrong I love the quality of high mp for many jobs - but when it comes down to the post… that’s where it becomes an even playing field

At such low res would a 1" sensor camera or a phone not suffice just as well. To be clear I am also a Nikon z and m43 user. But as with everything it is at the extremes where benefits are noticed if you need an extremely long effective focal range at a reasonable size m43 is handy. If you shoot moving subjects in poor light FF is better , where light gathering ability trumps DOF as a rule. If you want shallower DOF images at common portrait distance larger formats have an advantage . Though I use a Z9 and it has some serious video chops, I enjoy video on m43 more

@@jimstirling7223I have and use M43 and FF. But I gotta say, given sufficient light, the pictures I take with my iPhone 13 mini can look stunning when viewed on my iPad, and for sure more than good enough for social media. I am quite certain the more recent models do much better still. The jpegs also respond really surprisingly well to some basic editing in Lightroom. I only just recently found this all out, I have had the phone since launch (quite some time ago now) but never used it as a camera. I still love using real cameras and manipulating raw files for more serious hobbyist work, but for simple everyday use, just documenting life in general, a decent phone camera will make sure you capture all those important unmissable memories just fine. Even owning M43 there are many situations when the only camera I have with me is my phone. So great to have the options.

Just for the import being set as Adobe RGB because the camera assigns it within the raw file.

Working in Adobe RGB is such a better range of color for printing. 35% larger than sRGB. For commercial printers, it is converted to CMYK so they have no issues with printing it. And it’s much better for them that way. For home printing it really depends on your printer and the color space it can handle.

@@kaskoPhoto thank you.

I’ll take it 😂😂

I changed it in the camera so it’s embedded in the file and when I import it, Lightroom automatically sets it to the adobe RGB color space.

But… for raw files there is _no_ embedded color space. Raw files don’t have a color space… or are you saving and editing JPGs?

@@davidmantripp5312 it isn’t changing the color space of the raw image, it’s embedding a color space that you choose for the editing software to recognize. You can still select any color space you like for a raw file.

I do love the fun factor!

And the biggest thing everyone looses sight of when discussing all of this is the subject

The cost thing is an it depends question and is typically based on lenses that do a different job. For example the 25mm F/1.2 does the same job { undeniable fact } as a 50mm F/2.4 on FF , there are any number of excellent 50mm F/1.8 lenses that are always cheaper and often more compact

@@jimstirling7223 Your statement is based on the misconception that all there is to a lens is the DoF and how blurred out the background will be. You also make the incorrect comparison of how a MFT lens will behave on an MFT sensor vs how a full frame lens will behave on a full frame sensor. First, the aperture does not only decide on DoF, but also - and for some, more importantly - the amount of light going through the objective. In this regards an MFT 25mm f1.2 lens will not behave like a full frame 50mm f2.4. This will again affect shutter speeds and ISO, and while a full frame sensor might be able to perform better regarding ISO than an MFT sensor, this is only the case with faster shutter speeds and sensors of roughly the same generation. A modern MFT sensor might perform better than an older generation full frame sensor. Second, a lens performs the way it performs. It is the size of the sensor that determines the short comings of how a lens performs. Hence it does not make sense to compare an MFT lens to a full frame lens. For example, if we take the Zeiss 25mm f2, then it will perform the same way on both an MFT camera and a full frame camera, though the results will not be the same. But this is because of the sensor, not because of the lens. We need to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, and not confuse the two with each other. This means that the discussion is what you need from the camera and the sensor, not what you need from the lens. This leads me to the next issue: compactness and pricing. If you want a 47 degree angle of view, then you would get a 25mm lens for an MFT camera and a 50mm lens for a full frame camera. If we compare two standard 47 degree angle lenses for, say Olympus and Nikon, we would probably get the Olympus 25mm f1.8 and the Nikon Z 50mm f1.8. I owned the latter, amazing lens, great value for the money. I won’t deride it in any way, probably one of the best lenses I’ve worked with and seriously enjoyed the results. However, if we take US prices from B&H, the Olympus lens is 300 USD and the Nikon lens is 527 US (both with 100 USD savings presently). The Olympus lens is 56*40.6mm in size (2.2*1.6” for the Americans) and weights 136 grams, while the Nikon is 76*86.5mm in size (2.99*3.41”) and weights 415 grams. That’s roughly three times the size and weight of the Olympus and almost double the price. For what I’m doing, moving around on the streets, needing to be a bit stealthy, not wanting to stand out (documentary, not street photography), the Olympus is preferable. It also ensures that things are in focus, even wide open, because of the deeper DoF. For me the Olympus performs better than the Nikon. And that’s not to trash the Nikon, again, it’s an amazing lens and worth the money, but let’s say that I’m an amateur (I am) and I don’t have a lot of money, the better option would definitely be the MFT system, even with a standard camera. Of course, we can also talk about the f1.2 lenses, but here it will be even more clear how much difference there is between the two systems. The issue about what we want and need from our camera system isn’t based on how one lens performs on one system compared to how it compares to another lens on another system. It is based on what we need from the system and what we expect to get out of it. For example, the main focus for my photography is archaeological sites in the desert or wilderness, or in holy places where you risk being thrown out if you take too much attention, and which often are a little dark (I live in Israel/Palestine). When I’m in the desert I need a flexible set, from wide angle to telephoto lenses. I’ve tried to carry a full frame system around like that, it’s not fun, particularly not in the summer months where we reach above 40 degrees Celsius (I have no idea what that is in Fahrenheit, but it’s warm). With the MFT system I can have two cameras and lenses covering from 15mm full frame to 600mm full frame. And the results are as good as what I got with the full frame system. For me and what I do MFT is better than full frame. I even do portraits and headshots for work, which I’ve done for years now using different systems, and there is no difference in the results. I produce the same (if I may say) amazing work no matter the camera system. Now, had I been an event photographer and only had to carry two cameras and two lenses with me (a standard and a telephoto zoom), I’d probably decide on a full frame system, but I’m not even that sure about it today as I was earlier. Had I been a studio photographer and would need a high pixel resolution, then I’d probably go with medium format instead. To wind this long rant up, where I live I can get the Panasonic G9 for the same price as the Sony a7II, the Nikon Z5, or the Canon RP. The G9 is obviously a few years older, but I can do more with it than I could with the Z5. And these are entry-level cameras. The lenses are all both smaller and cheaper than most full frame lenses, particularly when we reach the wider and longer lenses. 50mm lenses, or 47 degree angle lenses, are often easier and cheaper to make, so there the differences in prices and more compact builts would be less noticeable, though there are differences, and that’s why full frame shooters often use those to compare. If you want to blur out your background as much as possible for a sensible amount of money, then you should go with full frame, no doubt. Do you want the best autofocus there is out there, then you should go with Sony (I believe), but that is the case for either full frame or APS-C (it’s the company, not the sensor size). Do you want - and here I’m biased - the best image quality you can get for sensible money, go with Nikon. If money is no problem and you’re doing studio work, go medium frame. Do you want great image quality and compactness, go MFT. But please, please, don’t compare apples and oranges. And please don’t try to talk people into spending money they don’t have to, in the name of the almighty full frame cameras (not saying that you do, but many are), when there are options that would have been more fitting and financially more sound. Long rant over, respect if you made it here.

It is a “standard” in color space. No different than the sRGB or P3. The name is there because they developed it. You will notice that many monitors have the Adobe color space available for viewing as well.

That’s the best / just loving the camera you have.

The OM-1 records the embedded color space as sRGB or Adobe RGB. If you dive into the meta you will see that each is clarified by “ RawDevColorSpace sRGB “ or “RawDevColorSpace Adobe RGB”. Let’s say that the camera did not use any raw development for their raw files… the simple act of the camera assigning a color space for your chosen editor program is helpful on its own. But recording an image in the larger color space is the way I am lead to believe the camera handles the raw files. (Again, this is just based off of the metadata) So I don’t believe the camera color space is limited to jpg images but I could be wrong.

I leave my O. cameras on sRGB so I don't know for sure but many of the "JPEG only" settings are included within the processing instructions/suggestions within the ORF - a better starting point.

@@kaskoPhoto As far as i understand, xsdec is right, it only applies to JPEGs, that's just a tag for some photo viewing programs to consider. I also have this on my 6D, there is a color_space line in metadata for my RAWs that says "sRGB" for sRGB, and "uncalibrated" for AdobeRGB. But if i take two same test RAW photos, one in sRGB and one in aRGB, they will look exactly the same when i import them to Camera RAW. If i view the .CR2 files in windows Photos program, they will be different though. So i guess you could make the same test, i bet you won't see a difference after you import the two photos to Lightroom or Camera RAW.

You are so right. I’ve seen iPhone photographers that can outshoot me 9 out of 10 times (hate them a little) But they aren’t inhibited by excuses nearly as much as the ones with the full frame gear. (Me included)

Damn I actually miss my darkroom days. I really loved the process

Gotta poke the bear 😂 But seriously, why the hell is anyone this triggered about someone liking something they don’t. 😂

@@kaskoPhoto John , tis the internet and I devote myself to arguing with folk who outrageously disagree with my choice 😀 The biggest challenges online are the frankly anti-social nature of the ironically named "social media"

Did you watch the video he literally said it in the first sentence

@@jimstirling7223 I saw it again. You are right. It’s only that it is a too general statement. Anyway, thanks.

It does have its cropping limitations for sure. But for everything else - I’m happy with the output

Good point.

What I notice other than you are right is- bring this camera close to that highlight cliffs edge produces some stunning looks!

All great points.

I do like the 4x3 aspect

I have been using m43 along with FF since 2009 and actively dislike the 4:3 ratio. Even cropped to 3:2 on m43 you have the pixels for a full 300ppi { I know that is a bit of a catch all number } 18x12" print which is my usual m43 print size. With my 45mp FF I could if wanted { I don't 😀 } I could get still get a 40mp 4:3 aspect ratio on Sony 61mp models you get a 53mp file

what is nice about m43 is the ability to change aspect ratios, and no your photos is not a 1:1 sensor size final product. it comes out quite a bit larger in final output.

Adding it to the Raw images as the profile instruct Lightroom to use the Adobe profile.

@@kaskoPhoto OK, i don't use LIghtroom. I am a Capture One fanboy 🙂

Fair point for sure. I’m not replacing my gear for my commercial clients, just adding to my arsenal. And I have never had a client change usage mid point or post shoot because my pricing is guided by usage.

@@kaskoPhoto I'm surprised by that last comment. I also price by usage, but I have been called as late as 2 years after a shoot and asked how much I would charge for print or billboard usage of a shot they particularly liked. You always have interesting videos; I like watching others. I have over 56 yrs as a pro and I'm still learning.

You use whatever works for you and your clients. But I worked as a pro for 30 years, starting out shooting wedding, portrait, and commercial with Canon 35mm & Bronica GS-1 systems. When I transitioned to digital, I went with Olympus and never looked back -- and never, ever had a dissatisfied client. My corporate clients included Forbes, Omni, Acura, Toyota Western Division, BASF, and many others. There were many reasons why the m4/3's worked best for me, and still does now that I have retired from pro work. In regard to shooting images used on billboards, look up professional photographer Joe Eidleman, whose had billboards printed from an images shot with Olympus m4/3's cameras. I know a lot of professional photographers who are former associates and the reality is that most of them do not use the most expensive equipment they can afford, but use the least expensive equipment that will provide the images and quality that their clients expect.

I’m really happy with the 20mp on this size sensor. But honestly I’m not the one trying to sell this to the world of high mp demands. And these videos are not a sales tool either- just my journey with the system. I completely agree with your assessment, you are 100% correct. But I don’t believe the camera will die off either. You and myself alike have (now had for me) a tunnel vision of this industry, thinking our needs of larger, more megapixels is the only thing people want or need. There is a very very large group of people that truly don’t care about anything but taking pictures despite mp or sensor size. OM and LUMIX have this small but very important segment of the market.

@@kaskoPhoto Agree. Just seems like Fuji was there with a 24mp sensor, then jumped to 40mp and they became very popular again, and sale followed. But, they had to update some lenses too. So a pro and con. But for a lot more people who use m43, m43 is MORE than capable.

The problem with sensors is that Sony Semiconductors has a 70% market share. Most new sensors come from them, and it’s a supply/demand issue for Sony that determines when or even whether to make a new sensor in m43 size or not. Right now, almost all 20 m43, 24 aps-c and ff, 26, 40, 60 and 102MP (BSI) sensors come from them and end up in cameras from Fujifilm, Lumix, Sony, Leica, Olympus and Hasselblad. So, until Sony is ready for a new m43 sensor I don’t expect major updates. PS. the OM-1 sensor is a stacked BSI sensor and the same generation as the Sony A1 50MP sensor. So, it’s actually very recent.

@@jacobh5817 Except that Panasonic has a 25mp sensor in their latest m43 cameras...

@@craig_m_mi The 25MP sensor found in the G9II and GH6 and GH7 isn’t a Sony sensor (as confirmed by Panasonic) but they don’t say who’s it is. Rumor goes that it is Nuvoton.

I haven’t run into these limitations yet but to be fair I’ve only went to iso 1600. As far as the focus performance on the OM-1 II - it’s been incredible

@@kaskoPhoto yeah its the opposite of what he said tbh, a studio photographer is more likely to notice the subtle colour gradation difference with mft's limited bit depth, however out in the wild is their (mft's) element, and AF has been more than competitive for a while now.

I used to think this too, which is why my second was FF, then Medium Format. But I shot an event on my E-M1X with some of my settings hitting 25600 and I got a positive response from the clients. Yes I ran these through DXOs pureraw, but OMs workspace denoise did fine cleaning it up to. I just see no reason to have a FF anymore. I use M4/3 when I need to be fast and mobile and the Hasselblad when I can take my time. I suppose it is important to note end use of an image for what is considered acceptable noise.

In the main you guys are referring to Olympus and OM systems, Lumix also does m43, and only recently came up with pdaf. Maybe the video should be about Olympus photo performance. If we change the discussion to video, Olympus falls short, where as Lumix excels. We should probably reference systems and not sensors, as we are fine noting the differences between Leica, Sony,Nikon, etc ...

Focus performance is no issue at all imo. The recent Olympus cameras and the new phase detect AF of Lumix is virtually as good as the best competitors. Gone are the days of contrast detect only…

No one ever said it makes better photos. It makes great photos for many jobs that I need to do.

A more complex lifestyle leads to people wanting simple answers. In this case, larger = better has replaced understanding of what image sensor size does.

Everyone has that line they won’t cross and that is a perception that is hard to get past. I am loving this sensor myself, which means my line is a bit lower. 😂

I respect the 4/3 crowd, but for me, APSC with Fuji is the smallest I would go, and not because of the sensor size or image quality, but low light performance is essential for me.

I beg to disagree, I tried an OM-1 and ended up selling my X-T5 and lenses. IMHO the OM-1 is better built, handles better, IBIS is better, EVF is better, it's more responsive, the autofocus is better and the f2.8 zooms are smaller and lighter than the Fujifilm equivalent and incredibly sharp. I also have to do much less editing of the images, which to me look better straight out of camera than the Fujifilm in Capture One. I prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio. It also has a large range of computational tricks that Fujifilm doesn't have like hand held pixel shift, in-camera focus stacking, live ND etc. Image quality is a non-argument for me, it's fantastic.

@@jtes1442 agreed micro 4/3 does need more careful handling in low light so if that's an absolute priority then it might not be the ideal choice. For me it's enough to run any noisy images through DXO PureRAW which cleans them up very nicely.

The cameras might be the same size, the lenses are certainly not. Esp. when you enter long telephoto territory. That is why m43 is much loved by sports and wildlife photographers. Next to that, Fuji has some pretty mediocre zoom lenses like the 16-80 and the 70-300, whereas Lumix and Olympus have some of the best zoom lenses in that category regardless of sensor size. Many select their system, based on the camera bodies and features. For me lenses are the main discriminating factor.