Leaving Micro Four Thirds for The Mirrorless Full Frame? 

I have a Nikon Z7ii and a LUMIX G9. The only time the Z7 produces a better 8x10 print is when I crop severely. In those instances where the scene has a very long dynamic range the G9 will give me an excellent HDR image in camera. In dim light the G9’s Dual IBIS works wonderfully well. Finally my 75 year old neck and shoulders really appreciate the lighter weight MFT lenses. Keep up the good work. Ed Westen, Florida, USA

I love the fact that camera innovation is driving many weekend photographers to buy the next best thing...and thereby driving down the prices of lightly used equipment. Last year I bought a GX9 with kit lens and a whopping 500 shutter-count for $320 and a G81 with a different kit lens + battery expansion/attachment, again with low shutter count (under 1000), for $340. Both camera's are MINT and I spent all together under $700. I have to pinch myself every time I think about those local/reputable deals. Over the last 10+ years, I have also collected well over 30 vintage lenses; adapted for mirrorless. To include plenty of really fast (F1.2/F1.4) nifty fifties and classic 85mm's, too. M4/3 is a more than capable system for my use case...as an amateur shutterbug who needs a quality and affordable system that is both easy to carry/transport for alpine hikes as well as comfortable for casual street photography. One thing is absolutely clear to me...99.99% of the time it is not the camera's fault.

I have a variety of digital cameras with different sized sensors (mostly 2nd hand); a few M4/3, some APS-C and a couple of old Sony A7 ii. If you shoot RAW and use lightroom, or similar, to edit your photos, I don't think you can tell the size of the sensor from the processed photo. I also think you'd also be hard pressed to see much of a difference in image quality. All digital cameras since the mid-to-late 2010's take superb pictures; now, its down to a your budget, plus choice of features and ergonomics, IMHO. The thing I've come to really appreciate about M4/3 gear, as Brian said, is the size of the kit. It's a no compromise option, a small, lightweight setup with excellent IQ - what's not to love about that! For example, the Panasonic DMC-GM5 plus the Panasonic G.Vario 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 & Panasonic G.Vario 35-100mm f/4.0-5.6 is a complete kit, with an EVF & OIS, you can hold in one hand! And that setup weighs nothing, less than half a kilo. OK, the lenses are quite slow but they pack a punch. I've taken some belters with this setup and it's a no-brainer when I want to travel light. I would also argue that the Olympus Pen-f + the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 is one of the best ever street photography setups you could wish for (assuming 35mm focal length equivalent is your bag, of course). Its small, descrete, quiet & quick with excellent IQ - perfect for street photography. I've used Fuji's for street (and a Ricoh GRii), they are excellent but I'm sure I've taken more keepers with my Pen-f than with my Fuji gear.

In a sense I have left M4/3 for Full Frame but in reality I've left digital photography for a year or so to go back to shooting 35mm. I felt that these amazing modern cameras were making me a very lazy photographer. So for a month now I've been shooting a fully manual and mechanical Minolta. Let me tell you it pushes you and forces you to think. I certainly won't be using only analogue forever but in the short term, it's exactly the tune up my photography needs.

Owned a R6 and a OM-1. Sold my R6. For my R6 I owned a Canon RF 50mm 1.2, Sigma Art 35mm 1.4, Canon RF 35mm 1.8, Tamron 85mm 1.8, Canon telezoom up to 300mm (details I forgot) and a standard zoom. This bag was fucking heavy. I ended up using my OM-1 much more. More and more. So I sold all my FF gear. The OM-1 makes a great job and the lenses (all pro lenses) are sharp like crazy. Enjoy using this system. And even after a day with my 40-150mm 2.8 in my hand... no problem.

I shoot professionally with micro 4/3s for food photography now. At this stage, most of my images are featured on doordash which really ain't a big image as say a billboard. Even if I needed a higher megapixel count, I can set up high res mode without an issue.

I bought the Lumix G9 when it first came out and still really love it. Last summer I added a Fuji X-T4 to my arsenal of cameras. I consider the G9 and X-T4 about equal in my book. For those that find the megapixels and dynamic range not sufficient from Micro4/3 and APSC cameras there is exceptional software from Topaz and others to enlarge, denoise and sharpen. Maybe results are not quite as professional looking as photos from full frame cameras but the outcomes are most often impressive enough. Developing good post-processing skills can make most any camera's photos shine when you don't have the money to plunk down for the big-boys.

I made the switch when OM acquired olympus camera business. I went to the Sony a7 r3 And a few lenses. The G series lenses are so expensive but quite good. I had the 24mm and the 28-135mm. It was a good kit but everything was just bigger and the images were about the same quality. I sold it off at a good price when the OM-1 came out I got that as I still had most of my lenses. Honestly with things like topaz gigapixel , Denoise and sharpener I don’t see the need for FF and I am not getting younger. The m4/3 kits works better for myself as I don’t shoot in the dark or indoors much

Good on you Brian, I'm pleased to hear that you are not jumping ship. Having only used APSC cameras prior to my current and only camera, an Olympus E-M5 Mark ii, I must admit that my image quality has not suffered. The joy of using the M4/3 system is also an added bonus ... long live M4/3!!!

I left the Sony A7ii for micro four thirds, Olympus EM5, and loved the format. I’ve left the format now for Fuji, I have the XT20, and XT3, the lenses and cameras are still fairly lightweight, there’s no way that I would go full frame again because of the cost, size, weight of the lenses. APS-C suits my photography, and as a camera club member I’m getting great results.

Hi Brian, I've mentioned some of this information before. I have a Canon 5D Mk IV with the 24-70 F4 IS, 70-200 F4 IS, 85 F1.8 and 40 F2.8. All really great lenses and I've had fun using them. However, I found myself getting enamored by MFT awhile back, I don't know why really, somehow MFT just landed on my radar screen. After looking at some of the great work out there I decided to explore it. Upon talking to my nephew about my curious interest in MFT and he said he had an old 12 megapixel Panasonic GF1 with the 20mm F1.7 and that he'd be happy to gift it to me. I took it out on a few street walks and I really liked the images that I captured. But I didn't really like the lack of EVF and I found the screen to be awkward in some instances. I thought I'd explore a little deeper and look into a more up to date MFT camera. I found a great deal on a used 16 megapixel E-M1.1 that came with a 14-42 kit lens for a total of $350 CDN. so now I had the 20mm and kit lenses to work with. I have to say i really ENJOYED using this combination. So much so I added a used 60mm macro and the 40-150 plastic fantastic super zoom. Now I'm really well covered for shooting, but still lack any pro glass, although I'd suggest, without any real experience that the two primes may perform close to or on par with PRO lenses. Long story short, the Canon is collecting a lot of dust and is feeling lonely. I'm loving the Olympus camera and I love the images that I'm getting (even on the lower resolution older sensor). More importantly the enjoyment of shooting with it has been amazing. This statement is a critical part of the decision that is realized in the next paragraph. Despite the fact that the Canon has double the resolution and all of what FF has to offer, I'm loving shooting again. I've been on the fence about what to do for several months, but after adding the Macro and the Super Zoom to the Oly kit I've made the decision to sell off the Canon gear in trade for a good used Olympus E-M1.3 with the 12-100 F4 PRO lens or possibly the 12-40 F2.8 lens. I'll have to decide between faster or more flexibility in a lens. I'm looking forward to experiencing the updated IBIS and using all of the advanced features that the Mark III has to offer. In short, there's no temptation to look at a mirrorless FF. There's no need. I expect if I have a need for lens speed, I can quite simply add some faster glass to the kit. If the current setup with the added PRO lens works well for me, my lens buying days should be over, In fact I may decide to sell something off, but the reality is the 40-150mm cost me $80 CDN, the 20mm was $0. In closing, there's somethinig about the feel and handling of the Olympus Camera. It just feels right, the controls are where I like them and the customization capability is brilliant. Like you I started with an orignal OM-1 film camera. Using the Olympus feels very close to the shutter/aperture controls of the old film camera. Not the same, but just reminiscent and I feel that i why I'm enjoying using this camera and shooting so much more. Will I miss the FF? In some instances, probably yes, but not enough to get hung up on it. What I may miss from FF I will gain from some of the benefits of MFT. I'm confident that I have made a very good if not excellent decision. PS. I like to shoot Landscapes, Urbanscapes, Street Photography and Florals. I also shoot product photography and photo reference for artists, even the old E-M1 has been delivering on that requirement.

All depends on what you are shooting photos for I would think. I have a couple of m4/3 cameras - Olympus + Panasonic with a number of lenses. I also have a 20 year old Canon 5MP compact camera which I took with me on a Lake District holiday some years ago now. Having recently bought an A3 printer I was reviewing some of my old photos and took a liking to one or two from that Lake District holiday, I printed them out on my new A3 printer, using budget paper as well, and was blown away by the quality! A friend also saw them and requested copies and has had them professionally framed! From normal viewing distance you would not want any more. Pixel peeping is like looking at a photograph with your nose touching the paper! Whatever camera you have, it is the best if you get out there and take pictures. The biggest megapixel camera in the world is no good if you are not shooting photos, it is just an expensive ornament.

I came back. After the digital revolution, I ended up using Nikon DSLRs. With the advent of micro four thirds, I transitioned into Olympus, accumulating a couple of bodies, kit zooms, along with some primes including the spectacular 60mm f/2.8 macro. I was diggin' it, but when Sony came out with their impressive full-format mirrorless system, like a siren's song, I had to go there, so eBay'd most of the Oly stuff. But the full-frame camera and lenses didn't get carried much anymore due to size and weight. So I recently explored getting a 1-inch point-and-shoot, but then remembered a leftover E-M5 body and a couple of primes (25 & 45) gathering dust in the back of a closet. So I sold all the full-format body and lenses, added the very nice 25-100mm Oly zoom, grabbed a used E-M1ii body and had enough leftover to bank against inflation. My main squeeze adopted the E-M5 and now we're happy campers, regularly taking our cameras on walks & hikes. Oh, the joy of shooting pictures for fun again!

A refreshingly straight and honest comparison. Thanks.

I still love micro 4/3. Another thing about this format is that I love the reach and compression effect in street photography that you cannot get with full frame unless you purchase. at great expense, weight and size a large telephoto lens of similar focal length. A 75 to 300 mm Olympus lens at $650. on my OMD EM5 gives me a 600mm equivalent. In decent light this is fantastic.

Good video. M43 is a great option for all the reasons you mentioned. I have APS-C and FF Sony and one of the benefits of FF mirrorless is the ability to adapt vintage lenses and have them perform as they were designed to do when they are mounted on a FF sensor camera body.

Brian .. Thank you . We live in a society where with in a span of two years your smart phone is old hat . What each person needs to examine are their needs , requirement and pocket book . If your living is as a professional photographer then you must weigh the equipment factor . Does a new tool make your work flow better and income ?? If you are not a professional photographer then what do you become a “ Gear Head “ you buy because it’s a new flavor or do you evaluate Needs v Wants . For me having formal schooling in photography in a school and trained in photography for law enforcement at the FBI to this day I use : M43 OLYMPUS and Nikon D 300s , 700 , 7100 both DX and FX ALL vintaged In conclusion remember Needs v Wants + Cost that must be determined honestly by each person

Photography has now become a long list of specifications, and that's fine if its what floats your boat, but we all know that isn't what it's about, anymore than a good oil painting is about the brushes, canvas or easel used. I say to anyone that thinks their photography will improve with the latest camera, go for it, I think that people should have the chance to find out a new camera isn't the answer to their problems the same way I did.

Hi Brian, another thought provoking video! I've just returned from a break in the Pyrenees with my family and dogs. The G9 and a couple of lenses came along...covering wide angle, to telephoto. The scenery was stunning, wherever I pointed the camera I could take a great image. Back home ...images on the computer ...little cropping needed, a bit of tweaking of the RAW files, and a batch of lovely images to share and look back on! Sensor size plays no part for me in the process The sensor size debate will always be with us, as it used to be back in the day .. Enjoy what you have, fill the memory cards and reflect on the memories as you review the images for years to come.

I had a long time a Canon 1Ds mkIII. When you look at tests fron those days it was The reference. I bought a Panasonic GF1 for fun, but it impressed me for it’s quality (but max 400 ASA!). So, this became my camera I took with me when I travel. The Canon was for model-photography (used the 85mm 1,2 and pro-lenses). Then came better MFT’s. When I bought the G9 I realized the quality was better than my Canon. So I sold all my Canon equipment. I know FF is better now, but that is not my reference. I need a camera that I want to carry and has enough - more than enough!! - quality. I stick to MFT because it has lenses of stunning quality - really stunning - it has more than enough quality and I want to carry it. I really love it.

I am staying with M4/3. I don't need a larger sensor. I'm not making huge prints. I don't want the extra weight involved with carrying larger lenses. I have the OMD EM1ii and iii. They are wonderful. I just purchased the OM1. Need I say more? I agree with you that many people have gotten a wee bit lazy and are not doing what they need to do to get their best image in the camera.

That’s a relief I’ve subscribed to too many vloggers who made m43 content only to see them abandon it for ff a few months later.

Hi Brian, thanks for this video and sharing your thoughts with us. I love the fact that you remain loyal to the micro 4/3 system and you have your very strong arguments for it. So, a huge thumbs up for it. To be completely honest, I did leave the MFT system (for Fujifilm, not for full frame), but I keep watching your videos for the very good content and advice that you share with all of us. When I want full frame experience, I take out my pure analog Minolta film camera, insert a roll of 36 frames film and take it out for a walk. Not only is it good to revise the basic rules of photography, but it helps me concentrate on the content/quality rather than the quantity. Keep up the good work and all the best to you!

Photogaphy is merely a hobby for me. My wife is/was a professional who grew up in the family photo shop. The shop and all the others here have long ago cosed due to diigital. I picked up a coupe Fuji super zooms which we happpily used. My hsc 10 had a 24-720 zoom lens and I loved it but over time it has become heavy. In a pawn shopp I picked up an Olympus OM D E M10 Mark iii and an M 10 Mark ii. I fell in love. I bought one for my wife along with several Pen models. W e enjoy the modes we use, espp the Pens with evf. I am 84 and will be content with what we have as I approach the finish line and I expect my wife will also.

I really like the micro 4/3 system. I have used it for many years & currently have Two Em 1 II & have had not desire to change format. The lenses are excellent & when you travel the is no comparison. I lived in Uruguay for a while & remember having my Olympus cameras when traveling & seeing other photographs with their full frame DSLR & huge lenses. There is no doubt in my mind that their end results were not any better than mine. It is the photograph that matters.

Finally something worth watching

Good job buddy! Keep posting!

I agree with your comments concerning the need to crop vis-a-vis the sensor size. When shooting wildlife, while it is true that you loose resolution and image quality more so when cropping a micro fourthirds image as compared to a full frame image, because of the additional reach you have with the micro fourthirds sensor the need to crop is less. For wildlife photography, most particularly bird photography, that additional reach makes a huge difference. As with all photography gear, there are pros and cons with each system. My experience has suggested to me that it is best to fully learn your gear, whatever system that may be, and thereafter rely upon your innate creativity. Just one person’s opinion.

I use both and like them equally. Thanks for the video!

I had a sony A7111 but like you said the lenses made it too heavy so i sold it and went to crop sensor, recently i have bought a lumix GX9 and found the size and weight ideal for me, probably not for everyone but i'm happy with it.

Phew, I’m so pleased you said that :)

Superb video, I agree with your thoughts!

Nice video! I have left M4/3 for FF a couple of years ago and now I seem to be going back to M4/3. I mostly do bird photography now. I have been a professional wedding photographer and videographer in the past. I don’t have fond memories of carrying lots of gear around for hours on end so now that I am retired I really want to avoid that. I was shooting with a G9 and the PL 100-400 for birds around the time the pandemic started. On a lark I bought an R6 along with 3 lenses and an EF adapter from eBay. It was less than a month old. The guy who owned it walked into a big camera store in New York City and bought 7000 USD worth of gear but didn’t like it. Also a batter grip and 3 batteries. All brand new. Some of the boxes had never been opened. I bought it for two reasons. I was very curious about how the AI eye detection AF worked and the bidding was slow. I put in a fairly low bid and won. I love the R6. Great camera. I took many photos with that camera. I sold some lenses and acquired some lenses. The best being the RF 100-500mm which is amazing but still short for birds on FF. I was interested in the OM-1 when it came out. I still had my M43 gear so I had lenses already. I rented one at the beginning of the Summer for a week. Good results but they still weren’t readily available so I bought a Canon R7 because of the 1.6 crop factor which made my RF lens a lot better for birding. Looking at Amazon one day a month ago and they had OM-1s in stock for 2 day delivery. So I bought one. My wife and I went to Alaska a couple of weeks ago and until the day I left I was planning on taking Canon gear. Then the morning that we left I changed gears and packed the OM-1 and the PL 100-400 and a couple others. The R7 with the 100-500 is less than a pound more than the OM-1 with the 100-400 but the balance is much worse and I find myself getting a very sore right shoulder after a couple of hours out and about. So I find myself selling the R6 evaluating the two crop sensor cameras. For my use case they are both better choices than the R6.

Don’t know why but you made me smile here Brian… thought you were wobbling for a bit here…!

I used to have a Nikon D70 close to 20 years ago. Still took some amazing photos and that was only 6 megapixels. To me, it's all about the glass.

In the Macro photography, Olympus OM-SYSTEM cameras are continuing to grow. I know six macro photographers in the past few months switched and two of them made it clear that the megapixels coming from 24 & 32mp doesn't matter. The 2x crop factor also makes the lens 2:1 magnification and double of DoF to the full frame cameras. Those two things are important for macro. The ease of focus stacking and editing they appreciate. Dynamic range means nothing because they always shoot at 200 & 400 ISO with flash. On sale, E-M5 Mark III, 60mm macro lens and Godox flash is only about $1,400. Most Full Frame macro lenses are $1,000 just for the lens. I do hope they follow Panasonic by making a 25mp sensor with the next generation because as 40mp+ becomes a standard for full frame, the 2:1 advantage is less of an argument because you could just crop heavier with that amount of pixels on full frame.

GREAT VIDEO, AS USUAL, BRIAN. Brian, My first digital was a Nikon 990 with only 3.3 MPixels. I used it for a number of years, shooting pics of our house build-out in 2001 and in the field as a professional geologist. Because I knew virtually nothing about such cameras, I shot all those years without realizing that I had not set the camera to its highest resolution. So every one of my pictures taken with that camera has a resolution of only 3.15MPixels, i.e. they are all 2048x1536 pixels (which is FaceBook resolution), so I didn't even get the full 3.3MPixels! Yet when I look at those pictures on my large HD monitor, they look fine. Of course, I cannot zoom into them very far before they become pixelated, and therein lies the heart of what you were discussing about deep cropping of images. The very high MPixel count of some new sensors is necessary for certain types of niche photography, specifically wildlife (primarily birds) or aircraft in flight. People who shoot birds (particularly birds in flight) must use long lenses, and then they must crop severely to have the bird fill the frame. The Canon 90D addressed this need with its 32.5 MPixel APS-C sensor. But for "normal" photography, such a densely packed sensor is not necessary and can actually be a disadvantage. For instance, the 90D is extremely sensitive to even the slightest camera movement, because of its sensor's "finer mesh" which causes a trail of photons to jump from one pixel to another too easily. Thus most users shoot at higher shutter speeds than they did on their previous cameras. This limits the use of that camera in low light and also practically demands faster (and more expensive) lenses. To me, the 20-24 MPixel range is the sweet spot for the APS-C sensor. I shoot with the T8i (850D) most of the time, or the Canon Rebel SL2 (200D), and the images are every bit as good as I need them. I did own the 90D for a while, but sold it. It seems to me that the densely packed sensors of the M43 cameras would present the same disadvantage as is present in the Canon 90D. Is this something you have to deal with, or has it not been a problem? Would you be satisfied with a M43 sensor with only 10 MPixels, for example? Once again, a great video. Keep them coming!

Your point about the lenses is very true. When I look at my P45-175mm and compare it to my Sony 70-200/4 GM the difference in size and weight is huge. What this means is with m43 you can carry with you 2 or 3 lenses you may not even need or use. With the FF kit you cannot do the same because you will quickly regret the added weight. Being able to carry more glass means you have less need of cropping so the 20MP resolution should be fine. With FF you may find you left behind the perfect lens and thus APS-C mode or heavy crops are required. Where many M43 falls behind FF is in autofocus, most notably CAF. The gap isn't that big though. With my A9 I will typically get 9/10 keepers in a burst, with M43 that may drop to 7/10. Another plus for FF is background separation is better. A distracting background can make or break an image. Lastly, in post you can push the FF files a little harder so you have a little more flexibility in how the final result looks. I think in the final analysis. If you are happy and able to carry the FF outfit you will probably benefit from doing so. I find carrying the equivalent of a sack of potatoes a bit weary these days though and M43 looks more and more attractive as I age.

In 2019 I sold all my Olympus gear for Sony FF. I have couple a Sony bodies (A74/A7R4) and 7 Sony lenses and I tell you all that crap is heavy. Fast forward to 2022…I missed the the portability of mft so I bought an EM5 III, which I think is the quintessential mft camera. I got all the Oly 1.8’s, and the 60mm macro, which are super small and cheap but not a huge compromise when it comes to image quality. No need for the Pro 1.2’s since I still have my Sony gear. Suffice to say, I really enjoy having all the firepower of mft gear in 1 small bag, while making photography fun again.

Nikon D40x One of the best camera’s out there.. I won £2000 worth of fishing tackle with this camera in 2010. You can buy them now as cheap as chips, it’s only 12mp and a kit lens takes cracking shots, you don’t need full frame and millions of megapixels to take a good shot, it’s the man behind the camera !!

I agree. I just sold my full frame Sony A7 R and lens and bought the LUMIX G9. I love the lighter load. Now I am out taking pictures again. Thank you for the video. Good information.

I had an R6, then found a great price on a used R5, so I sold the one and bought the other. I had several Canon RF lenses(24-105/4 L, 100-400/5.6-8, 800/11) and a couple of adapted Tamron EF lenses(35/1.8 and 70-200/2.8), and got great shots with both. I recently sold it all, bought a G9 and the 35-100, 100-400 and 10-25 zooms. I then put almost $2000 in my savings account. Here's some of my experiences and pros/cons: I didn't really find the shots from the R5 significantly better/sharper/more detailed than the R6, in spite of having 2.25 times the pixels. I think part of it is that once you know you can crop, you'll start doing it, and the lenses just can't maintain details when you've tossed that many pixels in the bin. I feel like 20mp is plenty 95% of the time, even shooting wildlife. For portraits/events, it's enough 99% of the time. I used the Canon RF 50/1.2 L for a while, and it's GORGEOUS. It's also over $2000 and weighs a ton. Still, you can't really get that look with m4/3, so if that's your thing, FF is probably the way to go. Size and cost is lower with m4/3 systems. They aren't always cheaper, and in some cases the small 'fantastic plastic' primes are about the same cost, but when you get into long lenses you can start saving money. More important(at least to me) is that the 'pro' lenses tend to be smaller/lighter/cheaper while still having excellent optics/performance/build/etc. My biggest issue with the RF 100-400 and 800/11 lenses isn't image quality or slow aperture, it's the lack of weather sealing. With no 3rd party support in sight, I could either buy good, cost-effective lenses that I can't trust in bad weather(when a lot of great wildlife happens), or I can pay ~$2700 for the 100-500 L lens. Even buying new, a G9 and either the 50-200/2.8-4 or the 100-400/4-6.3 add up to less money. High iso noise and dynamic range isn't as good on the G9 as the Canons, however this is occasionally cancelled out by being able to get a wider aperture in the same size/price/weight(but not always). Software has come a long way, and I have shot iso 6400 on the G9 without worry(vs 12800 on the R5 and a few times up to 25600 on the R6). Anyway, just my subjective opinions on the topic.

You sir make sense.

I don't know about you going to full frame Brian! I think there'll be an OM 1 with your name on it once MPB start to stock it, and I don't think that'll be too long now. Keep up the good work on your wonderful channel.

Thanks!

I started out with a 35mm film camera and stayed with it well into the digital age. I still shoot quite a bit of film. Digital is much more economical though as well as convenient. My first digital camera was a Canon ELPH and I really used it a lot because it was so pocketable. But over time, I bought into Nikon with a D40 since it allowed me to use all my Nikkor lenses. Over time, I have bought full frame, APS-C and MFT cameras and still use all of them. So, I have a pretty good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each. What I use on any given day has more to do with what I'm shooting than any other reason. My everyday carry is a small lightweight camera. When I'm shooting auto racing, I take my Nikon D500. I use my D850 for birds. For architecture, I bring my Mamiya 645 and Nikon Z7. My travel camera is either a G9 or the Oly E-M1. Only when I know I'm going to print big do I bring any of my high megapixel cameras. The rest of the time, I like the small light weight cameras, either film or digital. One of my favorites is my little Pen F.

Years ago I got involved with photographing events, at the time I was shooting with a variety of Pentax APSC cameras, I added the K1 Mkii a full frame camera, as time went on, I had acquired all the Pentax glass that I wanted, I started adding other cameras to my collection, Panasonic an Olympus 4/3 cameras and glass along with some Fujifilm cameras and glass this took place over a span of 15 years, I never sold any cameras along the way, I enjoy using different lenses and cameras as I shoot a wide variety of subjects in a wide range of environments. Each camera has its unique features and designs and some of the glass I use is unique to the camera systems. This is one of the reasons that I am not a fan of cell phone photography, using a phone to take a photo is the least interesting and inspiring way to photograph anything.

Although I started shooting digital with an Olympus Four Thirds DSLR I soon switched to Canon because I needed a bigger sensor for the low light in music venues. Last year, coming out of lockdown, I thought it would be a good time to upgrade by two 6D bodies and go mirrorless, and had the R6 in my sights. I also wanted a smaller, lighter camera because I'm no spring chicken, as my neck, back and shoulders keep reminding me. I was about to fork out the £2500 for the R6 body, when I did a quick reality check. Did I really need to blow that much cash when I wasn't even a pro? So I bought a used Olympus EM-1 for £250, and a couple of fast primes, just to try out M4/3 (I've been an Olympus user since the 1970s). Once I got used to the controls and menus, I really liked it. And what surprised me was the low-light results, and I could barely tell the difference between the Canon 6D and EM-1, except with a lot of pixel peeping. So I sold my Canon gear and bought a new Olympus EM-1ii and more prime lenses, and it still cost me less than an R6. And that was before considering price and size of the fast RF lenses. I've since added an EM-1iii and a couple of Pro zooms (instead of buying the OM-1). I've now spent a bit more than what the R6 body would have cost, but have two fantastic pro cameras and a bunch of exceptional lenses. Megapixel count has never been an issue for me, and 20MP is more than enough for online and magazines, which is where my shots get seen the most. And no one has even noticed I've switched to a smaller sensor. If anything, I've had more compliments on my shots since switching. And coming from being a film shooter, I've always composed and frame in camera, so minimal - if any - cropping. What's even more interesting is, most people like the B&W film shots I shoot at the same time with a 40+ year old camera (even though they generally don't know they're film - they're musicians, so it's not as big a deal to them). I've been saying it for years, use the cameras you are comfortable with, and can afford, to get the results you want or need, and don't' buy into all the marketing hype. All the camera makers just want your money for a product that does the same as everyone else's. And really, if you want images over 50MP, you should be shooting medium format, not 35mm ("full frame") sensors.

This is the kind of click-bait I like, because I knew the answer would be 'no', and that you wouldn't be encouraging your viewers to waste money switching systems. I'm a happy and content micro four thirds user, and glad you are too.

I am using Olympus OM-D E5 Mark III for about 2 years. The reason of my choice was IBIS. I usually shoot handheld. Even in new full frame mirrorless cameras , there is no nearer IBIS. And also you stated , the lightness of the full system and affordable lenses. So there is no need to switching full frame. And I do love my camera!

I have been working for about 1 decade with Digital Cameras for my professional photo and video work. Although I constantly work with various formats, Cameras and manufacturers, I always return to the M43 system, which I consider the best for my professional (Video, Real Estate and Food) and personal (Travel, Wildlife, Landscape and Macro) use. Excellent comments from you here in the video! There is no perfect system. It's great to have a variety of options to choose from, depending on the job, client or personal preference! For me, in 95% of cases M43 is the best option!

I won't be leaving m43. I love my G9 and GX9 and Im also using a Fuji x-t2 primarily with all my old film camera glass because I love the small focus point on the side in the viewfinder for manual focusing. I've previously owned the Nikon d750, Sony a7II and A7RII which are fantastic cameras. If I shot in extreme low light places or needed more bokeh then I would consider full frame but as 99.9% of my photography doesn't entail either, then I'm very happy with my current setup.

How ironic. I had $15k worth of RF Canon L glass and a R5 and sold it ALL for a new complete OM-1 and Pro lens setup. Not missing it one bit. In fact loving photography once more and my shoulders and back are thanking me daily. Dynamic Range advantage for a R5 vs. an OM-1 was barely 1.5 stops, not enough to bark about. I now crop all I want and don't suffer loss of sharpness and detail which I thought would happen giving up the 45mp. I discovered just how much hype has been involved. I get the same bokeh using a Sigma 56 f.4 DC like I got on my FF with a 105 f1.4 ART lens.

Great to find you, I started on the Olympus e500 and got great results, I upgraded to the e620 and don't see a need to upgrade any further, my results are fine, I print my photos on my Canon Pro 200 at sizes 13x19 with (wow did I take that picture) results, Zuiko is great glass, for the results and price, I don't think you can beat 4/3rds, I will be staying right where I am. Thanks

I use MFT for telephoto lenses, typically a 300mm f4 for wildlife. I use a FF for urban photography.

I jumped ship from Canon to MFT almost two years ago and couldn't be happier. I already had some Sony gear which I still have. The full frame/MFT situation is not binary. I have both MFT and Sony full frame. There are times when the larger sensor has an advantage, but there are more times when MFT has the advantage. It is not just the lens sizes, but the smaller sensors are easier to stabilize, and nothing beats the feature-rich goodness of both the GH5 M2 and GH6. However, those small lenses means smaller gimbals and a lot better experience for a one man crew who has to carry the weight all day. As a result I use MFT for more than 90% of the time, and it is comparatively rarely that the full frame is desirable. And when I do use the Sony, its lack of video-centic features is annoying. I am spoiled by the goodies in a Lumix camera.

Hello ! Thanks for sharing this experience. I agree with you : M43 has the edge for weight and price. What you lose with a smaller sensor (noise, resolution, dynamic range) can be retrieved most of the time by post-processing : software like DxO or Topaz Denoise makes you reassured when you need to use ISO 3200 or 6400 with a recent M43 camera. For architectural or distant landscape details, which are of course fixed, you can use hand held high resolution, you get 50 Mpxel, at the cost of playing with layers in Photoshop to recover the moving objects from the magnified ORI version (you rarely need high details on small moving parts or foliage in such images). As a professional you could need a high productivity for post-processing and it could be an argument for full frame, but as an amateur considering productivity it makes no sense. So M43 is just fine.

Every time I’m tempted I remind myself how small and light mft lenses are. Just so easy to live with and use.

thanks for thinking aloud. I've just moved from an em1/i to a G9 and I'm really impressed with the improvements made (2013 to 2017 between launches). I stuck with M43 because I had several M43 lenses, a filter system & r/c flash. Here's one example that gives pause for thought: a Sony FE 24-70mm f4 is 426g costing £749 and a Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 is 305g at £799. The Panasonic lens is twice as bright but the Sony sensor collects 4x as much light. As a market leader, will Sony have more R&D bucks to continue to release very competitive lenses? Another thought: James Popsys moved from M43 to Sony for its focusing technology and sensor for his professional work. But James found the Sony a little joyless to use and bought another brand to enjoy his photography. I think that's where a lot of us are: we want a system that encourages use to take photos not a computer in a box.

Well as you started the video and sang the praises of the Canon R6 in my mind I could imagine the sound of a large number of MFT cameras crashing to the ground as their owners threw them down before rushing out to buy the latest full frame model, Keep up the good work.

When I started off with a digital camera, it was the panasonic G7 . Then next the panasonic G9. Now I have a panasonic S5 as its was the cheapest full frame camera bundle on the market from Amazon. It cost me £1600 with a 20-60 mm lens and a second panasonic battery and I still use my G7 90% of the time!

Like yourself I started out with film before I moved onto Digital Cameras. I moved through several generations of camera, mostly an increase in pixel count. as the pixel count got to 22M pixels I did a series of tests printing images at 16 M pixels 18 m pixels and 22 M pixels, with the results being printed by a professional bureau. With a blind test 3 qualified photographers were asked to pick the best. The result no agreement!! The higher resolution images on screen were better, but the dynamics of ink on paper reduced the 3 sets of images to reduce the ability for higher resolution sensors to show an improvement. As I got older weight of equipment became a major issue and I changed to Micro 4/3 thirds. I still get great images and I can carry a camera and at least 2 lenses all day, which was not possible with either APS-C or full frame. One last comment is that sensor noise is in the main directly dependent on the pixel size, so at 70/80 M pixels your are back to the same size pixel of a 20 M pixel sensor. This was a short time ago the big gripe as to why Micro 4/3 thirds was no good.

I have a Sony A7RIII that I use mostly with vintage lenses. I shoot my olympus em1, em1.2, and em1x more frequently.

Cameras reached ridiculous size about 10-15 years ago! I like my Lumix TZ95.

Great video, I'm also sticking to M4/3. My photography is much more casual and infrequent, in fact having a decent 3 lens camera on my phone govers most of my everyday needs I used to use a camera for, the sort of casual photography Itake, given that device now handles paying for things aswell through contactless I often dont even carry a wallet around either. Having as little and lightweight as kit as possible is what really drew me towards M4/3 with the initial EM5 and its that reason I still use it today, if I'm on a outing with a pack I'll often throw the EM1 ii in the bag, while slightly heaver with the 12-40 on i know that whatever the weather, bumps and knocks it will be a reliable and reasonably light bit of kit. I find i'm more doing videography these days with the EM1 ii, (yes im a fan of 4k and upload videos in it too!), its a great camera for it, and if i wanted something better then i could pick up one of the Lumix series with little extra cost from MPB, very tempted by the G100. Costs the big reason I have no plans of changing, having sold off my old Minolta/Alpha gear to get into M4/3 ive no real desire to go through that process again, right now I have a good selection of pro lenses that are rock solid, and a great second hand market in M4/3 for camera bodies.

I left my d750 full frame for first, em5 mk III, and now I have an om 1 as well. The only thing I'm keeping the Nikon for is astro. No matter what I've tried (stacking, noise reduction software etc) the Nikon handles shadows WAY better. I love my om 1

My understanding was that big mega pixel cameras(30-40+MP) were more about blowing up in quality on output, rather than quality on cropping in. I'm on a nikond7500 and love the thing lol...great video by the way.

I have gone from M43 to FF and to APSC. I have a lot of vintage 35mm lenses that I love and I want to take pictures without crops. I bought a canon RP and then bought a split focussing screen for my 5D mkll and it's a breeze. APSC was a Fuji X100v but I sold it as it was useless to me for the price despite the excellent dynamic range. When I'm taking portraits I love FF. When I travel and don't know what I'm going to shoot M43 is always my first choice and I love my Olympus Pen F and all the small prime I can carry in a small bag.

Thank you! I am now in the MFT + Full frame camp, enjoying the best of both worlds. I find the Full frame system more versatile for - 1. Night time video work, and 2. Photography (Landscape and portraits specifically). Other than that, I use my Panny GH5 for documentary work and have never been disappointed. I'm thinking of getting a GX85 again, for street photography and family holidays. MFT is extremely versatile, but the full frame mirrorless revolution has given a good opportunity to play with a different "look" without breaking the bank. I would be happy to invest in a new MFT body, if they came up with one that offered 10 bit internal video at 4K, and a microphone-in port (GX9 successor maybe). Having big heavy MFT bodies doesn't appeal to me as much now

I use both Nikon Z7II with a Sigma 150-600c combined with an APO 1.4 TC for when those highres/low light shots are needed (perching birds) and the OM1 with 40-150 2.8 and 100-400 combined with a MC14 TC for all the other wildlife stuff and ofcourse for travelling on my bicycle (camera always ready on a sling during cycling), half the weight double the range M4/3 can not be beaten there.

My first non compact was a Nikon D1H with a massive 2 mp sensor and 5 focus points. It was great as long as I didn’t use auto WB

Since I officially retired five years ago, after 45 years as a professional photographer, I've been through several camera systems, including Sony A7, A6000, Canon 80D, M6 mk 1 and 2, M50, plus various M43 from Lumix and olympus in between. So where have I ended up? I currently own two Olympus EM10 bodies, a mk2 and a mk3, plus various Olympus and Lumix native lenses, and some Canon EF and EF-S with Viltrox adaptors. The EM10s may only be 16mp bodies, but the results both raw and jpeg are outstanding, especially with decent glass on the front

I’ve not changed out of M4/3 to full frame but I do have a Sony A7III and a Leica Q2. It is my hobby and I enjoy a variety of cameras, my current favourite being my year old Olympus E-M1 MkII with the Panasonic 14-140 or Olympus 45mm f1.8. These last couple of days I’ve used more of the Panasonic G7 though, with the 12-32 lens making for an amazingly lightweight combo. Tomorrow I’m travelling to see some sunflowers and hope the weather is favourable. Will take the Leica, Sony and E-M1 with a small selection of lenses I think.

I find the mega pixel race on full frame cameras highly amusing. Camera club's here in the UK restrict the Projected Digital Image contest entrant to 1600 pixels wide by 1200 pixels high. That's just 2mp.. If you print your pictures for competition you're restricted to A3 size and if you want a real laugh, you can run side bets on how many seconds it takes for a visiting judge to spot you've printed an HDR image before they throw it out as looking unnatural. 4K monitors are also only 8mp. Still I'm expecting some full frame fan boys to start bragging about their 80mp sensors in the near future, by which time they'll have to conveniently ignore the fact that they will then have the same pixel size and dynamic range as my EM1 MK2. You have to laugh. The tale of the emperor's new clothes appears in many guises.

I see the Crop factor of two at the system weight, system price and system volume. So no reason to leave MFT. It's very seldom that my G9 is limiting myself from image quality side. Most times I am the limitation with my knowledge and skills as I am still an amateur photographer (and want to stay there). But I would be happy to see a G9 succssor with the GH6 sensor soon.

When sorting through my photographic equipment I would be selling, I had to decide between Sony mirrorless and Lumix. It was a hard separation process until a Chinese no-name fisheye lens fell into my hands. This had a bayonet for Sony-E and convinced me of Sony's superiority. I no longer see any reason to test the fisheye lens with MFT adaptation. But can I part with my beloved heavy Lumix GX9? Yes I can.

thats the same decision I did. for me its not the price going fullframe, its the lense size and so the weight of the complete system I will have with me.

Fully agree with your pros and cons. As a MFT user I am sometimes tempted by cameras with a larger sensor with more megapixels. But (besides disadvantages of bulk and cost) there are VERY FEW situations where I would actually need such resolution/low noise/dynamic range; in many cases, the (handheld) hi-res mode of my OM-1 does a fine job of achieving just that. While shallower depth of field is often cited as an advantage of FF, the greater depth of field of MFT (the other side of the coin) can also be regarded as an advantage in other situations. The OM-1 is a very competitive offering in the camera marketplace (with demand exceeding supply), reinforcing my reasons for sticking with MFT. If maximum image quality would be my main objective, I would seriously consider skipping full frame and going directly to medium format e.g. Fujifilm GFX 100S.

One thing you will enjoy if you return back to full frame Canon is post process dust spot removal and regular sensor cleaning……

Brian I am a Panasonic user I have a GX80 and G9, one year ago i bought a Panasonic S5 24 megapixels full frame with a 24-105 macro F4 lense and I use all three cameras, the Gx80 is with me all the time the G9 I use the most and the S5 in and among. There is not much to chose between the photographs but nice to use them all.

Size matters! Gone 4x5 for film shooting, never looked back. But for digital, I'm using an Olympus Pen F (and E-M10III) … 😁 On a more serious note, the Pen F with its 80 MP high-res mode is a perfect companion to 4x5 shooting - as a scanning device (a E-M5II would be sufficient too). I do find the GH6 interesting though, because 25 MP would be nice, an the hand-held high-res mode could be helpful at times (and reportedly Panasonic is better with moving objects than OMDS). As I'm not in the market for a new body for now (4x5 film is expensive 😉), OMDS might catch up in time when I'm actually in search for a replacement m43 camera …

Good call - I had my eye on the A7iv as an upgrade to my G85 & 7D, but the cost of the body and a modest set of lenses was going to be pretty huge and it still would have had weaknesses in video for rolling shutter and image stabilisation. Instead I found an E-M1 iii on Ebay with < 600 shutter actuations for US1000 and a great open box deal on an Oly 12-40 f/2.8. Yeah if I had unlimited funds FF would be nice, but in practice MFT just makes far more sense for me right now.

Yeah I think you nail it down with cost. In the abstract there is only improvement, but to spend 3 or 4 times the cost for equivalent features and focal length is a hard choice. But yeah if I had unlimited money, full frame.

I want to try all formats. I’m happy with LUMIX G95, but curious to try full frame. Want to buy an old used full frame camera to play with. Seems a bit heavy for hiking with to photograph birds.

I chose m43 over FF because of you and Robin Wong, Gary W. I just started shooting again after 30 year layoff from film. Thanks for all you do.#g9 #gx85

The cameras are relatively small but the lenses especially Canon are huge!

Like other posters, I'm not sure why use of FF & MFT has to be either/or. If I recall words from the late David Thorpe who said, paraphrased: Despite inherent advantages of FF, he would continue to use MFT until Panasonic introduced a FF camera with same size as G9. Well the S5 is a little smaller than the G9. Also with heavy discounts, I was able to purchase a S5 with 20-60 & 50mm f1.8 lenses--comparable size to MFT glass--for less than cost of OM1. While I will primarily use MFT gear due to size/weight/ cost, nice to know I have access to FF when image quality is premium.

That's why I bought a GX9 in 2022.

I own M43 cameras and sort of aiming for the S5II at the moment, but… medium format is always my final goal. I not that interested in the formats in between which happen to be APS-C and FF. So ideally I would be shooting M43, film and medium format.

I had both an APS-C camera (Nikon D7000 with a suite of lenses) and a FF camera (Nikon D610 with a suite of f2.8 FF lenses). I'm not getting any younger (76 this year) and was finding both those cameras getting far too heavy. It was a case of "Do I really want to lug this thing around?" Consequently, not many photos being taken. I then sat down and thought about what photography I like, what do I do with those photos and did I really need the "best" of everything. Checking my existing photos I found that I rarely used an f2.8 aperture, so why did I need f2.8 lenses? I am an amateur and will never try to be anything more. About 2 years ago I sold the D610 and its lenses. It more than paid for an Oly EM5iii with the 12-45 f4 lens the 40-150 and 75-300 plastic fantastics together with a 60mm macro. I'm a happy chappy. Camera is now always with me and really enjoying my photography. A mate recently lent me his 300 f4 prime. Yes, its better than the 75-300 but also a lot heavier. Decision made - not upgrading. Topaz suite does a marvellous job resurrecting photos. I think many people get hung up on specs (the bigger the better) rather than working out what they want to do with a camera then determining appropriate specs from that.

I have to say that as a Fuji XT2 guy here (please don't shoot!) - The colour science from Olympus straight out of the camera is very pleasing and very comparable to what I'm used to, but, and it's a huge - but - Oly' and Pana are way pricier to buy than Fuji X and many full frame systems. I can see the appeal, but I can instead have two Fuji X bodies with two lenses for the price of a single OM body/lens combo. Lovely cameras but.. It's a bit much..

Could not agree more. Perhaps take time in composition of your photo. Lumix, lightness and Leica suit me !

While I have two M4/3 camera's and 3 APSC's from Nikon, Canon and Fuji...I currently use the little Canon RP with good glass. The issue I have with my Micro 4/3rds kits is I simply cannot crop the same, the noise ceiling per ISO setting, low light ability and the pixel peeping in details. Absolutely FF wins hands down for IQ. That being said in some cases I can get great shots with my Micro 4/3rds, especially macro work.

i went fm canon 5diii to sony a7ii, a7rii and fm sony to olympus. i loved the sony sensor but never liked the feeling the camera gave me. 2 years ago i tried the e m1 ii and fell in love. two weeks ago i had the luck to buy a new used o-m1 for 1700 euros fm a lady that didnt like the camera. fm now on ill concentrate on photography not on gear, i also print up to a2+ myself and i can tell prints fm the o-m1 below iso 6400 do look grate. btw your sensor might be able to take photos with 14 or more stops of dynamic range but theres no printer that gives you more than 9 stops as highest.

I generally agree over image quality on full frame being better. However a photography tutor at a photography school took photographs for an exhibition for metre wide prints using a full frame camera Canon 5D mark IV and an Olympus EM1 mark II . The printer was told not to look at the metadata and when the prints were done the printer could not tell which photos were taken with which camera. This was not in challenging light conditions and then the full frame camera would be better than a micro four thirds camera. I have both full frame and apsc and micro four thirds. All can and are used for professional use. No one complains or anyone cares what camera has been used according to professionals using them.

Great honest video. A quick thought, using my logic, you could use some of the money you have "saved" by not buying the mirrorless full frame and lenses to buy the new OM-1 😉.

So, I have an R6, mainly for bird photography that I’ve recently gotten into. Canon’s ability to track birds was unparalleled - until the M1 came out. Now Canon has a real competitor, and I recently bought one with the Olympus 100-400 lens. Now I an equivalent to my Canon with the 800 mm f11. But I have to carry that lens in a separate bag with Tyne rest of the kit. A weighty proposition.

I changed.. I needed eye detection for pet photography.. a7iv! awesome camera.

I’m an amateur enthusiast. Had gone from the amazing Nikon D90 to the Nikon D610 with some f2.8 lenses but realised that this was a) way too big and heavy and b) too expensive for my needs. So I went to MFT and Olympus. For a while I loved it, then wondered if it was mistake - was the system about to die? Was it good enough? Well, thanks to people like you, an amazing guy called Gary W, Robin Wong, Red35 and many others, I realised that the answer lies in the lenses and that MFT has an amazing range of lenses at reasonable prices. I now have an EM5iii, quite a few lenses p, both primes and zooms. The image quality is good enough for me, and all the great Tech features on my EM5iii such as live exposure, live composite, pro capture, HDR etc make it a delight to use.

You've made me think again about switching from mft to full frame. I'd been and still am an Olympus 35mm film fan so when getting digital just continued with an M5 Mk II and now have an M1 Mk III plus 5 lenses. However, looking at the image quality which is available from the Z7 I am very tempted to change. Not yet made the change but it seems more probable than not that I will switch.