I’m a happy owner of the Nikon Z50 crop sensor mirrorless. But for my job I’ve acquired an OM 1 MkII mirrorless. It’s a very impressive camera, and it’s got me considering switching my personal kit to M43 now.
The advantages for me include: stabilization (which I’ve discovered is a wonder for macro shooting on OM), computational features (image stacking particularly, but also pixel shift, built-in neutral density…), weather sealing, great depth of field, and a nice small package.
Theoretically, the increase in noise, reduced low-light performance of m43, and inability to get shallow depth of field are the big drawbacks. But since I’m already quite happy with the crop sensor on my entry-level Z50, maybe this isn’t a real problem? Does anyone have experience with both newish crop sensors and newish m43 sensors - what do you think about this? Are these issues going to be noticeable on a 8x12 print?
For context, I shoot mostly travel, family, macro, landscapes & streetscapes. Fast action and (non-macro) wildlife aren’t really my thing.
I have a Sigma 1.7 crop Foveon and a Lumix DC-G9 µ4/3, but the Sigma is not “newish”.
In terms of detail, the Sigma is sharper than the Lumix but only on a “per pixel” basis. On the basis of image plane cycles per mm, the Lumix is better but not by as much as one would think - bearing in mind 21MP versus 3.4MP.
I use all three formats: full-frame, APS-C, and micro four thirds. The difference between APS-C and micro four thirds is not huge. If you have enough light, you can easily make an 8x12 print from any format, no problem at all. Micro four thirds is also great for macro because in good light and with good technique, the extra pixel density comes in handy and the macro lenses are compact.
Main thing IMO is the lens selection and as you said, it’s much easier to get shallow depth of field on full-frame, with a cheap lens like a 50mm f/1.8, and there are plenty of those. But you can also get an f/1.4 or f/1.2 prime for micro four thirds and still make really nice portraits if you’re into the shallow depth of field thing at all.
The only thing you’re really going to miss if you switch to m4/3 is the Nikon Z lenses, but it sounds like there aren’t any speciality ones in that lineup that you really want.
At that size, I wouldn’t think it matters at all. I don’t have an M43 sensor, but I don’t have any noise concerns at all with my APS-C sensor (X-T5), and I’ve heard from M43 users that they don’t find a huge difference between APS-C and M43.
I say, just go for what feels fun and comfortable, and don’t worry too much about the sensor performance. The extra DOF at wider apertures with M43 will help with your macro work, and it will be great for your other genres too.
I guess not. The crop factor of micro 4/3 relative to APS-C is 2 / 1.6 = 1.25, which would be hard to notice in practice.
I don’t think so. The OM-1 20Mp sensor is 5184 x 3888 pixels, which gives you a 17.28’’ x 12.96’’ print at 300dpi. (Note that even 200dpi is fine for most prints, especially if large). So you even have room to crop.
Personally I love micro 4/3, it made me carry a camera again. I even do low-light event photography with f/1.7 primes, it is fine up to ISO 6400. I think that sensor noise and DR has topped out years ago, so the current vintage of sensors compete on readout speed, such as the stacked sensors in OM-3 and OM-1.
The weak point of micro 4/3 used to be AF, that is fixed now too. That said, if you don’t need the latest AI-driven AF, older micro 4/3 bodies are fine too, especially for travel, landscape & street photos.
Another thing is that M4/3 is not that much taller than aps-c. Like Tamas said the crop factor from aps-c to M4/3 is small so the pixel density is almost the same. At most you are trading out some side resolution which might not be a problem if you enjoy the 4:3 aspect ratio. Knowing what I know now I would probably have started with Olympus and two expensive zooms + macro and telephoto, complementing it with a full frame for portraits and such in the rare occasions that I photograph people.
It is only slightly larger than half the Z50 sensor if you count the sides like I mentioned in my post.
“At most you are trading out some side resolution which might not be a problem if you enjoy the 4:3 aspect ratio.”
As we can see it is only 2.7mm taller than the APS-C sensor. It’s a drop in a bucket compared to the APS-C sensor being 8.2mm smaller than a full frame sensor in height.
Have you tried the Olympus 45mm f/1.8? Its background blur is of course not comparable to full frame, but the rendering is simply beautiful and I find it sufficient. It is my favorite classic portrait lens on micro 4/3.
Nope, I have never tried any 4/3 camera I looked at some demo pictures and it looks quite alright. Even my XF 70-300 at 70f4 can get quite good results in some scenes
I would base my decision on the typical apertures I use (full-frame equivalent). You can review your favorite photos you made in the past to figure this out.
For example, during daylight I generally stick to f/4–f/6.3 for street & travel photos I make outdoors on micro 4/3. Typically, f/6.3 is my “make everything sharp” aperture (depending on focal length, of course; on a wide lens I can go wider). f/4 blurs the background just a bit but keeps the context. I rarely, if ever, go down to f/2.8 or f/1.7 even if I am using a lens that allows it.
I typically shoot during the day using a zoom lens, so I would be happy with a f/8 lens on full frame. But of course those do not exist, so on full frame I would be carrying extra bulk for nothing. I could get a cheapo kit lens, but those sacrifice on image quality. My best option to minimize the weight of my kit with this constraint is to get an f/4 micro 4/3 lens. This is where crop sensors are really advantageous.
Of course if you are shooting a lot in the dark and/or want very shallow DOF, the exact opposite reasoning applies.
Since you have both cameras to try, have you done any comparisons between the two in tricky and/or typical conditions? It sounds like you have the option to do direct comparisons, which is really useful and not always possible when looking to buy a new camera.
Just remember that 100% pixel peeping is not indicative of usual viewing conditions, so don’t put too much weight on that.
But my advice remains to choose the camera that makes you want to go out and shoot as often as possible. To me, that’s far more important than sensor performance. I love my X-T5 and I think APS-C is a sweet spot for quality/size/price. BUT… it’s still not a pocketable camera, so I don’t always take it with me. That’s why I’m considering getting a Ricoh GRIV.
Also, why not try and get a used Oly/OM camera as your second camera and keep both for a while? You can then sell the one you use least later on once you’ve decided which you prefer.
I’ve been thinking about this. I like to have moderately shallow depth of field. I find FF f/1.4 or f/1.2 looks too blurry and unnatural. My favourite ‘bokeh’ images are shot with my 40mm at f/2 (i.e., 60mm f/3 ff equivalent), or my 24 mm at f1.7 or 2. I’ve been happy with my standard zoom, 16-50 f/3.5-f/6.3, but often wish it were a bit wider. Which, now that I think about it, f/6.3 on my apsc kit zoom is actually a larger effective DOF than I’d get on a f/4 m43 lens.
I don’t always want shallow shots, I do a lot in the f/4-f/8 range. For those i don’t think there’s much difference between the sensors.
So maybe a 17mm f1.8 and a 12-40 f/4 zoom on m43 would get me something pretty close to what I have now in terms of DOF.
I’m thinking about this. The problem is for the work camera I only have the 90mm macro lens, which is hard to compare to my 24 f1.7 or 40 f2. But if I could get my hands on an equivalent m43 lens I could test it out myself.
Yes, pretty much. To elaborate: the larger the aperture, the larger the lens, usually, but diminishing returns kick in around f/5-ish, so an f/8 lens is not going to be much smaller than a f/4 lens, so generally they are not manufactured, especially in this day and age of people buying lenses based on specs on paper, not use cases. For normal focal ranges, lenses that start above f/5 are toys, eg the Panasonic 26mm f/8.
If I am OK with f/8 (FF equivalent), micro 4/3 is going to give me the smallest kit, with a micro 4/3 f/4 zoom lens. In the micro 4/3 lineup, I can get optically excellent, light lenses at f/4.
For someone who wants f/6.3 (FF eq), APS-C makes a lot of sense because they can get a compact, good quality f/4 zoom lens for most mounts, at least Sony and Fujifilm.
That said, I have done entire trips with a single nifty fifty, the Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 and made a lot of memorable photos. If I have time for composition I don’t need a zoom that much, and I can use a single lens for street, also at night.
I looked at some demo pictures and it looks quite alright. Even my XF 70-300 at 70f4 can get quite good results in some scenes