The A7C would be a better example in a way. S9 looks horrible for anything other than video as it has no rear or front dial. Correct me if I’m wrong but the only dial seems to be the circular one at the back right?
AFAIK there is a button that makes that dial perform another function when held down (the default is exposure compensation).
Many people are apparently using the S9 as an EDC camera. I imagine I would also find it OK, using the dial for aperture and the extra mode for exposure comp. But I haven’t had a chance to try it.
1 Like
Hi Tyler-
I’ve been shooting with m4/3 for over 10 years now, since I retired and sold all my ff and APS-C gear. I like the portability of the gear, especially for travel.
I think if you are looking for portrait lenses, both the 45mm f/1.8 and the 75mm f/1.8 by Olympus really stand out, especially the 75mm.
The website http://www.mu-43.com/ has quite a few galleries of images from both native and adapted lenses if you want to browse through examples of different lenses.
2 Likes
Found this 10 months old video from Evan Edinger discussing the Reject and Pay issue. It might not be relevant anymore, but helpful to understand the issue. Here are my favorite picks from the comments section:
- We value your privacy.
At £1.99 now pay up. - It went from “We value your privacy” to “We put a value on your privacy”
- “we value your privacy” taken to the extreme, yes, they are “valuating” our privacy
- 0:30 I will take option 3, closes tab
3 Likes
TBH, the way the camera market is going at the moment, I doubt that we will get back to tiny micro 4/3 bodies. The sensor does not take up that much space, but the demand for all the bells & whistles makes current cameras rather big. Also, OM system has no rangefinger models at the moment, which is unfortunate given the success of the PEN line.
But if you pair it with a lens, the advantages of micro 4/3 become apparent. Consider, for example, the A7C above: it is a marvel of engineering, but the grip is only enough for the lightest and shortest full frame E mount lenses. For most focal lengths, the micro 4/3 kit in equivalent focal length will be shorter and lighter. If you need serious tele, the advantage is even more pronounced.
The caveat is that your equivalent aperture is lost, your great f/1.7 micro 4/3 prime is a measly f/3.4 ff equivalent. If that is enough for your purposes, micro 4/3 is a great choice, if not (whether for light-gathering or for bokeh), you need to go bigger.
(The same argument applies to ff vs aps-c, adjusted appropriately)
3 Likes
I agree, but that makes me sad. When you compare the size of the two sensors, as in the picture above, there really is a big difference, and I wish that translated into significantly smaller bodies. I know there’s probably a limit to how small you want to go and keep it comfortable, but it’s an advantage of MFT that I wish they would lean into more.
Imagine if Sony put their shrinking skills into a MFT body. I wonder how small they could go. Ricoh has managed to create a truly pocketable camera with the GR series, and that’s APS-C, so we could obviously get similar sizes or even smaller with MFT. We just need OM, Panasonic or someone else to explore other form factors with micro four thirds.
1 Like
I really like the look of the OM-3 as it scratches my 70s analogue camera itch (until you look at the back) while also containing some actually quite useful sounding tech. But a smaller updated rangefinder type body would be nice. Maybe Fuji has that cornered now.
2 Likes
There’s always room for more. I love a lot of what Fuji are doing, but different brands have different strengths. Plus, Fuji always seems to have supply problems for their popular cameras, and there needs to be more price competition for them.
I too like the look of the OM-3, although the complete lack of grip might not be so comfortable. I know you can get aftermarket grips, but they tend to add extra height and bulk to the camera, which negates some of the original appeal.
1 Like
Yeah. The lack of a grip is good visually and bad ergonomically
1 Like
This article was recently published, and I wondered if anyone with greater technical knowledge than me can comment on the dynamic range graph in particular. I have seen similar graphs over at Photons to Photos that shows a clear difference in DR between the different sensor sizes - up to a stop between the smallest and largest. But the graph in this article shows hardly any differences. Similarly, the signal to noise ratio graph shows very little differences.
I don’t read this website often, but I’m wondering if it’s one of those websites designed to encourage purchases through its affiliate links, and it’s therefore not the most reliable.
1 Like
Both my gfx and my wallet are telling me that article is wrong! 
4 Likes
-
They didn’t even do the tests themselves it seems. The image credits are for something called “Future”
-
They didn’t describe what they are testing, what the methodology is, etc.
-
They didn’t describe or analyze the differences in the context of the measurements. For example, is a 0.5 difference in their measurements meaningful?
After all, they just squished their graph so that the differences look small relative to the scale.
They also claimed there is a minimal difference in signal to noise ratio between sensor sizes, but that’s clearly false in the case where you move in to get the same framing, and they don’t again state what they are testing.
In my mind, the article is absolute rubbish. The x-axes aren’t even labelled. Glancing at the other articles there, it seems like the site is full of low-quality junk, probably generated by AI.
4 Likes
I enjoyed this snarky, but positive look at m43.
2 Likes
There is no escaping the fact that a FF sensor has 4 times the area of a micro 4/3 sensor. With the similar sensor technology, that gives you an extra 2 stops of DR.
Noise and DR (which are two sides of the same coin) in modern sensors are now very close to the theoretical limits of what you can do with a Bayer sensor. Most sensors (of the same size) released 5 years ago are as good in this aspect a the latest ones. Currently, sensors compete on readout speed, for e-shutter and video, and are even willing to sacrifice DR for this purpose.
The key question is whether you need that extra stop or two of DR. This depends on what you shoot, but in practice I think the answer is no for most people. Film has a practical dynamic range of 8–10 stops, this has not stopped photographers from taking great photos.
I think that Photons to Photos has done enormous harm to digital photography: instead of going out there taking photos, people discuss curves that are irrelevant for 99% of photographers these days, dissing cameras that would be just fine for their purposes.
3 Likes
This is true but we have to take into account that film doesn’t look really bad when you overexpose highlights. Digital can look fine too if you apply some diffusion and work around it, but not many do.
1 Like
True, but in film photography, you expose for the shadows/midtones, in digital you expose for the highlights you want to keep. It just requires a different approach, you end up with the similar results.
2 Likes
I find it interesting that Lumix produce both 4/3 and full frame cameras. They at least seem to see value in both.
2 Likes
Most camera brands keep at least two sensor sizes around. Fujifilm has APS-C and medium format, Sony, Nikon, Canon, Leica have APS-C and full frame.
I think that APS-C and full frame are so darn close these days that it makes little sense to differentiate them. What happens with some camera makers is that they keep the APS-C lens line very limited, pushing customers to full frame. But then again Sony has a decent lens line for APS-C.
Nikon used to have a wonderful 1" MILC line. I think that it was implicitly killed by the attitude that focused on numbers, not photography.
3 Likes
This is a big reason I’m looking for something besides Canon. I love my R10 in a vacuum. It’s comfortable, it’s fast and easy to use. But I have three lenses for it (the kit zoom, the 35mm prime, and a Laowa macro) and there’s not much else I’d be interested in getting. The 16/28/50mm primes are cheap and small, but also not focal lengths I want and reviews are middling. Most everything else is big and expensive, and still not really focal lengths I’m interested in.
2 Likes