I am strongly considering the OM-5 mk II. It would be a pretty big upgrade from my Lumix GX7 (which I’ve posted about before why I don’t love it…) and it’s not that much bigger and almost the same weight. Compared to my Canon R10 the OM-5 would be a little smaller, but not much lighter, though my lenses are much smaller than the lenses I have for my R10.
The big thing is that since I do so much macro photography, this would be an inroad to trying macro out on micro four thirds. The M.Zuiko 60mm macro isn’t super expensive and would give me similar or better features and more reach than the Laowa lens I’m using on my R10.
This post is basically just me justifying my own GAS but I’ve spent a considerable amount of time reasoning it out in my head…
Just to play devil’s advocate: if you’re OK with losing a stop of light and some tele (going from the APS-C 16-80 f/4 to the M43 12-45 f/4), you could swap your 16-80 for the 16-50 f/2.8-4.8.
Compared to your current lens, this will save you 200g and some length. And it’s an internal zoom. And all the while, losing less light (in equivalent terms), and not having to buy/learn a new camera system.
I’ve been playing this comparison game, too. M43 is quite seductive. But at the end of the day, these camera systems are much more alike than they’re different. We’re fooling ourselves if we’re expecting significantly different experiences from a few grams here, a few megapixels there.
Of course, playing with a new camera system is part of the fun. But it took me so many years and Euros finding a few lenses whose rendering I enjoy; repeating that process on a new system is just not worth it. For me at least. Plus, OM lenses zoom the wrong way. Counter-clockwise! That’s just wrong. (I’m kidding).
I like an unobtrusive bokeh with little outlining, no color fringing, and little cat’s eye. I don’t go for deeply out of focus backgrounds, but do like a bit of blur to guide the eye. I don’t care much about resolution. But I like the sun in the frame, so flare and glare should be controlled, and sun-stars are a nice bonus.
I loved the Sony RX1’s 35/2. The Fuji XF 23 f/1.4 R LM WR comes very close, and is my favorite prime in Fuji. (The 23/1.4 R has a bit more color fringing, the 23/2 is soft up close and too swirly, the Viltrox 23/1.4 focuses poorly and has a color cast and cat’s eye, the 27/2.8 has some outlining at certain distances. 60/2.4 is great but slow, the 18/2 is nice but fringes, the 35/1.4 fringes a lot. The 14/2.8 is good, but too wide.) The Ricoh GR III’s lens is great, too, but at 18/2.8, blur potential is limited.
In terms of zooms, I like the XF 16-80 f/4 R OIS WR. It has a surprisingly pleasant bokeh, especially towards the long end. Resolution could be better in the 16mm corners, and there’s quite a bit of distortion. But I prefer its rendering over the 16-55/2.8 and 18-55/2.8-4, which both have much more outlining. (The 70-300 can look great, but some conditions look too hazy for my liking, the 18-135 has some unpleasant color fringes. The 15-45 is nice, but I don’t like the PZ. The old 16-50/3.5-5.6 fringes a whole lot. The 50-230 is pleasant if basic.)
As you can tell, I’ve tried a whole lot of Fuji lenses. I’ve had each of these for a few months, and slowly figured out what I like and don’t like. It was a slow, iterative process that took many years. Thankfully, buying and selling used meant I didn’t lose much money doing this. But that’s why I find the thought of trying out a different camera system daunting. Going through this process again, just to end up in -presumably- a similar place, that’s just not worth the effort to me.
Indeed, this drives me a bit crazy with my new Olympus :D.
Sigma does the same, though, at least on the one I own (which makes it even worse when switching lenses).
I understand this, but I also think that with what you have learned in the process doing it for the first time, figuring out another system would be much easier. Not saying that you should though.
Another advantage of primes is that you don’t have to worry about this
Counterpoint: There could be an entire life of happiness and excitement hidden away and waiting to be unlocked by purchasing just the right piece of gear. You’ll never know if that one piece of gear is what magically changes everything unless you buy now.
If anyone is or is going to get into MFT, I have an oly 30mm macro and a Panasonic 20 mm f/17 that are sitting around and can be had for a marginal price (so long as you’re in the US).
I shot a vacation in Mexico on the 20mm f1/7 on a Yi M1 and found it to be a nice lens, sharp, contasty, I enjoyed it, but no longer have the Yi M1.
I’ve been there. I’ve done that. Turns out, most cameras are just lightsealed boxes with a sensor inside.
I kid. Of course you should try things. Especially in the beginning, you should cast a wide net and try all the things! It’s good fun, and very instructive. But once you commit, there’s little point in switching.
Come to think of it, camera choice is not entirely unlike choosing a partner. Don’t marry the first one you go to bed with. But once you do commit, divorce is extremely costly.
For me, the availability of a compact macro lens (with autofocus) for insect photography is the most important factor when choosing a camera system.
And there are only two real options at the moment:
M.Zuiko 60mm f/2.8 Macro (Micro Four Thirds)
Panasonic S 100mm f/2.8 Macro (L-Mount)
Since 2019, I’ve been very happy with this setup:
Panasonic GX9
Panasonic Leica 15mm f/1.7
M.Zuiko 60mm f/2.8 Macro
Panasonic Lumix 12–60mm f/3.5–5.6
If I were starting from scratch today, I’d probably go for:
Panasonic S5 II
Panasonic S 100mm f/2.8 Macro
Panasonic S 24–60mm f/2.8 or S 35mm f/1.8 or Sigma 35mm f2?
It’s just a piece of technology, there is no magic involved.
An experienced user more or less knows what kind of gear they are looking for, so that they can narrow it down to a couple of choices based on specs, explore those in depth, and pick the one that they like best.
Magical thinking enters when there is insufficient understanding. Marketing thrives on this. It is very telling how much online discussion is focused on camera bodies, and how little on lenses, in comparison (this topic is a refreshing exception).
Similarly, people who actually take photos with their cameras are very focused on bulk/weight, because that is an immediate practical concern, while people with magical thinking focus more on specs, like pixel count, maximum aperture, or MFT charts. For the latter, the appeal of micro 4/3 or cameras like the Ricoh GR series is a complete mystery.
Yep, selling the idea of a magic tool is just mindless consumerism. Many musicians started out with crappy instruments that then became the only tool they could use, and a “magic” tool at that.
What magically changes everything is thousands of hours practicing your craft
I get finding a lens you like, since you really can’t nudge different focal lengths out of a prime lens, but camera bodies are so similar nowadays that rotating between dozens of them makes no sense.
I generally agree with the sentiment that gear doesn’t matter, in most cases. Certainly, I’ve been delighted with my ‘entry-level’ crop sensor mirrorless in the five years I’ve had it. The number of ‘failed shots’ I’ve had that would be successes if only I’d had a ‘better’ camera are tiny. I can only think of a handful in 30,000 plus exposures with that system.
That said, when I saw what was possible with the computational features on the OM MKII, particularly with focus stacking, I was blown away. I’ve just finished compiling my macro/close-up shots from my trip to Labrador, and it includes quite a lot of shots that a) would have been effectively impossible with the Nikon Z system, and b) some of which are among the best I’ve ever made in this genre. The combination of stellar IBIS and very intuitive image stacking/bracketing made it possible to make hand-held shots in seconds that would have taken minutes if I’d needed a tripod and manually shifting focus between each shot.
All of which to agree with what has been said above. For general purpose photography, I think any relatively recent camera system would suit me just fine in terms of specs. But in this particular case, M43 has huge advantages.
I’ve been seriously considering picking up an Olympus to carry with me so I can shoot landscape and people while I’m out there with my long telephoto setup on the Canon R7. While a full frame camera might be nice for low light and wider FOV, I think a more compact and lightweight system will work better for me as opposed to lugging around all that extra weight.
Plus my friends who are heavily into macro have excellent results with the Olympus set up. It’s compact and maneuverable, and their line of macro lenses are outstanding. My R7 also supports in-camera focus stacking and the system works pretty well, but it disables the flash and limits my options for macro work.
It was definitely sarcastic but I appreciate the replies
I do think gear matters, but not necessarily in terms of tech specs (though in some cases, e.g. macro, they absolutely do matter). How it feels in your hand, size and weight, how it’s perceived by others, these are all things that could matter a great deal.
Unfortunately being able to put your hands on a camera before buying is not always easy, at least here in the US, so buying decisions are more heavily influenced by tech specs and marketing / review hype.
