I have an OM1ii and took it on a trip to Arctic Norway. I also have a Z8 so it was a bit of an experiment to see if I came back with photos I was happy with. I have to say I was very surprised at how good the results were. On one occasion I sat next to my mate who was shooting with a Sony A7R6 and we compared images as close as we could and the difference was really minimal. Maybe for other scenes it would have been a different story, but in those cases it was hard to pick which was the FF camera. I’ve subsequently compared with my Z8 and again the differences are small. They are “different” rather than one “better” than the other. Regarding the Z50, one issue I think is that it only has one memory card slot. I like to have 2 for backup purposes. I’ve only ever had one memory card fail, but you never know when it’s going to happen.
I’ve rented cameras a few times in the past to try before I buy, or while waiting for a new model to come out that might have significant advantages to what I currently had. I’ve found it worth the money.
Yes, absolutely, and I actually came to the same conclusions myself over the last few days. Plus, I can move from the X-T5 to an X-S20/X-T50/X-E5 and make weight savings on the body too.
So, I could absolutely stay with the Fuji ecosystem, keep some of my lenses, and get a more compact kit.
The M4/3 ecosystem is definitely appealing in many ways, and I think one of the main reasons the idea has really grown on me is because my X-T5 got damaged recently (from very light wear&tear), and I liked the fact that OM System go to the bother of getting an IP rating on their gear.
But I do have reservations about moving to the ecosystem, not least because the two manufacturers are being very slow to innovate and introduce new models, especially Panasonic who seem only to be interested in full frame these days and view their M4/3 line as video-centric.
I know that the ecosystem is already mature and has great options, but I like to think that a system I invest in is thriving and will continue to introduce innovations. I hope it happens with M4/3, and perhaps it will, but it’s all a bit slow and uninspiring at the moment…
I haven’t checked all options yet (and not fully decided on the focal length), but the 20mm f1.7 is on my potential wish list to accompany the 14-42 zoom. I’m not in the US, thought, but good to hear that you liked the lens.
Yes and no, depending on the person and potential evolving priorities. I’m averagely experienced (whatever that means!), certainly no beginner, but my priorities and genres have changed somewhat with age. So I’m now caring more about size, weight and durability, while keeping some of the features I’ve grown accustomed to. So there’s an element of shopping around again to see the former dismissed options in a new light.
And I still have a hard time narrowing it down to 1 or 2 because I want to tick lots of boxes with a limited budget. My ideal camera doesn’t yet exist, so it’s all an exercise in prioritizing and making compromises, something I’m not expert at, I admit.
But, to be honest, a lot of my current deliberations are just theoretical and working through my bout of GAS. I’m not in urgent need of a new camera, and if I do buy one soon, it will probably be a $400 old model from ebay just for fun.
Some excellent shots there, great album!
I think it is important to realize that manufacturers could axe any mount format without prior notice, from one day to the next (Nikon 1, Samsung, …). Or just let it languish without new models (Pentax). We have no control over this and it is impossible to predict, also, the used market will provide lenses and bodies for decades. So I would just base my choices on what’s available now, instead of expectations.
That said, I think that the micro 4/3 lineup is doing OK. Lens selection is among the best compared to other mounts. When it comes to bodies, what I expect from a lineup is an entry-level body, an enthusiast , and a pro camera. OM System has OM-5ii, OM-3, and OM-1ii, Panasonic has G100D and G9ii in their photo-centric lines, but is missing the mid-tier/enthusiast model. I hope they will come up with one soon.
What micro 4/3 enthusiasts are clamoring for is a small body that has all the bells and whistles. This used to be one of the key advantages of micro 4/3, but it is unclear to me how feasible it is, having top-tier IBIS, weather sealing, AI-based AF in a tiny package may be tricky. My perception is that, having realized this, both manufacturers are repositioning their micro 4/3 line: Panasonic is focusing on video, while OM System on weather sealed cameras for sustained outdoor use.
Pretty much describes the Canon R7, though.
Note that the micro 4/3 crowd has a different concept of “tiny” 
Also, “weather sealing” is not specifically mentioned in the EOS R7 specs. Compared to what OM System provides (an actual IP rating), it is a marketing term.
Tbf the more rugged OM system cameras are almost as big as the R7 
The mount and lenses are smaller of course, unless we go for equivalence.
Edit: Quite sad how expensive all ragefinder cameras have become. Even a used 10 year old DMC-GM5 is 500€ or more, when a Z6 is only 250€ more at 750€. Fuji is even worse, the once affordable X-EX are so expensive now…
I was checking a used m4/3 camera for my sister but it seems like the whole market is up. And getting a used Fuji so I could give her one of my lenses is even worse.
Yes, that’s main gripe of all micro 4/3 fans, as I was mentioning above. The problem seems to be that we want to have it all, in a tiny package, like the GM5 or something like the GX80 or the PEN-F, and that may not be possible.
I do not envy OM System or Panasonic. “Give us a camera that is tiny (like your cameras in the past), does everything that the current lineup can do, and is weather sealed to boot. And then we will complain that it is too expensive.”
Interesting! I was going to counter that it doesn’t do in-camera focus stacking, but it does that too! Looks very similar to OM, and with a few nice additions (e.g., setting a new folder for a stack of images):
Price and body size looks only slightly higher/larger than the OM 5. It doesn’t have the variety of lenses available for OM, but it does a bit better than Nikon Z.
The difference is that you cannot use a flash with the in-camera focus stacking function with the R7 as far as I know.
oh, that would be a challenge!
The R7 mk II is rumored to be announced soon, so a new crop of people can be mad and/or excited about something soon.
The R10 can do focus stacking in the same way, but I’ve only tried it once or twice. I’ve also tried, with mixed results, doing it manually with a flash by shooting in burst mode and manually moving the camera. I don’t know if it’s the camera or the flash at fault, but I’ve found that the flash can’t keep up and doesn’t fire on all the shots.
But I think one model in each tier is very limited in terms of choice. Plus, they’re all basically the same form factor. So, if you like the rangefinder style, like I do, you’re out of luck. Considering we have two manufacturers making models for the same system, the choice is too limited in my opinion. Yes, I’m being a demanding consumer, but I’m not going to feel sorry for a multinational company making more money than I can ever dream of 
Sony managed to cram most of this into a FF camera with the A7C, and Panasonic has already shown it can make small rangefinder style bodies. Maybe if they didn’t focus so much on video, they could get rid of the fan and keep things small? I know compromises need to be made, and manufacturers can’t keep everyone happy all of the time, but it’s not like they are sitting in a room sweating over how to surmount these challenges and please their customers. There’s a bean counter telling them where to spend their money, and they are choosing to put it into full frame where they see the most growth potential.
My suspicion (based on no metrics) is that M4/3 is struggling to attract new users. It has a healthy existing user base but is not really gaining market share. I think this is because the manufacturers are not selling its strengths to counter the marketing of FF. OM System is focusing on the rugged/outdoor appeal, while Panasonic is touting its strengths for video.
I don’t think these are particularly bad strategies, per se, but why not also focus on the compact strengths of M4/3? I think this is what users really want, as you pointed out. Yes, it’s hard to make a compact model with all the bells and whistles, but I’m sure they can get close if they make a few compromises with some models. The OM-5ii and G100 are already good sizes, so maybe they can iterate on this size with different form factors and layouts?
Yes! This has been my experience too, and it’s because some of the manufacturers who made them have stopped or slowed down (Panasonic, Oly), and the newer ones are now trendy lifestyle cameras (Fuji). Sony’s a6XXX line is also just expensive because it’s Sony.
It seems to me that it’s a big market gap waiting to be filled. I think Panasonic made a mistake by not continuing in this direction with their M4/3 lines like the GM and GX. Their old bodies are still highly valued in the used market simply because they’re so hard to find nowadays. Newer models would alleviate that pressure, but only Fuji are really filling that gap.
Possibly, but these days that’s pretty much what you are going to get for each mount/sensor size these days. Eg Canon’s APS-C line is the R50, R10, R7 (plus the the R100, of course). Nikon has the Z50, Z30, Zfc in APS-C. Fuji is the exception that keeps a lot of cameras around, kudos to them. Full frame lines have a bit more models, but not excessively so.
At least some very vocal users want this, yes. I don’t know if market surveys support the concept. And then it takes years to develop a new body.
Let’s see what happens, I would really like to see one but I don’t have a lot of hope for compact micro 4/3 these days, because anything below flagship specs gets dissed by reviewers instantly (with a few exceptions).
True, and I also have beefs with these other manufacturers for only making a token effort in crop sensor formats. It’s quite obvious, especially in the case of Canon (Nikon to a lesser extent), that they see APS-C as a gateway to their FF lineup, instead of touting its standalone benefits.
I’m not naive in that I know this is just capitalism at work, and they want to maximize profits. But as a consumer, I find it annoying because it’s often at odds with what we want and need.
It’s all down to marketing really. I’m not convinced at all that FF is the “better” format. Sure, it is in some areas, but not in others, and a huge part of the photographic community does not need it. But the marketing for FF has been very effective, and when the manufacturers put all their best tech into those models, consumers will crave it and aspire to owning one.
I was listening to the Petapixel podcast the other day, and the owner of the Camera Store in Calgary mentioned that M4/3 was “getting killed” in terms of sales. His take was that Sony has done such a good job “telling the full-frame story” and that M4/3 has not done a good job at countering that. He also thinks Panasonic and OM System are not doing a good job at jointly communicating about the format.
It will be a sad day if the format dies. I don’t necessarily think it will, but it might become even more niche. Even though I’m not invested in it (yet), I still want it to thrive. Full frame is well established, and it’s great that we have it. But we also need options, especially when it comes to portability. I’m frankly surprised that more people aren’t so bothered about the size of full frame. Judging by online comments, it’s as if no one cares about the size of FF lenses. And here I am thinking you can get comparable quality while being 2/3rds the size. Who wouldn’t want that?
M4/3 lenses are as big as full frame lenses once you go for equivalent aperture. Full frame also has small lenses of you go for f > 3