I have a Canon G16 which I love for my small camera and it does have surprisingly good image quality for a compact camera. Of all the cameras I own this would be my irreplaceable camera as it only had a short production run.
Based on the following section of this video, it looks like the micro four thirds G9ii performs better at shadow recovery than the R7 or the XH2 (though the original OM-1 mk1 performs the worst of those tested, likely because of its stacked sensor so there are dynamic range trade offs in exchange for faster readout speeds useful in wildlife photography, which seems to be its target market):
The G9ii does perform slightly worse than the R7 and XH2 at high ISOs (see following chapter of the video), though I would say that ISO levels are just whatever the manufacturer says they are and aren’t fully comparable across brands because of the different architecture and gain being applied on different sensors:
I tested the shadow recovery of the G9ii vs the original G9 at low ISOs and it fit with the observations above, with less magenta shift and better colour retention, fwiw.
Anyway, obviously I own the camera, so I’m talking my own book and scepticism is advised.
1 Like
I have always leaned strongly to FF cameras, and I don’t watch camera reviews on YT. I am a not very serious amateur. I enjoy shooting with my son’s D-750. My last “real” camera was a Nikon FA from back in the 80s.
1 Like
Compete with who (or what). You buy the camera that fits your needs, just like you choose the software that fit your needs.
When I was an active pro photographer, I used what I had to to get the job done. Over more than 50 years, no manufacturers went out of business that I can remember. I had Canon, Nikon, Leica, Rollie, Bronica, Sinar, Toyo, and probably a few I’ve forgotten. As technology changed, and my needs changed, so did my equipment purchases.
Since retiring in 2015, and selling all my Canon DSLR gear, I’ve been using Olympus cameras. I have found them to be affordable, versatile, and dependable. They have a great range of lenses, third party optics are also available, and for the most part they are priced competitively. The image quality is fine for my uses, which includes online publishing, small books, and the occasional 16x20 or 20x24 print.
If I were shooting sports, low light events, or another specialty niche, I might consider a different set of gear.
To me, the biggest advantage offered by the Olympus system is portability. I recently took a two week trip around Spain by rail, and my kit weighed under five pounds. It included an Olympus OMD1, 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, a 40-150mm f/4-5.6 lens, and a 9mm body cap fisheye. It did everything I needed, and I was happy with the images. Because the gear was so light, I always had it with me, and got shots I wouldn’t if I had a heavier, less portable kit.
(here’s a breakdown)
Like any tool purchase, define your needs and pick your tools. Don’t get hung up in the spec’s or reviews. And go out and make some photos!
10 Likes
This is my exact experience. I travel with the 12-60 2.8-4.0 and a prime for night shots.
2 Likes
Great points. I got out of SLR photography because I became weary of lugging all the equipment around. I remember thinking, “I am ruining my vacations, because I have become a slave to my camera.” I now shoot mostly with an iPhone 13 Pro Max.
2 Likes
Totally this. If I had to carry even just a FF Canon and a 24-105 on a city walkabout, I wouldn’t have half as many pictures, let alone when I’m hiking up a mountain, when I can easily carry up to 400mm equivalent or more of reach with m4/3.
2 Likes
The lens mount is open to third parties—arguably more so than most other mounts in fact. Micro 4/3 is a standard rather than being proprietary such as the Canon or Nikon mounts. Indeed, Sigma has made Micro 4/3 lenses in the past.
As I said before the current lens line-up is comprehensive. Moreover, the lenses are not overly expensive new and many used examples are available. Unless you are doing a lot of low light work or really need a shallow depth of field the system has a lot to offer.
Regards, Freddie.
2 Likes
I think the pricing on the Oly lenses is very competitive, and there are so many good ones to choose from. I had a 40-150 f/4-5.6 that had been sitting on a shelf for at least 10 years, totally forgot about it. I got it for around $50. I’ll never leave home without it anymore. It’s incredibly sharp, weighs nothing, very small. Even if it’s plastic, it’s a great piece of gear.
2 Likes
You’re right, poor wording on my part. My point just being that most of the 3rd party manufacturers are ignoring micro 4/3. Sigma has recently said they won’t make any more.
Yes, of course, completely agree, you should buy the camera that meets your needs. But that’s not what I started the discussion about. I really like Olympus cameras, but I’m unsure about the future of micro 4/3. I’m wondering what others think and whether OM System needs to restrategize to compete more strongly with the likes of Fuji, Nikon, Canon, etc.
1 Like
They’ve been competing successfully for years. They have a well defined niche. People have been calling m4/3 dead for years. It hasn’t happened. As long as people buy their product, they’ll be around. If not, well it was a good run. If you are considering whether to buy in or not, that’s a risk assessment only you can make. There are no guarantees with any purchase.
2 Likes
You owning the camera gives your view more authority than my view as a casual observer. I would hate to see the 4/3 sensor disappear into history as it has a deserved place in the market. Maybe when my beloved Canon G16 compact dies a small pocket size 4/3 sensor camera will fit the bill for my needs when I do street photography in my travels.
1 Like
Ha. Well, maybe. Yes, it would be a shame.
The flipside of this is that the micro 3/4 lens line is the most complete, when compared to other mounts in current production. There is usually a decent quality AF lens made by Panasonic and OM System for pretty much every focal length or zoom range, usually at competitive prices (especially if you buy used).
Yes, some designs could use a refresh (like the focus motor of the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 pancake), but optically they are still great. And there are the Pro lines from OM and the Leica designs from Panasonic, still at competitive prices.
But for lens manufacturers, this is a saturated market. It makes sense that they focus their efforts elsewhere.
I think market forces are favorable for micro 4/3. First, the lens lines are mostly complete: they have invested the R&D, and can just keep on manufacturing them with minor updates and the occasional new lens. The mount is well-designed and can support lenses well into the future.
Also, for manufacturers that make full-frame cameras, crop sensor has always been less of a priority because it competes with the high-margin full frame lines. You can see this with Nikon and Canon especially, with the relatively thin APS-C lens selection. Sure, Panasonic has also been focusing on full frame recently, but Fujifilm and OM System do not have the incentives to hold features back from their crop sensor lines.
What micro 4/3 was a bit late with is PDAF, recently it has been integrated into flagships and hopefully it will trickle down to “enthusiast” bodies. That said, the low-margin entry level bodies are disappearing and most manufacturers keep the midrange only.
Compared to full frame you lose 2 stops, there is nothing you can do about that. ML-based noise reduction engines are amazing these days, but if your limit is 32k ISO with full frame, you get about 8k on micro 4/3.
Micro 4/3 (and all sensors sizes) are trade-offs between size, cost, and bokeh & low light performance. The applications determine the solution, but it is my impression that 6400 ISO is pretty decent these days on micro 4/3 for A4-size prints and you rarely ever need more in contexts where the human eye can discern detail (I shoot low-light events with my GX9 using f/1.7 primes, and they are fine).
I am optimistic about the future of micro 4/3. They have carved out a niche, and they (especially OM System) are sticking to it. Despite the recent revival, the digital camera market will never be what it used to be in its golden days. No single camera can please everyone, and OM System is catering to users who value lighter, weatherproof gear and computational features. No one else is doing this (to this extent).
Frankly, for a while I was more worried about Panasonic, then they came out with the GH7 and the G9ii. I still think they are focusing on video or at best hybrid cameras, but that may be OK as those are very capable stills cameras too. I would love to see a smaller form factor stills-focused camera from Panasonic again.
4 Likes
This is a Fuji X camera and nothing like a GR. I my view what makes the GR is the handling, looks and use case. The wide* fixed lens and the lack of viewfinder enables photos I never take with any other camera.
The packade is what makes that camera. A very delicate balance of stuff imho.
/* I don’t believe in the 40mm GR as it requires you to compose in a different way, but I may be wrong as I haven’t tried it.
On a fullframe sensor you would need to stop down anyway in order to get eqival. dof. In quite a lot of situations resulting image qualities of those two so differently sized sensors match.
2 Likes
- Add 4K 120p video (H265/H264) in OM-1。No need to focus on video like Lumix, but for those who are 90% taking photos; 10% videos. Sometimes it is necessary to shoot in slow motion.
- Lowering the selling price makes more people willing to join the system. For me, OM-3 should be $1300, OM-1II should be $1600.
- Really miniaturized body such as GM5. No need for stacked sensors, no need for fast bursts of shooting. Beautiful appearance, flip screen, IBIS, film simulation. Under $1000.
… and modify the ugly OM SYSTEM logo.
This is a point which I think is often overlooked. If you are shooting a full frame camera at F5.6~F8 it is quite likely you can get a similar result with a much smaller and less expensive Micro 43 setup. Sure it might not be as sharp (lower pixel count sensors and shooting wide open vs. stopped down a little on full frame) but still close.
I think the big test for the system going forwards will be the introduction of 8K video. This will of course require a big bump in resolution and processing capabilities and will stress some of the older lenses. The question is do we see this in ~2 years or ~5 years? A some level you can make the argument that the adoption of 8K has been slow so far as video distribution is concerned but, at the same time, even for a 4K production the ability to crop in post may be desirable.
Regards, Freddie.
1 Like
I guess phones like this Xiaomi “Leica” one might start eating into smaller camera sales:
1 Like
This is a very valid point. This is a big strength of the 4/3 sensor. I have a Canon G16 which has an even smaller sensor than the 4/3 being discussed here. But the G16 is brilliant for street photography at night. The wide angle focal length is 6.1mm and using an aperture of f1.8 still gives great DoF to capture a night scene. I don’t have to go crazy with the ISO because of the f1.8. However, imagine the shallow DoF of F1.8 if it was available on a full frame.