Thomas Stirr doesn’t have a youtube channel (and I’d be shocked if he ever did), but he runs the website Small Sensor Photography, and is fairly prolific posting. The articles are generally pretty quick reads, and are only based on his own personal equipment and the experiences using it for many different shooting scenarios. Strongly recommend, even if you don’t shoot with smaller sensors.
Frankly, he’s a breath of fresh air in a world saturated with freelance peer-pressure marketing (I think that’s my new favorite phrase).
For my case the ability to shoot at high ISO is often important because I like low light ambient light photography such as street scenes at night. While the full frame cameras have in theory the best capabilities in low light they suffer shallower DoF because they user longer focal length lenses to achieve the coverage. On the other hand the 4/3 system has more DoF due to shorter focal length lenses which allows the use of brighter apertures and therefore lower ISO. It becomes a balancing act to decide which camera suits your needs in a specific circumstance. But I know that you already know this. I am just explaining why ISO is important to me.
I think we’re saying the same thing, framed differently. I try to get people to think in terms of DOF instead of ISO, exactly because ISO will be different for the same looking photo on different systems.
Unrelated, I noticed it was actually you who had one of my favorite edits on the other thread I linked to.
My favourite is Emily (MicroFourNerds). Her enthusiasm for photography is contagious, she is an event and street photographer using micro 4/3 and also L-mount cameras. Lot of excellent advice on lenses, trade-offs, and older cameras too.
I also like Chris Baitson, who is a landscape photographer using micro 4/3 quite frequently (but not exclusively). A lot of excellent tips on landscape photography and composition, too:
Finally, Marlene Hielema has a very interesting channel, micro 4/3, full frame Lumix, and also full of general photography hints.
You will notice that while all of these feature micro 4/3, none of them are exclusively about gear content, because I am more interested in photography as an art form than gear per se. There are some channels exclusively on camera bodies and lenses but frankly I find them boring.
M4/3 is the smallest and lightest but not by a big margin if you attach a similar 24-105 f/4 lens on it
ergonomics and fun of use of the small M4/3 have not been on par with the Fuji (APSC) dials (from my point of view)
prices for good M4/3 lenses are crazy and you need good glass to satisfy the very tiny pixels on the small sensor, inversely FF lenses do not have to be super good but they are still often pretty expensive
somehow APSC seems to still be the best middle gound for alround photography from my point of view
however I believe that M4/3 can be very tempting for everything outdoor/adventure related where smallest weight and ruggedness is essential
so, for M4/3 to be competitive the lens prices must go down, even for high end lenses …
This depends on the lens, but I think that OEM lens prices are roughly comparable. The problem is that third-party manufacturers now design for APS-C (Viltrox, Tokina, etc) and do not release their lenses for micro 4/3. These lenses are often excellent and go for 50% of the comparable OEM price, or less.
I have been thinking about your post because it contains a lot of valid points. I think that currently micro 4/3 is great for the following:
Get into everyday and street photography at bargain prices if you want a small camera (if size is not a concern, an older DSLR will be even cheaper). This is mostly about older Panasonic bodies, pancake primes and zooms, and having fun with photography. About $200–300 is more than plenty to get started for this purpose if you buy used, though for some weird reason older micro 4/3 cameras are experiencing a price increase that outpaces inflation.
Building a rugged, light, yet versatile kit for bird and wildlife photos. Something you do not mind lugging for a hike that takes hours, in less then ideal weather, potentially carrying food, water and camping gear; weight adds up. OM System definitely shines here. We are in $2k territory even with used gear.
Professional macro photography. OM has some amazing lenses, compact yet sharp. And computational features. Again, $1–2k is the entry point.
A good value videography kit. Think Panasonic GHx, you will get much more bang for the buck than any other system. Think $2–3k.
What it is definitely not good for:
Wide angle / interior photography. Pro lenses exist, but are expensive and if that’s the only thing one does there are many better options.
Event photography you are paid for (so you cannot miss key moments). This usually means a zoom that can work with little light. Micro 4/3 options exist but again they are very, very expensive; you can do with a not so top-of-the-line lens in full frame at a fraction of the price.
sports photography. tracking AF improved a lot, but Sony (and recently Canon/Nikon) are still better choices.
I think this graphic is very interesting and shows perhaps my biggest disappointment with micro 4/3. It’s barely smaller than APS-C, and as one of my main priorities is compact and lightweight, I wish there were a bigger difference. I know the smaller sensor offers other advantages like DOF / processing speed / computational prowess, but it also has compromises, which in my opinion make APS-C more of a sweet spot.
A similar argument could be made about APS-C being barely smaller than FF in terms of the camera body, but it does seem that there are fewer compact FF lenses available. Maybe I’m wrong there, I haven’t been in the FF system for years.
My plan is still to eventually acquire a range of cameras second hand so I can try them all out. Ultimately it all comes down to how much you enjoy using the system. And to emphasize one of my original points: I want all sensor sizes to remain available and to be competitive. Choice is a good thing for us consumers.
I think that great glass is large and heavy (relative to the sensor size, somewhat) and if you want great glass, you pay for it in weight and size. Things are getting smaller, but how much smaller can it go while still being great?
I want image quality over most things, so I have FF, mostly primes. The last few prime lenses I’ve added have made by bag really full and heavy
Yes. I’ve been looking at the GFX for a while and constantly list after it. Lens selection is what is sort of keeping me away (and let’s be honest, price). For my FF Nikon Z7ii, I have a 15mm voigtlander, 24mm Z, 50 mm Z, 100mm macro Z, 100-400mm Z. The GFX is lacking at the wide end and the long end, and the wide end is particularly worrisome.
Worrisome for my wallet is that I’ve seen the original GFX 100s going for $2,100 - $2,500 used, which would be around the same as getting a Z8 (if I sold the Z7ii body).
So far I’ve resisted the medium format… But for how long??
Isn’t this where the kids say YOLO! It’s a constant struggle: lusting after new gear and trying to justify it. My brain and common sense says that the quality gains (in terms of sensor/lens) are often incremental and probably not worth the extra cost, but buying gear is all part of the hobby, and it’s all completely understandable.
I wish the second-hand market were a bit more affordable here in Canada so I could try more gear, but it’s often not much less than buying new, unless there’s some damage. The upside of course is that you can get a reasonable price if you decide to sell.
Lens selection is definitely an issue with medium format at the moment. Do you agree with some commentators that Fuji sees its future in GFX and will move away from the X series? (This was recently said by Chris Gampat of the Phoblographer, whose opinions I often disagree with.)
Certainly YOLO! Gear is fun. Lately I’ve really been getting into longer focal lengths, so been shooting a lot of 100mm macro and 100-400 (where historically I’ve been mostly at 24/50mm) and GFX only has a 100-200mm.
You could rent to get a taste.
Absolutely no. If the idea for medium format is to push the mpix up (I’d guess they’ll jump to 150mpix at some point in the near-ish future), which also means pushing the price up. Fuji has done well to bring down the price of medium format in general, but a new camera is still $5k. How low can that possibly go? No way they get down to the ~$1,000 X bodies they have. Fuji owns the APC-C market, can’t see them going away from it.
I have to say, my GAS has significantly lessoned in the last few years. Trying out a bunch of gear has crossed off many categories of gear that I no longer feel a need to investigate. Thank goodness.
I daresay I might even have reached a level of contentment with my current gear. The GAS has lessened to a mere curiosity, which I see as progress.
(I also notice that my GAS mainly flares up in times of few photographs. I’m much more content with what I have while I’m using my gear. I theorize that GAS is my brain trying to “do photography” by proxy, while not actually taking pictures.)
I think you’re on to something. When I’m watching youtube, I absolutely need to have new gear. When I’m actually making images, my current great is extremely satisfying to use.
Yes, 100%. I’ve noticed this too. I too have reached contentment at various times, but GAS eventually returns at some point, often when I’m not very active with my photography. But I’ve learned that it’s natural and just a part of who I am, and that’s ok. I don’t have enough disposable income to give in to the cravings anyway, so I’m rarely making purchases I regret.
