Reading mode: Light Dark

Would you make a significant "investment" in m4/3?

Go to last post
MinAZ

MinAZ

Veteran Member
Messages
5,715
Solutions
5
Reaction score
2,212
Location
Los Angeles, CA, US
In the thread title, I put the word "investment" in parentheses due to the fact that cameras are seldom truly investments in the usual sense, but of course what I mean is: would you put a significant amount of money buying into the micro four thirds system?

Personally, I feel like I am on the brink of doing so. So far, I have been dancing around the edges - I own two m4/3 Olympus bodies and the usual kit lens and a few of the primes (one thing you can say for m4/3 is that they do make reasonably priced primes)... also a general walkabout lens. You know, stuff that won't affect my mortgage payments.

I have tried two other mirrorless systems - Nikon's J1 and Sony's A6000, before experimenting with Olympus. So far this is the system I seem to have stuck with, mainly because of the lenses. But for whatever reason, I have never taken the plunge to get the really fast glass or stuff like the FL50R. Ditto the incredibly expensive wide-angle lenses.

I have been contemplating buying my first expensive glass for the system, and probably if I do so, I am going all in. At which point, I am probably going to be locked in to m4/3 for the foreseeable future since I do not think I would be bothered to change the entire system out unless someday m4/3 becomes obsolete.

I'd like to hear from others who might have done the same. Are there any out there who have really put a lot into m4/3 and do you feel that this is a system with potential to last out the competition and see the race to the end?

As a side question: does anyone know if besides Olympus and Panasonic, any other mfgs are planning on joining the m4/3 consortium?
 
Last edited:
MinAZ said:
In the thread title, I put the word "investment" in parentheses due to the fact that cameras are seldom truly investments in the usual sense, but of course what I mean is: would you put a significant amount of money buying into the micro four thirds system?
Click to expand...
I already have.

I own one body and 10 lenses.
MinAZ said:
I have been contemplating buying my first expensive glass for the system, and probably if I do so, I am going all in. At which point, I am probably going to be locked in to m4/3 for the foreseeable future since I do not think I would be bothered to change the entire system out unless someday m4/3 becomes obsolete.

I'd like to hear from others who might have done the same. Are there any out there who have really put a lot into m4/3 and do you feel that this is a system with potential to last out the competition and see the race to the end?
Click to expand...
It isn't a "race".

However, it does seem at this stage as though m43 will last into the foreseeable future, as it is the system with the greatest number of bodies, lenses and manufacturers to choose from - and this provides a degree of insurance should Olympus or Panasonic give up on the system.

If I was starting afresh tomorrow I would look closely at the Sony options.
MinAZ said:
As a side question: does anyone know if besides Olympus and Panasonic, any other mfgs are planning on joining the m4/3 consortium?
Click to expand...
Numerous manufacturers have joined the system. They include Kodak, Samyang, Tamron, Sigma, Cosina, Zeiss, Schneider, Blackmagic and Kowa.

--
-------------------------------
My Flickr stream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottkmacleod/
My latest work of fiction:
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/444160
My kit: E-P3, 12/2.0, 17/1.8, 45/1.8, 60/2.8 Macro, 7.5 Fisheye, 7-14, 12-35 f2.8, 14-42 IIR, 40-150 ED, 75-300 II
 
Last edited:
MinAZ said:
In the thread title, I put the word "investment" in parentheses due to the fact that cameras are seldom truly investments in the usual sense, but of course what I mean is: would you put a significant amount of money buying into the micro four thirds system?

I'd like to hear from others who might have done the same. Are there any out there who have really put a lot into m4/3 and do you feel that this is a system with potential to last out the competition and see the race to the end?

As a side question: does anyone know if besides Olympus and Panasonic, any other mfgs are planning on joining the m4/3 consortium?
Click to expand...
I started into m4/3 by purchasing fire-sale cameras and lens bundles. Eventually I migrated over to a full set of primes and a new primary body (GH3 at launch). For myself, I've been very happy with the system. It meets my needs image-wise and the portability is excellent. I certainly hope it has stamina and given the current trajectory of the industry it seems to be well positioned to last.

There are a lot of companies that have joined m4/3. Black Magic has their cinema cameras, "Kodak" (or whoever bought the name) is in the system, as are many lens manufacturers.
 
using the money I made from selling my canon system (5Dmk2, 60D + a bag full of L lenses and other bits and pieces)

I've not regretted it as money made from sales of the images made using the new system are going into my account to be further invested in the new pro lenses that Olympus are finally making available :)
 
I'm in. Not going anywhere.....:-D
 
LOL, I already have. Significant for me, that is.
 
MinAZ said:
what I mean is: would you put a significant amount of money buying into the micro four thirds system?
Click to expand...
I have to imagine that, this being the m43 forum, most people would say yes.

As an "outsider" (I own a Nikon DSLR system and an older NEX kit) I'm looking at the EM1 and Fuji XT1 as cameras (with corresponding lenses) that I could choose today if I were looking to replace my DSLR. It's only recently that I could say that about any mirrorless system; prior to that, they were interesting as compact, second systems (and then became less interesting when I bought an RX100).

So ... speaking as some who does NOT currently use any m43 gear and who isn't in the market for a change at this point in time, I can say that if I decided that m43 was the right system for me, I would not hesitate to spend some money on an EM1, 12-40/2.8, 40-150/2.8 and a couple of f/1.8 primes. (Presumably I would be selling off old gear to fund most of that). In other words, I can't tell you whether I would choose m43 over other systems right now (though it would be in the running) but I would not let concerns over future viability of the system play into my decision.
 
I am fairly committed to M4/3 because of the size advantages, especially long telephoto lenses. I have two bodies, five lenses and a flash unit.

The only reason that I am not totally committed is that there are still one or two types of wildlife photography, especially birds in flight, where the best M4/3 bodies are not yet quite up to my Canon 7D DSLR. The current uncertainty about Panasonic's DFD focusing system and existing and future M4/3 long telephoto lenses has also given me a reason to delay. However, I expect to sell my DSLR and switch entirely to M4/3 before my next major wildlife trip which may not be for another 18 months. I certainly won't be buying a 7D MkII.

If I were starting out now I wouldn't consider FF/APS-C, DSLR or mirrorless, because of FF/APS-C lens sizes. I would be perfectly happy to make a significant investment in M4/3.

For me M4/3 is a good compromise point between sensor size and lens size. It is possible that 1" sensors might be a better compromise point at some time in the future and the FZ1000 has certainly given me some reason to pause for thought
 
Sure I would. I would also consider the Sony a6000, but they don't have the lenses yet.

Starting with the inventory clearing of a GH1 in 2010, and trying out the EVF less GF1 and GX1, I have settled on a GX7, I am very happy with the system. The GH1 sucked at low light, and action shooting. The GX7 has remedied the low light issues, but action shooting still remains an issue for me (for example competitive swimming indoors; or low flying aircraft taken at high burst rate, and consumer zoom (45-150) just don't make the grade. Everyone at the same event that had a DSLR came away with MUCH better shots...but knowing this limitation, I am very happy with the system.

Lenses are relatively inexpensive, and plentiful, small and light in comparison to APS-C and full frame lenses. I have bought used bodies and lenses on e-bay and been very happy with them. You may not have that comfort level, but I have found asking questions and looking carefully at the pictures, you can sift out the copies you don't want to touch. For example, I love my Samyang fisheye, especially since it cost less than $200
 
Brian Wadie said:
using the money I made from selling my canon system (5Dmk2, 60D + a bag full of L lenses and other bits and pieces)

I've not regretted it as money made from sales of the images made using the new system are going into my account to be further invested in the new pro lenses that Olympus are finally making available :)
Click to expand...
 
MinAZ said:
In the thread title, I put the word "investment" in parentheses due to the fact that cameras are seldom truly investments in the usual sense, but of course what I mean is: would you put a significant amount of money buying into the micro four thirds system?
Click to expand...
"Investment" means that you expect a return on your investment. Are going to do a paid job? If "yes", than you'll find out what you need for the job.
MinAZ said:
Personally, I feel like I am on the brink of doing so. So far, I have been dancing around the edges - I own two m4/3 Olympus bodies and the usual kit lens and a few of the primes (one thing you can say for m4/3 is that they do make reasonably priced primes)... also a general walkabout lens. You know, stuff that won't affect my mortgage payments.
Click to expand...
I see, you have already have something. What is wrong with stuff you have already have? If you know what is wrong, you know what to buy.
MinAZ said:
I have tried two other mirrorless systems - Nikon's J1 and Sony's A6000, before experimenting with Olympus. So far this is the system I seem to have stuck with, mainly because of the lenses. But for whatever reason, I have never taken the plunge to get the really fast glass or stuff like the FL50R. Ditto the incredibly expensive wide-angle lenses.
Click to expand...
You have more experience than me!

Wide fast lenses are always expensive.
MinAZ said:
I have been contemplating buying my first expensive glass for the system, and probably if I do so, I am going all in. At which point, I am probably going to be locked in to m4/3 for the foreseeable future since I do not think I would be bothered to change the entire system out unless someday m4/3 becomes obsolete.
Click to expand...
Do you need this expensive lens? What are you going to shoot?
MinAZ said:
I'd like to hear from others who might have done the same. Are there any out there who have really put a lot into m4/3 and do you feel that this is a system with potential to last out the competition and see the race to the end?
Click to expand...
I want FL 9-10mm F2 lens. I want this lens because taking photos of interiors and exteriors of Cathedrals and similar objects. Probably, I'll buy MF lens made by third party.
MinAZ said:
As a side question: does anyone know if besides Olympus and Panasonic, any other mfgs are planning on joining the m4/3 consortium?
Click to expand...
Cheers
 
It's a fair question. I had a more obvious path here because my "investment" was and mostly still is in four-thirds, with quite a few very good lenses. I stayed on the µ4/3 sidelines for several years until somebody produced a camera with IBIS and built-in EVF--my fundamental requirement for the system becoming "serious." By the time the E-M5 appeared, the lens selection had become serioous as well so I bought in. While it's so-so focusing 4/3 lenses, a couple fast primes and some adaoted legacy lenses from my retired film gear gave me a fun and relatively tiny kit that produces beautiful output.

The E-M1 and now, the new Pro tele lenses were the next big step forward--giving full use of the 4/3 lens portfolio. And for video-centric shooters, the GH4 likewise represents a camera that can produce broadcast-quality output.

The investment, like with any camera system, is in the lenses. The bodies depreciate like a boulder thrown off a cliff, but that's the case with every brand/format. The mid to high-grade lenses hold value and will be viable for a decade at least, maybe two.

Key question is can you assemble a µ4/3 setup that is capable of producing what you love to shoot? I doubt we'll see a third body manufacturer ("Kodak's" corpse doesn't count in my book) but more 3rd party lens makers will join up. In a couple years I'll wager we'll have nearly a hundred µ4/3 lenses to choose among. Whatever body generation exists then will have significant advances over the best ones, today.

Cheers,

Rick

--
"Whiskey is for drinking, digicams are for fighting over."
—Mark Twain
 
Last edited:
actually, I already own more than few lenses, the most expensive being 12-40 2.8. I also have Nikon D800 and some lenses, but lately majority of my photos are made by OM-D camera. After seeing fantastic results from newly released 40-150 2.8 I am seriously considering total switch to m4/3. Only thing that is holding me back is memory of sad end of standard 4/3 system which I used to have. I think I will wait till next generation of OM-D is released (E-M6?), so I will see how good AF-C will become with PRO lenses. For majority of my photography system is good enough already.
 
I had a fairly significant amount of money in Canon APS-C DSLR gear awhile back.

I have even more m43 gear now (see insane gear list).

I have sold most all of my Canon APS-C stuff. The lenses for just about the same amount I paid for them originally. No loss. The bodies are too old to be worth bothering selling. That's true of all bodies in general.

Based on that experience and watching others hop systems with surprising frequency I try to remember these things about camera "investments".
  • As you point out, they aren't investments. It is consumption pure and simple. The question is cost for that consumption over time.
  • Bodies depreciate rapidly. So when looking at that snazzy new body decide if the features you will get are worth the rapidly depreciating cost. For example, a given camera body might depreciate by $400 in the first year - do you feel the $400 is worth it to use those features for that year? Initially my usual answer was "no" with exceptions made for finding good deals on a camera. However, with a new baby on the way just as the E-M5 came out that camera answered a bunch of unique needs (especially low light performance and IBIS with fast primes) that I really did value enough to be an early adopter and I'm glad I did. Similar experience with the GM1 since it came out just as I was spending lots of time out and about with a now very mobile two year old, very glad to have that "pocketable" wonder with me all spring and summer despite the high "early adopters" premium I paid.
  • Lenses in general do not depreciate very much except perhaps in the first few months after introduction or for lenses that will in the future be part of a kit. If you get a reasonable deal on a lens, or just buy used or refurbished to begin with, you can essentially "rent for free" more or less indefinitely. Do your homework and don't pay full price new for a lens that is much cheaper on the split kit market (e.g. 14/2.5, 12-32) or one that can be had refurbished at a significant discount (Oly 60 Macro, 12-40/2.8). You can get blindsided with some (the first Oly 75-300 was way overpriced and the identical version II was sold for a lot less) but in general you will get nearly all your money back from lenses.
So, when I purchase a body I view it as a mostly sunk cost - especially if purchase near introduction. For lenses I make sure I know what its market value is and will likely be in the future and usually consider them a rental. Buy a $1000 lens and use it for two or three years and sell it later for like $900. It is just a question of having the capital locked up in the lens and the risk of damage or loss to it while using (though you can get insurance for that for about $15/yr/$1K).

Right now I have too many lenses precisely because I'm happy to try them out for awhile. You'll see obvious overlaps in my gear list (no one really needs the 14/2.5, 15/1.7, 17/1.8 and 20/1.7). I'll be selling a few in the coming year for sure. And I'll lose maybe $50 to $100 depending on the lens plus some time for listing and shipping. Actually the 20/1.7 is probably the only one I'll lose anything on as I bought it within months of its introduction - the others I'd break even on. Some of my Canon L glass sold used for more than I bought new because of rebates.

With all that in mind I have little concern about "investing" in a given system if it looks like it will suit my needs for a few years and it looks like it has a healthy used market.

As to entering m43 now for me I'd be looking at Fuji X and Sony A7 closely. In fact I do frequently and so far for my particular needs m43 is still the better answer. I know people who started in m43 when it was the only "real" mirrorless choice and who since moved to another mirrorless system. They just sold their lenses and no big deal moving along. If you change systems every few years rather than every few months the cost really isn't very different from the usual body upgrades you might do anyway if you stayed with a system.
--
Ken W
See profile for equipment list
 
Yes for video....no for stills {at present}.
 
I'm all in. Learned photography basics on this system and looking hard at the new olympus pro glass. saving my pennies.....
 
The m43 system will be around for at least a few years and in that time you will get to use your lenses a lot. Typically, high end lenses depreciate slower than anything else in photography and your "investment" should be worth at least 80% of its initial cost.

Think of it as a long term rental.
 
That's what I've heard anyway.

But you have to ask yourself if you are the type of person who will regret buying into M43 high end lenses even when another brand comes out with some apparent super-camera that you want. If you feel such regret a lot, and like the excitement of trying new brands all the time (that is part of the fun of this hobby, new stuff, for sure), stay where you are and wait for the next Sony or Fuji or Samsung to wow you. But if you like the gear well enough, and can focus on the photography for a few years, then by all means get the lenses that work best for you.

I suspect many of us would be better off buyng our favorite body with the best lenses we can get, and then unplugging the internet for 3 years. Come back, post some favorites, and then see if any new systems are worth getting into (ok, you mighthave to plug in for software updates, but you get the point).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top