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

I understand your thinking. I sold my Canon dSLR kit because I couldn't stomach buying really expensive glass, though I knew it is necessary to get the best out of even a 600D. After 18 months or so with enthusiast compacts, which I still have, I bought a G6. After buying the Samyang 7.5mm fisheye (an excellent way of achieving ultra wide high IQ)and confirming I'm really happy with M43, I was faced with limited choice on a pukka ultra wide zoom. Limited really to the Oly 9-18mm or the obvious choice the Panny 7-14mm but at a ridiculous price, twice the cost of the G6. "Unfortunately", I spotted a new 7-14mm at a very price and took the plunge. I'm very happy with the lens and do consider it an investment. I doubt I'll change the G6 but can see another body, perhaps secondhand. I recognise thatI can now change/upgrade bodies but the glass will stay.

I would but not significantly into it. I have been burned one time with the Olympus OM film cameras and still have a few lenses that I couldn't give away. But that doesn't stop me from jumping into m43 with both feet. I only have one body, the EM1, a eight years old E-500, 12-60, 50-200 SWD, and a few other 43 lenses. I have sold other worthy 43 bodies, the E5 and E3 to fund the EM1. I would be interest at the new 300 F4 when it comes out. All indications said it is going to be an outstanding lens.

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?

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?

Click to expand...

If there never comes another Micro 4/3 camera, or lens, beyond those products that have already been announced or already in production, the system offers everything I need.

The E-M1 and GH4 represent all I would ever need in a flagship system camera, and the E-PL5 and GM5 represent all I would ever need in a compact interchangeable lens camera.

The E-M10 and GX7 and E-P5, represent all I would ever need in a full featured smaller body camera.

As far as lenses are concerned, The pro 40-150, 300mm f4 and 1.4X TC fill the major gap that had existed for good quality long end solution (and which could have been filled using 4/3 lenses on an E-M1 even without these new lenses).

I still wish there was a small rectilinear ultra-wide prime, but I've found sufficient workarounds using a wide converter and a de-fished fisheye.

No other real gaps exist in the lens offering. What exists now is comprehensive, and as good as is available for any other lens family.

My feeling about the camera industry in general is, existing cameras in several product lines are good enough to be sufficient forever - so long as the lens offering is complete enough. And the Micro 4/3 lens offering IS.

It was a no-brainer when I first bought my GF1....micro four thirds was the only decent compact mirrorless system out there. Things are a bit different these days, and I asked myself exactly the same question when I decided to upgrade to a E-M5.

The only other system that actually catches my attention is Fuji. However, I chose micro four thirds specifically for the size. I still think I chose the right system for me, because when I attach the PL25mm F1.4 I thin "nice lens but wish it were smaller". I am not sure I would like a system where all the prime lenses were all as big as my 25mm (maybe that will change someday).

I think it all boils down to whether you like the system or not. If you are not sure, then start off slowly. I am trying to limit myself to 1 new lens a year, for no other reasons than there is more to life than collecting camera gear.

Chas2 said:

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.

Click to expand...

An advantage of m43 is that pros haven't been using and abusing them for decades. I've seen lots of used high end Nikon gear (back when that was almost the only choice) that tough as it was had still been beat nearly to death.

Chas2 said:

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

Click to expand...

I told myself I wanted to see if compelling photography could be had w/o a 21mp sensor, and it was 4-5 years ago when I did that by turning to an E-P2 at the time.

If starting out today I'd be tempted by Fuji and Sony, but I'm still here for the likes of the range of lenses this format offers. The difference in IQ is relatively small sensor-wise, but the range of glass m4/3 has or can utilize still outweighs that for me.

About a year ago I made the switch from my Pentax system to a Panasonic GH3. I had been with Pentax for over 30 years and had numerous legacy and new digital lenses. But I finally gave up on the hope that Pentax would take video seriously, and I opted for what at the time was the best hybrid video/stills camera system on the market. And that assessment of capability really hasn't changed with the new products that have become available this year, IMHO.

When I switched I sold all my old Pentax gear with the exception of a few legacy lenses which I can use with my GH3. I then turned around and bought an "equivalent" (i.e., same field of view coverage) set of Panasonic lenses: 20mm f/1.7, 7-14mm f/4, 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6, and 100-300mm f/4-5.6. The next lens on my list is the Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95.

As far as I'm concerned the M43 system is by far the most mature mirrorless system on the market and both Panasonic and Olympus are innovating at a much higher rate than the other manufacturers. It has a far wider range of body and lens options than any other system out there. To me it's a no-brainer - if you want the flexibility of system camera and don't need the wider shooting envelope that a larger sensor makes possible (and that's a pretty specialized need IMHO) then M43 is the way to go.

Not sure you can call it investment but I'm fully committed to MFT (no camera system is a good investment financially speaking)

In the earlier days, I was toying around with different systems, from Sony APSC to Fuji APSC, to Nikon/Canon APSC but realized they do not give me any advantages over MFT;

Or that the advantages don't matter much to me, like 1 stop of ISO, slightly more DOF control

On the other hand, the lenses tend to be larger and lack in selection

To take advantage of DOF control and better high ISO I went all the way to Nikon FF, D600, then Df, just to satisfy my curiosity on FF;

Even though those are great cameras, I ended up using mostly my MFT gear during the years I owned FF

They're just more manageable, more fun to shoot with and the compromises are minimal and negligible

I finally decided to sell all my FF /APSC gear and 'invest' only in MFT

The cost of carrying both is just to much

I'd rather have many choices of lenses from 1 system, and many bodies

One thing I still like to have is a small carry everywhere camera a la Canon G7X but with a FT sensor

The LX100 just isn't it

For now a 1" sensor camera would suffice till that day when Panny or Oly can produce a truly pocketable FT camera

I've been there, done that so it's easy for me to be content with what I have

Those who don't tend to be curious and still want to look at the other pastures (for they may look greener)

MFT, like many have asserted before, is the happy digital medium with the right compromises

Cheers, ;-)

I was quite fortunate that I was able to fund my M43 with my old analogue gear that was just gathering dust. So basically I got into 43 free as the stuff I sold had had 20 years use and was now worthless to me.

Lenses tend to keep their value in time, whilst bodies lose value very quickly. That is why I usually buy bodies second hand if I can. If I get five years use out of a body then it has been a good investment. Nobody forces us to upgrade to the latest and greatest.

But buying photographic gear is never an investment.

Here are my thoughts on M43 when I swapped:http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/2013/01/olympus-om-d-e-m5-and-lumix-g-x-vario.html

I was heavily into Canon dslrs and lenses and didn't "NEED" another camera when a friend posted pictures she had taken with her Olympus E-PL1.

I was blown away by the color and quality and ordered one with the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 lens, rather than the kit lens.

I stayed with that combination for a few months and then added the Panasonic 45-200 lens.

Little by little lenses got added - then a Panasonic GH2 - another e-pl5 body and just very recently, Panasonic GX7.

Micro 43 captured my heart with its smaller form factor, much less weight, better features (live histogram and blinkies) - many more. Video from the Panasonics is outstanding and whole lot easier than that with my Canon 7D.

These days I hate to pick up a dslr EVEN THOUGH I know my pictures will be marginally better.

I will use a dslr when I need to capture action - micro 43 is not good with tracking as yet.

Isabel

Lovely set of photos in your blog post!

Cheers,

Rick

[No message]

I already have and I'm slowly selling my Nikon gear and buying more m4/3.

Yes it is a little scary given the state of the camera industry. DSLR sales have been declining, and mirrorless sales have been flat or declining. Technology marches on and we will continue to see advancements in sensors. As smartphone cameras improve, dedicated cameras become more of a niche market. We don't know what that will look like in ten years, but I'm sure some camera systems will lose.

I hope that m4/3 makes it for the long-haul and I think they have as good a shot as any. Multiple companies supporting the system, a strong user base, the most comprehensive mirrorless lineup of bodies and lenses, and the whole goldilocks thing. Oly and Panny continue to innovate.

If the format gets into trouble, the value of the used gear will decline, but it probably won't tank overnight unless Panasonic and Olympus release a joint statement saying they are both pulling out.

Almost all old gear, except for lenses with a cult following, lose significant value in ten or fifteen years. Many lenses hold value well for five years or so... Until the manufacturer releases a new version that makes the old one obsolete. My Nikon 300mm f/4 will still fetch almost what I paid for it 7 years ago, but my aged 80-200mm f/2.8 isn't worth nearly as much. It's okay... I have gotten so many wonderful photos out of that old lens that it has given me value far beyond the monetary cost.

That's what I always think about when I ponder my gear investment: the priceless returns, and m4/3 has really delivered by being portable enough for me to carry and use every day.

Sean

The answer is Yes as I have already/in the process of doing so.

After years with Canon through film to FF digital I have sold half my Canon kit with the last three lenses and the 5D3 now on EBay. I had bought the Olympus E-M10 in March as a travel camera. For those times when a heavy DSLR and lens just gets left at home and the only photography if any was left to a compact camera or my iPhone. I wanted something that gave better quality.

The OMD just took me completely by suprise. IQ was excellent and the camera handled beautifully so it made me look into the MFT system further. I generally only output my photographs in book format, prints up to 20"x16" and on the Web or as digital projected images for club competitions. I realised after having a first print done from an image captured with the OMD that the quality was pretty much equal to the FF Canon up to that size of print. I followed this up with a couple of tests and again up to ISO 1600 the little OMD was indistinguishable from the Canon image at normal viewing distances.

So so after a bit of soul searching and not using the Canon kit for 3 months I made the decision to sell it all. In the meantime I had bought the 17mm f1.8, the 45mm f1.8 and the 60mm f2.8 macro lenses they are just so sharp and the 17mm has become my everyday lens. With selling the Canon kit I have added an E-M1 with 12-40mm f2.8 Pro lens, 75mm f1.8 lens (now that is something special) and the FL-600R speed lite. The sale of the 5D3 will cover the 40-150mm f2.8 and TC and I am holding on for the moment between buying the 12mm f2 or waiting for the 7-14mm f2.8 Pro lens due next year I do enjoy shooting with primes but the extra width of the proposed wide-angle zoom is tempting and would be a good replacement for the 16-35mm I had on the Canon.

For me the Olympus OMD range works. Cameras are feature packed and after a short while getting to grips with the menu system it all falls into place. The customisable set up is fantastic on both camera bodies. The lenses are great value and exceedingly sharp and crisp. Most importantly and one for all the pixel peepers to consider though is what is the output of your photography. If you want the best quality and print big, need best low light quality at high ISO or tend to do a lot of cropping into the frame then FF sensor is undoubtedly best choice. In real terms however for the general photographer working between ISO 200 and ISO 3200, printing up to 20"x16" and web presentation then the OMD system and MFT will be more than enough IQ than you'll likely need.

It won't suit everyone and cannot outperform FF but should be a serious consideration for anyone looking at a camera system.

Wow those are amazing night photos. Mine are not as good but you know I have noticed that m43 cameras do perform decently in low light, which is a surprise.

Incidentally, I completely agree with the compact carry everywhere camera ideal. I think if one came about it would be camera nirvana. Also agree re: LX100. I think its a wonderful idea, but the FL is just too limited for me (I wonder how many people realize that the 70mm 35 mm equivalent is only about 45mm in APS-C terms). Maybe the new Canon "mystery camera" coming soon will fit the compact do-everything high-IQ bill.

I've invested in the Lumix bodies and lenses. Right now my main MFT body is the GH3. I have purchased the excellent 12-35 and 35-100 f/2.8 Panasonic lenses. I only have one prime though, the 20mm f/1.7 MkI. I have yet to commit to MFT as much as I have to Nikon FF though.

It seems to me that since m4/3 has only been around since 2009, we are still early adopters. The pro lenses are only a year old or less. The m4/3 camera line has only fully filled out in the last year. We've still got a long way to go, and mirrorless FF has only just started to try to catch up.

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?

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?

Click to expand...

I have been using m43 system since in was an early adopter of Olympus Pen EP-1. However, I have no interest in going "all in" to the exclusion of other systems. Why should I or anyone for that matter, hem themselves in by that approach? Present M43 technology is good for what it is, capable and mostly diminutive. Having said that, it is not the panacea of photography equipment, hampered by sensor size limitations. I will agree that for many casual photographers m43 is plenty good.

I hear you... Well I think m43 is a very good system to invest right now, more and more excellent lenses, especially with the now Oly 40-150 2.8, the upcoming 7-14 2.8, etc.

However... as much as I love the system right now (it's perfect for me, photography is my passion, but not my job), I have doubts that it will be the right system to invest in about 5 years or so.

I have the feeling (might be completely wrong) that the big guys (Canon, Nikon) will eventually (rather soon I guess) start to go into mirrorless as well. And probably come up with quite good stuff. And the Sony A7 is certainly very interesting as well, as soon as there are more lenses.

So, I'm not so sure about m43 let's say about 5 years from now.

Only time will tell...