Poll: Why do you shoot m4/3?

There seems to be lots of confusion here about why people choose to use m4/3. Some think it is about adequate quality married to smaller/lighter gear. Others think the only reason to use m4/3 is if it sold by the gram, i.e., if it is smaller/lighter than it should cost less. Let's have a poll and see. Please vote. Let's find out why people here use m4/3.

... a take-with-me-everywhere kit for those times I did not want to haul heavy FF gear.

It also turned out to be excellent for travel.

In fact, it turned out to be just damn nice to use, and is now my most-used kit.

and couldn't be happier

I just reread my OP and see a few typos, duplicate words, etc. :-( I hate that so I apologize. I usually carefully proofread before posting, but this time my proofreading was obviously done too quickly. Sorry!

The real reason that I started with 4/3 and then M4/3 is not in your poll.

Early days of DSLRs I was disgusted by the amount of dust and dirt I was seeing in other people's cameras (chunks visible on review with camera LCD), so I wanted 4/3 with a dust shaker, but reasoned that 8MP was the minimum useful MP so when the Oly E-300 surfaced I bought that and was happy.

Of course now even happier with M4/3, still no dust after 8 0r 9 years(?), and happy with results and size of kit, so I ticked the first question.

Regards........ Guy

because this is the most lively forum on dpr.

I do, because at the time, when I started digital photography, the only cameras, on which I could use my Nikkor lenses and which were not much bigger than my Nikon FE, were MFT.

Peter

Size and weight were the primary reason for going to M43. Their EVF has become the second reason. I have used high quality pentaprism viewfinders and really like them. I still prefer just framing up a picture through my D810. The benefits of an EVF to see exposure plus blown highlights and shadows before pressing the shutter button is huge. Olympus orange and blue indicators might seem distracting at first, but when there is better exposure information it doesn't matter. Quickly one can see how to optimize exposure compensation for the composition without leaving the viewfinder. Today's EVFs are good enough that I don't miss the OVF and prefer the functionality of an EVF. I never would have thought this before owning an M43 and using it.

Came for the weight and size (in that sequence), stayed for the image quality.

Agree with the EVF advantages. IBIS is a big one for me too.

The bag containing the camera, 4 lenses, and a small flash weights as much as my previous camera with one lens, and that's my main reason.

More Keepers said:

Size and weight were the primary reason for going to M43. Their EVF has become the second reason. I have used high quality pentaprism viewfinders and really like them. I still prefer just framing up a picture through my D810. The benefits of an EVF to see exposure plus blown highlights and shadows before pressing the shutter button is huge. Olympus orange and blue indicators might seem distracting at first, but when there is better exposure information it doesn't matter. Quickly one can see how to optimize exposure compensation for the composition without leaving the viewfinder. Today's EVFs are good enough that I don't miss the OVF and prefer the functionality of an EVF. I never would have thought this before owning an M43 and using it.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more!

Since I started using an EVF I found that I don't even look at the exposure meter, I simply adjust my exposure until I like what I see and then shoot. Histogram? What histogram? I never use it.

I'm now at the point that I wish my FF cameras had EVF's instead, and I doubt that I'll be buying anything non-mirrorless in future, not just for the EVF, but also all the other benefits of mirrorless.

I wanted something small, easy to carry around but still capable of very high IQ... and something that wasn't going to break the bank. I first bought a used GH2 and then a used E-m10, both of which I see as being great camera bodies and though one can certainly spend a lot more, I'm quite happy with the older, cheaper tech. I feel like I'd have to spend more to get an APSC format camera with the features I like (like twin control dials).

I've come to appreciate the selection of lenses as well as the beauty of using an EVF 9the real time exposure preview thing is nice) but that's not what initially drew me to the format.

I shoot Micro Four Thirds for the size and weight advantage, simply because there isn't another lens/camera combination that can shoot 24mm at F/4 in the full frame world that is the size and weight of my E-M5 with the 12/2 attached. If Sony brought out small lenses I'd reconsider this all, but that's not happening any time soon.

The fact that this is the liveliest community on the DPR forum keeps me hear, often, in this forum. The most active threads are here 9 times out of 10 even if its just another "I'm envious of what you've got, equivalency thread" (V.678)

Originally it was for video only.

Five years later, nothing has changed for me.

That said, the stills IQ possible with my humble G6 is potentially superior to my dslr.

Smaller, cheaper high quality lenses/bodies. Not reasonable, but good IQ!

First answer is biased about imge quality being compromised, it isn't.

How many times it needs to be proven that it is extremely difficult or impossible to spot which format made the big print (~32") or anything smaller?

And why about size all the time? As important is the camera is mirrorless and you get lenses for it!

I can't feel the camera in my coat pocket unless I put my hand there. That's why.

For me it's a combination of size/weight/value for money. I did a rough calculation of all my gear and it came to about $3000, as opposed to at least quadruple that in the FF world. Those are serious numbers.

There are no shortage of FF shooters who will pooh-pooh formats with smaller sensors, but in terms of a compromise, there presently isn't a better system. Also the JPEG engine on the Olympus models is outstanding, which is what I often process.

Mk82 said:

First answer is biased about imge quality being compromised, it isn't.

How many times it needs to be proven that it is extremely difficult or impossible to spot which format made the big print (~32") or anything smaller?

And why about size all the time? As important is the camera is mirrorless and you get lenses for it!

Click to expand...

For you and others who have already forgotten what the first option was here it is:

My main reason for shooting m4/3 is reasonable IQ coupled with smaller size/weight than a FF or APS-C DSLR or other ILC systems with larger sensors.

Please point out where I said image quality was compromised? I think you are one of those people who when something doesn't say something that offends them rewords it in order to get the offense that they were so hoping to find.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

Henry Richardson said:

There seems to be lots of confusion here about why people choose to use m4/3. Some think it is about adequate quality married to smaller/lighter gear. Others think the only reason to use m4/3 is if it sold by the gram, i.e., if it is smaller/lighter than it should cost less. Let's have a poll and see. Please vote. Let's find out why people here use m4/3.

Click to expand...

In a sense I find your premise a bit negative - there's the implication that the only benefit to m43 is size and weight ... otherwise you'd use a "big camera".

When I switched to the m43 from Canon, it was due to the need to replace a body. I decided to take the opportunity to do a complete system review (after some 12 years of Canon DSLRs).

Money was not a major issue, nearly any system was a possibility. Ultimately I chose m43 (specifically Olympus OMD) because it gave me the best combination of features, performance, IQ and ergonomics for my needs. Size was a factor, but far from the primary one.

In fact, it wasn't so much that the OMD was the best at anything ... but the fact it was very good at everything I needed. Other systems would excel in one area, but have a serious issue (for me) in another area.

I have a problem with the poll answers because the word "adequate" is vague. It should not be just defined on how large you print or what size monitors you have, what size files you send your photos as, etc. Adequate can be thought of as a measurement of one's expectations, and expectations can change over time as technology and competing systems change.

I used to think that I did not have to have air cond or auto transmission in a car when I was younger. Later, I thought I did not need all wheel drive or traction control, and until recently I did not think I really need GPS navigation or Bluetooth. The same thing happened with my cameras. I did not care about AF or ISO 1600 in the 90s, or higher than 5 MP in the 00s, and even when I bought my first M43 cameras, an EPL3, I dreamt of and thought I only needed at most the IQ of the GH2 sensor, and its video specs. How expectations changed and hence also what is adequate!

Although I bought into M43 for adequate quality and performance in a compact size, my expectations of what is.adequate changed with the times, as AF, IS, sensor, EVF all got better. Today, due to the clearly better sensors in all other competing systems, I found what was adequate IQ no longer adequate now. No, I haven't forgotten why I got into M43 and it was to get adequate performance, but I need more now. So, I have to say that it would be better if you have another clearer answer like "competitive performance" instead of adequate performance.

Why should I care if others using a camera in this class has more DR, higher ISO etc when I can do the same things as before? Well, we live in a competitive world and often we are competing for business with our work, or competing for photo prizes, trying to impress other photogs... And it does not help to be disadvantaged due to less tolerance of errors, more missed shots etc due to equipment that are not keeping up with others or not adequate in such competitions.

I think adequate is an adequate choice of words. My GF3 is adequate for taking pictures under my car. Hubble is adequate for taking pictures of distant galaxies.