Professionals don't use M4/3?

lambert4 wrote:

I have seen equally gorgeous images from every format of system, i have an aquaintance that shot regularly for NatGeo yeas ago, by years I mean decades. He recants the switch from film to digital, and has since swapped to an apsc to utilize his aging lens collection. And raves about the digital age and its quality from all systems, his wife shoots with a Pany Bridge superzoom while along side him on safari, I couldn't choose which prints were which with 100% certainty on his walls. The prints were all 16x20 or larger. Likewise I have seen folks toting the latest greatest FX system and produce rubbish.

I shoot micro four thirds and charge professional rates when I do work in the photography realm, it is not my primary income. I have yet to get a complaint or question about the gear.

it is the photographer not the equipment that makes an image valuable, and sometimes it is as much the subject as either of the items.

congrats on those images, the portraits are compelling and draw the eye straight in. I never would question the equipment with IQ like that.

It is also the skill in post processing that distinguishes the professional. Shoot RAW and see how much better the IQ can be when software is used to best advantage. In fact, higher res JPEG images often have poorer quality than lower res RAW. For example, shooting with the Olympus EM5ii capturing both 40MP High Res Shot JPEG and 16MP RAW at low ISO, I have found the latter usually looks better and enables more "bending" of the tones without excessive noise or artifacts. I also find that a properly exposed and processed RAW image can look better than an out-of-camera HDR JPEG. YMMV.