Ditto pretty much everything you wrote.
I'm pretty sure some people won't like a couple of things I'm going to say, but with the constant flow of "Fuji is better" posts and others in which either the utter failure or unbeatable superiority of m4/3 is expressed by some, I want to weigh in with my personal point of view as a working photographer.
I specialize in concert/performance photography.
I do corporate events & portraits for a living and travel landscapes for fun, all with MFT.
This has long been the almost exclusive realm of FF cameras, or at least APSC with better high ISO performance. All my colleagues at the website i staff for use mostly FF with some APSC used when a bit more reach is needed with telephoto lenses. That reflects the genre standard at large.
And that's how I worked for 12 years.
That said, I admit that the photos I take with my EM1s take more work to clean up and lift shadows than most FF files (which often don't need much work anyway.) I admit even with my best effort starting with .orf files, OOC .jpegs from cameras like the Sony A7rii, and CaNikon FF dslrs are cleaner and usually have better DR. (To me, DR is a more important factor than noise when it comes to concert photos.)
Processing RAWs with DxO Optics Pro Elite and applying PRIME noise reduction gets me a lot closer to the noise levels of APS/35mm JPEGs or RAWs processed with lesser software.
The shallow DoF advantages of FF are sometimes missed. On occasion I'd like more isolation at a given f stop than I get with m4/3.
The thought never enters my mind. But, I have moved from shooting with a couple of f2.8 zooms to using three MFT bodies with brighter primes. Nice bokeh with my 45/1.8. Cheap and light, three MFT cameras is easily doable. Three 35mm-format DSLRs? Not so much.
Even as AF has improved with each generation of m4/3 cameras, I have associates with 5 year old DSLRs that focus faster and more accurately under conditions where I know my EM1s struggle.
Now
this is where my experience is the opposite. With my Canon 1-series DSLRs, I constantly wrestled with AF locking onto the microphones in front of speakers at lecterns. Face-detect AF on my MFT cameras made that frustration go away. I also
much prefer Panasonic's Touchpad AF, which allows selecting and moving an AF point with a tap on the rear screen (while still looking through the viewfinder), over spinning the dials or diddling the joybuttons on my Canons as a way of positioning an AF point.
I'll note here that Panasonic's S-AF works in lower light than most other cameras of any price. C-AF may not be as good, but I don't need it for my slow-moving subjects.
Then again, they like how small and light my kit is compared to theirs. ;-)
The size factor is related to two things that led me to MFT. First, I began to travel, walk, and hike a lot, and I simply wanted a small kit with IQ sufficient for poster-size prints and submission to stock agencies. So, I added a modest MFT kit as a
complement to my 1D3 & 1Ds3. Second - and this is why I ultimately ditched the Canons - I suffered a crippling bout of bursitis in my right shoulder. It was almost as painful as a shot to the crotch, and it went on for two
weeks. Now, I can't say it was caused by carrying heavy cameras for two decades, but I certainly had my suspicions. And anyway, I simply couldn't continue carrying two big cameras with big lenses and big flashes through 14-hour-per-day week-long conference gigs. I now work with three MFT cameras and feel much less fatigued at the ends of long days.
I'll just note that my biz partner shoots with a D750 and a 24-120/4. Our kits cost about the same and weigh about the same, but the weight of my kit is spread across three points. Light gathering and noise are about the same. Our images are virtually indistinguishable. I have the option of downsizing to one body with a pancake prime for casual use or travel. He doesn't. Plus, I have redundant backups. He does, too, of course, but that's at the cost of even more cost and weight.
So why do I stick with m4/3?
I enjoy using it. I am confident that I can get the results I want. The style I want my images to have depends less on absence of noise or wider DR than on what I have been doing with 4/3 and m4/3 for nearly 10 years. I'm settled into the system for what it does for me, advantages I've come to depend on as second nature, and the very fact that my photos don't look like the typical concert photos out there.
It's just as many years ago, there were those who first switched to 35mm Leicas while most photographers stuck with 4X5 or medium format They liked that combination of easier portability, and overall operation, but there was also the fact that their photos simply had a different look that pleased them.
That's where i'm at: I love using my m4/3 and prefer the results I get, and I have clients who pay for those results.
Yeah, that's my experience as well. When you get paid, it kinda makes all the "X format is better" claims moot.
I know I have more noise in my ISO 6400 photos than a Nikon, Canon or Sony user has. I know I will have more trouble shooting fast moving action than someone with a Canon or Nikon DSLR. I know I don't have as many lenses available.
The PanOly lineup is third behind Canon and Nikon, and
way ahead of any other system. The key question is, do they have the lenses you want? I don't need tilt-shift or a 400/2.8. I have available exactly the lenses I want (except a 17/1.4). I couldn't say that about the Sony APS lineup, which is why I want MFT instead.
I know I may be paying more for a lens or camera body than it would seem comparable lenses or bodies from other makers cost.
I even know that some people look at my use of Olympus gear with some skepticism, since so many pros use Canon and Nikon.
In my work, I haven't heard one peep other than "Wow, your cameras are so
quiet!" Thanks, e-shutter mode! It's literally let me do jobs that I couldn't have done with a mechanical shutter due to sound issues.
I also know that I'm limiting myself as far as the expectations of certain genres are concerned. I confess I'd probably take a different approach if I were actively seeking commercial work or doing weddings.
Weddings are a side line for me, but I've shot a few with my MFT kit. No problem. Helps if you know how to use flash intelligently.
I know all this and am still very happy using m4/3.
So what's not to like about my opinion?
My opinion includes telling anyone having complaints or doubts about m4/3 IQ or AF to just go ahead and buy or switch to another system. Really, don't come here and complain about it, just consider that to fully enjoy photography, you should really, truly enjoy using your gear. If you think you will like Fuji or Sony or Nikon or Canon (or even Pentax) better, then get into that system and stop putting yourself through the angst of trying to justify m4/3.
Also, if you have to get all fanboyish and unrealistic to justify staying with m4/3, again you should just switch systems. You need to honestly enjoy photography, not convince yourself you are enjoying your gear just because you don't want to feel you made a mistake in buying it.
You see, in my opinion, to really enjoy photography to the fullest, you should forget you are even using your gear, in a sense. By that I mean it should be worry/hassle free. You should just be able to put the camera to your eye and concentrate 100% on capturing a composition in the most aesthetically pleasing way you know how, without any lingering doubts about the technical performance of your gear.
Call me perverse, but I actually enjoy the challenge of shooting with minimal gear. Keeps my problem-solving skills sharp. Then again, I began my career with film and shot with much less capable DSLRs (D60, 40D, 1D, 1Ds, 1D2...) for years, so MFT at ISO 1600 is a walk in the park.
--
If you think digital is hard, try slide film.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos
