Reading mode: Light Dark

Micro four thirds observations while traveling

Go to last post
James Pilcher said:
larsbc said:
Waiting for my flight out of Costa Rica so I thought I'd mention that I saw a (relatively) surprising number of micro four thirds cameras on this trip. I was here 3 yrs ago and if I recall correctly I saw one or maybe two m43 cameras (one of them being an EM5.2 or EM1 and I can't recall the other). On this trip, I saw half a dozen Panasonics and, weirdly, no Olympuses. One was a GX8 and the others were Panasonic G bodies. I also saw someone else using a 100-400. Also spotted a slightly higher number of Panasonic bridge cameras. The majority of cameras were Canon consumer DSLRs. Most of my camera sightings were in national parks where people were photographing wildlife.
Click to expand...
Two nights ago I was on a sunset cruise near Naples, FL in the Gulf of Mexico. There were 40 people on the boat. Cameras were snapping everywhere; all phones. I was the only person with a serious camera, that being my Pen F and three lenses. I did attract a bit of attention as the guy with the old film camera. ;-)

Last night I was at a special event at our local Audobon sanctuary. There were “real” cameras everywhere. Canon, Canon, Canon, my Pen F with only my Oly 25mm f/1.2 (it was a late evening and after-dark event) and one Sony A6000 they were using to record the evening’s guest speaker. And then more Canon. I might have seen one Nikon.

All this to say, I see no m4/3 here in Florida. I think it has been four or five years since I spotted a m4/3 camera. Honestly, I used to see more 4/3 cameras a decade+ ago than I see m4/3 now.

Jim Pilcher
Bonita Springs, Florida, USA
Life is a breeze by the sea
Click to expand...
Hey Jim, come up to the Sarasota area, we have plenty of M43, mostly Olympus. But we have a pretty active brick and mortar photo store here that promotes Olympus, and doesn’t sell Panasonic or Fuji, so that may be the reason.
 
I've definitely noticed more mirrorless cameras, and fewer Canikon around NYC in the past couple years than prior. Number one is still clearly Canon entry level DSLR. That is probably followed by high end Canon or a Nikon DSLR. Next most common are each of the mirrorless: Sony followed closely by Fuji and then Panasonic. Olympus is still rare, and I do notice an occasional "real" Leica. I don't think I've ever seen a Pentax.
 
Safari lodge owner here:

I see a lot more m4/3 gear than I used to. Its quite (actually VERY) rare to see full-on top tier m4/3 bodies and long glass, but a fair old number of em5 level bodies and super zoom type lenses are passing through our doors now (we don't actually have doors...).

Most of the safari goers who are very keen photographers are still using canon/Nikon DSLRS and 100-400 or 200-500 type lenses or the sigma/tamrons that reach out to 600mm. A very small number of real hard core types with 500mm primes. But they almost ALWAYS then have a 2nd body with a 100-400 or similar. And usually a 3rd body with a 24-70...

A lot of guests are using rebel type lower end Canon/Nikon bodies with kit lenses and everything set on full auto.

A lot are using cell phones only.

I do see a lot more people using Sony mirrorless than I used to.

This has actually got me thinking. I am going to run a small spreadsheet on my phone and record the season's guests and cameras. I will find it fascinating I am sure.

Mirrorless is growing for sure, but I have a funny feeling that I am seeing more Sony stuff than m4/3 or any other option.
 
I've noticed a total of two M43 cameras in the last four years - both E-M5s on a birding cruise.

I live in a tourist destination in NW USA and nearly everything I see (excepting smartphones) is either a Canon or less frequently a Nikon DSLR, mostly with what look like kit lens zooms on them. If I'm in a national park (especially one of the better known ones) the models and glass are more upscale but the mix is about the same.
 
Raucous Raven said:
I've noticed a total of two M43 cameras in the last four years - both E-M5s on a birding cruise.

I live in a tourist destination in NW USA and nearly everything I see (excepting smartphones) is either a Canon or less frequently a Nikon DSLR, mostly with what look like kit lens zooms on them. If I'm in a national park (especially one of the better known ones) the models and glass are more upscale but the mix is about the same.
Click to expand...
This, along with other similar observations, goes to show that a substantial group of those people who buy "proper" cameras are not enthusiasts like the people here. They don't yearn for new bodies, or look to expand their lens collections. They have no interest in faster lens or less noisy sensors. They don't know the difference between DSLRs and mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras and they don't care.

Because they usually have relatively small entry level bodies and cheap plastic kit lenses, and only use the camera occasionally, size and weight are not an issue. These folk buy one DSLR with one or two kit lenses and are happy with the output. The camera just works for them and the battery lasts forever. As long as the camera keeps working they will break it out for holidays and special occasions and never think about upgrading.
 
I see a fair number young folks with Panasonic GH4/GH5 setups here in Atlanta. The film industry is *huge* here, and I imagine that Panasonic is a good entry point for budding filmmakers.

I saw a surprising number of m4/3 cameras when I went to Carnival in Venice in 2017, and a fair number in Amsterdam in 2018. Other than that, I only see them occasionally --- one Panasonic at Yellowstone last year, for example.

The only reliable trend I see is toward fewer ILC cameras. When I would go to the zoo four or five years ago, I would always see plenty of young families with the dad (usually, it was the dad) carrying an entry level Canon dSLR. Now, I don't even see that. It's just cell phones.
 
Maybe the place to see m43 cameras are tourist destinations. I live in the US and have only seen one m43 camera in public - ever. Just not very popular here. I can see why one might see more of them at tourist destinations as m43 makes for good travel cameras/lenses.
 
Last edited:
[snip]
G Dickson said:
Mirrorless is growing for sure, but I have a funny feeling that I am seeing more Sony stuff than m4/3 or any other option.
Click to expand...
That certainly matches my own impression as well; by far the most common mirrorless cameras I see are Sonys.
 
Awhile back I was doing a family shoot in Chicago. They wanted a bunch of photo's at the tourist hot spots.

We made it to those big water fountain blocks with the faces on them and it was a bit crowded to do much but while we rested there for a bit I happened to see three Oly users around the bench I was at.

They looked to be Pen lites, not sure which models.

Never seen that many Oly users in one place before but to be fair I don't often go to crowded touristy spots.
 
kaphinga said:
I see a fair number young folks with Panasonic GH4/GH5 setups here in Atlanta. The film industry is *huge* here, and I imagine that Panasonic is a good entry point for budding filmmakers.

I saw a surprising number of m4/3 cameras when I went to Carnival in Venice in 2017, and a fair number in Amsterdam in 2018. Other than that, I only see them occasionally --- one Panasonic at Yellowstone last year, for example.

The only reliable trend I see is toward fewer ILC cameras. When I would go to the zoo four or five years ago, I would always see plenty of young families with the dad (usually, it was the dad) carrying an entry level Canon dSLR. Now, I don't even see that. It's just cell phones.
Click to expand...
In a sea of cell phones, I have come across some young people with a "proper camera" of late during my Apennine mountain wanderings.

The interesting thing is that it is the female component of small groups who are the "photographers" in what was once a mostly male activity.

The bad news is that the cameras I see are mostly Canon Rebel's with a kit lens.

The thing I never see these days unless I look in a mirror is a camera bag. When I see people with cameras, it is always just a standard sort of zoom. Being an eccentric Englishman, I have just retrieved the "big" Billingham from the darkroom to carry my FF gear which is spiralling out of control with two bodies and four lenses excluding the old Nikon glass i never was able to sell.
 
At music festivals the only people I've ever seen with camera bags are the accredited pro photographers with press passes; others prefer to be more discrete. And all those pro photographers seem to have Canikons, unless they're doing video, in which case they could have anything from phones to m43 to very complicated rigs. There is one regular with m43 doing stills, but only one.

The standard "serious" cameras to be seen around tourists' necks here in Sydney are usually Canikon DSLRs with kit lenses, with extra-big logos on straps a bonus feature. As someone said before, the smaller non-black cameras seem to be quite popular too.
 
Late in 2018 my wife and I were in Antarctica. So lots of cameras, ranging from 'phones to FF Canons with "big whites", Nikon etc. Of course also some Sony, and I was using my A7RIII, but because I refuse to travel with excess weight, no lens longer than the 24-105/4, which suited me fine, as I'm interested in landscapes, and less so wildlife. Had I taken an m43 kit instead, I could have had more reach with the same or less weight in the bag.

Anyway, mostly Canikons. Fixed lens bridge cameras were also popular. But we were in a lounge on board ship and happened to sit beside an Irish couple, and he was carrying a G9 with the 7-14 lens. He was extremely happy with the camera, and allowed my wife to handle it and look through the viewfinder.

But that was a rare sighting. I rarely see m43 cameras in use in the wild. A pity, I think they are underrated.

Brian
 
I shoot a lot of motorsports events, sell the photos to car owners to finance travel. Its a break even hobby. For this I use an EM-1 and a 40-150PRO. I take a PL-7 and a 12-40PRO for a backup body, photos in the pits and paddock, and the 17 f/1.8 which I never seem to need. F/2.8 is marginal indoors sometimes, but I get by with it, rather have a zoom on the body when it can work for me.

Most of what I see at the track is Canon with some Nikon, a rare SONY or Panasonic. I have never seen another OLY kit there besides my own. I am referring to credentialed photographers like myself. I pay no attention to what spectators carry. I'm on the track side of the fence and K-wall.

I recently flew across America and drove back. I wanted to travel light so I took my travel kit, the PL-7 and the 14-150. I brought the Bower fisheye which I used once, and the 14-42 which I used often. I brought the 17 f/1.8 and never used it. The only compromise I make with this kit is low light. Most of the time it isn't a problem. In the worst light I had, I shot f/8 1/250. Not a problem for consumer grade lenses. There are enough good light opportunities to document travel. I sacrificed a little sharpness, but I was not out there for photography. I went to bring to a car back rather than ship it. I was on the road for two weeks, happy to take a small bag.

I didn't see any dedicated cameras on this trip except my own. I visited friends who used cell phone cameras and produced inferior photos to the M43 gear I brought in any light especially at night. Even in good light, you can easily tell the cell phone images from the M43 images. They were good cell phone cameras including the iPhone X whatever the correct name is, the $1,000 cell phone. They looked at the images on their 65" 4K TV and frowned when they saw the difference, but I doubt they will go back to using a dedicated camera. It isn't as much fun, or as easy, and better photography isn't important enough to them as long as they don't have to compare images with something better. What they get from cell phones is good enough for them.

I stopped in Northern Nevada to photograph bighorn sheep feeding at the side of the road, wandered down to a lake, and took one photo of the car with the desert mountains in the background just to prove I was there. Didn't think much of it. Light wasn't very good, overcast sky. Just a random shot on "P" with the PL-7 and the 14-150. Camera chose f/8 1/250. I printed it cropped 75% on a Canon 13X19 color printer. Surprise. Photo is stunning. Everything in focus, the car 50 feet away, the mountain 25 miles away. Lots of detail. I think it could be printed a size bigger. Typical comment is "It looks like a car advertisement or a photo from a brochure." Good enough for me. The PL-7 and the 14-150 cost me $650. Not bad at the time considering the range of the lens. A one lens solution most of the time.

Went to the local camera store to buy an ink tank. Took the photo to show a friend I met there. Threw the photo on a counter and it gathered a crowd. Everybody liked it. Nobody asked what camera made it.

Showing a friend an EM-1MX and an EM-1 MKII kit for sale for $1600 bundled with the 12-40, I got into a conversation with a sales clerk. "16MP isn't enough", he said. "I wouldn't shoot with that. Never liked that PL-7. Oh, great photo."

"Made it with a PL-7. Photo is cropped 75%, JPEG is a 1.5MB file."

Clerk wandered off. Probably thought he lost any chance of selling me anything. He didn't. I buy what works for me, don't care what other people use or think. I was amused, not offended.

People get all jacked up about the specs of their gear. It isn't as important as being at the right place at the right time. If the framing, composition and post processing are good a little compromise on IQ isn't as important to me as going light. I have prints hanging on my wall made more than 10 years ago with a Canon 8MP DSLR. They look great.

Panasonic has very aggressively priced kits now, two lens kits in the store for $399. If I needed one I'd probably go that way. I shot Panasonic before OLY introduced OMD, had good luck with the Panasonics though the lenses were not as good as they are now.

Entry level ASP-C DSLRs make good images too, but I shoot a lot of telephoto so they are much bigger and heavier, not for me. I would not have taken a 70-200 Canon or Nikon on this trip. Without that, no sheep photos so no car photo because I wouldn't have stopped to photograph the sheep. The M43 compromise is just right for what I do.

At the track I think size matters. Bigger that is. Sometimes the light is too low for f/5.6-6.7 lenses to bring out all the detail. When I'm trying to sell them, I need detailed photos in low light. I think a professional looking kit makes it easy for customers to think I'm a professional. In the end they look at an internet resolution image to decide if they want to buy a print, but first I have to get them to look. With a cell phone camera they wouldn't and shouldn't. A cell phone can not take good photos at the track.

I don't expect the world to change much. I'm a little guy myself, 5'7" 135 lbs. I can't travel with or carry quality DSLR FF or ASP-C lenses in comfort. I'll still be a dwarf out there at the track with the rest of the credentialed photographers with their big C&N kits. I don't mind. That amuses me too. I only care about the photos and they are very good.
 
Hi MShot,

There is so much common sense in your post that I won’t go into addressing individual thoughts. Thanks for this post.
MShot said:
I shoot a lot of motorsports events, sell the photos to car owners to finance travel. Its a break even hobby. For this I use an EM-1 and a 40-150PRO. I take a PL-7 and a 12-40PRO for a backup body, photos in the pits and paddock, and the 17 f/1.8 which I never seem to need. F/2.8 is marginal indoors sometimes, but I get by with it, rather have a zoom on the body when it can work for me.

Most of what I see at the track is Canon with some Nikon, a rare SONY or Panasonic. I have never seen another OLY kit there besides my own. I am referring to credentialed photographers like myself. I pay no attention to what spectators carry. I'm on the track side of the fence and K-wall.

I recently flew across America and drove back. I wanted to travel light so I took my travel kit, the PL-7 and the 14-150. I brought the Bower fisheye which I used once, and the 14-42 which I used often. I brought the 17 f/1.8 and never used it. The only compromise I make with this kit is low light. Most of the time it isn't a problem. In the worst light I had, I shot f/8 1/250. Not a problem for consumer grade lenses. There are enough good light opportunities to document travel. I sacrificed a little sharpness, but I was not out there for photography. I went to bring to a car back rather than ship it. I was on the road for two weeks, happy to take a small bag.

I didn't see any dedicated cameras on this trip except my own. I visited friends who used cell phone cameras and produced inferior photos to the M43 gear I brought in any light especially at night. Even in good light, you can easily tell the cell phone images from the M43 images. They were good cell phone cameras including the iPhone X whatever the correct name is, the $1,000 cell phone. They looked at the images on their 65" 4K TV and frowned when they saw the difference, but I doubt they will go back to using a dedicated camera. It isn't as much fun, or as easy, and better photography isn't important enough to them as long as they don't have to compare images with something better. What they get from cell phones is good enough for them.

I stopped in Northern Nevada to photograph bighorn sheep feeding at the side of the road, wandered down to a lake, and took one photo of the car with the desert mountains in the background just to prove I was there. Didn't think much of it. Light wasn't very good, overcast sky. Just a random shot on "P" with the PL-7 and the 14-150. Camera chose f/8 1/250. I printed it cropped 75% on a Canon 13X19 color printer. Surprise. Photo is stunning. Everything in focus, the car 50 feet away, the mountain 25 miles away. Lots of detail. I think it could be printed a size bigger. Typical comment is "It looks like a car advertisement or a photo from a brochure." Good enough for me. The PL-7 and the 14-150 cost me $650. Not bad at the time considering the range of the lens. A one lens solution most of the time.

Went to the local camera store to buy an ink tank. Took the photo to show a friend I met there. Threw the photo on a counter and it gathered a crowd. Everybody liked it. Nobody asked what camera made it.

Showing a friend an EM-1MX and an EM-1 MKII kit for sale for $1600 bundled with the 12-40, I got into a conversation with a sales clerk. "16MP isn't enough", he said. "I wouldn't shoot with that. Never liked that PL-7. Oh, great photo."

"Made it with a PL-7. Photo is cropped 75%, JPEG is a 1.5MB file."

Clerk wandered off. Probably thought he lost any chance of selling me anything. He didn't. I buy what works for me, don't care what other people use or think. I was amused, not offended.

People get all jacked up about the specs of their gear. It isn't as important as being at the right place at the right time. If the framing, composition and post processing are good a little compromise on IQ isn't as important to me as going light. I have prints hanging on my wall made more than 10 years ago with a Canon 8MP DSLR. They look great.

Panasonic has very aggressively priced kits now, two lens kits in the store for $399. If I needed one I'd probably go that way. I shot Panasonic before OLY introduced OMD, had good luck with the Panasonics though the lenses were not as good as they are now.

Entry level ASP-C DSLRs make good images too, but I shoot a lot of telephoto so they are much bigger and heavier, not for me. I would not have taken a 70-200 Canon or Nikon on this trip. Without that, no sheep photos so no car photo because I wouldn't have stopped to photograph the sheep. The M43 compromise is just right for what I do.

At the track I think size matters. Bigger that is. Sometimes the light is too low for f/5.6-6.7 lenses to bring out all the detail. When I'm trying to sell them, I need detailed photos in low light. I think a professional looking kit makes it easy for customers to think I'm a professional. In the end they look at an internet resolution image to decide if they want to buy a print, but first I have to get them to look. With a cell phone camera they wouldn't and shouldn't. A cell phone can not take good photos at the track.

I don't expect the world to change much. I'm a little guy myself, 5'7" 135 lbs. I can't travel with or carry quality DSLR FF or ASP-C lenses in comfort. I'll still be a dwarf out there at the track with the rest of the credentialed photographers with their big C&N kits. I don't mind. That amuses me too. I only care about the photos and they are very good.
Click to expand...

Jim Pilcher
Bonita Springs, Florida, USA
Life is a breeze by the sea
 
You are welcome.

I can see cell phone computational photography. Not sure I want it to come to dedicated cameras unless I can turn it off. Hard to explain. The images look harsh. Too much contrast? Over sharpened? Don't know.

If I want more resolution I'll buy a body with hi-res. I would only use more than 16-20MP for landscapes. Don't need a 40MP camera and don't want to manage files that big when you throw most of them away on a monitor anyway. Not making 4X5 foot prints. 16MP is enough even with a heavy crop. I proved it on my own printer.

I'm not chasing specs. I'm working to be a better photographer, to make better images with the gear I have.
 
Adielle said:
An Olympus camera with the worst ultra wide lens blows away anything you can get from a smartphone camera, with better stabilization and overall image quality. And "Computational Photography" is a bunch of nonsense.
Click to expand...
As a owner of the GX8 with 12-35 2.8 and Huawei P30 Pro i do not agree with you!

Yes the high end Olympus have better ibis, but still not "blows away" a high end smartphone exept ergomomics and sports
 
vallhall said:
Adielle said:
An Olympus camera with the worst ultra wide lens blows away anything you can get from a smartphone camera, with better stabilization and overall image quality. And "Computational Photography" is a bunch of nonsense.
Click to expand...
As a owner of the GX8 with 12-35 2.8 and Huawei P30 Pro i do not agree with you!

Yes the high end Olympus have better ibis, but still not "blows away" a high end smartphone exept ergomomics and sports
Click to expand...
As an owner of a GX8 with access to multiple "high-end smartphone" cameras, I find people's comments about the quality of smartphone cameras hilarious, if not delirious. The P30 Pro's massive chromatic aberration / purple fringing is hideous, and so is the overall quality and noise, naturally, and in order to minimize it, aggressive processing is needed, colors are destroyed. What can you expect from a lens like that? Magic? Is the "Computational Photography" magical? And the sensor... you know, no amount of BS(I) or digital processing is going to overcome some limitations. This whole thing is a joke. MFT cameras / lenses are always going to blow smartphones away. If I want massive CA, I'll use my FZ80. The sharpness is similar to a good smartphone's, but I can get better SNR and a usable picture at 1200mm-equivalent focal length (I guess your CP is gonna win here too) as well as 20mm-equivalent. It cost me less than half of such a smartphone. More like a third.
 
Last edited:
Adielle said:
vallhall said:
Adielle said:
An Olympus camera with the worst ultra wide lens blows away anything you can get from a smartphone camera, with better stabilization and overall image quality. And "Computational Photography" is a bunch of nonsense.
Click to expand...
As a owner of the GX8 with 12-35 2.8 and Huawei P30 Pro i do not agree with you!

Yes the high end Olympus have better ibis, but still not "blows away" a high end smartphone exept ergomomics and sports
Click to expand...
As an owner of a GX8 with access to multiple "high-end smartphone" cameras, I find people's comments about the quality of smartphone cameras hilarious, if not delirious. The P30 Pro's massive chromatic aberration / purple fringing is hideous, and so is the overall quality and noise, naturally, and in order to minimize it, aggressive processing is needed, colors are destroyed. What can you expect from a lens like that? Magic? Is the "Computational Photography" magical? And the sensor... you know, no amount of BS(I) or digital processing is going to overcome some limitations. This whole thing is a joke. MFT cameras / lenses are always going to blow smartphones away. If I want massive CA, I'll use my FZ80. The sharpness is similar to a good smartphone's, but I can get better SNR and a usable picture at 1200mm-equivalent focal length (I guess your CP is gonna win here too) as well as 20mm-equivalent. It cost me less than half of such a smartphone. More like a third.
Click to expand...
I have compared both the camera and phone...It seems you don't

You have GX8 and probarly access to the P30 Pro to, so why not test them in low light and show them in here....i can do the same!, as i already have tested them in low light
 
Last edited:
Adielle said:
vallhall said:
Adielle said:
An Olympus camera with the worst ultra wide lens blows away anything you can get from a smartphone camera, with better stabilization and overall image quality. And "Computational Photography" is a bunch of nonsense.
Click to expand...
As a owner of the GX8 with 12-35 2.8 and Huawei P30 Pro i do not agree with you!

Yes the high end Olympus have better ibis, but still not "blows away" a high end smartphone exept ergomomics and sports
Click to expand...
As an owner of a GX8 with access to multiple "high-end smartphone" cameras, I find people's comments about the quality of smartphone cameras hilarious, if not delirious. The P30 Pro's massive chromatic aberration / purple fringing is hideous, and so is the overall quality and noise, naturally, and in order to minimize it, aggressive processing is needed, colors are destroyed. What can you expect from a lens like that? Magic? Is the "Computational Photography" magical? And the sensor... you know, no amount of BS(I) or digital processing is going to overcome some limitations. This whole thing is a joke. MFT cameras / lenses are always going to blow smartphones away. If I want massive CA, I'll use my FZ80. The sharpness is similar to a good smartphone's, but I can get better SNR and a usable picture at 1200mm-equivalent focal length (I guess your CP is gonna win here too) as well as 20mm-equivalent. It cost me less than half of such a smartphone. More like a third.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should buy an iPhone, mine does not suffer from CA.

A pretty pink one would be cool.
 
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