What are full-framers missing by not using M4/3

These are spectacular, thanks for sharing!

I see on your gear list that you're shooting with a Olympus E-M1 II. I'm considering moving to M43 myself (coming from Nikon APSC), and I'm a little confused by the Olympus/OM lineup. Do all the cameras with a 20MP sensor have the same image quality?

I'm not concerned about action or fast read out speeds, just resolution and dynamic range. Will an OM-5 or an OM-D E-M10 Mark IV produce the same image quality as you get with your E-M1 II? I don't think I can afford an OM 3 or an OM 1 at this point.
I have owned EM1, EM1.2, OM1 (current), OM5 (current). The OM5 is like an EM1.3 in an EM5.3 body, with some minor function reductions and only 1 card slot.

There was a big jump in IQ from EM1 to EM1.2, larger than the resolution increase would explain. After that pretty much all the 20Mpix bodies have the same IQ. There is a small improvement in colour accuracy in deep shadows with the OM1/OM3 sensor. IBIS in the OM1 is better and better still in the mk ii, but it’s better than a modern Sony in the OM5, so pretty good since the EM1.3.

The stacked sensors in the OM1/OM3 have a trivial DR penalty. Olympus/OM changed sensor calibration settings from model to model, so you can ignore ISO in terms of exact DR, except at base ISO. The EM1.2 was famous for having a true base ISO of around 120. After that it’s been a lot closer to 200.

If you are a jpeg shooter, the OM1/OM3 in-camera AI noise reduction is pretty good. It’s not quite as good as DxO DeepPrime, but still impressive. Bodies with handheld Hi-Res stacking can reduce noise in low light by producing stacked jpegs or pseudo-RAWs. That can be quite helpful.

If you can manage without an EVF and want a popup flash, the EP7 has IBIS but only CDAF.

Unfortunately, small cameras are selling well at the moment, but you still see discounts on white EP7 kits and OM5 kits (with the rather wonderful 12-45/4) from time to time. OM also advertise “refurbs”, which look rather like open box returns that they have checked over.

Signing up to the OM newsletter gives you notice of offers and sometimes an additional discount code. If OM are launching a new product, there will be tryout sessions with a lot of lenses at stores. You get a voucher for attending which can go towards a spare battery or anything else.

Might be worth considering the Panasonic G100D as well.

Hope that helps.

TL:DR Sounds like a used EM1.2 might suit but sometimes an OM5 plus 12-45/4 kit is cheaper than buying a used body and lens separately.

A
 
what are some other things Micro 4/3 gives that you cannot get anywhere else? Let’s list them for those interested!
Probably more fields are reserved for FF than for M43.

Supermacro and some niche some areas of wildlife photography, thats about it. In other areas, not much to gain from m43, but not that much to lose either if youre already invested..
Yep. M43 is good if you are in some super niche things that almost nobody shoots. Full frame for everything else...
What types of photography is unachievable with M43?

Few people shoot full frame, it is super niche. Guessing less than 0.00001% of photos taken today are full frame.
 
what are some other things Micro 4/3 gives that you cannot get anywhere else? Let’s list them for those interested!
Probably more fields are reserved for FF than for M43.

Supermacro and some niche some areas of wildlife photography, thats about it. In other areas, not much to gain from m43, but not that much to lose either if youre already invested..
Yep. M43 is good if you are in some super niche things that almost nobody shoots. Full frame for everything else...
What types of photography is unachievable with M43?

Few people shoot full frame, it is super niche. Guessing less than 0.00001% of photos taken today are full frame.
M43 is great because it's so versatile, you can shoot anything with it and it's light, you can always carry it with you. It's the most fun system to shoot.
 
M43 is great because it's so versatile, you can shoot anything with it and it's light, you can always carry it with you. It's the most fun system to shoot.
🍻 For sure 🎉 for me.

I've been through only a few mirrorless Fuji X, Samsung Nx, Sony Nex & A. Only had a few dslrs from Canon Nikon Oly Sigma Sony.

Handled various : dslrs in shops, mirrorless A R Z series, Gfx Hassyx Pentax645z.

I've just today had delivery of white Pany Gf6 my 9th M4/3 🎉 this year. I've kept 7 ✌️ sold 1, swapped another.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.
 
Last edited:
what are some other things Micro 4/3 gives that you cannot get anywhere else? Let’s list them for those interested!
Probably more fields are reserved for FF than for M43.

Supermacro and some niche some areas of wildlife photography, thats about it. In other areas, not much to gain from m43, but not that much to lose either if youre already invested..
Yep. M43 is good if you are in some super niche things that almost nobody shoots. Full frame for everything else...
What types of photography is unachievable with M43?

Few people shoot full frame, it is super niche. Guessing less than 0.00001% of photos taken today are full frame.
I don't know if your being serious or inc. phone cameras in your statistics

What is your source please ?

Most enthusiast and pro. shots will be taken by APS-C and FF cameras judging by the sales leagues posted on this forum.

M43 is the equivalent of 110 film in the times of 35mm film.
 
Last edited:
what are some other things Micro 4/3 gives that you cannot get anywhere else? Let’s list them for those interested!
Probably more fields are reserved for FF than for M43.

Supermacro and some niche some areas of wildlife photography, thats about it. In other areas, not much to gain from m43, but not that much to lose either if youre already invested..
Yep. M43 is good if you are in some super niche things that almost nobody shoots. Full frame for everything else...
What types of photography is unachievable with M43?

Few people shoot full frame, it is super niche. Guessing less than 0.00001% of photos taken today are full frame.
I don't know if your being serious or inc. phone cameras in your statistics

What is your source please ?

Most enthusiast and pro. shots will be taken by APS-C and FF cameras judging by the sales leagues posted on this forum.

M43 is the equivalent of 110 film in the times of 35mm film.
I think he's just trolling lol
 
Those are all absolutely fantastic pictures (wow), but I have to say that MFT, which is a LARGE SENSOR FORMAT (yes...) is far from optimal for macro photography because of the extremely shallow DOF (yes...) even with f/22. Comparatively, it's much easier to get usable and excellent results in many more cases than it is with MFT, with some smartphones (with excellent lenses) or compact cameras. When you can do image stacking and whatever, then sure, MFT is great for macro. Macro and near macro and even close but not really anywhere near "macro" is often a huge pain for me with MFT. Not to mention APS-C... or full-frame, which is an absolute joke for this. It's not a matter of "getting better", it's plain physics.
 
Those are all absolutely fantastic pictures (wow), but I have to say that MFT, which is a LARGE SENSOR FORMAT (yes...) is far from optimal for macro photography because of the extremely shallow DOF (yes...) even with f/22. Comparatively, it's much easier to get usable and excellent results in many more cases than it is with MFT, with some smartphones (with excellent lenses) or compact cameras. When you can do image stacking and whatever, then sure, MFT is great for macro. Macro and near macro and even close but not really anywhere near "macro" is often a huge pain for me with MFT. Not to mention APS-C... or full-frame, which is an absolute joke for this. It's not a matter of "getting better", it's plain physics.
Smartphones and compact cameras don‘t get anywhere near close the image quality even MFT can produce in macro, you aren‘t going to shoot fantastic macro shots on f22 on MFT, diffraction will just turn everything to mush.

Compact cameras and smartphones similarly aren‘t safe from diffraction and their noise performance and actual resolution is much worse than any larger sensor format.
 
Last edited:
I can pack a camera that shoots 50fps, with subject recognition with RAW pro-capture, into a 30l backpack, with a 70-200 equivalent, a 600mm prime equivalent, tele converters, a macro lens and a 24-80 equivalent.

I can shoot all day, in any weather, handheld - with no tripods, monopods, gimbals

I spent less than £5k on all of the above

The obsession with IQ and megapixels is usually led by average photographers. And these people spend 10k+ on lenses, let alone their camera, to sit in a wildlife hide and churn out the same bird on a stick photos that some other person got the day before with gear that cost far less.

There are professionals who have had to switch from Micro 4/3 because of the demands of their clients for larger and larger files. The difference is they don't have a bad word to say about OM/M43 Gear when they are forced to switch.
 
Last edited:
Why are M43ers so obsessed with FF? There are so many threads here about FF, almost always started by M43 shooters, and they almost always hit the 150 reply limit. The inverse (FFers talking about M43) is pretty much nonexistent.
It's called "Little Man Syndrome"
 
Full Framers can't put Big White on their cameras can they!!
 
what are some other things Micro 4/3 gives that you cannot get anywhere else? Let’s list them for those interested!
Probably more fields are reserved for FF than for M43.

Supermacro and some niche some areas of wildlife photography, thats about it. In other areas, not much to gain from m43, but not that much to lose either if youre already invested..
Yep. M43 is good if you are in some super niche things that almost nobody shoots. Full frame for everything else...
What types of photography is unachievable with M43?

Few people shoot full frame, it is super niche. Guessing less than 0.00001% of photos taken today are full frame.
Funny 🤣
 
There are a lot of posts here but none on-topic and answering the original question for some reason..

There just seems to be posts of lenses owned etc.
 
There are a lot of posts here but none on-topic and answering the original question for some reason..

There just seems to be posts of lenses owned etc.
In my case:

Or something like that!
Or something like that!



Less than 1kg kit
Less than 1kg kit



Hard to find with the current interest in small cameras but cost me £250
Hard to find with the current interest in small cameras but cost me £250



2.5kg kit fisheye to 400mm FF
2.5kg kit fisheye to 400mm FF

Not only, but also:



f055850bfc1c4d7a89d2332f5bd562a9.jpg

I don’t have any pictures of my great big Manfrotto or the 100mm square filter set, but sometimes going handheld doesn’t cut it.

There is no equivalent MFT zoom with the shooting envelope of the 70-20/4 G on an A7CR. Mind the body and that lens cost me the same as the OM1 and 40-150/2.8 in the bag above.

TL:DR Extends the size-weight-action shooting envelope at affordable costs. Excellent for minimalist kits and EDC. GM1 highly acceptable in social situations and easy to carry in the matching leather case.

Andrew



--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post
 
Those are all absolutely fantastic pictures (wow), but I have to say that MFT, which is a LARGE SENSOR FORMAT (yes...) is far from optimal for macro photography because of the extremely shallow DOF (yes...) even with f/22. Comparatively, it's much easier to get usable and excellent results in many more cases than it is with MFT, with some smartphones (with excellent lenses) or compact cameras. When you can do image stacking and whatever, then sure, MFT is great for macro. Macro and near macro and even close but not really anywhere near "macro" is often a huge pain for me with MFT. Not to mention APS-C... or full-frame, which is an absolute joke for this. It's not a matter of "getting better", it's plain physics.
Smartphones and compact cameras don‘t get anywhere near close the image quality even MFT can produce in macro,
They get near and can far surpass it. Unless you can stack images of course. Check out pictures from Xiaomi 14 Ultra for example. Those are serious Leica Summicron lenses, and specifically the "75mm-equivalent" lens is ideal for macro. Most people only use the the OOC JPEG (which can be fine), but there's also raw which is fully supported in Lightroom, and the results from that are awesome.
you aren‘t going to shoot fantastic macro shots on f22 on MFT, diffraction will just turn everything to mush.
Exactly. And in many cases even f/22 on MFT has far too shallow DOF. And that's the issue.
Compact cameras and smartphones similarly aren‘t safe from diffraction and their noise performance and actual resolution is much worse than any larger sensor format.
The fact that the lenses can have MUCH SMALLER focal length in order to give you the same FOV is what gives you a ton more DOF. This is an undebatable advantage of smaller sensor/lens formats.
 
Last edited:
Those are all absolutely fantastic pictures (wow), but I have to say that MFT, which is a LARGE SENSOR FORMAT (yes...) is far from optimal for macro photography because of the extremely shallow DOF (yes...) even with f/22. Comparatively, it's much easier to get usable and excellent results in many more cases than it is with MFT, with some smartphones (with excellent lenses) or compact cameras. When you can do image stacking and whatever, then sure, MFT is great for macro. Macro and near macro and even close but not really anywhere near "macro" is often a huge pain for me with MFT. Not to mention APS-C... or full-frame, which is an absolute joke for this. It's not a matter of "getting better", it's plain physics.
Smartphones and compact cameras don‘t get anywhere near close the image quality even MFT can produce in macro,
They get near and can far surpass it. Unless you can stack images of course. Check out pictures from Xiaomi 14 Ultra for example. Most people only use the the OOC JPEG (which can be fine), but there's also raw which is fully supported in Lightroom, and the results from that are awesome.
They look okay on a phone screen, not when looking at them on a larger screen or after printing, they wouldn't be anywhere good enough for my purpose.
you aren‘t going to shoot fantastic macro shots on f22 on MFT, diffraction will just turn everything to mush.
Exactly. And in many cases even f/22 on MFT has far too shallow DOF. And that's the issue.
Decreasing the sensor size doesn't reduce diffraction, increasing DOF through stopping down further does nothing as diffraction kills all detail, stopping down past f10 on MFT with a macro lens is already quite bad. That effect will be much worse when you shoot on an even smaller sensor with even higher pixel density. That's also the reason why almost all macro shots from phones are super soft and lack detail.
Compact cameras and smartphones similarly aren‘t safe from diffraction and their noise performance and actual resolution is much worse than any larger sensor format.
The fact that the lenses can be MUCH SMALLER to give you the same FOV is what gives you a ton more DOF. This is an undebatable advantage of smaller sensor/lens formats.
No, you don't get extra depth of field as diffraction reduces resolution so much, stopping down doesn't benefit you beyond a certain point, hence why stacking exists.

Smaller sensors aren't immune to physics, MFT doesn't have a deeper depth of field than FF, you are just comparing incorrect variables (nominal f-Stop instead of effective f-Stop). The same field of view with the same effective f-stop will have the same depth of field and the same amount of diffraction, however that diffraction may be visible sooner on sensors with a higher pixel density, like comparing a 20mp MFT body with a 20mp FF body.

Similarly, a 300 f2 lens on MFT will have the same DOF and FOV as 600 f4 on full frame, because the effective f-Stop of the 300 f2 lens is f4.
 
Those are all absolutely fantastic pictures (wow), but I have to say that MFT, which is a LARGE SENSOR FORMAT (yes...) is far from optimal for macro photography because of the extremely shallow DOF (yes...) even with f/22. Comparatively, it's much easier to get usable and excellent results in many more cases than it is with MFT, with some smartphones (with excellent lenses) or compact cameras. When you can do image stacking and whatever, then sure, MFT is great for macro. Macro and near macro and even close but not really anywhere near "macro" is often a huge pain for me with MFT. Not to mention APS-C... or full-frame, which is an absolute joke for this. It's not a matter of "getting better", it's plain physics.
Smartphones and compact cameras don‘t get anywhere near close the image quality even MFT can produce in macro,
They get near and can far surpass it. Unless you can stack images of course. Check out pictures from Xiaomi 14 Ultra for example. Most people only use the the OOC JPEG (which can be fine), but there's also raw which is fully supported in Lightroom, and the results from that are awesome.
They look okay on a phone screen, not when looking at them on a larger screen or after printing, they wouldn't be anywhere good enough for my purpose.
You don't know what you're talking about. This used to be the case years ago. Nowadays MFT lags far behind in lens innovation compared to smartphones. But that's true for all other large sensor ILC formats. Leica actually did serious R&D on all those lenses that are used in that smartphone. And the Sony sensors are excellent. And huge sensors are NOT needed for macro.
you aren‘t going to shoot fantastic macro shots on f22 on MFT, diffraction will just turn everything to mush.
Exactly. And in many cases even f/22 on MFT has far too shallow DOF. And that's the issue.
Decreasing the sensor size doesn't reduce diffraction, increasing DOF through stopping down further does nothing as diffraction kills all detail, stopping down past f10 on MFT with a macro lens is already quite bad. That effect will be much worse when you shoot on an even smaller sensor with even higher pixel density. That's also the reason why almost all macro shots from phones are super soft and lack detail.
Compact cameras and smartphones similarly aren‘t safe from diffraction and their noise performance and actual resolution is much worse than any larger sensor format.
The fact that the lenses can be MUCH SMALLER to give you the same FOV is what gives you a ton more DOF. This is an undebatable advantage of smaller sensor/lens formats.
No, you don't get extra depth of field as diffraction reduces resolution so much, stopping down doesn't benefit you beyond a certain point, hence why stacking exists.

Smaller sensors aren't immune to physics, MFT doesn't have a deeper depth of field than FF, you are just comparing incorrect variables (nominal f-Stop instead of effective f-Stop). The same field of view with the same effective f-stop will have the same depth of field and the same amount of diffraction, however that diffraction may be visible sooner on sensors with a higher pixel density, like comparing a 20mp MFT body with a 20mp FF body.

Similarly, a 300 f2 lens on MFT will have the same DOF and FOV as 600 f4 on full frame, because the effective f-Stop of the 300 f2 lens is f4.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You get MANY TIMES BIGGER DOF with lenses that can give you the same FOV with their much smaller focal length. This is crucial for macro. Whatever, I don't feel like "debating" something undebatable, enjoy.
 
Last edited:
Those are all absolutely fantastic pictures (wow), but I have to say that MFT, which is a LARGE SENSOR FORMAT (yes...) is far from optimal for macro photography because of the extremely shallow DOF (yes...) even with f/22. Comparatively, it's much easier to get usable and excellent results in many more cases than it is with MFT, with some smartphones (with excellent lenses) or compact cameras. When you can do image stacking and whatever, then sure, MFT is great for macro. Macro and near macro and even close but not really anywhere near "macro" is often a huge pain for me with MFT. Not to mention APS-C... or full-frame, which is an absolute joke for this. It's not a matter of "getting better", it's plain physics.
Smartphones and compact cameras don‘t get anywhere near close the image quality even MFT can produce in macro,
They get near and can far surpass it. Unless you can stack images of course. Check out pictures from Xiaomi 14 Ultra for example. Most people only use the the OOC JPEG (which can be fine), but there's also raw which is fully supported in Lightroom, and the results from that are awesome.
They look okay on a phone screen, not when looking at them on a larger screen or after printing, they wouldn't be anywhere good enough for my purpose.
You don't know what you're talking about. This used to be the case years ago. Nowadays MFT lags far behind in lens innovation nowadays. Leica actually did serious R&D on all those lenses that are used in that smartphone. And the Sony sensors are excellent. And huge sensors are NOT needed for macro.
The lenses can be as good as you want, diffraction doesn't care about lens quality. Show me a single tack sharp shot from a phone that holds up at 100% and was shot in situ.
you aren‘t going to shoot fantastic macro shots on f22 on MFT, diffraction will just turn everything to mush.
Exactly. And in many cases even f/22 on MFT has far too shallow DOF. And that's the issue.
Decreasing the sensor size doesn't reduce diffraction, increasing DOF through stopping down further does nothing as diffraction kills all detail, stopping down past f10 on MFT with a macro lens is already quite bad. That effect will be much worse when you shoot on an even smaller sensor with even higher pixel density. That's also the reason why almost all macro shots from phones are super soft and lack detail.
Compact cameras and smartphones similarly aren‘t safe from diffraction and their noise performance and actual resolution is much worse than any larger sensor format.
The fact that the lenses can be MUCH SMALLER to give you the same FOV is what gives you a ton more DOF. This is an undebatable advantage of smaller sensor/lens formats.
No, you don't get extra depth of field as diffraction reduces resolution so much, stopping down doesn't benefit you beyond a certain point, hence why stacking exists.

Smaller sensors aren't immune to physics, MFT doesn't have a deeper depth of field than FF, you are just comparing incorrect variables (nominal f-Stop instead of effective f-Stop). The same field of view with the same effective f-stop will have the same depth of field and the same amount of diffraction, however that diffraction may be visible sooner on sensors with a higher pixel density, like comparing a 20mp MFT body with a 20mp FF body.

Similarly, a 300 f2 lens on MFT will have the same DOF and FOV as 600 f4 on full frame, because the effective f-Stop of the 300 f2 lens is f4.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You get MANY TIMES BIGGER DOF with lenses that can give you the same FOV with their much smaller focal length. This is crucial for macro. Whatever, I don't feel like "debating" something undebatable, enjoy.
No, you don't, you just don't understand the difference between nominal and effective f-stop.
 
Those are all absolutely fantastic pictures (wow), but I have to say that MFT, which is a LARGE SENSOR FORMAT (yes...) is far from optimal for macro photography because of the extremely shallow DOF (yes...) even with f/22. Comparatively, it's much easier to get usable and excellent results in many more cases than it is with MFT, with some smartphones (with excellent lenses) or compact cameras. When you can do image stacking and whatever, then sure, MFT is great for macro. Macro and near macro and even close but not really anywhere near "macro" is often a huge pain for me with MFT. Not to mention APS-C... or full-frame, which is an absolute joke for this. It's not a matter of "getting better", it's plain physics.
Smartphones and compact cameras don‘t get anywhere near close the image quality even MFT can produce in macro,
They get near and can far surpass it. Unless you can stack images of course. Check out pictures from Xiaomi 14 Ultra for example. Most people only use the the OOC JPEG (which can be fine), but there's also raw which is fully supported in Lightroom, and the results from that are awesome.
They look okay on a phone screen, not when looking at them on a larger screen or after printing, they wouldn't be anywhere good enough for my purpose.
You don't know what you're talking about. This used to be the case years ago. Nowadays MFT lags far behind in lens innovation compared to smartphones. But that's true for all other large sensor ILC formats. Leica actually did serious R&D on all those lenses that are used in that smartphone. And the Sony sensors are excellent. And huge sensors are NOT needed for macro.
you aren‘t going to shoot fantastic macro shots on f22 on MFT, diffraction will just turn everything to mush.
Exactly. And in many cases even f/22 on MFT has far too shallow DOF. And that's the issue.
Decreasing the sensor size doesn't reduce diffraction, increasing DOF through stopping down further does nothing as diffraction kills all detail, stopping down past f10 on MFT with a macro lens is already quite bad. That effect will be much worse when you shoot on an even smaller sensor with even higher pixel density. That's also the reason why almost all macro shots from phones are super soft and lack detail.
Compact cameras and smartphones similarly aren‘t safe from diffraction and their noise performance and actual resolution is much worse than any larger sensor format.
The fact that the lenses can be MUCH SMALLER to give you the same FOV is what gives you a ton more DOF. This is an undebatable advantage of smaller sensor/lens formats.
No, you don't get extra depth of field as diffraction reduces resolution so much, stopping down doesn't benefit you beyond a certain point, hence why stacking exists.

Smaller sensors aren't immune to physics, MFT doesn't have a deeper depth of field than FF, you are just comparing incorrect variables (nominal f-Stop instead of effective f-Stop). The same field of view with the same effective f-stop will have the same depth of field and the same amount of diffraction, however that diffraction may be visible sooner on sensors with a higher pixel density, like comparing a 20mp MFT body with a 20mp FF body.

Similarly, a 300 f2 lens on MFT will have the same DOF and FOV as 600 f4 on full frame, because the effective f-Stop of the 300 f2 lens is f4.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You get MANY TIMES BIGGER DOF with lenses that can give you the same FOV with their much smaller focal length. This is crucial for macro. Whatever, I don't feel like "debating" something undebatable, enjoy.
Markus is right. The sensor doesn't change the DoF, the lens does. The whole image, including the DoF, brightness, is all created by the lens. The sensor is merely a crop factor. Smaller sensor is just more crop. You can take a big sensor with the same lens, crop it in post to same framing, and you will get the same DoF and light gathering and whatnot.
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top