Reading mode: Light Dark

Shoot with both M4/3 and Full Frame, or even APS-C

Go to last post
I agree. The best camera is the one you have with you.
 
Sam Bennett said:
I use both MFT and L-Mount for my “professional” work doing event/concert photography.

MFT is my main system, which I use primarily with the 40-150/2.8 or another tele lens such as the 45/1.2 or 75/1.8. The OM-1 Mark II is just about as perfect a body I could ask for - it gives me the flexibility, speed, AF performance and image quality I need to deliver results reliably.

L-Mount is used for wide-to-normal work so that I can get a bit more separation through DoF for photos where there’s less magnification - often full-body compositions of performers. I typically start using the Sigma 16-28/2.8 for coverage, and then the 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 for even more shallow DoF. The camera I use is the LUMIX S5 II, which I intensely dislike. It is basically a necessary evil at this point, which I use simply because it serves a purpose in my kit. But basically every time I use it, I curse it. It’s slow, heavy and ahead starting to fall apart. That said, it can be a life saver when the light is super low, or I’m working with dynamic performers and need to crank the shutter speed to freeze someone dancing, etc. I won’t go above 6400 on the OM-1, but will go up to 25,600 on the S5.

For my personal work, it’s MFT all the way. The OM-3 is literally my dream camera - most of the things I love from the OM-1 Mark II in a compact, stylish body. My EDC kit is the OM-3 on my hip in a Spider Holster (no bag), and then the 12-45/4, 25/1.8 II, 17/1.8 II and the 9/8 fisheye just because in a small 3L bag.
Click to expand...
This is my personal opinion and I think other photographers will agree. I think James Popsy did a video on this subject.

A lot of pro cameras today what I refer to workhorse cameras. They are designed to get the shot and that it. There nothing else to say other than probably good hit rate and can something something frames per second. They deliver but they are boring soulless cameras.

I'll say the Z6iii is a good around camera and I use for it for events and wildlife photography. Still a boring camera. That said the Nikon Zf is my creative or personal camera because that camera is designed to get my creative juices flowing. It's no different to range finder style cameras we used to see for M43, a camera you want to use for photography because it's fun and portable.
 
I began using FF 10 years ago, along with my MFT system. My FF camera was/is a Sony A7R2, mostly with the tiny FE 35mm f/2.8 for better high ISO results - at 6400 for example. I photographed a lot at night, especially street festivals.

The camera is about the same size as my Panasonic GX8. I carried the A7R2 + 35 in a small unobtrusive shoulder bag.

4274f5533a5d49b395e618df97954536.jpg

These days I use mostly my Panasonic GX9 + 20mm f/1.7 or 30mm macro, which I carry in the same bag. I don't do much low light photography any more.

In your case, I would rent a FF system and evaluate for yourself with your subject matter, if you see visible improvements over your MFT system.

-richard
 
richj20 said:
[. . .]

In your case, I would rent a FF system and evaluate for yourself with your subject matter, if you see visible improvements over your MFT system.

-richard
Click to expand...
+1 on the renting (or borrowing)

1st hand experience will be better than advice from others

jj
 
What I plan to do is to try borrowing a camera from a member in one of my camera clubs. I can take my card and stick it in their camera and try it for a while and then bring my card back and see if I like what I see. But, I'll have to wait until fall, when the clubs start up again. But, my heart is with M4/3 and am not sure I want to splash out for another body and lens collection.
 
C Sean said:
Sam Bennett said:
I use both MFT and L-Mount for my “professional” work doing event/concert photography.

MFT is my main system, which I use primarily with the 40-150/2.8 or another tele lens such as the 45/1.2 or 75/1.8. The OM-1 Mark II is just about as perfect a body I could ask for - it gives me the flexibility, speed, AF performance and image quality I need to deliver results reliably.

L-Mount is used for wide-to-normal work so that I can get a bit more separation through DoF for photos where there’s less magnification - often full-body compositions of performers. I typically start using the Sigma 16-28/2.8 for coverage, and then the 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 for even more shallow DoF. The camera I use is the LUMIX S5 II, which I intensely dislike. It is basically a necessary evil at this point, which I use simply because it serves a purpose in my kit. But basically every time I use it, I curse it. It’s slow, heavy and ahead starting to fall apart. That said, it can be a life saver when the light is super low, or I’m working with dynamic performers and need to crank the shutter speed to freeze someone dancing, etc. I won’t go above 6400 on the OM-1, but will go up to 25,600 on the S5.

For my personal work, it’s MFT all the way. The OM-3 is literally my dream camera - most of the things I love from the OM-1 Mark II in a compact, stylish body. My EDC kit is the OM-3 on my hip in a Spider Holster (no bag), and then the 12-45/4, 25/1.8 II, 17/1.8 II and the 9/8 fisheye just because in a small 3L bag.
Click to expand...
This is my personal opinion and I think other photographers will agree. I think James Popsy did a video on this subject.

A lot of pro cameras today what I refer to workhorse cameras. They are designed to get the shot and that it. There nothing else to say other than probably good hit rate and can something something frames per second. They deliver but they are boring soulless cameras.

I'll say the Z6iii is a good around camera and I use for it for events and wildlife photography. Still a boring camera. That said the Nikon Zf is my creative or personal camera because that camera is designed to get my creative juices flowing. It's no different to range finder style cameras we used to see for M43, a camera you want to use for photography because it's fun and portable.
Click to expand...
I thought about going back to Nikon since that’s what I was using in my FF dSLR days, and I’ve always liked their ergonomics, colors, etc but after I used their f/1.8 primes it was a non-starter. They feel cheap to me, slow to focus and noisy. Very disappointing. One of the things I’ll say about L-Mount is that the LUMIX f/1.8 series is really fantastic - I love the image quality I get out of them and they’re a great balance of build quality, weight and performance. Sigma has some cool primes too, but I prefer the bokeh of the LUMIX lenses to the sharpness of the Sigmas. They have more of a “cinematic” look to my eye.
 
I actually prefer M43 cameras in low light! I love to shoot street and travel during blue hour and the excellent stabilization allows me to shoot at very low ISO.

As an example, this gallery is the OM-5 in Nashville during some hot, humid summer days.

So far in 2025, I have used M43 for about 70% of my shooting. FF accounts for about 20% and MF accounts for the other 10%. I have not been shooting any APS lately. Just too close to M43 to bother with in my opinion.

Mostly it's been the OM-3 lately which I find is a very well rounded camera for photographing "life".

OM-3 Gallery

My advice, is to find whichever camera you will carry most and shoot it until the dials fall off!
 
Last edited:
Lepewhi said:
I'm interested to know how many of you shoot with both M4/3 and FF or APSC. Those that do, why? I realize that FF is better at low light and lower noise. But, in the real world, can you see a real difference unless viewed very close. And is the dynamic range really wildly different? Talk me out of getting a FF, please.

My shooting style is street, travel and general outings with local photo clubs that I'm involved. I know that for birding and wildlife, I'm better off with the M4/3 for the 2X crop. But, Belgium is a dark country in the winter, so ? .

Thanks for your thoughts,
Click to expand...
Whichever digital system from 1/2.3" sensor to full frame to medium format

Utilising strengths of each system in accordance with the topic being photographed is an appropriate path I reckon.

[ o ]

2011 I was photographing with : Nokia N86 phone, Canon A610 1/1.7" sensor compact, Samsung Ex1 1/1.8" sensor compact, A200 Minolta 2/3" sensor bridge, Digilux2 2/3" sensor bridge, Sigma SD9 Foveon dslr, Sigma DP1 Foveon aps-c compact, Oly E-P1, Sony Nex5 aps-c, Kodak slrC full frame.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.
 
Last edited:
Enjoyed your portfolio. Yes indeed, M4/3 holds its own.
 
I only have M43, but I'd be lying if I'd say that I wouldn't enjoy the extra IQ a FF setup could provide and not poundered about getting FF. What has stoped me, so far, is the cost benefit. Considering FF if I am being honest with myself, is a $5,000+CDN minimum investment. I then look at what I would need to fullfil more than just a single use-case compared to my ususal M43 setup, which is 12-45mm, 40-150mm, 8mm FE or 17mm and I go through the exercise of determining what I would need to buy and end up with a large and very expensive setup. The zoom equivalent to cover at least the same range are large and wide/UW angle equivalents not so much but still larger and now cost skyrocketing. I also see no justification to add FF just for a limited use-case and at best would be limited to purchasing 3rd party lenses. Then I say, nope, stick to the great system I already have, it ain't worth it FOR ME and go out and shoot happily.
 
Thanks for saving me from myself. I probably use my small bodies more than my G9. So, that should tell me something. Although, if the Panasonic S9 came out with a version with a hot shoe, I'd be tempted.
 
Lepewhi said:
Thanks for saving me from myself. I probably use my small bodies more than my G9. So, that should tell me something. Although, if the Panasonic S9 came out with a version with a hot shoe, I'd be tempted.
Click to expand...
So far you aren't making a compelling case for any FF gear. Bigger lenses for street in low light seems to be the main attraction?

Have a look at the cost, size and weight of a used A7Riii/A7iv and Sigma 35/2 DG DN and ask yourself whether there is any real benefit.

A

--
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
 
Last edited:
Lepewhi said:
Thanks for saving me from myself. I probably use my small bodies more than my G9. So, that should tell me something. Although, if the Panasonic S9 came out with a version with a hot shoe, I'd be tempted.
Click to expand...
 
I understand. I really love my system. Just considering something that gives more options when light is low. And I don't have to be so careful with keeping the ISO down below 800. Of course, I could just buy faster lenses.
 
I have an E-PL5 that I'd like to use fir the same purpose as you use yours but the dial & arrows around the OK button misbehave terribly. For example, when changing the focus point, it moves in the wrong direction, or navigating the menu, it will often go up when I press down. I have the 1.6 firmware that supposedly addressed this problem.

Is there any technique or remedy for this?
 
Last edited:
My go to for travel is the 14-140ii. For street, 12-32 3.5 and a 25mm1.7 for inside and low light. I'm looking at getting a 12-60. But, we shall see.
 
Sam Bennett said:
C Sean said:
Sam Bennett said:
I use both MFT and L-Mount for my “professional” work doing event/concert photography.

MFT is my main system, which I use primarily with the 40-150/2.8 or another tele lens such as the 45/1.2 or 75/1.8. The OM-1 Mark II is just about as perfect a body I could ask for - it gives me the flexibility, speed, AF performance and image quality I need to deliver results reliably.

L-Mount is used for wide-to-normal work so that I can get a bit more separation through DoF for photos where there’s less magnification - often full-body compositions of performers. I typically start using the Sigma 16-28/2.8 for coverage, and then the 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 for even more shallow DoF. The camera I use is the LUMIX S5 II, which I intensely dislike. It is basically a necessary evil at this point, which I use simply because it serves a purpose in my kit. But basically every time I use it, I curse it. It’s slow, heavy and ahead starting to fall apart. That said, it can be a life saver when the light is super low, or I’m working with dynamic performers and need to crank the shutter speed to freeze someone dancing, etc. I won’t go above 6400 on the OM-1, but will go up to 25,600 on the S5.

For my personal work, it’s MFT all the way. The OM-3 is literally my dream camera - most of the things I love from the OM-1 Mark II in a compact, stylish body. My EDC kit is the OM-3 on my hip in a Spider Holster (no bag), and then the 12-45/4, 25/1.8 II, 17/1.8 II and the 9/8 fisheye just because in a small 3L bag.
Click to expand...
This is my personal opinion and I think other photographers will agree. I think James Popsy did a video on this subject.

A lot of pro cameras today what I refer to workhorse cameras. They are designed to get the shot and that it. There nothing else to say other than probably good hit rate and can something something frames per second. They deliver but they are boring soulless cameras.

I'll say the Z6iii is a good around camera and I use for it for events and wildlife photography. Still a boring camera. That said the Nikon Zf is my creative or personal camera because that camera is designed to get my creative juices flowing. It's no different to range finder style cameras we used to see for M43, a camera you want to use for photography because it's fun and portable.
Click to expand...
I thought about going back to Nikon since that’s what I was using in my FF dSLR days, and I’ve always liked their ergonomics, colors, etc but after I used their f/1.8 primes it was a non-starter. They feel cheap to me, slow to focus and noisy. Very disappointing. One of the things I’ll say about L-Mount is that the LUMIX f/1.8 series is really fantastic - I love the image quality I get out of them and they’re a great balance of build quality, weight and performance. Sigma has some cool primes too, but I prefer the bokeh of the LUMIX lenses to the sharpness of the Sigmas. They have more of a “cinematic” look to my eye.
Click to expand...
I went with Nikon mirrorless because I already had a f mount kit so it was relatively cheap and it's just my portrait camera while m43 still handles the live performances/concerts. That being said you're right about the feel of the lenses especially compared to my Panasonic f1.7 zooms and all metal Olympus primes. I'm sure the Nikons are rugged enough but they are much more utilitarian vs the premium feel of the materials and action of the m43 lenses.
 
Last edited:
CBR1100XX said:
Sam Bennett said:
C Sean said:
Sam Bennett said:
I use both MFT and L-Mount for my “professional” work doing event/concert photography.

MFT is my main system, which I use primarily with the 40-150/2.8 or another tele lens such as the 45/1.2 or 75/1.8. The OM-1 Mark II is just about as perfect a body I could ask for - it gives me the flexibility, speed, AF performance and image quality I need to deliver results reliably.

L-Mount is used for wide-to-normal work so that I can get a bit more separation through DoF for photos where there’s less magnification - often full-body compositions of performers. I typically start using the Sigma 16-28/2.8 for coverage, and then the 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 for even more shallow DoF. The camera I use is the LUMIX S5 II, which I intensely dislike. It is basically a necessary evil at this point, which I use simply because it serves a purpose in my kit. But basically every time I use it, I curse it. It’s slow, heavy and ahead starting to fall apart. That said, it can be a life saver when the light is super low, or I’m working with dynamic performers and need to crank the shutter speed to freeze someone dancing, etc. I won’t go above 6400 on the OM-1, but will go up to 25,600 on the S5.

For my personal work, it’s MFT all the way. The OM-3 is literally my dream camera - most of the things I love from the OM-1 Mark II in a compact, stylish body. My EDC kit is the OM-3 on my hip in a Spider Holster (no bag), and then the 12-45/4, 25/1.8 II, 17/1.8 II and the 9/8 fisheye just because in a small 3L bag.
Click to expand...
This is my personal opinion and I think other photographers will agree. I think James Popsy did a video on this subject.

A lot of pro cameras today what I refer to workhorse cameras. They are designed to get the shot and that it. There nothing else to say other than probably good hit rate and can something something frames per second. They deliver but they are boring soulless cameras.

I'll say the Z6iii is a good around camera and I use for it for events and wildlife photography. Still a boring camera. That said the Nikon Zf is my creative or personal camera because that camera is designed to get my creative juices flowing. It's no different to range finder style cameras we used to see for M43, a camera you want to use for photography because it's fun and portable.
Click to expand...
I thought about going back to Nikon since that’s what I was using in my FF dSLR days, and I’ve always liked their ergonomics, colors, etc but after I used their f/1.8 primes it was a non-starter. They feel cheap to me, slow to focus and noisy. Very disappointing. One of the things I’ll say about L-Mount is that the LUMIX f/1.8 series is really fantastic - I love the image quality I get out of them and they’re a great balance of build quality, weight and performance. Sigma has some cool primes too, but I prefer the bokeh of the LUMIX lenses to the sharpness of the Sigmas. They have more of a “cinematic” look to my eye.
Click to expand...
I went with Nikon mirrorless because I already had a f mount kit so it was relatively cheap and it's just my portrait camera while m43 still handles the live performances/concerts. That being said you're right about the feel of the lenses especially compared to my Panasonic f1.7 zooms and all metal Olympus primes. I'm sure the Nikons are rugged enough but they are much more utilitarian vs the premium feel of the materials and action of the m43 lenses.
Click to expand...
Yeah it’s something I don’t think OMS gets enough credit for. I remember getting the 12-40/2.8 with the original E-M1 and think “Oh wow, this is nice.” They didn’t take the potential cost-savings of having smaller-everything to make something super cheap/profitable, they used it to use better materials, weather sealing, etc. And those lenses have proved their longevity at this point - I have rode my 40-150/2.8 hard and literally put it away wet at times, and it is still going strong 10+ years later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
What I want from a future m4/3 camera
2 3
Replies
56
Views
5K
ahaslett
ahaslett
V
Orkney (Scotland) with M4/3
Replies
2
Views
2K
19andrew47
19andrew47
N
m4/3 (OM-1 & OM-5) vs. Canon R7
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Martin_99
M
K
+/- of APS-C vs FF. Sony A6700 vs A7iii. Still Photog only!
2
Replies
24
Views
13K
Outof focus
O
P
  • Locked
Should Panasonic produce Rangefinder Style APS-C cameras and AI designed APS-C lenses for L-mount?
Replies
7
Views
3K
Photongraphy
P

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