rethinking Micro Four Thirds in 2016

When I got into MFT in 2012 the following cameras did not exist:

- Sony A6000, A7 series

- Canon EOS M series (M1 had been announced but had no lenses, M3, M10 came later)

- Fuji X-T1 and serious Fuji lenses (56mm f/1.2 came later)

- Samsung NX1

Does MFT still make sense for me in 2016?

These are my requirements for a camera system:

- There should be at least 2 cameras, one pocketable (like E-PM2) and one high-performance ergonomic camera (like E-M1)

- All lenses and flashes should work well on both cameras

- Would be nice if both cameras could take the same batteries (Olympus fails here)

- Lenses must include a fast normal prime (50mm AOV), ultra-wide (14mm AOV) zoom, a fast normal zoom, a longish macro (105-120mm), a classic portrait prime (fast 85mm), a super-telephoto zoom, and a 35-50mm fast pancake prime. Nice-to-have a pancake normal zoom and a travel zoom (28-300). (MFT is king here)

- Would be nice-to-have access to 35, 50, and 85mm prime f/1.4-equivalent apertures for special situations (MFT comes short here)

- Must-have precise fast AF with C-AF and face/eye detection. (MFT very good)

- Option to use high shutter speeds when needed (high ISO)

- Option to use low shutter speeds and low ISO when needed (OIS/IBIS)

- AF during video (E-M1 is ok)

In particular, I'm wondering about A7II + A6300 or Canon 5DIII + M10 to replace E-M1 and E-PM2 respectively.

Thoughts?

Alex Notpro wrote:

When I got into MFT in 2012 the following cameras did not exist:

- Sony A6000, A7 series

- Canon EOS M series (M1 had been announced but had no lenses, M3, M10 came later)

- Fuji X-T1 and serious Fuji lenses (56mm f/1.2 came later)

- Samsung NX1

Does MFT still make sense for me in 2016?

These are my requirements for a camera system:

- There should be at least 2 cameras, one pocketable (like E-PM2) and one high-performance ergonomic camera (like E-M1)

- All lenses and flashes should work well on both cameras

- Would be nice if both cameras could take the same batteries (Olympus fails here)

- Lenses must include a fast normal prime (50mm AOV), ultra-wide (14mm AOV) zoom, a fast normal zoom, a longish macro (105-120mm), a classic portrait prime (fast 85mm), a super-telephoto zoom, and a 35-50mm fast pancake prime. Nice-to-have a pancake normal zoom and a travel zoom (28-300). (MFT is king here)

- Would be nice-to-have access to 35, 50, and 85mm prime f/1.4-equivalent apertures for special situations (MFT comes short here)

- Must-have precise fast AF with C-AF and face/eye detection. (MFT very good)

- Option to use high shutter speeds when needed (high ISO)

- Option to use low shutter speeds and low ISO when needed (OIS/IBIS)

- AF during video (E-M1 is ok)

In particular, I'm wondering about A7II + A6300 or Canon 5DIII + M10 to replace E-M1 and E-PM2 respectively.

Thoughts?

As no system is perfect, what do you want to improve over your current m4/3?  You've listed hardware reqirements that are mostly met by m4/3, what photographic advantages do you want from making a change?  What shooting situations are you not able to handle now?

Let your own photography inform you. If mft is limiting your ability to take the pictures you desire then it's time to move on.

It's easy to do the analysis on paper and see the weakness in mft but I think it is over stated.

The camera business is tech, there will always be better equipment, take a deep breath, relax and focus on your photography.

Alex Notpro wrote:

Does MFT still make sense for me in 2016?

These are my requirements for a camera system:

- There should be at least 2 cameras, one pocketable (like E-PM2) and one high-performance ergonomic camera (like E-M1)

What about GM5, GX8, GH4?

- All lenses and flashes should work well on both cameras

Don't they? I never use a flash.

- Would be nice if both cameras could take the same batteries (Olympus fails here)

Few do and it is a shame.

- Lenses must include a fast normal prime (50mm AOV), ultra-wide (14mm AOV) zoom,

14mm is NOT ultra-wide. 12mm isn't either. 10.5mm (21mm) and below is.

a fast normal zoom, a longish macro (105-120mm), a classic portrait prime (fast 85mm), a super-telephoto zoom, and a 35-50mm fast pancake prime. Nice-to-have a pancake normal zoom and a travel zoom (28-300). (MFT is king here)

If you look most of those lenses are mostly there. There IS a dearth of long primes and a long macro.

When I can't find native lenses to suit me, I adapt. On multiple levels. try it.

- Would be nice-to-have access to 35, 50, and 85mm prime f/1.4-equivalent apertures for special situations (MFT comes short here)

P 25mm f1.4 and P 42.5mm f1.2. Then there are the three Voigtländers that hits them all.

- Option to use high shutter speeds when needed (high ISO)

- Option to use low shutter speeds and low ISO when needed (OIS/IBIS)

You can't? Really?

- AF during video (E-M1 is ok)

It depends on what type of video you're doing. Manual focus is more reliable in many situations.

In particular, I'm wondering about A7II + A6300 or Canon 5DIII + M10 to replace E-M1 and E-PM2 respectively.

Thoughts?

What about Panasonic. Take a look. It could be enlightening.

Bob657 wrote:

As no system is perfect, what do you want to improve over your current m4/3? You've listed hardware requirements that are mostly met by m4/3, what photographic advantages do you want from making a change? What shooting situations are you not able to handle now?

All those new cameras have larger sensors. So there are not necessarily any shooting situations that I'm not able to handle now, just an expectation of some slightly better results in some of the same shooting situations.

Larger sensors can provide better quality, all else being equal.  Some of the systems won't have ibis as capable as what you have (which can offset some of that advantage), or lenses that meet your needs, etc.  Only you can decide what trade offs are acceptable!

For me, the quality in M4/3 more than meets my needs and the smaller size and weight are big advantages.

M43s sensors will never ever match larger sensors. This will always be the case forever. You can not escape it.

So if your only determining factor is SENSOR performance, then you are right you should leave M4/3 and go large, to say APSC or FF. But then there is always MF which is larger still and after that, larger still?

When will it end? At some point in time you need to make a decision, compromises. Which one can I afford. Which one can I actually carry, which will provide me the most fun, most usability, results. Ask what is important to you. If IQ trumps all go large as you can.

Everyone wants the best IMAGE possible. But at what cost? a FF camera that you could never take to a dinner party, or carry hiking?

Write of a list of factors which are important to you from most important to least important. Then choose the system that fits those needs. No one on this forum can answer these questions for you.

The way you shoot and the photos are fine.  I think it's just all in your head, not a bad thing, and your concerns are not real.  Results show that not one person could tell the difference by looking at your photos.

Alex Notpro wrote:

In particular, I'm wondering about A7II + A6300 or Canon 5DIII + M10 to replace E-M1 and E-PM2 respectively.

Thoughts?

I can only comment on the Canon 5DIII, as I just sold 3 EF 1.4 primes (2 Ls), 4 L zooms and 2 Gold primes...estimated weight 18 lbs. +/-. Check the price of a 24/1.4 II...35/1.4 II and 85/1.2, even used Is.

Mine were mostly the first issue, but they would still work well on a 5DIII. If you look at my MFT gear list everything there is close to within 1/2 stop of the Canon primes...the zooms and macro are identical 2.8s at 1/3rd the cost and 1/3rd the weight.

I haven't rec'd the Pen F, yet...but though it will not be pocketable...I think it will fit in a belt case with the 17/1.8, which I think is the only prime that I could use any where, any time, inside/outside with a little 2-footed zoom.

It's a better backup than the Canon G-11 now in a belt case...and the full range 14~200 (eq) still is available in a camera bag with both Oly bodies that would only carry 1 full frame body and 4 zooms. I have nothing against the other Pen bodies, but I'm not going to adapt to LCD composition and control after half a century of VF. shooting.

What are you going to print above 16 x 20 that requires full frame res? And if you like the 4/3 format you will find that 4/3 (1:1.33) on an APS-C is not that much larger...but 1.5 and 9/16 will cover more sensor real estate on APS-C. How often do you need 1.4 as 1.7-1.8 is too slow? Some of the most famous photographers lived with f/4 or slower with ASA (not a typo) film under 100...none had 4-5 stop IBIS...most used tripods.

There will always be something new that is faster, sharper, better so you will never be satisfied. That gets expensive. It takes time to learn new systems and that is not likely to produce the best results quickly...trust me on that.

There is a lot of conjecture here as to what the next E M1 will be, but I have hunch they are far short and it will not be the 20 MP that's now out. And it's not all about MP.

I am definitely re-thinking m.43 in 2016.
I still don't own any m.43 equipment, but I do own 7 Olympus 4/3 DSLRs and over a dozen Olympus 4/3 lenses.
I was disappointed when Oly abandoned their DSLR, and was not at all impressed with the handling of the E-M1, especially with the 300mm F/2.8.  Early PDAF performance was by most accounts not much better than the E-5. So despite being the only m.43 camera with PDAF support I didn't see the merit in adopting the E-M1 just for a bit better low light performance and 4 extra Mp over the E-5.
However subsequent software upgrades to the M1 and a (seeming) commitment by Olympus to hybrid AF (probably) means that PDAF function and performance will continue to evolve with many more AF points, cross-type AF points and better C-AF. Whether any of these developments will flow through to better AF with the legacy 4/3 lenses, or will only benefit the new pro m.43 glass is still a question in my mind.
So YES, I'm rethinking m.43 this year with an eye on the expected new E-M1 Mk II.
Even if the AF improvements are marginal, a new 20Mp sensor will be a big step up from the old E-5 and I'll compromise on handling to get that new sensor.
Peter

Alex Notpro wrote:

When I got into MFT in 2012 the following cameras did not exist:

- Sony A6000, A7 series

- Canon EOS M series (M1 had been announced but had no lenses, M3, M10 came later)

- Fuji X-T1 and serious Fuji lenses (56mm f/1.2 came later)

- Samsung NX1

Does MFT still make sense for me in 2016?

These are my requirements for a camera system:

- There should be at least 2 cameras, one pocketable (like E-PM2) and one high-performance ergonomic camera (like E-M1)

- All lenses and flashes should work well on both cameras

- Would be nice if both cameras could take the same batteries (Olympus fails here)

- Lenses must include a fast normal prime (50mm AOV), ultra-wide (14mm AOV) zoom, a fast normal zoom, a longish macro (105-120mm), a classic portrait prime (fast 85mm), a super-telephoto zoom, and a 35-50mm fast pancake prime. Nice-to-have a pancake normal zoom and a travel zoom (28-300). (MFT is king here)

- Would be nice-to-have access to 35, 50, and 85mm prime f/1.4-equivalent apertures for special situations (MFT comes short here)

- Must-have precise fast AF with C-AF and face/eye detection. (MFT very good)

- Option to use high shutter speeds when needed (high ISO)

- Option to use low shutter speeds and low ISO when needed (OIS/IBIS)

- AF during video (E-M1 is ok)

In particular, I'm wondering about A7II + A6300 or Canon 5DIII + M10 to replace E-M1 and E-PM2 respectively.

Thoughts?

I got into µ4/3 in 2010 and then got the A7 late 2013. I feel the systems can work well together. Different sized sensors each have their benefits and disadvantages.

Your not getting a lot of love here.

As you pointed out there are things that a larger sensor is capable of that a mft camera is not. Particularly if you are looking at the wide end of the system where MFT is lacking in choices and legacy lenses cannot be adapted. At the end of the day the MFT is system is generally smaller and cheaper. Your call on what is important to you. The a7 series in particular is an interesting comparison. The ii models have finally opened up a wealth of adapted lenses with reasonable auto focus.

At the end of the day think about your images and your lifestyle. If you are getting everything you want out of your camera than you would be wasting money. As someone pointed out the difference in mft and apsc if you like the 4/3 format is not that large. If you like the 3/2 format it is. If you want to keep your kit as small as possible a larger system would sit at home rendering any image improvements or capabilities moot

To each his own

There are few things that stopping me to go only m4/3 route - sensor DR/color depth (not so good highlights recovery and shadow noise also), and lack of really good wide-angle options (9-18 is so-so, Pana 7-14 gives purple blobs on EM1, and Oly 7-14 has wild and heavily corrected distortion).

I'm Ok with not so thin DOF, focusing speed and accuracy is more than acceptable for me.

At the same time, when thinking about going full Fuji... Fuji excels where EM1 fails, and vice versa: slow AF, f2.8 lenses are much larger and heavier, but better DR and color gradations... and no significant improvements in sensor performance too since 2011