Professionals don't use M4/3?

Good images. I like the second especially. M43 is certainly good enough for professional work. Currently thinking about working in photograohy ,yself as a freelance photojournalist for travel websites.

lambert4 wrote:

I have seen equally gorgeous images from every format of system, i have an aquaintance that shot regularly for NatGeo yeas ago, by years I mean decades. He recants the switch from film to digital, and has since swapped to an apsc to utilize his aging lens collection. And raves about the digital age and its quality from all systems, his wife shoots with a Pany Bridge superzoom while along side him on safari, I couldn't choose which prints were which with 100% certainty on his walls. The prints were all 16x20 or larger. Likewise I have seen folks toting the latest greatest FX system and produce rubbish.

I shoot micro four thirds and charge professional rates when I do work in the photography realm, it is not my primary income. I have yet to get a complaint or question about the gear.

it is the photographer not the equipment that makes an image valuable, and sometimes it is as much the subject as either of the items.

congrats on those images, the portraits are compelling and draw the eye straight in. I never would question the equipment with IQ like that.

It is also the skill in post processing that distinguishes the professional. Shoot RAW and see how much better the IQ can be when software is used to best advantage. In fact, higher res JPEG images often have poorer quality than lower res RAW. For example, shooting with the Olympus EM5ii capturing both 40MP High Res Shot JPEG and 16MP RAW at low ISO, I have found the latter usually looks better and enables more "bending" of the tones without excessive noise or artifacts. I also find that a properly exposed and processed RAW image can look better than an out-of-camera HDR JPEG. YMMV.

I've most people saying professionals this or professionals that have no reliable first hand experience on the matter. The fact that they use professional as though it's a one size fits all term (as though a photojournalist, wedding photographer and product photographer will all have identical equipment requirements, working conditions and final display formats.) is a sure indication they know little of what professionals require aside from marketing hype and discussions by wannabes on forums and at camera club meetings.

http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/visionaries.

Alberti Barnes wrote:

wrong link up there

better take this one
http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/visionaries?icn=topnav&ici=learnsharenav_visionaries

Thanks. My phone didn't want to C&P it.

I am not a professional in any sense but I think the reason many so called professionals do not use 4/3rds cameras and lenses has more to do with there history with photography.  Older professionals have a history of using only full frame SLRs with optical finders for viewing and expensive fast good lenses because the cameras were not capable of using higher ISOs.  Anyone with a large investment in full frame cameras and lenses would naturally be very reluctant to throw all that away and consider something smaller like m4/3rds.  In recent years cameras have advanced in capability to the point that even entry models are quite capable of producing professional results whether they be full frame, ASP-C, m4/3 or even 1" as sensors have become better and better, cameras likewise with exceptional capabilities and not every professional really needs super high resolution as not printing 4 ft wide billboard pictures.  In SLR days expensive and heavy fast lenses actually took poorer quality pictures then slower lenses but were necessary to use in low light conditions etc or where higher shutter speeds were essential to catch the moment.  Today the main advantage of the expensive professional full from or other lenses is to put the background out of focus sort of like modern art rather than panaramas where make depth of focus is more important.

The mark of a good photographer is the ability to catch the moment and not necessarily the equipment he is using to achieve that end.  Not so many years ago we did not even have auto focus or image stabilization but still the pictures taken in earlier eras were outstanding.  Yes there is a perception that professional photographers must have the very best and latest advances  and the m4/3 does not yet meet their standards.

I think that both Oly and Pany are currently making a mistake in paying too much attention to producing high end m4/3rds camera models and professional lenses at the expense of enthusiasts models if the format is to survive.  With the advent of Iphones have taken over the majority point and shoot compacts and this is also effecting m4/3.  There aren't many sources to track individual camera sales other than in Japan.  As recently as two years ago m4/3rds both Pany and Oly were dominating the interchangible lens mirrorless market. Now  I just cheched the DSLR sales ranking of top 80 sellers in Japan and noted that only the EPL7 and EM10 II were ranked while with Pany only the GF7 and at lower end a couple GM models.  None of the so call professional cameras like EM1, or EM5,or Oly Pen or Pany GH4 or GX8 were even ranked.  The EM10 II was the only new m4/3 model doing well in sales and that is because it is reasonably priced and affordable.  Pany is answering with the equally capable and affordable GX80 and that is the way to go if Oly and Pany are to survive and not concentrate in low volume high end models. These more affordable models contain much of what their top models have and even some newer  improvements in the case of GX80.

Out of all those lenses, which wide angle is your favorite?  That's my next purchase but I'm not sure which to go with...  Currently leaning towards the Pan/Leica 15 F/1.7 but I'm not sure it is wide enough for my liking.

I remember getting my first DSLR, it was the newly launched Nikon D100 (Literally only the 3rd DSLR body they produced) and I paid $2200 for the camera, It was awesome and I loved that thing.

I also remember staying at ISO 400 or below because of the noise and image quality problems (Literally ISO 200 - 400 was the best range).

Now I have an E-PM2 that I paid $200 for a few years ago.  The image below is ISO 12800 and it has less noise and better detail than ISO 1600 had on my D100.

Anyone who says these things aren't capable enough is insane!

I am surprised this thread with some very good tear sheets/ photo’s went by with so few comments.

The OP has demonstrated that M43 is good enough for high end editorial photography without leaving (for me at least) any room for doubt.

We can see here what M43 can do in the hands of a very talented photographer.

deleted