Bounced back and forth FF, Crop, M43 ended up with

Bounced back and forth FF, Crop, M43 ended up with micro 4/3.. After reviewing images from many shoots (mainly car events) I do sell my prints, so I was being as nit picky as I could and for 90% of what I shoot the 4/3 system works just fine.. I have the g9 and soon to get the GH6 and the hi-res mode does everything I need.. I attached a couple of images shot with the gx7 and they print just fine 16x20.. Not debating which is a better system just saying for me the 4/3 system works..

2nd Wind wrote:

Nice photos. I like car shows but a few years ago I went one with my camera to get some photos. I came back and my wife asked if I got a lot of photos, I said no but I bought a car! I've owned a lot of classics since the 60's. I buy them, fix them if needed and drive them every day. When I see something I like better, I sell one and get another. Love those old cars!

I once worked with a guy who was known for being a car buff.  Someone was selling their car and figured they'd ask him for advice.  He said he couldn't help, because he had never sold a car in his life!  Only bought.  He had a pole barn where he stored them all.

Autismo wrote:

...if you can’t get exceptionally good stuff with Mft, you aren’t doing it right...

I tend to agree.  I could probably improve my photography two ways:
-  switch to FF or MF - can't afford it - can't carry it,
-  become a better photographer.
I opt for the latter.

2nd Wind wrote:

KevinStarr wrote:

Bounced back and forth FF, Crop, M43 ended up with micro 4/3.. After reviewing images from many shoots (mainly car events) I do sell my prints, so I was being as nit picky as I could and for 90% of what I shoot the 4/3 system works just fine.. I have the g9 and soon to get the GH6 and the hi-res mode does everything I need.. I attached a couple of images shot with the gx7 and they print just fine 16x20.. Not debating which is a better system just saying for me the 4/3 system works..

Nice photos. I like car shows but a few years ago I went one with my camera to get some photos. I came back and my wife asked if I got a lot of photos, I said no but I bought a car! I've owned a lot of classics since the 60's. I buy them, fix them if needed and drive them every day. When I see something I like better, I sell one and get another. Love those old cars!

...to this show a couple of weeks ago. You'd be broke or divorced or both

Ferrari & Lamborghini show

KevinStarr wrote:

Bounced back and forth FF, Crop, M43 ended up with micro 4/3.. After reviewing images from many shoots (mainly car events) I do sell my prints, so I was being as nit picky as I could and for 90% of what I shoot the 4/3 system works just fine.. I have the g9 and soon to get the GH6 and the hi-res mode does everything I need.. I attached a couple of images shot with the gx7 and they print just fine 16x20.. Not debating which is a better system just saying for me the 4/3 system works..

Nice shots.

For static subjects like cars where a very shallow depth of field and extremely high shutter speeds in poor light is not required, m43 gives up rather little to other systems - perhaps a bit of highlight and color detail which isn't likely to be missed at all by most observers anyway. And bracketing is of course available when you want every tiny bit of DR you can get. Main limitation is megapixels but of course 20 is usually plenty for almost any reasonable purpose, and high res modes are available on many m43 bodies (hopefully all some day!). Seems like you've found a good match for your needs. 👍

KevinStarr wrote:

Bounced back and forth FF, Crop, M43 ended up with micro 4/3.. After reviewing images from many shoots (mainly car events) I do sell my prints, so I was being as nit picky as I could and for 90% of what I shoot the 4/3 system works just fine.. I have the g9 and soon to get the GH6 and the hi-res mode does everything I need.. I attached a couple of images shot with the gx7 and they print just fine 16x20.. Not debating which is a better system just saying for me the 4/3 system works..

I think a healthy percentage of the "larger sensor" photographers out there could do just fine with M43 if they critically assessed their true needs. I know I'm one of them, hence why the big kit is sitting at home more often. Using these small and light cameras are providing more enjoyment than an IQ advantage that doesn't really matter most days.

My biggest problem is not shooting enough in general these days...

MFT is a great system for casual, enthusiast, semi-pro, and even many pro shooters out there who aren't routinely pushing the envelope in terms of low light, large print sizes, and/or fast action. Crisp prints up to 24" are easy to achieve.

That said, as an event pro who has shot MFT, APS-C, APS-H and 35mm formats over the past 20 years, I do routinely push the low-light envelope, and shooting travel/landscape for stock, I can benefit from greater resolution. So, alongside my MFT kit I have a high-rez 35mm-format kit. MFT and 35mm formats are nicely complementary.

2nd Wind wrote:

Bassam Guy wrote:

2nd Wind wrote:

KevinStarr wrote:

Bounced back and forth FF, Crop, M43 ended up with micro 4/3.. After reviewing images from many shoots (mainly car events) I do sell my prints, so I was being as nit picky as I could and for 90% of what I shoot the 4/3 system works just fine.. I have the g9 and soon to get the GH6 and the hi-res mode does everything I need.. I attached a couple of images shot with the gx7 and they print just fine 16x20.. Not debating which is a better system just saying for me the 4/3 system works..

Nice photos. I like car shows but a few years ago I went one with my camera to get some photos. I came back and my wife asked if I got a lot of photos, I said no but I bought a car! I've owned a lot of classics since the 60's. I buy them, fix them if needed and drive them every day. When I see something I like better, I sell one and get another. Love those old cars!

...to this show a couple of weeks ago. You'd be broke or divorced or both

LOL!, Those would be my Lotto win treat, but that chopped Merc (49I think) the OP posted would be one of my all time favorites. For the most part the golden era of classic cars ended in the 50's. The streamlined "aero" look was replaced mostly with sharp angular styling. Today's cars are mostly uninspiring and look like clones of each other.

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MFT is a great system for casual, enthusiast, semi-pro, and even many pro shooters out there who aren't routinely pushing the envelope in terms of low light, large print sizes, and/or fast action. Crisp prints up to 24" are easy to achieve.

That said, as an event pro who has shot MFT, APS-C, APS-H and 35mm formats over the past 20 years, I do routinely push the low-light envelope, and shooting travel/landscape for stock, I can benefit from greater resolution. So, alongside my MFT kit I have a high-rez 35mm-format kit. MFT and 35mm formats are nicely complementary.

Agreed.  I feel that M43 now sits where 35mm film did back in the day.  It was the compact system, and the popular choice for beginners and enthusiasts alike.  Capable of great results for the typical consumer outputs of the time.  And it met many pro needs as well.

For imaging needs beyond what 35mm film could offer, that's what medium format was for.  And along with that extra image quality came greater cost, size and weight.

I think M43 is the modern 35mm and FF digital is the new medium format film.  Today's "consumer outputs" are largely social media viewing on phone or tablet screens.

gipper51 wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

MFT is a great system for casual, enthusiast, semi-pro, and even many pro shooters out there who aren't routinely pushing the envelope in terms of low light, large print sizes, and/or fast action. Crisp prints up to 24" are easy to achieve.

That said, as an event pro who has shot MFT, APS-C, APS-H and 35mm formats over the past 20 years, I do routinely push the low-light envelope, and shooting travel/landscape for stock, I can benefit from greater resolution. So, alongside my MFT kit I have a high-rez 35mm-format kit. MFT and 35mm formats are nicely complementary.

Agreed. I feel that M43 now sits where 35mm film did back in the day.

ExACTly.

It was the compact system, and the popular choice for beginners and enthusiasts alike. Capable of great results for the typical consumer outputs of the time. And it met many pro needs as well.

For imaging needs beyond what 35mm film could offer, that's what medium format was for. And along with that extra image quality came greater cost, size and weight.

I think M43 is the modern 35mm and FF digital is the new medium format film. Today's "consumer outputs" are largely social media viewing on phone or tablet screens.

IKR. On the subject of overkill, I shoot 42MP at corporate events and deliver 3MP web-optimized files to my clients. LOL. Those 3MP images do look great, though. Had DxO's DeepPRIME noise reduction been available three years ago, I might not have invested in a 35mm-format kit, instead sticking with the extensive MFT kit I'd used exclusively for 7 years. I could shoot it now at ISO 12,800 and get images that would delight my clients.

Nice Photos! I'm not a "car guy", but I do enjoy their photos!

At the age of 72, I remember the 1960s fairly well. (It was the 70's that is hard to remember).

All of us 'serious' photographers wanted to prove just how serious we were about our photography. Since 'serious' pixel peeping beyond that which a jeweler's loupe could provide was impossible, we paid our 'serious dues' in other ways.

We were really snobby about lenses, camera brands, and expensive cameras used well beyond their economic viability so we could say we 'owned a Leica'. Anything to prove our sensitive and artistic nature. Those of us who couldn't afford a new lens or a well used high-end camera would mutter, "Gear doesn't matter." Or the popular, "it's how you process the photos that count."  A poor photographer could get a lot of "snob points" by describing in agonizing detail, his (few females in photography, back then) compuslive film development routine.

Then we would. . . not lie to each other exactly, we were too ignorant to be truly lying, but we DID see things that weren't there, or which weren't important to a good photograph. Things haven't changed much since then only now; we can zoom in on a photo to the point where we can see clumps of 2-3 pixels and declare that they are artifacts. And artifacts are bad. . . REAL BAD at the 2 - 3 pixel clump level.

Photography has changed, but photographers have not!