Have you moved from FF to Micro Four Thirds?

[Ian]

I am working on an article (which may turn into a series) on the pros and cons of Micro Four Thirds.

I'm never one to claim any one format or system is better than another - it's done to the photographer's personal requirements, of course. I do, howeve, feel some people sometimes choose the wrong gear for the wrong reasons, sometimes at the expense of MFT.

I'd love to hear from you if you have moved to MFT in the last few years, and why - warts and all!

What do you miss, what don't you miss, and was it the right decision?

Ian

PS I would like to use some comments, but they can be anonymous if required (you can PM me).

[Tram]

I moved from Canon 5D Mk2 FF Fuji APSC to M4/3, does that count Ian?

If so it was because Fuji declared they would never make a body with IBIS then promptly did with the X-H1.
This was after I had already sold up and moved to MFT, I wasn't a very happy chap.

All worked out fine although took me a while to find the optimum kit for my purposes.
Prefer Panasonic bodies, but its the opposite with lenses so I am a MFT user rather than a specific brand devotee.

Have considered Sony FF or a return to Fuji, but the advantages would be minimal for my purposes.
Also settled with what I have plus it wouldn't be a cheap exercise so looks like i am here to stay.

[Miketoll]

Only moved from Canon APS-C to MFT so can't help you there.
I must admit I have a certain itch to try FF one day but I would never get that experiment of starting a second system past the missus.

[jonhawk]

I was a long term Nikon user with a D300 and a small number of lenses. I then moved to M4/3 due to the weight of the kit but was a bit unsatisfied with the quality at the time. I then sold everything and invested in a Sony system which I loved but with increasing age and my preferred photography involving walking and nature, I started to find 100-600 lens and kit weighing me down so in the last couple of years moved back to M4/3 with an OM System set up which I find much more suitable now for my rambling style of photography.

[NEO_1]

Hi Ian, I'll PM you with something in a day or so if I can.

Best regards, Neil.

[griffljg]

I did a yoyo trick. - From Four Thirds (Olympus E-3) to Full Frame (Canon EOS 6D) to Micro Four Thirds (Olympus OM-D E-M1 and so on). Looong story, which I have related on a few occasions.

[David Mallott]

For me it was a move away from APS-C. My first Olympus camera was the OMD E-M10 Mkii. I couldn't understand how this could be considered a beginners camera because I was amazed by the features it had compared to the Nikon D7000 I'd got rid of. I was also impressed with the sharpness of Olympus lenses compared with the Nikon DX lenses I was used to. I didn't miss the size and weight of the Nikon gear at all!

David

[Graham_of_Rainham]

I have had the best opportunities over the years to get my hands on all sorts of cameras and quite simply maintain the same opinion!

As has been said, it is very much personal preference. However I have always maintained the same reasoning for my personal choice of camera.
The only thing that matters is the end result!

For some work I have used 10x8 plate cameras, and even a huge 20x24 Polaroid, all the way down to the tiny camera in the early iPhone. Lots of Medium Format and “Full Frame” kit produced very high resolution images with very high quality photos.

The bottom line is that the vast majority of my work has been done on the mft system, for the following reasons:

The Photographic Alliance of Great Britain (PAGB) and all its local federations set the standard for competitive photography at 40mm x 50mm for prints and
1600 pixels horizontal by 1200 pixels vertical for digital projection. So, no matter what system you’re using, you will have to adjust your pixels accordingly. The 40mm x 50mm size for printing includes the mounting board, which in reality means that an A3/B3 print is the most likely choice. The mft system is more than capable of making images with enough pixels to print at 300 dpi without any upscaling. As for Digital Projection Images (DPI) you are limited to less than 2M of pixels.

Additionally, most of my photos are seen on a 4K screen or A4 prints. Those that make it onto social media, need only to be very low resolution in comparison with the original image files. So why would I need anything more than the mft system provides?

Then of course there are all the obvious advantages of mft that we all have available to us. However for me ergonomics is a very important thing and the mft system works well for me.

[NEO_1]

Hi Graham, the mention of the PAGB requirements is a good one; my club follows these and the MFT is, as you say, more than capable of providing images both in print and digitally projected form to meet those. The judges should be looking at the image and its impact - not what it's been taken on!

Thanks and bets regards, Neil.

[DaveJP]

When I moved from film photography to digital I bought Canon full frame equipment. I was a Canon user for eleven years, then I had a hernia. It wasn't serious and a minor operation fixed it, but a number of my friends suggested that it was due to lifting my heavy camera bag. I didn't really think so, but it got me thinking ... I wasn't getting any younger!

So I started to look at smaller, lighter camera systems. I started with Fujifilm, but the system was in its infancy and I struggled to identify a lens outfit to suit me. Also some of the Fuji lenses were as big and heavy as my Canon lenses, and with no IBIS I looked elsewhere.

Micro four thirds, in particular Olympus, seemed to provide everything I wanted and, after visiting The Photography Show and handling some of the lenses I was sold. Within a week I'd traded in my full frame gear and bought into Olympus micro four thirds; and I've never looked back.

I produce A3 sized calendars every year for family and friends, and photo books (mainly for my own satisfaction) and I've never had a problem with image quality; and I'm prepared to crop quite heavily if required. I love the small prime lenses from Olympus/OM System, Panasonic etc. and quality zoom lenses that are really sharp. There are just two things about being a MFT user that irritate me. The first is the regular criticisms and speculation about the future of the system; the second is the emphasis on nature, and particular bird photography. I've done some natural history photography in the past and enjoyed it, but the system is good for everything else as well: general photography, landscapes, portraits, street photography; I'd like to see more enthusiasm for these genres as well.

I hope this is some help, Ian.

Dave

[ronidog]

I agreee the system works well across the the photographic range

[Ian]

Thanks for these very interesting responses.

Naturally, FF from DSLR to mirrorless does reap many benefits, including much smaller camera bodies and a reduction in lens sizes and weight. But I'm curious also if anyone has come to MFT from FF mirrorless?

APS-C is a different question - it offers a size and weight benefit over FF, of course, but my feeling is that Nikon and Canon didn't endow their APS-C systems with anywhere near the same advanced sophistication as their (more profitable?) FF systems. Fujifilm, of course, bypassed FF altogether, using APS-C for their X-series, which has always been mirrorless, and GFX, which is medium format.

Ian

[LadyG]

Digitally - I started with a Fuji compact, followed not long after by a Canon. After that, I worked my way through very APS-C Canons, before upgrading to a 5d3. By that time I was shooting a few weddings, a few events and a lot of music so usually had a second body with me. My final 'upgrade' was to an EOS-R so yes, I've changed from a mirrorless full frame to M43.

Having moved to an OM-5 I did notice a big difference, particularly in noise handling and the OM isn't as good. OK, I'm getting better at dealing with it, but it was a huge issue for me at first. I'm still considering an OM-3 but want to borrow one for a weekend and a gig first to see whether the increased weight and additional features are worth it.

Apart from that, I notice little difference in most modes and it's a great walk-around camera. Weight of camera and lenses is still a huge consideration for me due to ongoing health issues and the reason I chose the 40-150 f4 pro over the f2.8. I'd say it's adequate rather than outstanding - and that's considering that I had the Mk1 or Mk2 of the Canon 70-200 f2.8 so it was very heavy! Same went for the 24-70 f2.8 - I had the mk1 'brick' as it was known, but it still produced excellent results. Both were bought second hand - the only new lenses I purchased were the nifty 50s, starting with the ubiquitous f1.8 before progressing to the hard to focus f1.4.

However, I'm really happy with the OM 12-40 f2.8, my walk around go-to lens. I'd love something longer but once again the weight is a consideration and since I'm not shooting so many music gigs now, it's really not needed as where I'm shooting is unlikely to make me shoot from the sound bar or half way up the side of an arena! (The Cult...) However for that gig I turned on the APS-C mode on the EOS-R, which meant that my 70-200 was up to a 360 equivalent and I got my shots - handheld, with the camera held above my head, setting focus with my left hand on the rear screen and holding the camera and taking the picture with my right. So in that way, I'm slightly used to the teleconverter feature - although I don't find it as good as on the full frame camera. The FF also produced that shot in full RAW.

I'm not going to turn into a birder, whilst I admire the results and love to look at them, I don't have the patience to sit around!

[knikki]

Yes and No to that question.

I have always like the Olympus systems, whether they be film, four thirds or micro four thirds.

I was running an Olympus 43 at one point but got lured into the "bigger sensor is better" and got a full frame machine. Both were great in many ways but also had their cons.

I then sold most of the various bits of kit and bought into the M43 system and really enjoyed the lighter weight of the camera lens system and if I compare the images from the three FF, 43 and M43 there was very little difference between the sensors in how I made and showed images. Of course the 2015 M43 did not handle high ISO as well as the FF machine but for me that was fine.

For 5 years the M43 worked as I wanted.

Then things and the what I shoot changed and I wanted more megapixels so back to the full frame I went.

I still have and have expanded my M43 stuff and use it about the same amount as all my other gear.

But is one system better than the other?

No not really.

[petemcarthur]

In my digital days (film would take too long) I started off with the first canon Eos-something. APS-C. I then went though a phase of GAS and ended up with a Sony A7Iv I think. However with long lenses I found I could barely walk with the full 300mm zoom. My health was failing by that time so I moved over to the Fuji XT range which I really liked but in truth it didn’t seem much more manageable than the Sony. With my mobility getting more restricted I decided to give up on mirror less cameras and settled on Sony rx10iv. A nice compact camera but lacking in a few areas. Then alone came the OM-3 and I was totally seduced by it. It normally lives with the 12-100mm on it and I can handle that quite well. If I get adventurous I’ll put on the 100-400m and try to take wildlife.

[Harold Gough]

I started digital with Olympus because I had a comprehensive OM film kit.

At the time, the EP2 was the one to have so I bought one, The rear screen was a disaster. I could clip a viewfinder into the hot shoe but could then not use flash.

I bought an EM-1 to overcome this but found, and still do, it unbelievable that a then flagship camera could have a pop-up flash/flash controler which easily got knocked down.

Although I have now invested in a Sony A7r, then an A7r3, mainly for my old (and now new) ultra-wideangle lenses.

I still use the EM-1 for most photgraphy, mostly macro, appreciating the magnification and extra depth effects. I also like that the files are smaller, taking up less drive space and quicker to process.

Haroold

[Keith-369]

I started with a box Brownie and have used 120 (still got my Agfa Isola1 camera), 110 (still got the Hanimex 110 camera) and on through 35mm with Fuji and Canon, onto Canon Powershot 'prosumer' cameras (still got them) then finally to my EM1ii which I have been so happy with.
I also bought my wife an EM1ii which she is also extremely happy with.