• Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
  • Site maintenance will be done tonight, Friday Feb 14, at about 9PM Eastern. It should only take about 15 minutes. 💻

Micro 4/3 Some thoughts on m43

Getting back on track, my seemingly constant urge to try different things has led me to divest from m4/3 a few times, but I always seem to find my way back 6 or 8 months later. I don't have a ton of $$$ sunk into my photo gear, but I have still managed to get some nice images from the various m4/3 cameras I've tried. I used to think copy variation was nothing more than internet chatter, but my current copy of the O 17mm f1.8 is better than I remember from the first two times I had the lens . . . or maybe my skills have just improved a bit. Hmmmm . . .
 
Getting back on track, my seemingly constant urge to try different things has led me to divest from m4/3 a few times, but I always seem to find my way back 6 or 8 months later. I don't have a ton of $$$ sunk into my photo gear, but I have still managed to get some nice images from the various m4/3 cameras I've tried. I used to think copy variation was nothing more than internet chatter, but my current copy of the O 17mm f1.8 is better than I remember from the first two times I had the lens . . . or maybe my skills have just improved a bit. Hmmmm . . .
I was as wondering whether it was me with that Oly 17mm F1.8 as well, but sample variation seems to be well known. Simple solution of course, just use one before buying.
 
After 14 years shooting the m4/3 system, I am leaving. I started in 2010 because I wanted to downsize from heavy DSLRs and big lenses. And once again, at my age, I think it is time to downsize one more time. I just purchased a Ricoh GR IIIx and I also own an old four thirds Lumix L1 with the Leica 14-50 zoom, which is a lot of fun to shoot. I shoot mostly urban stuff so this gear should suit me just fine.

I owned a GRD II years ago and foolishly sold it. The GR IIIx is very impressive but I have not had much chance to play with it yet. That will change next week when I plan on taking a small train trip to Dallas.

I am sure I will miss the m4/3 system with the small wonderful bodies and really nice lenses, but time marches on. I plan on selling all the gear- 5 bodies and over a dozen lenses - sometime early next year.
 
After 14 years shooting the m4/3 system, I am leaving. I started in 2010 because I wanted to downsize from heavy DSLRs and big lenses. And once again, at my age, I think it is time to downsize one more time. I just purchased a Ricoh GR IIIx and I also own an old four thirds Lumix L1 with the Leica 14-50 zoom, which is a lot of fun to shoot. I shoot mostly urban stuff so this gear should suit me just fine.

I owned a GRD II years ago and foolishly sold it. The GR IIIx is very impressive but I have not had much chance to play with it yet. That will change next week when I plan on taking a small train trip to Dallas.

I am sure I will miss the m4/3 system with the small wonderful bodies and really nice lenses, but time marches on. I plan on selling all the gear- 5 bodies and over a dozen lenses - sometime early next year.
So, I had the L1 and wish I hadn't sold it, love the images it took and the way it looked, and handled. But I don't recollect it being particularly small, at least not compared to MFT. In fact it's just about the size and weight of the OM-1, isn't it?

But I sure wish I kept it. Can't seem to find any bargains on them anymore.
 
So, I had the L1 and wish I hadn't sold it, love the images it took and the way it looked, and handled. But I don't recollect it being particularly small, at least not compared to MFT. In fact it's just about the size and weight of the OM-1, isn't it?

But I sure wish I kept it. Can't seem to find any bargains on them anymore.
Yeah, the L1 is huge compared to m4/3 cameras. As big as it is, I decided to keep it because of the images and the excellent Leica zoom lens, which is the only lens I own for the camera. After I sell off the m4/3 gear, all I will have left is the Ricoh GR and the L1 which be the only interchangeable lens camera I will own.
 
Getting back on track, my seemingly constant urge to try different things has led me to divest from m4/3 a few times, but I always seem to find my way back 6 or 8 months later.

With the exception of Medium Format and any Nikon or Leica gear, I have used basically any brand/format out there, and I still own a decent amount of gear these days, including Micro 4/3s, APS-C and FF cameras and lenses. Why? Experimentation and curiosity to try and explore beyond my main system. I'm a big fan of vintage lenses which I like to adapt.

But, even then I can confidently say that if I had to keep just one system it would be without question of hesitation Micro 4/3s.

It just works for anything I do, and frankly it offers me the best balance between cost, size, ergonomics and quality for my usage.

What you wrote resonates with me, because I know that if I had to choose one of my APS-C or FF gear and sell everything else, I would inevitable return to Micro 4/3s over and over again.

I used to think copy variation was nothing more than internet chatter, but my current copy of the O 17mm f1.8 is better than I remember from the first two times I had the lens . . .

Sadly I used to think the same.

Then one day, I decided to get an Olympus 12/2, that lens was just horrible. Later I got a second copy and oh boy, it was night and day difference.
 
Last edited:
Dennis Mook's blog has some great thoughts on the virtues of m43. To look at YouTube, blogs, etc, you'd get the impression m43 is dead or soon will be, "Full Frame is the only way to go". Dennis uses m43, Fuji X-T5 and Nikon Z8 for various purposes, so he has a somewhat unique perspective. The m43 consortium should license his essay.

Micro Four-Thirds ( :mu43: MFT, M43, M4/3, u4/3) is alive, kicking and diversifying. It's just so mature that the mainstream would think that it's old and obsolete. It's being heavily adopted in industrial electronics, film-making, surveillance and more!

To people who truly understand the format, meaning those who see beyond the four-thirds sensor, :mu43: is more of an engineering marvel than just the starter of the mirrorless interchangeable lens camera revolution in 2008. Here are some of the not-so-commonly-known traits of the :mu43: standard:
  • :mu43: is technically an open video standard, not a photographic one. The photography function can be considered as a side-effect.
  • :mu43:, since it's a video standard, have lenses that always cover the Super 35 image circle. It's not uncommon to see our favourite lenses being used in box cameras, even ones with Super 35 :mu43: cameras.
  • On the Four-Thirds sensor, all native :mu43: lenses are tele-centric, meaning the light rays out of the rear element are always at right angles to the surface of the sensor. One can read about the benefits of telecentricity in optics.
  • Exposure is different with :mu43:. Let's focus on the four-thirds sensors, not the Super 35 ones. Users understand this, especially if they are to compare the exposure triangles with reference to equivalence. This can be a whole topic altogether but there have been plenty of explanations online as well as lectures about this.
  • Dark current is still an issue in modern imaging because of the fact that the sensors are always turned on but it is, of course, easier to handle with the Four-Thirds sensor than with a larger one. In videography/filmmaking, :mu43: with Super 35 is a different story because the cameras are properly cooled. Dark current is rarely discussed even by the so-called influencers but it's one of the reasons why Nikon and Canon withheld mirrorless for quite a while, aside from the marketing/profit perspective.
  • Olympus/OM System :mu43: cameras have some of the most IR-sensitive sensors a civillian man can buy. They are in-fact one of the most sensitive to a wide spectrum and this is so beneficial for astrophotography, especially with DSO. Shhhhhhh, quiet! Mirrorless dark current issues aside, naturally and/or BSI-related, if one can cool the Olympus/OM System camera properly, the astrophotography advantage of their sensors is just astouding! Again, shhhh! For all-season astro, I use Pentax, but that's a story for another day.
It's good that we have boatloads of choices of cameras. We are so blessed to be able to choose which one works for us. Choose your own poison, they say.
 
As for m4/3, it has some things that make it appealing. I did see a video yesterday that claimed that Panasonic had stated firmly a couple of years ago that they would not be releasing any more small form factor cameras, so no WR GX10.
A Lumix marketing person here also stated that Kiwis like cameras that are big-bodied and in black and that the overall trend today is with bigger camera bodies. It's a rather small market here but somehow the statement fits the global narrative. There will always be regression in such circumstances and I believe that, when that happens, we will see smaller bodies again. At the moment, the OM-5 is the only smallish MFT camera available new, and the G100, of course. There are still older discontinued bodies that can be bought, though. When I bought the GM5, Panasonic was already losing money per unit sold. That time, the trend was already towards bigger bodies.
 
At the moment, the OM-5 is the only smallish MFT camera available new, and the G100, of course.
In Europe there is another small camera available, the Pen E-P7, but I don't know if it's available in other parts of the world. In the spring there was news that it was no longer available in other markets.

I sometimes have the perception that cameras are like cars. Many manufacturers have now discontinued their small car series because supposedly nobody wants them any more. Cars are getting bigger, heavier and more expensive, even though everyone complains about cars being too big and there being too little space and parking spaces in cities. But at some point, car manufacturers realised that the margin on large cars is much higher than on small ones. Then big cars are advertised and everyone supposedly wants one. However, this also means that the groups of buyers who can't afford or don't want a large car have disappeared. And now the car manufacturers are complaining about sales problems and that they are selling fewer cars.

I sometimes wonder whether there are comparisons with camera manufacturers, whose products have also become bigger and bigger because nobody wants small smart products any more. Of course, you can tap into a wealthy group of buyers with special products, but not everyone can or wants to deal with expensive high-end devices.
 
In Europe there is another small camera available, the Pen E-P7, but I don't know if it's available in other parts of the world. In the spring there was news that it was no longer available in other markets.
Yes, that one, too. I believe it's still for sale in South-East Asia (SEA), where all the post-COVID booming economies are located.
I sometimes wonder whether there are comparisons with camera manufacturers, whose products have also become bigger and bigger because nobody wants small smart products any more. Of course, you can tap into a wealthy group of buyers with special products, but not everyone can or wants to deal with expensive high-end devices.
There should be some similarities. The manufacturers would know which of their products sell based on the products that give them revenue, meaning the brand-new ones. In the case of cars, the manufacturers see that their brand-new SUVs/CUVs sell way better than the smaller, cheaper to own cars in some markets, so they focus on the bigger-bodied ones more. In the case of :mu43:, the bigger-bodied brand-new cameras were giving more revenue vs the smaller-bodied ones. There may still be a huge demand in smaller :mu43: bodies, but if the second-hand market fulfills that demand, the manufacturers won't get any quantifiable feedback, at all.
 
On the Four-Thirds sensor, all native :mu43: lenses are tele-centric, meaning the light rays out of the rear element are always at right angles to the surface of the sensor. One can read about the benefits of telecentricity in optics.
Telecentricity was a feature Olympus talked about with 4/3 slr’s. It was part of their designing from a blank sheet approach. That’s why the mount was so large. It allowed for the relatively large rear elements needed for the light rays to be perpendicular to the sensor. Telecentricity seems to have been abandoned with the advent of micro 4/3. Every lens I have has a rear element that’s smaller than the sensor. The light rays have to be divergent to cover the sensor. The smaller mount makes it almost impossible to have a rear element that’s big enough for telecentricity.

Between the creation of 4/3 and micro 4/3 the industry started using micro lenses on sensors to efficiently get light down into the photo sites. This made Olympus’ main reason for telecentric design unnecessary. Getting rid of those large extra lens elements at the rear of every lens gave us smaller, lighter lenses.
 
Last edited:
The smaller mount makes it almost impossible to have a rear element that’s big enough for telecentricity.
I believe you're talking about the perfect telecentricity of Olympus DSLRs but telecentricity (near-perfect maybe) has long been a feature of MFT ever since its inception. As I've said before, their site was heavily dumbed-down but they had all the white papers available before. This link is safe: . It talks about telecentricity as its third main benefit.

This is found in the link for those who do not wish to click it:
1734817354936.png

The statements were referenced to some white papers and even the optical design of the old Olympus 17mm F2.8, which is not known for its performance.

To quote:
1734817189799.png

Yes, the MFT lenses' image circle covers that of APS-C-sized Super 35.

Here's another diagram from the link:
1734817444554.png

It says that it delivers light almost straight to the light-receiving section. On the four-thirds sensor. The diameter of the rear element is longer than the height of the sensor receiving more telecentricity in the X-axis. The diameter is shorter than the Y-axis and this is where the almost comes into. Light is slightly oblique at the edges of the Y-axis. On the MFT Super 35 sensor, which is currently being used in filmmaking, telecentricity is perfect in the centre but not in the edges.

Olympus four-thirds DSLR cameras achieve perfect telecentricity because the diameter of the rear element of the lenses is bigger than the sensor itself.

I don't know, It's not as perfectly telecentric as Olympus DSLRs but the telecentricity that we get on MFT is good enough for engineers to call the lenses telecentric.

If we disagree with them, we can always complain to any of these companies: https://www.four-thirds.org/en/contact/.
View attachment 518483
Olympus and Panasonic created the mount but, since it's an open standard, everyone in the list is part of the foundation, as well.
 
All of this physics talk is leading me back to those halcyon days of optics lectures in a crowded lecture hall devoid of A/C. Yikes! Not to mention that I was a middling physics student, at best. Glad my cameras work well in spite of my paucity of engineering acumen.
Haha. it is somewhat long in the tooth, especially for us photographers who should be taking/printing photos instead of worrying about light hitting a plane obliquely.
 
All of this physics talk is leading me back to those halcyon days of optics lectures in a crowded lecture hall devoid of A/C. Yikes! Not to mention that I was a middling physics student, at best. Glad my cameras work well in spite of my paucity of engineering acumen.
I was an appalling physics student, Tony.
Probably because I had little understanding of any mathematics.

Only about 5 years later, I was horrified to learn that there were three years of compulsory applied mathematics (statistics) in the psychology course I was enrolled in! Previously, I couldn't even get my mind around the three basic measures of central tendency: the mean, median and mode.

Turned out that the 3x psychological statistics were my best subjects!

Practically diagnostic of my Pervasive Development Disorder (PDD, not otherwise defined; per DSM IVA) which was not formally diagnosed until about 30 years later. I do not even recognise the symptoms described in later versions of the DSM, which I consider to be highly questionable ...

These days, you could shake me awake in the middle of the night, and I could regurgitate those definitions to this day. Weird.
 
I believe you're talking about the perfect telecentricity of Olympus DSLRs but telecentricity (near-perfect maybe) has long been a feature of MFT ever since its inception. As I've said before, their site was heavily dumbed-down but they had all the white papers available before. This link is safe: . It talks about telecentricity as its third main benefit.

This is found in the link for those who do not wish to click it:
View attachment 518481
The statements were referenced to some white papers and even the optical design of the old Olympus 17mm F2.8, which is not known for its performance.

To quote:
View attachment 518479
Yes, the MFT lenses' image circle covers that of APS-C-sized Super 35.

Here's another diagram from the link:
View attachment 518482
It says that it delivers light almost straight to the light-receiving section. On the four-thirds sensor. The diameter of the rear element is longer than the height of the sensor receiving more telecentricity in the X-axis. The diameter is shorter than the Y-axis and this is where the almost comes into. Light is slightly oblique at the edges of the Y-axis. On the MFT Super 35 sensor, which is currently being used in filmmaking, telecentricity is perfect in the centre but not in the edges.

Olympus four-thirds DSLR cameras achieve perfect telecentricity because the diameter of the rear element of the lenses is bigger than the sensor itself.

I don't know, It's not as perfectly telecentric as Olympus DSLRs but the telecentricity that we get on MFT is good enough for engineers to call the lenses telecentric.

If we disagree with them, we can always complain to any of these companies: https://www.four-thirds.org/en/contact/.
View attachment 518483
Olympus and Panasonic created the mount but, since it's an open standard, everyone in the list is part of the foundation, as well.
All very interesting, but I suspect, as @fredlong says, that micro lens advances on the sensor make all this talk of mount size and tele centric design rather moot. Sony FE, with its very small mount diameter, manages to work exceptionally well with a range of top notch lenses available.
 
If I had the knowledge I do now, would have opted for M43 over Canon's 24MP APS-Cs (especially EF-M generation). It's essentially a minor difference with none of the benefits of M43 (IBIS, feature packed bodies, etc). Cameras like the G9 and EM1 II seem like great value as they can be had around the $500 mark. The smaller M43 bodies (like EM10 II) were pushed by influencers raising their values.
 
All very interesting, but I suspect, as @fredlong says, that micro lens advances on the sensor make all this talk of mount size and tele centric design rather moot. Sony FE, with its very small mount diameter, manages to work exceptionally well with a range of top notch lenses available.
Of course! Mirrorless technology allowed for lens corrections to be firmware-baked, resulting to the RAW of their cameras to have such corrections already.

By the above, I mean corrections on sharpness, contrast, colour separation, distortion, MTF etc. are embedded at firmware level on mirrorless, so even the rawest of the RAW files will already have the needed corrections in them. The union of the lens and body firmware makes sure that these corrections are sealed and people won't notice. There are those who are good at reverse-engineering and deconstructing firmware, allowing them to discover and turn off the manufacturer-based firmware-level lens corrections. So whatever flaws of the lens optically can always be corrected at firmware level and users won't take notice. On the EVF/LVF, the corrections are already applied.

This has been proven and presented by many optical engineers and hackers already and many who I noticed got banned for their discoveries. They got banned in their respective brand-related forums and their threads removed. I truly don't think such censor is necessary.

Mirrorless technology allowed manufacturers to reach clinically-sharp and exquisite images to be produced by the cameras/lenses with less resource and R&D. I am not against it because we'll do post-processing and RAW files are digital, anyway.
 
Back
Top