Micro 4/3 What Do You Use MFT For?

Is that a serious question? What does the average person use a camera for? Taking pictures. It's as simple as that. No need to over think it. I really like m4/3 due to the selection of tiny and lightweight fast primes. That's what m4/3 is all about. It's not cheap, the technical image quality is not the best, but it's plenty good enough for the vast majority of people. Yeah, phones are too, but they're horrible things to use, you can't change lenses, and I really dislike actually using them. Throw a tiny, fast prime on a well featured m4/3 body, and you've got a fabulously capable little system that's comfortable and great fun to use. That's all there is to it. Shoot whatever makes you happy. I could carry a medium format body and lenses around, I just don't want to.
Phone vs camera, and that particular body is one that the m4/3 fan bois yelled, squealed and complained about being "enormous" with no place in m4/3
Note vs m43 (1).jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
25872646040.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
25913915440.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
25564230453 (1).jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Prologo.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
31110298590.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
31251484284.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
36399433741.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:
MiguelATF said:
To answer your question, for quite a few years, I used MFT for pretty much all of my photography. Why? Because an MFT camera was not only my main one - but, on quite a few occasions, my only one. So...it was all I had. And the MFT cameras which I had, I found immensely satisfying. They all managed not only to 'get the job done' - but often to either 'realize' some surprisingly good (surprising to me, I mean) images, or to be good creative tools for translating either my mind's eye or the world around me, to images. Something I've been obsessed with for much of my life.

Over the past few years, I've branched out from MFT. For awhile, I used a handful of great Pentax DSLR's. More recently, I've become enamored of the color possibilities of some modern Fujifilm cameras, so much so that on occasion, my Fuji's have been my weapon of choice, so to speak. For colour images, at least. But I still use MFT for birds and wildlife (my E-M1 + some telephoto or telephoto-zoom lenses) - for travel (my GX9 is my favorite serious small travel camera, usually with a small prime) - and occasionally just for having a superb small camera which looks more like an innocuous point-and-shoot than a serious photographic device (my E-P5). They are all great cameras... still.

In no particular order, and with no rhyme or reason, here are a handful of some of the better (to my eyes, at least) photos I've taken over the years with MFT cameras. This first was taken with my old Lumix GX-1, and my dirt cheap Olympus BCL (BodyCap Lens) 15mm fixed f/8 plastic lens--

View attachment 337740

This portrait was taken at a local minor league baseball game of one of the fans - with my old GX8, and a wonderful lens, the PL 45mm macro--

View attachment 337741

A shot of plants growing inside the abandoned Volvo parts car of a good friend of mine, parked out in the middle of his farm (taken with my old GX7 and its humble kit lens)--

View attachment 337745

The tail end of a classic old Dodge sedan, taken with a classic old MFT camera, my former Olympus E-P1, and its underrated small 17mm pancake lens--

View attachment 337746

This is one of my favorites, taken at a Halloween parade in Ashland, Oregon, with the inexpensive but oh-so-sharp Rokinon fisheye on my ancient GX1--

View attachment 337747

Lastly, two of my more recent MFT shots, taken with the GX9 and the small 20mm Lumix lens, on a trip to Mexico City. First this street shrine, on a busy boulevard---

View attachment 337748

And lastly this ancient Renault that was parked on a quiet street--

View attachment 337749

So... yeah, hard to say what I use MFT for. Probably the simplest answer, in all seriousness, is --- to take pictures with.
And no, that's not facetious. It's the truth.

Of course the problem with simple answers is, they can create other more complicated questions - including why a person takes or tries to take pictures in the first place. Which gets us into interesting but deeper waters...

But...thanks for asking the (initial) question, though... definitely made me think.
Click to expand...
Bravo Miguel, couldn't have said/represented it better myself
 
I am getting ready to take my yearly trip with my buddy George to the South West for 10 days. I've taken lots of different cameras and lenses on this trips, but for the last 5 years my Gx85/Oly 9-18, 75-300II have been my go to system. All my f2.8s and PL100-400 stay home as do the G9's (as will the Gh6 I on planning on getting). I love this little camera and how those two lenses basically give me a Super zoom. With the On1 Noise AI and Resize I no longer worry about details in the image nor if I want to make a really large print. Small size, big performance. The Gx85 IMHO is a fantastic little camera which I am sorry to it see go the way of the dinosaurs. These trips are reasonably expensive, but I've never had doubts about using this consumer setup I take. Got the 9-18 used about the same time I got the Gx85 for $325 used with hood, and the 75-300II about $400 on a Oly sale. Both produce far beyond what I expected. Got to love M43.....
 
11GTCS said:
As I tinker with different setups with my EM5.3, I figured I’d reach out for a quick sort of ShotKit type thread (not seeing one, please let me know if I’m missing it).

If you use MFT, what do you use it for? Is it your only system or do you couple it with other systems? What kit (bags, bodies, lenses, flashes, etc) do you use the most?

To answer my own question, I use MFT for travel, reportage, and closeup/macro. I currently shoot mostly with an EM5.3 and 12-45/4, though I also carry an 8-18/2.8-4 when needed and am acquiring some small primes to keep in my proverbial back pocket. It all goes into a moment Fanny sling, but im looking at a Wotancraft Pilot 7L for more long term stuff.

Looking forward to some replies/photos!
Click to expand...
I bought into MFT knowing nothing about it. When Olympus sold to JIP and became OMDS most of the retailers where I live substantially discounted almost everything Olympus.
I saw a new EM10 Mark 3 in a retailers display cabinet and liked the look of it design wise, then I handled it and thought this would be a good advanced compact for my largish hands. Lens interchangeability on a camera that I identified would be an advanced compact for me was very appealing.
I purchased the EM10 Mark 3 together with the pancake kit lens 14mm - 42mm, it cost me $590 Au. midway through 2021. That was around the same price as the well rated but very small and slippery Canon G7X Mark 2/3 advanced compact that I was considering at the time.
I have added several non-pro prime lenses and a EM10 Mark 2 body, as well as two Lumix lenses to the collection - all at significant price reductions, more than 50% in some instances.
So far I have not experienced the anguished and plaintive concerns of the denigrators of MFT that can be seen on social media and some websites. I do have a good look for the claimed disasters of the sensor when checking the pics. Given that I'm not a commercial photographer having to impress customers, or a member of a photographic society seeking peer approval for surpassing lofty standards in comprehensive sharpness and dynamic range - I have no worries.
 
Robinson said:
I bought into MFT knowing nothing about it. When Olympus sold to JIP and became OMDS most of the retailers where I live substantially discounted almost everything Olympus.
I saw a new EM10 Mark 3 in a retailers display cabinet and liked the look of it design wise, then I handled it and thought this would be a good advanced compact for my largish hands. Lens interchangeability on a camera that I identified would be an advanced compact for me was very appealing.
I purchased the EM10 Mark 3 together with the pancake kit lens 14mm - 42mm, it cost me $590 Au. midway through 2021. That was around the same price as the well rated but very small and slippery Canon G7X Mark 2/3 advanced compact that I was considering at the time.
I have added several non-pro prime lenses and a EM10 Mark 2 body, as well as two Lumix lenses to the collection - all at significant price reductions, more than 50% in some instances.
So far I have not experienced the anguished and plaintive concerns of the denigrators of MFT that can be seen on social media and some websites. I do have a good look for the claimed disasters of the sensor when checking the pics. Given that I'm not a commercial photographer having to impress customers, or a member of a photographic society seeking peer approval for surpassing lofty standards in comprehensive sharpness and dynamic range - I have no worries.
Click to expand...
A warm :Welcome: to this mostly friendly forum.
 
I use mft for everything. We took a wildlife photography tour in Costa Rica a couple of weeks ago and I couldn't have achieved the same results with FF telephoto lenses. The Olympus 150-400mm f4.5 proved its worth in both portability and resolving power.
52931151669_3e210beb40_b.jpg

Hispaniolan Oriole by Graham Moore, on Flickr

The 40-150mm f2.8 is no slouch either:
52939517154_f297f29985_b.jpg

Macaw by Graham Moore, on Flickr
 
MFT's only strengths to me are in it's small size and light weight.
When you go for heavy and bulky pro glass in MFT, I feel you are missing the point.

At the moment I have the following:
  • Olympus 40-150 R
  • Sigma 56 f1.4
  • Mitakon 25mm f0.95
  • Lumix 12-32 pancake
  • Lumix 20mm f1.7
  • Laowa 10mm f2
All tiny/light and sometimes bright lenses!

I pair those with PEN style bodies and it's just a joy then.
 
Tili said:
MFT's only strengths to me are in it's small size and light weight.
When you go for heavy and bulky pro glass in MFT, I feel you are missing the point.
Click to expand...
I would argue that the ‘point’ is entirely subjective and dependent on perspective.

I spent over 25 years as a Canon user, moving from 35mm to digital, accumulating a lot of kit along the way. Working occasionally for a specialist photographic software company also afforded the opportunity to borrow and use pretty much every Canon lens then available. Lugging around one of their high end white lenses on a FF body, even for a short time, was a physical endurance test.

Nowadays I can carry any of my Pro lenses indefinitely. Last month I spent 6 hours out with the ‘big’ Oly 40-150 Pro lens. I didn’t notice my kit’s size or weight at all unlike my companions who, by the end of our hike, had put away their FF Sonys and Nikons and resorted to using iPhones.

Yes, Pro MFT lenses are bigger and heavier than their non-Pro MFT equivalents. However, comparing Pro MFT lenses to their FF counterparts reveals a sweet spot between maximum size & weight and maximum quality.

That, for me, is the ‘point’ of MFT Pro lenses. However, more importantly, the choices and versatility available within one photographic ecosystem are, perhaps, the ‘reasons’ why our very different needs and preferences can be satisfied by MFT kit.
 
I think where the challenge is at... Not too many, even from the biggest of M43 advocates, would argue that our smaller sensors are "better" than full-frame. And frankly, a challenge we as photographers have -- physics is a thing. There's no power on earth that can change the fact that the amount of light hitting a sensor is determined by the focal length and the diameter of the entry pupil. Or that the size of the pixel affects its low-light performance.

So yes, generally speaking a FF sensor will have some advantages over an M43 one. No argument. And it keeps going - a medium or large format can have even larger or more pixels. A one-inch sensor has a ridiculous amount of "zoom" due to its higher crop factor, but has even greater small sensor challenges than M43.

What I think makes M43 is the Goldilocks factor -- the sensor is very capable -- it can take great pictures at good resolution. And it opens up great possibilities. Want to have a super-small kit? Go for it. With the small primes you can have something much better than any cell phone or one-inch sensor camera out there. Want to have high quality gear for a fraction of the cost and weight? M43 has that covered too.

I'm in the latter camp. My f/2.8 lenses aren't small for M43 lenses, particularly not "the beast" -- the 40-150mm f/2.8 pro. But at 880g, it is about a third of the weight of the Canon 100-300mm f/2.8. My back and knees don't mind my life choices (not that my wallet could take the Canon!).

Would a Canon FF body take much better pictures with its lens than my E-M1.2 with mine? No doubt. Can I get the pictures I want on the M43 platform? Absolutely :) To me, M43 is about having multiple great options...
 
dionhouston said:
I think where the challenge is at... Not too many, even from the biggest of M43 advocates, would argue that our smaller sensors are "better" than full-frame. And frankly, a challenge we as photographers have -- physics is a thing. There's no power on earth that can change the fact that the amount of light hitting a sensor is determined by the focal length and the diameter of the entry pupil. Or that the size of the pixel affects its low-light performance.

So yes, generally speaking a FF sensor will have some advantages over an M43 one. No argument. And it keeps going - a medium or large format can have even larger or more pixels. A one-inch sensor has a ridiculous amount of "zoom" due to its higher crop factor, but has even greater small sensor challenges than M43.

What I think makes M43 is the Goldilocks factor -- the sensor is very capable -- it can take great pictures at good resolution. And it opens up great possibilities. Want to have a super-small kit? Go for it. With the small primes you can have something much better than any cell phone or one-inch sensor camera out there. Want to have high quality gear for a fraction of the cost and weight? M43 has that covered too.

I'm in the latter camp. My f/2.8 lenses aren't small for M43 lenses, particularly not "the beast" -- the 40-150mm f/2.8 pro. But at 880g, it is about a third of the weight of the Canon 100-300mm f/2.8. My back and knees don't mind my life choices (not that my wallet could take the Canon!).

Would a Canon FF body take much better pictures with its lens than my E-M1.2 with mine? No doubt. Can I get the pictures I want on the M43 platform? Absolutely :) To me, M43 is about having multiple great options...
Click to expand...
Dion, while I agree in principle with what you have written, one of the big criticisms of mFTs is the dynamic range.

{RANT ON} Yet, according to PhotonsToPhotos website, from ISO 200 and up, there is little to no difference in DR between e.g. the E-M1 MkII and the Nikon D3/D4/D5/D6 series. How many photos does one see here taken at less than ISO 200? Precious few ...

This has also been my experience.

After about 13 years of this sort of BS at DPR, it is understandable that I'm a bit sensitive on this topic.

Specially as DR for all sensors takes a straight line nosedive after about ISO 200, with all being much the same, and losing a lot as ISO increases. mFTs is no exception, and no different from any other sensor size.

Someone asked: "Should mFTs be considered the smallest of the large sensors, or the biggest of the small sensors?". I am firmly of the belief that it is the former, as IQ takes a big hit with sensors that are any smaller, yet the difference between mFTs, APS/APSC and 135 format images is marginal at most, and indistinguishable at best, with excellently taken photographs in all cases.

EVEN Ken Rockwell has finally discovered the many benefits of mFTs cameras and lenses!

While there are differences and different use cases, these are minimal at best. Most criticisms rely on comparing one particular mFTs camera with every other format, while failing to mention that no single one of those other cameras can match ALL the features routinely found in most mFTs cameras.

I personally like never having to worry about dust, or rain, the best IBIS made by anyone, the staggering quality of almost all lenses available for the system, and the sheer speed of even the base model cameras, let alone the top end models.
{RANT OFF}

Every modern camera (about 2012 onwards) can take stunning photos. All brands, all models. Some lenses are better than others ... These are just givens as far as I am concerned.

If one wants or needs really clean ISO 25,600 photos, buy a Hasselblad X2D.

If one wants or needs exquisite focus transitions, buy a 12-100 or 8-25, and learn how to use them.

I'm sorry for the rant, but I have gotten sick to death of being required, either explicitly or implicitly, to justify my choice of format.

I do not knowingly criticise the choices others make, and expect similar respect for my own choices.
 
Yeah, @John King that's what I love about hanging out with you, and @Petrochemist and all the old MU-43 gang... You know the math. I'm just a guy who's spent too much time in the Army and loves not having back pain from carrying equipment :)

As near as I can tell though, the whole thing about dynamic range isn't directly about the size of the sensor, it's about the size of the pixels right? And that's where I go back to the Goldilocks factor (glad you liked it @Glevum Owl ) -- if we were to put the same size pixels as one of those nice-DR FF cameras, I'm sure we'd get the same performance -- on maybe a 5-megapixel sensor. :) And vice versa, the same size pixels as a modern M43 sensor on FF probably would have similar DR -- but there would be a metric b... -- a whole lot of them :)

That's within my public school education - M43 is a quarter the size of a FF sensor, so my 20MP E-M1.2 would be 80MP. That's a ridiculous amount of cropability!

But that's the challenge right -- people often ask why aren't there larger (in megapixels) M43 sensors out there -- for sure it's because of pixel size or other math-y things. M43 is not too big, and not too small, but just right for us (the M43 community).

If you need more megapixels, or better dynamic range, or anything else you don't believe M43 can provide you, I say hooah, go buy something bigger, more expensive, and more back-breaking. Hakuna matata :)
 
M43 is my only system... for everything that I shoot... and I shoot a lot. Wildlife, macro, landscapes, portraits, sports... you name it I shoot it and M43, for the most part, copes with everything that I throw at it, even some low light stuff (which is the Achilles heal of the system). I made a choice 5 years ago, when I bought my first digital ICL system, that I wanted something that I would pick up and take with me almost every time I left the house, otherwise it would be a waste of money. After a lot of research, I plumped for an E-PL3 and never really looked back... that, plus the EM10ii that I bought to replace it and then the EM1ii that I bought to replace that, have been with me everywhere!

And my way of proving that it stands up against other systems, I am a member of my local camera club and I have been Photographer of the Year for the last 3 years (and will be there-or-thereabouts for POTY this year), with the next few places all going to Canon Nikon and Fuji shooters... to borrow an angling saying... it's not always about the size of your bait, it's how you wiggle your worm!
 
Glevum Owl said:
The small sensor issue doesn’t have to be an issue.

I don’t worry at all about low light > high ISO > grain thanks to DxO’s DeepPRIME and the latest LR update.
Click to expand...
As long as exposure is correct then noise at higher ISOs is manageable, and with the latest LR update for AI noise reduction, it all but disappears. There are occasions where even these tools cannot recover sufficiently, but usually in those cases I'm not looking for competition winning images, just for a record of the place/time as a memory jogger.
 
Carbonman said:
I use mft for everything. We took a wildlife photography tour in Costa Rica a couple of weeks ago and I couldn't have achieved the same results with FF telephoto lenses. The Olympus 150-400mm f4.5 proved its worth in both portability and resolving power.
View attachment 391221
Hispaniolan Oriole by Graham Moore, on Flickr

The 40-150mm f2.8 is no slouch either:
View attachment 391222
Macaw by Graham Moore, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Wonderful shot of the scarlet macaw! More please.
 

Similar threads

Glevum Owl
    • Like
    • Cool
Micro 4/3 If you'd known then what you know now.....
Replies
9
Views
249
davidzvi
davidzvi
phigmov
    • Like
    • Winner
Micro 4/3 Logitech Mevo - new m43 streaming camera
Replies
3
Views
201
phigmov
phigmov
Carbonman
Micro 4/3 What Do You Use For OM Workspace Sharpening Settings?
Replies
7
Views
809
IanE
IanE
Back
Top