Why Olympus or M43 users should keep their gear?


swifty

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2004
612
23
18
davophoto.wordpress.com
You mean this?

Yes.
So which cameras offer this feature?
And tell me whether it's possible the Olympus can capture a superior image?
You can use the M6 II as your example if you like, if there aren't other cameras offering this feature. Now pair it with whatever lens you'd like and let's do a comparison.
 

swifty

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2004
612
23
18
davophoto.wordpress.com
Actually the M6 II is a pretty good comparison.
You'd need an adapter but you'd be able to use eg. the EF 100-400 II to get to 600mm FOV.
You're now gaining on pixel density, slightly loosing on light gathering and loosing on weight of the lens combo but gaining on price.
In the end you gain some, and you loose some but for equivalent gear, you pretty much get the same as it levels out format advantage/disadvantages.
 

Pitachu

Member
Sep 18, 2019
208
19
18
54
Yes, technically speaking, there definitely has to be a compromise when using either a APS with 1.5x crop facto or M43 with 2x crop factor.

But just like everything in life, you have to ask yourself what is your top priority.

If your preference is to have top notch image quality, a heavier FF system works well,
as you will probably end up using a tripod and take your time to frame and nail the shot.

But if you like me who value portability to be able to bring your kit to any place you go to,
then M43 is ideal, at the expense of working within a smaller envelope :cool:



Hi Pitachu,
You can say it's equivalent to a 600mm lens in FOV but you can't say it's equivalent to a 600 f/4 because it's not. No amount of f/4 is f/4 is f/4 changes this.
And it is so much smaller than a 600mm f/4 lens precisely because it isn't a 600mm f/4. Its a 300mm f/4 which produces images on m43 equivalent to a 600mm f/8 lens on a FF.
This is only talking about the amount of light it lets in at the effective FOV.

You can argue the optical qualities of the 300mm f/4 are comparable to those exotic $10k+ supertele's. I haven't seen specifics but it's very likely it sits somewhere between the long end of the quality 600mm zooms (eg. Sony 200-600) and the exotic 600mm primes.

And what happens when you don't need the extra light a 600mm f/4 lens lets in and a 300mm f/4 produces perfectly fine results (as Petr Bambousek demonstrates), you just end up carrying extra dead weight. Could that extra weight and handling difficulties hinder a wildlife photographer, especially when he/she has to travel through harsh terrain to get to a location? Of course it could.
And what happens when you don't need the extra shallow DOF or where deeper DOF is actually desired, you just end up carrying extra dead weight. Same potential hindrance.

Look, the 300mm f/4 takes the TC's very well too:
Pretty lightweight way to get to 1200mm equiv whilst maintaining a certain bar of image quality.

If you need the extra light, then you need the equipment to let you do it. And m43 does run into practical limits.
If you don't need the extra light or shallower DOF, then FF runs into practical limits of how small they actually make lenses to (particularly at longer focal lengths).

Ironically someone like Petr Bambousek is probably the type of talent that can exploit any advantages you give him and is likely to push photography beyond the practical limits of the m43 system. Yet he doesn't feel hindered by it.
But how many of us can say we actually push our gear to the limits. Modern society has conditioned us to always want more, often for the sake of more and also ease of quicker gratification. Nothing wrong with that though - your money so you choose how to use it. But more/bigger is not always better.
 

  • Like
Reactions: swifty

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,629
38
48
sing
An alternative way if you have R5.
You won't be taking video of a particular short action sequence for more than 15 minutes.
So the overheating is a moot point.
Each 8K video frame can be extracted as a 35.4-megapixel still image, which gives the video mode a function equivalent to ultra-high-speed continuous shooting at up to 30 frames per second.
 

Pitachu

Member
Sep 18, 2019
208
19
18
54
Canon R5 cost about US$3800.
For photographers who cannot afford the US$12,000 600mm F4 lens,
they have to settle for the 600mm F11 lens or maybe use a adapter
with some EF lens, but they will not be able to use a 2x TC on top of that.

As I said, everything is a compromise. In the case of canon, you have to give
up lots of cash, carry heavy weight and tripod or just to have Full Frame or Higher resolution.
Or you can consider their much cheaper 600mm F11 lenses........ seriously????? F11???

In the case of M43, just work within the smaller envelope, and keep improving your skills.
It is possible to still have very good and respectable photos.

It all depends on your priority.:)


An alternative way if you have R5.
You won't be taking video of a particular short action sequence for more than 15 minutes.
So the overheating is a moot point.
Each 8K video frame can be extracted as a 35.4-megapixel still image, which gives the video mode a function equivalent to ultra-high-speed continuous shooting at up to 30 frames per second.
 

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,629
38
48
sing
DP review says can AF at F22.
 

Last edited:

swifty

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2004
612
23
18
davophoto.wordpress.com
If you’re happy with extracted stills from a video feed, sure go ahead. It begs the question why the need to go for FF quality if that’s your bar of quality acceptance.

Oh look, the Olympus 100-400 takes a TC2 too. 1600mm equiv FOV yeah!!
 

swifty

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2004
612
23
18
davophoto.wordpress.com
Sure. Third party lenses are always priced competitively.
And what's the relevance of the R5 in this thread? It's a fantastic stills camera by all accounts, as it should be being Canon's latest.
If your aim is stills photography, you definitely should be using it in stills mode. Not really sure why video was even brought up.
And the new 100-500 L lens also appears pretty good but at 600mm equiv FOV (via cropping on the R5), you're now collecting less light than the 300mm f/4 on m43. But you gain greater pixel density on your subject and the convenience of a zoom although at a much more expensive price point when paired with an R5.
So again, you win some and you loose some. Ain't equivalence great ;)
 

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,629
38
48
sing
Agree, R5 is a bit off topic.
The true blue MFT killers are not the Canon R5 and similar types.
Because that price category is extreme. That is a small % of market.

The true MFT killers are the small, light, reasonably priced, very capable APS-C mirrorless cameras.

Some of which are entry level linkages to their full frame because sharing the same mount, in their respective systems.

The M50 and M6 Mk2 can use EF lenses with an adapter.
The APS-C Nikon Z50 has a Z mount. To bring user into Z6, 7, or 8 in future.
The APS-C Leica CL and TL2 have L mount to bring users into SL2. (but not cheap because Leica)
Fuji mirrorless ILC are APS-C.
The APS-C Sony 5000 up to 6500, 6600, etc have E mount to bring users into A7R4 and A9 Mk2.

Olympus MFT is dead, so Panasonic is all alone and surrounded by rival brands.

The small, light, reasonably priced, very capable APS-C mirrorless cameras from rival brands WILL bite into Panasonic MFT sales.

At some point, Panasonic got to decide whether it is "Game Over" for MFT.
 

Last edited:

swifty

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2004
612
23
18
davophoto.wordpress.com
The fate of m43 might not be changeable given the industry decline but it's not because it's an incapable system as you're implying.
They compete very well and their shooting envelope is far bigger than what you give it credit for.
We've been playing this game of looking around the entire world of APS-C and FF systems and yet little old m43 holds it's own.
Of course if development were to stop then advantages will surely fade with time and unfortunately Olympus' fate is all but sealed.

So predict all you like if it satisfies you but you've taken yet another thread off course when there are existing threads where you can sing the demise the m43 til the cows come home.
I'm not even arguing against that m43 faces a daunting challenge. It is, and the whole industry decline will take more casualties.
But trying to argue m43 has no advantages and is an incapable system, sorry but that's just nonsense.
 

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,629
38
48
sing
Discussing probable format death is relevant to the topic of this thread which is:
"Why Olympus or M43 users should keep their gear"

Because if MFT dies, then existing owners can decide whether to keep equipment of a dead format.
They may want to, for whatever reasons.
For example, they don't need the money from resale. So they don't care.

But if they need the money and they are deeply invested (many MFT bodies and lenses), then it is important to move quickly to sell fast.
Before the price is depressed very much due to the ignominy of being a dead format (if Panasonic abandons MFT).
They may be hurt financially quite badly.
 

Last edited:

swifty

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2004
612
23
18
davophoto.wordpress.com
So why don't you start another thread to discuss what you want to discuss. Dispense all the advice you like.
Oh, that's right there's already a thread for it. But start another one anyways if you like since you think you're doing the public a service, it's free to do so.

It's also ok to discuss the good points of a system, you know. Which is what the OP wants to do in this particular thread.
 

Pitachu

Member
Sep 18, 2019
208
19
18
54
Thanks for the video review of the R5.

For US$3800, it is definitely a very capable camera..

But do not that even the reviewer kept to his 70-200 F2.8 Lens and the super expensive (US$12,000) 600mm F4 lenses.

I really do not think the Canon 600mm F11 lens going to work for serious photographers, especially with a 2x TC which makes it F22.
If you walk around with a camera in Aperture Priority mode set to F22 the whole day, you would know what I mean.
And if you Max Aperture is F22, it will be so difficult for you to see things in the viewfinder except in bright light.
Plus you will find that your ISO will be pushed quite high with no much room to maneuver.

Anyway, I have no doubt that the Canon R5 or Sony A7iv are good alternatives if you can also afford
all the lenses which you plan to use, and you can carry the total weight on a trip. Honestly,
the total US$15,800 is beyond my budget and I am not fit enough to carry FF systems anymore.

I am not sure if Canon or Sony has similar workshops like Olympus. I had Sony and Canon but
they once they have invited me for any workshop except for an introductory course.

For Olympus, they organized birding workshops for us and even lend me a E1mx + 300mm F4 lens
and another 40-150mm 2.8 on my EM5 mk 3 (both with 2x TC). I was actually carrying 2 cameras
during with 2 different Focal Range on a variety of birds during the 2 hour workshop.

I was not expecting the E1mx with a lenses +TC that can reach 1200mm to be so handy that I can
handle a second camera with 600mm at the same time.




Sigma and Tamron make competing 150mm to 600mm zooms EF mount. At lower cost.

R5 has 20 FPS still image too. New lens Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM.
Quote { The main thing Robert tested on his shoot was the Canon EOS R5's ability to shoot fast-moving birds in flight. He found that the camera's capability to shoot at up to 20fps with electronic shutter, combined with the new animal tracking AF and eye-tracking AF feature, was an extremely effective combination. } UnQuote

* Robert Marc Lehmann

.

------------------------------------------------

He tested R5 at ISO 12,800 and cannot see grain.
 

Pitachu

Member
Sep 18, 2019
208
19
18
54
True MFT Killers? In all your posts, you seemed to focus on higher resolution as the most important factor.

Like I say, it all depends on your needs. If High Resolution is your priority, go and get a R5 or A7 or A9,
You should not even look at the list of APS-C cameras you mentioned.

But if you want to look at eg. Canon M6 Mk2 with 33 Megapixel and with1 or 2 EF-M lens,
then this camera may be a better choice over a M43 camera, especially when you don't even
need Environmental Sealing or Fully Articulated Screen.

Using EF lenses on the Canon M6 is ridiculous.
You basically add 154g and and extra 20mm to the length.
Then why use mirrorless in the first place.
You are just mentioning it to make the M6 looks better with its limited choice of lenses.
The adapter is probably for photographers who use the M6 as a backup camera.

Same for the rest of the cameras you mentioned.
Same for Sony and probably any other brands.
Why would I even use Sony Full Frame FE-mount lens on a 6600?
It's a waste of money and lots of extra weight?
Or is it again to cover for the lack of variety of lenses?

And Why would I use Sony APS E Mount Lenses on a A7 or A9 even though I can?
I scolded all my friends that do that that they are not maximizing the capabilities
of their Sony A7?

To maximize any system, you need to batch body and lenses to the format they are designed for.

IMHO, if you want to go Full Frame, then go all the way.
If you feel that that will blow your budget, then work within a smaller envelope.

To me, it is much better to have a more complete M43 system then
to have a mix and match system using all kinds of adapters.

For any camera to be a "True Blue M43 killer", it need to do the following
1) A compact body
2) The whole range of lenses

The problem with Sony, and Canon is that both of them focus on their
High Margin Full Frame Lenses and do not pay much attention to their
E-Mount or Canon EF-M series.

You have to look at the system as a whole and not focus on the camera body only.

Agree, R5 is a bit off topic.
The true blue MFT killers are not the Canon R5 and similar types.
Because that price category is extreme. That is a small % of market.

The true MFT killers are the small, light, reasonably priced, very capable APS-C mirrorless cameras.

Some of which are entry level linkages to their full frame because sharing the same mount, in their respective systems.

The M50 and M6 Mk2 can use EF lenses with an adapter.
The APS-C Nikon Z50 has a Z mount. To bring user into Z6, 7, or 8 in future.
The APS-C Leica CL and TL2 have L mount to bring users into SL2. (but not cheap because Leica)
Fuji mirrorless ILC are APS-C.
The APS-C Sony 5000 up to 6500, 6600, etc have E mount to bring users into A7R4 and A9 Mk2.

Olympus MFT is dead, so Panasonic is all alone and surrounded by rival brands.

The small, light, reasonably priced, very capable APS-C mirrorless cameras from rival brands WILL bite into Panasonic MFT sales.

At some point, Panasonic got to decide whether it is "Game Over" for MFT.
 

Last edited:

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,629
38
48
sing
True MFT Killers? In all your posts, you seemed to focus on higher resolution as the most important factor.
Actually no.
Higher MP is merely one part.

Sony in A7 S III has chosen 12MP so that the bigger pixels in the full frame sensor can make the camera very good for low light video.
That is Sony has positioned it not as a high MP still image camera.
But as low MP low light capable video camera.

Higher MP is simply a matter of physics. APS-C has a bigger sensor (1.63 times bigger).
Naturally manufacturers would be able to achieve higher MP, if they want to.
As you can see, Olympus hit a wall with about 20.4MP in a MFT sensor.
Olympus 40MP "high res mode" is no comfort because if you want to go down that line, then full frame Sony A7 R Mk4 has 240MP pixel shift.

The overall package of what APS-C models have to offer is what kills MFT.

Over arching argument is that everyone knows MFT is a format in very serious decline.
Or to put it another way, MFT has one (Olympus) foot in the coffin.
The moment Panasonic puts in the other foot, it is all over. The end.

From 2008 to Jun 2020, no other major manufacturers have made MFT camera bodies - besides the 2 founding brands.
This proves that Leica, Canon, Fuji, Nikon and Sony (even Pentax) realised MFT was a fatal error by Olympus and Panasonic.
They were careful not to drop into this MFT hole.

Whereas APS-C and full frame are supported by the major manufacturers.
In other words, APS-C and full frame have a future.
MFT is in ICU. It has no future. As the years pass after 2020, it will get progressively WORSE for MFT.

Now if one is a NEW buyer after 24 Jun 2020, why would he buy MFT instead of an APS-C or full frame sensor camera?
Knowing that it is deterioration all the way for MFT after 24 Jun 2020.

Those who are heavily invested in MFT may continue to sing its praises. Because they are already stuck.

Some of the APS-C models are entry tickets into the brand's full frame system.

And with some, you can use an adapter and then use the lenses in the legacy system - with AF capability.
So if you have 20 EF lenses, you can use them with an adapter on a M6 Mk2.

One of my friends first bought an APS-C CL and then a full frame SL2. He can use his Made in Germany APO-Macro-Elmart-TL 60mm f/2.8 ASPH lens on the SL2 and still get a 20MP photo. No need for adapter. One L mount throughout the system. Fantastic results.
 

Last edited:

Pitachu

Member
Sep 18, 2019
208
19
18
54
Canon is still trying a smaller format with EF-M.
Nikon has tried a smaller format with its V1.
Sony has its Company R100 and R10 bridge for smaller sensors.
Leica has its expensive rangefinders.
Most of them see a need for a smaller format but approach it a different way.

Not sure how you come to the conclusion that they realized MFT is a fatal error.

I have and still using Canon 7D, 60D, 70D and 80D (APS-C) for my events and I still
buy 2 M43 Cameras to supplement. One of the reasons is Canon do not have
reasonably price 300mm F2.8 and 600mm F4 for me to shoot concert events.

Like I say, learn to embrace every available format. Each has its strengths.
Even a GoPro camera with its small sensor can take photos where a
Full Frame camera cannot even take!

From 2008 to Jun 2020, no other major manufacturers have made MFT camera bodies - besides the 2 founding brands.
This proves that Leica, Canon, Fuji, Nikon and Sony (even Pentax) realised MFT was a fatal error by Olympus and Panasonic.
They were careful not to drop into this MFT hole.

Whereas APS-C and full frame are supported by the major manufacturers.
In other words, APS-C and full frame have a future.
MFT is in ICU. It has no future. As the years pass after 2020, it will get progressively WORSE for MFT.

Now if one is a NEW buyer, why would he buy MFT instead of an APS-C or full frame sensor camera?

Those who are heavily invested in MFT may continue to sing its praises. Because they are already stuck.

Some of the APS-C models are entry tickets into the brand's full frame system.

And with some, you can use an adapter and then use the lenses in the legacy system - with AF capability.
So if you have 20 EF lenses, you can use them with an adapter on a M6 Mk2.

One of my friends first bought an APS-C CL and then a full frame SL2. He can use his Made in Germany APO-Macro-Elmart-TL 60mm f/2.8 ASPH lens on the SL2 and still get a 20MP photo. No need for adapter. One L mount throughout the system. Fantastic results.
 

Pitachu

Member
Sep 18, 2019
208
19
18
54
Whether a new buyer will still buy MFT is off topic.
I will start another thread for that.

Meanwhile, there is no compelling reason for any M43 users to get rid of their system immediately.
In fact, I am eagerly waiting for some of the announced lenses to be available and use my system
for another 3 to 5 years. :cool:

Now if one is a NEW buyer after 24 Jun 2020, why would he buy MFT instead of an APS-C or full frame sensor camera?
Knowing that it is deterioration all the way for MFT after 24 Jun 2020.

Those who are heavily invested in MFT may continue to sing its praises. Because they are already stuck.