Why Olympus or M43 users should keep their gear?


bro where u buy the used E-M1ii and how much? looking around to buy a 2nd hand E-M1ii also

I bought from another CSNAP bro. It was on sale for USD899 last week. Not sure if you took advantage of it.
 

Love Olympus camera's special features like Live Composite and Live Time/Bulb.

Other than the light weight of the system, the relative affordability and selection of lenses is also a plus for me. I shoot with lower end Olympus camera bodies and don't find them excessively crippled

I do have a full frame system (eh... actually also APSC and compact...), however if you know the basics well I feel many shortcomings of each system can be mitigated, either keeping that in mind when shooting or using software.
 

Guys, if you noticed, there are so much M43 products announced compared to the last 1 year.....
1) Olympus EM10 MK4
2) Panasonic G10
3) Olympus 100-400
4) Panasonic GH6
5) Laowa 50mm 2x Macro Zoom

Looks like the M43 community has not been really affected by the sales of Olympus Imaging Div to JIP
but there seems to be plans for M43 to continue :)

I particularly like the Laowa 50mm 2x zoom :)
 

I don't think so. There is a gestation period between when a new product is proposed in the manufacturer's meeting room and its actual delivery to the retail store, ready to be sold. The 5 listed products were probably conceived a long time ago before 24 Jun 2020. The date of Olympus kaput announcement, which was 55 days ago from 18 Aug 2020.

In view of Olympus quitting the game and wanting out.
Probably manufacturers of MFT gear are trying to sell available stock as fast as they can - in case the format dies out and loses favour with buying public.
Olympus to recoup whatever funds they can before the whole division is transferred to JIP at year end.

If wish to gauge the manufacturers' response to Olympus quitting MFT, may need to wait about 1½ years after 24 Jun 2020. Say about end of 2021.
Then see if many major manufacturers in Japan are announcing release of NEW MFT camera bodies and lenses.
 

Last edited:
Wait for their product launch or sale. Try to be their club member to be in their email list. They have some very good ideas. eg. About 200 of us bought the EM5 mk3 for only about $1300 and at one time they are giving away their 45mm F1.8 in their xmas 14 day sale or something like that.

Other that, I got most of my gear second hand. Anyone one to let go some Pro Lenses at an attractive price eg. 40-150 F2.8 can PM me :)
I have a 7-14mm F2.8 and a 40-150 F2.8 if you are interested
 

Here is a good article on the scenarios Olympus users can expect over the next few years....
I fully agree with the author that no matter what happens, most of us that we do not need to significantly
change our gear for at least 3-4 years.

In fact, things actually look pretty interesting with the crop of stuff coming out (refer to my earlier post)
and here is what I come across to add on (products to be released soon)
1) M.ZUIKO 8-25mm/4 PRO,
2) new Macro “around” 100mm PRO
3) M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-400mm F4.5 TC1.25x IS PRO
lens
 

I think you miss the point altogether. The post is not about comparison of equipment but what is going to happen now that
Olympus is down, being sold to JIP.

You seems to keep highlighting higher resolution cameras available and keep thinking that ALL Olympus users need to go for higher resolution. And you miss the point again. A lot of us M43 users do have higher resolution cameras or knew they exists. Please don't treat us like ignorant idiots and keep reminding us that there are higher resolutions alternatives out there. Almost all your posts mention it. Try going to a forum eg. Sony, Fujifilm Medium Format etc if you want to talk about higher resolution

Not sure why you mention the EOS M here regarding a Wildlife photographer's current equipment.
If you feel you can use the EOS M series for wildlife photography just because it has higher resolution, I think you miss the point again. You still need weather sealing body and lenses and high crop factor to maximize your reach eg. Olympus 300mm F4 can reach 600mm @F4 or 1200mm @F8.

Also, about being paid by Olympus on this article on "Olympus is down?" ........ er......... I don't think so.......
And even if there is, readers can use their own judgement, it is quite an objective article describing the various
scenarios that can happen this 3 years.

Anyway, to what I know, manufacturers don't go around paying hard cash for reviewers or users to say good things.
It does not work. IF the product sucks and the reviewer say good things, the reviewer will be flamed by netizens!
Most manufacturer will send the products to reviewer to reviewer and sometimes the reviewer can keep them
on the condition that it cannot be sold (the serial no. are tagged).

Manufacturers usually only pay influencers with high audience to promote their products.



His photos are good. But if he had used other brand equipment, they would be just as good or better.

Quote [ How can my view be impartial, when I use Olympus and, to top it all off, I am the brand ambassador/ visionary? ] UnQuote


To his credit, he did confess his vested interest.
He was probably paid directly or indirectly to sing praises.
Hey, all the other brands' "ambassadors/visionaries" do that too. No crime was committed here.
"ambassadors/visionaries" got to make a living.

Whether to sell or keep equipment is a personal choice.
If you don't need the money, who cares?

Whether MFT dies a quick death (Panasonic also announces it will quit MFT soon); or a slow death (Panasonic continues MFT for few years).

Canon rumor is that M (APS-C) line will be continued with new 32MP model. It is a cash cow for Canon.
For whatever reasons, the camera buying public likes it very much.
This thing sells a lot and for Canon why kill the goose that laid the golden egg?
The success of small, light, cheap, powerful, very saleable APS-C mirrorless models from rival brands Canon, Nikon, Fuji - will impact Panasonic decision whether to abandon MFT.

No matter what, you cannot stop technology advance.
It does not make sense.
Just as computer users cannot insist that the rest of the world continues to use 5¼ inch floppy disk in 2020.

At some point, MFT dies. It was good in its era (2008).
 

His photos are good. But if he had used other brand equipment, they would be just as good or better.
You also forgot worse. Yes, worse.
He could have gotten worse results with other equipment including FF simply because it may not be the right tool. He could have used faster equivalent lenses but the having the weight penalty may have prevented him from getting his shot.
He could've required the pixel density m43 afford him which, (the 20MP sensors) besides being years old remains higher than any FF cameras to date.
He could have used the PRO capture function to capture something ahead of his reaction time.
How bout considering the whole gamut of possibilities.
 

You also forgot worse. Yes, worse.

I would not doubt his professional skill as a photographer, to be able to handle other equipment besides MFT.

The known equipment for bird shooting are:
Sony A9 Mk2 full frame
Canon 1DX Mk3 full frame
Nikon D500 APS-C
maybe D850 full frame
(Maybe in future Canon R5 & R6)

Maybe some MFT but definitely not the most popular among bird shooters.

Don't believe me. Go and see for yourself in Singapore bird shooting circles.
 

Last edited:
I would not doubt his professional skill as a photographer, to be able to handle other equipment besides MFT.

The known equipment for bird shooting are:
Sony A9 Mk2 full frame
Canon 1DX Mk3 full frame
Nikon D500 APS-C
maybe D850 full frame
(Maybe in future Canon R5 & R6)

Maybe some MFT but definitely not the most popular among bird shooters.

Don't believe me. Go and see for yourself in Singapore bird shooting circles.
Of course he’d be able to handle probably any gear given to him.
The point is you believe that FF or larger sensors in general will give universally better results all the time, which just isn’t the case.
It’s mostly situationally dependent.
Where there’s an equivalent setting it will give equal performance.
Beyond that you have to look at what’s actually available. I have given you examples already of where actual m43 gear might have an advantage for his genre of shooting.
Pixel density and pro capture. These are not theoretical advantages, it’s just what’s available currently on m43.
So yes, it is possible to get worse results with actual available FF or APS-C gear compared to actual m43.
 

If high number of pixel density is considered good, then it is strange.

Full frame Sony Alpha A9 II has a pixel density of 2.87 MP/cm².

MFT Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II has a pixel density of 9.06 MP/cm².

1 inch sensor Sony ZV-1 has pixel density of 17.30 MP/cm².

1/2.33 inch sensor Leica D-Lux3 compact has pixel density of 36 MP/cm².

iPhone 11 is 458 PPI. Not sure how many MP/cm² that is.
 

Last edited:
For Birding, the ideal focal length is 600mm to 1200mm.
Max. Aperture of F4 is required for 600mm lenses is preferred because
when you add a 2x TC to get 1200mm for smaller birds, it becomes F8.

Camera Autofocus speed usually start drop once Aperature is smaller than F8.

Look at the comparison chart from B&H Photo. Prices are in USD.

Even professionals who are paid for their birding shots will find it hard to justify
the cost of Full Frame 600mm F4 lenses.

The Olympus 300mm F4 (equivalent to FF 600mm F4 in terms of Focal Length) is much more
affordable, at less than half the weight. And it does produce very respectable award winning photos
that even photographers like Petr Bambousek do not find his Micro Four Thirds system limiting.

His Photos can be seen here: https://www.sulasula.com/en/petr-bambousek-awards/


79622
 

I do agree that MFT has an advantage by design due to the 2x crop factor, for long telephoto shots.
It is also true that a MFT bird shooting outfit kit would be more economical.
And thus make this bird shooting hobby more available to the masses; and not just the rich.
That is the egalitarian good part of MFT.

But remember this. In 2019 Olympus only managed 2% world wide sales. That is a 98% rejection. For whatever reasons.
In Covid-19 struck 2020 pandemic world, where travel is prevented, events are closed, people lose jobs.
That is how bad the current situation is.
The Olympus MFT market share in 2020 would probably be 0.01% - if Olympus had not thrown in the towel on 24 Jun 2020.

Singapore hobby bird shooters are very fortunate and generally own costly high end equipment.
This is what Sony A9 with 200 to 600 zoom plus 2x can do.
 

Last edited:
High pixel density can be considered good in certain scenarios. It’s not universally good.
Just like larger sensors are not universally good or higher total resolution are not universally good. Each come with a set of trade offs and why manufacturers offer a variety of models with different specifications to suit particular shooting requirements.
So yes, higher pixel density can be an advantage when you need to get more pixels on your subject with limited reach.
The thing with equivalence is there’s no free lunch, only penalties when designs are too extreme.

The 600mm effective FOV for example can be reached on FF optically, sure. But every option is very large and rightly so since eg. a Sony 200-600 is at 600mm is f/6.3 whilst an Olympus 300mm is only around f/8 equivalent at 600mm effective FOV. So your other options are to crop in on FF from a shorter lens eg. 100-400. But now pixel density comes into play as you’d need an APS-C crop at 400mm to get to 600mm and all but the A7RIV gets you less pixels on your subject at 600mm. And now your equivalent aperture is f/8.4 so slower than the Olympus 300 f/4’s equivalent aperture of f/8. Like I said, no free lunch and pixel density here yields an advantage. And this is before we compare the lens IQ of the Olympus 300mm f/4 which performs like an exotic tele vs the long end of a non-exotic, albeit good zoom.

Nikon and Canon does have an advantage with their PF/DO lenses but I can really only think of 1 example that would match quality for quality and still end up with a higher number of pixels on the subject at 600mm effective FOV. And that’s with the 500mm f/5.6 PF. Nikon bodies require just a 1.2X crop to get to 600mm effective so either the D850 or Z7 will get you to 600mm with more pixels on your subject and faster effective aperture whilst offering similar performance and only slightly bigger in size. But they achieved it with lens tech that Olympus don’t have, not through sensor format equivalence.

Have a look at actual examples and then realise there’s nothing universally better than something else. It’s how well it’s fitted to the task.

I wrote previously that FF in general as a system has a larger shooting envelope. That’s a larger shooting envelope as a whole system encompassing the best of every model and lens when considered together. Not one model is going to get you that full envelope.

You want to talk about the pro capture feature on the Olympus cameras too?
 

For Birding, the ideal focal length is 600mm to 1200mm.
Max. Aperture of F4 is required for 600mm lenses is preferred because
when you add a 2x TC to get 1200mm for smaller birds, it becomes F8.

Camera Autofocus speed usually start drop once Aperature is smaller than F8.

Look at the comparison chart from B&H Photo. Prices are in USD.

Even professionals who are paid for their birding shots will find it hard to justify
the cost of Full Frame 600mm F4 lenses.

The Olympus 300mm F4 (equivalent to FF 600mm F4 in terms of Focal Length) is much more
affordable, at less than half the weight. And it does produce very respectable award winning photos
that even photographers like Petr Bambousek do not find his Micro Four Thirds system limiting.



View attachment 79622

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.
 

You mean this?

4752715_Tinhte_Canon_EOS_M6_Mark_II_APS-C_00007.jpg
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.
 

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.
 

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