Shutterbug57

It seems there is quite the hype these days about the “Micro 4/3” format. This is a digital, mirrorless system that shoots a 4:3 format image. If I understand things correctly, the venerable medium format “645” cameras shot a 4:3 image size and have done so for at least 45 years, probably longer.

All the marketing fluff makes it seem like this 4:3 image format is a new revelation never before seen in the photo world. I realize the “Micro 4/3” industry is in its nascent stages and while there may be benefits, there are also still a few bugs to be worked out - like lens availability, autofocus speed/accuracy and price point. I also see a market for a smaller SLR camera which can produce professional quality images that can pop into a briefcase and be a constant companion without the bulk of another bag - although sensor size may be a limiting factor here.

What I don’t get is the promotion of the image ratio as a new thing rather than riding the coattails of the 645 MF film cameras while discussing the affordability of the Micro 4/3 cameras compared to the modern MF 645 digital cameras. Why not market the Micro 4/3 gear as “giving you a historically significant image ratio while eshewing film but still offered at an affordable price. Oh, BTW, these are mirrorless and smaller & lighter than your traditional DSLR so you can take them anywhere. Pairing a Micro 4/3 camera gives you options. Check one out at your local camera store.”

Am I missing something here?

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Yes you do.

You may also want to get your info from other sources. Sources that are accurate.

Going into an actual store to play with these cameras may be a revaluation to you, based on the info you have provided in your post.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Although 4/3rds and 645 are the same ratio, one is the mirrorless format. As to "still a few bugs to be worked out - like lens availability, autofocus speed/accuracy and price point", there are 95+ lenses available with all basic functions available, able to shoot 18fps 20mp RAW with shutter and 60fps 20mp RAW without shutter, somewhat comparable body features for $2000 versus $6000 for DSLR, and for the same angle of view lense, $2500 for 4/3rds versus $9500 to $12,500 for DSLR. I'm not sure what you consider "missing something here?", but those alone are some significant differences.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

- “in its nascent stages”? Far from just having been born, Four Thirds and M4/3-mount cameras from makers like Olympus and Panasonic have been around for a long time and have well-established features (and followings).
- “smaller SLR cameras which can produce professional quality images that can pop into a briefcase and be a constant companion”? Yes, they are called Fujifilm (and Sony).
Perhaps “Shutterbug57” was ‘in the john’ while all this was happening?😂

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

To market Micro 4/3 as something equivalent to film's 6x4.5 medium format would trigger faulty assumptions and cause much confusion, as undoubtedly some people would think it is in reference to sensor size, not image ratio.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

Why so hung up of the 4:3 ratio?
I have the Olympus OM-D E-M1, it will also give me 16:9, 3:2, 1:1, 3:4.
And why so hung up on the size of the sensor? I'm of the opinion that with a good quality crop sensor I can take better photos than with a poor quality full frame sensor.
Lack of lenses? Not any more! Haven't counted them recently, but I think there are close to 100 (if not more by now) lenses to choose from!
Just got a little gem for Christmas: 60 mm macro! (Field of view is equivalent to a 120mm "full frame" lens, and it gives me a true 1:1 image, as well as 1:2, 1:4 and 1:8 - according to the instructions that came with it, haven't had time to try them all out yet.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

I shoot both...except one is film.

Don’t sweat the small stuff, just go shoot.

Shutterbug57

Ok, taken out behind the shed ... I have to admit that I am not that conversant with the Micro 4/3 options. One thing I have seen consistently stated is that they don’t autofocus fast enough for action sports. One of the blessings of the internet is info availability. One of its curses is that stuff doesn’t get updated.

So, please school me. Are there Micro 4/3 camera/lens options that can keep up with traditional DSLR offerings on an NFL sideline? I have looked at B&H lens offerings for Micro 4/3. There appear to be fewer with wide open apertures, but given the crop factor, I guess they gain a stop in exposure. Also, from what I have gathered, they seem to lose about a stop in DOF to anfull frame - that is just physics.

I guess the thing I found most interesting was the “discovery of the 4:3 format” in the marketing literature.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Read up on the em1ii and g9.

BebuLamar

When they invented the 4/3 format they chose the 4:3 aspect ratio because it quite a common aspect ratio. The invention of the 4/3 or M 4/3 isn't about the aspect ratio but the size of the sensor.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Are you an NFL photographer?

No m4/3 is not ready to take over the top spot. Far from it. But than again, you “mostly” see Canon at those events. What does that say about Nikon? Nothing.

The only mirrorless camera challenging the top dogs is the Sony A9. The camera body that is.

But in any case, your questions seem a little weird to be honest. “We”, “us”, “most” people are just casual shooters, will never produce pro quality work and for that, m4/3 along with APSC and FF, is more than good enough. We are the weak link in the chain for the most part. If m4/3 is not good enough for someone, thankfully, we have other larger format systems, that may do the job. Use what matches your requirements.

Just remember, that no camera can or will ever tell you what to take a picture of, when, or how to. That is our job and an uninteresting photo is an uninteresting photo, no matter how much $$$ you spent on the gear or how big the sensor is in the camera.

Shutterbug57

Nope, I am not a pro shooter, but I have shot a lot of sports and published team web-sites. I have never had a D3, D4 or D5 for the job, although I would have liked one primarily for the advanced ISO performance over my D200. If you have never shot a D200 in a dimly lit HS gym where only a 1.4 lens will let you stop action, you wouldn't get the issue - eyes in focus with noses & ears out of focus and noise everywhere. Not publishable work.

My D200 was my main body for years and now my D500 is. While I have not had the top of the line pro bodies, I have purchased the best glass I could afford. This was generally pro-level fast glass, but unfortunately, the Nikkor 400/2.8 has always been out of my price range. I know my gear is better than I am, and I would like to keep it that way.

What I have seen in doing further research on the M43 cameras noted above is that they do very well in well lit environments, but may fall a bit behind in low light. Additionally, when shooting portraits, the M43 lens was, to my eye and that of most of the reviewers, less pleasing than DSLR, particularly FX DSLR sensor/lens pairings as the M43 lens did not separate the subject from the background as well. The other big hurdle for me is that I have a box full of fast Nikkor glass, zooms and primes that would not support the M43 systems. Good glass is expensive.

One does not have to be a pro shooter to desire to attain pro-level skills or at least the best skills they can attain. There are many reasons to make pictures and making money from it is only one. I am not a wedding shooter, but I was pressed into service at my son's wedding due to cost reasons. I did the research and practice (and bought a bit of lighting kit) to pull the job off in a workmanlike fashion. Sure there are better wedding shooters, and some of them specialize in weddings with a PHOTOGRAPHY budget of $100K. Yup, I am not in that league. However, after I published the album, several prints & the high & low resolution jpg images to the bride, several of her friends noted that the work was better than what they paid several thousand $$$ for at their weddings using a pro shooter. Do Pye Jursa, the Grays (Zach & Jody) or other top-end wedding shooters have anything to worry about from me - nope, but, it appears that if I so chose, I could make money at shooting weddings. I make more money at my consulting job and I prefer my weekends free.

I agree with you - shoot what you like. I apologize to you and all if the OP came across as attacking M43, although I can see how it did as what little researched I had done was dated. The thing that got my interest was some marketing literature I read that seemed be saying that 4:3 was something that was recently invented. This may well have been just an odd advert, but it started me thinking...

I was actually thinking about picking up a M43 camera with a small lens as a briefcase kit, but the Olympus noted above costs more than my D500

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Although Canon and Nikon still have the advantage on a NFL sideline, both the Olympus E-M1 mrII and Panasonic GH5 shoot well enough now that they could be used there. Maybe as some of the more established sports photographers retire we will see an increase of new sports photographers with the smaller APS-C and 4/3rds mirrorless cameras.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

The bad news, as usual, is all better camera equipment cost more no matter what the format size. The good news is that the expensive equipment keeps getting better. Olympus just came out with a prime series of f1.2 lenses specifically designed for dropping out the background. They are not cheap but they are very sharp thoughout the range and fast. Yes, they have more of a 35mm f2/f2.8 depth of field at that f1.2, but it does help in isolating the subject from the background.