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?

Probably! The main selling point of the Micro 4/3 format is you have a smaller lighter camera. I never would have compared that to a medium format film camera shooting 4.5x6 cm negatives on 120 film. Yes, the sensor format it 3:4 but one can crop 2:3, 1:1, what have you. Medium format film shoots as 6x6 cm, 6x7 cm, 6x9 cm, 4.5x6 cm, and a few other strange or obsolete formats. So therefor many ratios. Even with film you can enlarge to many ratios. Common printing paper sizes are yet different, 4x5", 4x6", 5x7", 8x10", 11x14" and don't even match the negatives in most cases but 4x5" and 8x10", and in the past 5x7" and 11x14' too.

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.

Tell me if I’m wrong is not the aspect ratio 4:3 the samething in film known as LetterBox that the film industry sort of moved away from for Cinmascope and widescreen ratio’s I’m just asking?

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

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?

"Am I missing something here?"

YES.

"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."

Yes, many brands of 6x4.5cm format cameras were around in 120/220 roll film and 46mm and 70mm long roll unperforated film camera formats. They were the mainstay of the mass portrait industry until the early 2000s. Their main advantages were that the format was close to an 8x10 and required little cropping, and the film format was very efficient, getting the maximum number of portraits on a roll of retouchable film.

"All the marketing fluff makes it seem like this 4:3 image format is a new revelation never before seen in the photo world."

That is just total misunderstanding. It's more reminder than anything, that the format is well-suited to traditional portrait formats, anamorphic video, and other uses.

The 4/3 sensor format was developed for SLRs in the very early days of digital, and originally marketed by Fuji, Kodak, Leica, Olympus, Panasonic, Sanyo, and Sigma. MICRO 4/3 was introduced as a mirrorless format in August, 2008, and is primarily the province of Olympus and Panasonic.

"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."

The industry is hardly nascent! (see above). With 95+ native optics available (here's a July, 2017 chart: http://hazeghi.org/mft-lenses.html ), and adapters for thousands of SLR and dSLR lenses available, putting great lenses on a Micro 4/3 body is not a problem. AF speed is vastly improved within the last year's releases. AF accuracy is better than many dSLRs, in certain modes, and worse in others. Price points are both lower and higher than other types of cameras. Generally, you get more bang for the buck at the high end.


"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."

After using a Panasonic Lumix GH4 for a few years, I have to say that I don't feel limited by the size of the sensor. I don't need to work in "available darkness," and the subjects I photograph quite often benefit from the extra depth of field due to the 2x crop factor. Many Micro 4/3 cameras fit into briefcases. The native lenses are only 20% to 35% the size, bulk, and weight of "full frame" (24x36mm) format cameras' lenses. So they fit into MUCH smaller spaces than dSLR lenses!

"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.”"

I would love to see the marketing materials that gave you that message or impression. As a former user of Camerz Classic, ZII, ZIII, and similar long roll portrait cameras from Beattie Systems, and as an owner of a Bronica ETRSi, and sometime user of a Mamiya 645 (all film cameras), I think I can safely say the only thing they have in common with Micro 4/3 is the 4:3 aspect ratio. As for modern medium format digital, it seems there are several proprietary imaging sensor sizes, and their prices ($6,500 to $19,500) are in the stratosphere. There is hardly a comparison there!

The best thing I can advise you to do is get your hands on a few Micro 4/3 cameras and play with their features. Try their best lenses. Leica partners with Panasonic on many of their professional lenses. Olympus has their own line of professional lenses. All the Micro 4/3 lenses can be used on both Olympus and Panasonic bodies. You can choose from many different styles of camera, too. There are compact, stylish "travel and social" cameras, rangefinder-form factor cameras (WITH electronic viewfinders), and dSLR-LIKE cameras.

If you want video, the Panasonic GH5 is unequalled in any camera selling for less than $2000 (plus lenses). It is capable of cinematography, TV videography, advertising commercial production, documentary filmmaking, and much more. AND, it's a damned good still camera that (with its electronic shutter) can whip out 30 frames per second of 18MP HEVC format stills. It also can record 12 frames per second with a conventional shutter.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II is equally impressive, with its stronger emphasis on still photography. Panasonic is introducing its Lumix G9 in January, which will compete directly with it.

That brings up a great point... Because Oly and Panny compete with each other, yet use the same format, they drive each other to move the FORMAT forward. The rate of innovation in this space is incredible. For that reason alone, Micro 4/3 is worth a look.

Interesting article, thanks for posting. It seems that he feels that the lens reviewed is the best of the M43 17mm lenses. He also noted that it has no size/eeught advantage to FX lenses in the 35mm focal length and that it does not perform up to DSLR standards for bokeh unless you are close enough to your subject to achieve perspective distortion. The images published in the article were sharp and well composed as well as pleasing to view.

The lens in the article costs $1,200 at B&H, with no size savings over FX lenses of similar effective focal length and the DOF differences compared to the FX format. I understand there are converters that would allow me to mount my Nikon lenses to a M43 body, but with a 2X crop factor, my 24-70 becomes a 48-140 and i would need to buy a walking around lens anyway. Additionally, the best reviewed bodies are in the $2K range. I don’t see the value proposition for me to add a M43 outfit for my briefcase.