Peteso Loc: Blacks Hills

I have been shooting the Oly EM1-II since its release, and I have been shooting the EM1X for about a year. Particularly for wildlife, birds and any fast action subjects that require long lenses, these cameras are hard to beat. In addition to their light weight, the Pro Capture feature is incredible. Of course, the compromise is image quality when compared to FF, so I suggest you try to stick with the Pro lenses. IMHO, the trade offs militate in favor of the Oly high-end cameras, particularly for the kind of shooting I described.

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

My first Olympus camera was the E-5. Unfortunately, when arthritis set in, it was simply too heavy for my hands.
On the advice from my brother, I bought the OM D EM1. I was very happy with it: it fits my hand perfectly, the body is not too heavy for my hands. When the Mark 3 was released, I bought that as well, mostly because of the "extra" things I could do with it.
These two cameras fit nicely together in my camera bag, as well as a couple of lenses. When we "hit the road" both cameras and "all" my lenses for these two come with us. On one camera I will put a short lens, on the other one a long lens - saves me some time changing lenses, and I believe saved me some camera repairs when I wanted to use "the other lens" in an area where there was quite a strong wind blowing and with that, lots of sand in the air!
Bonus: besides the ease of using these cameras, I am more than happy with the photos I take with them!
I do not yet have all the possibilities of the mk 3 in my brain and fingers, and often will sit on the couch in the evening with Tony Phillips' book and the camera: I'll either find something in the book I want to learn, or I'll have tried something with the camera, didn't get the result I wanted and looked it up in the book. So slowly but surely I'm learning everything about this camera!

bikerguy

I converted from Canon to Olympus in June 2019. The system does get respect from people who try it. There are pros that have converted from Nikon and Canon to Olympus. m 4/3 has many advantages and some disadvantages over 35 mm sensor cameras. For wildlife, as you noted, it is superb. I ignore naysayers and just enjoy the system. Yes the bodies are no lighter than most but the long lenses are a pleasure. Even the 150-400 is light compared to similar lenses for the "big guys." My suggestion, enjoy the system and forget the noise from people who have never even used a m 4/3 camera.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I can only speak to the objective Imatest lens test numbers that I see - and what I see is the M4/3 lenses always test slightly lower than the Canikon versions.......
.

wildweasel

I think it's brain washing, we have been told all our lives that FF is bigger and better and you can't get good quality photos without it. I have a Nikon Z6 and an Olympus EM1 Mark II, and the EM1 is my go to camera for wildlife and landscape and it's a joy to shoot and I haven't had anyone yet that could tell the difference. Have a look here, www.facebook.com/RayReederPhotography

User ID

Thank you for such precise data.

User ID

Around 2001 ? You were most certainly an early adopter. M43 wasn’t introduced to the public until 2008.

User ID

Well acoarst. What other system would fit in there ?

yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

I have Olympus OM-D 10.1 (16mp) and a Lumix GF1 (12mp). Three native mount Autofocus lenses and a plethora of adaptable Nikon/Nikkor F mount and Minolta MD/MC mount lenses that I use with them.
~These two cameras get used probably more than my Nikon (APS-c) stable now because of the portability and ease of being able to hike for hours without a heavy system slapping against me. Around the house, I grab whatever I set out for the day's food/fun/artistic shooting - m43 or APS-c.
~ Would I shoot "Pro" with these m43 cameras? Yes, I would if I were still in the game. In the past, if a Pro was shooting commercial work with such a small system, at the time 35mm, they would be scorned and the work would be given to others that used Medium Format (film), 4x5, etc. Now, people are more accepting of the smaller system cameras as most people accept the technology of iPhones and electronics as being commercially viable.

JMOO, of course.

Sitting at my desk today to use is my Nikon D5200 with a Sigma 30mm F 1.4 lens on it. Tomorrow, who knows!!

yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

...Whooohooo!!!

Hip Coyote

I am a dedicated Oly user. The thing I see about most m43 users is they know what they have...and have weighed the benefits and detriments of the system. It is a compromise between size and the low light/IQ that other people have noted. Unlike folks who want to yammer on and on about Sony v Canon v Nikon; the m43 crowd is very aware that their gear has limitations and are willing to work within that environment and know that artistry matters more than gear.

I do see that many people are hung up on gear and think gear will improve their photography...we see it all the time on this forum. Ive seen it on vacations or even dedicated photo shoots where people have ff gear and are unfamiliar with the general concepts of photography. Very few people operate their gear at the edge of its capabilities. In terms of m43 gear, it is quite capable. The new OM1 is am amazing piece of technology. Look no further than this demo video from some Oly Visionaries who do drive the OM1 at its limits. Their photography, including BIFs is exceptional. Here is a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58v2I8kugmU. No one, and I mean no one, on this site has posted photos on this site (including me) that match the ones these folks captured.

I do see that the m43 crowd seems to be more genial in its discussion because it is a crowd that does have to have some technical expertise to obtain good shots and knows it does not have the ff capabilities. The m43 system is great for the average user who travels, who wants lighter gear, wildlife, or who simply want to be different. There are pros who use the gear, one who has a Pulitzer from using it.

If and when I need the lower light capabilities of ff, I will certainly get into that realm of gear...but for now, it works for me. But, Oly and Pany do not make m43 cameras that make THE BEST images...it is a fact. Size does matter! And I am ok with that for now.

Skip the nonsense on kit talk and spend time on perfecting the image artistry.

Also take a look at mu43.com. It has good discussions and very very good photography on it.

Dickwood33 Loc: Alberta, Canada

Lumix G9 user and in my experience available light and high ISO situations are somewhat more challenging than with my old D7100 however Topaz deNoise and Sharpen to the rescue! In all other situations my G9 excells.

Gort55 Loc: Northern Colorado

It is true that the specs show that a full frame dslr has better dynamic range and low light sensitivity, but
when comparing photos taken with my D750 vs the Oly EM-1 the only difference my old eyes can see is bokeh.
Olympus is my go to camera unless the light is bad.

User ID

Very good news. Thank you.

BebuLamar

FF isn't big. It's the small format. But I use full frame because that what I chose to use 46 years ago. By the way, M4/3 or 4/3 isn't a cropped format. It's also full frame.