IDguy Loc: Idaho

1. Check out DXOMark and you will see that the M 4/3 sensor is inferior to APS-C sensors on all measures such as MP, dynamic range, and noise at higher ISOs.

2. The GM5 has a 12-45 and a 50-200. The D800 has many but the ones I use most frequently are 24-85, 16-35, and 200-500. (I also have a set of lenses for my APS-C D5xxxs).

3. Yes. Nat Geo photographers are photojournalists. Sometimes image quality is secondary to getting the shot. There are times the portability of a M4/3 outweighs image quality. That’s why I have one.

Nat Geo photographer Joel Sartore, who teaches for The Great Courses, only uses Nikon FX cameras.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

IDguy, why would it matter what camera anyone chooses, so long as it meets their needs?

I used Nikon and Canon SLRs for decades (1968 to 2005), and Nikon and Canon APS-C and full frame dSLR gear for ten years. It's fine stuff. But it is also heavy, and has MANY issues with video, not the least of them related to poor audio and crappy 4K. So I chose a Panasonic Lumix GH4 a while back, and just switched. I'm glad I did! I like it so much, I'll probably get a GH5 at some point.

Yes, I gave up two stops of low light capability. It hasn't affected me in the least! I rarely work in conditions where I need ISOs above 3200. When I do, I usually add light, anyway. That said, I have photographed a character in a stage play lit with a single 2 D-cell flashlight (at ISO 3200, 1/15 second, f/2.8, hand-held, using the silent electronic shutter and the 12-35 at 30mm, OIS on).

What I gave up in low light capability, I got back in weight and bulk reduction. I have a 12-35mm f/2.8 Lumix pro lens, and its 35-100mm f/2.8 big brother. I have a 30mm f/2.8 macro. I borrow and rent other lenses when needed.

Yes, using a 25mm lens on Micro 4/3 provides the depth of field of a 50mm lens on full frame at the same aperture, although the field of view is about the same. I don't have a problem with that. Much of my work involves closeups, where the extra DOF is handy for keeping more of the subject in focus. It definitely helps when doing macro work, like copying slides and negatives. If I suddenly need shallow DOF, I'll borrow, rent, or invest in an f/1.2 or f/1.4 optic. Most lenses available for Micro 4/3 work great, used WIDE OPEN. One stop down, they're as good as they get.

Since 95% or more of my work will never be printed to hang on a wall, I don't need super-high resolution. My images will be used on corporate web sites, or displayed on HD and 4K monitors, or projected, or viewed on smartphones and tablets, or reproduced in publications where the trim size is smaller than 9x12 inches. All THAT said, I have made respectable 40x30 inch prints from full frames of Micro 4/3. Do they pass a pixel peeping test? No, but I don't care. If you step back far enough to see the full image (50" viewing distance), it looks the same as an 8x6 inch print at 10 inches!

The tipping point for me in switching, though, was the need to do photo illustrations for training manuals and eLearning programs, while also recording video of the same subject matter. I used to have a still camera and a separate video camera for that. I had to set up and photograph the same things twice! Now I can record 4K video and extract stills from it. The clincher? Reasonably clean audio pre-amps with limiters and level meters. Usually, I can plug in a pro audio source and use the recording without using a separate sound recorder and synchronizing audio in post.

If you want an example of a National Geographic photographer (nature, wildlife) who uses Micro 4/3, check out this link: http://naturalexposures.com or his blog at: http://naturalexposures.com/corkboard/ (Dan is a Lumix Luminary and also a member of Ugly Hedgehog.)

To the OP's question, "Is Micro 4/3 the affordable digital 6x4.5?", I would answer that it's a bit of a stretch to compare either film or digital 6x4.5 images with Micro 4/3. They serve different needs.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Right. That was my point: different strokes for different folks...and situations.

Nonetheless it remains an objective fact that Micro 4/3 sensors are inferior to APS-C sensors which are inferior to FX sensors in terms of dynamic range, high ISO capability, and image quality.

I didn’t say that makes them useless and noted I have one for the times portability counts most.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Well, he says his main cameras are FX Nikons: http://naturalexposures.com/about-us/faq/

Go to “What equipment do you use most frequently?”

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yeah, that page was written well before the Lumix GH3 reached him several years ago! You can find his latest gear on his blog. He's using GH5s and testing G9s now. Watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbxhDvi-q5U

He flat out says he's using two GH5s with two Leica lenses (12-60mm and 100-400mm).

BTW, the entire video was recorded with a GH5.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

My main issue is with the 4x3 format itself. As I scan my old media, I find myself cropping pictures on square media {I had an Instamatic 100 in my early years and Kodak camera which used 620 film but produced square pictures} as 3x2 images, not 4x3.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Thanks for that. Definitely a new level of M4/3.

Interesting his stills are 16:9 format.

Shutterbug57

If you are scanning them, why crop them at all?

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

The picture is square because that is what the film format imposed on me, but the subject matter of the picture more naturally fits into a rectangular frame, so I crop the image to fit the picture as I scan.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The film was made by Griffin Hammond, an award-winning independent filmmaker. Either he took whatever Daniel gave him and cropped it to fit, OR, Daniel cropped stills for use in the video.

I find myself using 16:9 more and more often, because my images wind up on screens more often than on paper.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I do the same when copying negatives and slides with my Lumix GH4 and macro lens. I can get about as close as 1/4 of a 35mm frame. I record JPEG plus raw files so I can set the crop in the camera (16:9, 3:2, 4:3, or 1:1). Then I know I have it when I edit the raw, which is always 4:3.

Shutterbug57

Fair enough. Thanks.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

All of us older photographers understand and appreciate that philosophy. But sometimes the new "toys" are more fun and easier to play with.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

And for many uses, both easier and better!

danieljcox Loc: Bozeman, Montana

Thanks for alerting me to the inaccurate information I have on my web site gentleman. I thought I had updated all my information regarding the fact I no longer shoot any so called full frame cameras. I'll get this changed. Sorry about the confusion. For the record, I began testing the Lumix equipment in 2008 and as of 2 years ago I've not shot any Nikon equipment except for comparison purposes against my Lumix cameras. Without a doubt, Lumix still has some ways to go to equal what we get with Nikon in predictive AF and low light capabilities but those issues are secondary to the Lumix camera's lighter weight and ability to use quickly, especially with very powerful telephotos. The day is getting ever closer where the issue will be solved with a new generation sensor and these discussions will fade like an early Ektachrome slide left out in the sun for too long.