Micro Four Thirds is Not Dead: An Honest Overview of the System
“Size is no obstacle for greatness.”
Full disclosure; I’m a camera freak, jumping from brand to brand, going from digital to film, and experimenting with different formats. I have no shame. I love cameras. I love photography. I am not loyal to any brand or format.
A camera is a tool used to capture light in a box. Some are more elegant, and some do it more efficiently, but the best camera for each photographer is the one that serves their needs for the given situation. It is that simple.
OM Digital Solutions (formerly Olympus) released the OM-1 Mark II earlier this year and Panasonic will release the GH7 this July. Last year Panasonic released the photo-centric G9 II. All 3 flagship cameras are based on the micro four-third sensor. So, let’s examine the system’s strengths, limitations, and yes, the hate.
A brief history of micro four-thirds
The micro four-thirds (MFT) system is the standard based on the four-thirds system originally developed by Kodak and Olympus. It was the first format designed for digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) cameras. Olympus engineer Katsuhiro Takada selected the sensor size as the best compromise allowing for optically excellent images in a smaller camera body.
Later, Panasonic joined Olympus to develop the MFT system further. The sensor size remained the same. The only difference was that the MFT system didn’t utilize a mirror. They were the first mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses. The first MFT camera released was the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G in 2008. Olympus followed in 2009 with the PEN E-P1.
This smaller sensor creates a 2x crop factor when compared to a full-frame sensor (The same surface area as one frame of 35mm film). Without getting too technical, just remember your field of view and depth of field are doubled.
For example, if we use a 50mm lens with a 1.4 depth of field on a full-frame camera. This same lens when placed on a MFT camera becomes the equivalent of a 100mm lens. I would have to physically back up from my subject (increase my working distance) to get the original 50mm field of view. I’m still letting in the same amount of light with the 1.4 aperture opening, but my depth of field (out-of-focus area) is equivalent to 2.8 on a full-frame camera.
There is no perfect camera. The MFT system has its inherent limitations, which we’ll discuss first, and then follow with its benefits.
Limitations of MFT
Low light ability isn’t as good as larger sensors – A larger sensor camera does a better job in low light conditions. The greater number and the larger size of the photosensors allow for more light gathering. Current MFT sensors start showing noticeable digital noise around 6400 ISO.
Depth of field is wider – If you crave bokeh, a system with a larger sensor achieves this easier and is a better option. However, you can create sufficient subject and background separation if you understand all the variables in producing depth of field in photography even with an MFT camera.
Less dynamic range – There might be slightly more image detail with full frame cameras, but honestly the casual photographer (and many professional photographers) will not be able to see the difference. You would have to truly pixel-peep to spot any discrepancies.
Benefits
Size and portability – Despite the small size of the current generation of mirrorless full-frame camera bodies, their lenses (yes, there are a few exceptions.) are still considerably larger than on MFT systems, especially telephoto lenses. Full-frame lenses have to be larger to cover the larger surface area of the sensor.
In body image stabilization – Tack-sharp hand-held shots are capable with shutter speeds of a few seconds, making tripods less needed. The smaller sensor is far easier to stabilize.
Depth of field is wider – Depth of field was mentioned as a limitation before but depending on your genre of photography a wider depth of field may be more desirable. A photographer shooting adventure, architecture, environmental portraits, landscapes, macro, nature, and street photography may not require a system that produces a very shallow depth of field.
Smaller Files – For the majority of the current crop of MFT hybrid cameras the megapixel limit is around 20. There continues to be heated debate about how many megapixels are truly needed to produce quality clean images especially if images are printed. Bear in mind, that as file size increases more storage space is required, and greater computer processing power is needed to work with the files in your imaging software.
Computational Photography - The smaller sensor allows for faster readout speeds without overheating. This allows for some creative use of the sensor. OM Systems and Panasonic have handheld high-resolution modes that produce files from 50 -100 megapixels. OM Systems introduced an internal digital ND (neutral density) filter. There is also in camera focus stacking and live composite.
Camera: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX9 Lens: Leica DG NOCTICRON 42.5mm F1.2 ASPH. POWER O.I.S
Camera: OM Systems OM-1 Lens: Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-40/2.8 PRO
Camera: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX9 Lens: Leica DG NOCTICRON 42.5mm F1.2 ASPH. POWER O.I.S
Camera: OM System OM-1 Lens: Canon 50mm/1.4f (LTM)
Hate through the centuries
Throwing shade on the little guy is nothing new in photography. When the 35mm film format was first gaining popularity in the early 20th century for still photography, it was considered unprofessional and the medium of only the amateur by many accustomed to using the larger film formats of the era.
In the late 19th century, Alfred Stiegliz, one of the pioneers of modern photography, wrote The Hand Camera – Its Present Importance in the 1897 edition of The American Annual of Photography. In the article, Steigliz confessed to his past prejudice against the newly developed smaller hand-held cameras, and how he considered them not serious tools for true photographers or professionals.
In the 21st century, the same attitude over size influences beliefs about whether the MFT system is suitable for professional work.
However, as the system has matured, there have been a number of photographers who have embraced the system and are producing compelling professional work. Below are a few:
Matt Harspool, Australian-based adventure, travel, and underwater photographer
Magic Owen, UK-based fashion photographer
Lisa Michele Burns, Australian-based travel and landscape photographer
Jimmy Cheng, UK-based portrait and wedding photographer
Jay Dickman, USA-based National Geographic travel and nature photographer
The future
The camera landscape continues to shift. Smartphones have greatly disrupted the industry. With this, the predictions of the death of the format have increased. With more than 50 manufacturers producing products for the system and the number of hybrid shooters increasing, it will continue to survive in some form for the foreseeable future. However, its growth has much to do with the commitment to research and development from Panasonic and OM Digital Solutions to push the boundaries of what’s possible with the sensor.
So, is the system right for you? Only you can decide. Your subjects, shooting style and personal needs will dictate what’s best. I am cautiously optimistic about its future. I want the system to survive, not out of some great sense of loyalty. As stated earlier, I have none. I want to see it survive because it is a viable system and in the hands of a competent photographer who understands its strengths and limitations outstanding work can be produced.
More importantly, competition drives innovation. The more manufacturers we have producing cameras with their unique approach of capturing light in a box, the better it is for us photographers to tell our own singular stories.
Disclaimer: In the name of full transparency, please be aware that this blog post contains affiliate links and any purchases made through such links will result in a small commission for me (at no extra cost to you). It helps us to provide content. Thank you for your support.
