Micro Four Thirds? - Is It Worth The Challenge?

[@grantrobertdavies]

👉 - GX9 JPEG eBook: grantrobertdavies.com/store Grant Robert Davies | Digital Content Creator - Gold Coast, QLD Australia 🖥 - WEB: grantrobertdavies.com/ 📷 - Photo, Video & Much More!!! 🎥 - 8500 Subscribers & Growing At: KZbin 📱 - Instagram: instagram.com/grantrobertdavies/ #lumixau #panasonicgx9 #goldcoast #goldcoastcontentcreator #goldcoastau #goldcoastphotographer #goldcoastvideographer

[@ted5017]

Hi Grant and thanks for another video! Micro Four Thirds is absolutely the best system for me. I’ve started with Olympus OM1 and OM3 (late 70s-80s) and I used to have “12, 24, or 36 opportunities” to make a good shot based on the film used. Later with Nikon D90 it was a luxury to shoot as much as I can. Moving to GX80 and G9 was great, one because of the size and the other one feeling that I have and advanced D90. S5II+24-70 means 1,675 grams and 3,400 USD. G9II with Leica 12-35 means 954 grams and 2,700 USD. And if you are in the need of an even lower budget, you can think about the GX80/85 with the small and brilliant 12-35mm lens; 496 grams and 700 USD. I want a reliable camera with a high quality and light lens. MFT made me pay more attention to the light, and due to its smaller sensor is always a joy to discover new tips and tricks on how to make and get more with less. I think MFT is more fun, affordable, and a real joy.

[@ToKanaliMou]

I'm on this system 10 years now. Your thoughts resonate so much with me. Always thinking before, always preplanning always getting the most out of the files. Love your work. Cheers from Greece

[@Yahs232]

I started with mft; got into photography with my dad’s old eos rebel xt then bought my first camera which was and is a lumix gx7 when I was 13 I think. Anyway I am now 15, just ordered a 15mm 1.7 off mpb can’t wait, gx7 still going strong. My twin and dad still try to convince me Olympus is better🤦‍♂️

[@robb8773]

I completely agree. I started using M43 in 2015, have owned the EM1 MIII since 2020 and love the system. I sell my work online and through galleries, never have I had a situation where the camera didn't work for me or a client has said, Oh, why was this pic not shot with a FF camera!"!

[@LePetitMondedeMichel]

I have to admit that my Lumix GX8 possess some things special. Because of near square factor of the frame you have to think how you will compose the shot. I have done a lot of photography genre with it, and he always nails it! Sport, weeding, portrait, street, and night photography. Some of the best night photos that I have made was with micro fourth third! My GX8 was the reason that come back to photography.

[@ramblinrandal]

I am a MFT shooter. I hav been since I changed over from a DSLR to mirrorless - Nikon APS-C to Lumix MFT. Specifically a D7500 to the G85. I still have both cameras - because of course I do, and they're both great cameras. I now own 7 different MFT cameras, which is insane considering most of my "jobs" are for non-profit groups that brings in nothing more than an aching back and knees. My G9 and GH5 ii are far from light weight but they are my royalty. I don't and won't need anything "better." Those two, and a good collection of glass, will more than meet any of my needs. Almost no one needs massive mega pixels. They may want them, but do not need them. Heck - 10-12 megapixels is good for a lot of stuff. And I probably will never use a lot of the special features/menu items available, because they are niche applications. Anyway MFT is "good enough for me."

[@samohyesss]

Basically full frame is a universal language. Micro Four Thirds is learning a new language, culture, and also math. Hahah. I love using a 1.7 lens and capture the same light as it would in a full frame but keeping more in focus.

[@matthiasschluter3060]

Micro Four Thirds & a Nikon z8.....my perfect combination !

[@grantrobertdavies]

I'd love a Z8 :)

[@Ulrich.Bierwisch]

I learned a lot about how to maneuver thru the different compromises of the exposure triangle by filming (especially with the GH5). Suddenly you are forced to use 1/50s if possible and in bright daylight you have to decide if you go to small apertures like 11 or 16, use ND-filters or abandon the 180° shutter angle. Each has it's own advantages and disadvantages. Also the question if you use a fixed ND and compensate the rest with ISO and aperture or a variable ND is interesting and the question how you get the exposure right. You can use the matrix measurement, look for Zebras, use the histogram or the waveform. In low light you are forced to use higher ISO because you can't go for long exposures and even 1/25s (360° shutter angle) needs the difficult decision if the result will be better with this longer exposure or with higher ISO and 180°. MFT, the GH5 and such is ideal because you get all the options in a very affordable package. I watched a lot of videos from film makers and learned what they do and why. I tried some of the methods and decided what is to complicated and what is helping me to get better results. I like to know what can be done to get better results and I also like to know why I don't use everything and live with the compromise. A lot of this actually applies also to stills or at leased help me to understand my options. I learned for example a lot about the wanted motion blur when filming and the result was that I started to avoid this much more in stills unless I really want it.

[@richardwalker4518]

Many angles to it, but for me it is the compactness and lightness of the system, as well as the vast range of lens options and relatively low cost, even for high end lenses. Downsides are low light noise and shadow recovery and lack of croppability (if that is a word), but so easy to get long lenses that are quite light. A well sorted M 4/3 gets out of your face like nothing else I've really used (thinking of the OM-5 in particular), hardly know you carry it, no crippled body parts and when the ergos are well sorted (early ones not so much), becomes an extension of your mind. Sure, you'll get cleaner images off camera on an FF rig, but you'll pay for it and the image processing software keeps getting better (a worthy application of AI perhaps). So I just shoot raw + jpeg all the time and archive all the raws off to drive storage, processing them only when I need an extra leg on the jpeg. I figure so long as I have the raw files, processing gets better over time. Right now, it mostly turns your file into something indistinguishable from FF as best I can see, but not perfect, the AI still gets confused on some tricky subjects, but generally, all good. My thesis: improvements in processing software will continue to bridge the gap between smaller and larger formats. That said, if I was a landscape photographer printing in A1 for exhibitions, I'd be in medium format.

[@JohnAppleNC]

Maybe it's because I got started in photography long before there were digital cameras, back when photographers had to consider the type of film to use and it just made sense to buy the fastest lenses one could afford, but nowadays I don't do all that pre-planning for a shoot. (Personal shoots now, not for pay.) I buy the fastest lens within my budget and use it for everything. I often have to "zoom" with my feet or do some cropping after the fact. I also now have the luxury to adjust the ISO at any time rather than either sticking with the film speed loaded or carefully making notes on the number of frames shot, winding the film back into the cartridge and loading a different speed film into the camera. I suppose it's all relative to whatever you're used to, right?

[@jackoneil3933]

Interesting take Grant, thanks. I'd be interested to know if there are other reasons you full-frame might challenge you less? Your question as to if M4/3 has made helped me to progress over a similar full-frame system, was something I'd not really considered, and generally as I find M4/3 provided similar functionality for less cost and bulk, It allowed me to be more flexible, flexible in shooting both stills and video in more situations, and also to be be more creative and have fun experimenting, rather than being a tool for serious photography, so as I've used it about 3X more than my full-frame system that's has less usable advanced features simply using M4/3 more has helped me progress more. In a similar way, the 16mm-ish sensor, compact cameras like Panasonic LX5 (Baby Leica), Canon S95, S110 & G10, which I highly recommend others explore. I prefer the LX5 with the plug-in EVF and G10 with the optical finder, but the pocket cameras without finders do challenge you more to perceive and contemplate the image. On the other end higher performance Full-frame and medium format systems have challenged me to take advantage of that higher performance and take different types of images for different reasons, and how much motivation, skill and practice the real Pros have invested to be the top of art form. I've thought for sometime, the person making a living by producing still and moving images on a high-production level may have different equipment requirements than creative artistic photographer, or someone practicing and developing photography for fun or as as expressive art. For decades I've seen a lot of people who invested a lot of money in film and digital cameras assuming more performance and features was a substitute for the time required to develop a mind for great imagery and become frustrated, and abandon photography, in a similar way amateur aviators think a more advanced aircraft is a substitute for developing the mind and knowledge of a seasoned and humble Aviator. You need to experience and develop the mind and knowledge, and also experience the complete spectrum to fully develop your abilities and master the craft or art, and the more I do the more I humbled and inspired I become less of a Non-professional. If advancing my abilities in Photography were a prime focus, I'd be shooting as much as I could using a very elemental camera, for honing basic skills, and more advanced systems in Medium format Digital and invest large format film photography, just like if I were rich enough to afford any sort of aircraft, I'd have something basic and aerobatic like a J3 Cub, a vintage piston Twin-engine aircraft and a high-performance business Jet, and a Helicopter for a totally different approach to being airborne.

Did you buy GH6?

[@grantrobertdavies]

yeah