Hi Leigh, great images mate, the mirrorless systems retain so much information now, I use the Nikon Z9 system, but I've been thinking for a while whether to sell up and transition to a Micro 4/3 system, most likely the Lumix setup. But, the only thing holding me back is the financial loss on the Nikon system, an unavoidable advent of changing systems, but an expensive one haha, definitely something I need to ponder for a while longer I think. Love the channel Leigh and your images, take care, Steve.
Cheers Steve! I started off buying a cheap EM-1 Mk1 and kit lens (£210 all in from MPB) to try out knowing it was Olympus's pro line just very early. That kind of had me hooked and I've not looked back since!
@@LeighWPhotos Hi Leigh, I've been thinking along the same lines, buying a cheap older setup from MPB, and getting out locally and having a bash with it, see how it feels etc. Watch this space then, I'll let you know what happens.
The reason m43 kinda fell off the radar lately, is that it's a mature system - which means, the times when a new lens was announced all the time, is past us. Add to that how youtube "influencing" works, i.e. it's 95% about gear, 5% about photography, and you get the current situation. Also, the *notorious* manufacturers (C/N/S) have an opportunity to boast an "innovation" with every release, which usually turns out to be something copied from m43. There are still tons of features to copy, so we're in for a few years more of FF "innovation". I've been shooting m43 for ten or so years, and tried almost every genre of photography. You can do anything with this system, and same as with everything - it has its strengths and weaknesses.
Without being rude, I have to add that the representation of MFT cameras on Y.T is also very minimal. This is perhaps more to do with the marketing strategy of mainly Olympus or OM as its called these days. I have also noticed that a lot of the photographers using MFT cameras are always trying to justify using it and constantly making excuses for it. I manily use B&W film, but I also do a lot B&W digital photography using a Leica M camera. I honestly see very little difference in 90% of my photographs between those produced by my EM1 MKII and my Leica M. I don't have to tell anyone how much that bloody system costs. I think a little more belief in the MFT system will do everyone a lot of good. On the other hand, the price of used EM5 MKIIs have gone up about 30% over the last year. I keep monitoring them on a few reputable online dealers.
@@lensman5762 Lack of m43 representation stems from the fact that there's not much new gear to cover. There was a weekend m43 getaway recently here in Poland, and I've met a lot of professional photographers - including ones that do work for TV and NatGeo, but also wedding, event etc. My point is that vast majority of them are professional photographers - not professional youtubers. And on YT, the right way to get clicks is to cover the new gear releases. I remember when I was first starting out - youtube was a wonderful resource to learn basics. It's not the case anymore. By watching YT as a beginner, you'll get the impression that skill is secondary, you need to focus on upgrading your gear. There's one more thing, which is the bokeh epidemic. Way too many people define photography as the "art of taking pictures with a blurry background". It also doesn't help that the current belief is that equivalency is as straightforward as "multiply by 2" - whereas it's much more nuanced than that.
It is definitely a myth that smaller sensors gather less light. There is a simple recipe to get almost identical images on full frame and MFT (except for the 3:2 vs 4:3, and perhaps the resolution): apply the crop factor to both the focal length and f-number, use the same shutter speed, and use auto-ISO (otherwise, divide the ISO by 4 on the MFT). This will give exactly the same depth of field, and very similar noise and dynamic range. The reason why people believe otherwise is because they compare at same f-number and same ISO, in which case, the sensor will get 4 times less light because the aperture diameter of the lens is smaller. With 4 times less light coming through the lens, the image will obviously have approximately two more stops of noise (and the corresponding reduction in dynamic range).
I have an EM1 MKII and EM5 MKII. I have also had my D810 and also a Leica M for quite a while, although I manily photograph using film. I think the MFT cameras are highly underrated, and they are more than enough for the needs of 99% of amateur and Pro photographers . Yes, they don't have the resolution of the D810 nor the low noise charactristics, but those are only important if you make them important, which in terms of aesthetics of photography is a nonsense. They also have plenty in their favour. They are light, compact, highly portable, highly configurable and flexible and even quite discrete. Much more so than any of my Leicas, but nowhere near any of my Minox 35 cameras, LOL.
MFT remains hard to beat for walk-around camera format with much lighter lenses than FF equivalent and, with de-noise software these days makes low light images a breeze. As always, the truth is that a good photographer will make best use of any camera and bad photographers will make bad photos even with the best gear.
Hi Leigh, great images mate, the mirrorless systems retain so much information now, I use the Nikon Z9 system, but I've been thinking for a while whether to sell up and transition to a Micro 4/3 system, most likely the Lumix setup. But, the only thing holding me back is the financial loss on the Nikon system, an unavoidable advent of changing systems, but an expensive one haha, definitely something I need to ponder for a while longer I think. Love the channel Leigh and your images, take care, Steve.
Cheers Steve! I started off buying a cheap EM-1 Mk1 and kit lens (£210 all in from MPB) to try out knowing it was Olympus's pro line just very early. That kind of had me hooked and I've not looked back since!
@@LeighWPhotos Hi Leigh, I've been thinking along the same lines, buying a cheap older setup from MPB, and getting out locally and having a bash with it, see how it feels etc. Watch this space then, I'll let you know what happens.
@@SteveMorris1964 definitely recommend giving a cheap set up a go - I must admit I love that e-m1 MK1 and its back to basics feel!
The reason m43 kinda fell off the radar lately, is that it's a mature system - which means, the times when a new lens was announced all the time, is past us. Add to that how youtube "influencing" works, i.e. it's 95% about gear, 5% about photography, and you get the current situation.
Also, the *notorious* manufacturers (C/N/S) have an opportunity to boast an "innovation" with every release, which usually turns out to be something copied from m43. There are still tons of features to copy, so we're in for a few years more of FF "innovation".
I've been shooting m43 for ten or so years, and tried almost every genre of photography. You can do anything with this system, and same as with everything - it has its strengths and weaknesses.
You got that spot on - so many innovations are just copied from what mft has done for years!
That’s what I like watching Lee it’s a good mix between gear and photography.
Thank you!
Without being rude, I have to add that the representation of MFT cameras on Y.T is also very minimal. This is perhaps more to do with the marketing strategy of mainly Olympus or OM as its called these days. I have also noticed that a lot of the photographers using MFT cameras are always trying to justify using it and constantly making excuses for it. I manily use B&W film, but I also do a lot B&W digital photography using a Leica M camera. I honestly see very little difference in 90% of my photographs between those produced by my EM1 MKII and my Leica M. I don't have to tell anyone how much that bloody system costs. I think a little more belief in the MFT system will do everyone a lot of good. On the other hand, the price of used EM5 MKIIs have gone up about 30% over the last year. I keep monitoring them on a few reputable online dealers.
@@lensman5762 Lack of m43 representation stems from the fact that there's not much new gear to cover. There was a weekend m43 getaway recently here in Poland, and I've met a lot of professional photographers - including ones that do work for TV and NatGeo, but also wedding, event etc.
My point is that vast majority of them are professional photographers - not professional youtubers. And on YT, the right way to get clicks is to cover the new gear releases.
I remember when I was first starting out - youtube was a wonderful resource to learn basics. It's not the case anymore. By watching YT as a beginner, you'll get the impression that skill is secondary, you need to focus on upgrading your gear.
There's one more thing, which is the bokeh epidemic. Way too many people define photography as the "art of taking pictures with a blurry background". It also doesn't help that the current belief is that equivalency is as straightforward as "multiply by 2" - whereas it's much more nuanced than that.
I’ve been using OM-1 for 6 months now. I moved from Nikon D6 and D850. I can honestly say I have not missed either.
It's a fantastic system and doesn't get the attention it deserves - other than the big players putting it down in favour of their own systems!
10:50 very cool.
Thank you 😊
It is definitely a myth that smaller sensors gather less light. There is a simple recipe to get almost identical images on full frame and MFT (except for the 3:2 vs 4:3, and perhaps the resolution): apply the crop factor to both the focal length and f-number, use the same shutter speed, and use auto-ISO (otherwise, divide the ISO by 4 on the MFT). This will give exactly the same depth of field, and very similar noise and dynamic range. The reason why people believe otherwise is because they compare at same f-number and same ISO, in which case, the sensor will get 4 times less light because the aperture diameter of the lens is smaller. With 4 times less light coming through the lens, the image will obviously have approximately two more stops of noise (and the corresponding reduction in dynamic range).
Yep, exactly this!
I have an EM1 MKII and EM5 MKII. I have also had my D810 and also a Leica M for quite a while, although I manily photograph using film. I think the MFT cameras are highly underrated, and they are more than enough for the needs of 99% of amateur and Pro photographers . Yes, they don't have the resolution of the D810 nor the low noise charactristics, but those are only important if you make them important, which in terms of aesthetics of photography is a nonsense. They also have plenty in their favour. They are light, compact, highly portable, highly configurable and flexible and even quite discrete. Much more so than any of my Leicas, but nowhere near any of my Minox 35 cameras, LOL.
I have to admit I'd like to try an Olympus Pen to compare the size on one of those!
MFT remains hard to beat for walk-around camera format with much lighter lenses than FF equivalent and, with de-noise software these days makes low light images a breeze. As always, the truth is that a good photographer will make best use of any camera and bad photographers will make bad photos even with the best gear.
Exposure is definitely the key - no matter what system you're using. But with mft the extra knowledge of what you're dealing with helps out no end!