It’s not you, it’s me! Micro 4/3
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 чер 2024
- Get out of your own head about this 4/3 sensor and you may actually love this system.
Switching to Adobe RGB vs sRGB only embeds the color space in the metadata - telling your editing program what color space to use. It does affect the jpg images but is only an embedded profile in the raw images.
This video resonated with me because you were saying exactly the same things I was when I started using the system a few years back after switching from "full frame" DSLRs, and there's nothing like a bit of confirmation bias. The funny thing about M4/3 is, everyone used to say the same about 35mm film, and that it was too small for professional work. After 35mm film was accepted as a professional format, Olympus bought out the first OM-1 SLR and photographers said the camera was too small to be a professional system camera, until all the other manufacturers started making smaller cameras. Micro Four Thirds is perfectly suitable for professional work, especially for documentary and photojournalism, with its compact size and lightweight bodies and lenses. People say that 20MP is too small for professional work, but a 20MP image is large enough to cover a typical double-page spread in a magazine. How many photographers shooting 40MP+ images are even shooting for print? Do 90% of photographers really need anything larger than 20MP? Seriously, Olympus/OM System cameras are phenomenal and, as with their film cameras, have been innovating for 50 years. And Zuiko lenses have always been amazing, possibly matching Leica for optical quality. And speaking of lenses, I want to address my bugbear: bokeh - apart from the fact I don't understand the current obsession with it. M4/3 doesn't have terrible bokeh or lack of shallow depth of field. M4/3 lenses have the same DoF as any other lens of the same focal length. The only difference is, the same focal length on M4/3 gives a narrower field of view. So, to get the same framing with an M4/3 camera you use a shorter focal length, which gives more DoF, or you use the same focal length and stand further back, which also creates greater DoF. However, if you want shallow DoF it is perfectly achievable, providing you understand the fundamentals of lens physics and the DoF triangle (focal length, aperture, distance from subject). It seems to me that those with the biggest issues about M4/3 don't understand that. Anyway, glad you're enjoying your experiences with the new camera. A lot cheaper than a Leica, and possibly more rugged and reliable.
The biggest problem with micro 4/3, is that Fujifilm is basically the same form factor, but much better. I can understand the argument that fujifilm can't beat fullframe, but Fujifilm is definitely the MINIMUM
It is worth noting that there is a flip side to the (greatly exaggerated) limitations on shallow depth of filed in M43, i.e., the ability to get deeper depth of field at wider apertures, thus gathering more light (which combined with unbelievable image stabilization, and thus lower shutter speeds, helps greatly reduce noise issues that can potentially arise). I am often amazed at the crazy sharpness I can get on landscapes with my f4 Olympus Pro zooms at f4. I always have to bear this in mind when I shoot full frame and close down considerably to avoid blur where I don’t want it.
I don't care what you say, if you think that a smaller sensor makes better photos you are just fooling yourself. Especially if it costs more.
I have the 25 f1.2, amazing lens! Creativity and craftsmanship will beat out greater tech any day; all cameras nowadays are great, add good lighting and interesting subjects and composition and you will have winning captured moments, no matter what camera you use.
I have never had anyone that paid me for photos tell me they can tell which size of sensor I used. If people want more blur they just need to understand the physics of it and adjust. From my experience low light performance is the only place where M43 struggles to match FF, assuming you cannot control the light in your location. If you can then that point is moot also
Judging by the views-to-comment ratio, you seem to have struck a nerve, John. MFT as a viable format is about as polarizing a topic as there is in today's I'net photosphere. As with everything else, sensor format will. never be one size fits all. Having shot happily for a few years with a 4 megapixel, APS-C Nikon D2H, I'm obviously not a pixel snob. However, as I don't have the luxury of shooting in a controlled studio environment, issue for me with MFT (apart from cost) is that it imposes a rather strict framing/composition discipline on the photographer due to its limited "cropability". No doubt I've been spoiled by the flexibility my 60mp A7RV affords. Wonderful that you share your photographic epiphanies (and enthusiasm) with us, John. A true breath of YT fresh air.
All current camera systems are "Good enough". In addition to that there are features that each system has that give it reach into different subject matter and use cases. Pick a system that has the feture set for you personally and your objectives. It s the camera's job to inspire and get out of the way so you can go where the muse leads.
When shooting raw, the camera setting of the color space is irrelevant - it's only about OOC JPEGs. A good raw converter ignores this setting and uses the color space chosen in the raw converter (for export). BUT - maybe Apple apps do use the camera setting as their default … Other than that, I wholeheartedly agree regarding resolution and dynamic range (most people still have older models with inferior sensors and amplifiers/AD-converters in mind, like the E-M5 Mk.II, which is much worse than the E-M1 Mk.II, which is slightly worse than the E-M1 Mk.III etc.).
I kind of disagreed with this video until. I read one of your replies in the comments. I shoot Canon R5. and I am dissatisfied with Canon (their flagship camera and their stance on 3rd party lenses) and may switch to another FF format at some point in the future (but I have a lot of Canon glass and probably be some time before I consider it or may not if Canon changes their stance on FF RF AF lenses). I would never get rid of my FF camera. I don't like the higher noise, lower resolution, lower dynamic range or the aspect ratio on m43. But when I seen you were not dumping your pro gear, just adding to your collection. I agree with most of your comments. I bought a EM1X for cheap $400 used if I remember correctly when the original owner was upgrading to the OM1 at the time an there was a glut of them in our market. I bought a viltrox adapter that allows me to use a majority of my Canon lenses with AF. The reason I got it was because I wanted to play with live composite (light painting), in camera ND. I was disappointed with my R5 when it would not focus stack with flash. But I seen how well the Olympus did that I decided to use it for macro so I now have one native lens 60mm 2.8 macro again used for cheap (my Canon 100 2.8 L macro would not stack or bracket focus with the EM1X which I suspected it wouldn't because the documentation said you had to have native lenses). So I have my work horse but I bought the Oly for fun and I have had a lot of fun with it. I did spend more than I planned on it because I needed the native macro lens, I also bought a TT695ii flash and diffuser for macro but I feel it was well worth it especially when the price of the whole system was cheaper than a used EF FF lens. So for me it is very easy to overlook the shortcomings of the m43 system when I consider price and what I use this camera for... fun... And in that light. I agree with much of what you said in your video.
Facts. Photographers are the worst thing that has ever happened to photography. LOL. You don't eat a great meal and then run in the kitchen and ask the chef what kinda f*ckin stove he used. The food is either good to you, or it's not. We need to do the same w/ images. Look at an image as it was intended to be looked at and enjoy.
I print my images, so it's impossible to tell what format or sensor I used. The image quality discussion is only valid in the context of pixel-peeping and zooming in 400%.
I've had many more photos published since switching from FF to MFT, for the simple reason that I'm now able to take my camera everywhere. When I used a Canon 5D with a 24-70 that wasn't an option. A wonderful camera though it was, it spent too many days on the shelf, whereas my EM5 III lives on my shoulder. We've absolutely reached a stage (in my view) where every interchangeable lens camera is more than good enough for all but the 1% most extreme of photographic needs, so buy something that's easy to keep with you because the more you shoot the better your photos will become and the more fun you'll have.
I had my old Lumix L1 4/3 camera out last time with the regular zoom and did some close ups. People did not believe with what old thing I took the shoots.
100% with you on megapixels and pixel peeping, 35mm film only had about the equivalent of 4mp(although due to analogues superior colour/lighting transitions it probably appears higher to the eye). Good images are good images, resolution hasn't been a problem since we got to 16mp and up
I think we've gotten used to the ability with full frame 40 megapixel cameras to crop heavily into the image, meaning we just shoot a wider image than we need to pick the section we want in the edit. M4/3 works for me because I spent decades shooting 35mm film, where it was necessary to do the cropping in the camera. The simple advice was to fill the frame with the image you want. So that's the way I shoot with digital. Just use all the pixels you have in the camera and it simply won't make a difference. M4/3 is all you need.
Would love to see a video of your iPad editing process. Keep up the excellent work.
I have just started following you. I agree with you over all you say. You have highlighted some aspects of using micro four thirds cameras that make the critics comments look meaningless. Like limited dynamic range, not enough bokeh and never seeing the difference in photographs printed from a Sony camera and a micro four thirds camera, the futility of pixel peeping at 400%. Those thoughts have been repeated by many micro four thirds camera users on UA-cam stating the critics comments are untrue. I have full frame, apsc and micro four thirds cameras and I love them all for different reasons. I mostly choose micro four thirds cameras to shoot with. Thank you for your video.
This is my second time visiting your channel. I feel like you are a friend talking to a friend. No crazy hype - just useful photography speak. By the way, I picked up a $250 E-M5 last month and the photos are surprising me (at 100%). I started with film if that tells you anything. Good video! Thank you!
I have mentioned this before on your channel... I was a BIG Olympus MFT user... And I miss it! I left the line for Nikon Z5 system and really have loved the move to Nikon. I now have two z50's and a Z30... which basically mimics my OM-D Em-1 and E-PL4. I left Olympus because at the time eye-detection was lacking and they had sold off the camera company. Since then whenever I compare my OM images to the Z images I am always shocked how well the OM performed. I had the 17, 45, and 75 F1.8's. Super light weight... and I loved the colors. But as happens to many of us I got "GAS" and bought into all the hype of larger sensors. If i was rich, I might consider going back to the OM... but I am not and I am happy with my Z system. Lesson learned!