There is a certain sense of peace that comes from finding what you’re looking for. Even if you don’t necessarily know what it is you’re missing. Make no mistake, I have enjoyed using most of the photographic equipment I’ve had over recent years. It’s pretty hard not to find something pleasing with today’s equipment…much of it is just terrific.
I will say though that I found myself struggling sometimes with the equipment I had been using. It wasn’t state of the art by any means but it was good. Sony, after their acquisition of Minolta, retained the A mount configuration and this allowed you to use older Minolta glass…some of it incredibly good…with new Sony bodies. Sony also was no slouch with some of it’s G lenses. I really enjoyed the A900 full frame camera, and the A77II which was quite a nice birding camera with some speed and a decent AF system. The latter was kind of glitchy for me though on some of my preferred lenses, and I really had to work and tinker to get the AF to work the way I wanted.
Along with all that there was the size of the lenses and they still had a bit of limited reach with my longest focal length being around 400mm. That isn’t bad, but if your main interest is birds, sometimes the more reach you can get the better.
It’s going to sound pretty lame I suspect but I hadn’t even heard of micro four thirds when I first started to consider some changes. I had assumed I was finally going to have to bite the bullet and get a Canon or Nikon arrangement, which meant I was going to spend a good bit more than I had upon re-entering the world of photography, and along with that, the entire kit was going to get bigger and heavier.
Then by some weird twist of fate I read a forum post on M4/3. Hmmm, a smaller sensor would provide more reach (2x that of a full frame camera) and the lenses appear to be a good bit more affordable…and what I mean by this is a 300mm would give you an equivalent field of view of a 600mm on a full frame camera. And you could retain a fairly fast lens at f4.
The big question in my mind though was would the image quality be any good. If you happened to read other comments on the format, it wasn’t all positive. Of course there would be certain tradeoffs…image quality might suffer or the low light capability would be more limited…but how much would be too much of a detriment to just right it all off?
The appeal of a smaller, lighter, less expensive system was pretty strong for me…and I also made a point to do two things before I wrote m4/3 off altogether. First I searched online for photographs being taken with the systems. Either Panasonic or Olympus, which are the two companies working with this particular small sensor size. After awhile I began to lean a bit more to the Olympus side, so after viewing various images online, I made the eventful decision to rent some equipment. This is something I suggest everyone do if they are really considering some changes…it just makes a lot of sense to try it before you buy it.
I went to LensRentals.com and ordered the Olympus EM1 (which was the flagship model at the time) and the Olympus 40-150 2.8 Pro lens, along with a 1.4 extender. There was a local airshow schedule for the upcoming weekend, and I knew where I could get a few shots of some larger birds, like Pelicans, which I had hoped would tell the tale with this system. The set up as it was, allowed me to use it head to head against my Sony and the 70-400 G that I had at the time. The field of view was pretty much the same between the two.
After the first day of the airshow I visited a spot on a nearby river and shot a few birds in flight. The outing wasn’t perfect, but all in all I came away impressed. The Olympus did as good a job if not better than my Sony’s and I would attribute at least part of that difference to the excellent image stabilization in the Olympus. The images, like the one above, was very sharp and clean and I liked the colors overall.
After two days of shooting I made the ultimate decision to sell off all of my Sony equipment and fill out my Olympus system. The EM1 was nearing the end of it’s flagship life span and so I bought these used, but did invest in a few Pro lenses. The 7-14 2.8, 12-40 2.9, the 40-150 2.8 and ultimately the 300 f4. I also picked up a 1.4 extender. Olympus has always apparently been pretty good about firmware updates and the last update helped improve the EM1 a bit more but it would not come close to what the EM1 Mark II was capable of when it came out about 6 months later.
In many respects my timing was pretty good because Olympus appeared to focus more on wildlife and sports photography by introducing a camera with excellent speed, and very capable AF. Then when you add in the 300mm f4, it’s a very good and capable wildlife and birding package.
Weight wise, when I considered that with the Sony system I would often need to use a tripod and gimbal to get sharp shots of birds, and I could handhold the Olympus most of the time, my equipment weight dropped significantly…if I recall it was somewhere around 10 or 11 lbs total. Even when I do use a tripod and gimbal now they too are significantly lighter so the different remains around 7 or 8 lbs. The form factor is smaller too, which means I can fit everything from a 14mm equivalent, up to 840mm in a medium sized backpack. Cost wise, I saved money too, which is a frosting on the cake benefit. To be sure in recent times, Nikon has come out with the D500 and Sony with the A7III which are competitively priced with the EM1.2. Nevertheless, the lenses are where some of the cost difference is made up and I’m not sure you could find any glass that’s any better than what Olympus offers.
In the end, I can’t speak for anyone else or suggest what someone should use. Everyone has to find what they like, and enjoy, and something that meets whatever budget they may be working with. I won’t pretend to think that m4/3 or Olympus would suit everyone but I would say that I think the image quality would likely meet the expectations of the vast majority of photographers. In several recent tests, images were compared between full frame and m4/3 and people could not tell the difference…the same goes for printing images up to about a meter on the long size. It was virtually impossible to tell the two formats apart.
About the only area where the small sensors will suffer a bit is in lower light situations. I would suggest low light, action oriented situations more specifically. Although I’ve shot the EM1.2 and the 40-150 2.8 under professional stadium settings, and came away with good results, I suspect a full frame package would have done a bit better and given me more leeway on shutter speeds and ISO management.
Still, for the vast majority of things I shoot, and in particular birds and wildlife, I have found the package that best suits all of my particular needs and wants…and I suspect as future updates and iterations come along, things will only get better down the road.