Should you switch to a Micro 4:3 Camera for wildlife?

Have you considered switching? Have you already made the move? Please share tour thoughts and experiences.

i have a FF sony a7 mk3, but i want to try M4/3 because it's sensors surface is very similar to the surface of human eye retina. So there is a magic in m4/3 format because it generates similar amount of bokeh as our eyes do. I find full frame bokeh effect too aggressive.

The background is easily adjusted in Photoshop to produce the same Bokeh !

OM SYSTEMS WILL ONE DAY DOMINATE WHATS LEFT OF THE MIRRORLESS MARKET, WEIGHT AND PRICE REALLY MATTER...!

I have a collection of cameras, apsc, full frame, 1", micro 4/3s... I mix n match.

Great conversation. Kudos!
And if I may say so, you're very beautiful. (Both of yous r GORGEOUS). 😊

on DOF, the benefit is you get DOF at a lower F stop therefore lower ISO. If you want bigger DOF on FF you have to shoot higher f stop with higher noise. I changed over from FF and enjoy the smaller system, the speed, handling, and fantastic IQ and lens quality. Plus the lower price gives me more money to travel. I travel Africa and never worry about space and weight. Often when I am already shooting the big lenses are still being placed on tripods, bean bags. Yes some compromises just like with big FF systems.

Yes

As always - great videos. So informative. Just back from Thornybush, shooting Sony A7r5 and 200-600 (mainly) which was a great combo (except in low light) with the ability to switch to APSC in camera and have a virtual 300-900 at 26mp. The A7r5 especially was awesome. However the Olympus system has really peaked my interest and so it was great to watch this interview with Mark, and your opposing viewpoint. Maybe I need to just add an OM-1, and that amazing 150-400, rather than choose between them ! *Uh-oh, I hear my wife calling.

Fantastic discussion. Thank you!

Love from Mississauga, Ontario, Canada! At Pangolin, do you see guests using micro 4/3rd cameras such as Panasonic G9, OM-1, etc.? My husband uses Pentax gear that I find very heavy. I was thinking about OM-1 with either a 75-300 or 100-400 mm and was wondering whether other people use it as well.

I don't think the portability advantage for m43 exists anymore now that everyone has adopted mirrorless. The arguments presented were true when the M43 form factor was at the forefront of adopting mirrorless and larger sensor cameras were clunky DSLRs.

The same can't be said in 2023. M43 doesn't have a portability advantage over modern APSC cameras and there are even lots of compact FF cameras and lenses that shrink M43's advantage over FF.

M43 bodies are larger than many APSC and as large as some FF bodies. The lenses aren't anymore compact than modern APSC lenses.

Hell even FF cameras are getting close to the size and compactness of M43. Something like the A7C is going to be smaller than many M43 bodies and in the same weight class. There are also lots of compact options for FF lenses these days.

Why are all the whites blown out…🧐

Best vlog I've seen about using an MFT system for wildlife photography, the side by side FF and MFT sample photos shown were so relevant. Congratulations !

An excellent, balanced overview of MFT vs full frame. Neither is 'best' as each has strengths and shortcomings. I work with Canon R5, superb image quality, but I particularly find the RF lenses very large, making lens changing a bit awkward (need bigger hands!). My personal kit is Lumix, and it's compact size with great quality makes it a very enjoyable system to use. Btw, what lovely host Janine is...!👏

I bought a used Mark II to try out and then bought a M1X and now sold off my Nikon d750 and my Z6ii . Being disabled the size, weight and comfort makes all the difference in going out to shoot. Plus the ruggedness is insane. Id be afraid to bump my old Z6ii butt not afraid to drop my MII in the rain

Your info presented is outdated. Today, Canon's AF is on par with any of the best camera system out there. In fact, I'd consider Sony and Canon to be up there among the best.

Canon is also using a mirrorless system today.

There is no way a micro 4/3 system can outperform a full frame sensor camera.

While it is true you get a lighter and smaller setup in a micro 4/3 system, you lose in terms of image quality. Noise control and background blurring are far better in full frame cameras.

I use the OM system too but only for causal non-important photo shoots as a hobbyist. For all else, a bigger sensor camera is always my no brainer choice.

Of course, as one gets older, carrying a huge amount of camera gear is very tiring. That's the main reason why some prefer to switch from full frame to micro 4/3.

I have a Sony A7R5 and I still use my Olympus more

Some very interesting comments here regarding full frame and micro 4/3 performance in wildlife photography, if anyone has doubts about micro 4/3 start watching wildlife photographer Andy Rouse on using the OM-1 for wildlife photography he clears up some of the doubts regarding High iso, digital converter, ibis and other features found on the OM-1, by the way Andy Rouse is one of the most well known wildlife photographers in the world who sells his images commercially around the world, hope this helps some people who have doubts about micro 4/3rds.

But you're not really GETTING 2x the zoom - only HALF the field of view/ equivalent lens field !
I began with Oly E 4/3 (e510, 530, and e5) system, on to M 4/3 . Loved the cutting edge tech they offered -live view, in body image stabilization,bulb view etc...and the lenses were fantastic compared to the bih name C and N counterparts - however, the DOF differences from that '2 x' crop factor, along with the lacking higher ISO abilities of the much smaller sensor compared to FF, just doesnt cut it.

And the Oly or Panasonic lenses requiring to be 2 -stops faster for equiv DXand FF for comparible speed and DoF are NOT much less expensive than the larger sensor brands....if not even more.

Not an Oly hater -just reality

Whatever the mount .. I have to say .. « Miss Pangolin » is absolutely charming 🤩 😅

In my eyes 👀 the Canon FF delivers nicer images … ❤

Yes M4/3 kit is lighter .. 💪

SOLUTION -> Have both FF & M4/3 😂

Meanwhile I gave up completely my full frame gear (Nikon Z) because I couldn't resist to the OM-1 - it's an awesome camera 🤩 As the RAW- converting software also became better, noise isn't a big disadvantage of mFT any longer. Paired with the outstanding Olympus resp. OM- PRO lenses you can achieve an image quality which does not stand behind most full frame equipment.
Concerning bokeh one has to distinguish between quantity and quality. Yes, with full frame you get a narrower depth of field. But is the quality of the background blur always better, does it always look better? It does not. I do not know a more pleasent bokeh as produced by my Zuiko 45mm F1.2 PRO lens with it's featherd bokeh technology. And why in nature photography the background always must be completely blurred, not showing the dominant plants of the habitat of the displayed animal? In most images published in National Geographic for example everything is sharp, because there are so many ways to make a composition in which the main motif stands out.

I switched from Canon to Olympus in 2018, before going to Antarctica. Carry-on weight restriction was 15.4lb (7kg) on the flights within Argentina. Weather-sealing was another factor. So happy with my decision! Love Pro-capture for unpredictable events, and all of the other computational modes. The smaller size and lighter weight gear is wonderful. In Africa, several people in my group were hauling around giant Pelican cases for their giant lenses. I can carry 3 cameras, 2 longer telephoto lenses, 3 other lenses, and 2 teleconverters all in a 20L backpack.

I miss South Africa having lived there for several years.

Now I really like to ask about the 4/3 micro... I got a GH3 and been thinking ot switch over to full format as I do video... but I got three lenses to my GH3 I really like... all the things you talked about here seem to only relate to photography and not mirrorless video...

can you please advise me if I as a videographer wanting to have more smooth cinema like video should let go of the 4/3 micro and go over to fill format like Sigma FP or Black Magic 6k.. or should I for the same reasons you brought up here stay with the 4/3 micro eco system and change my GH3 house to something newer like the GH5S for video or GH6...

please advise me how to think as a videographer in comparison to all the things you mentioned regarding photography.

I really like this channel! found it right now as I am trying to understand what to switch to in 2023 as my GH3 is now 10 years old..
Light is an issue, especially up here in Scandinavia...

another idea I have had is to find a camcorder...

- but are there any 4/3 micro 4k camcorders even made today?
that might be something for a videographer wanting to keep the eco system one got used on!

Hope to hear what you think!

Kind regards from Sweden!

The best camerasystem is always the one you can carry. So Olympus yes. So Canon yes too with like cropping full sensor and the 100-400 5.6-8.0 and 600mm F11. A Full sensor is always an advantage I think because the camera's are not that much heavier, the lenses are unless you have chosen the previous mentioned: you have a choise and of course than also in image: noise and object separation.

It will give you better reach but lower quality.

Hello! Glad to be here and be a micro four thirds shooter. I shoot portraits, landscapes, travel, and macro. And sometimes I combine all those skills to do weddings. I use an EM1X and an E-M5 Mk II. I have a handful of Oly premium and regular lenses and 2 Sigma F1.4 primes(16&30mm). I love the "barriers" of MFT and breaking them. Great video!

What a great Olympus commercial

For many people who are longer in the tooth the weight difference will be very important. I have just bought the OM1 and 300 F4 Pro, its performance is amazing. I may take the plunge totally and sell my Canon gear, walking with the 500mm F4 and R6 and grip was crippling me !

The low light/ISO question rather misses the point that on full frame you have so inferior image stabilization that you have to maintain a faster shutter speed than is ever required on MFT.

So let's say you are a normal consumer and your Canikon long lenses are so expensive you already have to buy a slower lens than the MFT already dictating you ramp up your ISO and because of your lens's its weight it is dancing a over the place hand-held, so now you are either obliged to ramp up ISO to up the shutter speed or use a tripod.

None of that is true of MFT. The image stablizing is so amazing you can shoot at a much slower speed, and can afford a lens with a much faster aperture - further upping your shutter speed - so in reality you really do not need to use the higher ISO to get the same shot.

Bokeh is a genuine reality but we should also note that Bokeh and depth of field separation are not synonyms. Bokeh love is more about the quality of that blur blur than the blur itself and a perfect example of the difference would be the 1970s 55mm f/1.2 and the later 50mm f/1.2.

The first is amazing as looking through an Olympus OM-1 35mm camera it is not 'almost like there is nothing between you and the subject' it is exactly that. You can move your eye from the viewfinder and the magnification and light level are unchanged. However, the 55mm f/1.2 while having the wafer thin band of focus one would expect - had what can only be called at best ' a distinctive' bokeh quality - which the more critical would be justified to say was busy and chaotic. In contrast the 50mm f/1.2 does not have quite that wow factor with regard the viewfinder - but while having all but identically shallow depth of field has a far superior bokeh with beautifully controlled treatment of any lights or whatever in teh background and what many call 'bokeh balls'.

NOW! Consider that 50mm lens on an MFT camera. It is now a 100mm f/1.2. Uninformed or confused critics are entirely wrong to assume anything has changed that make this other than an f/1.2 lens, also to imagine the depth of field of this lens is magically altered by the camera it is attached to. The depth of field of this lens is identical to were it placed on the 35mm camera . The confusion so many suffer from is that while they understand it now has the same reach and field of view as a 100mm lens of a 35mm camera - it is NOT a 100mm lens, it is STILL the same 50mm lens with the same greater depth of field one would expect rom a 50mm than from a 100mm.

BUT! Here is the thing! What is the widest fastest aperture of your pro full frame 100mm lens? I am guessing f/2.8 - this being certainly being the affordable L series prime in the Canon range . If I set my 50mm f/1.2 at f/2.8, my depth of field will for good or bad be greater than your own, but my image will probably have superior sharpness in that we all know lenses do not perform at their optimum when at either extreme of their aperture, you are wide open, I am not.

Now let's do the same and compare the bokeh when I spin the aperture to f /1.2. Could you take your 100mm to that same aperture you would still have the superior bokeh - but show me that 100m f/1.2 lens because if such exists at all and I tend to doubt it - I bet you do not own one, unless you have a second mortgage and the biomechanical limbs of the Terminator to be able to lift it.

So yep. To the full frame pundit - At f/2.8 my equivalent to your own lens does not separate my subject so greatly from the background - which is why I open it to f/1.4 (still avoiding the negative of a fully open lens which you have already had to accept).

Like the low light thing, there is a certain amount of oversimplification to this - but not much. In short - your move!!

I am not as confident that software fix to a compromised source is a way forward but it is true to say that 'Topaz' noise reduction begs questions on whether their product is using technological expertise or black magic!

The same arguments of image quality and 'noise/grain' were made of professionals such as David Bailey embracing 35mm - realizing its superior flexibility and vitality to a tripod and a Rolleiflex or plate camera. MFT is simply to digital what 35mm was to Medium format and anyone who treats adherence to the lowest acceptable film chemistry solution - 35mm to some reimagined ultimate 'full frame' status is frankly - just ignorant.

just comment that a 4/3 reaches X ISO in middle time that full frame... i want to say that, for example, when you shoot a micro 4/3 with f8 and shutter 1/100 at 6400 iso, you could do 1/200 in full frame. When it comes to moving subjects or light... just big is better. Thats why apsc is near perfect all around

I really wish Micro four thirds technology was sold to Sony. Imagine Sony surrounding this sensor with super fact AI compute power that would drastically improve its autofocus features, and combine this with the reach and the crop factor and a much smaller and lighter overall package and the iso performance of the processors makes this tech super usable in a lot of applications such as sports and wildlife.

Hi from Oz & thankyou for a great video that explains everything I need to know about my probable change from my ageing Canon system to the OM-1. I'm also ageing along with my Canon equipment & I'm finding the weight of the system a bit of an issue now.
Thanks again.

Canon shooter here. I don't it is an exaggeration to say that a 150-400 + TC F/4.5 is the best wildlife lens on the market. I'm disappointed with Canon's direction with the 100-300 2.8 and the upcoming 200-500. I was hoping Canon would take the opportunity to add TCs to these lenses and go smaller/lighter with DO or equivalent optics.

I know it's not really wildlife photography but for live insect macro Olympus is pretty much the best on the market today.

great info but the blown out highlights are a bit distracting

In full light, it's hard to see the difference between my Nikon full frame and the omd system. When it gets dark, m4/3s just isn't an option. I'll take the omd all day in light.

Great overview, well done and very interesting 🙂

Sony makes a 12mp camera why cant micro 4/3?

Robin, your photography is AWESOME! I especially love your architectural work. Very much an inspiration for me. Consider me a fan and subscribed. Cheers for S.C. USA!

Would a workaround for bokeh be to use a small lens extender, 1.4 or 1.7, whichever is available?

This is fabulous content, thank you so much!

The comparaison between full frame and m4/3 is excellent. I've made the move to Olympus and now OM system 3 years a go. I was a Canon shooter for 20 years. What I was looking for, mirror less, a more portable system and a good weather proof body/ lenses. I don't like to stay at the same place while shooting so I walk or kayak. After trying Olympus for a few months I sold two Canon body's and 18 lens. There's is compromise to do with M4/3 but I enjoy using this system so much that I take and go out actually more often then I did before. And now with the 150-400mm this is a game changer lens.

Should you switch cars to drive on the freeway?

I relinquished my Nikon system for the Panasonic M 4/3 (GH4 and a G9) and have never looked back.

Wondering which camera was this video shot on - the background is completely blown out

Concerning ISO: I once shot a Kodak T-Max at 6400 ISO. That was grainy 😂