I'm by no means a professional photographer, but I did take a photography class in college and know my way around apertures, ISOs, shutter speeds, etc. Consider me a moderately competent hobbyist. I don't need the latest and greatest gear...I just want something that takes a decent photo and lets me have some control over the process. I'm not really artsy-fartsy, either...most of my stuff is nature shots, wildlife, family stuff, and airplanes.

I've been shooting Pentax since the beginning. I started with an ME Super in around 2003, then a D100, and now have a K5. And of course, all the lenses and gear that I currently own are Pentax. I love my K5, but have found that it's been getting left at home way too much because it's just too big and heavy. It's a great camera to take to a museum, a kid's sporting event, or a day trip to a city where you're pretty much working out of a car. But when you're on a multi-day backcountry hiking trip in the mountains, or spending two weeks living out of a backpack walking the Camino like we did earlier this year, it gets left at home.

I've opted just to take my phone on those trips, and while the tiny size and zero weight penalty is awesome, you give up a lot on the photography side. Yeah, most phones these days can take great photos within their particular design envelope, but there are some things they don't do well. Zoom is a huge problem. I don't like to get super close to big animals, so there's no good way to take a decent photo of that moose that walks out on the trail 200 yards away without a telephoto. And even for static shots like landscapes I find that the phone just takes some of the joy out of the process.

Over the weekend I was bored and started looking into lightweight mirrorless options, and discovered the Panasonic/Olympus Micro 4/3 collaboration. Honestly, this looks like exactly what I'm after. A full-featured compact camera system with numerous lens options that will do everything I want for right around a pound instead of the 3lbs that my K5 w/ 55-300mm weighs.

Although they make an adapter that I could use with my K-mount lenses, I'd definitely be buying a few native 4/3 lenses as well just to be able to take advantage of the full feature set (you lose aperture control and autofocus with the adapter).

I'm curious if anybody here has used a micro 4/3 camera and if so for what applications have you used it and were you happy with the performance?

If I go through with this I'll definitely be buying older used stuff just from a cost perspective. From what I've seen I can probably get everything I'm after for about $350. I'm currently looking at the Panasonic Lumix G3 and GF3.

One thing I'm still trying to decide is if I want a viewfinder (all electronic since they're mirrorless) or something with just a screen on the back. As an SLR guy I've always used an optical viewfinder, but from what I hear the electronic ones are a far cry from what I'm getting with the optical ones, and there's a definite size and weight advantage (big priorities in my use-case) to going without one. The traditional part of me kind of wants one, but if the quality and performance of the early electronic viewfinders suck so bad that I just end up using the screen instead, I'd be better off without it.

I studied on the Olympus 4/3 quite a bit, before rejecting it as too small for my XXL hands. I think Olympus had innovation down pat, for many years, and yet the 4/3 format could never succeed against Sony Canon Nikon.

https://www.keh.com/shop/olymp...-black-20-4-m-p.html

Above is a used example of what I wanted to buy.

At Thanksgiving I tested a "real" camera against an iPhone 15 Pro Max for the family dinner table portrait. I put both on FB for friends to vote. 4:1 in favor of the real camera. So, I think you are on the right train in finding a real camera solution for your hobby.

Having used the company Canon R5 for special events, I see how older cameras can never reach the performance levels of the current units. But, they are not $5000 either.

I presently shoot a Canon EOS 7D Mk II with the APS-C sensor, which is much like the 4/3 sensor. NO concerns on image quality, in general. But, the camera must be controlled to achieve good results. The automagic green zone does NOT do well. For example, at a table of nine feet length, the green zone will have a super shallow depth of field, making the image useless. IF you choose aperture priority, set it to f/8, choose the focal point to be the center of the table, THEN you get everyone in focus. A bounce flash at +1 EV also makes a big improvement.

Why share? To ensure that you recognize that you are the image creator. Micro 4/3, APS-C, or full frame, you still have to be in charge of the process of creating super images. It is a process, not a snap of the shutter.

By the way, Adobe Lightroom $10 per month is also really needed for your low cost endeavor. In this software, the inexpensive lens chromatic aberration and image distortion are removed! It is amazing. You have to have name brand lenses, ones in the LR catalog of badneses, and the image EXIF data must have that lens info stored. If so, you click two buttons and LR takes care of the rest. NO more need to buy super glass.

And, LR also can add bokeh-like composition, even at small apertures. One more reason for LR, and NOT to purchase expensive "fast" glass.

You are, as I said, on the best path for low cost enjoyment. My bag is at most $1200, with big flash, four lenses, body, etc. Buying used is easy these days, with two purveyors KEH and MPB.

Oh yeah, KEH has been on my radar for years, and they've taken way too much of my money, but at the same time saved me hundreds over buying new.

As to sensor size, my K5 is an APS-C so I'm familiar with what to expect from those. The M 4/3 is smaller, but still much bigger than anything you're going to get in a phone, so I'm assuming that as such it should have better quality potential.

Another intriguing thing about the M 4/3 is the crop factor essentially doubles the effective focal length of your lenses, so a 200mm is basically a 400mm equivalent on a 35mm system. In theory at least, this seems like a perfect fit for my use-case.

I' not looking to replace the K5...just find something to fill the portability gap between it and my cellphone.

Amateur bird and landscape photographer here.

Switched from Nikon full frame to Olympus micro 4/3 in 2012, and - other than a couple instances where the Nikkor 135mm f/2D was really the right lens for some portraits - never looked back. I gave my son the entire Nikon setup a couple years ago.

Currently run my fourth Olympus/OM Systems body, the OM-1, and have a gamut of lenses from micro to the new 150-600 zoom from both Olympus and Panasonic. Not familiar with the Lumix cameras but the Olympus cameras have been very good for birding and landscape work.

For wildlife work long reach and low weight are key, and the m4/3s deliver both - not only the lighter/smaller camera bodies, but the smaller sensor makes the glass effectively double the reach for the same focal length. Carrying around my 400mm prime I get the same reach as folks with 800mm full-bodied lenses.

I'm absolutely convinced skilled folks with the great full-body setups would get better shots in edge cases (far, far away, low lights, birds in flight, etc.) but I'm also convinced my back and arms were far happier than theirs at the end of the walks.

RE: viewfinders. Personally I like the VFs as if you're in a situation where you really need one (like glare on the back screen making it hard to read) it's a godsend. Are they perfect? No. But they're pretty darned good and very flexible, at least the OM/Olympus ones have been.

For used stuff, the m4/3 stuff is popular enough the local camera shops carry traded-in equipment, so check them as well as the usual on-line shops. As I've updated my Olympus/OM bodies over the years, the local shop has been happy to take the older model in trade.

RE: selecting bodies and lenses. One feature you may want to prioritize is vibration reduction/image stabilization. With some pairings, you may be able to get a 4-5 stop improvement, which would let you play with shutter speeds and/or handhold to get flexibility. That might be important for long range plane shots, etc.

For examples of what some folks are able to get done with the m4/3 stuff, check out the Micro Four Thirds Forum on fredmiranda.com

Thanks Joel, that answers quite a few of my questions. Interesting to hear that you transitioned completely to m43. While I'm not going into this with the intent of replacing my K5 setup, I'll admit that in the back of my mind I've considered the possibility. Especially for how I use it, and the cheap lenses that I've got, it's entirely possible that I won't notice much of a difference. The nice thing is the cost of entry is low enough that I can probably afford to play around with it for a bit and figure it out from there.

Also a good point about wanting the VF for situations with glare...considering that pretty much everything I want this for is outdoors, I'm probably going to want one. Between the two cameras I'm looking at right now, the one with the viewfinder only adds 72 grams, so it's probably worth the weight.

Well, just ordered a used G3 (the model with the viewfinder) with a couple of lenses off of eBay. We'll see how this goes.

I've had a Lumix GX7 since it was new. I have the Lumix Leica 25mm f1.4, the 15mm f1.7, and the 12-35mm f2.8 (Crop factor of x2 for this camera, so 25mm = a "50mm" equiv. in the old school 35mm world) I love it. I'm ready for a new body, but it still takes fantastic pictures (it's about 12 years old now).

I tried it, just couldn’t get it to work for me.

Prefer the Canon APS-C options. Bigger sensor, better dynamic range, less noise.

I've been shooting micro 4/3 since almost the beginning. I primarily use it for travel photography, birding, and family photos. The price and effective double zoom native to the format are big upsides. I have a Panasonic G9 and GF3. 20mm pancake, Oly 12-40 pro, Oly 40-150mm, and Panasonic 100-300mm II. Let me know if you have any specific questions.

quote:

Originally posted by DonDraper:
I've had a Lumix GX7 since it was new. I have the Lumix Leica 25mm f1.4, the 15mm f1.7, and the 12-35mm f2.8 (Crop factor of x2 for this camera, so 25mm = a "50mm" equiv. in the old school 35mm world) I love it. I'm ready for a new body, but it still takes fantastic pictures (it's about 12 years old now).

Nice. The GX7 was one of the cameras I looked at. I like that it includes the viewfinder in the smaller format "rangefinder" style body, but it's a bit heavier than the G3, which I think has an older version of the same sensor.

The one I bought off ebay comes with the Panasonic 14mm f2.5, which is a little slow for a prime but the pancake form factor will be convenient for carrying it around, and the 28mm equivalent should be pretty useful. I have an old manual 28mm for my K5 that I love, and the online reviews I read on this one say it's pretty sharp.

It also includes the 45-200mm F4-5.6 Mega IS lens, which will give me the reach that I'm looking for. 400mm equivalent actually gives me more reach than my current long lens, a Pentax 55-300, and this one is about 25% lighter.

What I paid was under the cost of just the two used lenses alone off of KEH, and it also includes some filters, memory cards, a couple of batteries, and a bag, so assuming everything works as advertised it will hopefully be a good kit to get me started. If I end up liking it I may pick up a faster prime like the 20mm F 1.7 or the low profile 12-35mm F3.5-5.6 Zoom. It seems like there are a lot of options that would fit my needs out there, and I haven't even really looked at the Olympus lenses yet. I should have a few months to play around with it before we go on any trips, so that should give me time to decide what I need.

quote:

I tried it, just couldn’t get it to work for me.

Prefer the Canon APS-C options. Bigger sensor, better dynamic range, less noise.

That is the other side of the coin for sure. But from what I've seen of your photos, particularly from your Africa trip, you're on a different level than me and my needs/capabilities are a lot more basic. I guess we'll see if they're basic enough.

quote:

Originally posted by SIG4EVA:
I've been shooting micro 4/3 since almost the beginning. I primarily use it for travel photography, birding, and family photos. The price and effective double zoom native to the format are big upsides. I have a Panasonic G9 and GF3. 20mm pancake, Oly 12-40 pro, Oly 40-150mm, and Panasonic 100-300mm II. Let me know if you have any specific questions.

How "pocketable" is the GF3 with a pancake lens on it? Have you found glare on the screen to be a problem in bright sunlight since there no viewfinder? What's it like shooting a long lens on a small camera like that using a screen to compose your shot? Do you miss having physical the knobs/buttons of a more traditional camera, or is the dial/touch screen interface pretty easy to use? Is the touch screen pretty responsive or do you find that it misses inputs or registers the wrong selection a lot like some older ones were prone to do?

I went back and forth between the G3 and GF3 quite a bit, but honestly the GF3 bodies are cheap enough that there's no reason I couldn't pick one up as an ultra-portable option if I decide to commit to this system.

One of the crews I shoot TV commercials with (regional hospital) uses Panasonic 4/3rds setup, and they love it.
Whatever format you choose (4/3, APSC/S35, full frame), commit to it and enjoy it.
Today’s mirrorless systems are all so, so good.

I have had numerous Olympus and a few Panasonic micro 4/3 cameras. I chose this format for portability in travel and the field. It's not just the cameras that are lighter; more importantly the lenses are much more compact and lightweight. That's where you really save on the weight.
I spent years pixel peeping at DP Review, cranking the magnification up until I was satisfied that I could not really tell the difference in quality from APS cameras and lenses.
I was very worried when Olympus went bankrupt, afraid there would be no more progress with this format. Boy was I wrong!

OM Products is what they now call Olympus cameras (I bought an OM-1 with the Olympus brand, I think the last model with the Olympus name.)

The features of the Olympus Mirrorless DSLR-like cameras include: extremely good image stabilization; fast shutter speeds; specific features I like such as automatic focus for stars; and pre-shooting, called Pro Capture: hold the shutter button halfway down, and the memory will start buffering. When you push the rest of the way, the shots BEFORE you pushed the shutter button (all the way) will be saved.
Frankly, I don't do as much shooting with my OM-1 as I like, but I am very happy I moved up from the E-M5 Mk III, Mk II, and Mk I.

I would definitely recommend getting one with a viewfinder; a screen NEVER works as well for me; if you're a veteran SLR shooter I'm sure you would not want to be without it.

So there's a future for micro 4/3; a very wide choice lenses and cameras. They are extremely good for shooting 4K video, as a previous commenter noted Panasonic cameras being used for pro movie making.

BTW I now have three Olympus OM-1 bodies: two film cameras from the old days, and the (almost) latest digital OM-1.

^^^^^^^
I have a 4/3rds too, and loved it.

But it now sits unused on a closet shelf. I think consumer camera manufacturers are doomed by smartphone cameras. My iPhone camera is remarkably good. And it’s always with me.

quote:

I think consumer camera manufacturers are doomed by smartphone cameras. My iPhone camera is remarkably good. And it’s always with me.

The convenience and IQ of a modern smartphone camera is undeniable, but there are some things that a phone just can't do. Long range telephoto is one of those, and it's a pretty significant portion of what I want to photograph. I wish I could do that stuff with a phone, because carrying a camera (or any extra weight at all, really) 20 miles up 5000 feet of elevation gain is not really any fun, but it's really frustrating to see wildlife or other activity at a distance and not be able to capture it.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:

quote:

Originally posted by SIG4EVA:
I've been shooting micro 4/3 since almost the beginning. I primarily use it for travel photography, birding, and family photos. The price and effective double zoom native to the format are big upsides. I have a Panasonic G9 and GF3. 20mm pancake, Oly 12-40 pro, Oly 40-150mm, and Panasonic 100-300mm II. Let me know if you have any specific questions.

How "pocketable" is the GF3 with a pancake lens on it? Have you found glare on the screen to be a problem in bright sunlight since there no viewfinder? What's it like shooting a long lens on a small camera like that using a screen to compose your shot? Do you miss having physical the knobs/buttons of a more traditional camera, or is the dial/touch screen interface pretty easy to use? Is the touch screen pretty responsive or do you find that it misses inputs or registers the wrong selection a lot like some older ones were prone to do?

I went back and forth between the G3 and GF3 quite a bit, but honestly the GF3 bodies are cheap enough that there's no reason I couldn't pick one up as an ultra-portable option if I decide to commit to this system.

Here's a size comparison with a P938. I will take my GF3 with the 20mm pancake when I don't want to carry a bag. Even with a smaller sensor, the Panasonic Lumix 20mm f/1.7 lets in a good amount of light.

Thanks for that...that is indeed quite small. That 20mm F1.7 is on my short list, too, if I end up liking the system.

I was hoping it would be here by now. I was supposed to get it Friday but it's been stuck in the USPS distribution center in Indianapolis since Thursday morning. That place is where packages go to die .

I'm curious how well the Panasonic version of micro 4/3 works with image stabilization for long telephoto lenses?

Originally, Panasonic had image stabilization built into lenses, Olympus into the body. But is that still true?

Despite all my mirrorless cameras, I use them less and less; partly because of not traveling, not hiking as much; but also, as noted because of the really astonishing and rapid improvement of my iPhones' cameras. With the iPhone 17, I have optical 4X zoom, equivalent to a 200 mm 35 mm lens. That is astonishing.

quote:

With the iPhone 17, I have optical 4X zoom, equivalent to a 200 mm 35 mm lens. That is astonishing.

That is pretty impressive! How do they fit that into such a small package?

My understanding about the image stabilization is that you are correct...Olympus has IS in the body whereas Panasonic depends on the lenses. Pentax was big on in-body IS as well, so I'm kinda familiar with how that works. I imagine with the Panasonic stuff it'll be more prevalent on the longer lenses, and not all IS lenses will be created equal.

The sensor is very small, so the lens is tiny, even with an f stop of f/2.8.