In photography, especially in the sales/purchasing/technical comparison and review side, opinions abound. I have many and I am sure so do you.
One of the main areas of debate falls in the sensor size arena. I am on record already as saying I think the future (immediate that is) of serious cameras will take two divergent paths;
The first is the “smart” camera stream. These cameras are not smarter than other cameras by default, but they will need smart functionality to stay relevant. Their sensor size (1” to 4/3) dictates that technological advancement is needed to keep them relevant and viable when compared to their competition.
Which is;
Bigger sensors, more pixels, larger cameras and ever larger lenses. This stream of thought looks to have no short term upper limits, even though we have realistically reached the point of sufficiency. They just keep offering stratospheric pixel counts on ever increasing sensor real estate. This hunt for more is what makes the little guys relevant. If bigger is better (only because it is bigger), then smaller has it’s place as long as the returns allow.
My feet are reasonably firmly set in the smaller sensor camp, with occasional bouts of the small sensor jitters. These qualms go away when a little grey matter is applied, but I cannot claim to be completely immune to the call of lower noise at higher ISO settings and wider dynamic range, even if I know these are un-needed for me personally.
Logic does not follow that a bigger sensor will make my images better, in fact quite the opposite (there were many sound reasons I left the full frame camp), but the mind does play tricks.
With this in mind, I intend to do a short series of articles on “How to be a content 43 user”. There will not be a lot of deep thinking involved, just sounding out what I have found over the last half a dozen years with the system.
Remember, it’s all in the lenses
The secret sauce for me with M43 is in the lenses. One of the format’s reasons for being, and a major reasoning behind going back to a squarer format* is better/easier lens design. The only other move as radical in recent years is the extra wide, extra deep lens mount in “Z” Nikons, but the 43/M43 consortium, unlike all other makers, bravely chose their bespoke format from day one with lens design in mind.
What this means in practical terms is great glass that is small, cheap and very consistent even at the low end. The squarer sensor allows the lens to cover it corner to corner with less spread. A lens designed to cover a 3:2 ratio sensor needs to cover an area in effect much wider than the total sensor area, making them either larger than needed or providing softer extreme corners if size and cost are prioritised.
The advantage the format has in depth if field then plays it’s part, as the small and fast glass, that performs so well across the frame, can be pushed to it’s limits regularly. In my own experience, using a f1.8 prime wide open is not an experiment in “one look” dramatic Bokeh but rather a practical application of the amount of depth of field you need while taking advantage of as much light as the lens will allow. Every aperture is useable. This also holds true for landscape imaging where you effectively gain two stops of speed, handy for poor weather shooting. Ironically, many full frame shooters gravitate to the work horse f2.8 zooms, which offer the same DoF as wide open f1.8 M43 primes, but with 2 stops less light (which is often the practical ISO performance difference).
Is the Bokeh hungry shooter going to miss out?
No, because the same focal length (acting as a a longer lens in this case) will still provide the same effect as shorter lenses on bigger formats (a 50mm in any format will offer the same DOF at the same distance with the same aperture, just a different perspective and magnification) and many offered lenses have pushed apertures to as wide as f1.2 or even f0.95. This has the benefit of offering double magnification in much smaller and cheaper lenses. These lenses are powerful tools, that can be regularly used wide open creatively and practically, unlike their super fast larger format cousins, which can be creatively same-ish when used at their maximum aperture regularly. You can put an f0.95 M43 lens in your pocket, but Nikon’s new one comes in it’s own case!
Taken with the 75mm at f1.8. A similar lens on a full frame camera would offer identical depth of field, but only half the magnification or a longer lens would only give half the dof at the same magnification.
Coming from one of the two traditionally dominant brands with some dated, though still current at the time, expensive and heavy Canon glass, M43 was a revelation. Tiny, super sharp, fast focussing and sporting all new lens designs, M43 offered what I was sick of waiting for from the big guys. Also every lens is designed only for the one format, not the patchwork quilt of ageing “Pro” grade full frame glass mated with an almost adequate smaller frame filler range.
My first sobering revelation came from comparing my much loved 35 f1.4L mk1 on a 5D2 to an EM5 mk1 and 20mm Panasonic mk1. The first contrast was size and weight (about a 5:1 difference, not counting camera), but it was in results that the little guy wowed me. Sharper wide open and in the corners through most of the range, it was only in focussing speed that it lost out, but mirrorless came through again offering better accuracy (and faster focussing in all future lenses). The lens was so superior, it bridged the massive format difference. Sure, things have changed, but I would still back the new 17 f1.2 against the new version of the Canon at half the price and weight.
There is no doubt we are at the dawn of a new super lens era and M43 is just as relevant in this space as anyone, it is just tackling the problems from a different direction. The 12-100 pro, various f2.8 zooms and f1.2 primes, even the cheap f1.8 primes are cutting edge, but effectively industry sleepers due to their format. Once you try them, your want/need perspective can drastically change.
*The squarer M43 format is not the odd one, the 3:2 ratio 35mm “full frame” is the relatively new kid on the block. Not wide enough to be called a true wide format, not square enough to be a practical size for publication, the 3:2 ratio format is actually at odds with most of the industries needs and took a full generation of shooters before it was accepted. It is the widest non wide format and the squarest wide format, managing to do neither well. I remember reading many “smaller is better” articles in my youth, defending 35mm against the bigger formats (much as this article is now for M43), but the shape never sat well with everyone, especially editors.