Waiting for a class to arrive for a class portrait, I went exploring in the grounds at the school I work for.

The image above is a crop from below.

This got me considering, once again, what our realistic level of sufficiency is and why we constantly question it, especially considering my immediate future.

I have pushed the M43 system pretty hard over the last few months. Indoor sports with medium grade lighting, Drama (both performance and portraits), long range field sports, on the fly portraiture, events and images suitable for enlargements, and it has always come up trumps.

I intend to increase the depth of my kit, or rather as quantity is not the issue*, increase it’s depth in pro specs.

The options for about $5000 au. are;

A Panasonic G9, that would compliment my EM1 Mk2 with a same-but-different dynamic. The G9 is in many ways a better camera than the EM1 mkII, or at least offers a solid “plan B” for most situations. This would likely be matched with the 50-200 or 100-400 Leica lenses (the G9 and this lens come in at $500au less than the EM1 mk2 and Oly lens and $1300 cheaper than the MK3 and lens and is 1/2 a stop faster) with possibly the 8-18 as a true wide option. My migration path would still be within M43, but with two feature sets and cross-over into a “living” system.

A Fuji XT4, 100-400 and superior kit 18-55. Again, a similar camera to the EM1, but with better low light performance, a stellar long lens and very neat “kit” lens. If a 14mm was added, this would be a working kit in it’s own right. Obviously there would be no cross compatibility, but I could shift either way in the future.

Another EM1 (mk2 or 3) and the new 100-400 Olympus. This is a commitment to a brand with a possibly limited life-span, but 400k shutter actuations on the EM1 mk3 is double most other options and the Oly 100-400 is best in class. This would likely see me out with Olympus, offering full kit compatibility, or at least get me through until I can justify a full shift to a more affordable FF brand (everything at the moment seems to be getting dearer).

Cheap option, get my 40-150 back, with an EM1 2-3, saving $1-2k, but lacking a long option.

A seemingly odd shift to a Canon 90D SLR and long lens (200 f2.8, 70-200 F4 non IS cheap options or 100-400 IS II), giving me a best value option for sports, better battery life and a logical upgrade path to Canon FF mirrorless when the prices become reasonable (or maybe even not). This is where I lament selling my 400 f5.6, 200, 70-200 and 135 L’s, but oh well. A 90D and 70-200 F4L or 200 f2.8 comes in at $2500, surely making it the best value with a 300mm F2.8/4 lens equivalent.

Sony. Too dear, messy and video centric.

Nikon. Great cameras but expensive or iffy low grade tele lenses, when compared to Canon’s mass of excellent budget “L” options. A D500 would be nice, but what affordable lens options would keep it’s Af tracking edge intact?

*I have lots of depth with 2 EM10 mkII’s doing low stress daily work stuff, 3 EM5 mk1’s in my flash kit, an EM1 mkII reserved as my sports camera, The Pen F, one EM5 and Pen mini for personal use. The shortage is in tracking af capable cameras.