I must admit to being a little sick of the funny looks I get or uneducated comments I hear or read about when M43 is the subject. Most come to the format’s defence citing things like size, cost and weight with an almost apologetic feel, but realistically, there is more to it than that.

Here are some things to keep in mind when comparing.

Comment; “M43 can’t blur out the background enough”

Answer; M43 lenses have exactly the same depth of field as full frame lenses with the same actual focal length, which is to say my 45mm f1.8 is near enough to identical to a FF 50mm f1.8 (and optically better wide open). Do you use f1.8 much? It is a risky aperture to use for paid work* and 50mm on a FF is a mediocre portrait lens focal length. In M43, that 45mm is a true portrait lens. The trick is to remember that even thought it is technically equivalent to a 90mm f2.8 in FF format it is still actually a 45mm f1.8, so you need to be mindful of just how shallow that depth is.

An even wider aperture than f1.8 is really falling into the realms of risky business, reserved mostly for special effects shots and slightly distant shallow depth images, and guess what? The M43 2x focal length modifier gives you the reach to use this way more often, where these are highly specialised lenses in FF. My 45 and 75mm lenses are used regularly wide open for portrait or detail images and both are usable wide open, which is the widest aperture I find to be practical. Both fit into a bag without thought, one even in a pocket and they draw little attention. In other words, these are lenses you will have with you always that do the job of specialised glass in full frame kits. If I had more speed/shallower depth of field I would rarely use or need it professionally, which is one reason I have not bothered with the f1.2 lenses (and the 75mm still has the best at Bokeh and compression of the top four).

*Keeping in mind though Olympus first (12 years ago!) and now most mirrorless cameras can focus “eye sharp” so much of the risk of wide aperture focus is mitigated.

Comment; “The tiny sensor can’t handle low light”

Answer: Because you can use wide open apertures with shorter lenses that act like effectively longer lenses, you can often use up to 2 stops more light gathering than a full frame camera user at the same distance. Just look at the math; The M43 user is using ISO800 with a 75mm f1.8 vs the FF user who is using ISO3200 at f2.8 (70-200 zoom assumed). Very rare FF lenses can match the 75mm’s effective reach and speed (Sigma 135 ART), but these cost/weight 2-3x as much. Assuming the two cameras are pushing 20mp, the FF will still have a slight advantage, but at higher pixel densities, sensors even out pretty quickly.

Artificial light users have also effectively gained two stops of actual power. Many do their math based on a range of F2.8 to 5.6, but f1.8 to 2.8 is the equivalent with M43. I use a set of 5 Yongnuo and 2 Godox speedlites, that act much like a couple of mono blocs for me.

Olympus in particular can also offer ridiculously low hand held shutter speeds (the smaller sensor actually helps here), so you have effectively gained two more stops in many situations although the FF gang are catching up here.

My 17mm used wide open can easily handle low street light shooting at ISO 400. The added depth and camera stabiliser of the format/brand guarantee good images most often. The designers of that lens even added in long throw Bokeh for good measure. When it comes to available light to no light shooting, I have never felt freer.

Another recent development is the pixel shift hand held high res mode, which can shoot at 50mp and reduce noise to next to nothing at ISO 1600. It is mapped out during the high res stitch and I assume this will improve both aspects in the near future.

Any other complaints about the format are simply opinion and often clouded by mis-information, so I won’t even bother addressing them here, but the two above are the main culprits and the least understood.

Most photographers go out intending to take the best images they can. Few image makers are genuinely limited by their environment, as most do not shoot in bad light deliberately. If you are forced to, then all cameras will compromise image quality to some extent for “just getting the shot”. If you have control of your environment, then most quality issues are addressed by that control, so M43 is as good as any other format, often better dollar for dollar.

The reality is for me, I recently had a reasonable amount of money to spend, enough to add a whole system to my existing outfit and I chose to add more to my M43 kit. When I asked myself what I really needed, only M43 gave me the reach, sharpness, speed, durability, features, with the versatility and depth I needed for my reasonable budget, and I have never felt I compromised. My current job offers a little of everything, from winter and indoor sports, to studio grade portraits and my little kit can handle it all. I shudder to think how much an equivalently capable FF kit* would cost (or weigh).

The format’s advantages are currently being eroded in the normal world at the moment as others catch up or surpass Olympus and Panasonic, applying their tech to larger sensor cameras, but ironically, they will come back again as the tech being perfected will make the bigger sensor a hindrance rather than a boon. Noise, depth of field control, and resolution are all partly controllable with existing tech now. As this improves, the bigger sensors actual reason for being will be eroded by smaller sensor options, just look at the phone industry. I can see a time when super clever 1” cameras rule.

*Pro 16 f2.8 to 600 f4 equivalent’s with several fast primes from 35 to 150 equivalent, multiple pro and several pro-am bodies, 60fps, 16 to 80mp resolution, best available hand holding performance, AF speed, good video, weatherproofing through most and small and light enough to carry everything needed all day at the ready. The 600mm along would pay for most of my kit.