An are own completely by Nikon and Canon for most of it’s modern life is the newspaper industry. Since SLR cameras have been practical, these two have been in a tussle for the attention of working pros of print media.

News print does not require ultimate quality, even today.

What it does need is a flexible, maleable file able to handle some tough image conditions, capable of good contrast, clean and accurate colours, good sharpness (even after heavy cropping) and a support system that allows for a massive variety of circumstances and subjects.

From a photographers perspective, that system should be a light and small as possible (rare), because nothing is more frustrating than an important bit of kit being left at the office or in the long distant car boot, due to excessive weight or size.

My kit;

• Super wide; 9mm or 8-18 if I know I will need it (often replaces the standard lens).

• Issued a 14-24, which is optically near perfect but a genuine, gale force rated paper weight weighing more than my equivalent zoom and camera.

• Standard lens; Can be a couple of light weight f1.8 primes or a 12-40/12-60 zoom.

• Issued a 24-70 f2.8 Nikkor that weighs as much as all of these together and is as long as my tele.

• Telephoto; Options in various forms ranging from the 75mm f1.8 for speed, 40-150 f4, f2.8 or 75-300 if long may be needed outdoors. I have even been known to take the kit 40-150. The f4 is the usual option, beng a perfect balance between performance and portability

• Issued a 70-200 f2.8, heavier than any of the Oly options, even the quite bulky f2.8 Pro.

• Sport; The one area a specialist bit of kit is mandatory, I have the above mentioned lenses and my 300 f4, which is plenty long for anything we cover. The f2.8 gets a lot of work here, sometimes with a TC as does the f4 and the fast primes are ideal for indoors.

• Issued a 400 f2.8. Ouch-no way unless I have no other option!

• Cameras; Include a G9 for standard lenses and video and an EM1 mk2 for longer lenses. I could cut this down to one body, but this saves changing lenses on the fly, gives me depth and specialist cameras best suited to task.

• Issued an aging D750. This is a full frame camera, with its advantages and disadvantages*

• Other bits include a flash (860 Godox), off camera controller, little LED light, Mic, small reflector and diffuser. My 2 stop depth of field advantage effectively make my flash units perform like Godox AD200’s and if I went to these, they would act like mono blocks.

• The same would go for the issued kit except the flash would be working harder, but maybe other elements could be skipped*.

The bag I usually carry is a fully packed F2 if primes are my lenses of choice or F802 for bigger zooms. I use primes only for guaranteed low light jobs or “light” editorial, zooms are the “big event” option. The f4 Pro floats between the two kits.

For sport, depending on the day, I usually carry the F804 or Lowe Pro Pro Tactic 350 with which ever big lenses are needed and either an EM1x on it’s own or a second EM1 mk2 for backup.

If I needed to carry the Nikon kit, I would likely alternate between the 14-24 or 24-70 with the 70-200. The F804 is the logical bag or maybe the F802.

So, apart from weight, which is the benefit, not the reason for my choice, why would MFT be a good fit for a paper?

Quality

Tons of quality in MFT, especially for low news print and web use, but I have proven to myself and others, fine art grade as well. To be honest there has been too much quality for most uses for ages, but the industry keeps pushing….. I have found after a lot of testing, that the ageing D750 (not the best choice for a paper, but the only one our small provicial will spring for), with any of my issued lenses is less sharp and contrasty than my MFT cameras (any) and my lenses (any). This is not hot air or blind loyalty, because belive me, I want to use the issued kit if I can, but I just cannot make myself regress back to this dated system, with the added handicaps of size and SLR limits.

In a nut shell, you want to be able to salvage, crop and adjust within reasonable limits, not be held back by low quality base lines. Using MFT, I rarely sweat the small stuff.

My 20mp beats the older 24mp I have at hand, simple as that and even that older camera is excess to our needs. Many paper shooters would prefer a 12mp ISO-proof camera (D700 Mk2 or A7s) than more pixels with limts. The above shot was also shot at ISO 1600 (in a rush), something I did not notice until I checked.

Lens Range

Super wide to very long are not an option for us. The inside of a crane cabin at 200 ft, a game of sport at distance are day to day stuff and these things need to be with us, not hypotheticals.

Super wide from MFT is no issue with lenses ranging form 8mm fish-eye to several zooms and a wide fully corrected prime.

Standard focal lenghts for most systems are a cast of thousands and MFT is no different. Where it does differ though is in offering weather proofing, manual focus clutch and video grade AF motors at affordable prices and even the crappiest are sharp.

MFT also offers some super fast and very wide range options here, even both at once (8-25 f4, 12-100 f4, 10-25 f1.7).

In Tele lenses, the true advantage of MFT comes through. Not only does the system offer a 2x reach benefit, but the offerings are many and consistently good.

When a super long lens is needed, I only have to carry a 300 f4 or even the 75-300 kit in good light, not the brutish but shorter 400 f2.8.

If the field is smaller, my 40-150’s (various) will do fine, giving me FF 300mm from 150 (or the Leica option of FF 400 from 200).

When long and fast is required for indoors, my 75 f1.8 gives me the equivalent of a 150mm on a full frame and my tiny 45 is a powerful 90mm. In fact I can go 18, 30, 35, 50, 90 and 150 at f1.8 and 60mm f1.4, all in a tiny bag.

All focus closer than FF lenses of the same reach, meaning no dedicated macro is needed and the bulk are weather sealed to some extent. These are all new designs also, so no old clunkers left over from the 90’s (looking at you Canon).

All things are possible in FF, but at huge cost in weight, practicallity and budget. Anyone can reasonably afford the MFT options.

Flash and Low Light

MFT has a 2 stop depth of field advantage which translates to longer fast lenses with more depth of field wide open and/or more flash reach. Shooting small groups at 30-150mm using f1.8 (FF f3.4), ISO 800-1600 with bounced flash in large rooms is standard for me. This would be f2.8 at ISO 3200-6400 in FF. The advanyage of lower base noise in FF is mitigated in all practical terms by these MFT format advantages and good processing streams.

Cameras, Build and Handling

The EM1x is a better built and designed camera than any similarly priced FF cameras. It is faster, tougher and generally better laid out for professionals, mimicking the Nikon D6 or 1D Canons. The G9 and other EM1’s are the same roughly as a 5D, D750 or D500 level cameras, so as good as I was issued, but newer, smarter. Being mirrorless, they do video better and the other advantages of mirrorless are too many to mention here, but lets just say, I would not happily go backwards.

Focussing

AF in the latest mirroless cameras, from the early adopted brands and the top tier of the later migrating mainsteam ones is top notch and has the potential to go further faster. MFT is a real player here, no issue. To be honest, the sheer speed and accuracy of the original EM1 mk5 was eye opening and a major deciding factor for me to switch even though sports shooting was a matter of predictive AF or MF single gabs, but the latest generations of tracking AF have removed any doubts.

Video

MFT is one of the top formats for video, which is a little less bothered by ISO performance. The other MFT advantages come in here, like the speed to length/size ratio and stabilising, so for many it is the only choice. For our needs, it is better than enough.

So, what would I issue?

The base kit could be drawn from so many options.

EM1x with 8-25, 40-150 f4’s, the 300 (maybe shared), with 17 or 25, 45 and 75 primes, a Godox flash, MKE 400 mic and small LED (16-600, video and low light covered). The lot coming in at about $12,000au or less than just a big full frame tele. If the photographer prefers, the 40-150 f2.8 could do the job of the f4 and 45/75mm’s, the EM1x could be an OM-1, or a pair of EM1 mk3’s. If a Ninja-V was handy, the EM1’s could be upgraded to pro quality footage as needed. This provides very serviceable 4k in FLAT format with amazing stabilisation.

If video is even a higher priority, a pair of Panasonic G9’s, 8-18 (or 9mm), 12-60, 15 , 42.5 1.7 and 50-200 or 200mm prime and teleconverter, giving a range of 16mm f2.8 to 600 f4, for about $10,000au per tog.

Or any number of other combinations including a hybrid like mine.

For me, I would likely go the Pana kit with the 9mm, 15, 12-60, 42.5 f1.7 and 50-200 and extender. This covers 18-600 with options.

Would there be any complaints outside of the usual of having to learn new gear (which is just as real even moving to the same brand in mirrorless)?

I feel that most qualms would fade away when the results come in, the real benefits are discovered and the general health and wellbeing of the togs is improved. Basically, when any prejudice against the smaller format fades away through use. There is plenty of substance to feel like you have the “real thing” (an EM1x feels as “real” as any camera I have owned including the F1n or EOS 1Ds Mk2 Canons and even a G9 feels as solid as a D750), excellent weather proofing, answers to all the tough questions and the reality is, with modern processing, even MFT is relatively light proof if ISO 12,800 is your comfortable limit.