M43 format has it’s fans and detractors.
The fans cite small size, value for money, sharp and fast. The detractors give maximum quality potential a fail and hero extreme performance.
Extremes?
I will admit there is more quality in a full frame file, measurably and occasionally visually (usually only by direct comparison and again, in extreme cases), but is M43 simply a physical manifestation of an exercise in wishful thinking?
The secret of the system, as the designers realised, is in the lenses.
The lenses enable the true benefits of the system to flourish. If you buy into M43 and skimp on lenses, say stick with a couple of slow kit lenses, then yes, you are not on an even playing field.
Low light.
The full frame high ISO advantage is real, by about two stops in my world*. This two stop advantage can, in some cases, most real world situations, be countered by the lens advantage.
The standard working pro kit, the 24-70 f2.8 on a full frame body can be matched by the f1.7 Leica zooms. These are similar or smaller in size than a pro f2.8 zoom, cine grade sharp, video optimised and provide a range over the two lenses of 20-100 (full frame equivalent). These two added stops of light gathering, do not come at a cost in depth of field, as M43’s f1.7 is roughly the same as FF’s f2.8 in depth rendering.
The M43 advantage is on show here, fast apertures made practical by workable depth of field.
This then extends into other super fast lenses that have either more reach than a full frame equivalent (a humble 75mm f1.8 for example acting like a super speed 150mm), a super light and sharp 9mm f1.7, relatively small f1.2 primes and other lenses either much bigger, dearer or sometimes completely absent in FF arsenals.
A lens that will not make my list of stand outs, the 17mm Oly is never-the-less a firm favourite.
They are always sharp and well corrected, thanks in part to the designers choice of formats. The reality is, it is easier to make lenses when the format is smaller and squarer.
When do I appreciate full frame?
When I have reached the extreme edge of M43 performance, which is rare, then I have a little more up my sleeve to deal with extreme exposure and colour balance horrors.
We are talking ISO’s over 6400, often under exposed or otherwise stressed, apertures at the extreme end like f1.8 and needing shutter speeds of 1/500th or higher in often really poor, flat lighting.
This is not conducive to quality images, but also not as rare as I would like, so we are talking bad light in a bad location, no prep, no other options, otherwise known as desperation photography.
M43 at ISO 6400 is droppable to a high standard, plenty for on line or print and small, light 600 f4 lenses are possible.
Ok, so back to the real world.
Within the umbrella of M43 lens options there are standout lenses, lenses that punch even further above their weight and often bridge the gap between formats.
I do not have many of them, but I do have some of the best glass I have ever owned in this format.
The 75 f1.8 is one of the few lenses I have owned that actually makes an image so good to the eye, it can elevate it above its own technical limits. I have never had a lens that has captured so many hero images, impressed so many people, myself included. My old champion was the excellent EF 135 f2, bettered in many ways by the Olympus and one of the reasons I dumped FF Canon and went fully into M43.
An early street grab using an old EM5. Colour, Bokeh, sharpness, speed. It’s got it all, except weather proofing, which is a shame.
The 300 f4 is an empowering tool like few others. A hand-holdable, easily carried, super sharp, super fast, tough, semi macro, 600 f4 lens with an insane stabiliser. This lens handles like a 300, produces results like a 600.
The reality is, a super fast wide and full frame 600 f4 would be out of most peoples price range, ridiculously big and heavy and likely no better.
This file is not cropped, but the from this lens I regularly crop to 20% of the file and nobody ever questions the quality.
The 9 and 15 mm Pana-Leica primes are both exceptional in their sharpness, rendering and control of nasties, with a little extra quality to boot. The 9mm in particular has much in common with the 300, being a semi-macro, optically superior, highly usable and handy example of an extreme lens. These make the oddballs so much more usable than most.
An old favourite, the 15mm reliably makes such a beautiful image almost always wide open.
The 40-150 trio. The f2.8 is superb, I feel slightly faster than it’s f2.8 rating, has high contrast, is tough and zippy. Perfect for tough weather, low light sports shooting.
The f4 version loses nothing in optical quality, but halves the heft.
The only reason I would not use this lens is if light is poor or an unknown, otherwise I will run this lens over the f2.8 most of the time. Technically I do not love it, the barrel has a slight wobble and the zoom feels “dry”, but it is extremely weather proof, sharp and has even better Bokeh than the f2.8.
The kit version can actually hold it’s own and is so light I can add it to a bag with little thought. It is plastic, but tightly built, nicer even than the f4. This goes into my bag when I do not think I need a telephoto, just to be safe.
Kanazawa Japan was a stand out day for us and this little “junker” was my go-to. “Hollywood” light all day, no fear or qualms.
Sigma makes a trio of wonder lenses, of which I only have the 30mm, but it is a stand out. The extra speed is nice, the quality wide open even nicer. I do not love the lens, but I respect its awesomeness.
Singling out a few seems unfair as there are so many amazing lenses I use every day, but that I guess is the point. Lots of excellence, some transcendence, little effort or expense needed.
M43 is not a compromise unless you compromise. It can handle most tasks with little difficulty and for me, quite often I choose it over full frame because I prefer the handling and ease of use, but there are also times when it is the only logical choice, but it is always in the lenses.