Are you thinking about switching to or from Olympus MFT? Read this article first to understand why I am no longer using Olympus MFT gear.
In this article, I would like to share the reasons why I have decided to part with my Olympus MFT gear. I used Olympus MFT for six years, and I was happy with the results… and still am. So why did I sell it? Read on if you think about switching to or from an MFT system.
Readers of my blog know that in 2014 I wrote about how I started using Micro Four Thirds (MFT) cameras in addition to my Nikon DSLR system. It is important to note that I never used Olympus as my only system. In fact, I have added it to my existing Nikons. But more on that later.
About two years later, in 2016, I did evaluate my MFT system against my expectations. Not everything was as nice and shiny as the marketing department wanted us to believe. Now, in 2021, this will be the third – and final – article of the MFT series.
1.Not the obvious reason
I am sure that many of you think it had to do with Olympus outsourcing their camera division. The reality is that I made this decision early in 2020, actually after the OM-D E-M1 Mark III was announced.
Back to the E-M1 Mk.III announcement: three years after the E-M1 Mk.II introduction, it was the third camera of the OM-D line with basically the same sensor and the same eye viewfinder (EVF). And again, only one of the two SD card slots supported UHS-II. Yes, there were some minor updates, but overall this felt more like a “Mark II v2” than a “Mark III” to me.
2.Lack of technological progress
To be fair, we cannot expect a lot of enhancements from future MFT sensors. With 20 Megapixels on an area of 17,3 x 13 mm, diffraction already starts to kick in if you stop down beyond f/5.6. You can verify this using my infrared diffraction calculator, which also calculates diffraction limits for visible light.
But I didn’t understand why after 3 years Olympus had not opted for a better (meaning: higher resolution and / or frame rate) EVF. Two years earlier, in 2018, I briefly tested a Panasonic G9 and there was a noticeable difference in resolution and contrast. Now in 2020, still no update from Olympus.
Regarding the card slots: if two card slots of the same format are present, they need to be of equivalent speed, in my opinion. Why one is UHS-II and the other is only UHS-I, is beyond me. This slows down the camera when you write to both cards at the same time or use the second slot as an overflow. This was already a complaint with the Mk.II and should be easy to fix, you would think?
Really, I wasn’t looking to upgrade at this point, I was happy with my E-M1 Mk.II. I was just hoping to see that Olympus would put more emphasis on the development of their new cameras. In summary, while I was not excited, my E-M1 Mk.II was still a solid performer.
3.A temptation shows up
Already announced in 2018, I did not pay a lot of attention to the new Nikon mirrorless models, the Z 6 and the Z 7. The main reason was the new lens mount system. I was hoping Nikon would come up with a mirrorless system for the existing F-mount lenses. And people on the internet complained a lot about the missing second card slot, and a bunch of other issues.
Well… things changed once I had the opportunity to take it in my hands and use it. I could not believe how familiar it felt. Operating the Z 6 was like operating any other Nikon camera I had used previously, just with all the advantages of a mirrorless system. And the viewfinder was marvelous. Nikon really made a great effort to make sure the switching barrier was not too high.
From that moment on, I was not sure what to do next. I loved my Olympus MFT gear, but I could not deny the fact that I like what you can do with a full-frame sensor. I had previously owned a D700 and a D800E, and wide-angle photos with shallow depth of field was something I really missed.
4.A decision needs to be made
So, what to do? Adding another system was out of question, for logistical and financial reasons. Replacing my D500 was also out of question, as this is the camera I use for wildlife photography. Currently, no mirrorless AF system comes even close to the AF performance of my D500. And what about the MFT size and weight advantage?
In the end, after spending more time getting familiar with a Z 6, I made the following decision:
- Keep my D500 plus all the wildlife (mostly telephoto) lenses
- Sell the Olympus MFT gear
- Add the Z 6 plus some Z prime lenses to cover the wide-angle part, replacing my existing D7200.
Surprised? For me, this is a well working combination of systems. The D500 will remain my wildlife camera for the foreseeable future. I can use the Z 6 with the FTZ adapter as a backup camera. For travel, I will use the Z 6 with three prime lenses as a compact system and to challenge myself. For everything else, I can decide on which camera and which lens to use.
5.Final thoughts on why I am no longer using Olympus MFT gear
After about a year of using the Z 6, I am very happy with the results I am getting from this camera and I am glad to have made the switch. To be fair, here is a comparison of what I gained and what I lost:
What I gained:
- The ability to use my previously existing Nikon lenses on all my bodies.
- A reduction of camera bodies: D500 (wildlife) + Z 6 (small & light, backup) instead of D500 (wildlife) + D7200 (backup) + Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mk.II (small & light).
- I no longer have to mentally switch between systems. My muscle memory needs to remember only one system, not two. Don’t underestimate the complexity of handling two different systems.
- There is only one battery type I need to carry and charge for all my cameras. This is very convenient for vacations.
- The ability to shoot in low light conditions without loss of image quality. Some of my shots with the Z 6 at ISO 12.800 were printed and used for online publishing.
- A system that is likely to be developed further instead of a system where we don’t know how the future looks like. More on that in a later article.
- The quality of the new Z mount lenses is mind-blowing.
- A lot of space in my closet.
What I lost:
- A mirrorless system with interchangeable lenses and the lowest possible weight.
- Some features my OM-D was capable of, like visible highlight clipping in photo mode (zebra stripes), Live Bulb for long exposures.
Does this make sense to you? For me it did, and maybe it helps you make a decision in a similar situation. I am more than curious what other people do in this situation? Please leave a comment below and share your thoughts or what your decision was. I am sure many others will appreciate that as well.
Header Photo by Rosie Kerr on Unsplash.
Can you support this site?
Do you find this article helpful? To show your appreciation, why not buy me a coffee? ☕ No subscription. No further obligations. Just a quick and simple sign of gratitude. 🙏
Read about the important difference your contribution makes. 😊
Please correct this typo.
“In summary, while I was not exited, my E-M1 Mk.II was still a solid performer.”
to
“In summary, while I was not excited, my E-M1 Mk.II was still a solid performer.”
You are absolutely CORRECT to dump M43 to adopt Nikon Full Frame Z system. Never doubt this. It is a very wise decision. Don’t let the Die-Hard fans of M43 distract you with their grumbles. The usual gripe is like {M43 is good enough for me and I do not need any thing better}.
2 aspects of what you said are monumental in the decision-thought process by any photographer over this topic.
a) “What I gained:
The ability to use my previously existing Nikon lenses on all my bodies.”
Do not under estimate the importance of this. There are Millions of photographers who have a big collection of high quality lenses from Canon and Nikon legacy systems.
b) “A system that is likely to be developed further instead of a system where we don’t know how the future looks like.”
This is an important reason. An analogy is that M43 is akin to a short man trying to play NBA basketball slam dunk with a tall 6 feet 5 inches sportsman like Michael Jordan.
M43 has built-in limits to growth. It is condemned to STOP at a certain point. And be forever left behind.
Typo is fixed, thank you for pointing it out.
While I am still using some of my older F-mount lenses, I have migrated most of my lenses over to the new Z-mount version, for both ease-of-use and quality. Still, I believe that being able to use existing lenses is an important aspect of a migration.
Looking at the cameras recently introduced by OM Digital Solutions, for the most part they confirmed my expectations. I am now convinced that we will not see any future major developments, and I am really sorry for that. The Olympus m43 system was always kind of a niche system, but they filled it with high-quality products. And for a long time, they introduced industry-leading features – think of the image stabilization, the lenses, and many other things… but then it felt like the development stopped. Too bad the market lost a formerly highly competitive system.
This comment about the micro four thirds system: “developed further instead of a system where we don’t know how the future looks like”.
Fine I agree, camera bodies have slowed. But on the other hand, what the heck is left to develop for lens? I mean, two major manufactures have released pretty much every conceivable zoom and prime lens one would ever need for M43, there’s just nothing left to develop. The system seems mature in the lens regard, I just see what really needs developing on the lens front.
I think in general the lens lineup for M43 is hard to beat, that alone is the reason I will not switch. I have lots of M43 lens, they are wonderful, if I go full frame, there’s no two ways about it the lens kit equivalent of that will be a lot bigger.
As for the bodies, in general cameras, phones, everything tech wise is reaching a plateau, we have been spoiled by progress but that just can’t continue the pace it has been. Silicon is getting harder to shrink. Tech was good enough a long time ago. You will just be disappointed to think otherwise. I will say, the OM-1 is pretty nice upgrade that yes took a while to get here.
Thanks for the thoughts, Mike. I mostly agree, especially on the lens lineup, and I don’t think I ever said a bad word about Olympus lenses, quite the opposite.
Where I do not agree is when you say “everything tech wise is reaching a plateau”. In fact, I believe that the development has just started. Just think about all the AI features which have recently been integrated into smartphones. Just think about all the object recognition capabilities built into the latest full-frame bodies of the major players. Never bet against technology…
Hope you won’t be disappointed, enjoy your OM-1!
We will have to agree to disagree about tech reaching a plateau. I work in tech/science and do some AI/ML, it’s a lot of overhype. Software progress and tech progress are not one and the same. Software is means of telling machines what to do and can’t cheat physics or somehow miraculously overcome reality. So yes, one can bet against tech, easily.
But yeah, Olympus makes some real nice glass :)
I agree to disagree :-) I wasn’t talking about cheating physics, imo software will have the biggest impact on the future of photography. We will see what happens… good luck!
I’m just an amateur (though I’ve been an amateur for over fifty years). At any rate, when (like you) I started to integrate my Nikon DSLR collection with the new Nikon mirrorless, I did not move up to FX but stayed with DX, which meant, of course, only one option: the Z50. As an amateur, I didn’t (and still don’t) feel the need for full frame, and I like the cost of the DX (both in DSLR and mirrorless). I will also admit that I am just a sucker for pop-up flashes (no doubt a mark of my being an amateur). I love the convenience of that. And while I’m disappointed that none of the ff Z cameras have pop-up flashes, it has also prevented me from starting to spend a lot of money on FX equipment that I simply don’t need (not being a professional). I think the Z50 is a lot of fun.
But I’ve been thinking lately of getting an Olympus E-M1X since they are marked down so much, and I’m not sure what to do. That it does not have a pop-up flash is rather minor, though a bit troubling for me. I’m quite sure I wouldn’t mind the MFT since I’m so used to the APS-C (though the APS-C is a little larger). You commented that the E-M1X is strangely large, which would seem to go against the Olympus ideal of small and light. But I think what attracts me to it IS the bulk–I’ve always wanted a pro (looking) camera with a built-in camera grip. So I’m not really worried about that. I think what worries me the most about the Olympus system is that those PRO lenses are so darn expensive–many of them being more expensive than the E-M1X body itself. It just seems strange. And now offshored and made in Vietnam or somewhere else? It just seems a little confusing to me. Are the M.Zuiko lenses really worth all that money anymore? You can get comparable focal lengths in the Nikon DX (DSLR and mirrorless) for much less.
Thanks.
Nick, you brought up a very interesting topic. I don’t think there is anything wrong with your logic, just let me share a couple of quick thoughts:
– To my knowledge, OM Digital has – as of today – not announced anything in the camera space I would consider a true improvement over what Olympus already had. So for me, especially the MFT sensors are now a dead end road. Not to say they are bad, just don’t expect any groundbreaking developments in that area.
– The pop-up flash issue can easily be remediated: There is a tiny hot-shoe flash FL-LM2 which I am sure you can find on the used market.
– Olympus lenses have always been considered top quality, even back in the film days. This is the primary reason for their price and why they don’t lose value on the used market. They are probably comparable to the Nikon Z lenses. You get what you pay for.
– While the Z50 is the only (not counting the Zfc) Nikon DX option today, there will be other DX models from Nikon in the future, don’t you think?
– I don’t agree with the ‘Pro size’ argument, but that’s clearly a personal preference. I had a grip for my D300 and sold it because I never used it. I prefer the smaller size and the flexibility. Also don’t forget the huge L-bracket you need for a Pro body, if you do tripod work.
If this was my dilemma, I would stick with the Z50 and invest my money in Z lenses, mainly for two reasons: 1) switching costs and 2) clear path forward vs. unknown future. Anyway, good luck with your decision! Perhaps at some point you may want to share which path you have taken?
It’s all about need and preference.
I love Olympus and I don’t need more than 20mp, with software like DxO I can use at least 12800iso and get great results. It has ProCapture and other stuff that no one else have. I can’t get an equivalent for ff of the Olympus 100-400, a similar lens for ff would be huge and very expensive.
I can see that both sensor sizes has benefits, Olympus fits my needs and is used by many professionals.
I don’t like that some trash talk mft, it’s not a bad system. Because something doesn’t fit your needs doesn’t mean it’s bad for everyone.
And I think that things can change, just look at the cellphones that have 100mp on a really small sensor and delivers great results. Olympus could increase pixel density and get away using computational imaging.
Well, if I would get an ff it would probably be a Sony, but I wouldn’t give up on Olympus.
You are absolutely correct, it is all a matter of personal preference. We photographers are in a very comfortable position right now – there is a system out there for just about everyone. You cannot really go wrong.