Is Micro Four Thirds still a Popular Professional System in 2022?

These days I rarely get into detailed discussions about camera equipment. I think I exhausted that many years ago when I became one of the first full-time professional photographers to completely switch to Micro 4/3 systems. The overall view, back then, was that Micro 4/3 was not a credible system for professionals. This argument was almost entirely put forward by amateur photographers who had no real understanding of professional needs and how those requirements can vary from one pro to another.

I’m still frequently asked about my equipment of choice and my immediate response hasn’t changed: you must use what suits you, your style of working, your requirements, your ergonomics, and your budget. The needs of one photographer can be very different to that of the next. Therefore everything I’m about to say is based on my own preferences and I can’t speak for everyone. I’m a multi-format photographer. I own three different sensor size systems and all serve different purposes. They do have one thing in common though - compact size and low weight (at least when compared to a full frame DSLR system).

Key to this article has been my decision in 2018 to switch my professional equipment from Micro 4/3 to Sony full frame. As with all business decisions, there has to be a solid rationale behind it. Hobbyists have the luxury of buying what they want, but professional photographers make their decisions based on what will do the job as efficiently as possible. Ten years ago Micro Four Thirds was the only lightweight alternative to a DSLR system, so its popularity was understandable. But times have changed and you may be wondering if there is any need to stick with u43.

Casual photographers may not be particularly good at evaluating the differences between one system and another - and might therefore argue that his or her camera is much better at ‘something’ than it is. Emotional attachment runs high in the amateur ranks. A professional on the other hand may discover that differences between systems and the implementation of certain features are night and day - particularly if it means getting the shot and being paid, or having a low keeper rate and poor sales.

Professionals are rarely interested in the newest bodies, preferring to get the most from what we have providing it continues to satisfy our needs. This is why the cameras I mention below aren’t all the latest iterations, but are ideal ‘for my needs’ nonetheless. This conversation doesn’t cover video.

Is Micro Four Thirds a Good Option in 2022, or is Micro Four Thirds Dead?

The answer to that question is “it depends”. The best-known advantage of the Micro 4/3 system has always been its size and weight, but the emergence of viable competition has changed that greatly. For many early adopters the size and weight advantage has been largely mooted by a growing band of competitors. But camera choices aren’t always about size and weight - handling and feature sets are important too. However many of the features which made u43 exciting and unique once have also been largely matched and often exceeded in the newer mirrorless cameras, particularly Sony. Nor is price necessarily a factor, since the professional u43 bodies and lenses are far from cheap.

I think it was around about 2012 when I switched from Canon full frame DSLR systems to the Olympus OMD system (with later additions from Panasonic). I also became a UK brand ambassador for Olympus cameras (resigning at the end of 2016). Back in 2012, we really had quite limited choices. There were DSLR systems, compact cameras, bridge cameras, and the blossoming of Micro 4/3 and the beginning of an impressive lens ecosystem. Micro 4/3 lens development was at the heart of u43 growing in popularity and professional usability. But overall, it’s value lay with its compact size and modest weight. For any photographer with musculoskeletal problems or a heavy workload, this can mean the difference between continuing to earn a living or early retirement.

Adopting u43 brought a new found freedom. No longer did I dread my shoots, strapping braces to my arms and wrists to guard against strain and discomfort. No longer did I need a hot bath on returning home. Instead, I would remain fresh and energized. This led to a near constant stream of personal projects, and hence a boost to my awards tally. I could mostly work around the limitations of a smaller sensor, and rarely if ever felt compromised. It’s little wonder I applauded the system so enthusiastically.

The overall arguments I hear the most against Micro 4/3 would be that of image quality, followed by the rather insecure view that a small system wouldn’t ‘look professional enough’. There is no getting away from the fact that a 4/3 sensor is substantially smaller than a full frame sensor, and is a little smaller than an APS-C sensor. On the positive side, a smaller sensor size means a smaller image circle and hence the joy of smaller lenses. Micro 4/3 lenses are renowned for being superb – I can’t think of many bad ones. In addition IBIS (in body stabilization) can be implemented very well on smaller sensors.

At any given ISO value (assuming sensors of a similar generation) a larger sensor will offer less image noise and better dynamic range than a smaller sensor. It’s also true to say that a larger sensor, at any given aperture value, will offer shallower depth of field than a physically smaller sensor. With u43 vs full frame, this is approximately two stops (the difference between APS-C and u43 is around 2/3 of a stop). These are unavoidable facts, but it’s worth taking a look at how this can be overcome – at least in many if not most scenarios. Do remember though, that IQ and DOF cannot be considered in isolation to what matters arguably as much – and that is the other aspects of performance which might be vital to the work you do.

Some will argue that image noise can be taken care of via noise reduction software. To an extent that can be true, but it should never be a substitute for a starting point which is as clean as possible. It’s also an extra step in a workflow which, for a professional, is already somewhat time consuming. It’s also hard to avoid at least some loss of detail when using even the best NR reduction applications.

As a full-time portrait photographer who started out with Canon full frame cameras, I would spend the majority of my life using a 70 to 200 Canon L lens mostly at F4 and occasionally at F2.8. Lowlight scenarios might mean switching to a fast prime F1.8 lens, in order to get a workable shutter speed and to minimize noise. A very wide aperture on a full frame camera can tricky at times, depending on the focal length and the distance from the lens to the subject. Very shallow depth of field is rarely desirable since comparatively few clients are attracted to photographs where only their eyelashes are in focus. Furthermore, the smallest movement by the subject or the photographer can mean that the plane of sharp focus is lost. Used at a distance the effect becomes a little less perilous. Overall, shooting at f1.8 on a full frame body isn’t something I’d do very often.

In order to achieve the same shallow depth of field effects as full frame we would need to shoot our u43 system at approximately two stops wider in aperture. This would also mean that we would be able to shoot at a two stop lower ISO value, thus evening out image noise as well to create an image largely ‘equivalent’ to that of full frame. As we can see, in a lot of situations the IQ advantages of full frame can be negated.

Historically the in body stabilization (IBIS) of u43 was renowned for enabling hand held shooting at very slow shutter speeds (static scenes only) but that has now largely been met by some of u43’s mirrorless competitors and is no longer the benefit it once was.

With ‘equivalence’ in mind, as the Micro 4/3 lens ecosystem evolved, faster lenses became available and the full frame advantage became much less of a concern. Until comparatively recently though, a professionally specified DSLR would always best a mirrorless system when it comes to continuous autofocus and tracking.

The size and weight benefits of Micro 4/3 are glaring when it comes to the kind of telephoto zoom lenses which wildlife photographers will be interested in. Notable in this respect was the release of Panasonic’s Leica 100-400 lens - offering a jaw dropping field of view equivalent to 200-800 in full frame terms. The caveat is that to preserve the small size and weight a powerful telephoto zoom is likely to have a variable (and not particularly fast) maximum aperture. This is broadly the same with all sensor formats. This is an area where clawing back the depth of field and image noise advantages of a larger sensor isn’t possible, since fast telephoto lenses are a rarity for size, price and weight reasons.

I should mention that simply ‘using a super fast lens on a Micro 4/3 body to gain parity with full frame’ doesn’t always give you a size and weight advantage. Examples would be the F1.2 prime lenses which are now available in u43 format. These lenses are big, heavy, and very expensive. They’ll offer an equivalent aperture value of just over f2 in full frame terms. There are plenty of excellent, cheaper, smaller and lighter f1.8 full frame lenses out there, so in my opinion it makes little sense to use a Micro 4/3 camera with F1.2 optics. Unless of course you’re intent on using only one system and money is no object.

By 2014 I’d become fully invested Micro 4/3. My joints had been given a new lease of life, photographically speaking. And never ever did I have a client question why my camera was so small.

As the years rolled on we saw the emergence of mirrorless systems from virtually every camera manufacturer, in both full frame and APS-C formats. Whilst these cameras were fairly small and compact, the elephant in the room was always lens size. Whilst lens size and weight will be a limiting factor for many, we’ve seen more compact lens designs reaching the market.

As I write this in March 2022, my camera and lens kit bag looks very different. This largely reflects the advances in mirrorless technology across a number of brands and the benefits offered by each. I’ve been able to keep within tolerable size and weight boundaries for the majority of what I do - on par with my previous u43 setup. But that doesn’t mean that I’ve completely done away with Micro 4/3.

I started my professional career over a decade ago, using Canon DSLR bodies and lenses. I then became one of the earliest professional adopters of Micro Four Thirds systems. In recent years I’ve progressed to Sony full frame mirrorless (far right) which gives me the best of all worlds

camerasize.com is a fantastic tool for comparing the bodies and lenses you might be interested in – do go and try the simulations, it’s incredibly helpful.

Let’s take a look at my most common shooting scenarios, and my rationale for becoming a ‘multi-format photographer’:

My Location Portrait & Pet Photography Equipment

I’ve never been a studio shooter and all of my work takes place on location. This can be anything from business portraits indoors and out, to dynamic family outings, to boisterous if not unruly pets.

Because my shoots are dynamic I need very fast and accurate autofocus. There’s no doubt that the single shot autofocus of any competent Micro 4/3 system is superlative. However one of the complaints about Micro 4/3 centred around generally poor continuous autofocus and autofocus tracking. Whilst that has improved over the years it still doesn’t match most of its competitors and pro grade u43 cameras remain expensive. Sony’s face and eye autofocus, and the adoption of animal eye autofocus, has been a game changer for me. Its accuracy is astounding and it makes my life so much easier, particularly when using wider aperture values.

Historically my go to Micro 4/3 lenses for portraiture would be the Olympus Pro 40-150 f2.8 and the little Oly 45mm f1.8. These lenses would give me an effective reach and DOF, in full frame terms, of 80-300 f5.6 and 90mm f2.8. This served me well, until I started to take on more pet photography, much of which occurs nowadays in dark and cluttered woodlands. The issue lay with my u43 zoom lenses which cap at f2.8 (giving the appearance of f5.6 in full frame terms). Messy backgrounds didn’t help, and I would often wish for slightly shallower depth of field and less image noise. Prime lenses are great, but dynamic subjects are often best photographed on the long end of a zoom.

My pet photography sessions are always a reminder of how much I have to crop at times – it’s hard to perfectly frame a very fast moving subject, or a nervous subject. My 42MP A7Riii has been a star in that regard.

My portrait kit now consists of:

Sony A7Riii full frame camera body
Tamron 70-180 f2.8
Tamron 28-75 f2.8
Sony 85mm f1.8

Panasonic GX8 u43 camera body
Olympus 45mm f1.8
Olympus 17mm f1.8

The Panasonic system is fantastic when I’m shooting inside client homes, it also acts as a backup camera. At F1.8 the depth of field looks like F2.8 in full frame terms, which is ideal. Another advantage is that u43 primes are usually very sharp wide open (whereas many full frame primes need to be stopped down a little in order to be at their best). At f1.8 I won’t have to increase my ISO value two stops in order to achieve a safe amount of depth (and a usable shutter speed) as I would on a full frame camera. I’m unlikely to be making massive enlargements or tightly cropping photographs taken in environments like that, so the 20 megapixel sensor on my Micro 4/3 camera won’t be a limiting factor either.

I could of course just leave the GX8 in the bag and stick the Sony 80 5F 1.8 onto my A7Riii and stop down very slightly - but I don’t always have time to keep swapping lenses and it’s easier to pick up the Panasonic. I could invest in another Sony camera to fulfil these duties, but running a full-time business is all about expenditure and I’ve been holding off on that as long as possible. The Panasonic is also my go-to camera for wildlife photography (more on that in a minute).

The crux of this is always maintaining a manageable size and weight. My Olympus EM1 and 40-150 lens came in at 580g and 880g respectively. My Sony A7Riii and Tamron 70-180 f2.8 weigh 657g and 810g.

It’s clear from this example and the photograph above that there is absolutely no benefit in sticking with a Micro 4/3 system (nor any appreciable cost benefit). The Olympus 40-150 lens does afford some additional reach, but the 42 megapixel sensor on the Sony camera means I can crop quite freely to overcome this – and leverage the marvellous resolution the rest of the time, not to mention the fabulous autofocus and video.

In terms of the prime lenses mentioned, the Panasonic GX8 and the Olympus 45 mm F1.8 weigh 487g and 116g respectively, vs Sony’s 657g and 372g. There’s clearly a weight saving here for u43, but not enough to be significant providing you can live with u43’s autofocus limitations.

By comparison, when I was a Canon user my 5DMkIII weighed 860g (without the battery grip) and my 70-200 f2.8L lens came in at nearly 1600g. The 24-70 f2.8L weighed about 950g. Ouch. Incidentally the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lens for my Sony e-mount mirrorless camera weighs about 550g and is physically quite small. The Tamron pro lenses for Sony are absolutely stunning and I have certainly found them to be sharper than their Sony ‘G’ counterparts, and no visible loss of autofocus speed.

A Small Lightweight Camera for Street and Recreational Photography

Never overlook the importance of a camera for recreational outings. Ideally one which doesn’t scream ‘work’. I’m one of those people who always has to have a camera with her at all times. A walk around anywhere scenic would feel empty if I couldn’t take pictures. I’ve created many of my award-winning images on these outings and in fact my 2020 BIPP Fellowship in Social Documentary photography was created entirely with whichever little camera I had about my person – some were incredibly basic and quite old!

My recreational camera needs to fit in all of my everyday handbags without noticeably weighing me down. I also want terrific image quality and a really good sharp kit lens in the form of a standard zoom. Historically this fell to my Panasonic LX100ii (392g), but I wanted the flexibility of interchangeable lenses. My latest choice is the Fuji XT200 (370g) with the XC 15-45 kit lens (136g). Autofocus is good with this lens, with decent face and eye implementation. The lens is sharp at all settings. Teamed with the little Fuji 35mm f2 lens (130g) it’s a no brainer. The Fuji XT200 is an APS-C camera, but the image quality and ISO capability of its 24 megapixel Bayer sensor is surprisingly close to the output of my Sony A7Riii: Fuji XT200 vs Sony A7Riii High ISO Comparison

One of the smaller Micro 4/3 cameras and lenses would also be a good choice for recreational photography, but the image quality isn’t going to meet that of the Fuji XT200, even when allowing for ‘equivalent’ settings.

I should also mention that I also currently own a Canon 200D – this is a ‘micro-DLSR’ and it’s a great little camera (453g) despite its basic features. The kit lens is no slouch either. I use this camera for interiors and wide-angle photography. The Canon 10-18 f4-5.6 lens is one of the best wide angle zooms on the market (230g) and worth the cost of the system alone. The 200D also a really good v-logging camera.

My ‘handbag’ camera is a Fuji XT200 (shown on the left). Years ago I used my Olympus OMD EM-5ii (right) but with a larger kit lens than the poorly regarded optic shown. The full frame Sony A7C is shown in the middle. In this context, there’s little or no benefit in sticking with Micro Four Thirds

You may be thinking of the Sony A7C as a potential recreational full frame camera, and it’s certainly something I’m considering getting. This is because I already have Sony full frame lenses and a compatible backup body makes sense. I’m a little concerned about the form factor, given that I didn’t get along particularly well with the Sony a6300. The A7C camera weighs approximately 509g and the kit 28-60 f4-5.6 lens weights approximately 164g. It offers the benefits of a modern and competent autofocus system and a 24 megapixel full frame sensor, albeit with a small viewfinder and less customisation. If I take the plunge I’ll report back on my feelings.

Compact Size and Weight for Wildlife Photography

Wildlife (and sports) photographers are almost always dependent on ultra telephoto lenses, fast frame rates, fast buffering, and competent continuous autofocus and/or tracking autofocus. Full frame lenses in this category, and indeed APS-C lenses as well, are generally huge, heavy, and expensive. I’m assuming a focal length of at least 400 mm in FX terms. For me, with my ageing and not particularly strong joints, a large sensor wildlife system really isn’t a possibility. This is where I need to accept some compromises in order to have a comfortably portable camera and lens with enough reach for small birds.

My pick is therefore a Micro 4/3 camera (my Panasonic GX8 still serves me well) and my Panasonic Leica 100-400 f4-6.3 lens (985g). This gives me an effective reach of 200 to 800 mm in FX terms. That’s ridiculously impressive and it’s so much fun – the ‘macro’ mode is quite good too. I can also comfortably carry this combination without suffering too much strain.

If I were to choose a ‘similar’ wildlife lens for my Sony full frame mirrorless camera I’d be looking at the Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 (2120g). This lens is huge and heavy and I’m not convinced that the image quality would satisfy me, likewise the focus. It’s also slightly more expensive than the Leica.

Sony users might be more likely to consider the very good Sony SE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 but this doesn’t offer the reach of the Leica 100-400. That said, I can of course flick my Sony A7Riii into ‘crop mode’ which would give me an apparent field of view of up to 600 mm, with approximately 18 megapixel resolution. This lens is nearly twice the price of the Leica lens and weighs approximately 1400g.

For me at least, a Micro 4/3 wildlife and bird photography set remains a very good option (and I know many photographers who feel the same way). However what we can’t do is claw back the ISO and depth of field deficit in the same way that we can in most other areas of photography – given that requires two stops in brighter aperture values. It’s something we’ll have to live with. We can claw back a stop of ISO and DOF by opting for one of the f4 telephoto primes for u43, but I’m not an ultra-telephoto prime kind of person.

As somebody who enjoys wildlife photography, size and weight can be an issue. I enjoy using my Micro Four Thirds camera and Leica 100-400 lens (shown on the right)

The image above was generated at camerasize.com

My Panasonic GX8 is considered old technology in terms of features and autofocus, but it’s a beautiful performer nonetheless. According to my tests over the years its RAW image quality still hasn’t been noticeably surpassed by even the most recent 4/3 sensors, and it still does virtually everything I need it to do. It’s a camera I genuinely fell in love with when I bought it and I still use it with pride. I probably get more compliments on this camera than any other.

My wildlife work can be seen on my dedicated west sussex pet and animal photography website.

Conclusion

For me at least, switching my professional portrait photography cameras and lenses to Sony mirrorless has been very successful and hugely beneficial, with no appreciable weight penalty. I now have the very best of all worlds at my fingertips and there’s nothing I want for.

In 2022 I don’t think Micro 4/3 is dead, but I do think there are far fewer justifications in its favour now. The smaller u43 bodies and lenses are still a popular choice for travel photography, families and hobbyists. After all, not everybody is interested in pure image quality or ultra shallow depth of field so there might be no urge at all to create ‘equivalence’ with full frame. If we mostly ignore equivalence, we can certainly create a very compact and pleasing system.

U43 remains a good choice for wildlife photographers, in my view.

A Micro 4/3 system can also act as an occasional backup or second camera to a main professional system. Micro 4/3 as a main system though is a hard sell nowadays for professional portrait, wedding, event and social photographers given the emergence of mirrorless larger sensor systems of a similar size, weight, and in some cases price. Sports photographers are likely to want ultimate autofocus reliability, which will likely rule out u43 (at least for now).

Sensor resolution is (so far) a limiting factor in Micro 4/3’s progress. Cramming additional pixels onto a small sensor (with an already high pixel density) usually results in increased image noise, something most photographers will want to avoid. That isn’t an issue for most recreational photographers though. I also feel that several aspects of autofocus implementation remain disappointing and lag behind that of competitors.

Photographers are now completely spoiled for choice in a way which we weren’t 10 years ago, when almost everything felt like a compromise. We’ve never had it so good and it’s a great feeling. U43 was a game changer back in the day, but those advantages are harder to justify now. I will always think fondly on u43 because it’s the system which enabled me to keep on working through a period of physical deterioration. My Sony cameras and lenses have now taken up that baton, and with a number of advantages. At the end of the day though, it must always come down to what is right for you.