Is M43 system worth it for me?

WARNING - long post with lots of info.

Basically my photography hobby has dropped off due to a bad shoulder and being unable to lug my gear around for longer than half hour any more. Before someone suggests waist pack systems, I tried and hated it.

Current system :
40d with canon 17-55 2.8 handles 85% of all shooting
40d with canon 70-300 or sigma 10-20

I have several other lens too that I only use once in a while. Sigma 105 macro, Tokina fisheye, tubes, etc....

My shooting is normally :
Travel photos -Look Big Ben (click). Look Grand Canyon (click). Etc
Low light photos in night clubs, street parades after dark, inside house,etc
My puppies

I used to do work for local magazines, sponsors, and creating product shoots from studio set ups. (Which I can still use my current DSLR for if I do it again). I don't shoot sports or blow up prints. I don't use my camera for video.

Basically I don't want to lug a system that weighs a lot around but really don't want to give up the nice IQ that my current system delivers even on "fun and silly" shots.

Would an M43 system deliver enough to meet my expectations? Does it focus as fast as my canon system does? If so, which body and lens for the M43 would be best suited for my shooting style that relies mainly on the 17-55 2.8 FL.? I would like a decent wide angle lens and telephoto lens to use at times too.

Many thanks for reading and taking time to reply to my question. Sorry for bad typing and typos as I am using my mobile for this posting.

ClickClick wrote in post #16910833
Would an M43 system deliver enough to meet my expectations? Does it focus as fast as my canon system does? If so, which body and lens for the M43 would be best suited for my shooting style that relies mainly on the 17-55 2.8 FL.? I would like a decent wide angle lens and telephoto lens to use at times too.

Body wise I am partial to the Olympus OM-D series, since it replicated the DSLR shooting experience/controls better than the PEN or Panasonic bodies (which exception of their GH series, which are too big in my opinion, and more video oriented). The OMD E-M1 is hands down one of the best cameras I have ever owned. The older E-M5 had some flaws that I feel the E-M1 fixed, but it is now a bargain at the $500 body only prices it goes for now used, and would leave you more room for lenses in the budget. I, and many other Olympus/Canon owners, referred to it as a "mini 7D", which I also owned at the time, so I am sure it will not be a disappointment coming from a 40D.

As for focus speed, single focus on these OM-D bodies is lightning fast and accurate, as fast as a DSLR. Tracking/continuous focus is still worlds better on any decent DSLR; but you don't do sports, and didn't mention wildlife, so that shouldn't be an issue.

Lens wise the best choice for direct replacement and use in low light would be the Olympus 12-40 PRO 2.8. If you really want to go light you could go with a prime setup like the Olympus 12mm F2, PanLeica 25mm F1.4, Olympus 45mm F1.8.

For an occasional telephoto use, Olympus' 45-150 gets pretty good reviews for the price, likely comparable to the Canon 70-300 assuming it isn't the L. They also have a 75-300mm that is fairly affordable and gets good marks. There is a 45-150 F2.8 PRO coming out later in the year to match the 12-40mm, but expect it to cost a pretty penny and be pretty large.

The Olympus 9-18mm is also a good ultrawide at a decent price, and there is the Panasonic 7-14mm, but it is pretty spendy and does not take filters. Unfortunately short of fisheye those are really the only two ways to get wider than 12mm (24mm at 35mm equivelant) on the system. However I haven't felt there were too many times I felt limited by 12mm on my current setup.

This is great input. I went over and compared sizes and it is a bit smaller

http://camerasize.com …0.21,482.412,28​8.303,ha,t

I don't really use the fish eye or macro lens enough on my current DSLR to justify duplicating here.

Do you think the X-T1 is better than the Oly?

ClickClick wrote in post #16910976
Do you think the X-T1 is better than the Oly?

XT1 is APS-C (1.5 or 1.6 crop) like your 40D not m43rds
Micro4/3rds has the advantage of needing much shorter focal length lenses, to get the same framing that a camera with a bigger sensor requires - this along with the smaller image circle that needs to be projected means the lenses can be much smaller and lighter

XT1 lenses are still smaller than their DSLR equivalents, as they dont need a retrofocus design due to the long flange distance (caused by the big flapping mirror in an SLR)

ClickClick wrote in post #16910976
This is great input. I went over and compared sizes and it is a bit smaller

http://camerasize.com …0.21,482.412,28​8.303,ha,t

I don't really use the fish eye or macro lens enough on my current DSLR to justify duplicating here.

Do you think the X-T1 is better than the Oly?

If the X-T1 had been out when I bought the E-M1 it would have given me pause to think. However nothing I have read about the X-T1 and its kind of odd control setup has made me want to sell my E-M1 and move over. I love the large textured twin control dials on my E-M1, and the 2x2 control system level that instantly changes their function on the fly. For the size they really manage to put enough physical controls on the body that once you have gotten acquainted with it, you can change basically every setting and mode available with your eye up to the viewfinder. That is rather than relying on touch screen menus like other bodies in the mirrorless world, requiring you to stop what you are doing and take your eyes off of the scene.

With the X-T1 on the other hand they decided to clutter up the whole body with retro inspired manual control dials. That means one must select, for instance, the shutter speed they want on the top control dial, in full stop increments (250 - 500 - 1000), and then use the small control wheel on the front to change the .3 increments above and below, but only two clicks each way! so if you are shooting with the top dial set to 1/500, and have the other dial down to 1/320, you cannot just dial down one more on the front to 250, you have to go back to the top dial to go to 250. That sure sounds like a big pain in the butt, now you have to use two control surfaces potentially every time you want to change your exposure by as little a .3 of a stop, and every time you need to change more than a full stop. Sounds like a case of (retro) form over (modern) function to me.

For one thing the m4/3rds system has a lot more lenses available, being longer established and a result of cooperation between Panasonic and Olympus. At the moment Fuji doesn't have a really solid 24-70 2.8 style of standard walk around lens, however their primes are quite good from everything I understand, and they do have an attractive wide angle prime and zoom option. I am sure it is an absolutely fine camera, but the more thought out and customizable controls and better lens selection on the Olympus win out to me over the slightly larger sensor on the Fuji.

Ok this is ruling out the X-T1then. Great advice that is giving me a better direction to research and explore in. Many thanks

The X-T1 being an APS-C sized sensor is not going to have that much of a size advantage over your current setup. Body yes, but when you factor in the lenses, the no. Just look at the mockup of the upcoming 16-55 weather sealed 2.8 Fuji, it looks huge.

For m4/3, they are great. I would say to look at the E-M1 or the GH4 if you want top notch video. If you're just for stills, then the e-m1 with the 12-40 is a great start.

If weight is a concern, then I don't think you need to look at the E-M1, IQ is pretty much identical to the E-M5, and the latter is lighter. You may even consider the new baby E-M10. As far as lenses go, the Olympus 12-40 2.8 is pretty spectacular. Great build, great IQ, very fair price.

I have no interest in video. Also when shooting in clubs and low light I usually start with 800/3.5/1-10th and chimp from there. Hopefully I can get the same IQ with the Olympus.

Ok, I have read up on some of this. Unfortunately, here in Ft Lauderdale there are no camera stores to go to and play with one. We had a Calamut (sp?) but it just closed and they didn't carry this (or anything Canon... weird).

But I see that there are a couple different makers of lens. Any particular ones that are better than others or any that I need to stay away from?

My current desire is something to take care of the 17-55 range that I currently use 90% of the time with my Canon set up. (When using for nightclubs and low light, I normally go with Manual / 3.5 / 1/20th and chimp up and down from there. I hope the M43 system is capable of handling the shots like this. As I get really great photos from my current set up with stunning background/ambient light as well)

I would like a telephoto lens as well, but not a pressing concern at the moment seeing how my use of it is minimal as it is.

ClickClick wrote in post #16946569
Ok, I have read up on some of this. Unfortunately, here in Ft Lauderdale there are no camera stores to go to and play with one. We had a Calamut (sp?) but it just closed and they didn't carry this (or anything Canon... weird).

But I see that there are a couple different makers of lens. Any particular ones that are better than others or any that I need to stay away from?

My current desire is something to take care of the 17-55 range that I currently use 90% of the time with my Canon set up. (When using for nightclubs and low light, I normally go with Manual / 3.5 / 1/20th and chimp up and down from there. I hope the M43 system is capable of handling the shots like this. As I get really great photos from my current set up with stunning background/ambient light as well)

I would like a telephoto lens as well, but not a pressing concern at the moment seeing how my use of it is minimal as it is.

The main two makers of lens are Olympus and Panasonic. Both have standout in their lenses. The main difference is none of the Olympus have any OIS, they rely purely on the IBIS (in body image stabilization) of their bodies. Panasonic zooms and some primes (45 macro, 42.5 Nocticron) have it. General consesus is that the 5 axis is more effective than OIS. The E-M1 with 12-40 is a great start. 12-40 is an equivalent of 24-80 (the 17-55 is a 27-88 equivalent), so you'll gain a little on the wide end but give up a little on the tele end. For teles depends on how much reach you want. The Olympus 75 (150 equivalent) is one of the sharpest lenses in the system, the Panasonic 100-300 gives you a 200-600 but it's a little soft especially towards the 300 end and OIS is a little shaky but a good fit. There are some Pro Olympus teles coming out next year, but they're sure to be pricy, the 7-14 wide is rumored to be around $1,700.

Thanks a ton for all the great advice on this thread.

Before I go and pull the trigger on my purchase this weekend, is there any lens I need to avoid that are not up to par?

I will probably start with the kit lens just to get a feel for the camera and then get the 12-40 2.8. But these lens are really expensive IMO. I don't want to get stuck with something that turns out to be iffy or smuggy with the photos.

Just a couple of suggestions:

First, don't overlook the lenses for the original four-thirds system. Olympus, Panasonic, and Leica (yes, that Leica) still make some terrific lenses. A simple adapter from Olympus or Panasonic and all those lenses will work perfectly on a micro-four-thirds camera.

Second, don't fight image stabilization methods! That is, be sure that only one IS method is in use. If your camera has IS, and your lens has IS, one of them needs to be turned off.

Olympus' 5-axis IS is, in my opinion, superior to the IS in any of the Panasonic lenses, so if I were buying anew, I would get an Olympus OM-D EM-5 body and then shop for both Olympus and Panasonic lenses, totally ignoring and IS in any Panasonic lens (just leave the on-lens switch in the "off" position). Just my two-cents worth.

EM-5? I had researched the EM-10. Is the 5 better? Remember, my main reason for going this route is something smaller and lighter than my Canon set up.

I see the EM-10 has 81 autofocus points, the EM-5 has 35
The EM-10 has 3 way IS, the EM-5 has 5 way IS
There is only a $100 difference between them at BH. EM-10 $699, EM-5 $799 , but on the spec chart there are a lot of categories marked "n/a" for the EM-5.

As i understand it the EM-10 is a bit newer, but they occupy the same range, in canon terms the EM1 is the top of the tree "1series" EM5 is a middle range "7D" and the EM10 the entry level model.

That said, i dont own one, and havent really looked at them too hard