DSLR vs. Micro 4/3 Cameras: Which is right for you?

Modern camera with a vintage lens isolated on whiteMicro 4/3 cameras have become an extremely popular topic of discussion because they are not only smaller and lighter than most DSLRs on the market, but they also have DSLR-like features that have made several photographers scratch their heads and say, “I wonder….”

Personally, I put an Olympus EM-1 (high-end micro four-thirds camera) in my Amazon shopping cart and had it on pre-order but eventually got “camera shy” and cancelled the order.  In this post I want to walk you through some of the benefits and drawbacks to micro four-thirds cameras so you can make the decision of what camera system is right for you.

But before we get into the merits of choosing micro four thirds or sticking with a DSLR, I want to recommend you check out Derrick Story’s new site TheNimblePhotographer.com.  He has put together a really nice site with lots of tips for traveling light with photo gear.  Definitely worth checking out.

Okay, let’s get to work…

A few of the nice benefits to these Micro Four Thirds cameras are:

  • Smaller camera body because no mirror is used in the body which adds significantly to the bulk of the camera.
  • Lighter and smaller lenses because they do not need to reproduce as large of an image onto the sensor.
  • Price, sort of.  Micro 4/3 cameras are in an awkward stage where an industry standard price has not been settled.  Panasonic seems to be competing at low price points, but Olympus is charging mid-range DSLR prices for their Micro 4/3 cameras.
  • Cutting edge technology.  For example, the Olympus OMD allows you to continuously see a photo appear brighter and brighter as you leave the exposure open during a long exposure at night.  Then you simply stop the exposure when the preview looks good.  That’s amazing!
  • Extreme portability
  • DSLR-like features (such as manual settings, hot shoe, and more)
  • Significantly longer focal lengths.  A 100mm lens on a micro 4/3 camera is like a 200mm lens on a full-frame DSLR.  This is terrific for wildlife and sports photographers (at least it would be if the autofocus were improved on micro 4/3 cameras…)

Now you are toying with the idea of giving up your DSLR and switching to the lighter and smaller Micro Four Thirds camera, aren’t you? There might be a lot of positive trade-offs, but first you need to decide what type of photographer you are. Once you have determined that, we can go through the shortcomings of the Micro 4/3 cameras. For some photographers, there are simply too many downsides to justify making the switch.

Some things to be aware of before you swap out your DSLR for a Micro Four Thirds camera:

  • No optical viewfinder, or no viewfinder at all.  For me, no viewfinder is a deal breaker.  Fortunately, the electronic viewfinders are getting better and better to the point that it beats optical viewfinders in some respects.
  • Fewer lenses – The lineup for micro 4/3 camera lenses is improving constantly, but it still is nowhere near the DSLR lens lineup.  If there were a good super telephoto lens available, I’d be more likely to buy a micro 4/3.
  • Slower auto-focus – If you are shooting any type of action, you will likely be disappointed with micro 4/3.  Some of the newer cameras are improving dramatically, but it still isn’t up to where DSLRs are.
  • Inferior low-light performance – Because of the small sensor size these cameras have, they don’t support low light situations quite as well as most DSLRs.  That isn’t to say they are terrible in low light, but that in general they aren’t as good.  I certainly wouldn’t recommend micro 4/3 for night photographers, but shooting indoors or in low light situations you’ll do just fine.

Above, I asked you to consider what type of photographer you are. Think about that again now. If you are doing any type of sports action photography, wedding Photography, wildlife Photography, or landscape photography (plus any closely related subcategories of those), I would strongly suggest that you hang on to your DSLR for those shoots until these kinks are fully worked out.

If you are a more casual photographer (or if you have difficulty holding heavy things), then the Micro Four Thirds camera is probably worth serious consideration given all the pros.  Also, Micro 4/3 also makes an EXCELLENT camera for even professional travel, street, or event photographers.

However, there is nothing (short of money, of course!) that would stop any photographer who owns a DSLR from getting one of these nifty Micro Four Thirds cameras and using it as a second camera. There is certainly a place for these cameras in the industry. It could be extremely handy when you’re going somewhere and need to pack light but still need a nice camera. In time, we can bet on seeing the technology in these Micro Four Thirds cameras start to show up in future DSLRs.

So if there are so many benefits to micro 4/3, why haven’t I committed?

A few reasons, really.  Although I like the micro 4/3 sensor size and think it has some really nice benefits for shooting wildlife, sports, and other long lens photography, the system does not have good long lenses available yet.  Also, I think most photographers have bought in on what the camera manufacturers want us to believe–that full frame cameras are “better.”  For this reason alone, I think the bulk of the photography crowd will be gravitating to mirrorless full frame cameras like the Sony A7r.

There are some serious limitations to the Sony full frame mirrorless bodies that were announced only a few weeks ago.  One of the major limitations is that it has no wide angle lens available AT ALL.  As a landscape photographer, that is a deal breaker.  But regardless of what I think of the drawbacks to full-frame cameras, I think that is where the industry is headed.  And if photographers flock toward Sony, the money will as well.  And where the money is–there too will be innovation.

I expect to be shooting a mirrorless camera as my primary body within the next year, but the time isn’t yet until a few kinks are worked out in the next iteration, and the lens lineups fill out a bit.

What about you?  Would you consider switching or picking up a mirrorless body over the next year?

Comments from the I.P. Community

  1. Bart Nelis says

    Hi I already typed all this before reading the other answers, so just as my five cents:

    Concerning the skin tones: i think there is no real difference between m43/aps-c/full frame: it depends more of eg the dynamic range of the sensor and the processing engine etc. You can also tweak this in post processing. I find the Olympus JPEG rendering quite nice (i own an om-d emd-5) In terms of the shallow depth of field: it is true that this is less easily obtained on a m43 sensor than on a FF. This is because of the 2x crop factor. On a m43 camera a 50mm lens with f2 aperture opening will give you the same depth of field as 100mm lens f4 on a full frame. This means that you can get some extra shallow depth of field on the full frame by opening the aperture a little bit more. The creaminess of the unsharp parts (bokeh) is also function of the number of aperture blades and how round the opening is. I’d suggest you have a look at some portraits on flickr taken with certain lenses on flickr to judge if there is enough shallow DOF for you. For me, m43 is good enough in terms of shallow DOF when you use fast prime lenses like the Oly 45mm or 75mm f1.8. Since I’m on a budget i use my old minolta 50mm 1.7 manual focus (with an adaptor) and i have to close it down to about f3.5 just to be able to be sure to get the shot in focus enough. Also, if you are used to compact point and shoot camera’s: you will notice already a huge difference in terms of the seperation you can get by using m43. You also mention the size of the camera: apart from the benefit i’d be able to re-use my old manual focus minolta lenses, the size issue was for me a huge reason to go for m43: I am not that confident to put a large camera with equally large lense in someones face just to get a real shallow DOF portrait. This is also why I never really considered aps-c because the camera’s are still too big and still not Full Frame. The advent of the Sony A7 is a real gamechanger in this respect though!

  2. says

    I am the photographer who made the image for the Dallas Symphony Orchestra to which you refer. The right tool for the right job is more important to me than ‘what is the better camera.’ Using a hammer instead of a wrench doesn’t mean a wrench is a poor tool, it simply means it was not the best tool for the job at hand. The X100S is a remarkable tool and I chose it for that specific job due to its leaf shutter and hi sync speed capabilities.

    When I am photographing action as with dance or live theatre I use my DSLR simply because the X100S is not fast enough from a focusing standpoint.
    http://www.markkitaoka.com/latest-news/evita-broadway-bay#/

    The observations about DSLRs being dead may be a great media headline, but for my work it remains a vital tool in my arsenal of choices. It’s much the same as only using a softbox as my only light modifier.

  3. thomas ahrndt says

    Huruvida APC är bättre än M43 är en teoretisk fråga. Praktiska resultat från bilder visar liten skillnad förutsatt att man jämför likvärdig optik o inställningar.
    Min huvudbry är kostnad för likvärdig utrustning, fördel APC på många sätt, fördel bättre linser o flera för M43 systemet exempel. Med Sony A6000 finns en enda 24 ff 35 lins dvs Zeiss. För M43 20mm/1.7 panncake och så finns massor med pengar kvar. Olympus Om Em5 (tror jag den heter) med bildstabilisering (5 ax) mot A6000. Olympus lockar, Apc också!

  4. John says

    Some of this is good info, but some of this does not add up to me. Have nikon, sony apc-s cameras and great primes for them. The picture quality is not any better in many forefronts.
    Same with a canon camera I had with expensive primes. Photography is an art like an pallette of colors to an artist.
    Not really one better than the other. The 4/3 format makes it expensive for wide angle lenses BUT their out there and their very good. I base my experience on the olympus line have had from e-300, e-510, e-p1, om-d m-5. The zuiko lenses are so much higher quality kit lenses and updates right off the internet attached to the camera for panasonic also. Clearly leave some of the old brands in the old fashioned dust. So I would be careful to do the old faithful if the sensor is smaller it is not as good with the end result. Many reviewers had trouble saying the smaller sensor pictures were any less quality than the apc-s big units. Many said the color was way more accurate with the micro 4/3 in olympus land. There is a great comparison to a full frame camera side by side and the color is better and the way more detail in the 4/3 picures as well.
    The smaller body all day is worth its weight in energy to take that extra gold picture!

  5. says

    Spot on! I’ve bought an Olympus at a bargain price – I don’t regret it, but just a quick look at Nikon DSLR lens choices will bring my mood down. Whatever I’ve spared on the body, I’ll have to pay it as premium on m4/3 lenses, and the choice is much more limited.
    M4/3 is not inherently better. DSLR are not obsolete yet. DSLR are more than just a body design (mirror), they are a whole philosophy of changes conservatively (and the term and identity needs some rethiking). M4/3 are a refreshing, and that was highly needed. They’re about making the best of what you have, not having the best of what is made :)
    Okay, enough.

  6. Kenny Dunn says

    There is no one size fits all. I have a Nikon FF system and just added a m4/3. I use the Nikon for commercial and portrait and the m4/3 to take hiking and when I need something light. I love being able to isolate a subject with FF so I won’t give that up, but otherwise the quality of the 4/3 is terrific and I am well pleased. Focus speed isn’t an issue, it focuses almost as fast as my DSLR. Only real problem is it is almost too small, doesn’t want to fit my largish hands very well. For landscapes I would not worry at all using it over my Nikon.

  7. Clive Sinclair says

    I have a new mirrorless camera that fits my Canon EF lenses. I find I am using it more and more instead of my 60D.

    It isn’t perfect and I would not have paid the launch price for it. But the EOS-M (with it’s flaws), is becoming an all time favourite.

  8. Robert says

    I’m one of those that ditched my FF Canon DSLR (5D) in favor of a Panasonic m43 camera — specifically, the DMC-GX7. I really sweated the decision but now that I’ve done it, I’m happy. My Canon kit was getting to bloody heavy to haul all over creation. I love my little Panny and enjoy great results. Sure, my 5D was quieter in low light, but the GX7 is no slouch, either. And my kit is 5kg lighter — fabulous for extensive travel that I do.

    I shoot landscapes, still lifes, that sort of thing. The Panny 7-14mm m43 lens is terrific!

  9. Rui says

    Hi,

    You said that micro 4/3 are not as good as a dslr in low light because the sensor is smaler, but the last aps-c sensors released have 24 megapixels and micro 4/3 have 16 megapixels. If you divide the área of each one by the number of megapixels it gives you the same size for each pixel.

    • Jim Harmer says

      @Rui – Just giving each photosite the same amount of area from which to gather light does NOT mean the two sensors perform the same in low light.

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Powered by sweet Captcha