Why Full Frame Didn't Suit Me and Why I Won't Leave Micro Four Thirds

Why Full Frame Didn't Suit Me and Why I Won't Leave Micro Four Thirds

You’ve probably heard many outright lies about Micro Four Thirds. It’s suffered attacks from certain quarters, sometimes from those openly in the pay of its competition. Here’s everything you need to know about the system and why it’s a great option for professional and amateur photographers alike.

Why Full Frame Is a Misnomer

Firstly, Micro Four Thirds is commonly called a crop frame system. That is sometimes said with a derogatory tone. I don’t agree with that term or that opinion.

So-called full frame cameras are also cropped when compared to medium format cameras. However, the photographic industry inevitably uses the 35mm format as the baseline for comparing different sensors. So, it is almost impossible to talk about the system without talking first about what we wrongly call full frame.

I believe it was Canon that first borrowed the term “full frame” to describe 35mm sensors. Though now in common usage, it’s a misnomer. It originally referred to the gate size in cinematography cameras. The gate is the part of the camera that held the film, and the term “full frame” was coined when the Academy ratio (as in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences) was introduced in 1932. That ratio was 1.37:1. In other words, the 35mm 3:2 film was effectively cropped to a 4:3 ratio. Although it was superseded by widescreen in 1953, the full frame aspect ratio is still sometimes used in films such as Wes Anderson’s “The Grand Budapest Hotel” and “Asteroid City.”

So, the original full frame 4:3 aspect ratio is that is used by Micro Four Thirds, not 35mm sensors.

The 4 x 3 aspect ratio is that used by the original full frame, which cropped 35mm movie film to those dimensions.

What Is the Difference Between Micro Four Thirds and 35mm Sensors?

The difference between the sensor in a Micro Four Thirds camera and that is a 35mm camera is size. The former has a diagonal width of 21.6mm (0.85”), and the latter is around double that at 43mm (1.7”). As with everything in photography, there are advantages and disadvantages to both these sizes.

As the name suggests, Micro Four Thirds cameras and lens combinations are tiny compared to full frame, making them enormously portable.

The Obsolete Arguments Against Micro Four Thirds

Historically, many photography pundits have concentrated on three supposed disadvantages of the Micro Four Thirds format and ignored the advantages.

Firstly, is noise. With the newest sensor technology, it’s possible to shoot in very low light and have acceptable levels of noise with Micro Four Thirds. If you then consider the amazing AI-based noise reduction software that’s available, crisp, clean images are achievable at ISOs that were previously unrealistic, even for 35mm cameras.

Turnstone, shot at ISO 12800

Secondly, having more depth of field at any given focal length is an advantage in many circumstances. When that extra depth isn’t wanted, it can be circumvented by using different shooting methods, such as changing proximity and focal length, to achieve the desired effect. Furthermore, some extremely fast lenses are available for Micro Four Thirds that produce beautiful bokeh.

The third supposed disadvantage is built around a half-truth. Although equivalent f-stops will give more depth of field on a Micro Four Thirds camera, if you put it side-by-side with a 35mm camera, and set the ISO and aperture to be the same, the shutter speed will be identical. An f/1.4 lens is f/1.4 no matter which camera body it is mounted on.

A shallow depth of field is perfectly feasible with Micro Four Thirds.

So, Does That Sensor Size Difference Matter?

If you had asked me that a few years ago, then I would have answered yes. I shot professionally with Four Thirds DSLRs and then the mirrorless Micro Four Thirds systems. Very rarely, in extreme circumstances, I was hindered by the extra noise. Consequently, I debated with myself whether I should change to 35mm. Furthermore, for a few weeks, I owned a 35mm camera, but that's another story.

Yet, camera technology has improved so much over the last few years that any contemporary camera, including Micro Four Thirds, produces images in extreme lighting conditions that are more than good enough. That's the key term: more than good enough. In some areas, more expensive, far larger 35mm camera systems might perform better, but is that necessary when a smaller system does the job perfectly well?

Consequently, I still use Micro Four Thirds professionally. I am glad I didn’t change and am now reaping the benefits of the smaller cameras. I have some big, internationally known, household-name clients, and I shoot for national magazines. None of them complain about my work or the image quality. Plus, I have all the advantages of the smaller and lighter kit.

Even shooting contre-jour, Micro Four Thirds cameras can show details in deep shadows.

Never Listen to the Doom and Gloom Merchants

Not so long ago, the ill-informed doom and gloom merchants – some of whom were paid to promote other systems – tried to claim that Micro Four Thirds was failing. Keep an eye out for them in the article comments sections. As always, they were wrong.

Meanwhile, the booming sales of cameras like the OM System OM-1, the unprecedented demand for some lenses, the continuing popularity of cameras such as Panasonic’s GH Series, the use of the system in some DJI drones, and cinema cameras made by Black Magic all show that it’s a thriving and growing system. There are currently 56 companies listed as supporting the Micro Four Thirds format, far more than any other system.

Furthermore, because Micro Four Thirds has been around for many more years than the latecomers to mirrorless cameras, they have a greater variety of lenses and a proven track record for reliability.

Super-fast focusing and subject detection tracking make Micro Four Thirds cameras a great choice for wildlife photography.

APS-C Versus Micro Four Thirds Cameras

For most amateur photographers, other cameras with smaller than 35mm sensors do a good enough job too. I even knew a wedding photographer who used a Canon APS-C camera.

However, although the image quality of contemporary APS-C sensors is good, those produced by the most common manufacturers haven’t had anything like the development seen in 35mm or professional Micro Four Thirds camera systems. Consequently, many of them lack the functionality that camera enthusiasts and professionals seek. This is a generalization, of course, and there are exceptions. For example, Fujifilm, Leica, and Pentax all produce super cameras with APS-C sensors, albeit aimed at different and particular specialisms.

However, none have the advanced features that you will find in professional-end Micro Four Thirds cameras. Also, unlike Micro Four Thirds, there's very little inter-brand compatibility.

I often share my OM lenses with clients who shoot with Panasonic Lumix cameras for them to try. That doesn't work between other brands.

Lenses Are Central to Photography

Do smaller sensors increase the focal length of a lens? It’s not strictly true that they do, although that is the effect you get.

With APS-C and similar-sized sensors such as Nikon’s DX, Canon’s EF-S and EF-M, and Sony’s DT and E mounts, the field of view is approximately ⅔ that of the 35mm camera. So, a 50mm lens on an APS-C camera gives you the same field of view as around 80mm lens on a 35mm camera. With Micro Four Thirds, the field of view would be about the same as a 100mm lens on a 35mm camera.

Consequently, my 150-400mm f/4.5 Micro Four Thirds lens has the same frame-filling capacity as an 800mm lens on a 35mm camera. However, it will be a lot lighter and smaller. If I activate its internal teleconverter, it has a 1000mm equivalent reach.

A test shot using the OM SYSTEM M. Zuiko ED 150-400mm f/4.5 TC 1.25 IS PRO Lens with its teleconverter activated.

Comparing Like for Like

No two systems produce identical lenses, but we can get close. Let’s compare, for example, two professional telephoto prime lenses. In size and weight, the (I believe discontinued) Canon EF 300mm 1:4 L IS USM Lens and the OM System 300mm F4 IS PRO lenses are similar. They also both produce excellent quality images one would expect from professional lenses.

There are differences, however. The OM System has double the reach and provides four stops of lens image stabilization, six when working in conjunction with the camera’s IBIS. Meanwhile, the Canon gives two and doesn’t work with the IBIS. The OM System lens has 0.48x magnification, and the Canon has 0.24x. The OM System lens has a minimum focusing distance of 1.4 meters, the Canon is 10cm further away at 1.5 meters. Moreover, using these lenses, I find the extra depth of field afforded by the Micro Four Thirds lens an advantage as I can get an entire subject in focus without stopping down the aperture.

I am not saying the Canon lens is bad, it isn't. It was fabulous in its day. However, the OM System equivalent outperforms it in many areas.

I should emphasize that the Canon lens does not seem to be available now, but it is a reasonable comparator. As is the lighter, but plastic-bodied Nikon equivalent. Again, a superb lens but plastic construction and has some decentering issues.

Three 300mm f/4 lenses: OM System, Nikon, and Canon.

What About Pixel Count?

It wasn’t that long ago when the Pixel Wars were a-raging and people were crying out for 10- or 12-megapixel cameras. Then Sony brought out the A900 and Nikon the D3X with their greater than 24-megapixel cameras. It wasn’t long before 36-megapixels and above were above them. Meanwhile, Micro Four Thirds has stuck with between twenty and twenty-five megapixels.

When you can get 50-megapixel cameras in smartphones, why did Micro Four Thirds stop in the twenties?

The answer to that had much to do with consumer demand. Research showed that camera users wanted greater dynamic range and noise control over a higher pixel count. That is achieved by having a lower pixel density on the sensor and, therefore fewer pixels.

Furthermore, 20-megapixels is more than enough for most people. Whitewall will print a 63” (160 cm) x 47.2” (120 cm) from my files. I could also use software to upscale to a much higher resolution if I needed it; as of yet, I haven't. My camera also has a trick up its sleeve where it uses sensor-shift technology to create up to 80-megapixel composite images. As fabulous as that feature is, I’ve never used it. It’s not something I need. However, that feature does have an advantage over sensors with a higher resolution.

63" prints are within the scope of a 20 megapixel camera.

Cameras with huge pixel counts sound great in theory, but they are limited by the performance of the lenses. Having a high-megapixel camera is no advantage when the lens can’t resolve images with that amount of detail. Phone cameras with 50-megapixel counts have no better resolution than 30-megapixel cameras because of the limited resolution performance of the lenses.

For the same reason, if you have a collection of older DSLR lenses designed for lower-resolution cameras, you won’t be able to notice that great a difference in fine detail buying a higher-resolution camera. Of course, camera manufacturers are producing new lenses for you to buy to get around this issue.

But this is where a camera that combines several 20-megapixel images has an edge. The OM System Hi Res mode captures information between the original 20 MP photosites. That gives a result that would have been from an 80 MP smaller pixel sensor but with the light-gathering advantage of a 20 MP sensor with larger photosites.

Should You Buy a Micro Four Thirds Camera?

I’m not suggesting that you should immediately dump your 35mm camera and buy a Micro Four Thirds one. There’s probably not much wrong with the camera you have, and you enjoy using it.

However, if you are struggling to lug that heavy gear around, or need something lighter for traveling, or want something that will fit in your coat pocket, or desire a longer reach from your lenses, or require something that you can take anywhere with you without looking like a member of the paparazzi, or you hanker after some of the computational technological advances that are not in your camera, or would like to be inspired by something new, then Micro Four Thirds has come of age and is now an exceedingly good option.

Yes, there are still arguments for using 35mm cameras, not least because there is peer pressure in the industry to do so. However, there are also good reasons to break free from the norm and embrace Micro Four Thirds. Since doing so, I haven't looked back.

Ivor Rackham's picture

A professional photographer, website developer, and writer, Ivor lives in the North East of England. His main work is training others in photography. He has a special interest in supporting people with their mental well-being. In 2023 he accepted becoming a brand ambassador for the OM System.

Log in or register to post comments
124 Comments
Previous comments

I actually came SO CLOSE to buying an Olympus 4/3 camera, because I think the sensor would be good enough for one of the niches that I shoot. I had decided to buy one, used of course. It's whatever one is now going for about $500 or $600 on the used marked. Ivor had recommended a few models to me, and I chose the one that was in that $500 range.

I walked into a local camera store that specializes in used gear and told them what I wanted. No problem - they had that model used for the price I was expecting to pay.

Then I told them what I would need in a lens. Oddly, they didn't have any lenses that would do what I need. So I postponed the camera purchase until I could further research what lens to get. Spent the better part of two weeks trying to find a MFT lens that would do what I want, but couldn't find any. Even joined a MFT discussion forum and asked on there. All of the longtime MFT users there told me there was no such lens made in the MFT mount and that for what I was going to shoot I would be better off with FF or APS-C. That was a bummer because I had really wanted to add an Olympus MFT to my kit.

I ended up getting a Sony APS-C body instead, because there was exactly the lens I need in the Sony mount. I hate the Sonny menu but will eventually figure it out. It just frustrated me that MTF didn't have any native mount lenses that would have met my needs, because I would rather have had MTF than the Sony APS-C. But now that I have gone with Sony as my 2nd system, I will stick it out with them for a while. Already shooting Canon, and now Sony, I won't have the resources to add the MTF system to my kit for at least another year or two.

Maybe that used $500 Olympus body will be down to $250 by the time I am ready to dabble into the MFT world. And maybe Tamron or Sigma or Laowa will be making some highly specialized niche lenses for the MTF mount by that time (lenses that Olympus will not make). One can only hope.

Which focal length and aperture combination were you looking for? Between the Leica made for Panasonic and the OM System M.Zuiko, which have been around for the longest time, plus all the other third-party lenses, I believe there is a wider range of lenses than for any other mount, (I'm happy to stand corrected if I am wrong). Plus you can adapt most other system lenses to it. However, you do lose the size advantage if you do that. Sony has the widest range of 35mm-system lenses, but I am not sure about APS-C.

A friend of mine has Sony and recently discovered that none of the lenses he owns are compatible with teleconverters, so be careful when choosing.

MFT lenses are hard to find in the second-hand market because the demand outweighs the supply. MPB et al have a few, mostly the standard lenses and not many of the pro models. Three or four years ago, there were many more, but I noticed that changed after the OM-1 was released. Those that appear now hold their value. Consequently, I would only buy new lenses because of the extended warranty and the knowledge of its history

Ivor Rackham asked me,

"Which focal length and aperture combination were you looking for?"

True macro (at least 1:1 magnification ratio) in a wide angle lens. Anywhere from 8mm to 12mm would work (16mm to 24mm equivalent). Aperture doesn't matter.

I got the Laowa 15mm f4 macro (yes, true 1:1 macro) in both the Canon EF and Sony E mount, but they don't make it for MFT.

Any of the Macro Probe lenses would also have been suitable, but I could not find that either AstrHori or Laowa makes any macro probe lenses in the MFT mount.

No interest whatsoever in using adaptors or extension tubes. Been there a lot, done that a lot, don't like it one bit.

Also firm in my desire for true macro capabilities, based on actual magnification ratio of subject on the sensor. Smaller sensor does not mean it's okay to have less than 1:1 magnification. I understand everything involved quite fully, inasmuch as final output, viewing size, etc. is concerned. Still want true 1:1 magnification. Having less magnification and blowing it up more is not acceptable.

Maybe someday some 3rd party lensmaker will start making ultra wide angle or wide angle macro lenses in the MFT mount. Better yet, maybe they will actually start making zooms that are wide angle and macro, so I won't be stuck with primes as my only option!

EDIT:
If they made an 8mm-16mm macro in the MFT mount I would grab one and get me an Olympus and be super thrilled at the image-making capabilities of such a setup! Of course I understand that this would give an equivalent view of 16mm-32mm on a full frame, which would be perfect if combined with true 1:1 magnification. Shift capabilities are not necessary for my purposes, nor are wide apertures. If it was an f5.6 or even f8, that would be fine with me.

The OM System 90mm has better than 1:1 magnification, (2x) and that lens has been a real hit, especially as it has built IS that works with the IBIS. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1747132-REG/om_system_m_zuiko_dig... I think Laowa do a MFT probe.

But I get your point about the wide-angle macro. I'll feed that back to them and I am sure they will look to see of there is a demand.

I don't think there is much demand at all. That is why none of the big camera makers bother with wide angle macro or macro probes. Only 3rd party manufacturers will make such things, as there is only a small niche demand. Even big 3rd party lens manufacturers don't think it's worth their bother, as Sigma and Tamron have nothing even remotely satisfactory. I just wish the tiny lensmakers like Laowa and Astr-Hori would make these niche lenses for MFT mount, instead of only making them in the more popular mounts.

Since the title of the article is "why full frame didn't suit me....", I was expecting a more compelling argument than the size and weight of the equipment and although I totally understand the issue of size/weight, the article reads more like a criticism of .... well.... heavy cameras. Did I miss something ?
I also found rather strange the author's hang-up with the term 'full-frame' which he qualifies as a misnomer and corrects to '35 mm'. Accepting de facto naming conventions, even if they are not to our taste, avoids confusion.
Lastly, I have found a very satisfactory solution to the size/weight problem with a compact full-frame camera that actually does fit "in my coat pocket" and weighs in at 680g (1.5 lbs) complete with 28-60mm lens, battery and SD card.

Thanks for your comment, Rick. I was talking about the entire system and not individual models. I think I did write a bit more about it that size and weight, but that is the most compelling reason for many photographers.
With regard to the term "full frame", I don't think it does avoid confusion. Nomenclature in the camera industry has grown organically and there is no standardization. A more precise, scientific approach would be far more useful, especially for students.
I guess you are talking about the Sony a7C. It's a super little camera. It has its limitations, especially with that tiny viewfinder. Personally, I didn't find the ergonomics of it that great, although I realize that won't be the same for everyone. But, as you say, it's a fine camera to carry around in a pocket. However, for me, I would choose an OM-5. It's great that there is a variety for people to choose from.

Heck, even calling it "35 mm" to refer to a 24x36 mm image size, because that can be recorded to a film format that is physically 35 mm wide, is a misnomer - after all, not all cameras that take 35 mm film record a 24x36 mm image. Calling it "135" would be more accurate, but few would know what that means. So if we go with the inaccurate but well-understood "35 mm," we might as well go with the inaccurate but well-understood "full frame."

It's true: full-frame is a misnomer. But not because of the reasons given by the author. All that business about the gate aspect ratio and crop proportions is just forcing a certain perspective on the matter in the hope of making facts fit a certain conclusion. It doesn't work and I'm surprised that F-Stoppers allows such convoluted fabrication to be posted. They know better.

Full-frame is a fabrication of marketing executives who wanted to make something bigger out of the fact that it took a long time for digital cameras to get to what has been commonly called "small format" for decades.

The 35mm film frame, 35mm by 24mm, is "small format," and professional photographers who are not specialized in sports or photojournalism rarely used it. They used medium or large format camera. Except that those don't exist in digital format. Medium format is 120 film, which is 6cm tall by 4.5, 6, 7, or 9 cm wide. There are no digital cameras that have sensors of that size.

Digital never made it past small format, and so full-frame sounds nice. It makes small-format sound bigger. It also gives a good feeling to us when we buy a camera.

Additionally, it served the purpose of distancing people from the world of film. To call a digital camera a 35mm camera sounded "weird."

If you like an even smaller format than small format, that's fine. But to try to claim something by using a convoluted view about motion picture cameras is disingenuous. The people who invented "full frame" in digital were very likely blissfully unaware of the precedent. They just wanted a term that sounded good in the market.

Words evolve. Who would have ever thought that the adjective 'creative' would become a noun?

BTW, whenever I hear people complaining about carrying a "bulky" camera and they refer to a DSLR, I think of this image of Ansel Adams. Edward Preston was the same. And they did it well into their older age.
Let's stop being so finicky about cameras. It will not kill us to carry a few pounds of equipment. Let's
focus on what the camera does and not how big it is.

There's a lot of reasons why people choose the gear that they prefer. One reason is weight. This is 2023. Things change. The phone has replaced the entry level camera due to convenience. In a sense, I agree with you. Comparing one camera to another and buying it because it's 13 ounces lighter seems silly to me. But, I won't buy a Sony camera because I don't like the in hand ergonomics. Others surely think I'm silly, but we all know, human nature is fickle.

Nice picture. But Ansel Adams was into landscape photography if I remember correctly. Robert Capa took a small and light Leica to cover the war in Spain and later World War II.

Did you take the photo, Paolo? Or, did get permission to reproduce it here?

I completely agree. I can understand someone who's not a serious or professional photographer wanting a very small camera to "just have with them" as they go about their life. But for those of us who are completely obsessed with photography it's different. The only reason I go somewhere or do something is so that I can get photos. If photography is my sole reason for being somewhere, then I don't mind carrying a camera and lens around even if it weighs several pounds.

Adams shot a lot of different formats, and he did tend to use smaller and smaller cameras as he got older. He also spent much more time in the darkroom perfecting prints of the negatives he shot when he was younger for the final 20-25 years of his life than he did shooting in the field over those same years.

I’ve read this so closely and I see you’re trying not to show bias,anyway I have now bought an APS-c SONY and a full frame Sony I have a micro four thirds camera and each have attributes I enjoy. In fact to be candid,I am spoiled for choices. So ,or ergo I am confused about which I like better. I’ve been faithful to Sony. But I grew up with Canon. What can I do,in your objective opinion to enjoy my photography more?

With tongue in cheek: buy a medium format camera.

Actually, I don't think enjoyment is about the camera but one's own photographic preferences.

Everyone is different. I get joy from being out in and observing nature while a friend of mine prefers being in cities and photographing people. We both use the same camera.

The camera is a tool that solely facilitates your creativity. I find most enjoyment comes from the creative process.

The OM-1 suits my needs better than any other camera I've tried, and I try many. I particularly enjoy discovering what I can do with the advanced technologies. However, although growing numbers of people agree with me, that doesn't mean it is the right for everyone.

Similarly, some people are only interested in the 35mm format. That's fine too. But, digitally, it's not right for me, although I do use 35mm film.

My advice, ifyou want more joy out of your photography, discover what you like shooting best and concentrate on that. Get better at it. Constantly improving is what the best photographers seem to enjoy the most.

Thanks for the nice comment.

John Purcell asked:

"What can I do, in your objective opinion to enjoy my photography more?"

Ivor Rackham answered:

"Actually, I don't think enjoyment is about the camera but one's own photographic preferences.

Everyone is different. I get joy from being out in and observing nature while a friend of mine prefers being in cities and photographing people. We both use the same camera.

The camera is a tool that solely facilitates your creativity. I find most enjoyment comes from the creative process."

Ivor, I most wholeheartedly agree! This is such excellent wisdom being given to someone who asked, "what can I do to enjoy photography more".

I have found that the joy of photography is all about the subjects - the things we are photographing - and not about the gear we use to take the photos.

I am obsessed with Whitetail Deer, and so when I photograph them, the deepest fulfillment comes from the deeper knowledge of their behavior that I gain through extended periods of observation. Great fulfillment also comes from doing days and days of research on the internet and texting and emailing friends to find out where I might find a fully mature buck that is habituated enough to yield quality photographs. Then when I do find out about such a buck, I will make travel plans to drive thousands of miles across the country to try to find him for myself. The research and the planning bring much excitement and anticipation - there is a thrill in the hunt itself!

All of this leaves things like sensor sizes, focal lengths, and "zoom vs. prime" looking like really lame, uninteresting things when compared to the deer themselves that serve as the majestic subjects of my photography endeavors.

So I advise John Purcell to get more and more interested in what he is photographing, and focus less on the gear that he uses. That is the path to more enjoyment and fulfillment from one's photographic pursuits!

Thank you for putting a critical “lens” on several of these misconceptions about m43. I feel frustrated when I hear experienced photographers talk about “equivalent” f/stops between m43 and FF, just as one example, because the way it’s described is just plain incorrect. If someone wants to describe equivalent DOF, then by all means do that, because that’s actually what they’re probably trying to say.

The m43 noise “issue” isn’t really an issue. Especially with new software tools, noise is hardly noticeable unless you’re an extreme pixel peeper. Even then, it’s negligible for most shooting situations.

I’d strongly prefer my m43 system (Olympus M1 mkii) over my Nikon Z7 II when I shoot my son’s soccer games. I can get clearer photos with a lighter, less expensive m43 setup than with my FF.

Yes DOF is different at the same f-stop between the two systems. But as you said, there are lots of cases where shallow DOF is a problem with FF and I’d prefer m43 in that case, too.

There are modern features available on my FF that I wish I had on my M1, but I certainly hope OM System will continue adding these features to their new models, because those features can certainly work on m43 bodies, too. I’ll probably upgrade my M1 to an OM1 MkII if/when they make it.

Thanks for this article. It was helpful.
I think a lot of the comments really miss the point of the article, which is that M43 is “good enough” for “most” photographers! If it’s good enough for pros, it’s definitely good enough for what i like to shoot (street, food).
I started photography with a film Canon Elan 7, and moved on to a Rebel DSLR, and then a 6D. I had a pretty good suite of lenses. I recently sold all my Canon gear and got an OM-5 for some of the reasons you outlined here, mainly the size, cost, and weather-proofing. The DSLR stuff was so big i never used it!
All the extra Olympus features are a huge bonus.

Thanks Vu.

If you want more depth of field on your full frame you can close the aperture. But I agree that m43 has its advantages.

I moved from Canon FF to Olympus for two reasons: Weight and Cost!