Letter to Canon

[Sporgon]

I agree. But we are keen photographers with an eye to getting the maximally pliable image. Most clients do not care about the technicalities and it comes down to 'do I like the image'. We get carried away with gear and technicalities to an extent that passes the client by.

Hmmmmm........

Quite a few professionals will disagree. E-M1 mkii with 7-14 f2.8 versus a 5D4 with 16-35 f2.8. Or even EOS-R with 16-35 f4. Then add a couple more lenses (such as a 60mm macro and wide primes and even a standard zoom) plus the filters and spare batteries and other paraphernalia then lug it all for 6hours cross-country.
I agree that it seems other mirrorless marques are narrowing the gap but the gap is there - and when it narrows more I suspect that those shifting to MFT may switch back and get the best of both worlds but we aren't there quite yet.

I presume your argument here is that the Olympus MFT system has better dedicated lenses than an APS-c system ? From my experience in comparing these the larger sensor of the APS-c still wins hands down when it comes to large output. Also I've found that these small, high density sensors still require a good steady tripod to optimise their output.

Perhaps you can point me towards some of these professional landscape photographers who are using MFT and I'll be able to get a better understanding.

 

[Don Haines]

Perhaps you can point me towards some of these professional landscape photographers who are using MFT and I'll be able to get a better understanding.

I rather doubt that you can find any, but to be fair, that's not the market for crop cameras of any brand.

 

[Mikehit]

From my experience in comparing these the larger sensor of the APS-c still wins hands down when it comes to large output. Also I've found that these small, high density sensors still require a good steady tripod to optimise their output.

I agree - and have not said otherwise, nor have I denied personal preference. But the point I have made all along is not what is better but what is good enough for their business and what the smaller format gives them. And the reason they use MFT is the portability compared to DSLR and the total weight of any kit they carry and if they can get images that meet their needs in smaller package why not? And my only point has been people who refuse to use only because it has a smaller sensor.
I agree that mirrorless are catching up regards size but pros are using these cameras now, not waiting for what may appear in the future. And maybe these guys will switch back to Canon/Nikon when their cameras offer pretty much the same advantages.

Perhaps you can point me towards some of these professional landscape photographers who are using MFT and I'll be able to get a better understanding.

Stephen Elliott
Robin Whalley

And more if you search for 'landscape photographer micro four thirds'

Then portraiture, wildlife :
Damien McGillicuddy
Andy Rouse (a recent convert) - he was happy using Canon EOS-R but felt the frame rate was limiting for some action shots
Joe Edelman
Daniel Cox

 

[Sporgon]

Stephen Elliott
Robin Whalley

And more if you search for 'landscape photographer micro four thirds'

Then portraiture, wildlife :
Damien McGillicuddy
Andy Rouse (a recent convert) - he was happy using Canon EOS-R but felt the frame rate was limiting for some action shots
Joe Edelman
Daniel Cox

Many thanks for these, I'll check them out