M 4/3: A Couple Years Behind the Lens (err . . . Camera)

IT HAS now been a couple years since I embraced the m4/3 system for travel photography. I have used it around the world, in various travel conditions during that period, making several thousand images. Having post-processed most of those images, I have recently begun to notice a couple trends in my shooting and processing.

Aspect Ratio

I FIND myself cropping about 99 percent of the images I make, to achieve - for me - a more pleasing look. I am a fan of the rule of thirds for composition. I also make frequent use of leading, and curved lines. Because of my use of often wider-angle lenses with architectural elements often being in the image, I know I will be doing perspective correction during post processing on many of my shots. I suppose one of the reasons for recurring cropping is that I am consciously (and maybe also sometimes subconsciously) leaving "room" in my images for these corrections. I think though, that there is another, more fundamental reason. I don't really care for the 4:3 aspect ratio. It is just a little too square for my eye. You may have also noticed (I have) that more often than in the past, I tend to display my travel images wide - leaning to a more panoramic look.

Difference between 4:3 and 3:2 Aspect Ratio

PERHAPS THE fact that I "grew up" with a 35mm SLR in hand is the most dominant influence of this "preference." It is what I saw for so many years. Even now, my "serious" camera has the same native 3:2 aspect ratio as my old 35mm cameras did. So does "APS-C" format I shot with for several years. When I return from a shoot with my Sony A7rii (3:2), I find that I make much less frequent use of cropping (at least for changing aspect ratio). I find the 3:2 ratio pleasing. It is not coincidental that the 3:2 ratio is also the one that most often shows up in printing (when that gets done these days). In order to print one of the m4/3 images at its native aspect, a standard print will necessarily crop the image. As you can see, given enough "headroom" in the original image, the difference is subtle.

I don't really care for the 4:3 aspect ratio. It is just a little too square for my eye

 MY OWN thinking on cropping and post-processing "composition" has evolved a great deal since the old days when we would send our film out to Kodak (or some other commercial processor) for prints. Traditional darkroom enlargers were physically limited and most of the time "normal" prints (which were what were offered by commercial printers - unless you were doing, often expensive, custom work) would fit within the 3:2 ratio. When I first started working with digital images, I was more or less "married" to that concept. Eventually, I owned (several, actually) a high-quality Epson photographic printer, and even though still somewhat physically limited (the largest print/paper combination I could easily do with it was 16 x 19, which worked well for me for most of my wall-hung prints), I began to think more "outside the box." I realized that I could cut print paper (and mats, with my mat cutter) to almost any aspect. Frames were a bit more of a challenge, unless I made my own. I did that a couple times, but it is much more difficult than one might think, even for an experienced woodworker. A commercial framing miter cutter and good frame stock was just too expensive - as was custom ordering. Newer approaches to displaying work (like stretched canvas and metal prints) have certainly given us greater flexibility.

THE (meandering) POINT is that we are not really constrained to a particular aspect ratio these days. My current approach is to crop to what looks good to me, using my own visual guidelines. Given that, I can (and for the foreseeable future will) continue to work with my Olympus (M4/3) gear. It is not because of the aspect ratio or format though. It is because of the physically small size of the hardware.

Native Camera Resolution

Comparison of Sensor Sizes

AT THIS point, the largest resolution m4/3 camera available is 20 megapixels. Comparatively, my Sony a7rii is 46 megapixels. Not only is that +2x the megapixels; those pixels are physically larger. As a general rule, larger pixels yield more detail and less digital noise. They are also capable of deeper crops. I often shoot leaving a fair amount of "headroom" for later processing (primarily perspective and cropping). Having a quantum more digital "space" to work with in larger megapixel images means - as I said - deeper cropping. I have noted here a couple times just how much (and it is substantial) latitude my 40mp "full frame" Sony a7rii gives me for cropping. On the Olympus m4/3 at 20mp; not so much. With the lower resolution sensor I can already detect (at least at the "pixel peeping" level)  some inferior image quality as compared to the Sony gear. When I start to crop, it becomes visibly noticeable. While I am still satisfied with the quality vs. convenience comparison between the two, I would certainly prefer the quality of my Sony images - if only I could get that in the much smaller and lighter package of the Olympus outfit.

THE LOW light performance's advantages are perhaps obvious enough not to spend any time. Many of the same factors hold here. Larger sensor and photosites yield less digital noise in an image. This equates to better low light performance. However, I have recently opined (in "What's All the Noise about 'Noise'") that I think some of us spend too much time obsessing about noise (though I agree with my friend, Kerry Leibowitz that this is one of the many areas where personal taste is the deciding factor). I have made many images with the 20mp M4/3 in low light and I probably haven't applied any kind of noise reduction to more than a small handful of them.

Olympus EM10 - M4/3 - Lisbon, Portugal - Copyright Andy Richards 2022 - All Rights Reserved

I AM working on a series of (stay tuned) posts about some of the basic measures of image quality. One of them will cover the topic of "resolution." It is a concept that is often misunderstood and involves a number of factors which make up the photographic "system" we use to record and present our digital photographs. For purposes here, suffice it to say that it is pretty apparent to me that the "full-frame" sensor on my Sony a7rii yields noticeably (to the naked eye) more detail than the 20 M4/3 sensor does.

From an aesthetic perspective, the Olympus is certainly my favorite camera

Ergonomics

I MENTIONED in another blog (Do Looks Matter?) the look and feel of the Olympus system. I think it is as traditional looking (a plus for me) and good-feeling a setup as can be found. From an aesthetic perspective, the Olympus is certainly my favorite camera. I like its handling and controls (mostly) as well as any camera I have every owned. Most importantly, it gives me all of this in a very small package. For packing and carrying on trips that are not solely dedicated to photography (usually with one or more other shooters), it is a joy to have. And probably a must. Today that is the overriding factor, in spite of some negatives I have identified above.

Takeaway

NOT LONG ago, I was satisfied with my Sony RX100 "point and shoot" with its even smaller 1" sensor - still at only 20mp. Though capable of shooting in 3:2 format, the very small sensor made it difficult to even begin to compare with the image quality provided by the m4/3 and APS-C sensors. Yet it gave me some wonderful images and a lot of "joy." I may well not have made as many images on our trips had I continued to "lug" the Nikon and then Sony full-sized gear around. The M4/3 - gearwise - has been a wonderful compromise between the point & shoot and the full-sized gear. It gives me the feel of my comfortable old SLR camera system with interchangeable lenses and a very small footprint. At the same time, as has been said many times here, this whole adventure is one big compromise. Most recently, I became disillusioned with the image quality produced by my most used M4/3 lens. A "consumer" grade lens, the M.Zuiko 14-150 f3.5 - 5.6 zoom probably falls within the category of "superzoom." I have yet to own a so-called "superzoom" that didn't disappoint me when it came to overal image quality. I eventually came to that same conclusion with the M.Zuiko. I have now replaced it with their so-called "pro" M.Zuiko 12-100 f4 zoom. My small sampling demonstrates to me that its IQ is markedly better. Unfortunately, it is also 2x as big and heavy, somewhat defeating my goal to get "smaller." There's that compromise again.

Portability will continue to be a prime factor in my travel gear

NONETHELESS, THERE have most certainly been times I wish I had better quality equipment along. There are also times when I seriously consider which gear I would prefer to have with me. When we cruised in South Africa in 2023, we learned the primary attraction there is its wildlife and the "safari." That is not to say there aren't other things to shoot. I thoroughly enjoyed Cape Town as a city-shooting destination. And we could easily see that there are some pretty great landscape opportunities. We also concluded that cruising is not the way to see South Africa. I have resolved that any additional trips to that continent will be land-based and will include a substantial "safari" component. I wouldn't return under those conditions without my best gear (i.e., my bigger Sony setup).

THERE IS little doubt in my mind that I will continue to look at new options, especially as technology continues to improve. Portability will continue to be a prime factor in my travel gear (of all kinds). In September, we will be making a land-based trip to Switzerland, Germany and the Chech Republic. Personal gear needs will be much less varied. No "formal" or semi-formal clothing. I am looking forward to traveling with only a carry-on sized piece (along with a smaller personal bag) for this entire trip for a change. It is all about portability - to the extent possible, whenever airline, train, or bus travel is in the mix. The camera gear is no exception to that.