- A large and expensive but supremely competent full-frame DSLR (your Canon 5D, Nikon D700, or Sony A900);
- A smartphone with a decent camera that you’ll have with you all the time;
- A Micro 4/3 system camera for something with high quality in a smaller package than a DSLR.
I agree wholeheartedly, and I’m not the only one:
Micro 4/3 really does seem to have it right: the sensor is big enough, but not too big; small enough, but not too small. The cameras are right-sized, the lenses are right-sized. Everything’s in balance. Everything fits.
David Pogue called it three years ago; these little cameras are important and revolutionary.
There are other small-camera, big-sensor options, but for enthusiasts, the real draw for the Micro Four-Thirds system has to be the lens selection. As Matthew Robertson points out:
While other systems are struggling to be invented, Panasonic and Olympus sit on an ever-expanding range of lenses and cameras that is second only to the decades-old Canon and Nikon systems. No, they don’t have tilt-shift lenses or “professional” cameras yet, but Micro Four Thirds is a viable and vibrant system in a way that the others simply aren’t.
Here’s all the lenses in the M4/3 system. Sigma is planning to add even more. The selection blows away the selection from other mirrorless camera systems.
And tiny primes! So many primes! You’ve got just about all of the the classic focal lengths covered, including a fisheye, a high-speed ultra-wide, high-speed short telephoto, three pancakes, a 1:1 macro, and even an f/0.95 see-in-the-dark normal lens.
I would even argue that the lens selection for Micro Four Thirds is better overall and with fewer compromises than the selection for APS-C DSLRs from the big guns. But that’s an argument for another time.
That said, if someone were to hand me a Sony NEX-7 and that juicy-looking new Zeiss 1,8/24mm, I wouldn’t complain too much.
Comments? I don’t do open comments. Life is too short.