Last updated:- 17th January 2026
I was reminded of a young sailor showing his wife the fish he caught while noticing the weird behavior of social media influencers repeating the same FF sales line each time they discuss an M43 camera. She repeatedly thanked the fish for finding its way to the sailboat and presenting itself as their next meal. I couldn't help visualizing a talking fish, millions of years of nothing, and swimming to a sailboat to present itself as an almost Biblical meal. Considering the juicy sausage on my plate, I wondered if I should thank it for finding its way to my home. Imagine a world where camera manufacturers thought it was a good idea to turn a typical product sales line into an industry or segment standard.
If you thought the introduction was weird, let's discuss how a product weakness became an industry standard. Most will not believe me if I say a shallow depth of field is a general full-frame weakness. To confirm that, we are repeatedly reminded that everyone benefits from "good subject separation, a creamy background blur, and a cinema look." One has to appreciate marketers for taking a product weakness and turning it into a must-have feature. Despite the repetition, it was a joy experiencing the old-style filming and a lack of creamy backgrounds while watching the first episode of NCIS again. Whether technically good or bad, weirdness also suggests that everyone needs more dynamic range, more resolution, less noise, open gate 8K video, and AI-supported autofocusing.
Both images were taken with an older 4/3rds camera. The one on the right shows the impalas blending in with the environment.
While reviewing FF sales arguments and statements like "full-frame cameras are better" or "full-frame sensors capture more light," it shouldn't surprise photographers to learn that marketing physics are consistently biased. Did you know that reasonably accurate camera comparisons are almost impossible because as little as 0.1% of all digital camera comparisons passed the 90% equivalence threshold? It's almost impossible to trust any conclusions camera reviewers make on social media.
Let's review some of the trends influencers like to avoid. For example, low-light photography is a tiny part of African wildlife photography, and higher ISOs are associated with wildlife photography because a constant DOF is critical at higher shutter speeds. That means 2X smaller apertures for FF cameras and 2X more noise than M43 cameras. It's also concerning that influencers refuse to acknowledge the popularity and high prices of used compact cameras or how many people underestimate the increased processing and memory costs associated with 8K video or higher resolutions.
One could also question the declining demand for compact cameras or the notion that it's important for everyone to have a mobile phone. While reading, consider how a sales line of one product offer became a segment or industry standard. Modern photographers are basically boxed into one "optimum solution" with no reasonable alternatives for consumer preferences. As a final thought, how many see a difference between 20MP and 50MP photos or use high-resolution cameras to increase the cropped reach of large and expensive full-frame lenses with smaller focal lengths? A perfect FF camera is also no reasonable alternative for those having the M.Zuiko 40-150mm f4 to 5.6 lens.
One of the critical aspects of designing new digital cameras is the tradeoffs manufacturers evaluate when creating the specifications of a new camera. For example, cameras with no weather sealing are NOT designed to appeal to professional photographers, or Leica cameras with manual focusing appeal to traditional Leica photographers. Do you know that, similar to Leica, Olympus photographers benefit from unique cameras, M43 lenses, image processing (colors), and a post-processing solution?
Let's focus on two of the design criteria that impact the purchasing preferences of new cameras. They are best described as the optical and technical limitations of modern cameras. Optical characteristics are linked to the diagonal of the sensor image circle. That means the size of the sensor determines the camera's optical character. These are variables like DOF, the size of the lenses, and the two-times factor M43 photographers use to calculate the 35mm equivalent for focal length and DOF.
We will probably never know why corporate marketers replaced a basic design criterion with "bigger is better" or made the sensor the only critical component. The result is theoretical inaccuracies, like the technical efficiency of electronic parts being measured by their physical size, or bigger sensors having more dynamic range and less image noise. It's always concerning to see unethical techniques like repetition and astroturfing being a part of social media marketing campaigns.
The first thing I do when familiarizing myself with a new camera is to visualize the meetings Olympus engineers had to finalize the technical tradeoffs in the design criteria of the camera. These tradeoffs reveal much about the planned application of a new camera. The optical design criteria of cameras are a given, whereas the technical design criteria always include tradeoffs. I added two examples for your information. Let me know if you'd like to see more.
Here are two typical examples:
1. Speed versus Dynamic Range tradeoffs
Stacked versus a higher saturation point:
- Benefits:
- Faster readout speeds
- Reducing rolling shutter
- Allowing higher burst rates
- Better video performance
- Tradeoffs
- Increased read noise (more electronic components)
- Reduced full well capacity / Lower highlight retention
- Higher cost and power consumption (sensor temperatures)
- Complex, expensive manufacturing equipment, higher cost
Why:
- Faster readout electronics cause more noise
- Additional layers and routing reduce pixel area
- Complex electronics causes more heat and losses
- Pro level are more expensive than standard sensors
Application examples:
- Sports, wildlife, bird, video, and motorcar racing
2. Why plan a slightly lower dynamic range?
Benefits of accepting a lower DR:
- It improves readout speeds
- Reduce rolling shutter artifacts
- Ensure a more responsive Live View and EVF
- Better autofocus performance (faster sensor feedback)
- Lower power consumption and sensor temperatures
- Smaller and more manageable sensor data rates
- Better SNR's, or lower noise floor with less image noise
Practical considerations:
- Most scenes do not exceed the DR of modern sensors
- Photographers often expose to protect the highlights
- Most prefer speed and responsiveness over +1-stop DR
These examples show why many flagship cameras sacrificed peak DR for usability, or why the Olympus E-M1 MKII/III or the E-M5 MKIII continue to be excellent cameras in 2026. It should also be clear why the "bigger is better" or "size and capture" theory cannot explain the process and tradeoffs while designing digital cameras. It is therefore correct to say that full-frame cameras are NOT automatically better than APS-C or Micro Four-Thirds cameras. There is no good reason for social media influencers to repeat an oversimplified "industry standard" with every M43 camera review. It's also OK to remind them that it's inappropriate to repeat a fake industry standard with every M43 review.
The E-M5 III (OM-5) with the M.Zuiko 12-45mm f4 pro, 17mm f1.8, and 75mm f1.8 lenses is an excellent day or low-light option.
Everything changes with a personal experience with M43 cameras. Marketers don't want that because sales numbers are more important. For example, why should one buy an OM-5 II or the OM-3 if they offer inferior image quality? I saw several videos showing OM System high-resolution RAW files with softer image results than 40MP or higher FF images. Why would people think OM Workspace is inferior to commercial RAW converters like Lightroom or DxO PhotoLab? Shouldn't the logical alternative be to convert your high-resolution RAW files with Workspace or the TruePic image processor?
Considering ongoing social media conversations and comments posted on forums, I can only conclude that Olympus and OM System failed to develop and communicate sufficient sales arguments for Micro Four-Thirds cameras. It's concerning to think that most photographers assume M43 cameras have less dynamic range, more noise, and inferior image quality. The only benefit is smaller M43 lenses. Doesn't this weirdness remind us of marketers turning a product weakness into a must-have feature? One can write several books about modern marketing ethics and the photography segment.
How would you define 10 good sales arguments for M43 cameras?
Best
Siegfried
No comments:
Post a Comment