Can you still use Micro Four Thirds in 2023?

Panasonic Lumix GX80 with 20mm Pancake at f/2.8 ISO200

For a while, I had a Panasonic GX80, also known as GX85 in Germany, as my second camera. If you are not familiar with this camera, let me introduce it. It was a Micro Four Thirds (MFT) system with a 16MB sensor in 4:3 format of approximately half the size of a so-called full frame (FF) camera (36mm times 24mm). The camera was mirrorless with a dedicated electronic viewfinder on the top left. I had to write in past tense, because it is no longer produced.

Thanks to the wonderful service at camerasize.com I can show you how small this camera is in comparison to a full frame Nikon Z5. I attached the Leica 15mm F1.7 lens to the GX80 and a comparable 28mm f/2.8 on the Z5. The excellent Nikkor Z 35mm would be a lot larger even.

Panasonic Lumix GX80 with Leica 15mm F1.7 and Nikon Z5 with Nikkor 28mm f/2.8

The GX80 is small, but feels very solid. It is heavier than you expect when you lift it up. It has less grip and only one front wheel. The Z5 is taller, mainly due to viewfinder bulk on top. It does also have a larger screen. The lens mount is also much wider which makes it impossible to squeeze the body to the MFT format even if you removed the viewfinder and the grip.

The format is obviously the main argument for MFT. But MFT does not only concern the cameras. More importantly, the lenses are way smaller and lighter, and also cheaper, than equivalent FF lenses. How much, depends on the actual lens. It will be most pronounced with long telephoto lenses. But even on standard zooms, there can be a considerable difference.

GX80 with Lumix 12-60 f/4 against Nikon Z6 II with Nikkor Z 24-200 f/4

MFT is not only a sensor format. It describes an attempt to reach compatibility between different brands, associated under the MFT hood. The main players are Panasonic and Olympus, now called OM-D. You can use Panasonic Lumix lenses on Olympus cameras. Many of these lenses carry the Leica brand to pronounce quality. And some are really excellent. By the way, even the flashes are compatible between MFT cameras.

Recently, Olympus revived MFT with the new OM cameras, including modern video features, a 20Mp sensor, and a competitive price tag. But you can find excellent MFT cameras in the used market, like the Panasonic G9 or the GX80, for cheap money. 

Lumix kit lens 12-60 at f/5

So, is MFT still an alternative to APS-C or FF? I can only tell from my personal experience with the Panasonic Lumix GX85.

I used it mainly for street photography, usually with a fixed lens like the 20mm pancake, or the excellent Lumix 25mm f/1.7 by Panasonic. I had the kit lens 12-60mm that you see in the image above, but I preferred the prime lenses by far.

Lumix 42,5mm F1.7 portrait lens

My favorite lens was the 42,5 f/1.7 which I used for portraits of the kids. I found its results awesome for the money. You can find such a lens for 100-200€ used or from MPB.

Panasonic 30mm macro lens

Another favorite lens was the 30mm macro lens by Panasonic. Like all other primes for this system, it is very, very compact. You can actually put it into a pocket of your coat. The results are far better than you expect from the price.

Even the kit zoom produces very nice images. In the end, MFT turns out to be a proof that the photographer and the motive matter more than the camera system.

Lumix 35-100mm telephoto zoom at 100mm f/5.6 ISO200

I you hear me praise the MFT system, you have every right to ask why I am no longer using it. The simple reason is that I switched my system, and don't want to carry around or even keep two sets of camera equipment. So, I got rid of all MFT. I was able to sell it for a sum that was good enough for a nice Nikon Z lens.

But why did I switch to FF at all? You don't want to give up the weight and price advantages of MFT without due consideration.

One reason is that the Nikon Z system attracted me with its superb lenses. MFT users need to be aware that their lenses have to resolve twice as much to get the same resolution on the image. Gladly, most modern lenses are sharp enough. But there is a difference if you look closely. 

Moreover, I have been a Nikon user through all these years, mostly APS-C for travelling. The Nikon Z just fitted to my habits. 

The other reason is that the images are simply cleaner. MFT had at that time two stops less dynamic range. Even if you expose for the highlights, the mid-tones will be two stops closer to the noise level, and thus exhibit more noise. Especially in group portraits, where I want clear details, that matters. To do justice to MFT, it will only show on larger prints. However, in demanding scenes the dynamic range makes a difference.

The third reason is that it is far easier to isolate subjects by an open aperture on FF. A substitute for the Nikkor Z 50mm F1.8 would be a 25mm F0.9 lens on MFT. That simply does not exist at a reasonable price. And even if it existed, the Nikkor S lenses are outstanding in every other aspect.

There is also the option to go to a higher pixel count on FF. I did not find any reason for this yet. But, for landscape photographers or cropping, more pixels are an advantage.

Lumix 42,5mm portrait lens

Did I shake your convictions about FF or MFT? If so, this posting has reached its goal. There is absolutely nothing wrong with MFT. You can produce excellent images with that system. 

The most prominent argument against MFT is probably the noise handling. Indeed, while you can go comfortably to ISO1600 on FF without losing much image quality, everything over ISO400 will yield lots of noise on MFT. That is a valid argument for FF. However, MFT usually has a great image stabilization. Used at its best, MFT can produce good results even in demanding situations.

Lumix 35-100mm telephoto zoom at 58mm ISO400