Question up front: Does anyone use their Micro 4/3 kit as a professional photographer for work?

Caveat almost up front: Not a professional photographer and don't play one on TV, just curious.

Wondering if the system has matured enough that anyone was making a living with it. Any type of photography counts - weddings, portraits, etc.

How to overcome fears using Micro 4/3rds cameras in a professional environment | Small Camera BIG Picture

__________________
Olympus E-PL5
M. Zuiko 17mm ƒ1.8 | M. Zuiko 17mm ƒ2.8 | M. Zuiko 14-42 II | M. Zuiko 14-150 ED | M. Zuiko 45mm ƒ1.8 ED | M. Zuiko 75mm ƒ1.8 ED | M. Zuiko 75-300 ED II | Leica DG Summilux 25mm ƒ1.4 ASPH | Lumix G Vario 45-200 |

I've started using my m4/3 gear for location portraits and weddings since that work requires me to run around with my gear for hours at a time with little-to-no breaks. I've been complaining about the bulk and weight of my DSLR gear for years but it's only been within the last year that I've felt m4/3 cameras and lenses deliver what I need (in terms of AF speed/reliability, lens selection, etc.) to serve as my "primary" work kit.

Here are a couple for a recent outdoor shoot:

I have done wedding, portrait, architectural and construction photography for some years now. I wouldn't consider a system for work that was primarily aimed at people trading up from compact p&s and trading down from entry-level DSLRs to something lighter, smaller and cheaper with many or most key components of the system based on moulded plastics.

I have used Nikon, Canon and Pentax SLRs and Nikon and Canon DSLRs and currently use Nikon D800 and D3 bodies and Nikon lenses. With all due respect to m4/3, the robust build that you expect from Nikon and Canon simply isn't there. I don't have the time to baby my photo gear, it just gets slung in bags and has to survive some less-than-ideal handling.

There are also the issues of dynamic range, noise at high ISOs and control over depth of field where m4/3 still falls far short of full frame.

I like my Panasonic G3 and small collection of native m4/3 lenses (Pana and Oly) but I would not entertain using them for paid work. It isn't impossible, but you would have to work within their limitations and take care of them to an extent that is mostly alien to working shooters.

__________________
Cub
Panasonic G3, 14-45mm, 20mm, 45-200mm, Olympus E-PL1, 9-18mm, 45mm

With all due respect to Cub, not all professional uses require D800 / D4 or EOS 1D level build quality. Not every pro is doing war reporting, PJ or sports photography.

Similarly, not every professional use high ISO (although the latest bodies from Oly and Panasonic are better at high ISO that FF DSLRs of just a couple of generations ago, and most people thought those cameras were "good enough" for professional use). Ditto for DR, for which the latest m43 bodies are not only better than FF cameras from not long ago, but far better than most film, which somehow managed to serve professionals for decades.

And Cub's definition of DOF control appears to be rather one-sided. I rarely need extremely shallow DOF for my compositions (although if I do lenses like the 45/1.8, 25/1.4 and 25/0.95 can generally provide it). Frequently, the m43 combination of wide aperture (to allow faster shutter speed) and greater DOF is more valuable to me than is shallow DOF.

Aside from that, Cub's knowledge of m43 bodies is sadly lacking. The OM-D body is all metal. The GH2 is functionally an all metal chassis clad in a plastic skin. You could peel most of the plastic away and the camera would still work just fine. NONE of the "key components" of either camera are made of "moulded plastics." He owns an m43 camera that's at the lower end of the price scale (the G3), and apparently bases his conclusions about the entire m43 system from that. Priceless.

Finally, no matter what camera / lens combination you choose you need to "work within their limitations." A FF camera is limited in certain respect compared to both m43 and MF. Just as MF cameras are limited in some ways compared to FF (or m43) cameras. No camera can do it all.

No system is ideal for every use, but there are certainly professionals who make use of m43 for some of their work, and m43 is certainly capable of being used for some professional work. Can it replace a Nikon D4 for everything? Of course not. But not all professional photography demands a D4.

__________________
I'm not lazy. I'm energy efficient.

Take care of them? My G2 hit the pavement at 45mph and still works just fine. Try that with slr, might as well call it a loss before even looking at it. Even the pany 7-14 lens was undamaged, I'd say the build quality is beyond adequate. Hell the insides are exposed by the rear thumb dial and on the back of the lcd, both must have gotten moisture in them at this point, still works fine, and I doubt that bit of electrical tape is keep all that much out. Anectdotal, sure... but it's 45mph from the top of the vehicle.

I use my G3 and have even used my EPM-1 for paid work and they are more than adequate for what I do. There are certainly some jobs that require a DSLR, particularly sports, but my G3 works fine in the lowest light work that I do, which isn't that low. I also don't shoot sports other than snapshots of my son playing soccer.

I have the 45 1.8 and it is a great lens with very thin depth of field if you need it.

I believe ned and gsciorio (already linked to you) here are both professional photographers and earn their daily bread with micro four thirds.
There must be others for sure, I believe reporters would benefit from cameras like these :)

__________________
I speak a good Italian and a bad English.
Olympus: E-M5, E-PL2, Oly E-PL1 with IR conversion, 45mm f1.8 + macro adapter, 12-50mm. Keeping an eye on the 75mm f1.8...
Panasonic: 20mm f1.7, 14-45mm, 100-300mm, 12mm 3D.
Fujifilm: X100 and I would like to buy a X20.
Nikon: F4, Nikkor 35mm PC, Nikkor E 50mm f1.8.

As a former photojournalist who worked for major market media firms for 15 years. I would use OM-D's as my everyday workhorse of a camera. (Granted I've only used my OM-D's for a few weeks so the jury is still out on durability ... but I'd give it a whirl.)

My only caveats being, I won't use it for assignments where C-AF is vital (sports and equal) and I wouldn't use them until I had a full compliment of fast-wide lenses and fast-long lenses.

Olympus, as a marketing ploy, gave out OM1's to a bunch of news organizations across the US back in the mid-'70s. (Then like now, media using a camera brand was a big deal.) We all loved the camera, but they broke. After about 90 days the OM1's were all broken and we went back to Nikon. Nikon's didn't break.

Gary

PS- I have installed the C-AF update and I see improvements, but I haven't had an opportunity to truly test the new firmware. Anybody out there have any experience with the new firmware?
G

__________________
"Everywhere you look there are photographs, it is up to us photogs to see them."- Gary Ayala
My Snaps are Here: Unsharp At Any Speed
Critiquing my images is welcomed and greatly appreciated.

Like Gary, I'm a former photojournalist, 25 years in the business. For nearly any daily assignment, my OM-D kit I currently use would suffice. Where it lacks is for certain sports. Lack of good c-af and fast, long lenses limits it for sports like football.

I used my EP-2 wit VF2 and 7-14, 20 1.7 and 45 2.8 daily for over a year, supplementing it with my Canon 1dMkIIn and 70-200 2.8 or longer glass as needed. I loved this combo and the OMD is a much more capable camera.

I started my professional career with OM's and had nothing but good luck with them, only switched to Nikon because Nikon was THE camera and everybody used them.

__________________
A few of my photos can be found here: http://jeffryscott.com/