Seems like an awful lot of talk about different systems lately

Have you decided to move away from M/43?

  • Yes, getting out while my gear still has value

    Votes: 5 3.8%
  • Not getting out completely, but am expanding to hedge my bet

    Votes: 11 8.4%
  • Still using M4/3 as my main gear, but want to try something else

    Votes: 22 16.8%
  • As suggested, I've gone mad. FF is the only option for me!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not me, I will stick with M4/3 until someone pries it from my cold dead hands

    Votes: 91 69.5%
  • My main kit is a different format, but I use M4/3 as my second system

    Votes: 11 8.4%

  • Total voters
    131

Delb0y

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Aug 31, 2014
Messages
152
Happy with m43 here. My G80 is perfectly adequate for my needs (its temperamental electronic faults aside). Because of those faults I do think I'll need a new "main" camera soon. But I suspect it'll still be the same format.
 
Last edited:

Brownie

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
2,880
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #42
It'd help if we don't truncate the definition:

invested; investing; invests
Definition of invest
(Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1 : to commit (money) in order to earn a financial return
2 : to make use of for future benefits or advantages invested her time wisely
3 : to involve or engage especially emotionally were deeply invested in their children's lives
intransitive verb
: to make an investment

I am invested in this thread. I am also invested in M4/3. And, I am overly invested in lenses. Like...way over...
 

retiredfromlife

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 15, 2016
Messages
4,458
Location
Sydney, Australia
While I don't intend selling my Mu-43 gear [no real market for it in australia anyway] I won't invest much more at this time either.
I purchased the EM1.3 with the intention of getting the OLY 100-400, but so far none of the shops I use have seen that lens or know when they might see it.

I will wait till later next year before deciding what to do the the long reach I wanted. Since I cant travel overseas I dont need it now anyway and my 100-300 will do me in the mean while.
 

bassman

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
1,225
Location
New Jersey
Real Name
The Bassman
AFAICT, my m43 kit still works as well as it did a few weeks or months ago. And there’s no reason to think it will suddenly going to stop working, and I expect I could get it repaired if needed. As it turns out, I’m starting to try to use my iPhone 12 Pro more, continuing my drive to have the smallest kit which gives acceptable results.
 

Darmok N Jalad

Temba, his aperture wide
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
1,108
Location
Tanagra (not really)
Real Name
Randy
Yes, there are different ways to invest in something. From a human perspective, one can invest time and energy into something, like photography. It is still a sunk cost--you don't get that time back, but you might decide that the time invested to improve in this aspect of your life is worth that cost. In this sense, however, I'm not sure if M43 gear is at the heart of this type of investment--one would expect it to be the results. If one is investing in photography, the gear becomes a means to an end. To say you are investing in M43 in this sense puts the gear at the center of your investment, but isn't it actually about taking pictures? I like my camera, but I'm not invested in it like I'm invested in my kids or my marriage. Maybe it's splitting hairs, but I don't consider myself invested in M43. Committed, enthusiastic, but not invested.

However, I think what I was really getting at is when people refer to their gear as a monetary investment. Investment in this sense is about putting money in with the expectation of a financial return, like buying stock, real estate, or maybe a collectible. When you put money into something with the knowledge that you will not get a return, you are not investing--it's an expense. Expenses aren't bad, as it's what puts food on the table and keeps your electricity running. To me, camera gear is an expense--a means to an end to get what I'm really looking for, and what I buy today will be worth less tomorrow. I can't take pictures without a camera, but I can have a camera and not take pictures. One makes sense, the other doesn't.

Forgive the ramble. Not intending to offend, just to clarify my position. I might be trying to be too literal here!
:drinks:
 

retiredfromlife

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 15, 2016
Messages
4,458
Location
Sydney, Australia
Yes, there are different ways to invest in something. From a human perspective, one can invest time and energy into something, like photography. It is still a sunk cost--you don't get that time back, but you might decide that the time invested to improve in this aspect of your life is worth that cost. In this sense, however, I'm not sure if M43 gear is at the heart of this type of investment--one would expect it to be the results. If one is investing in photography, the gear becomes a means to an end. To say you are investing in M43 in this sense puts the gear at the center of your investment, but isn't it actually about taking pictures? I like my camera, but I'm not invested in it like I'm invested in my kids or my marriage. Maybe it's splitting hairs, but I don't consider myself invested in M43. Committed, enthusiastic, but not invested.

However, I think what I was really getting at is when people refer to their gear as a monetary investment. Investment in this sense is about putting money in with the expectation of a financial return, like buying stock, real estate, or maybe a collectible. When you put money into something with the knowledge that you will not get a return, you are not investing--it's an expense. Expenses aren't bad, as it's what puts food on the table and keeps your electricity running. To me, camera gear is an expense--a means to an end to get what I'm really looking for, and what I buy today will be worth less tomorrow. I can't take pictures without a camera, but I can have a camera and not take pictures. One makes sense, the other doesn't.

Forgive the ramble. Not intending to offend, just to clarify my position. I might be trying to be too literal here!
:drinks:
Very well put together :thumbup:
 

PeeBee

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
1,741
Location
UK
I purchased the EM1.3 with the intention of getting the OLY 100-400, but so far none of the shops I use have seen that lens or know when they might see it.

I will wait till later next year before deciding what to do the the long reach I wanted. Since I cant travel overseas I dont need it now anyway and my 100-300 will do me in the mean while.
Is everything 25% closer in Oz? :whistling:
 

PeeBee

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
1,741
Location
UK
Yes, it’s been a challenging year.

As much as I could use the 100-400, I’m reluctant to add its weight to my camera bag, so I’m trying to accept 300mm as my limit. We’ll see how long that lasts when it becomes available.
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
753
Location
Finland
Yes, there are different ways to invest in something. From a human perspective, one can invest time and energy into something, like photography. It is still a sunk cost--you don't get that time back, but you might decide that the time invested to improve in this aspect of your life is worth that cost. In this sense, however, I'm not sure if M43 gear is at the heart of this type of investment--one would expect it to be the results. If one is investing in photography, the gear becomes a means to an end. To say you are investing in M43 in this sense puts the gear at the center of your investment, but isn't it actually about taking pictures? I like my camera, but I'm not invested in it like I'm invested in my kids or my marriage. Maybe it's splitting hairs, but I don't consider myself invested in M43. Committed, enthusiastic, but not invested.

However, I think what I was really getting at is when people refer to their gear as a monetary investment. Investment in this sense is about putting money in with the expectation of a financial return, like buying stock, real estate, or maybe a collectible. When you put money into something with the knowledge that you will not get a return, you are not investing--it's an expense. Expenses aren't bad, as it's what puts food on the table and keeps your electricity running. To me, camera gear is an expense--a means to an end to get what I'm really looking for, and what I buy today will be worth less tomorrow. I can't take pictures without a camera, but I can have a camera and not take pictures. One makes sense, the other doesn't.

Forgive the ramble. Not intending to offend, just to clarify my position. I might be trying to be too literal here!
:drinks:
This is the way people use the word in my understanding. I still really don't understand what is the big problem.

Are people taking only one side of the definition into account?

---

4 informal : to spend money on (something useful or helpful to oneself)

"I am planning to invest in a good coat."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invest in

"Now I must invest in a new vehicle."

https://sentence.yourdictionary.com/invest

---

Or: "I invested in a new lens/camera".

The definition of "investment" in my earlier post in Merriam-Webster said that it is "usually" for profit.

If you take all of the above into account, from the same source, why can't people for example say: "My investment in new camera gear paid back because it was so useful for my photography."?
 
Last edited:

Fuzzdog

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jul 15, 2017
Messages
67
Location
Southampton, UK
Totally happy with M43 here. I've done the full frame thing, sure, it's better at a very small amount of things, but not enough for me to keep justifying the bulk and price. I honestly can't think of a single time I thought "I couldn't have captured this with micro four thirds" - in fact it was looking at the images from my old M43 gear which made me switch back while firmly in my FF phase, because in direct comparisons back and forth, I honestly preferred the output of my old Olympus cameras to anything else I've owned, regardless of sensor size, and the bodies are such an absolute pleasure to use, unlike a lot of the alternatives.

I think we're just seeing a lot of mention of other systems because so many manufacturers have launched new systems recently and now we have all the usual Youtube and social media 'personalities' falling over each other to drool over them so they're constantly in everyone's face all the time.
 

demiro

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
3,118
Location
northeast US
This is the way people use the word in my understanding. I still really don't understand what is the big problem.

Are people taking only one side of the definition into account?

---

4 informal : to spend money on (something useful or helpful to oneself)

"I am planning to invest in a good coat."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invest in

"Now I must invest in a new vehicle."

https://sentence.yourdictionary.com/invest

---

Or: "I invested in a new lens/camera".

The definition of "investment" in my earlier post in Merriam-Webster said that it is "usually" for profit.

If you take all of the above into account, from the same source, why can't people for example say: "My investment in new camera gear paid back because it was so useful for my photography."?
@RS86 The context certainly matters, buy you are right in thinking there is not some burning need to "correct this wrong". I'll cop to it being an "it's not you it's me" situation. I can't speak for Randy though, or anyone else who "hears" it the same way I do.

I was thinking I should respond in Finnish, then I realized I only know one phrase, taught to me by an acquaintance 35 years ago. It's not appropriate for this forum, nor does it convey my feelings, so I'm skipping it. [h***** v***]
 

Darmok N Jalad

Temba, his aperture wide
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
1,108
Location
Tanagra (not really)
Real Name
Randy
This is the way people use the word in my understanding. I still really don't understand what is the big problem.

Are people taking only one side of the definition into account?

---

4 informal : to spend money on (something useful or helpful to oneself)

"I am planning to invest in a good coat."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invest in

"Now I must invest in a new vehicle."

https://sentence.yourdictionary.com/invest

---

Or: "I invested in a new lens/camera".

The definition of "investment" in my earlier post in Merriam-Webster said that it is "usually" for profit.

If you take all of the above into account, from the same source, why can't people for example say: "My investment in new camera gear paid back because it was so useful for my photography."?
That's why I said I'm probably splitting hairs or being too literal. I just got a few responses and added more context to my position. I can totally understand there are different ways to use the term. Sometimes language has a local context to it, and that's probably a lot of what is going on here.
:drinks:
 

L0n3Gr3yW0lf

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
836
Location
UK
Real Name
Ovidiu
The thread has been going interesting so far :) ... very good read.

What I found more interesting is that so many people call on cost/investment and what they wish/want to get out of Micro Four Thirds and other systems but have not seen the artistical part of photography. I don't know (and would never pretend to know) the reasons why people got into photography (to each of their own), as for me it has been an expansion of artistic expression from the times when I was drawing. To this day I still have that "itch" of seeing the world in a world that I want to put it in a picture, be it light, composition, colors, moment, story. Sometimes it can feel like a curse (that irresistible urge that needs to be satisfied no matter what else I might be doing) but it has always been like candy to my brain ... hence I would never be able to give up photography (at best downsize it if the financial need was urgent or lifestyle needs/choices, like having kids, would demand it).
Where am I going with this? Well the reason why I prioritize portability and size/weight, with a constant need to photograph as many opportunities as possible, to learn, to explore, (pictures) to be made I always want a camera with me. While it's not what got me into Micro Four Thirds back in 2009 (with Panasonic Lumix G2), I was more fascinated by the idea of EVF and all the +100 years of legacy lenses being adaptable.
But now I appreciate Micro Four Thirds size a lot more (after owning my favorite camera I ever had my hands on Panasonic Lumix GX7) than I originally did and I find it hard to move away from Olympus OM-Ds. I had my share of frustrations with the system over the past decade, nothing is perfect, from less Dynamic Range when doing Post Processing to High ISO performance (especially in the last few years as I took up wildlife photography) or High-Performance Continous AutoFocus, etc.

I admit that there have been temptations on the Full Frame side (more recently than anything else) after *Sony started maturing their cameras with better ergonomics and unbeatable AutoFocus performance and what made it "worse" was Tamron coming to the market with some of the best balance of what mirrorless promised: reasonable compact and weighty f 2.8 cheaper and better IQ 17-28mm, 28-75mm, 70-180mm lenses and they went with a home run even with their Tamron 28-200mm f 2.8-5.6 and 70-300mm f 4.5-6.3. If Tamron FINALLY comes out with another home run of a 150-600mm compact-ish and light-ish version I might have to give it serious consideration. (PS: Samyang has been throwing out amazing tiny prime lenses for FE like crazy and priced insanely reasonable too).
*Canon is doing amazing work on their AutoFocus, especially with Animal Tracking and even Eye Tracking on Animals ... if not spoiling everything else with eye-watering (for me at least) prices on all their lenses and cameras.
*Nikon has been making some great cameras and lenses as well ... up to 200mm and that's a stop-gap for me at the moment (even though their Nikon Z6 has been falling down in price on 2nd hand market remarkably fast to affordable level) and the AutoFocus is still on catchup instead of trading blows with the competition.
*Fujifilm still makes some damn sexy and good cameras and lenses, no doubt about that. But for me, there isn't enough differentiation with Micro Four Thirds. With their ISO inflation reduced to get the same exposure of light Fujifilm is only 1/2 better than M4/3 while being 1/2 bigger and weightier and almost as pricey as FF (or same price with Tamron/Sigma for Sony FE). For wildlife they still have only 100-400mm f 4.5-5.6 and *crying crocodile* 200mm f 2 that costs (possibly) as much as the upcoming Olympus 150-400mm f 4.5 Pro.

And yet the only company I can trust to make an English (weather) proof camera is Olympus (in mirrorless form, else Pentax would take that crown) and after I had problems with my Panasonic Leica 50-200mm f 2.8-4 (in inclined if not average weather) I think I will have to stay with Olympus. The only thing I have left to wish for is an improvement in High ISO and a bit more consistent DR at higher ISO of a new sensor and get on the train wagon of Animal Detection/Tracking/Eye-Tracking. (And maybe a tinzy binzy little Olympus 150/200mm f 2 on top :p ).
(Yesterday I went down the basins with my Big Oly (E-M1 Mk. III) with my Panny Leica 50-200mm in the front hoodie pocket and it was easy and quick access anytime I wanted ... if I would have tried that with the Sony A9 and 100-400mm the police would arrest me for assaulting the ducks :p ... if it would have been the Sony 200-600mm then I would have the SAS shoot my ass down for terrorism).
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom