[Leica] M4/3 format ascendant

[jplaurel at gmail.com (Jim Laurel (gmail))]

My photography interests are pretty varied so I'm maintaining a complete 
Leica M9/M240 digital system, a Canon 5Dmk3 system, and a Micro 4/3 system 
with the Olympus OMD EM-1. We do a lot of diving and my wife insists on a 
full-frame system so she uses the 5Dmk3s, but I think she is slowly 
succumbing to the siren call of Micro 4/3 because it is getting increasingly 
difficult to tell the difference between our results underwater, not to 
mention that the many usability advantages of the EM-1 often make it easier 
to get the shot at all. It's no wonder they are currently outselling DLSRs 
by 6 to 1 for this application. I can choose to either use my EM-1 or our 
2nd 5DMK3 body underwater, yet I choose the M4/3 simply because of 
usability, which is a huge asset in that environment. Quality is already 
good enough with the EM-5 and even better with the EM-1. Frankly, people are 
incredulous about the results we are getting with M4/3 underwater these days 
and many are rethinking whether the better IQ of full frame is really worth 
the incredible hassle and expense of getting it to some of the more remote 
diving destinations.

I'm trying to do more landscapes these days, especially infrared landscapes. 
So when I have the luxury of working out of a car, and weight doesn't 
matter, I have started to use the 5dMK3 system again. In fact, I just added 
the 17mm and 24mm TS-E lenses to our kit for just this purpose. Also, we are 
preparing to do some landscape astrophotography and the Canon is simply the 
best tool for the job.

With the advent of the Leica M240, the M system finally becomes truly viable 
for landscape work. The EVF means I can frame accurately and position things 
like grads properly.  The R to M adapter makes it possible to use telephotos 
and focus them accurately. Unfortunately, it doesn't looks like it will ever 
be a suitable tool for landscape astro because none of the M wide angles (24 
and wider) are well-corrected enough for coma to work well.

The point of all this is horses for courses. If I'm on a dive trip, I'm 
shooting M4/3 both above and below the water. If it's nighttime landscapes, 
or landscapes where I can accommodate the weight and bulk, it's the Canon. 
If I were going on a long trip during which I was doing a lot of walking 
during the day and wanted the finest IQ, I'd go for the M240. If it is a 
long through-hike like 800km on the Camino de Santiago, which is a mix of 
candids, landscapes in all sorts of light in in all sorts of weather 
conditions, I'm taking an EM-5 or EM-1. And for everything else, general 
shooting around home, I'm usually grabbing the EM-1 just because of all the 
cameras I have at my disposal, none are as flexible, easy to use or as fun 
to use as the OMD EM-1.

This argument that people have about full-frame vs APS-C vs M4/3 is 
ridiculous because each of those systems has its place. Of the three, APS-C 
probably makes the least sense IMO, because it occupies this nether world in 
which the smaller sensor doesn't bring any corresponding reductions in 
weight or bulk - the worst of both worlds.