In 2012, we reviewed the Olympus EM5 — a camera that we consider part of the onset of peak Micro Four Thirds. This was after Olympus said that 12MP was enough. I fondly remember embracing the camera with all the excitement that Micro Four Thirds was launched to do. Much marketing around the camera and Micro Four Thirds involved using vintage lenses adapted to the system. In fact, a lot of it was all about adapting. There was a point where Leica couldn’t even get us cameras to loan, so we adapted their lenses to Micro Four Thirds instead. The retro aesthetics and appeal tugged at the hearts of so many despite how full-frame and APS-C cameras were also progressing. This era of peak Micro Four Thirds created some of the cameras that many look back on fondly.
This is the era that gave us cameras like the Panasonic GM1. Panasonic genuinely tried here and made an extremely small camera for photographers who wanted to bring a camera with them everywhere. It was small, cute, portable, and made so many people happy.
This era was characterized by:
- Lots of 3rd party manufacturer support: several Chinese brands popped up to make lenses. The Japanese manufacturers also supported it with the likes of Tamron, Sigma, etc.
- Focusing and lens innovations: All of this started with the EP3, and then lenses like the 25mm f1.2 showed how good the system was.
- Beautiful retro designs: Well, it started that way, and then they moved away from retro
- Mass appeal: Micro Four Thirds cameras did things to target more than just wildlife and landscape photographers.
- Solid weather resistance: the other manufacturers caught up
- Insanely good tech with image stabilization: I handheld the EM1 Mk II for 15 seconds.
Really, these were the things that made Micro Four Thirds fun and attractive! And since then, not much has felt as perfect. I’m inclined to say that the release of the Olympus Pen F was the end of the era.
So what happened?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that the image quality of Micro Four Thirds cameras is bad. They’re surely not as good as full-frame or APS-C cameras. But by all means, they’re not awful, and there are several beautiful lenses that can be used. However, the system lost whatever sorcery and blessing it was bestowed after some time. Sony and Fujifilm started to steal their thunder with their camera systems. The autofocus couldn’t really keep up with Micro Four Thirds cameras either. On top of that, the super-fast aperture lenses needed to minimize diffraction never came around. And overall, the world started moving to full-frame and APS-C. Even today, I think we can all arguably say that we live in a full-frame world.
I can say with certainty, too, that the sales of those cameras weren’t that incredible back then either — but at least they had rizz and magic. Today, cameras like the OM1 II and the GH6 are far more specialized than they should be.
So is the answer to further specialize? Well, I’m not so sure about that. I mean, look at Pentax and Ricoh. If Pentax had only chosen to go full-frame earlier in the game, they probably would’ve been doing much better. There were many times when I had hoped that Olympus had gone full-frame, but they never did. They did, however, consider going with medium format — though it never panned out.
All I can say is what I’d pay for and hope that others would do the same; but brands tell me that I target a niche — they never mention how that niche is often higher-thinking photographers, though.:
- Retro ergonomics
- Metal build quality and weather resistance
- Film and retro-inspired simulations
- A fixed lens on the camera that’s small, modeled after an old Olympus model
I mean, look at the Fujifilm X100 series and how well those have done.