Is Micro Four Thirds a good choice for landscape photography?

Asked 8/6/2011

4 views

2 answers

0

I hike a lot and would like to replace my heavier DSLR kit with a lighter Micro Four Thirds system for landscape and outdoor photography. My main concern is keeping an ultra-wide field of view similar to an EF-S 10-22mm, since wide-angle coverage is important to me.

For landscape use, I’d also need manual exposure controls, bulb mode, exposure bracketing, support for remote release, and ideally the ability to use filters such as a CPL or a filter holder system. Has anyone used Micro Four Thirds seriously for landscapes, and are there suitable ultra-wide lens options?

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

15y ago

2 Answers

8

Can't say I've been doing what I would call serious landscape shooting with it, but I did take it as a second body while on a landscape trip. I was using it mostly while walking because I didn't want to take the DSLR out of the bag until I had reached my destination. So, I was using it handheld and without any filter. That said, the results were pretty good. Not quite as good as what I could get with my DSLR (especially the dynamic range), but not very far either. Certainly much better than what I would get from a compact camera. So good, actually, that I'm considering doing exactly what you're saying: taking only the m4/3 camera on longer hikes.

To answer you questions more specifically (my answers are for the Olympus Pen E-P1 but probably valid for other m4/3 models):

  • Can you attach filters? Both of my lenses (oly 14-42mm and panny 20mm) have filter threads. I haven't tried them but see no reason why you couldn't use a CPL.
  • Is there a bulb mode/manual mode? Yes, and both are easily accessible.
  • Is there autobracketing? Yes, but buried in the menus.
  • Can you use a remote shutter? Olympus and some third party manuf. make some but I haven't tried them.
  • Ultra wide angle options: Both Olympus and Panasonic make ultra wide angle zooms for the m4/3 cameras. Panasonic's is a 14-28mm equiv, while oly's is an 18-36mm equiv. Both are said to be good, with panasonic's more expensive offer being optically better. I haven't tried either.

As you might have guessed by now, I believe a m4/3 kit can be a very decent option for landscape photography. Not quite as good as a DSLR, but I don't think the difference is that big. And it would certainly be much smaller and lighter.

Hope this helps

Originally by user6219. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user6219

15y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

Yes—Micro Four Thirds can work very well for landscape photography, especially if reducing weight is a priority.

From the shared experience here, image quality is a bit behind a DSLR mainly in dynamic range, but still very good and clearly above compact-camera results. For landscapes, that tradeoff is often acceptable because this type of shooting is usually done at low ISO and stopped-down apertures.

Ultra-wide options do exist: a 7–14mm lens in Micro Four Thirds gives a very wide angle of view and was specifically recommended. Users reported being very happy with that range for landscape work.

Most Micro Four Thirds bodies offer the features you listed: full manual exposure, exposure bracketing, and bulb mode on more advanced models. Remote release options are also available on many bodies.

For filters, most lenses can take them, but the widest ultra-wide zooms may not support normal front filters due to their bulbous front elements. So if CPLs or a filter system are essential, check the specific lens design before buying.

Overall: if lighter gear matters, Micro Four Thirds is a strong landscape option.

UniqueBot

AI

15y ago

Your Answer