Since I am working with micro four thirds cameras I am confronted with myths about this system. I want to give you my opinion about the most common ones.

1. The crop factor is 2
There is nothing to say against that. If you love shooting with a 50mm 35mm film equivalent lens on M43 system you need to buy a 25mm lens or the other way if you have a 17mm lens it is a 34mm equivalent in "holy" 35mm.
This is absolutely correct.

2. You need to multiply the aperture with factor 2
This is right and wrong the same time. The aperture is controlling the amount of light hitting the sensor ans also the blur of the background (bokeh). In terms of controlling the blur of the bokeh the M43 aperture of e.g. f2.0 is acting like a f4.0 on 35mm equivalent, that means that separating yor subject from the background with the help of a fast lens (g.g. f1.4) is a harder then with a fast APS-C or "full frame" sensor. In terms of countering the amount of light a f2.0 is acting like a f2.0 there is now difference.

3. The native ISO of 200 is in reality a ISO 800
I read this in an YouTube comment and I have absolutely no clue what the technical reason for that is. I explained already that the aperture in therms of controling light has no difference between sensor sizes. An ISO 200 is an ISO 200 and stays an ISO 200. Because I was so supersized reading this I decided to test this with my tow systems. The Olympus with the Panasonic 25mm f1.4 against the Pentax with the 35mm f2.0 lens. Both cameras at ISO 200, matrix reading, identical framing. The result, the Olympus gave me an exposure time 2/3 faster than the Pentax, both cameras exposed right. Where the difference of 3/2 stops came from I don't know.
This myth is bullshit!

4. The noise of the M43 sensor is higher
Absolutely correct. Since the pixels need to be placed on a smaller area they have less space than on a larger sensor and interfere each other more, this probably is creating the noise.

Vince told me on Facebook that in fact it is like that: "The pixels on the smaller m43 sensor are smaller so they can fit  the same quantity of pixels as a similar - spec'ed full frame sensor. Being smaller, they do not collect as much light as larger pixels. Less light gathered will equate to more noise being produced."

Olympus decided to give there sensors a magnificent stabilisation module to compensate the higher noise with higher ISO numbers. The Olympus OM-D E-M5 MK II offers a stabilisation of maximum 5 stops. That means that you could dial up you ISO up to 5 times later because you can handheld your camera with longer exposure times. That does not help all the time but it helps you reduce the noise already when shooting.

5. You can't shoot landscapes with M43
OK, I understand this the crop factor of 2 forces you to get lenses that are wide, extreme wide. But there are some solutions on the market, Panasonic and Olympus are offering lenses with 7-14mm (14-28mm), Olympus also has a "cheaper" version the 9-18mm (18-36mm). The lenses are not super fast but in my opinion fast enough for daytime landscapes. You also can get third party lenses like the Samyang 7.5mm f3.5 (15mm) fish-eye, the Voigtländer 10,5mm f0.95(!) (21mm), the Laowa 7.5mm f2.0 (15mm) or the Meike 6.5mm fish-eye. (the last tow are not released now). The down side is that most of the lenses are high priced but you have the choice to use M43 also for landscapes.
This myth is not true.

6. You can't shoot professional with M43 cameras
Oh, really? Dam, what I am doing? OK, I am not professional but some people take really good pictures with there smartphones with lot smaller sensors others take stunning photos with GoPro cameras also with smaller sensors.
In the end it is up to you if you like to go smaller, lighter, water resisted(not all) and also take advantage of smaller image files for faster editing or if you go with APS-C or "full frame". I decided to give the system a try and I love it for my photography.  By the way for video nobody has concerns that the M43 system is a grate system.
This you have to decide by your own.

Nicht lange quatschen, einfach veröffentlichen.
Vor ein paar tagen waren wir im Sonnenuntergang in einem kleinen Naturschutzgebiet unterwegs. Da die sonne so tief stand hat sie das Vertrocknete Gras so schön leuchten lassen.

Kamera: Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II
Objektiv: Olympus 17mm f1.8
Model: Oskar

Ich hatte es schon vor langen Angekündigt, dass ich einen Vergleich von Tele-Objektiven machen möchte. Im Sommer hatte ich das Panasonic 45-200mm F4.0-5.6 und das Olympus 40-150mm F4.0-5.6 in meinen Händen zum testen.

Was einem gleich auffällt ist das Gewicht, das Panasonic ist schwer640g gegenüber dem Olympus mit knappen 300g. danach fällt einem auf, dass sich das Panasonic eher anfühlt wie eine APS-C Linse als eine Micro Four Thirs Optik. Es wirkt auch weriger als das Olympus. Dieses ist klein, leicht und handlich.

Ich hatte mir das Panasonic ersteigert, da ich auf die 50mm mehr scharf war. Was bedeutet das in der Praxis, seht selbst.

Nachdem ich die Brennweite verglichen habe, habe ich die Naheinstellgrenzen getestet.

Trotz der 50mm weniger Brennweite kommt man mit dem Olympus näher ran. Auch wenn dieser Test keine Wissenschaft ist zeugt er aber kleine Vorteile beim Olympus.
Ich wollte auch die Performance des Panasonic @ 150mm testen. Hier siehe ich Unterschiede in der Schärfe und in der Naheinstellgrenze gegenüber dem Olympus.

Jetzt legen wir mal beide Kontrahenten auf 100mm, f5,6 und vergleichen ein letztes mal.

Für mich haben letztlich die etwas bessere Schärfe, das leichtere und kompaktere Design über die 50mm mehr Brennweite gesiegt. Das Olympus ist dazu noch deutlich günstiger, das so genannte Plastik-Fantastik kann neu gebraucht für unter 100€ erworben werden, das Panasonic dagegen liegt bei 170-180€. Für mich ist es das nicht wert. Wer mehr Brennweite sucht ist mit dem Olympus 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 meiner Meinung nach besser bedient, aber das wird ein weiterer Blog Eintrag.