Why Micro Four Thirds Might Be the Smarter Choice for Wildlife Photography

What if I told you there’s a system that could completely change the way you approach wildlife photography, providing great zoom while being much lighter? It might sound a bit out there, especially with all the pressure to stick with “full-frame or nothing.” However, some photographers are discovering that Micro Four Thirds (MFT) is actually a better option for wildlife photography, as it is much lighter.

In an insightful new video, photographer Ian Worth shares why he’s embracing MFT and why it could be the right choice for you if you’re a dedicated wildlife photographer who feels weighed down by traditional camera systems. Ian doesn’t jump into trends lightly, so when he states that he’s committing to micro four thirds for wildlife, it’s worth taking notice. He’s been experimenting with several MFT cameras, including the Panasonic GX80 and the new OM System OM-1 Mark II, in search of the ideal setup for nature photography.

[Related Reading: The Ultimate Guide to Wildlife Photography: Gear, Tips & Ethics]

The 2x Crop Factor: Your Secret Weapon for Telephoto Reach

If you know a bit about photography, you might be familiar with the basics of MFT. But if you need a refresh, Ian provides a clear explanation. He notes that the MFT sensor is significantly smaller than a full-frame sensor, approximately one-quarter the size of a full-frame sensor. I used to think doesn’t a smaller sensor mean lower image quality? But it seems it really depends on what you like to shoot and what matters to you.

The main benefit and the reason we’re discussing this is the 2x crop factor.

If you attach a 50mm lens to a Micro Four Thirds (MFT) camera, Ian says that you’ll get the same field of view as a 100mm lens on a full-frame camera. That’s basically doubling the focal length. You don’t need to lug around a larger, heavier lens for that extra distance. This significantly alters your perspective on telephoto photography.

Now, consider a 300mm lens, the kind that can really strain your back to carry. Put that on an MFT body, and you’re actually shooting at the equivalent of 600mm.

You might wonder if there’s a downside. There is. Ian points out that while you gain this advantage, you’ll notice more digital noise at higher ISO settings, especially in low light. That’s just the reality of using a smaller sensor. Personally, I think this trade-off is often worth it because the gear can be carried with ease, especially if you time your shoots for optimal lighting. Getting the shot can be tough, but if you can transport your equipment to a remote spot without help, you’re already ahead.

The OM-1 Mark II and the ‘Yes, but No’ System Switch

Ian has been getting a lot of questions from his readers about whether he’s entirely switching from his Fujifilm X system to MFT. Since it’s the digital age, people love a good gear change. However, Ian quickly clarifies things.

So, is he buying a new MFT camera? Yes, he plans to pick up the OM System OM-1 Mark II soon.

Is he leaving behind his Fujifilm setup? Not at all. He states that the MFT gear will be an extra option in his collection, not a replacement. Ian believes in using the right tool for each situation. He enjoys his Fujifilm X system for landscape shots. Still, for fast-paced wildlife photography, he finds that the OM system offers better autofocus and lighter, longer lenses, which are particularly helpful.

When you think about it in that way, it makes sense. You wouldn’t use a tiny macro lens for night sky photography. Ian points out that no camera system is perfect for everything. Both systems have their pros and cons, and it’s best to choose the one that fits your shooting style.

Weight and Size: The Real Game-Changers for Your Backpack

When you’re exploring a beautiful forest, aiming for that perfect autumn picture, just like Ian did in his video, you really start to notice how much easier it is not to carry extra weight. This leads us to the two main reasons he prefers micro four thirds for wildlife: weight and size.

Ian shares that, for his type of photography, which often involves long hikes, reducing weight is essential. Think about how heavy a full-frame 600mm lens is. Now, consider the MFT version that offers the same zoom. The difference is vast. He points out that MFT significantly lowers the weight, especially with telephoto lenses, which are typically heavy no matter the system.

Ian appreciates being able to pack a lens equivalent to 400mm or even 800mm without it occupying his entire backpack. When I’m getting ready for a trip, my one lens occupies half of my packing space. That can be frustrating when you also need to fit in food, water, and maybe even a small tea-making kit.

He believes it’s about choosing the right tool for specific tasks. You’re not abandoning your main setup. You’re just fine-tuning your gear for the most challenging shooting conditions. Personally, I think this approach is a good idea. Why struggle against the laws of lens design when you can take advantage of a smaller sensor? If portability and reach are important to you, it makes sense.

Is 20 Megapixels Truly Enough for Pro Wildlife Work?

The camera community tends to fixate on specifications, and one of the most common questions Ian receives is about the 20-megapixel resolution of the OM-1 Mark II. You may wonder if that’s sufficient for serious photography, especially if you’re accustomed to a 40MP or 60MP camera.

Ian isn’t too worried about this. For his landscape and macro photography, he emphasizes getting the framing right from the start, which minimizes the need for later cropping. When it comes to wildlife photography, the longer focal lengths of the MFT system are particularly beneficial, making cropping less necessary. If a 300mm lens gives you the equivalent view of a 600mm lens, you’re already getting a better composition.

He assures that 20 megapixels works perfectly fine and can even produce high-quality prints in larger sizes, such as A3. The key takeaway he wants to stress is that the quality of the lens is far more critical than the pixel count. Remember, a 60-megapixel image taken with a low-quality lens may look worse than a 20-megapixel image shot with a high-quality lens.

Don’t Believe the Hype: Is MFT Really “Dead”?

Many photographers claim “Micro Four Thirds is dead,” and Ian often encounters these opinions. He admits he didn’t think much of the MFT system until he found a used Lumix GX80 and decided to give it a go.

But is MFT really finished? Ian argues that we should be doubtful of that idea. He points out that companies like OM System and Panasonic are still producing new technology and cameras, which suggests the system is alive. He believes MFT is thriving, catering to a specific group of photographers like you who seek a good balance of portability, reach, and performance.

While Ian hasn’t fully committed to using MFT for all his landscape photography, he has found the few MFT lenses he’s tried to be “incredibly sharp,” indicating they might perform well. He plans to borrow some OM lenses for more detailed testing, and I’m excited to see what he discovers.

In his conclusion, Ian emphasizes that the brand or system doesn’t really matter. What’s crucial is that you enjoy your gear, it fits your needs, and you’re out there capturing great images.

Personally, I think Ian’s changing view highlights that many photographers are beginning to recognize the advantages of micro four thirds for wildlife. It appears that MFT is becoming the preferred choice for those who value a lightweight setup without compromising telephoto reach. It looks like MFT isn’t dead after all. It’s just being discerning about its audience.

[I Never Thought I’d Switch to Micro Four Thirds I Ian Worth; Image credits: Envato]

---