Why Nobody Buys These $200 Cameras Anymore

Despite having fallen in love with Fuji, I've kept my GX1 bought cheap from Hong Kong when it first came out. It's got an amazing solid feel to it, and combined with the 14mm makes for a really small out on the street camera. Thanks for highlighting a hidden gem.

My rx100 m3 with its 1 inch gives me enough breathing room for most daily carry usage

I own a FF D700 and I generally prefer the rx100 unless I’m on an actual shoot. If one inch is enough, why can’t M43?

Don’t give into the gear acquisition syndrome. Get (older) good gear proven to work and work it till you find limitations. Only then do you think about an “upgrade”

I like M43 and have owned several of them over the years. However, you can get small mirrorless cameras around the same size but with APS-C sensors, like the great NEX series from Sony, for the same price or even cheaper then these M43 cameras. I just picked up an NEX 6 with 11k on the shutter for $185, which is only about $30 more than the cheapest GX1 and the NEX 6 is a better camera in every way. You also get a far better selection of lenses with the E mount. The excellent Sigma 30 f/1.4 is cheaper than the Olympus 25 f/1.8 with a nicer build quality and better optics, and I have owned and like the Olympus too but prefer the Sigma. You can also get something like an a5100 around the same price as an Olympus EM10. You also have Fuji cameras, like the X-A1 around the $200 mark. Another small and compact camera with a larger APS-C sensor and a nice selection of quality lenses. The XF 35 f/2 is another fantastic lens, same price as the Olympus 25. So I think this is a big reason why the older M43 cameras are not as popular. They would need to be priced lower than cameras like the NEX series, early aXXXX series or the older Fuji cameras for most to look more seriously at them, and they are not unfortunatley.

I also use MFT and have many from both OLy and Pany, but will the format survive .............

Shhh don’t tell everyone they take better photos than their $1000 iPhones. They will soon quickly appreciate in price

4/3,was a Nice option once but phones have overtaken them. Might be on the chase of apsc too. I dropped em from the wishlist. I do have 4 Fujifilm cameras so……

I have made a long journey in mostly used digital cameras over the years, from the original Nikon D1, D1H, D2H, and then settling on the D200 for a while, until I got a Sigma DP1s and was blown away by the image quality in such a small camera, despite its many quirks.


I used that for years, mostly carrying in my pocket as it continued to suck in dust, and when I sent it for cleaning to Sigma, the service guy was unfriendly to say the least due in large part to the low price I had paid for the camera from Amazon, and refused to clean it.  So I haven't wanted to go to Sigma since.


That brought me to m4/3.  First was a GF2, which had roughly similar image quality to my D200, except in low light.  But on a pixel peeping level, the output from it - even raw files - looked a little weird.  Individual pixels looked both oversharpened yet slightly blurry, like a very low resolution file that was poorly upscaled then sharpened.  But I loved the small size of the package with the 14mm f/2.5 lens, so I eventually moved on to the GX1 after an accidental exposure to water (it sat for a moment in a puddle) killed it.


Now the GX1 was a huge step up.  I finally felt I had fully surpassed the D200 for everything except continuous AF and flash work.  I bought the amazingly sharp Sigma 60mm f/2.8 Art lens for telephoto (I had ditched the kit zooms years ago), and used the combo for a few years, before water killed it as well.  This time it was just from rain.


So, I got an OM-D E-M1 with weather sealing.  Wow - that blew me away!  The images stabilization, clean high DR files, super fast AF with tracking that actually worked, silent mode, etc.  I could take photos the D200 never could.


I became increasingly dissatisfied with the 14mm lens though - my sample was a little soft on one side, and it was too small to balance well on the E-M1.  So I sold that and got the 20mm f/1.7, which has been every bit as good (and slow to focus) as its reputation.


But I was constantly fighting with the thumb dial - it had the dreaded wonky dial that wouldn't always work.  I tried all the fixes and made little progress, so I sent it out for repair.  That provided only temporary respite.  I eventually sold it, and I would warn everyone who wants one that they will almost certainly have to deal with the same problem.


When the Ricoh GR came out, I knew that would be a near-perfect camera for me, except for the lack of weather sealing, but my budget didn't allow for it.  But when the GR III was announced, GR II prices dropped.  I picked one up in 2019, sand it quickly became my all-time favorite digital camera.


But it too was not flawless.  After a few years, and only discovered during a huge vacation to the PNW where I didn't bring a backup digicam, it lost its ability to focus at infinity, whether with AF or snap focus.  That's not to mention dust, either.  I sent it out for repair, and half the price of the camera again it still wasn't right.  Out it went again, and came back better but still not 100%.  But then it met its match: a banana.  I forgot it was in my bike handlebar bag, along with a banana I had put in there, and after 25 miles of rugged singletrack, it has pulped banana stuffed in every orifice.  I sent it out for cleaning and repair once more, but it was declared dead for good.


Fast forward a year, and a friend long-term loaned me the D3 I had lusted over a decade ago.  It was everything I had expected it to be when used with my old manual focus Nikon lenses, so I bought a D700, since with the Z system they've dropped sharply in price.  Wow - I had forgotten how long DSLR batteries lasted!  And I forgot how well they did tracking AF compared to earlier generation mirrorless and non-pro mirrorless cameras did prior to the last couple of years.  The D3 and D700 also still blew me away with low light performance, not having used any sensors newer than the 16 MP ones in the GR II and E-M1.


But the DSLRs are still bulky, I'm not interested in the GR III (no flash, and they supposedly have more dust issues than the GR II that the VR sensor cleaning doesn't fix), can't afford (or find) the X100V, and a used GR II costs more than I paid for mine new!  So the GX85 has come calling, and I now have a used one on order.  I'm expecting a camera similar to the E-M1, but smaller and without the weather sealing or malfunctioning dial.  So this should be interesting.  I don't expect it to replace the D700 for low light action, but who knows.

I find the m4/3 camera lacking in DOF compared to APSC or FF cameras. It takes more effort to create a good DOF photo with m4/3. For photography, i prefer APSC of FF. For videography i prefer m4/3 as 1) it doesnt heats up & can shoot for way longer time. 2) easier to have entire frame in sharp focus at shorter distances & thats what you want in video unless an intended close up shot of subject with bokeh background. 3) less details in videography as you dont want to see every single detail of a scene unlike in photography. With the FF camera videos, you can practically see the powder & makeup on the actors face, including every little detail of imperfection on the face. You could make out the artificial props on set. With m4/3 the props are less apparent & you cant see the makeup on face so much.

I got another RX100 used after breaking another lens when it powered on in a bag.

This whole Micro 4/3s skipped past me shopping timeline since EDC shooting with phones, those pancake lenses are a really compelling buy to replace the RX100 or Powershot. I thought I had an DSLR on the horizon, but the RX100 revived takes great photos and I have to break the capability limits of the compact before researching DSLR/mirrorless. This video helped fill in some of the gap of understanding of the compactness and sneakiness of Micro 4/3s. I don't want to touch Sony menus in the future.

no one buys them because there are better cameras available at similar price, i know mft has some dedicated following but for me image quality isn't there

I love my lumix cameras. I bought a G2 in 2015 and later a GH4 and G90. I now have lenses that cover full frame equivalent from 14mm to 800mm. Light, well built and small. Nice.

Hi do you recomend the lumix gx80 to street? Is it small? What you recomend? Thanks

I am using both, full-frame and M43 cameras - and I am loving both formats. For casual shooting and street photography I prefer my Olympus and Panasonic M43 cameras. Otherwise my Sony full-frame cameras are great. The M43 format is small in size (at least with older cameras) and nowadays small in price. I bought the Panasonic G7 for its video capabilities but for photography I would prefer the GX7 due to its smaller size. Seen from the color perspectives my Olympus cameras are much nicer than the G7. My favorite is the Olympus E-P3. This camera has a fantastic rendering although it has only 12MB resolution. Highly recommended.

I think RX-10 is better than these, 24-600mmf4 1"

IBIS came from (pre-Sony) Minolta

I think people should stop holding sensor size as the most defining characteristic of a camara. Sure it affects things, but it's just one thing. It can affect things certainly. For instance, the Micro Four Thirds is a 4:3 ratio (much like digital medium format!). Maybe you like it, maybe you don't.

Anyway, I don't think m43 is most interesting as a sensor size, the interesting part is the system of lenses. In that regard I think it's interesting because in m43 you can find really compact high quality zooms in ways you just don't find anywhere else to the same degree. My system of choice is Fujifilm. Is that because I think APS-C is the bestest sensor size? No, it's mainly because the user interface of their cameras (no worry about which PASM mode I'm in, I just set parts of the aperture triangle to something or leave it at auto). I think that pretty much every system have at least some unique positive attributes!

Anyway, great video. Some years back I couldn't really spend money on cameras, so I used GM1 from my parents with that 20mm Panasonic lens. It was brilliant, and I still think it produces beautiful images!

Why? Because smartphones have great photo quality. It's for most, good enough.

I own 3 black magic pocket cinema cameras, 3 Panasonic G7 and 1 Pana Gh3. So m4/3 works good enough for me. World please keep on with the crazy s.. so I can pick up more of these supergood cams for pretty much nothing.

I still use my Lumix G1 I've had since new yonks ago. Use converters and shoot all my old manual glass from Sigma/Canon/Pentax/Practika/Olympus. Amazing camera and still great images. I've other cameras but the G1 is still my fave.

Completely agree about the quality of Panasonic colour science, I've have the lx-3, lx-5, lx-100 and the GH4. It's also interesting to note that one of the most beloved Nikons', the D700 used a panasonic sensor :)

I went full frame to get the best out of my legacy lenses. I shoot only with them and I prefer wide angles. Full frame is the best option to get the most out of them. I have owned MFT cameras and the 2x crop factor is too much

You can get a full frame DSLR for the same price …

The worst thing about those m4/3 cameras is that cheap vintage lenses become too long.

Bought mine nearly 10 years ago. Love the Panasonic GX1. I went full in and bought a few second hand lenses. Maybe I will get a newer body one day but I do like Micro Four Thirds.

Has someone who enjoys photography, my question would be how many shots will you get when using these cameras? I have the Sony a6660 with a bigger battery than the Sony a6400, batteries are a problem with smaller mirrorless digital cameras.

I've been buying digital cameras from the very beginning and I can't think of anything that made the late 90's and early 2000's cameras more "fun" than today's cameras. I think you experience them that way because they're different from what you're used to but to say today's cameras are "kinda boring" is absolutely not true.

One day I randomly came across some photos on Flickr and just had to know what they took them with cause they looked so unique! Turns out it was the LX100. I had to turn around and get one asap. Highly underrated for sure!

My two Canon SX260HS cameras a good general purpose cameras, to complement my Nikon DSLRs. I also have a Nikon P310 P&S - whose form factor I love. All were bought used.

The Lumix G85, GH4, and GH5 are excellent for videography. They give you all sorts of professional video features which Canon only include in their high-end cinema cameras.

Hi George,
Glad you mention the Nikon Coolpix 8400. Fabulous results when the light is right. Same goes for the 8800, its longer lens sibling. Sometimes I leave all the modern stuff at home and take only these Coolpixes for travelling.

Are there any fresh compact M43 cameras?

How would you compare with a a6000 is it worth switching?

Some of my pictures I like the most are those I took with an Olympus E-PL9 and a Meike 35mm manual lens (MFT mount). I bought the camera used and the lens brandnew and the package had cost me way below 400 Euros.

I own plenty of MFT lenses since I do video stuff and I have a bunch of MFT cameras that can do live streaming well (e.g., multiple Z Cam E2C units). It very much depends on what you want and need and what how much you can spend. Another "secret" is the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F/2.8 Macro which is available used for below 400€ and makes a very nice portrait lens. Recently I even did decent snapshots from a live concert with it using the E-PL9. Both the 60mm Olympus as well as the Meike 35mm will allow for the shallow depth of field many photographers love and that smart phone cameras only can do/fake by image processing.

When compared to professional full frame photography options, there's not many camera+lense combinations in the MFT domain that can compete. But not everybody can spend so much money.

I learned photography with 110, instant film, Kodak Disc, and a point-and-shoot 35mm with one on-off switch for the flash. It blows my mind how today a 8/16-megapixel camera can be considered unacceptable in terms of image quality.

a lot of problems??

I have a Panasonic Lumix DCM-ZS1 that is over 10 years old that I use as a travel camera. Takes great pictures. Of course it was made in Japan not China.

Got my GX1 for $30 including shipping, took the filters and now use it for black and white infrared photography with a 720 nm filter, awesome camera

I still have original Pentax Ist*D - it has nice dedicated controls, decent sensor and runs on AA rechargeable cells. Display isn't great by today's standards but it has decent optical VF.

I shoot two formats: Sony ‘full frame’ and Olympus M.43. I ditched crop format nine years ago because there were no advantages. The lenses were just as big and heavy as the full frame versions because well, they were full frame lenses!

Ironically, I have now adapted an old Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L to an E-M1 and it works well. It even works with the Canon 2x teleconverter, giving me an effective 1200mm f/5.6 equivalent. I would be interested to see how it would perform on a newer E-M1.

But my favourite at the moment is a PEN E-P5 with the clip on VF4. I use this with the 12mm f:2 and the 60mm f:2.8 macro.

They are good for video but garbage in any low-light situation but for $200 I might get one as a backup to my backup for still photography.

No one buys them any more, because one is enough.

I really want to try to get into photography, and should I just go with a simpler compact cameras? I don't understand anything about lenses and I really don't want to get into the rabbit hole of lenses so,, do you think its good enough for learning what photography is about??

I’ll ride-or-die with my GH3.
🤘🏻😎🤘🏻

I have a7iii ,,,,and looking to buy second hand lumix g7 ,,,,,,do u think gx1 is better ?